Debbie Anderson - Poriskyite Social Director on Trial

[concerned]

Thanks for the quick reply!

[eric]

There ya go:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-c ... -1.4568959

A woman who worked as an "educator" at a group that taught people across Canada how to evade paying taxes has been sentenced to four-and-a-half years in jail after being convicted of tax evasion and counselling fraud.

Debbie Arlene Anderson of Chilliwack, B.C. also faces fines totalling $35,026.71, after evading $22,689.90 in federal income tax between 2005 and 2007.

[Burnaby49]

The Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) announced that Debbie Arlene Anderson of Chilliwack, British Columbia, was sentenced today, in the Supreme Court of British Columbia to four and a half years in jail and fines totaling $35,026.71. Ms. Anderson was convicted and sentenced in relation to charges of income tax evasion, goods and services tax (GST) evasion, and counselling fraud.

A CRA investigation determined that Ms. Anderson failed to report total income of $165,731.45 for the 2005 to 2007 tax years and, as a result, evaded $22,689.90 in federal income tax payable. In addition, Ms. Anderson failed to collect and remit $12,336.81 in GST for the 2005 to 2007 tax years.

Ms. Anderson was an “educator” with the Paradigm Education Group (Paradigm), a fraudulent scheme that counselled people across Canada to evade taxes. Paradigm sold products (books, DVDs, and CDs), organized and taught fee-based seminars, which “educated” people on how to structure their affairs in a way to illegally avoid taxes.

The preceding information was obtained from the court records.

The CRA warns all Canadians to beware of “tax protesters” who try to convince you that Canadians do not have to pay tax on the income they earn. Canadian courts have repeatedly and consistently rejected arguments made in these tax protester schemes. For those involved in tax protester schemes, the CRA will reassess income tax and interest, and charge penalties. In addition, if convicted of tax evasion, the court may fine them up to 200% of the tax evaded and sentence them for up to a five-year jail term. More information on tax protester schemes is available at Canada.ca/tax-alert.

If you have made an omission in your dealings with the CRA, made a tax mistake or left out details about income on your tax return, the Agency may give you a second chance to correct your tax affairs and avoid criminal prosecution. The Voluntary Disclosures Program (VDP) may give you the opportunity to come forward, make things right, and have peace of mind. Disclosures that are made before the CRA launches an enforcement action such as an audit or criminal investigation may only result in you having to pay taxes owed plus interest. More information on the VDP can be found on the CRA website at Canada.ca/taxes-voluntary-disclosures.

https://www.canada.ca/en/revenue-agency ... 80308.html

[Burnaby49]

I suspect that she received a fairly heavy sentence because of her combative responses to the court and her total lack of any repentance.

Defiant to the end, belligerent to the court process, and seemingly oblivious to the fraudulent nature of the scheme she adhered to and foisted on others, Debbie Arlene Anderson said she will appeal her conviction as an educator with Paradigm Education Group.

Anderson’s sentencing hearing, which began March 5, became quite bizarre as rather than enter submissions for her sentence, the 59-year-old continued to argue her case and perpetuate the debunked Paradigm scheme.

Justice Neill Brown exhibited significant patience as Anderson outlined her reasons why she should not have to pay taxes in Canada, why the case against her uses false documents and is a fraud, and why Brown should recuse himself while she complains to the Judicial Council about him.

Anderson earned at least $165,000 over 2005, 2006 and 2007, and declared zero income for the first two years and did not file an income tax return for 2007.

At a sentencing hearing in January, Crown asked for a 4.5-year jail sentence and a fine of $35,000. Anderson was supposed to enter her sentencing submission in court March 5, but instead tried to derail the proceedings and re-argue the case she lost last year.

To start with, Anderson asked that Brown recuse himself and have the case transferred to a clan grandmother of the Métis nation. He denied the request, and even pointed out the woman in question is herself in a conflict with the Canada Revenue Agency.

Then things got really odd.

Anderson repeated her ongoing claim that the court documents that spell her last name all in upper case constituted “false documents” and made the entire case against her a “fraud.” She insists the use of all capitals is a “gloss,” something used to write the symbols down expressed by someone using American Sign Language.

Because there are a mix of upper case and lower case on court documents, Anderson said they are fraudulent.

“I maintain these are two different languages,” she said. “English and French are the two official languages in Canada, not American Sign Language or Latin.”

“I’m of the opinion the case should be set aside,” Anderson said pointing to what she claimed are “false documents.”

“It’s a fraud.”

Anderson also claimed that Crown’s argument that a person cannot “contract out” of paying taxes made no sense because she never contracted in.

“It would be like Walmart dragging me in to shop there,” she said.

Brown politely explained how incorporation works, even beyond private business and with levels of government such as Canada.

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.

Brown pointed to how co-operative and conciliatory both Crown and himself had been all along the case, explaining process and simplifying things as best as possible for her to defend herself.

On Friday, as Brown read his sentencing decision that followed Crown’s submission of 54 months in jail and the $35,000 fine, he said she was only slightly less culpable than Porisky.

As aggravating factors in sentencing, Brown pointed to the real need for specific deterrence as Anderson has not expressed any remorse or admitted her harm by not paying taxes, or the harm to her students by defrauding them, many of whom have also received sentences.

“She pushed this [scheme] in the face of the fact that courts have consistently rejected this,” Brown said.

Anderson’s charisma and intelligence was also addressed by Brown, something hard to square with her steadfast denial of the reality in front of her.

As three sheriffs stood in the courtroom preparing to handcuff her to take her to jail, Anderson still seemed oblivious to her circumstances, asking to further discuss the details of the Crown’s forfeiture application.

“I guess because these men are standing, I’m supposed to be going with them?” she asked before being handcuffed and taken away.

https://www.theprogress.com/news/chilli ... ears-jail/

Makes me wish I'd been there.

[Dr. Caligari]

“I guess because these men are standing, I’m supposed to be going with them?” she asked before being handcuffed and taken away.

I would say that's a "yes."

[Burnaby49]

Anybody interested in seeing the delightful Debbie in action just needs to watch the opening minute or so of this video, taken almost a decade ago.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_pBbWA-2TX4

An interesting point is that she was a true believer then and still is now. She was the last one to be convicted; all of her Paradigm educator colleagues, Porisky, Gould, Millar, Lawson, the whole inner circle, were tried and convicted before her on exactly the same charges she faced. Yet she fought on, defiant, to the last.

Note that this is one of a series of 13 videos and is by no means all of Porisky's output. He had another series of 20 videos and dozens of others. The man loved spewing out videos. During the preliminary skirmishing before trial Russell threatened to make a potential jury watch all of them. I dodged that bullet when he decided to present no evidence at all.

Some relevant comments from this video. Greg nailed it with this one "And does anyone really think that any judge (paid by the system that you're contributing taxes to) will ever agree to this type of idea?"

Andi Dufresne
5 years ago
so all these so called "freemen" and women ofcourse, consented to being governed when borrowing all that money? now when its time to payback they become freemen? what a load of crap. i still dont understand how the western economies have any kind of positive credit rating where the common people there dont want to pay back their debts?

greg123ca
5 years ago
Dumbest idea in the world. What if nobody paid tax? Has anyone considered that? What it would look like? And does anyone really think that any judge (paid by the system that you're contributing taxes to) will ever agree to this type of idea?

LadyBeritanavatarius
4 years ago
You are making alot of assumptions and are wrong.

[Pottapaug1938]

Debbie can't even get a proper Canadian flag to use as her backdrop.

[Burnaby49]

Debbie can't even get a proper Canadian flag to use as her backdrop.

Blame Porisky, it's his lecture.

[concerned]

When I read, quote:

She was the last one to be convicted; all of her Paradigm educator colleagues, Porisky, Gould, Millar, Lawson, the whole inner circle, were tried and convicted before her on exactly the same charges she faced. Yet she fought on, defiant, to the last.

Don't forget about Eric Ho, an earlier post on Quatloos said he ran to China or somewhere, so if he was not a colleague who did he work for?

[Burnaby49]

Eric Ho? Surely you mean Apu Nahasapeemapetilon who I discussed here;

viewtopic.php?f=50&t=11166&p=235334

I'd forgotten about him because he made a bolt for it before trial and, as far as I know, is now a resident of Hong Kong. The best outcome in my opinion. Saved Canada the cost of a trial and we're well rid of him. Quite right about him being a Poriskyite Educator. These were his charges before he made a run for it;

ITA - 239(1)(d) Evade Payment
ETA - 327(1)(c) failure to make payment
ITA - 239(1)(d) Evade Payment

And on February 28, 2012 he was charged with;

ETA - 327(1)(c) failure to make payment
CCC - 464(a) Counseling indictable offence

So he's the last one, at least as far as I'm aware. The only Educator who wasn't convicted was Arthur Doerkson who got off on a technicality. He died during trial.

[wserra]

The ultimate cop-out.

[Burnaby49]

The ultimate cop-out.

I admit a drastic step but you have to judge legal tactics by their results. I have to correct an error in my own comment from my previous post;

The only Educator who wasn't convicted was Arthur Doerkson who got off on a technicality. He died during trial.

For readers not familiar with the Paradigm tax evasion scheme the Paradigm Educators were the individuals who taught the 'students' the Paradigm method of evading tax. All of the Educators were charged with counseling fraud. However Doerkson wasn't an Educator, just a Paradigm student trying to avoid paying his own personal tax. He was charged with tax evasion but not counseling fraud. I just used 'avoid' rather than 'evade' because his death precluded a conviction for tax evasion. I attended Doerkson's trial so I knew he wasn't charged as an Educator but I'd forgotten.

Doerkson was not the only Paradigm student who got off. Dr. Leo Fung, a Vancouver dentist, was acquitted of tax evasion on the merits of the case. The Crown has appealed that decision.

viewtopic.php?f=50&t=10477

A comment on my phrase "acquitted on the merits". Wes had a problem with that in Leo Fung's discussion;

Post by wserra » Wed Feb 22, 2017 5:11 am
The Crown can appeal an acquittal on the merits? Argh.

viewtopic.php?f=50&t=10477#p241266

Perhaps Wes was misled by my very vague wording about the possible reason the Crown appealed the Fung decison. When I said Fung was acquitted on the merits I only meant that he hadn't gotten off because of a technicality such as undue delay or inadmissible evidence. I wasn't implying that the Crown appealed just because they were ticked off at losing when they felt they should have won. There are two different standards of appellate review in Canada. Where an appeal is based on a claimed error by the trial judge in the interpretation of the law the standard is correctness. Did the judge interpret and apply the law correctly? If the appeal is based on the claim that the judge erred in the interpretation of the evidence (facts) the standard of review is palpable and overriding error. This is a higher standard than correctness. The lead case in this issue is Housen v Nikolaisen, a Supreme Court of Canada case where the SCC discussed the distinction between the two standards.

The standard of review for findings of fact is such that they cannot be reversed unless the trial judge has made a “palpable and overriding error”. A palpable error is one that is plainly seen. The reasons for deferring to a trial judge’s findings of fact can be grouped into three basic principles. First, given the scarcity of judicial resources, setting limits on the scope of judicial review in turn limits the number, length and cost of appeals. Secondly, the principle of deference promotes the autonomy and integrity of the trial proceedings. Finally, this principle recognizes the expertise of trial judges and their advantageous position to make factual findings, owing to their extensive exposure to the evidence and the benefit of hearing the testimony viva voce. The same degree of deference must be paid to inferences of fact, since many of the reasons for showing deference to the factual findings of the trial judge apply equally to all factual conclusions. The standard of review for inferences of fact is not to verify that the inference can reasonably be supported by the findings of fact of the trial judge, but whether the trial judge made a palpable and overriding error in coming to a factual conclusion based on accepted facts, a stricter standard. Making a factual conclusion of any kind is inextricably linked with assigning weight to evidence, and thus attracts a deferential standard of review. If there is no palpable and overriding error with respect to the underlying facts that the trial judge relies on to draw the inference, then it is only where the inference﷓drawing process itself is palpably in error that an appellate court can interfere with the factual conclusion.

Housen v. Nikolaisen
[2002] 2 SCR 235, 2002 SCC 33
http://canlii.ca/t/51tl

If the judge in Doerkson's trial misunderstood or misinterpreted the evidence to the extent that it tainted his analysis and possibly lead to an erroneous decision that would be palpable and overriding error and valid grounds for an appeal.

[SteveUK]

the fruitcake is back, and now goes by the name of Lorna Lynne Borgeson. On 22nd March of this year, she started rattling off more garbage documents to the Tax Ombudsman in a futile attempt to, well, not pay any tax.

Theres the usual "revelation"

Everyone knows that government is organized crime yet why so so many are allowing it is a perplexity. It is a well known fact that most wars are “False Flag” events. “False Flag” does not mean that it did not happen. “False Flag” means people were set up to be killed for a political agenda just like 9-11. Still, people continue to vote and pay their taxes knowing full well that Government is organized crime.

The individuals controlling the narrative are clearly insane.

...then it goes all Biblical bat shit crazy.

On the 22nd day of March in the Gregorian Year of 2018 I Redeemer Lorna Lynne Borgeson Queen Mother of Heaven and Earth known as Ashara aka Akasha decreed THE SUPREMACY OF HEAVEN.

Her statement of claim utter shite can be found here:

https://doveyou.wordpress.com/2018/03/2 ... of-heaven/

[notorial dissent]

Rinse, wash, repeat. YAWN!!!!!!

[Chaos]

she's scabbing the UK lawful rebellion nonsense on her twitter

https://twitter.com/lornalynne

[Pottapaug1938]

If Lorna is going to try to use "big girl words", she should at least try to spell them right. From her Twitter page, discussing international borders:

"Boarders are illusory anyway. The world is under Marshal Law."

I guess that, when you have a ten-cent brain, ten-dollar words can be a challenge.

[notorial dissent]

If Lorna is going to try to use "big girl words", she should at least try to spell them right. From her Twitter page, discussing international borders:

"Boarders are illusory anyway. The world is under Marshal Law."

I guess that, when you have a ten-cent brain, ten-dollar words can be a challenge.

Nickel, maybe, at best.

[wserra]

The world is under Marshal Law.

I wonder if he is anything like Judge Dredd. Certainly beats Marshall Dillon.

Maybe the boarders know.

[NYGman]

The world is under Marshal Law.

I wonder if he is anything like Judge Dredd. Certainly beats Marshall Dillon.

Maybe the boarders know.

And here I was wondering how he would do in a world run by Marshal Tito.

[notorial dissent]

Not well is the answer.