Porisky Tax Evasion Scheme Discussions

Moderator: Burnaby49

Burnaby49
Quatloosian Ambassador to the CaliCanadians
Quatloosian Ambassador to the CaliCanadians
Posts: 5823
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 3:45 am
Location: The Evergreen Playground

Porisky Tax Evasion Scheme Discussions

Postby Burnaby49 » Mon Oct 06, 2014 7:56 am

This discussion is somewhat redundant because it just compiles information posted elsewhere on Quatloos but I thought it time to have one omnibus reference point so that anyone seeking information on the Russell Porisky tax evasion scheme and the results for its followers has a starting point to all of the Porisky related information in Quatloos. Part of the problem is my own ineptitude. When I started posting on Porisky type tax evasion cases I often buried the information, almost as casual points of interest, in unrelated discussions. As a result two of the most important evasion convictions, that of Porisky himself, and Eva Sydel, were buried in the "The infection is heading north!" discussion, my first posting in Quatloos.

Since then Porisky's totally inane tax evasion scheme has blown up to become one of the largest evasion schemes we've had in Canada and it is still very much a live issue. I just posted the Edwin Sigglekow decision, Denise Eddie is still in play, and there are at least two Porisky based tax evasion trials, one a promoter, coming up here in Vancouver in the new year.

First the cases, in no particular order apart from putting Porisky first, with the names of the individuals involved in the discussion, a brief explanation of the case, and the link to the discussion. After the case listing I've included an analysis of the Porisky scheme.


Cases

The infection is heading north!
http://www.quatloos.com/Q-Forum/viewtopic.php?f=50&t=7827
Individuals
Chandler Turnnir (AKA Chandler R. Turnir, Chandler Turner and Peter Turner)
Russell Porisky
Elaine Gould
Eva Sydel

This was the first discussion I started in Quatloos and it shows. No discipline or organization at all. I haphazardly buried three separate Porisky-based tax evasion convictions, including Porisky himself, in the text without putting either their names or "Porisky" in the title. Time to rectify.

The discussion initially focused on Chandler Turnnir (AKA Chandler R. Turnir, Chandler Turner and Peter Turner). He followed Porisky's teachings explicitly and, at his tax evasion trial, just parroted them back to the judge. He was given an eighteen month conditional sentence and a fine of 100% of the taxes evaded. I even neglected to give citations for his tax evasion and sentencing trials in the discussion so here they are now;

Trial - R. v. Turnnir, 2006 BCPC 460 (CanLII)
Sentencing - R. v. Turnnir, 2007 BCPC 118 (CanLII)

The second case was Russell Porisky, the Man himself and the author of this whole sordid mess. He and his wife were nailed for tax evasion and he was given a four year sentence. This was quashed on appeal and a new trial ordered on the basis that he had not been given the option of a jury trial. That is still pending.

While I gave links to his tax evasion trial decisions they are now dead so I'll give citations which can be used to find the cases at

http://www.canlii.org/en/index.html

Reasons for Judgment - R. v. Porisky & Gould 2012 BCSC 67 (CanLII)
Sentencing - R. v. Porisky 2012 BCSC 771 (CanLII)
Granted Re-trial on appeal -R. v. Gould, 2014 BCCA 146 (CanLII)

The third case was Eva Sydel, a true believer and yet another dentist. She essentially ruined her life in her unbalanced obsessive quest for vindication. CanLII lists eleven citations for her, all related to her conviction for tax evasion and her subsequent attempts to make Canada pay for the injustice she suffered (she demanded $300,000,000 in damages and a court declaration that the Income Tax Act was invalid). She even filed a an action at the Federal Court of Canada trying to make them order the Supreme Court to take her case.

Reasons for Judgment on her tax evasion charges - R. v. Sydel, 2006 BCPC 346

For anyone interested in the other 10 cases go to the link below and type "Sydel" in the search line;

http://www.canlii.org/en/index.html


Russell Anthony Porisky - Poriskyite Extraordinaire!
http://www.quatloos.com/Q-Forum/viewtopic.php?f=50&t=10485
Individuals
Russel Porisky
Elaine Gould

This discussion, a work in progress, will give some of Porisky's past history as a tax guru including his cases to date. Porisky and Gould were tried at the Supreme Court of British Columbia between January 27th and February 12th 2016. Porisky was convicted of income tax evasion, goods and services tax evasion, and couselling income tax evasion. Gould was convicted of income tax evasion.

They were sentenced on July 25, 2016;

Elaine Gould - Six months for tax evasion. In addition the minimum fine of 100% of income tax and GST evaded. This was $38,141. Gould was given credit for the six months she'd served on her original 2012 convictions. So she was sentenced to one day in jail to be served immediately.

Russell Porisky - He was given an eighteen month jail sentence for income tax evasion and a four year jail sentence for counseling income tax and GST evasion. Sentences to be consecutive. He was given credit for 404 days already served. In addition he was fined the minimum 100% of income tax and GST evaded of $193,333. He was also required to give a DNA sample.


Michael Millar - Detaxer & Poriskyite's tax evasion trial
http://www.quatloos.com/Q-Forum/viewtopic.php?f=50&t=10834
Individuals
Michael Millar

On October 11, 2016 Millar was convicted of income tax evasion, GST evasion, and counseling fraud. On March 11, 2017 Millar was sentenced to six months jail sentence for tax evasion and a two year jail sentence for counseling fraud. Sentences to be consecutive for a total of two and a half years. he was also sentenced to the minimum fine of 100% of taxes and GST evaded. This was about $25,000. Appeals of his convictions are still pending as of July 2017.


They make 'em dumb in Canada too
http://www.quatloos.com/Q-Forum/viewtopic.php?f=50&t=5876
Individuals
Jack Klundert
Rosalie Chobotar

Jack Klundert, a chiropractor. The decision doesn't mention Porisky by name but Klundert followed Porisky's "natural person" scheme.

This discussion also has another apparent Porisky follower buried in it. Rosalie Chobotar was found guilty of income tax evasion and given a fine and a six month jail sentence. The available information doesn't state specifically that she was a Porisky adherent however the judge stated that she claimed to be "a natural person not subject to tax obligation".

She didn't get the jail term just because of the tax conviction. The Crown had asked for a conditional sentence of time served in the community and a fine of 100 per cent of the amount of income tax evaded. However her behaviour in court had been so offensive that the judge didn't believe that she would abide by any conditions he set. So he sent her to jail where she would have no choice but to serve out the sentence as imposed.


Frank Bertucci - Another Freeman Tax Court Failure
http://www.quatloos.com/Q-Forum/viewtopic.php?f=50&t=10163
Individuals
Frank Bertucci

Porisky isn't mentioned in this decision. This is not a criminal case, just a civil Tax Court hearing. However Bertucci argued the natural person defense;

"It appeared to me that the essence of his argument was that the definition of “person” in the ITA did not clearly state that it applied to him as a “human being, a private individual” and an independent contractor."


Carl Gustafson - Poriskyite Engineer
http://www.quatloos.com/Q-Forum/viewtopic.php?f=50&t=9631
Allan James: Curle - A New Dean Clifford Arising?
http://www.quatloos.com/Q-Forum/viewtopic.php?f=48&t=10060
Individuals
Carl Gustafson
Allan Curle
Bruce Johnson

This tax evasion case involved three Poriskyites, Carl Gustafson, Allan Curle, and Bruce Johnson. Gustafson took the sensible route and pled guilty before trial and avoided jail time. Curle (apparently a Freeman True Believer) and Johnson were convicted after a trial and were given jail sentences. This was noted in the Carl Gustafson discussion. There is a separate discussion on Curle to cover any future adventures he may have. Gustafson dropped his Poriskyite/Freeman ways after his sentencing and voluntarily testified for the Crown in a number of Poriskyite prosecutions including Keith Lawson in Vancouver.

http://www.quatloos.com/Q-Forum/viewtopic.php?f=50&t=8223


The McCarties - Poriskyites and "Operation Fable"
http://www.quatloos.com/Q-Forum/viewtopic.php?f=50&t=9390
Individuals
Colin McCartie
Anne McCartie

This discussion title is an excellent example of why this compilation is necessary. It was originally titled "The CRA has an Operation Fable?" That title did not give the names of the subjects, did not identify this as a Porisky discussion, and gave no idea of the real topic. My bad. So, as part of a clean-up of titles, I've changed this one. Colin and Anne McCartie were spouses charged with tax evasion for following Porisky's scheme although they denied being aware of Porisky. As of this writing (September 2015) their trial has not yet been scheduled. However they have successfully convinced the court to exclude from the trial all evidence gained under a search warrant. Apparently this was much of the evidence that the Crown was planning to rely on at trial.


Denise Eddy - Poriskyite heads to a criminal record
http://www.quatloos.com/Q-Forum/viewtopic.php?f=50&t=9899
Individuals
Denise Eddy

Denise Eddy is a rock solid Porisky adherent. She is charges with both tax evasion and counseling tax evasion as a Porisky/Paradigm educator. She has been fighting incessant meritless holding actions hoping either to get off without a trial or to bog the Crown down to the point it stops action against her. Neither is going to happen. Denise is a unique individual and the discussion is very entertaining.

On February 04, 2016 Denise pled guilty and was sentenced to three charges;

tax evasion - 100% fine
GST evasion - 100% fine
counselling fraud (Poriskyism!) - 2 years less a day conditional sentence


Dr. Warren Fischer's Prickly Fate
http://www.quatloos.com/Q-Forum/viewtopic.php?f=50&t=9396
Individuals
Warren Fischer

Fischer employed a Poriskyite argument amongst other defenses. Convicted of tax evasion with a jail sentence.


Richard Stanchfield - A Poriskyite tax evader cops a plea
http://www.quatloos.com/Q-Forum/viewtopic.php?f=50&t=10464
Individual
Richard Cory Stanchfield

Stanchfield pled guilty to income tax evasion and counselling fraud in respect to his activities as a Paradigm educator. On November 23, 2015 he was given a 14 month conditional sentence for counselling and a fine for taxes evaded.


Edwin Siggelkow - Porisky Detaxer
http://www.quatloos.com/Q-Forum/viewtopic.php?f=50&t=9894
Individuals
Edwin Siggelkow

Convicted of tax evasion, received fine and jail term. Apart from using Porisky as justification for his own tax evasion Sigglekow was also a promoter of Porisky's scheme.


Donald Baudais - Poriskyite tax evader gets six months
http://www.quatloos.com/Q-Forum/viewtopic.php?f=50&t=10245&p=177767#p177767
Individuals
Donald Baudais

Another Paradigm promoter who was sentenced to a fine and jail term for tax evasion. He is linked to Sigglekow (above). Prior to his trial Baudais tried, and failed, to have the charges thrown out for a number of reasons, one of which was that he should not face a criminal trial because the proper venue to review his tax issues was the Tax Court of Canada, which hears only civil matters. In denying that argument the judge referred to a prior Sigglekow hearing where he also tried, and failed, exactly the same argument. The judge noted that Sigglekow personally attended Baudais hearing to advise him.


Christian Lachapelle
http://www.quatloos.com/Q-Forum/viewtopic.php?f=50&t=10019
Individuals
Christian Lachapelle

Apparently a Porisky scam promoter who helped almost a hundred individuals avoid or try to avoid paying nearly $2 million in income tax. He was charged with tax fraud in May 2014. The activities for which he was charged were alleged to have occurred between June 2007 and February 2011 inclusively in a scheme that made a distinction between a "natural" person and a "legal" person.


Jerry McCaw & Gerald Blerot
http://www.quatloos.com/Q-Forum/viewtopic.php?f=50&t=9275
Individuals
Jerry McCaw
Gerald Blerot

This discussion was posted by by Hilfskreuzer Möwe so there is no need, unlike my own discussion postings, to correct for confused explanations and missing citations.

Jerry McCaw was found guilty of tax evasion of $114,924 from 2006 to 2008. His company, Jake's Oilfield Construction Ltd., was found guilty of assisting him. The The Canadian Revenue Agency discovered that McCaw had acting according to what he learned from the Paradigm Education Group.

The court noted that McCaw was advised on the "natural persons" scheme by Gerald Blerot, a Paradigm Education group educator. McCaw paid $595 per month for his services.

In 2014 Gerald Blerot was was convicted in Saskatchewan Court of Queen’s Bench of tax evasion on $275,000 of unreported income and counselling others to evade taxes and given a jail sentence three years and nine months. The latter conviction related to his role as a Porisky/Paradigm Education promoter.


Another Poriskyite loser, in French!
http://www.quatloos.com/Q-Forum/viewtopic.php?f=50&t=9981
Individuals
Christian Gerard

This was not a tax evasion case, It was a civil Tax Court of Canada hearing for Christian Gerard. I said in the discussion;

"At least I assume we are dealing with a Poriskyite. His tactic was basically throw every damn thing at the Tax Court of Canada and hope some of it struck home. Sadly all misses. He has Porisky's natural man v corporate man argument but he also has a lot of Freeman gibberish. On top of it all he lards on an argument that he is a native Indian exempt from tax although he is not, in fact, aboriginal and native Indians are except from tax only if they earn their income on a reserve which he does not."

It is difficult to be certain what this decision says because it is in French and translated by Google translator. One comment by the judge indicated a Porisky viewpoint;

22] His thesis is that we should make a distinction, for tax purposes that concern us here, between the legal person and the human being . . . .


Oh, Canada
http://www.quatloos.com/Q-Forum/viewtopic.php?f=50&t=5828
Individuals
Michael kion
Petra kion

Michael Kion and Petra Kion pro-actively embraced the natural person argument to avoid paying tax. They notified the Minister of National Revenue that they were declaring themselves ‘natural persons’ and made demands on the Minister to relieve them of any further liability for tax. Their contention was that each human being comprised both a physical being (the ‘natural person’) and a legal entity created by the government issuing a social insurance number to the individual. Any income earned by the individual was attributed to the natural person while the obligation to pay tax rested with the legal person. The Minister responded to this by warning them of the risks of following misleading tax advice. The Kions stopped keeping books and records for their partnership and advised the Minister that the partnership had stopped business.

They were reassessed and the Tax Court of Canada dismissed their appeal to be exempt from tax as natural persons and agreed that the gross negligence penalty imposed on them was appropriate. The judge commented that;

Like others of their ilk, though opposed to paying taxes themselves, the Kions had no compunction about wasting the tax dollars of their fellow Canadians by failing to comply with their obligations under the law and prosecuting nonsensical claims at the administrative level and in the judicial system. Nor did their philosophical underpinnings prevent them from pocketing amounts received for the Child Tax Benefit and the GST Tax Credit.


As always I neglected to give citations. They had two separate Tax Court hearings arguing their nonsense, both appeals dismissed.

Kion v. The Queen, 2008 TCC 516
Kion v. The Queen, 2009 TCC 447


More Poriskyites bite the dust!
http://www.quatloos.com/Q-Forum/viewtopic.php?f=50&t=8317
Individuals
Douglas Amell
Robert Amell
Heidi Keyzer

This discussion covered the and conviction of three related Poriskyites, Robert Amell, his son Douglas Amell, and Heidi Keyzer, Douglas Amell's common law wife. Douglas Amell was sentenced to 16 months in prison and was ordered to pay a fine of 100% of the amount evaded. Heidi Keyzer was sentenced to a term of five months imprisonment while Robert Amell was sentenced to a term of three months, and both were ordered to pay fines in the amount of 100% of the tax evaded.

Douglas was a naturopathic practitioner who owned the Moose Jaw Naturopathic Clinic Inc. His wife and father worked at the clinic. In September 2003 the defendants executed a “contract for hire, independent agent agreement” with the company and the clinic ceased remitting source deductions for the defendants including income tax. The defendants argued at trial that all of the sums that they received, directly or indirectly from the company thereafter, were not taxable income in their hands. They arrived at that conclusion as a result of Douglas attending a seminar on by Russell Porisky of the Paradigm Education Group. This convinced them that they could receive income tax free as "natural persons. The individuals then stopped reporting income from the clinic. However, as the court indignantly noted, this did not stop them from falsely claiming government benefits. As an example while Heidi Keyzer was ineligible to receive any Child Tax Benefit or rebate during 2003 to 2006, because her actual income was too high she applied for, and received, $15,303.44 in Child Tax Benefits in this period by filing false or inaccurate tax returns.

The court concluded that the Paradigm materials and the teachings of Mr. Porisky had no credibility and that Porisky and Paradigm were nothing more than “snake oil salesmen”. The accused had no interest in receiving legitimate legal and financial or accounting advice. They followed Porisky's opinions because it gave them justification to evade tax.

Citation: 2010 SKPC 107


Porisky Strikes Again!
http://www.quatloos.com/Q-Forum/viewtopic.php?f=50&t=8968
Individuals
Tanya Kovaluk
Lee Williams

Tania Kovaluk, an Ontario dentist, and her husband, U.S. citizen Lee Williams were sentenced to 2.5 years and four years in prison, respectively for tax evasion and promoting tax evasion through the use of Porisky's scam (decision unreported). They ran at least 16 Paradigm seminars in Toronto and Ottawa. Students, many of them dentists, paid 7% to 10% of the tax they evaded to Williams who forwarded a percentage Porisky. The court estimated that Williams helped others defraud the government of $4.5-million between 2003 and 2008 while Kovaluk also failed to report $2.6-million in income earned from her dental practice.


Canadian tax evaders caught in the Matrix!
http://www.quatloos.com/Q-Forum/viewtopic.php?f=50&t=9055#p151999
Individuals
Clark Webster
Mary Margaret Webster

Clarke and Mary Margaret Webster, a dentist and his wife, pled guilty to tax evasion. The linked newspaper article stated that they believed that taxes were unconstitutional and that the federal government created a parallel legal system based on the movie The Matrix that allowed them to opt out of paying tax. They were aided in cheating on their taxes by Lee Williams, the subject of the "Porisky Strikes Again" discussion. They paid Williams $31,200 for teaching them how to totally screw their lives up just before retirement. Since they pled guilty and saved the Crown a trial they avoided jail time and received the minimum allowable fine of 100% of taxes owing.


Keith David Lawson - Poriskyite Tax Evader
http://www.quatloos.com/Q-Forum/viewtopic.php?f=50&t=8223
Individuals
Keith Lawson

This was an application by the defendant and his wife to avoid trial on tax evasion charges by having the charges quashed on a number of grounds. He also demanded an order from the court which included, amongst other things, an order confirming that the Court recognized each of the Applicants as having the status of a private person, also known as a natural person, at common law for the purposes of the proceedings.

This was denied on the basis that it had no legal merit. There was is no basis for the recognition of any special status, There were no separate laws, rules, rights, remedies or procedures applicable to "natural persons" versus other individuals. The court ordered that the reference to "private person" following the applicants' names in the style of cause be struck.

The defendant admitted, of his own accord in an affidavit he provided to the Canada Revenue Agency that he had acted as a "Paradigm Educator" for Mr. Russell Porisky. The court understood this to mean that Mr. Lawson was of the view he did not have to report that money as income because he was a "natural person". The natural person theory was referred to in Mr. Lawson's supplemental written argument.

I buried the citation in the discussion text. It is;

Citation: 2012 BCSC 356

Lawson was tried on two counts of income tax evasion, one count of counseling tax evasion, and one count of failing to collect or remit GST. A jury found him guilty on all four counts on May 4, 2016. He was sentenced to Eighteen months imprisonment and a 100% fine on taxes evaded.



Dr. Leo Fung - The Poriskyite Who Wasn't There
http://www.quatloos.com/Q-Forum/viewtopic.php?f=50&t=10477&p=184836#p184836
Individual
Leo Fung

Dr. Fung is a Vancouver dentist who, in the information submitted to obatain authorization for a search warrant, was accued of evading $860,000 of tax on $3.1 million in reported income. He was aquitted at trial in the Provincial Court of British Columbia.


Debbie Anderson - Poriskyite Social Director on Trial
http://www.quatloos.com/Q-Forum/viewtopic.php?f=50&t=10747
Individual
Debbie Anderson

Trial to be held November 2015.


The Porisky Tax Evasion Scheme

I'll let the Canada Revenue Agency Explain it;

CRA NEWSWIRE
November 30, 2011

DON'T BUY INTO ILLEGAL TAX PROTESTER SCHEMES

The Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) warns all Canadians to beware of individuals that try to convince you that Canadians do not have to pay tax on the income they earn. These individuals, also known as tax protesters, not only fail to report their own earnings, but they also conspire, counsel, and promote these tax schemes.

Natural vs Legal Person

One of the most common false arguments tax protesters use is the natural vs. legal person argument, in which they treat themselves as two separate people for income tax purposes. They define the natural person as the individual that performs the labour required to earn income, and the legal person as the legal entity that the federal government creates through the issuance and use of the social insurance number (SIN). Tax protesters allege that the legal person has to file an income tax and benefit return, and that income received belongs to the natural person and is therefore not subject to Canadian income tax.

Canadian courts have repeatedly and consistently rejected all arguments made in these tax protester schemes.

Serious Consequences

For those involved in tax protester schemes, the CRA will reassess income tax and interest, and charge penalties. In some cases these individuals will be prosecuted for tax evasion. If convicted, they could face significant fines and possibly jail time.

For example, the courts fined an Ontario tax protester approximately $522,000, which represented 150% of the federal taxes evaded. In addition, the individual was given a one year conditional sentence, and was ordered to pay the fine imposed prior to the expiry of the conditional sentence; ordered to remain in Ontario and surrender his passport; and ordered to perform 180 hours of community service.

Correcting your tax affairs

Individuals who would like to correct their tax affairs can voluntarily come forward, and they may not be penalized or prosecuted if they make a valid disclosure before they become aware of any compliance action being taken by the CRA against them. These individuals may only have to pay the taxes owing, plus interest. More information on the Voluntary Disclosures Program can be found on the CRA Web site at http://www.cra.gc.ca/voluntarydisclosures.

The CRA reminds Canadians that, when it comes to their tax affairs, they should get independent advice from a reputable professional.

More information

More information on tax protester schemes is available at http://www.cra.gc.ca/alert under Tax Protesters.


Apparently this brilliant loophole was thought up by Russell Porisky, a carpenter with a grade-school education. But he thought big! He started Paradigm Education Group, an outfit that gave seminar on his Natural Person/Legal Person bullshit. They advised people how to evade tax by using the Porisky method. Adherents would pay Porisky for his seminars and also a cut of whatever taxes they avoided. He expanded this by essentially allowing franchising, Individuals across Canada would give Porisky seminars under the Paradigm brand, collect fees from the suckers, and pay Porisky a cut. It was all sunshine and smiles until the Canada Revenue Agency started charging them all with criminal tax evasion.

Keep in mind that what they claimed to believe, while moronically stupid, was not, in itself, illegal. If a Porisky "Natural Person" had filed income tax returns reporting his gross income but showing a nil taxable income because the CRA had to go after the other guy, the "Legal Person", there would be no criminal offense because the income had been declared and the tax returns filed. They would have been reassessed to nail them for the taxes they should have paid and then, had they actually believed Porisky's fantasy, they could have gone to Tax Court to argue their position on its merits. This is why, in some of the cases cited above such as Christian Gerard (Another Poriskyite Loser, in French!), the individuals involved were heard in the Tax Court of Canada, a civil court, rather than facing criminal charges. They denied they owed taxes but did not actively engage in evasion.

However this alternative apparently didn't appeal to most of them so they decided to avoid the sticky question of what the CRA might think about the whole scheme by engaging in actual active tax evasion. The classic type, not filing tax returns, getting paid in cash, hiding income, not keeping books and records, what I would call standard bread and butter tax evasion. Where Porisky came in was when they were caught. Then their defense at trial wasn't that they were evading tax but that they were inquisitive searching minds just doing their best to determine their tax responsibilities to the government of Canada. At the end of their search they ran across an expert to guide them. The expert of course being Russell Porisky. The judge at Eva Sydel's evasion trial had some very pointed comments about her claim that it was reasonable to rely on a carpenter with no tax or accounting background for income tax advice. While some of these fools went to court actively fighting for this argument and other just used it to try and justify their actions they all of them lost. Judges tend to be an unsympathetic lot when people engage in criminal activity for the sole purpose of benefiting themselves. Some, like Carl Gustafson, threw themselves on the mercy of the court and got off with a conviction and a fine but no jail term. Others, particularly the promoters, ended up with jail terms.

Porisky himself was convicted of tax evasion and given a jail term (at this time he has appealed, had the conviction quashed, and is facing a re-trial). However his conviction was not for teaching the Paradigm nonsense but by evading tax on the income he got from it. He'd done well out of his scam, he grossed $1,127,185 on his scheme between 2004 and 2008.

His trial decision is R v, Porisky & Gould, 2012 BCSC 67. The judge had this to say about the legitimacy of Porisky's methods

4. Analysis – Did Mr. Porisky commit the act of tax evasion?

[57] When I express my opinion of Mr. Porisky’s argument and the Paradigm view – as I am about to do – I do not mean any disrespect to him. However, since he has taught this theory over many years and there have been several convictions of Paradigm students for following it, I think it is important to state the view of the Court in the clearest possible terms so that current and potential future students of Mr. Porisky know what they are or might be dealing with.

[58] Mr. Porisky’s theory not only does not bear any legal logic but it also fails to accord with common sense. It is a failed attempt at word magic and has no validity.

[59] The absurdity of the supposed distinction between a natural person and a non-natural person (and I do not mean to refer to a corporation here) was shown by several things that arose during the course of the trial.

[60] At the close of the Crown’s case I asked Mr. Porisky and Ms. Gould whether they wished to call any evidence. Mr. Porisky said he could not make that decision unless he understood whether he was to give evidence in his “inherent personality as a natural person with no intent to profit”. He wanted to tell the truth in the stand but the capacity he was to testify in would make a difference to his evidence. A few minutes later in the dialogue he said:

I need to know if I make the decision to get into the stand, from which perspective can I speak? Like therefore I need to know, in the eyes of the law, if one man is two persons, the natural or the legal, okay, which one can I speak as, or does it matter -- am I have the liberty to speak the truth and qualify it so I can speak to everything? Because what it -- they have commingled a lot of stuff, and for me to properly address it, I'm going to have to be able to speak to everything to properly address it.

And later:

Again, I feel like I'm being railroaded because I'm asking for clear answers. I came here with a full intention on defending my -- my rights and -- and not having things being converted into something they're not, and I don't know how to do that if nobody's going to give me a straight answer. I thought Crown had a duty -- I read their web page and they talk about honour and integrity, and now I'm been led one thing -- and for me to speak to everything, I'm going to need to be able to speak to it from my starting point of my existence.

I didn't make it up. Sir John Salmond I think is a highly respected man. The Supreme Court relies on him. I didn't make it up that one man's two persons in the eyes of the law. And so from that perspective, I need -- that's why I tried to be as honourable and as open in the development of this, so that I could speak the truth and the whole truth from the proper perspective, so it does not get misconstrued or mislabelled or presumed to be something it's not. And that's what I need to know. If I make the decision and I go in that box, which person, in the eyes of the law am I?

THE COURT: You are Mr. Porisky.
THE ACCUSED PORISKY: Am I Russell Anthony Porisky in my inherent personality as a natural person, or am I a sovereign-granted personality?

THE COURT: You're Russell Porisky.
THE ACCUSED PORISKY: That's fairly misleading because that's not clear enough for me, Your Honour.
….
THE COURT: … Let's assume you get into the stand… and the Crown asks you, "What did you have for breakfast today?" Would it make a difference as to what capacity you were in?
THE ACCUSED PORISKY: For me, it would, Your Honour, yes.

[61] A final example will suffice. When asked by the Crown to confirm the identity of a Paradigm educator in the public gallery, Mr. Porisky said it depended on the capacity the Crown was asking about

[66] Also woven into the Paradigm view is the notion that benefits such as the Canada Pension Plan are not mandatory: because natural persons choose not to participate in any government benefit programmes, they are not subject to income tax. Apart from various programmes being mandatory, the flaw in that reasoning is that there is no linkage in the Income Tax Act between being eligible for the benefits and the obligation to pay income tax.

[67] Mr. Porisky’s analysis picks and chooses snippets from various statutes and cases, and attempts to create logical links where none exist. It is, in effect, legal numerology.

[68] In short, there is no legal merit to any of Mr. Porisky’s arguments.
Last edited by Burnaby49 on Tue Oct 07, 2014 6:05 pm, edited 1 time in total.
"Yes Burnaby49, I do in fact believe all process servers are peace officers. I've good reason to believe so." Robert Menard in his May 28, 2015 video "Process Servers".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XeI-J2PhdGs

Fmotlgroupie
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 278
Joined: Wed Oct 09, 2013 8:09 pm

Re: Porisky Tax Evasion Scheme Discussions

Postby Fmotlgroupie » Tue Oct 07, 2014 11:18 am

What a list! I knew there was a fair number of Poritskyite decisions out there but didn't realize it was this many.

Thanks for all the work you've put in posting decisions lately too; they have been wonderful entertainment for some rather long nights.

Burnaby49
Quatloosian Ambassador to the CaliCanadians
Quatloosian Ambassador to the CaliCanadians
Posts: 5823
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 3:45 am
Location: The Evergreen Playground

Re: Porisky Tax Evasion Scheme Discussions

Postby Burnaby49 » Tue Oct 07, 2014 6:34 pm

Fmotlgroupie wrote:What a list! I knew there was a fair number of Poritskyite decisions out there but didn't realize it was this many.

Thanks for all the work you've put in posting decisions lately too; they have been wonderful entertainment for some rather long nights.


Your welcome. What I enjoy in writing about the Poriskyites is that it is a guilt-free pleasure. I have no sympathy for them whatever. Most were greedy hypocritical parasites who demanded all the benefits that Canada offers its population, GST low income credits, free medical care, whatever, while actively and knowingly engaging in evading the taxes that fund these benefits. If their lives were destroyed it was because they destroyed them themselves out of hubris and greed.
"Yes Burnaby49, I do in fact believe all process servers are peace officers. I've good reason to believe so." Robert Menard in his May 28, 2015 video "Process Servers".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XeI-J2PhdGs

Burnaby49
Quatloosian Ambassador to the CaliCanadians
Quatloosian Ambassador to the CaliCanadians
Posts: 5823
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 3:45 am
Location: The Evergreen Playground

Re: Porisky Tax Evasion Scheme Discussions

Postby Burnaby49 » Tue Oct 21, 2014 7:43 am

A link I should have provided but apparently left out is this;

http://www.natural-person.ca/index.html

Porisky's quite comprehensive website, still available, which gives as its Mission Statement;

"A non-profit site educating Canadians and Americans about the differences between human-beings, natural-persons and artificial-persons"

Somewhat misleading since there is not a word about the site's actual Mission Statement;

"A very much for profit site charging suckers big bucks to be taught a guaranteed method to end up with a criminal record for income tax evasion."

I guess you had to read between the lines.
"Yes Burnaby49, I do in fact believe all process servers are peace officers. I've good reason to believe so." Robert Menard in his May 28, 2015 video "Process Servers".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XeI-J2PhdGs

Burnaby49
Quatloosian Ambassador to the CaliCanadians
Quatloosian Ambassador to the CaliCanadians
Posts: 5823
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 3:45 am
Location: The Evergreen Playground

Re: Porisky Tax Evasion Scheme Discussions

Postby Burnaby49 » Sat Feb 21, 2015 6:47 am

They are being very hurtful over at davidicke.com;

k1w1 Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2011Posts: 321

I notice that tedious idiot burnaby49 over at Quatloos mentioned something about Porisky being convicted. I already had a lengthy discussion about this subject with agerius here on Icke’s, about why he was only convicted as the principal of Paradigm Group and why he wasn‘t convicted for doing exactly the same thing before then. The last post in the thread pretty much explains it.

Try and get a clue here, Burnaby49
http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showt...porisky&page=5

And then there was arseraider’s banal comment about the Mafia… oh, dear. What a twit. I'm just glad he didn't mention ther Nazis.


Tedious? Well I have to admit to a grain of truth in that charge. Here at Quatloos we are, to a large extent, accountants and lawyers. Not groups generally associated with bon mots and witty banter. So it is probably a valid claim that we can't hope to match the sparkling repartee that they share over at Ickes. Exchanges such as;

k1w1 Senior Member Join Date: Nov 2011Posts: 321

Quote:

I've always been quite clear about what I mean even if you fail to comprhend.
All you're doing now is whining like a little bitch that I'm "baiting" you. Grow up, agerius.I have not once mentioned the Magna Carta, just the Bill of Rights.If you think anyone can prosecute Roy down at the pub for counselling tax fraud... Ha! You are a joke!

Quote:
I have no idea what you're attempting to express here


Yes that's right, you don't. Those are the immortal words of the moron


One question from a bemused ex-accountant, where did Porisky come from? The above quotes were taken from our discussion about Robert Menard in which there had been, to this point, no mention of Porisky. Why not attack my praise of British cask ale while you're at it? Just as relevant as Russell Porisky in the Menard discussion and far more interesting than your incomprehensible comments on Porisky.

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthre ... 668&page=4

K1W1 seems to be saying, and I stand to be corrected because I just can't tell, that Porisky was only convicted of tax evasion and counselling tax evasion after he formed Paradigm Group because, by calling his outfit a "group", he was claiming to be a "legal professional". Before that, while he was just a construction worker, he was immune to tax evasion and counselling tax evasion charges;

So, if a chartered accountant sets up a organization called, say, Paradigm Group to give tax advice, then that entity can itself be treated as if were a chartered accountant and any information coming out of it, or from anyone within it, can be treated with a confidence of trust that the advice is legitimate. That’s why only chartered accountants can do that.

When people see an entity called a Group that gives advice on the intricacies of taxation law, they can assume that the principal of the organisation is a chartered accountant. That’s why only chartered accountants can do that.

Can you not see where Porisky went wrong on New Year’s eve 2001 when he decided to stop being a construction worker, or to stop earning his income as a construction worker, and to become the principal of a commercial entity he formed called the Paradigm Group to advocate his wonky advice about how to properly fill out a tax form?

Once again: he was convicted for fraudulent counselling as the principal of Paradigm Group (it clearly says that in his conviction), not as Porisky the construction worker, as he was before 2001.

When agerius tries to say someone like Porisky was convicted for acting like a guru, for instance by saying, “except at least two gurus have been convicted for counselling tax fraud”, is ignorant bullshit. He’s trying to make out that people can be prosecuted for being a guru, trying to imply that gurus are always counselling tax fraud regardless of their situation or the way they’re acting. That’s simple-minded nonsense.

He refuses against all reason to recognise the difference between Porisky before and after he formed Paradigm Group; pigheadedly refuses to recognise why Porisky was only prosecuted for counselling after forming the group; refuses to recognise that the court could not prosecute him for counselling Sydel to commit fraud when he was a construction worker. He can’t see that Porisky’s disclaimer was worthless after he formed the group because regardless of his claim not to be a legal professional he was nevertheless acting like one after he did that ― can’t see that after he formed Paradigm Group his disclaimer was like someone acting like a criminal and claiming to be innocent.

To agerius, in his simplicity, Porisky is just a guru regardless of how he was acting, and the fact that he was convicted for counselling is enough to prove that he was always guilty of counselling. That’s just simple-minded.

People are convicted for impersonating a chartered accountant or tax expert and giving wrongful advice, which amounts to counselling tax fraud, and nobody is allowed to do that whether they’re an OPCA guru or an old retired bloke in a white shirt and tie who used to be an accountant. Ordinary people, regardless of their label, get convicted for counselling tax fraud when they act like a tax lawyer or a chartered accountant.


However, contrary to what K1W1 claims, Porisky was very careful, before and after forming Paridigm, to point out in his seminars that he was not an accountant or lawyer. He never at any time acted like a tax lawyer or a chartered accountant. To quote from the Sydel decision, linked below;

h. At the beginning of each of the five lectures presented by Mr. Porisky, the following caution was given: “In no way should this be construed as either legal or financial advice. You should consult a competent expert”. Mr. Porisky frankly told the attendees at his lectures that “I am in the building trade. I am not a lawyer. I can’t give legal advice. I am not an accountant. I can’t give accounting or financial advice. I am just a guy banging nails”. He also said, ‘I strongly recommend you consult a competent expert on this subject matter”. Dr. Sydel chose to ignore Mr. Porisky’s advice, even though it was loud and clear. She decided not to seek out a professionally trained tax lawyer or tax accountant. She chose to remain wilfully blind.


The reason that Porisky was not charged with any offenses prior to 2001 was that he did not do anything before that time that would have triggered a charge. The decision regarding his conviction can be found here;

http://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/20 ... csc67.html

Evidence at his trial showed that;

[36] The CRA records show that:

a. Mr. Porisky failed to file income tax returns for the 2005 to 2008 taxation years.
b. Ms. Gould failed to file income tax returns for the 2004 to 2008 taxation years.
c. Mr. Porisky and Ms. Gould failed to report any income from 2004 to 2008.
d. Mr. Porisky and Ms. Gould failed to remit any GST from 2004 to 2008.
e. Mr. Porisky did file a return for 2004 in which he disclosed a nil income.


[38] Since 1999, Mr. Porisky has dedicated himself to finding out, to use his words, “what the tax system was about”. He founded what he eventually called The Paradigm Education Group to “create a structure that everyone could work together in to save the country from a foreign parasite”. The foreign parasites were the international bankers who were, directly or indirectly, responsible for the income tax system. I will explain the teachings of Mr. Porisky more fully later in these reasons.


VI. Count 4 – Counselling by Mr. Porisky

[83] Mr. Porisky is charged with counselling others to commit fraud in excess of $5,000 between December 31, 2000 and December 4, 2008. The fraud being counselled was the evasion of income taxes. The counselling is alleged to have been done by Mr. Porisky in his Paradigm lectures, books and videos.


K1Wi seems to be saying that the CRA only went after Porisky, both for his personal income tax evasion and counseling evasion to others, after 2001 when he formed Paradigm. This is not correct as the above quote from the Porisky decision shows since he was convicted of counseling in 2001. If K1W1 is correct that Paradigm was formed in early 2002 then Porisky was convicted of Counselling for at least a year before Paradigm was established.

Apparently it is inexplicable to K1W1 why the CRA would not charge Porisky with committing offenses in the years prior to him actually committing those offenses. This somehow proves some obscure argument he has about how only "groups" are capable of tax evasion. K1W1 says;

He refuses against all reason to recognise the difference between Porisky before and after he formed Paradigm Group; pigheadedly refuses to recognise why Porisky was only prosecuted for counselling after forming the group; refuses to recognise that the court could not prosecute him for counselling Sydel to commit fraud when he was a construction worker. He can’t see that Porisky’s disclaimer was worthless after he formed the group because regardless of his claim not to be a legal professional he was nevertheless acting like one after he did that ― can’t see that after he formed Paradigm Group his disclaimer was like someone acting like a criminal and claiming to be innocent.


K1W1 refers to Sydel to show that Porisky was counseling taxpayer prior to forming the Paradigm Group. However Sydel makes no mention of Eva Sydel claiming she had been counselled by Porisky prior to Paradigm. The two comments below are the only mentions of Porisky in the entire Sydel decision;

h. At the beginning of each of the five lectures presented by Mr. Porisky, the following caution was given: “In no way should this be construed as either legal or financial advice. You should consult a competent expert”. Mr. Porisky frankly told the attendees at his lectures that “I am in the building trade. I am not a lawyer. I can’t give legal advice. I am not an accountant. I can’t give accounting or financial advice. I am just a guy banging nails”. He also said, ‘I strongly recommend you consult a competent expert on this subject matter”. Dr. Sydel chose to ignore Mr. Porisky’s advice, even though it was loud and clear. She decided not to seek out a professionally trained tax lawyer or tax accountant. She chose to remain wilfully blind.

j. At the early lectures by Detax and Untax, Dr. Sydel was asked why, if the Lt. Governor of British Columbia, The Queen and the Bishop of Victoria, had all established themselves as “corporation soles” and thereby avoided the payment of taxes, why wouldn’t any other resident of Canada be able to do so, also? She accepted this rhetorical question and answer and placed an advertisement in the Westender newspaper, announcing that she now was a “corporate sole”. How could an intelligent, educated person not seriously question this rhetorical question? The answer is: she was being deliberately blind. Later on, after attending the Porisky lectures, she realized that this hypothesis had no legitimate basis. However, this realization still failed to motivate her to obtain some tax advice from traditional, accredited and qualified tax specialists. Instead, she continued only to attend more seminars given by Mr. Porisky, who you recall, had clearly cautioned her and the others to seek qualified tax advice, before relying or acting on what he was saying.


There was an earlier Sydel decision, prior to trial, which discussed Evas Sydel's relationship with Porisky (mis-named Persky in the decision). Again no dates are given;

http://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcpc/doc/20 ... ultIndex=2


The situation of Porisky in the Sydel case, who tried to claim she had been counselled by Porisky in 1998 when he was still a construction worker (before the formation of Paradigm) and was told in no uncertain terms by the court that she had not been fraudulently counselled by anyone, and then his later conviction as the principal of Paradigm Group for counselling fraud from 2001 (in Porisky & Gould) is illustrative of what’s facing the courts. Which is why Rook made reference to those cases in Meads.


Eva Sydel's conviction for tax evasion can be seen here;

http://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcpc/doc/20 ... pc346.html

She was charged and convicted of evading tax between 1998 and 2003.

[1] The Accused, Dr. Sydel, is charged with four counts of making false or deceptive statements in her T1 Individual Income Tax Returns and five counts of evading the payment of income tax, all between the calendar years 1998 to 2003.


She appears, at least in the early years of her carreer as a tax evader,to have relied on the de-tax movement, a predecessor to Porisky or Paradigm;

j. At the early lectures by Detax and Untax, Dr. Sydel was asked why, if the Lt. Governor of British Columbia, The Queen and the Bishop of Victoria, had all established themselves as “corporation soles” and thereby avoided the payment of taxes, why wouldn’t any other resident of Canada be able to do so, also? She accepted this rhetorical question and answer and placed an advertisement in the Westender newspaper, announcing that she now was a “corporate sole”. How could an intelligent, educated person not seriously question this rhetorical question? The answer is: she was being deliberately blind. Later on, after attending the Porisky lectures, she realized that this hypothesis had no legitimate basis. However, this realization still failed to motivate her to obtain some tax advice from traditional, accredited and qualified tax specialists. Instead, she continued only to attend more seminars given by Mr. Porisky, who you recall, had clearly cautioned her and the others to seek qualified tax advice, before relying or acting on what he was saying.


My reading of Sydel is that Eva Sydel started evading tax in the late 1990's because of a professed belief in the detaxer's corporate sole argument and only shifted over to Porisky's "natural person" argument after he formed Paradigm. Similarly Porisky only started to evade income tax by not reporting his income after he stopped being a carpenter and formed Paradigm to give seminars on his brilliant tax analysis.

Of course all of my above comments are open to being demolished by K1W1's learned and witty banter. He may even call me a whining little bitch!
"Yes Burnaby49, I do in fact believe all process servers are peace officers. I've good reason to believe so." Robert Menard in his May 28, 2015 video "Process Servers".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XeI-J2PhdGs

User avatar
notorial dissent
A Balthazar of Quatloosian Truth
Posts: 10911
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 8:17 pm

Re: Porisky Tax Evasion Scheme Discussions

Postby notorial dissent » Sat Feb 21, 2015 9:30 am

Well Burnaby, I’d normally say you hurt the poor little dears feelings, but based on the level and quality of the sparkling repartee over there as well as the caliber of the discussion, who can tell.

I do think you’re right in that they are saying, or at least badly trying to say that it wasn’t really Porisky who was prosecuted, tried, and convicted, but his corporate creation, kind of a reverse, I think, strawman argument??? I'm not sure they're real clear on the concept one way or another. Logic seems to not be a used commodity over there either.
The fact that you sincerely and wholeheartedly believe that the “Law of Gravity” is unconstitutional and a violation of your sovereign rights, does not absolve you of adherence to it.

User avatar
wserra
Quatloosian Federal Witness
Quatloosian Federal Witness
Posts: 6360
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2003 7:39 pm

Re: Porisky Tax Evasion Scheme Discussions

Postby wserra » Sat Feb 21, 2015 1:40 pm

Burnaby49 wrote:Here at Quatloos we are, to a large extent, accountants and lawyers. Not groups generally associated with bon mots and witty banter.


Ban your own wit, Burnaby. Some of us can bon a mot with the best of 'em.
"A wise man proportions belief to the evidence."
- David Hume

Burnaby49
Quatloosian Ambassador to the CaliCanadians
Quatloosian Ambassador to the CaliCanadians
Posts: 5823
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 3:45 am
Location: The Evergreen Playground

Re: Porisky Tax Evasion Scheme Discussions

Postby Burnaby49 » Sat Feb 21, 2015 6:15 pm

wserra wrote:
Burnaby49 wrote:Here at Quatloos we are, to a large extent, accountants and lawyers. Not groups generally associated with bon mots and witty banter.


Ban your own wit, Burnaby. Some of us can bon a mot with the best of 'em.


I'm doing my best to figure out how to inflict my new god-like powers on Qutaloos posters in random arbitrary ways but, until I do, tedious pedantic windbags like that slack-jawed yokel Burnaby49 will continue to elude the wrath of the Pink Peril.

My primary directive of gleefully observing the misfortunes of others is taking too much time for me to stomp on the Canadian discussion contributors at the moment (just a reprieve LordEd, just a reprieve). I attended two Poriskyite tax evasion hearings last week that I have to write up and I've got that abomination, the COMER Statement of Claim to struggle through. I want to get those done before the Chief's hearing next week, plus there is yet another Poriskyite hearing next week. Those guys have no consideration whatever for how much scrabbling I have to do to keep up with them.
"Yes Burnaby49, I do in fact believe all process servers are peace officers. I've good reason to believe so." Robert Menard in his May 28, 2015 video "Process Servers".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XeI-J2PhdGs

Burnaby49
Quatloosian Ambassador to the CaliCanadians
Quatloosian Ambassador to the CaliCanadians
Posts: 5823
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 3:45 am
Location: The Evergreen Playground

Re: Porisky Tax Evasion Scheme Discussions

Postby Burnaby49 » Sat Feb 21, 2015 6:53 pm

Speaking of Poriskyites and their attempts to split themselves into two separate people residing the the same body the Utah courts have gone one better and allowed triple-dipping!

http://www.loweringthebar.net/2015/02/u ... rself.html

So Potiskyite readers take note. While your beliefs are toxic here they have been given a legal welcome in Utah. So get moving.

I wonder how many Burnaby49's I could sub-lease my corporal being to in Utah? Based on the court's logic there seems to be no limit. Probably a bad idea, who'd want to sub-lease that dump?
"Yes Burnaby49, I do in fact believe all process servers are peace officers. I've good reason to believe so." Robert Menard in his May 28, 2015 video "Process Servers".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XeI-J2PhdGs

Fmotlgroupie
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 278
Joined: Wed Oct 09, 2013 8:09 pm

Re: Porisky Tax Evasion Scheme Discussions

Postby Fmotlgroupie » Sat Feb 21, 2015 8:28 pm

Of course all of my above comments are open to being demolished by K1W1's learned and witty banter. He may even call me a whining little bitch!


K1W1 is after all what the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench called a "shining wit" in R v Spooner :wink:

Arthur Rubin
Tupa-O-Quatloosia
Posts: 1458
Joined: Fri May 30, 2003 12:02 am
Location: Brea, CA

Re: Porisky Tax Evasion Scheme Discussions

Postby Arthur Rubin » Sun Feb 22, 2015 8:14 pm

I don't remember where I saw this quote, but it seems appropriate for this thread.
Many people consider themselves "wit"s. Most of them are half-right.
:snicker:
Last edited by Arthur Rubin on Sun Feb 22, 2015 8:14 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Reason: format bbcode
Arthur Rubin, unemployed tax preparer and aerospace engineer
ImageJoin the Blue Ribbon Online Free Speech Campaign!

Butterflies are free. T-shirts are $19.95 $24.95 $29.95

Burnaby49
Quatloosian Ambassador to the CaliCanadians
Quatloosian Ambassador to the CaliCanadians
Posts: 5823
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 3:45 am
Location: The Evergreen Playground

Re: Porisky Tax Evasion Scheme Discussions

Postby Burnaby49 » Fri Jun 03, 2016 12:55 am

I'm posting this for no reason except to get the discussion to the head of the queue again. I was at court today at Michael Millar's trial when a group of students asked what was going on. We quickly went down the Paradigm rabbit-hole which was beyond them in a quick explanation so I referred them to Quatloos, particularly this discussion. However it is buried away well down the list so I'm making it easier to find if they come looking for it.
"Yes Burnaby49, I do in fact believe all process servers are peace officers. I've good reason to believe so." Robert Menard in his May 28, 2015 video "Process Servers".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XeI-J2PhdGs


Return to “Canada”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest