Debbie Anderson - Poriskyite Social Director on Trial

[Burnaby49]

Time for a Debbie update. She's may or may not be on the run from an arrest warrant! The "may or may not be" refers to being on the run, not to the arrest warrant which is is issued but is still outstanding. But the warrant may not have been served simply because she's a nobody convicted of a non-violent crime and the police might be too busy to scoop her up right now.

She had her hearing earlier this month on her appeal of her convictions for tax evasion and fraud but she decided not to show up or inform the court she wasn't coming. So Crown applied for, and got, a court order quashing the appeal for lack of prosecution. That, in itself, isn't an arresting issue but Debbie was on bail and her bail ended the day of the hearing. Had she won she would have no longer needed it but, had her appeal been denied, she would have had to ask for bail to be extended until her sentencing hearing, exactly the same as Keith Lawson did. Since she was a no-show she's skipped bail. She also failed to attend a scheduled meeting with her bail officer which is also an arrest warrant issue.

[notorial dissent]

Oh them tricksie tricksie Canadian Poriskyite tax scammers. The worst part of it, you could be right, she may just be home doing whatever it is Canadian tax scammers do in their free time, or she may really have done a bunk, although that is/seems to be kind of unusual for them, although one of the Poriskyites did do a runner early on. So it's a pickle, a conundrum, a real puzzler, or maybe just a little speedbump in the whole farce that is Porisky.

[Burnaby49]

Speaking of Porisky I attended his appeal hearing on Tuesday. He made no more sense than Lawson but, happily, he needed far less time to go down in total defeat. The hearing started at 10:00 and was essentially done by 10:30. I'll post it on Quatloos once the decision (which was read out in court) is released.

[The Observer]

While we wait for the promised write-up by Burnaby, who was most likely ambushed by a local pub and forced inside where he was compelled to consume potables until he was in a coma for 10 days, here is a link to a local paper covering Anderson and Porisky.

[Burnaby49]

Henderson, the reporter, got the information about Porisky's appeal and Debbie's arrest warrant from me. He and I got in contact during Debbie's trial. He reported on the trial and she went batshit crazy about it and threatened him and, if I recall correctly, his editor, with a lawsuit for false reporting. He was quite concerned that she'd be acquitted and then come after him. I told him not to worry, I knew where it was going. So when I found out that Debbie had a warrant out for her arrest after failing to show at her own appeal hearing I contacted him again to update him and also told him about Porisky's appeal hearing and gave him a link to the decision.

I should have Porisky up tonight. Not a lot in it but just been very busy. Finally got a new computer to replace my XP dinosaur then my internet went down. Telus, my internet provider, is actually very good about customer service. It went down yesterday, failed modem, and they sent a technician to fix it at 9AM this morning, a Sunday.

As for;

ambushed by a local pub and forced inside where he was compelled to consume potables until he was in a coma for 10 days

That's next weekend.

[Burnaby49]

Anderson also argued the entire matter was unfair and that she was “impecunious” – essentially, broke.

“I’m the only one in here not being paid,” she said looking around the courtroom.

I feel your pain Debbie, I didn't get paid for attending your hearing either.

[Burnaby49]

Debbie's in custody and has begun serving her sentence. She'll be celebrating this Christmas in prison. Her saga ended, quite fittingly, with an angry demented rant and I was there to witness it.

Readers may recall that Debbie was convicted of income tax evasion and counseling fraud. The counseling charge was based on Debbie teaching Russell Porisky's Paradigm income tax evasion scheme to 'students' who used her assistance to evade their taxes. Porisky's customers (he sold the evasion scheme as a turnkey deal) were identified from the records on his seized computer. They were all reassessed and penalized. Many were charged and convicted of income tax evasion. Debbie, as a facilitator for all of this, was given a 54 month jail sentence for counseling tax evasion. While I attended many of the Paradigm tax evasion trials I did not attend Debbie's trial because it was held about 60 miles away up the Fraser Valley.

She appealed her conviction and was allowed bail while the appeal process was in place but she did absolutely nothing to forward her appeal. Perhaps she thought that if she appealed and indefinitely delayed having a hearing that she would be allowed to remain free permanently. However the Crown finally has enough and forced the issue by requesting that the appeal be quashed for lack of prosecution. Debbie avoided that awkward issue by simply failing to appear at her hearing last April. She stopped going to scheduled meetings with her parole officer and cut off contact with the Crown and the court. An arrest warrant was issued and her appeal was quashed for lack of prosecution.

And until last week, that was it. I suppose that Debbie, being a non-violent white-collar criminal with no prior record, was a low priority issue for the police however they finally got around to her and arrested her in Chilliwack on December 19th. Chilliwack is a town about 60 miles up the Fraser Valley from Vancouver and is where Debbie has been living for at least the duration of her Paradigm involvement. She immediately applied for bail again and had her bail application hearing bright and early Monday morning December 23rd at the Robson Street courthouse. I was there however Debbie wasn't. She was in jail somewhere and participated by video.

Since I don't want to be late for court hearings I leave myself plenty of transit time. So I was on the bus at 8:00 early Monday morning for a 9:30 hearing. But I hadn't considered the impact of it being two days before Christmas. My bus and Skytrain were almost empty at 8:00 on a weekday morning! I ended up at the court an hour early. When I went to the court registry to find what courtroom Debbie had been assigned it was the same thing. The Robson Street courthouse is huge, it takes up an entire large city block and has seven levels of courtrooms. Debbie's hearing was the only one scheduled for the entire courthouse. It was a chambers session which meant there were a few other housekeeping issues to be considered but nothing of consequence. One judge, no sheriff, about as minimal as it gets. The video monitor was on and Debbie was online huddled in a corner of a detention cell someplace. There were two items before Debbie came up, both the releases of reserved judgments which, in total, took about one minute. Then Debbie.

The Crown ran through the sequence of events that resulted in our being here. She'd been granted bail on March 13, 2018 on a $30,000 recognizance. I'm assuming she's lost that. She'd taken no steps to pursue her appeal. She didn't, as required, order transcripts of her trial she didn't follow orders from the case management judge, and did not comply with court filing requirements. In March of this year the Crown filed for a dismissal of the appeal for non-compliance to rules. She'd had Crown material delivered to her home but had not accepted it in fact had not answered the door. She had a note taped to the door saying that she was not accepting packages.

When she failed to attend a scheduled meeting with her parole officer an arrest warrant was issued and that was it until she was picked up last week. The Crown was opposed to bail being granted. As a result of breaching her bail terms she was facing new charges at the Provincial court of British Columbia. They held a bail hearing last Friday but withheld a decision until this hearing was concluded. After hearing the chronology the judge asked "Is this a reverse onus issue?"

This comment relates to who which party has the onus to prove their case. Normally the onus is on the Crown, they would have to convince the court that Debbie should not be allowed bail. However, in the past, reverse onus would have applied because she had breached the terms of her existing bail. This meant that Debbie would have to prove to the court that she deserved to be allowed bail yet again. But the rules on onus had recently been changed and these changes came into effect on December 18th, just five days ago and one day before Debbie's arrest. The judge was uncertain whether or not the old reverse onus rules still applied so the Crown and the judge spent some time discussing the law (Debbie was unrepresented). The judge finally decided that reverse onus still applied.

So the judge explained the situation to Debbie and told her that there were three points at issue. She had to prove to his satisfaction that;

1 - Her pending sentencing appeal has merit.
2 - Custody would impose an unnecessary hardship on her.
3 - Her detention was not in the public interest

The judge told her it was her turn to speak and she should focus on these three issues. Good luck with that! Debbie immediately blasted away with an angry, barely coherent rant. I'll transcribe my notes exactly as I hurriedly scrawled them down. Keep in mind it isn't verbatim, I just copied down whatever points i thought she was making as I tried, and failed, to keep up. So, from the pen of Burnaby49;

I do not consent to being in custody. This matter has been settled in private through securities. I was beguiled into believing that I was a trustee in tort. I believed that the matter was settled. This relates to trust, the Crown hasn't mentioned this.

She didn't run. Did nothing wrong. She didn't show because everything had been settled. The Crown has kept her securities. She is the heir beneficiary of her name. The Crown has the legal right to her name. Her security was on bonded paper! She said that the Crown has the legal right to her security and is trustee but it's now trying to make her the trustee.

She said a lot more but it was either repetitive or incoherent. It must have been gibberish to the judge but I've been through hundreds of hours of Millar, Porisky, Lawson et al babbling away so I have at least an idea what she's getting at. So let's unpack it.

The security she was ranting about would have been a fake promissory note of some kind. Sovereigns believe that they can write promissory notes for whatever amount they chose and this is exactly the same as payment in cash. Unlike real promissory notes there are no provisions, or any intent, to pay it off, just an indefinite IOU they claim is worth whatever amount is put on the note. Robert Menard did something similar with his dine and dash scam and Michael Millar did exactly the same thing at his trial with what he called a bill of acceptance. You can read about his antics here;

https://www.quatloos.com/Q-Forum/viewto ... #p227241

So she wrote up a fake promissory note, gave it to the Crown, and considered the whole matter finished. She'd settled whatever debt society thought she owed it through some scribbling on a sheet of bonded paper. And, like Charles Norman Holmes way back, she invoked the strawman belief by naming the Crown as the trustee of her legal name so they couldn't act against her best interest. Then the crown betrayed her by keeping her valuable security but denying that the conviction had been settled by their accepting it. I'll say one thing in Debbie's favour. She seems to truly believe this nonsense. She was almost incoherent with anger and resentment for the way she'd been betrayed after acting in good faith to settle her charges.

To resume the narrative, did you note anything in that entire rant that even remotely addressed the three points the judge said that she had to prove? The judge didn't either. When she was done the judge didn't even bother hearing from the Crown. he just said "Thank you Ms. Anderson, bail denied". His reasons were;

1 - She had not addressed any of the 3 point.
2 - He had no confidence that she would adhere to any bail conditions he would set.

He also said that onus didn't matter, he would have denied bail even if onus was on the Crown.

As the video was turned off we could hear Debbie plaintively proclaiming "I do not consent, I do not consent, I do not consent".

So, with bail denied, Debbie has now started to serve her 54 month sentence. She's still entitled to appeal her sentence but she'll remain in jail until the hearing. She'll now also face charges at provincial court for breach of bail conditions but her bail request at that court is moot. I think it very unlikely that a sentencing appeal will result in any modification of the terms of her sentence so she's now imprisoned for at least a few years.

All that's left of the entire Paradigm gang is Michael Millar and his sentencing appeal is coming up on January 6th. I hope to be there to see the end of the saga. Michael, currently on bail, will be in court to argue his case and if he loses the appeal (as he almost certainly will) he will be immediately placed in custody and start serving his four year sentence. If judgment is reserved, as it was with Keith Lawson, his bail will probably be extended and he will have to surrender himself to the sheriff's service immediately before the hearing when his judgment is released. Either way he will, unlike Debbie, be able to spend this Christmas season with friends and family. In the world of Paradigm educators that has to count as a victory.

[notorial dissent]

Burnaby, you have all the fun times...… I just have to say.....

Definitely a sov and way off her rocker and/or meds. I still for the life of me don't see why the sov's and fotl's seem to think there is anything even remotely majikal to the tried and failed "I do not consent" or the ever popular "jurisdiction challenge" that seems to be their other go to. The former NEVER works, and the latter only exceedingly rarely when there really is a jurisdiction challenge to be made, not that a sovcit would ever know which is when..

Merry Christmas to you and yours.

[Burnaby49]

I have to admit it was a good day. Easiest rush-hour commute I've ever made, time for a leisurely coffee and a muffin before the hearing, hearing was very short, great theater with an entirely satisfactory conclusion. I went to the main library for an hour afterwards and home by 12:30.

[The Observer]

So the penultimate of the Poriskyites goes out, not with a bang, but a whimper.

[Burnaby49]

So the penultimate of the Poriskyites goes out, not with a bang, but a whimper.

Not at all. I wouldn't call this "a whimper";

Debbie immediately blasted away with an angry, barely coherent rant

She went down fighting, battling the Crown every step of the way. Porisky himself, Debbie's idol and the man who thought up, organized, and operated the entire Paradigm tax evasion scheme ended his criminal path with a whimper. He declined to defend himself at his trial, just sat through it as a spectator. and barely even participated in his own appeal but Debbie and Michael Millar didn't concede anything. As my postings show they fought, and fought, and fought through every step of the process.

I think that both Debbie and Millar could have avoided jail. Had they tried to cut a deal with the Crown and pled guilty to avoid a trial they would have, at worst, probably faced conditional sentences they could have served at home. But they went all or nothing. Both got about four years, a stiff sentence for their offenses, but sentences that they forced the court to give them with their hostile unrepentant behavior.

[notorial dissent]

I think your last part is spot on. Considering Canadian courts and all I was actually quite surprised when they got real jail time, did it too themselves in all honesty as well. Not that they didn't deserve it, but then the question comes down to why? Are they both that dumb and delusional that they actually really believe what they were peddling and that they are right and the Crown is wrong, OR, are they types that cannot/will not admit they were ever even the slightest bit wrong no matter how much they are shown to the contrary? There isn't a question in my mind but that they are both sovcit TP's, an interesting mix but still. It appears that Debbie is rabidly so and I would have to say from her last behaviors that she really is at the very least delusional and in serious need of mental evaluation-which I 'm equally sure she would violently refuse and fight every step of the way.

[The Observer]

Not at all. I wouldn't call this "a whimper";

Debbie immediately blasted away with an angry, barely coherent rant

No, this is what I call a whimper:

As the video was turned off we could hear Debbie plaintively proclaiming "I do not consent, I do not consent, I do not consent".

[Burnaby49]

In other words she did her best to go down fighting.

I expect Millar to do the same. his last shot at evading jail is his sentencing appeal and the only chance of relief he has there is to show that his sentence is too harsh. My prediction is that it's hopeless. He had an at least arguable point, delay, at his conviction appeal and he pissed it away pursuing lunatic arguments he'd already lost at trial. Even if he has any valid arguments regarding his sentencing he is constitutionally incapable of arguing them. I predict more wild ranting about capitalization and private persons.

Debbie, if she ever gets around to filing and attending a sentencing appeal, will be in exactly the same position. As we just saw in her bail hearing she is totally unable to focus on the task at hand but instead just blasts away with crazed sovereign arguments that had already failed her at trial.