Richard Stanchfield - A Poriskyite tax evader cops a plea

Moderator: Burnaby49

Burnaby49
Quatloosian Ambassador to the CaliCanadians
Quatloosian Ambassador to the CaliCanadians
Posts: 5625
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 3:45 am
Location: The Evergreen Playground

Richard Stanchfield - A Poriskyite tax evader cops a plea

Postby Burnaby49 » Sun Feb 22, 2015 8:45 am

Richard Cory Stanchfield is one of a mob of accused Poriskyite tax evaders and counselors I've been following in the Vancouver area. I hadn't opened a discussion on him because I had not, until yesterday, attended any of his hearings. While he hadn't been directly considered here yet he was by no means a stranger to Quatloos. Do a search of his name and you'll find numerous references to a pair of 2009 cases. These are;

Canada (National Revenue) v. Stanchfield, 2009 FC 99
http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/200 ... 9fc99.html

Canada (National Revenue) v. Stanchfield, 2009 FC 72 (CanLII)
http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/fct/doc/200 ... 9fc72.html

While he was charged with income tax evasion under the name Richard Cory Stanchfield he is identified in the two cases as Cory Stanfield so I'll call him that. 2009 FC 72 was decided first, on January 23, 2009. The issue to be determined was;

[1] This is an application by the Minister of National Revenue, (the “Minister”) pursuant to Rules 466 and 467 of the Federal Courts Rules, S.O.R./98-106, that Mr. Cory Stanchfield be found in contempt of an Order of Mr. Justice Gibson, dated September 26th, 2007. On the basis of the evidence filed by the applicant, I have found that Mr. Stanchfield is in contempt of that Court Order.


The issue in the 2007 court order was a CRA demand for information which Stanchfield had refused to provide.

[5] The respondent filed an appeal of that Order on October 22, 2007 and obtained a stay of execution of the Order. He later withdrew his appeal and the stay was removed. Following the discontinuance on June 11, 2008, the applicant agreed to give the respondent 30 days to provide the documents required under the Compliance Order before seeking a contempt order.

[6] Subsequent to that, various correspondence has gone back and forth between the respondent and the applicant’s counsel on the issue of whether Mr. Stanchfield is a “person” obliged to answer the Requirement for Information.


I think you all know where this is going.

[10] After having heard the arguments of Mr. Stanchfield and of counsel for the applicant, I indicated at the hearing that these motions were dismissed, essentially for the reasons put forward by the applicant. I will now briefly summarize these reasons.

[11] The first motion is very much related to the central argument advanced by the respondent throughout these proceedings, according to which a distinction should be drawn between Mr. Stanchfield in his capacity as the legal representative of the taxpayer and Mr. Stanchfield as a “natural person” for his own benefit. In his view, a “natural person” does not fall within the scope of the Excise Tax Act. According to the applicant, a careful reading of Mr. Justice Gibson’s Order reveals that it is not directed to him as a natural person but as a legal representative of the taxpayer; had it been otherwise, he would have been given the protection of the Canadian Bill of Rights. On that basis, he sought an Order directing that any reference to him as a natural person be taken out of all documents filed by the applicant, including in the affidavit submitted in support of the motion for a contempt order.


Stanchfield responded to the court order to produce information by saying that there was no information to produce;

[23] On the issue as to whether the respondent complied with the Order of Mr. Justice Gibson, the Court heard the evidence of Ms. Tove Mills, a Collection Officer with the CRA who had the conduct of the CRA’s collection files relating to the respondent since January 2007. She testified that Mr. Stanchfield failed to provide the information required by the Compliance Order. Appended to her affidavit is the letter sent by Mr. Stanchfield to the CRA, which purports to be his response to the Requirement for Information. It reads as follows:

a) There are no bank accounts, credit union accounts or similar financial institution accounts that Cory Stanchfield has signing authority over, including accounts held in countries other than Canada for the period January 1, 2005 to April 1, 2007

b) There are no trading accounts, investment portfolio, or any other accounts pertaining to the sale of stock, securities, bonds and commodities held directly, indirectly or beneficially for Cory Stanchfield, and therefore there are not list(s) or listing of transactions for the period January 1, 2005 to April 1, 2007

c) There is no money shares, securities, interest, dividends, or any other asset held directly, indirectly or beneficially for Cory Stanchfield, and therefore there are no list(s) for the period January 1, 2005 to April 1, 2007

d) There is no nominees who operated trading and/or investment accounts on behalf of Cory Stanchfield and therefore there are no list(s) for the period January 1, 2005 to April 1, 2007

e) There are no names and address of companies, including companies in countries other than Canada that Cory Stanchfield was a director, shareholder, officer, agent, or nominee and therefore there are no list(s) for the period January 1, 2005 to April 1, 2007.


However the CRA said that he was lying.

[24] Ms. Tove indicated that this information is not correct or complete. Based on her research, she found that the respondent is president of two limited liability companies registered in the state of Nevada, and that he has signing authority on bank accounts for these two companies. She also found that these bank accounts appear to be used to direct funds to Mr. Stanchfield. It appears further that the respondent had an asset during the relevant time frame, namely a lease of a 2006 car. Finally, copies of corporate searches from the Nevada Secretary of State website show that the respondent is named as a director or officer, during the relevant time period, of six companies; most of them are listed as having annual sales and capital, with no shareholders noted and Mr. Stanchfield as President.


His response to this was to argue that none of the assets uncovered by the CRA had anything to do with him because they were the property of that other Cory Stanchfield;

[25] None of this information was contradicted by Mr. Stanchfield, who testified first in his capacity as a “natural person, for his own benefit” and as a witness for the respondent, and then as the respondent himself. In his capacity as a “natural person”, he confirmed that he has done the various acts, signed the various documents, incorporated the various companies, held the various accounts, etc. as stated by Ms. Tove Mills. His only disagreement with the applicant stems from the differentiation he attempts to make between his various capacities.


For some reason this did not impress the judge.

[26] For the reasons already stated previously, this is a distinction that finds no basis in the Act nor in Mr. Justice Gibson’s Order. The distinction drawn by Mr. Stanchfield between his capacity as a natural person and his capacity to act in some other way is entirely of his own doing, and is devoid of any support in the case law. He has conceded that his various identities occupy the same physical body, have the same birth date and sign the same way. In fact, he would be unilaterally choosing in what capacity he acts; this is obviously an untenable proposition, and one that runs afoul of any tenable interpretation of the Act.

[27] Section 123 of that Act provides that an “individual” means a natural person, and that a “person” means an individual, a partnership, a corporation, the estate of a deceased individual, a trust, or a body that is a society, union, club, association, commission or other organization of any kind. Nowhere in these definitions do we find a distinction between a natural person and the legal representative of the taxpayer. Moreover, it is beyond dispute that Mr. Stanchfield, in whichever capacity he may choose to act, was clearly contemplated as coming within the Order of Mr. Justice Gibson.

[28] On the basis of the evidence submitted to the Court, I am therefore of the view that the applicant has established the required prerequisites for a finding of contempt. It does not matter whether Mr. Stanchfield had the intent to contravene the Order of Mr. Justice Gibson, as mens rea is not a required element; it is only relevant as a mitigating factor relative to the penalties to be imposed.


So the judge hit whichever Cory Stanchfied was in court that day with this;

ORDER

THIS COURT ORDERS that:

1. The respondent is guilty of contempt of court as he failed to comply with the Order of Mr. Justice Gibson dated September 26, 2007;

2. The respondent shall serve and file written submissions on sentencing on or before February 9, 2009;

3. The applicant shall serve and file further written submissions, on or before February 16, 2009, wherein the following factors are to be addressed:

a) Any non-compliance or past violations by the respondent of provisions of the Excise Tax Act, and/or the Income Tax Act;

b) Any further information about the respondent which may assist the Court on sentencing.

4. The applicant shall serve the respondent personally with a true copy of the within Order and Reasons for Order no later than January 26, 2009, and file proof of service with the Registry of the Court.

5. The Judicial Administrator will schedule a teleconference hearing of this matter as expeditiously as possible.

6. Costs will be dealt with after the sentencing hearing.


2009 FC 99 seems to have been heard at the same time as 2009 FC 72 because it refers to the FC 72 decision as having been released while FC 99 was still being heard. The issue in FC 99 was similar.

[1] In the present application, the Minister of National Revenue (the Minister) seeks a compliance order against Cory Stanchfield pursuant to section 231.7 of the Income Tax Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. 1 (5th Supp.) (the Act) to provide the information and documentation listed in the Minister’s request for information (RFI) sent to Mr. Stanchfield on February 19, 2008.


Cory responded that he was just trying to be helpful. Those dimwits at the CRA were just too unsophisticated in their understanding of the approved Porisky interpretation of income tax laws to realize that they were persecuting the wrong man. So he provided the court with two affidavits, one from each Cory Stanchfield, which, together, should have cleared up the issue of which Cory Stanchfield was present in front of the CRA and the court at any given time. Unfortunately the judge was just as deficient in the correct understanding of income tax laws as the dolts over at the CRA;

[2] Mr. Stanchfield argues that he did in fact comply with the RFI. He explains that the alleged inadequacies (referred to in the affidavit of Tove Mills) of the response of Cory Stanchfield, the taxpayer and respondent in this application are caused by the Minister’s confusion in attributing to him assets, income and activities of another, distinct entity whom he characterizes as “Cory Stanchfield, in his capacity as a natural person acting in his own capacity and for his own private benefit”. Because this is not the first time similar arguments have been made by Cory Stanchfield as well as other taxpayers in the Vancouver area, it is worth reviewing in some detail the arguments presented by the respondent.

[3] In his respondent record, Mr. Stanchfield included two affidavits. The first is entitled “Affidavit of Cory Stanchfield (the Respondent)” while the second one is entitled “Affidavit of Cory Stanchfield, in his capacity as a natural person (the Witness)”. In that second affidavit, the affiant states: “Given our similar names, the same date of birth of March 17, 1971; signature, and mailing address. It is my intent to clarify this confusion as to the true ownership of any property and/or activities that are mistakenly assumed to be the Respondent’s.” Also, at paragraph 7 of the said affidavit, the affiant indicates that when the Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) agents came to his residence to serve the respondent, “I answered the door and advised them that I was not the person they were looking for. And at both times, documents were dropped before me or were thrown into my private residence before agents walked away. In both instances, I forwarded these legal documents to the Respondent” (emphasis added). At the direction of the Court, the signatories of each affidavit were to be present at the hearing. It quickly became apparent that there was only one human being involved and that Cory Stanchfield who appeared and argued the case before me had signed both affidavits himself.

[4] Having established that the Cory Stanchfield referred to in the respondent’s record, the affidavits and the oral arguments under various terms like “natural person,” “natural person acting in its own capacity and for its own benefit,” “the taxpayer,” “the Respondent,” etc, has but one body, one mouth, one brain, one set of hands, and thus is one single human being, one must now review the argument presented by the said Cory Stanchfield to explain his response to the Minister’s RFI, in light of the fact that in his affidavit “in his capacity as a natural person (the Witness)”, he clearly indicates: (1) that he does have a residence and an address in British Columbia; (2) that he has held a variety of positions including for example but not limited to president, secretary and treasurer of several Nevada corporations created by him; (3) that he received remuneration among other things from Mr. Plotnikoff for what he describes as “education regarding the teachings of human rights”[1]; and, (4) that payments received from Mr. Plotnikoff would reference “natural person compensation and/or consulting in the memo line.”

[5] At paragraph 37 of his written submissions, Mr. Stanchfield says that he knows that he is a person as defined by the Act and that at no point did he argue that he was not, contrary to what, according to him, is asserted in paragraph 6 of the Minister’s memorandum of fact and law. On that basis, he indicates that the case law submitted by the Minister that deals with the issue of not being a person or examining whether the respondent is a natural person or not is immaterial and irrelevant for this is not his position here in this case. Rather, he explains in paragraph 38 of his memorandum of fact and law that when one reviews the correspondence between him and the Minister’s representative, the question being asked was which person in the definition of “person” in the Act was the RFI issued to.

[12] It is of interest to note that, in a decision rendered after the date of the hearing of the present matter, the respondent was found guilty of contempt of the above-mentioned Court order. In M.N.R. v. Stanchfield, 2009 FC 72 (CanLII), Justice Yves de Montigny found that “The distinction drawn by Mr. Stanchfield between his capacity as a natural person and his capacity to act in some other way is entirely of his own doing, and is devoid of any support in the case law.” (para. 27).

Mr. Stanchfield concluded his submissions before the Court by submitting that the fundamental question of law that needs to be answered by the Court before issuing the requested compliance order is as follows:

Is a natural person, as defined in the Canadian Law Dictionary, 4th Ed., by John A. Yogis, Q.C., acting in their own private capacity for their own private benefit, directly included within the definition of the word “person” as defined in subsection 248(1) of the Income Tax Act of Canada?

If yes, then how does the Court deal with section 2 the Canadian Bill of Rights, where it clearly expresses, “Every law of Canada shall, unless it is expressly declared by an Act of the Parliament of Canada that it shall operate notwithstanding the Canadian Bill of Rights, be so construed and applied as not to abrogate, abridge or infringe or to authorize the abrogation, abridgment or infringement of any of the rights or freedoms herein recognized and declared…”, when there is no notwithstanding clause in the Income Tax Act of Canada? [emphasis in original]

[14] In short, yes, a natural person, acting in their own private capacity for their own private benefit, is directly included within the definition of the word “person” at subsection 248(1) of the Act. This conclusion is not in contradiction with the Canadian Bill of Rights, S.C. 1960, c. 44 (the Bill of Rights) despite the absence of a notwithstanding clause or declaration within the Act because there is no evidence that this act deprives an “individual”, to whom the Bill of Rights applies, of his or her right to the enjoyment of property without due process of law.

[15] Further, the respondent’s attempts to distinguish the case law which has, in the view of the Court, already fully canvassed this issue must fail. With regards to Kennedy, Justice Sedwick fundamentally decided that “natural persons” are not excluded from the ambit of the Act. The distinction that the Respondent attempts to draw in the present case is a futile one. The difference in the argument presented by Mr. Kennedy in the above-mentioned case in comparison to the one presented by the respondent here is that the respondent attempts to convince the Court of the existence of two separate persons within the same body, one subject to the Act (characterised here as the “Respondent” or the “taxpayer”) and another exempt (characterised here as the “Witness” or the “natural person” or “natural person acting for his own benefit”).

[16] In ruling that Mr. Kennedy was not exempt from the application of the Act, Justice Sedwick specifically decided that “natural persons” were directly included in the definition of the term “person” contained at subsection 248(1) of the Act. Thus, the distinction advanced by the respondent is immaterial. As will be further explained below, he does not have two distinct capacities. Further, Justice Sedwick’s determination that natural persons are included within the definition of the term “person” contained at subsection 248(1) of the Act is determinative of the argument put forward by the respondent that “Cory Stanchfield, in his capacity as a natural person (the Witness)” cannot be subject to the provisions of the Act. In light of Kennedy, this argument must fail.


Cory said that Judge Gibson decided against him in the last case because of Cory's own error in clearly explaining to the judge exactly who he was dealing with;

[19] Finally, the attempt by the respondent to convince this Court that a distinction can be made between the present case and the findings of Justice Gibson in M.N.R. v. Stanchfield, above, is equally without merit. This argument hinges on what the respondent says was his own error as to what capacity he was before Justice Gibson. This argument inevitably fails because there is no such question as to capacity. One cannot be in error as to which capacity one is before a Court of law when one has but one single capacity. As Justice de Montigny held in his decision on the application for Mr. Stanchfield to be found in contempt, M.N.R. v. Stanchfield, above, accepting such an argument would be tantamount to accepting that Mr. Stanchfield has the ability to choose “in what capacity he acts; this is obviously an untenable proposition, and one that runs afoul of any tenable interpretation of the Act.” (para. 27). While the act which Justice de Montigny references here is the Excise Tax Act, above, this comment readily applies to the Act which is at issue here.

[22] The term “natural person” is but a term, among others, that is descriptive of a tangible reality, described in a more tangible fashion by the term “human being”. The Dictionary of Canadian Law[3] defines the term “natural person” with nothing more than the words “a human being”. Indeed, nothing more is required to adequately define the notion. As accurately characterised by Justice Dysart in Hague, a person can be either natural or legal. When a person is natural, it is a human being. Therefore, every human being is a natural person.

[23] When one uses simply the term “person”, one necessarily includes the notion of the human being, as it is the very essence of the reality represented by this term. This explains why, in the Act, subsection 248(1) does not specifically mention the term “human being” in its definition of the term “person”. This is not necessary given that, as explained by professors Duff, Alarie, Brooks and Philipps in Canadian Income Tax Law[4], “this definition merely expands on the ordinary meaning of the word “person”” (emphasis added). This is entirely consistent with the approach of the British Columbia Court of Appeal in Lindsay (see above at para. 10). There is thus absolutely no doubt that a natural person is directly included within the definition of the word “person” at subsection 248(1) of the Act.

[24] The question submitted to the Court by the respondent contains a qualification to the term “natural person”, in that it asks not only if the definition of “person” within the Act includes “natural persons” per say but rather natural persons, “acting in their own private capacity for their own private benefit”. Thus the question which at the hearing the respondent qualified as being the fundamental underpinning of this case, that is the question of capacity. Fundamentally, each individual human being, or natural person, has a legal capacity. As the Black’s Law Dictionary[5] makes clear, an “individual” is something which is “[e]xisting as an indivisible entity” (emphasis added). Cory Stanchfield, the human being or natural person before this Court, is an individual whose entity is indivisible. He has a legal capacity but it too is indivisible. He may act in other capacities than that of his individual capacity but only in such capacities which are recognised by law.


With the deck so obviously loaded against him Cory had no chance of getting a fair trial in front of a judge who had a true understanding of 'nail bangin'' Porisky's interpretive genius.

[31] That said, has Cory Stanchfield complied with the terms of the RFI sent to him by the Minister on February 19, 2008? In light of the evidence presented to the Court by Mr. Stanchfield (see above at para. 4), it is abundantly clear that he has not. This evidence contains blatant discrepancies with the information provided to the Minister in response to the RFI. The Court is satisfied that the respondent was required under section 231.2 of the Act to provide the information requested in the RFI and that he did not fully comply with this requirement. The Court is equally satisfied that the information requested is not protected by solicitor-client privilege. The Court will thus issue the compliance order requested by the Minister, pursuant to section 231.7 of the Act.


As a result of whatever they got from the above court order, from Russell Porisky's computer, and other sources, in 2012 the Crown charged Stanchfield with six charges of tax evasion and counseling fraud. He was scheduled for a Preliminary Inquiry next week, on February 24th. This was because the Crown had chosen to proceed by Indictment through the Supreme Court of British Columbia rather than through the Provincial Court. A trial in Canada can either be conducted in Provincial Courts or Superior Courts (for example BCSC, ABQB, Ontario Superior Court of Justice). When a trial is conducted in a Provincial Court the sentence penalties are less than at a Superior Court. There are some nuances but that's the basics.

In a Provincial Court trial the process is:
-Crown files an information in Provincial Court starting the process
-there is disclosure and other preliminary matters
-trial in Provincial Court
-if guilty, sentencing

In a Superior Court trial there is another intervening step:
-Crown files an information in Provincial Court starting the process
-there is disclosure and other preliminary matters
-preliminary inquiry in Provincial Court to establish if there is enough evidence to proceed to trial
-if the Crown establishes information so that it is possible to convict the accused, the matter is passed to the Superior Court
-Superior Court may have more preliminary matters
-trial in the Superior Court
-if guilty, sentencing

Dean Clifford's trial has been going on the latter path. The preliminary inquiry evidence threshold is low. The Crown does not have to show all its evidence, just enough to establish there is a possibility of a conviction. The defence has no obligation to call evidence (and they almost never do), but they are allowed to cross-examine the Crown's witnesses. The preliminary inquiry judge is not supposed to balance whether or not he believes Crown evidence, just that it's there. The preliminary inquiry is not quite a pure formality, but it's close.

So I was all set to sit through a dreary preliminary inquiry when it was cancelled and a Chambers session called for yesterday afternoon. As I've said before, most recently in my posting about Menard's hearing, this is just a procedural housekeeping session. However I had no idea what needed to be resolved with Stanchfield so I headed over.

First time I'd seen Stanchfield. Unique to my experience with Poriskyites he came with legal representation. His lawyer seemed on very relaxed terms with Crown Counsel, sort of a "how was the vacation" "Isn't Spain great?" kind of vibe. If they were in an adversarial relationship I failed to see it. The reason became clear immediately, they'd already cut a deal, hammered out a plea bargain, and were just in court to ratify it. Crown Counsel informed the Court that the Preliminary inquiry had been cancelled and that Cory had agreed to plead guilty to two of the six charges in the Information. He pled guilty to charges 4 and 6 and the Crown was dropping charges 1, 2, 3 and 5. Cory's lawyer confirmed this and the judge asked Cory if he agreed. Yes your honour. They arranged for another court hearing about six weeks forward for sentencing and that was it. It turned out that the hearing is May 14th. A fraught anniversary for Burnaby49! That was the day I staggered home from hospital after smashing all those ribs last year.

I have a copy of the Information so I can relate the details of the deal. Since I'm typing it out I'll just give a brief description of the charges dropped and a full description of the charges to which he pled guilty.

Charges dropped

Count 1 - Did make or participate in the making of false statements in his 2003 Income Tax return by failing to report $9,030 in income.

Count 2 - Did make or participate in the making of false statements in his 2004 Income Tax return by failing to report $40,623 in income.

Count 3 - Did make or participate in the making of false statements in his 2005 Income Tax return by failing to report $75,108 in income.

Count 5 - Evaded or attempted to evade compliance with the Excise Tax Act or payments to the Goods and Services Tax by failing to remit tax of $12,993 on goods and services sold.

What this means is that Cory did not remit the GST tax applicable on the income he got by counseling tax Fraud. The CRA wants their money regardless of how you make it!

Charges admitted

Count 4 - Richard Cory Stanchfield, of the City of Victoria, Province of British Columbia, between December 31, 2002 and August 25, 2010, did wilfully evade or attempt to evade compliance with the Income Tax Act or payment of taxes imposed by the said Act, by failing to report his taxable income in the Amount of $224,048 for the 2003 to 2008 taxation years inclusive, and did thereby evade the payment of taxes in the amount of $31,012, committing an offense contrary to paragraph 239(1)(d) of the said Act.

Count 6 - Richard Cory Stanchfield, at or near the City of Victoria, Province of British Columbia and elsewhere, between December 31, 2001 and August 26, 2010, did counsel various persons to commit the indictable offense of fraud in excess of five thousand dollars, contrary to section 380 of the Criminal Code, and did thereby commit an offesne contrary to section 464(a) of the Criminal Code.

I have no insight into Cory's mind and why he made a deal but it is possible he gave a hard objective assessment of his chances based on the fates of the other Poriskyites who had gone to trial before him. All the ones I could find are in the discussions indexed in this posting;

viewtopic.php?f=50&t=10250

All of the Porisky participants who went to trial were found guilty and all of the Poriskyites charged with counseling tax evasion went to jail. Our own Quatloos contributor fussygus first came to our attention because he was one of three individuals charged with tax evasion and conspiracy to commit tax evasion. They used Porisky's teachings as the basis for doing this. Fussygus was slated for trial with the other two defendants but he decided to plead guilty before trial and was fined but had no jail sentence was imposed. His two co-defendants had their trial and both got jail terms. Perhaps Cory learned from that.

Note - I've edited this posting because I originally had this as the final paragraph;

All of the Porisky participants who went to trial were found guilty and all of the Poriskyites charged with counseling tax evasion went to jail. However there was one man who counseled but evaded jail, our own Quatloos contributor fussygus! He was slated for trial with two other fraud counselors. He decided to plead guilty before trial and was fined but no jail sentence was imposed. His two co-defendants had their trial and both got jail terms. Perhaps Cory learned from that.


It didn't seem right about the counseling comment so I went back to our discussion on fussygus and checked. Nothing about Carl being charged with counseling there. Since his decision was unreported I figured the best way to clear up my confusion was to ask Carl himself. This was his reply;

We were charged with tax evasion and conspiracy to commit tax evasion along with business. I plead to tax evasion and they stayed conspiracy charge against me. Corp made deal and plead to the conspiracy charge. The other two were found guilty of both. There was no counseling charge and shouldn't have been as we never counseled anyone but ourselves.
hope that clears things up.


So My mistake, sorry Carl!
"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
grixit
Recycler of Paytriot Fantasies
Posts: 3494
Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2003 7:02 am
Contact:

Re: Richard Stanchfield - A Poriskyite tax evader cops a ple

Postby grixit » Sun Feb 22, 2015 8:51 pm

They let him recycle the doppleganger claim 3 times before getting serious. That's a victory of sorts: he got to put off the reckoning and consume court resources.

I hope in the future, courts will cut to the chase by citing the full list of rulings in this case.
I voted for Hillary, and i didn't even get a stupid tshirt!

10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
. . . . . . Dr Pepper
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . 4

Burnaby49
Quatloosian Ambassador to the CaliCanadians
Quatloosian Ambassador to the CaliCanadians
Posts: 5625
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 3:45 am
Location: The Evergreen Playground

Re: Richard Stanchfield - A Poriskyite tax evader cops a ple

Postby Burnaby49 » Mon Feb 23, 2015 6:21 am

A mea culpa to fussygus. In the final paragraph of the first posting on this discussion I originally said that Carl Gustafson, known to Quatloosians as our poster fussygus, had been charged with counseling tax evasion but this charge was dropped when he made a plea bargain. This was a mistake on my part, he had actually been charged with conspiracy to commit tax evasion and this was the charge that was dropped. He was never charged with counseling. I've revised the first posting to reflect this with an apology to Carl for my blunder.
"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: 5625
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 3:45 am
Location: The Evergreen Playground

Re: Richard Stanchfield - A Poriskyite tax evader cops a ple

Postby Burnaby49 » Fri May 15, 2015 3:25 am

I said in my post of February 22nd;

First time I'd seen Stanchfield. Unique to my experience with Poriskyites he came with legal representation. His lawyer seemed on very relaxed terms with Crown Counsel, sort of a "how was the vacation" "Isn't Spain great?" kind of vibe. If they were in an adversarial relationship I failed to see it. The reason became clear immediately, they'd already cut a deal, hammered out a plea bargain, and were just in court to ratify it. Crown Counsel informed the Court that the Preliminary inquiry had been cancelled and that Cory had agreed to plead guilty to two of the six charges in the Information. He pled guilty to charges 4 and 6 and the Crown was dropping charges 1, 2, 3 and 5. Cory's lawyer confirmed this and the judge asked Cory if he agreed. Yes your honour. They arranged for another court hearing about six weeks forward for sentencing and that was it. It turned out that the hearing is May 14th.


Well the deal may torpedoed yet. I attended Stanchfield's sentencing hearing today only to find that he was requesting an adjournment. Seems that Stanchfield's lawyer had dumped him and he was having trouble getting another. So he asked for a month's adjournment to find a new lawyer. Next hearing scheduled for June 25. I won't be there, off pubbing in Oregon.

The interesting unstated point was why Stanchfield's lawyer dropped him as a client. He seemed to be fully on board on February 22nd and was on top of the plea bargain arrangements. Today should just have been just a wrap-up. And why is a full month required to get another lawyer and bring him up to speed on an already agreed plea bargain? I suspect Stanchfield is having second thoughts and when he told his lawyer he wanted to go full Poriskyite at the sentencing hearing the lawyer bailed. So perhaps Stanchfield is planning to try and change his plea.

Not, in my opinion, a good idea. No Poriskyite has ever won at trial. The only one who had any victory at all was Porisky himself who is heading for a retrial because his first trial decision was quashed on a technicality. The Poriskyites who pled guilty and saved the cost of a trial were convicted but not given jail time. However every Poriskyite charged with counseling and who demanded a trial (Stanchfield pled guilty to counseling in the plea agreement) ended up with significant jail time. So, as I see it, Stanchfield has no hope of winning at trial and is guaranteeing himself jail time if he changes the guilty plea. It was the best deal he is going to get. I'll keep you informed.

Speaking of Porisky he and his wife are facing voir dires (jury selection) on June 15-19. I'll be there but hopefully it won't take the full week. I'm off on my Oregon jaunt on the 19th.
"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: 5625
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 3:45 am
Location: The Evergreen Playground

Re: Richard Stanchfield - A Poriskyite tax evader cops a plea

Postby Burnaby49 » Thu Nov 26, 2015 6:36 am

Another Poriskyite bites the dust. I attended Stanchfield's sentencing hearing on November 23. Winter is coming, the courtroom was a cacophony of sneezing and coughing. Both Stanchfield and the crown counsel contributed their share. Apart from a few people in court on other issues the onlookers were myself, a CRA employee working for Investigations (the area that went after Stanchfield) and Arthur Doerksen and his wife. I've not previously discussed Doerksen. He's a Poriskyite currently on trial for income tax evasion. I attended about two weeks of his hearing this summer but have not yet written it up because trial is still in progress.

Before our boy came on we sat through a small claims squabble. One party, an individual had already won and got a court order requiring the other party, a corporation, to pay. They'd given the winner a cheque for the whole court ordered amount but he hadn't cashed it because he wanted more. A fee for a summons he had delivered, payment for his time in fighting it, gas and car expenses, compensation for the inconvenience of having to come to Vancouver from a town in the interior to fight the case. Bunch of other small stuff. Their case was to be heard the next day but loser was in court today to get the whole thing shut down and tomorrow's hearing cancelled because they'd already fully met prior court order. Winner seemed to be motivated by righteous indignation as much as money. Judge had to keep telling him to stop when he rambled on about the hardship and inconvenience this had all caused him. When he went over the top about the waste of government money on unnecessary court time, the amount the other side was spending on a lawyer to fight his fair and reasonable claim, and how this was all bringing justice into disrepute the judge told him he'd said enough. In the end the judge told loser he'd have to have the hearing tomorrow unless they came to some settlement today. Lawyer said he didn't think it was possible so judge suggested they go outside and give it a shot anyhow while he proceeded to the next case. So it was our turn.

I'd noted that in a prior post that Stanchfield had shed his lawyer. Well he's acquired a new one. He'd pled guilty to income tax evasion and counseling income tax evasion as part of a plea bargain and today was the last step, sentencing. The Crown and defense put in a joint Statement of Facts and the Crown was to make recommendations as to the sentence. Stanchfield looked pretty slovenly for court. Old T-shirt, jeans, significantly overweight. He's 44 but looks at least half a decade older to me.

The Crown and defense submitted a Joint Statement of Facts, shown here;

http://www.mediafire.com/view/bbbo06r25b6w218/Stanchfield_-_sentencing_agreed_facts.pdf

One thing in this might be confusing to readers.

30. Mr. Stanchfield's tax returns for the years 2000-2008 have been assessed or reassessed by the CRA resulting in adjustments to his taxable income. Those adjustments effect his civil tax liability and the amounts differ from the amounts charged on Information 866-1. As of April 20, 2015, he has a disputed civil tax debt in the amount of $757,265.89, which includes $118,934.87 in accrued interest.


However the parties agreed in the statement to a fine of $31,012 which is 100% of the income tax evaded. So why only $32,012? The taxes evaded relate only to his income as a Poriskyite Paradigm counselor, not money he earned in other work. He still owes the tax on this too. He stated in the hearing that he worked in heavy equipment so it might come from whatever he did with that, I have no idea how he amassed such a huge tax bill. If it is accurate he doesn't seem to have held on to much of the money. It seems common ground between the two lawyers that he's dead broke. You'll get and example when they discuss a payment schedule for the fine. Also, at one point, they were talking about a hard-wired home phone so that authorities could verify he was staying home as required under the conditional sentence rather than answering via a cell at some other location. His lawyer said he could not afford a home phone and crown counsel seemed to agree.

After the Joint Statement of Facts was submitted the judge said that according to the statement Stanchfield no longer believed in the double or split personality argument. He now believed there is no difference between natural person, private person or any other type of person. Judge asked Stanchfield if he had any questions about the joint statement of facts. Nope. Then judge asked Stanchfield's lawyer if his client understood all of the terms and ramifications. Yes your honour.

Crown counsel got first shot at recommending terms of sentencing. No merit in his claim to be a tax protester. Since he made guilty plea specific deterrence not an issue. Crown recommended house arrest, a conditional sentence order is appropriate. Crown had researched all of the Poriskyite convictions and said that for counseling Porisky's Paradigm tax evasion scheme jail terms of six months to three years have been imposed.

A note here. As I understand it a conditional sentence is equivalent to serving jail time but in your own home. The court, through a conditional sentence order, imposes the rules which the convicted individual must follow during the term of the order. If they are breached the rest of the term is served in an actual jail. Allowed out in normal daytime for things specifically allowed in the order like work, groceries. Not allowed out at all at night apart from emergencies. This is called curfew time.

Crown suggested that Stanchfield get a 12 hour curfew lasting entire time of conditional sentence and 80 hours community service. No more than two adult visitors at any time and 14 month term of conditional sentence. Also a fine of $31,012 which was 100% of taxes evaded. Exceptions to house arrest to look for work (Stanchfield unemployed) but must be approved.

Defense's turn. A lot of back history. Stanchfield likes walking, hiking, chess, education stopped with high school apart from some religious schools he attended with apparently no degrees. Has some heavy equipment experience. Although he is open to working in the heavy equipment area he wants to find a job in biblical studies.

Lawyer laid out what he thought were mitigating factors on sentencing. Very early guilty plea which saved court resources. Willing to make reparation to CRA. Stanchfield had done ample research on Porisky scheme and had held a firm belief that it was a law-abiding interpretation of the Income Tax Act. Now agrees that it is wrong but he thought it legitimate at the time. Lawyer thought 80 hours community service way too much. He said it was double-dipping if Stanchfield had to pay the $31,012 fine to the CRA. Also "saddling" him with all that community service impaired his ability to find work so lawyer recommended only 20 hours. Judge asked when Stanchfield entered guilty plea. Last February. "And he hasn't found gainful employment in all that time?" No.

So a thought I had. If Stanchfield hasn't found work in nine months the issue of double-dipping seems purely theoretical since he has plenty of time to serve it. Same with the community service impairing his ability to find work. It should also be noted that he is not being punished twice for the same offence. The fine relates to the evasion charge and the 80 hours of work service related to the counselling charge so he is being punished for two entirely different offences.

On to curfew. Lawyer recommended 11PM to 7AM Stanchfield is an avid churchgoer and he attends bible study groups in the evening. Making a twelve hour curfew would violate his religious beliefs because he could not attend since he wouldn't have time to get home within the curfew limit.

The Crown's submission allowed Stanchfield to leave home for "necessities". Groceries given as an example. Lawyer wanted that expanded because it indicated that he would actually have to buy something if he went out to buy something. Stanchfield wants to be allowed to go out for undefined "errands" without any requirement he be looking to buy necessities. Judge cut in "I'm not changing it". The Stanchfield had a few seconds chat with lawyer and lawyer advised court Stanchfield wanted an exemption to the house arrest to allow him to go out and exercise when he wanted. Judge said he could exercise at home watching videos.

He also wanted the two adult visitor requirement expanded to at least four adults so he could hold bible study groups at home. Judge said that he's in jail. He can skip home bible studies.

Then on to verification that he's meeting terms of conditional sentencing. Crown had asked that "public officials" be allowed to phone and visit at random. All Stanchfield had to do was answer phone or stand in doorway to ensure that he was home. Lawyer wanted public officials taken out because that would include Canada Revenue Agency staff. Crown counsel confirmed that CRA employees count as public officials. Turns out that I spent 35 years as a public official and didn't know it. Lawyer wanted the order to read just police officer or bail supervisor, no CRA. So judge asked "Why can't the CRA pick up the phone and call him?" Because Stanchfield wouldn't be "comfortable" talking to the CRA. "I don't care if he's comfortable". So lawyer asked if he could use voice-mail to take phone calls. No, he has to answer calls personally to prove he's in.

Crown also wanted to seize all of Stanchfield's Paradigm material.

Judge asked Stanchfield if he wanted to address the court. Sorry, bad choices, regret fully, won't happen again. Judge said that, given the work done on the joint submission, he could proceed with a decision right now.

Judge said that while he was free to impose whatever sentence he wanted, the Crown's suggestion being just guidance, he felt it appropriate to agree with the joint submission apart from a few modifications. The court is has the responsibility to ensure that the sentence imposed is fitting and does not bring the justice into disrepute. Within these guidelines the court felt that the recommended sentence was fit and appropriate and deferred to counsel.

First the usual boilerplate how the income tax act is based on trust and self-reporting and how failing to pay taxes "is not trite" because other taxpayers who actually pay, like me, have to cover the costs of the taxes evaded. So on to aggravating and mitigating factors. Aggravating - duration of time as a Paradigm counselor (2003-2008), mitigating - guilty plea avoided cost of lengthy trial and evidence that he has some degree of rehabilitation by disavowing Paradigm beliefs. So proposed sentencing fit.

Judge agreed with fine of $31,012 (he could have made it double that) with payments of $200 per month starting April 1, 2016. If he has trouble paying as per schedule come back to court about changing it.

Conditional sentence of 14 months. Stanchfield has to tell supervisor his phone numbers, home address, place of work (if any, theoretical at this point). He has to seek employment and give supervisor list of job searches and if he gets job give proof to supervisor. No alcohol or drugs except doctor's prescriptions.

Then a huge list, read out too fast for me to catch, of people he was forbidden to have any contact with. The ones I caught were Poriskyites so I assume that they all are. The few I caught were Porisky himself and his wife Elaine Gould, Debbie Anderson, and I believe Jerry McCaw and Gerald Blerot. They can all be checked out here;

http://www.quatloos.com/Q-Forum/viewtopic.php?f=50&t=10250

Since Arthur Doerksen was in court I focused on whether he was on the list. He wasn't. I'll guess two reasons for the omission. First while he is currently on trial he has not been convicted. Second guess is his connection with Stanchfield is through his church. Doerksen's trial brought out that he had donated over $60,000 to his church during the period when he is charged with tax evasion. Stanchfield professes to be a regular churchgoer. They both come from up in the Fraser Valley, an area to the east of greater Vancouver. So I'm assuming that they could be part of the same church and might be connected to the Porisky scheme through it. Porisky also lives in the Fraser and gave many seminars there, some, I believe, in church basements. As the Joint Statement of Facts said about Stanchfield;

19. Mr. Stanchfield counseled individuals over the telephone and held seminars in Victoria, Calgary and Edmonton. Seminars were often held in boardrooms or conferences centres. Mr. Stanchfield also made use of church meeting space to teach the Paradigm scheme.


Next point was community service. Judge went with the 80 hours. He said if there was any problems Stanchfield could come back to court with an application.

Curfew 11PM to-7Am seven days a week. No leaving residence except for emergencies. He must stay in his home continually for the first nine months with the following exceptions. To and from work, community service, attending court, religious observation (specifically 10:30 to 1:30 Sundays), meeting supervisor. Any routine medical treatment, dental mentioned, requires supervisor's permission. He can go out for groceries or other necessities 1PM to 5PM Tuesdays. Maximum of two adult visitors at any time. He has to present himself at the doorway of his residence to any correction supervisor or peace officer who checks up on him. He must answer any phone calls so officers can verify compliance. He must carry a copy of his conditional sentencing order on him at all times when he is out of the house.

With that we were done and the judge called up the small claims guys who had returned and seemed to have come to some kind of deal which had been impossible just an hour ago. Apparently miracles happen. I didn't stay to find out the results.
"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

Jeffrey
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 2513
Joined: Tue Aug 20, 2013 2:16 am

Re: Richard Stanchfield - A Poriskyite tax evader cops a plea

Postby Jeffrey » Thu Nov 26, 2015 10:11 am

Sweet mama jama, so he had to be pulling in about $275,000 a year to rack up that tax bill? That places him in the top 1% in terms of income groups in Canada.

Burnaby49
Quatloosian Ambassador to the CaliCanadians
Quatloosian Ambassador to the CaliCanadians
Posts: 5625
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 3:45 am
Location: The Evergreen Playground

Re: Richard Stanchfield - A Poriskyite tax evader cops a plea

Postby Burnaby49 » Thu Nov 26, 2015 7:03 pm

Jeffrey wrote:Sweet mama jama, so he had to be pulling in about $275,000 a year to rack up that tax bill? That places him in the top 1% in terms of income groups in Canada.


The only clue to his earnings I can find is in paragraph five of the Joint Statement;

5. During the offence period, Mr. Stanchfield was unemployed and made his living "day trading" in the stock market and through his work as an educator with Russell Porisky's Paradigm Education Group ("Paradigm").

Mr. Stanchfield is currently seeking employment.


His day trading was also brought up at trial but I ignored it on the assumption that he couldn't have made money at it. Vegas gambling is a sure thing compared to the average day trader. But maybe he beat the odds. There only sources of Stanchfield's income in the past decade that were mentioned in the Joint Statement or at trial were day trading and Paradigm counseling. Had the CRA assessed him on $638,000 from some other source I have to assume it would have been noted in the Joint Statement.

If he made that much money it seems to be gone. If Crown agreed to a payment schedule of $200 a month to cover a $31,000 fine I can't believe that he has any available funds.
"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

Hyrion
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 615
Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2014 2:33 pm

Re: Richard Stanchfield - A Poriskyite tax evader cops a plea

Postby Hyrion » Thu Nov 26, 2015 7:54 pm

Burnaby49 wrote:a payment schedule of $200 a month to cover a $31,000 fine

12 years, 11 months to pay for a fine - with what appears to be an outstanding tax debt still looming.

If that's not a wake up call with regards the theory he bought into - I doubt anything will be.

Jeffrey
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 2513
Joined: Tue Aug 20, 2013 2:16 am

Re: Richard Stanchfield - A Poriskyite tax evader cops a plea

Postby Jeffrey » Fri Nov 27, 2015 6:29 am

Yeah but if you know the Tax Bill was X, you can use the tax rate to figure out what the income should have been. Comes out to $275,000 a year based on my numbers.

User avatar
notorial dissent
A Balthazar of Quatloosian Truth
Posts: 10619
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 8:17 pm

Re: Richard Stanchfield - A Poriskyite tax evader cops a plea

Postby notorial dissent » Fri Nov 27, 2015 7:04 am

I agree, if he made that kind of money day trading why was he messing around with Porisky? That makes no sense at all. In all the years I worked brokerage I only knew four people who claimed to be day traders, one really did and apparently made good money and was a "pet" of the team who handled him, one claimed to be, but I never saw any evidence of it, and one who I know did, and sometimes did well and other times not so much. Our brokers considered most of them just good revenue for the company since most of them only broke even, if they were lucky. Generally, if someone says day trader to me I just automatically assume unemployed.

Would be interesting to know where this guy really did get his money from.
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.


Return to “Canada”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest