Russell Anthony Porisky - Poriskyite Extraordinaire!

Moderator: Burnaby49

Burnaby49
Quatloosian Ambassador to the CaliCanadians
Quatloosian Ambassador to the CaliCanadians
Posts: 5800
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 3:45 am
Location: The Evergreen Playground

Russell Anthony Porisky - Poriskyite Extraordinaire!

Postby Burnaby49 » Sat Mar 07, 2015 7:39 am

This discussion might be unnecessary. It is certainly to some extent redundant, but we've never honoured Russ with his own dedicated discussion thread. He's mentioned in other threads and his name has come up time and time again but the man himself has been fragmented across numerous postings. This just isn't right, the entire Poriskyite movement, with it's seemingly endless succession of criminal tax evasion convictions, owes its entire existence to this one man, our own humble "nail bangin" carpenter. I initially only joined Quatloos to post about the conviction of a Porisky acolyte and ended up staying. So Russell can be blamed for inflicting me on you. And he's a local boy to boot. The pride of Chilliwack!

My main purpose, apart from a handy one stop reference for the main events in our guru's life, is to record his upcoming tax evasion trial. As avid Porisky followers know Russ and his wife, Elaine Gould, were convicted of tax evasion in 2012.

R. v. Porisky & Gould, 2012 BCSC 67
http://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/20 ... csc67.html

It was a bit awkward since the master has used his own methods as his defense in court. However he soon got the convictions quashed on a technicality totally unrelated to the merits of his case or arguments and a new trial ordered. That trial is scheduled for June 15-July 24, 2015 (yes over a month for a fairly simple tax evasion case) and I intend to be there for at least part of it. Not the whole thing. Crown counsel is paid to sit through all of that but I'm on my own time. Crown has my sympathy. I'll report on it here.

To get started here are the transcripts from his very first tax trial, back in 1999. Failing to file tax returns. He was employing his "I'm not me" dual personality defense routine even then:

The Court - You're Mr. Porisky? Come forward sir.

The Accused - I have a question to ask which person the Crown is calling forward.

The Court - Let me just ask you this. Do you intend to plead guilty or not guilty?

The Accused - Well, the question is whether the Crown is calling the natural person or the artificial entity because I have some discrepancies in my - - - all my paperwork here. Could - - -

Mr' Sperling - I'm calling Russell Anthony Porisky Information 40082-01, listed as number 97, Your Honour.

The Accused - Yeah, is that the natural person or the artificial entity 'cause there's a discrepancy in all my - -


http://www.mediafire.com/view/zz8928b82 ... _1999-2000).pdf

He actually got off of this one. Absolutely nothing to do with how he presented his case. He was charged with not filing his 1994 to 1997 income tax returns but the judge wasn't convince that the Crown had done a thorough enough search to prove he hadn't filed. The CRA had checked the records in the Vancouver and Burnaby-Fraser tax offices, the two possible offices where somebody like Russ, who lived in Chilliwack B. C., would be assumed to have filed his returns. But judge said they hadn't checked every tax office in Canada. Who knows, a local Vancouver area carpenter might have flown to Montreal or Halifax, filed there, and flown home. It's possible! So Russ was acquitted. I assume this only encouraged him.

I'll be adding to this post from time to time just to fill in a bit of a history so readers interested in Porisky can use this as a starting point.
"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

Arthur Rubin
Tupa-O-Quatloosia
Posts: 1456
Joined: Fri May 30, 2003 12:02 am
Location: Brea, CA

Re: Russell Anthony Porisky - Poriskyite Extraordinaire!

Postby Arthur Rubin » Wed Mar 11, 2015 12:27 am

Burnaby49 wrote:He actually got off of this one. Absolutely nothing to do with how he presented his case. He was charged with not filing his 1994 to 1997 income tax returns but the judge wasn't convince that the Crown had done a thorough enough search to prove he hadn't filed. The CRA had checked the records in the Vancouver and Burnaby-Fraser tax offices, the two possible offices where somebody like Russ, who lived in Chilliwack B. C., would be assumed to have filed his returns. But judge said they hadn't checked every tax office in Canada. Who knows, a local Vancouver area carpenter might have flown to Montreal or Halifax, filed there, and flown home. It's possible! So Russ was acquitted. I assume this only encouraged him.
Odd. Are you trying to tell me there aren't central records at CRA, indexed by SIN? (OK, that might not be good enough, as, even if he were to "properly" (under the law) use his SIN, there's a chance that CRA might have misfiled it.) On the other hand, this judge's ruling suggests that it would be impossible to ever obtain a conviction for non-filing.
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: 5800
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 3:45 am
Location: The Evergreen Playground

Re: Russell Anthony Porisky - Poriskyite Extraordinaire!

Postby Burnaby49 » Wed Mar 11, 2015 12:35 am

Arthur Rubin wrote:
Burnaby49 wrote:He actually got off of this one. Absolutely nothing to do with how he presented his case. He was charged with not filing his 1994 to 1997 income tax returns but the judge wasn't convince that the Crown had done a thorough enough search to prove he hadn't filed. The CRA had checked the records in the Vancouver and Burnaby-Fraser tax offices, the two possible offices where somebody like Russ, who lived in Chilliwack B. C., would be assumed to have filed his returns. But judge said they hadn't checked every tax office in Canada. Who knows, a local Vancouver area carpenter might have flown to Montreal or Halifax, filed there, and flown home. It's possible! So Russ was acquitted. I assume this only encouraged him.


Odd. Are you trying to tell me there aren't central records at CRA, indexed by SIN? (OK, that might not be good enough, as, even if he were to "properly" (under the law) use his SIN, there's a chance that CRA might have misfiled it.) On the other hand, this judge's ruling suggests that it would be impossible to ever obtain a conviction for non-filing.


One search would do it now but I can't recall how things were back in 1999. That was aeons ago in internet time and the CRA was really slow about computerizing. I'm guessing we didn't have a national network at that time and you could only search by individual offices. Claiming a chance of misfiling wouldn't work. Filed returns are entered into the system when received so even if the CRA couldn't find a copy of a return in taxroll they would have a record of receiving it if it had been filed.
"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: 5800
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 3:45 am
Location: The Evergreen Playground

Re: Russell Anthony Porisky - Poriskyite Extraordinaire!

Postby Burnaby49 » Fri Apr 03, 2015 8:52 am

Trial has been deferred to January 2016.
"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: 5800
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 3:45 am
Location: The Evergreen Playground

Re: Russell Anthony Porisky - Poriskyite Extraordinaire!

Postby Burnaby49 » Fri Jun 19, 2015 12:41 am

I met Russell Porisky yesterday. THE MAN HIMSELF! Sorry, just a little giddy, not often that I meet a giant in the world of taxation. And by "met" I meant that I sat in the same room with him. Specifically Courtroom 73 of the Supreme Court of British Columbia where Russ and his wife, Elaine Gould, had a procedural issue to discuss with the judge. Well, discussed by proxy. Russ was self-represented in his last disastrous attempt to defend himself against tax evasion charges and this time the two defendants were separately represented by counsel. Russ and Elaine sat almost right behind me in the gallery. Apart from the three of us the only other attendees were the judge, Crown counsel, two defense counsels, court clerk and a sheriff.

The issue was the presentation of DVD evidence. As readers of my Porisky fan club bulletins are aware Russ was the creator and driving force behind Paradigm Education Group, formed 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. However what Paradigm really was, behind the high-minded verbosity, was a harebrained interpretation of the Income Tax Act which supposedly, through Porisky's masterly interpretation of the Act, allowed followers of the Paradigm scheme to avoid paying income tax. As I said in a prior posting;

While I won't go into detail (read it yourself if you are interested) his overriding point seems to be that Parliament has, for more than eighty years, failed to use clear and unequivocal words to directly include "natural person" in the definition of "person" in the Income Tax Act. This clearly means, to anyone with an IQ higher than that of a turnip, that natural persons were deliberately left out of the definition because Parliament had decided that natural persons are not taxable.

Seems pretty conclusive to me. Of course a devil's advocate might bring up the alternative view that it was not included because Porisky fabricated the whole natural person scam, along with inventing an entirely imaginary new category of "person", long after the definition of person was included in the act. Also it could be concluded, as the courts have had no problem doing, that the definition of person is all-encompassing so there is no such thing as a natural person to include or exclude for tax purposes. But I suppose that's just me nit-picking.


Paradigm turned into a cross Canada enterprise with what were essentially franchise seminars spreading the word nationally. Disaster ensued with huge numbers of Paradigm's customers charged, and convicted, of income tax evasion. Just check the list;

http://www.quatloos.com/Q-Forum/viewtopic.php?f=50&t=10250&p=184362&hilit=paradigm#p177937

With many more cases still in process. There are at least a half dozen here in Vancouver not counting Porisky and Gould. Porisky managed to extend his personal reach through DVD's and course publications, mainly the Paradigm Education Group training manuals. You can get your own copy of the manuals here;

http://www.quatloos.com/Q-Forum/viewtopic.php?f=50&t=10271

When the CRA searched Porisky's home they seized a large number of seminar and training DVDs prepared by Russ. The Crown intends to enter some of these DVD's and training manuals into evidence but there is a problem. They have over 100 hours of video footage from 37 sets of DVDs. The Crown does not want to enter all of it in evidence. They want to use excerpts from nine sets. The sets, unedited, have almost fifty hours of playing time and the Crown claims most of this is not probative. The Crown wants instead to boil this down to a relatively short video presentation for the jury. Russell Porisky's Greatest Hits! Defence objects to this, they want all or nothing. So we were all in court to get a judge's ruling on the issue. I'll just give the blow by blow account as I scrawled it down. Note that when I use "Porisky" the Crown was probably talking about both Porisky and Gould. I wasn't focusing on nuances.

Crown - Evidence seized through a warrant in September 2008. Over 100 hours of video which is real evidence and relevant. Crown does not intend to enter all of it as evidence (note - defence will have access to it and can, I presume, enter what they want). They plan to enter nine sets with 47.5 hours playing time in total but intend to show the jury only what they consider to be the most probative parts which are, in total, less than four hours. However defence wants entire DVD shown to jury if Crown shows any of a DVD. Crown said that all of the DVD's will be available to the jury for review in their deliberations. This is real evidence to show the nature and structure of Paradigm and evidence of Porisky and Gould's actions to counsel income tax evasion. The issue is court time. The trial was initially set for six week but is now down to four. This will be a tight schedule without having to show all of the DVDs.

So the Crown requested direction from the court. A case management issue. The judge has the power to limit the selection of evidence. There is no requirement known to the Crown that requires the Crown to present all seized evidence. The "entire statement" rule does not require the crown to present all of a statement.

Crown submits that the entirety of the 47.5 hours of video excessive and unnecessary. A lot of it is Porisky's legal interpretation and the jury should not listen to a lot of incorrect legal interpretation. It is the duty of the judge to instruct the jury on the law. If judge allows Crown's request the jury still has access to the full set of DVDs and the defence can expand on Crown's evidence if it feels that it is necessary.

In addition to the DVDs the Crown intends to enter Porisky's income tax returns, hundreds of pages of bank records, all of the Paradigm books. All of this, and DVDs, is real evidence to the acts committed, not a statement from the Crown. Crown does not object to defence having everything, just don't want to have it all presented at trial.

Defence - What Crown is requesting is contrary to the rules of evidence. There are four principles of law against Crown's position (note - not sure if I got them all, I don't have a 1-4 list). There is more than real evidence in the 37 sets of seized DVDs. There are exculpatory statements that go to mens rea since it shows that Porisky was really acting as a human rights educator not as a promoter of tax avoidance. If Crown wants to show some they should show all under the Entire Statement rule. Defence went through a bunch of cases as authority for their position.

There are portions of Porisky's statements that put the Crown's portions in context. They quoted some comments that Porisky made in his videos along the lines of "It's your responsibility to educate yourselves and make your own decisions. This is not financial advice, just my opinion. I'm not an accountant or lawyer. I'm a human rights educator." These are examples of context jury might find if they go through entire exhibit.

Then the defence gave what I thought was a rather bleak, negative view of the diligence of juries. Lawyer said that allowing the jury full access to the DVDs was irrelevant because they wouldn't watch them unless forced to. The jury is entitled but not required to review every exhibit so there is no way of knowing what the jury decides on unless they view all of the evidence.

Also said that the judge can't summarize evidence for the jury properly or instruct the jury unless the judge has also reviewed all of the evidence. So judge has a duty to watch all of it. All the defence wants is four to five hours a day for "a couple of weeks" to show the videos. Defence conceded that a lot of it is repetitious. Defence did not concede, as Crown had indicated, that they were willing to agree to the admission of all of the documents, at least at this point. So defence asked court for order that if Crown showed any of a video the jury had to watch all of it.

Crown got to rebut. Counsel said she was "shocked" that the defence stated that they don't know what to expect from the Crown. They had been told by the Crown that the same evidence would be entered that was entered at Porisky's first trial. Crown said that it was a "Red Herring" issue that everything must be shown.

Defence said that Porisky was unrepresented at his first trial. I assume that was to point out that at least some of the evidence might have had a rougher ride getting admitted if a lawyer had been representing him.

Judge said she would give an oral decision on Friday June 26th. I won't be there, I'll be at the Fishtail brewpub in Olympia Washington. However I'll find out what happened when I get back.

This ruling is critical for the jury if nobody else. If the Crown loses the jury will be forced to sit through two solid weeks of nothing but Russ yammering away, cruel and inhumane punishment if that term has any meaning. In my opinion not a good defence strategy. Cramming two full weeks of Porisky videos down the jury's throats could easily backfire. The jury just might resent being forced to spend all that time watching what even the defence admits is a highly repetitive one man show. This resentment might be reflected in the verdict.

If the judge decides in favour of the defence I'll be skipping those two weeks. I've seen plenty of his videos already. You Tube has piles of 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: 5800
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 3:45 am
Location: The Evergreen Playground

Re: Russell Anthony Porisky - Poriskyite Extraordinaire!

Postby Burnaby49 » Sun Jun 28, 2015 12:16 am

I did not attend the June 26th hearing but got a report from a friend who went in my place.

Justice Brown was not prepared to go with the Crown's proposal but found that there is no need to have the Jury sit through hours of video "probative of nothing." She suggested that "perhaps they play just 1 complete video to the Jury." She then asked that they (counsel) arrange another pre-trial conference to settle the details of this so that they can avoid wasting a week of jury time.

They will meet again in court on July 15 @9:30 AM.
"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: 5800
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 3:45 am
Location: The Evergreen Playground

Re: Russell Anthony Porisky - Poriskyite Extraordinaire!

Postby Burnaby49 » Thu Jul 16, 2015 3:23 am

I attended a very short Porisky/Gould hearing today. I said in my last posting that Justice Brown had decided in the last hearing;

She then asked that they (counsel) arrange another pre-trial conference to settle the details of this (the number of videos to show) so that they can avoid wasting a week of jury time.


Apparently the Crown and defense counsels could not come to an agreement so we had today's hearing to relate that dismal news to Justice Brown. Only one of the two defense lawyers showed up. Crown counsel told the judge that they'd had a couple of conversations trying to agree on the issue but she was not optimistic it would be resolved. However Crown and defense agreed that they could complete the trial within the allotted four week scheduled for it even if they showed all of the videos.

Justice Brown said she wanted to prevail on the parties to find a sensible solution. She didn't want to inflict two weeks of Porisky videos on the jury. She didn't mention herself but I'd bet she's not enthusiastic about sitting through them either. Counsel and Justice Brown agreed that they would try and a new hearing has been set for October 7th.

Jury selection is January 18th, 2016 and trial is scheduled to start January 25th.
"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: 5800
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 3:45 am
Location: The Evergreen Playground

Re: Russell Anthony Porisky - Poriskyite Extraordinaire!

Postby Burnaby49 » Fri Nov 27, 2015 10:16 pm

Porisky is unrepresented again. His lawyer withdrew at a court hearing today for "ethical reasons”. No idea what the reasons are. Perhaps Russ is insisting that the lawyer follow a defense strategy that he feels he cannot ethically argue. Porisky's wife, Elaine Gould is still represented by counsel.
"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
KickahaOta
Pirate Captain
Pirate Captain
Posts: 204
Joined: Tue Jul 02, 2013 8:45 pm

Re: Russell Anthony Porisky - Poriskyite Extraordinaire!

Postby KickahaOta » Sat Nov 28, 2015 2:07 am

Burnaby49 wrote:Porisky is unrepresented again. His lawyer withdrew at a court hearing today for "ethical reasons”. No idea what the reasons are. Perhaps Russ is insisting that the lawyer follow a defense strategy that he feels he cannot ethically argue. Porisky's wife, Elaine Gould is still represented by counsel.


'If I deal with this man any longer, I will simply have no choice but to punch him, and that would be profoundly unethical.'

Arthur Rubin
Tupa-O-Quatloosia
Posts: 1456
Joined: Fri May 30, 2003 12:02 am
Location: Brea, CA

Re: Russell Anthony Porisky - Poriskyite Extraordinaire!

Postby Arthur Rubin » Sat Nov 28, 2015 7:28 pm

KickahaOta wrote:
Burnaby49 wrote:Porisky is unrepresented again. His lawyer withdrew at a court hearing today for "ethical reasons”. No idea what the reasons are. Perhaps Russ is insisting that the lawyer follow a defense strategy that he feels he cannot ethically argue. Porisky's wife, Elaine Gould is still represented by counsel.


'If I deal with this man any longer, I will simply have no choice but to punch him, and that would be profoundly unethical.'
I'm not sure that would be unethical. In a MeTV promo, Matlock did it. (Admittedly, the client punched him first.)
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

User avatar
grixit
Recycler of Paytriot Fantasies
Posts: 3545
Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2003 7:02 am
Contact:

Re: Russell Anthony Porisky - Poriskyite Extraordinaire!

Postby grixit » Sat Nov 28, 2015 9:13 pm

The old Matlock? Or have they done a remake?
I voted for Hillary, and i didn't even get a stupid tshirt!

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

Arthur Rubin
Tupa-O-Quatloosia
Posts: 1456
Joined: Fri May 30, 2003 12:02 am
Location: Brea, CA

Re: Russell Anthony Porisky - Poriskyite Extraordinaire!

Postby Arthur Rubin » Sun Nov 29, 2015 2:08 am

grixit wrote:The old Matlock? Or have they done a remake?
The old Matlock. It's showing on MeTV at 10 am weekdays, at least in Eastern and Pacific time zones. I assume it's 9 am Central, and I have no idea what their offset is in the Mountain time zone.

See the video at http://www.metv.com/videos/mason-matloc ... eys-at-law for the clip I had in mind.
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: 5800
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 3:45 am
Location: The Evergreen Playground

Re: Russell Anthony Porisky - Poriskyite Extraordinaire!

Postby Burnaby49 » Mon Nov 30, 2015 8:29 am

Regarding Russ's lawyer quitting I'm guessing he did because Russ, deciding that he has nothing to lose, is going for broke, all flags flying, with his natural person argument. Since the lawyer couldn't ethically make this argument to the court he bailed. Given that all of the Poriskyites who have gone to trial have lost (including Russ) regardless of the defense they put up Russ may have conclude he will lose no matter what he does so he might as well give give his natural person theory one more try. Why not? Just a guess on my part but we'll see. One interesting point is that while Russ is now self-represented his wife, Elaine Gould, is hanging on to her lawyer. So her defense must be based on arguments a non-OPCA type lawyer feels comfortable with. Not a true believer after all?

Russ is clandestinely updating his one remaining website. He had two;

http://natural-person.ca/

and "naturalperson.com" which worked a few days ago but is now dead.

The latter was abandoned back in 2009 but Russ's natural-person.ca website is still up. And he's been updating it http://natural-person.ca/about.html. I think he's getting ready to try and get noticed again.Some new stuff such as this David Kevin Lindsay document that I've never seen before, dated Dec. 21, 2014 http://natural-person.ca/pdf/International_Law.pdf.

This is an interesting item. Lindsay is critiquing the new generation of Freeman gurus who are trying to get rid of their person/state authority by using international law. As usual, Lindsay is entirely correct that treaties have no effect in Canada,unless they have been implemented. He is also correct in his complaint that the UN is a problematic agency to supervise our activities because it has no appeal mechanism. Wonder where Dave was distributing this thing? Googling it didn't find anything.
"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: 5800
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 3:45 am
Location: The Evergreen Playground

Re: Russell Anthony Porisky - Poriskyite Extraordinaire!

Postby Burnaby49 » Fri Dec 11, 2015 2:55 am

Another day another Poriskyite court hearing. Actually the top dog himself, Russell Porisky. I'd had him slated on my kitchen calendar for a hearing a week from today and found out about this hearing just by chance. I thought I'd just screwed up and put the wrong day on the calendar. Not, in my life, an unlikely event. I once missed a flight to Florida even though I was at the airport at the right time. Problem was that I was there on the wrong day. My flight had left the day before. Anyhow I hadn't screwed up this time. A rush hearing to settle some matters before the hearing next week.

I said in a prior posting;

One interesting point is that while Russ is now self-represented his wife, Elaine Gould, is hanging on to her lawyer. So her defence must be based on arguments a non-OPCA type lawyer feels comfortable with. Not a true believer after all?


Well she's not hanging on any more. One reason for the hearing was that her lawyer either quit or was fired and today was when he requested the court's permission to withdraw as Gould's counsel. The other reason was Russ's request to get his, and by default, Gould's scheduled trial adjourned and extended.

The lawyer first with commendable efficiency. He was at the hearing when it started but gone and out the court within the first minute. "Ms. Gould has ended my retainer so I'm removed as counsel of record and excuse myself from the remainder of this trial". Judge approved and he scooted.

Gould, who had been sitting in the cheap seats with me then went up and joined Russ at the counsel table. Russ wanted to make an application to adjourn his trial, scheduled for January, to an unspecified later date to give him time to prepare. Since Porisky and Gould have a joint trial the judge advised Gould that if Russ got his request her trial would obviously be also rescheduled so she could challenge reschedule request if she wished. Gould said she would not oppose the application.

First a purely subjective comment from me on Russ's presentation style. Check him out on this You Tube video pulled at random. You can find dozens more just by typing "Porisky" in the You Tube search bar;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_pBbWA-2TX4&list=PLC6D355051E8F5FE1

Articulate, engaging, focused, decisive. A seasoned public speaker with hundreds of seminars in his resume. But he wasn't that way today. He seemed halting, uncertain, disorganized. Not the Russ of the videos. I think to some extent a bit of an act. He wanted an adjournment of his trial and he may have been, at least to some extent, trying to convince the court through his oral statement that he actually was being put at a disadvantage by the confusion and lack of preparation that he claimed justified his request.

So on to his request. An adjournment of the trial and a doubling of the trial time from for weeks to eight. He had a rambling claim of a Charter challenge about his right to a full defense. He's now a self-represented individual unfamiliar with court practices and procedures so it isn't fair to expect him to be efficient at trial. He complained about the 5,000 documents and over 100 hours of video in the 37 video sets filed as evidence by the Crown. He claimed only a "cursory" understanding of it all and he would need time, a lot of time, to review it all to find out what was in it. Also the Crown had filed, and given him, yet another pile of documents just his morning. He said that it wasn't his fault that his lawyer withdrew, it was unexpected and shocking. None of this was his fault. He needed the eight weeks because he didn't know how long it would take him to make a full defense. He might call witnesses at trial but at the moment he doesn't know who or how many.

He cited this case as support for his adjournment request;

R. v. Tortora, 2010 BCCA 547
http://canlii.ca/t/2dpv9

However this was very much a double-edged sword since he got a copy of the case from Crown counsel who planned to enter it as support their opposition to his motion. An ominous sign! Perhaps, since it was being entered in any case he was being proactive. What the case had that was relevant to today's hearing is a laundry list, prepared by the British Columbia Court of Appeals, of the factors a trial judge should consider when asked to grant an adjournment;

Refusal to grant an adjournment

[21] The main question on this appeal is whether the trial judge should have granted an adjournment of the trial to give Mr. Tortora time to retain counsel or apply for legal aid. An appellate court may review the trial judge’s exercise of discretion whether to adjourn a case if it is based on reasons not well-founded in law: R. v. Barrette, 1976 CanLII 180 (SCC), [1977] 2 S.C.R. 121 at 125.

[22] When determining whether to deny an adjournment to an unrepresented accused, I adopt as the appropriate test the following factors from R. v. Beals (1993), 1993 CanLII 5636 (NS CA), 126 N.S.R. (2d) 130 (C.A.) at para. 29:

1. The decision whether to grant or refuse a request for an adjournment because an accused is not represented by counsel in a criminal trial is a discretionary one but one that must be based on reasons well-founded in the law. ...

2. An accused has a constitutional right to a fair trial. Representation by counsel at trial is generally essential to a fair trial if an accused is charged with a serious offence and a complex trial can be anticipated. ...

3. The right to counsel at trial is not absolute ... there is no constitutional right to be represented by a state funded counsel at trial. ...

4. The right of an accused to retain counsel to represent the accused at trial must be exercised honestly and diligently so as not to delay a scheduled trial. ...

5. Each application for an adjournment on the ground that the accused will not have counsel at trial must be decided on its facts. Relevant facts to be taken into account by the trial judge are: (a) whether or not there have been prior adjournments due to the unavailability of counsel and the accused was warned well in advance of trial that the trial would be proceeding on the scheduled date with or without counsel. ... (b) the accused’s criminal record which reflects on the accused’s degree of familiarity with the criminal justice system and legal aid programmes ..., (c) whether the charge against the accused is simple or complex which fact impacts on the critical question whether or not the accused can get a fair trial without counsel ... (d) the public interest in the orderly and expeditious administration of justice....; (e) if the accused has been refused legal aid and when the refusal was communicated to the accused.

6. As a general rule an accused should not be refused an adjournment if the fact that he is without counsel on the scheduled trial dates is not his fault but that of his counsel and he had no complicity in the matter. ....

7. As a general rule an accused should be refused an adjournment if he has not acted diligently and honestly in attempting to obtain counsel and it can be inferred from the circumstances that he failed to avail himself of the opportunity to do so for the purpose of delaying the proceedings. ...

8. On an appeal from a refusal it would appear that a court of appeal will not find the learned trial judge erred notwithstanding his reasons may not be fully articulated if the record discloses evidence from which it can be inferred that the absence of counsel was brought about by the accused for the purpose of delaying the proceedings. ...

9. The scope of review by an appeal court of a refusal, notwithstanding it involves the review of the exercise of a discretionary power, is wide as the consequences of a refusal are to deprive an accused of his right to be represented by counsel. On appeal the appellant must show that in refusing the adjournment the trial judge deprived the appellant of his right to make full answer and defence and thus made an error in principle which constituted a miscarriage of justice. ...


This section of the decision played a prominant part later in the hearing. What Porisky failed to do was relate these factors to his specific situation to show why they were relevant to his application request. The Crown did not make the same mistake.

Russ's arguments ended with Gould, as the other affected party, saying she supported the application.

Then on to Crown counsel who did a very efficient job of eviscerating Porisky's arguments. Crown STRONGLY opposed to the application and adjournment request. First counsel went through a history of the case going back to Porisky's original conviction in 2009. Russ represented himself and Gould at that hearing. When Russ appealed his conviction he originally represented himself as this July 2012 decision shows.

R. v. Porisky, 2012 BCCA 309
http://canlii.ca/t/fs16j

However he soon retained counsel who is noted in the August 2012 decision allowing his appeal of his conviction;

R. v. Porisky, 2012 BCCA 371
http://canlii.ca/t/fsrtk

Note that his counsel of record was Martin Peters. Mr. Peters is the same lawyer who removed himself from representing Elaine Gould today. From what I can get from my notes (I was scribbling away trying to keep up and I can't guarantee this is entirely correct) Porisky and Peters had a "breakdown in their relationship" after the successful appeal. Porisky got another lawyer who also withdrew. He got yet another who withdrew just before the scheduled retrial causing that to be adjourned. Then we have the lawyer who withdrew for "ethical reasons" on November 27th. Crown counsel said that history was just repeating itself with this adjournment request. While it may not be Porisky's fault that his lawyer resigned "so late in the day" it is not reasonable to wait until Porisky finds another lawyer. He's been through four lawyers already. She noted that, contrary to Porisky's comments, he is not unfamiliar with the criminal justice system since he represented himself before and during his original tax evasion trial.

While Porisky said he needs time to prepare he was prepared before the original trial and this one is going forward on the same evidence. All of the evidence he referred to (5,000 pages and videos) were seized from his house during the search or were otherwise in his possession and it is reasonable to assume that he is familiar with them. He wrote most of the documents and he is the presenter in almost all of the videos.

Regarding the additional Crown disclosure today these were just documents that the CRA wasn't aware they had but which have somehow surfaced. So the Crown has disclosed these to the court but will not be entering them as evidence.

Counsel said, in respect to the requested additional four weeks of court time that while they had thirty-seven sets of videos they only planned to show the jury about nine and a half hours from four of them. Rest not necessary because they are very repetitive. Regarding Porisky's submissions on his defense it should be no different than his first trial since exactly same issue at that trial Porisky only used three days of court time. That ended Crown's submission.

Judge said that she would check if four weeks of court time was available to add on to the end of Porisky's current trial schedule so we waited while clerk checked into that. Yes.

Judge then gave her decision on the application. She noted that both defendants were represented until recently. Porisky said that he was shocked by his lawyer's withdrawal and that he required eight weeks of trial time for a full answer and defense. He needed this because of the volume of documents and videos.

Crown strongly objects. Gave chronology from 2009 through various trial schedules and adjournments to accommodate counsel who came on board then withdrew. A unique aspect of this case was that it has already has a full trial and a successful appeal. She read out verbatim the laundry list given above and then said she would apply it to this case.

Items 1 to 4 were in respect to the right to counsel. The accused have represented themselves and had counsel in this matter. However all counsel have left. The lack of counsel is no reason to delay this case since it is unlikely that they will find new counsel. There have been many prior adjournments and they had been warned in prior case (note - missed what they were warned about. I assume unnecessary delay).

They have shown familiarity with the criminal justice system and they are in the unique position that they have already represented themselves in the same issues and have an intimate knowledge of the facts.

She then brought up the administration of justice. The case had been outstanding six years. It is in the public interest that it proceed with dispatch.

A request for adjournment should not be denied if parties act diligently however neither Porisky or Gould have advised the court on any steps to get counsel.

There is no principled reason to allow an adjournment and trial will proceed. Judge allowed the possibility of adding an additional four weeks of trial time but was not convinced that eight weeks was necessary. This would be discussed at the case management meeting next week.

Something was up when we left. We had the last courtroom in the corridor and we were first on the morning court list. When we left the corridor access to the courtroom had been roped off and everyone coming past had to go through a metal detector. There were three or four sheriffs on duty by the detector and a sizeable bunch of young people, I'd guess in their 20's waiting to get in. The court schedule showed that the hearing after us was called R. V. Giles, Van Kalkeren, Read, Howard, Oldham & Womacks

Turned out to be a high profile Hell's Angels case about drug trafficking;

http://www.vancouversun.com/news/appear+court+case+tied+Kelowna+Hells+Angels/7383954/story.html
"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: 5800
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 3:45 am
Location: The Evergreen Playground

Re: Russell Anthony Porisky - Poriskyite Extraordinaire!

Postby Burnaby49 » Fri Dec 18, 2015 8:14 am

I made a grievous error in naming this discussion. I assumed, since we are discussing Russell Porisky, that we were dealing with the Porisky expert, or at least a man knowledgeable about the Paradigm tax avoidance method. After all Russell is the star in all of the videos extolling the scheme and he wrote all of the Paradigm literature. But, at court today, this assumption was proven wrong. Apparently the Russell Porisky that I'm following who is charged with income tax evasion knows little or nothing about those videos starring somebody also called Russell Porisky or about the documentary material written by someone also called Russell Porisky. It is all a mystery to my defendant and he needs time, a lot of time, to research, develop, learn and prepare to unravel this mystery in anticipation of his trial. Time the treadmill system is not allowing him in violation of his fundamental right to a fair trial.

Today was a pre-trial conference held before the same judge as last week. She's also assigned to be the trial judge. Elaine Gould, Porisky's wife and co-defendant, sat up with him at the counsel seating but contributed nothing to proceedings except for a few comments saying that she agreed with him. Total attendance today was the judge, the court clerk, a sheriff, Porisky and Gould, two Crown counsel, and me. This session was just housekeeping, clearing up procedural and other matters before trial. But Russ had another idea for it.

You'll recall that last week Russ tried to get an adjournment of his trial for various reasons, all of which were denied. Well today he suddenly, and as far as I'm aware, without warning to the Crown, asked the judge to reconsider last week's decision. Russ's application for an adjournment had been made with the information he had at the time but a reconsideration was warranted because of new information he'd come across in the past week. So the judge asked what new information? Essentially there was no new information. Russ just wanted another shot at it. So he answered that he had thought up a batch of new pre-trial issues that he hadn't considered until after he lost his adjournment request and "I haven't had time to research them." He wants to challenge some Crown affidavit evidence, he wanted to argue the admissibility of evidence seized in the search, he wants to make a Charter argument about excluding some evidence. He's been doing some preliminary research on these issues but just hasn't had the time to research Charter issues. Apparently his life is so full of really important things that he just hasn't had the time to focus on his criminal charges. There is a very important issue regarding summary evidence that he wants to address but he just hasn't had the time to research it (note - it's been almost four years since his initial conviction on the same charges he's facing now). Videos - he doesn't have information on the rules regarding the use of videos as evidence. Which ones should he show? There are hundreds of hours and he doesn't have time to review them all to see what is in them. "If I had time to prepare I could select videos but the volume of evidence is too overwhelming to focus on." He needs time to study procedures regarding witnesses because he plans to have some but doesn't know how to handle them. "My right to a full defense has not been met if I don't get an adjournment." This is a complex and serious issue and he needs time. I would like your honour to revisit application because of information I did not have last time. "I'm so new at this that I have to research and learn to do things properly."

He seemed to be saying that he has done absolutely nothing in the past three years in respect to his defense and doesn't know what is in the evidence to be submitted by the Crown although it is the same evidence submitted for his 2012 trial. However he plans to focus on his criminal charges now but, unfortunately, he has no idea how to prepare his case or how the court works.

Judge said she didn't have a copy of an actual application to adjourn from Porisky. She asked Crown counsel if she could address this. Crown said it was very unusual to ask for reconsideration of a denial of an adjournment. There is no merit to revisit this one based on what Porisky had just said. Most of his concerns are pre-trial issues that will be advanced anyhow. This is just an attempt to reargue the previous application. While the issues discussed at the coming trial may not be entirely the same as those of the first trial the evidence is the same so argument that he needs to review evidence is disingenuous. None of these are new issues. All of these points were argued last time around at prior trial. While Porisky is relying on volume of evidence to get adjournment there is not a lot of evidence to be actually entered at trial and he is familiar with it since it was all seized from his home. The video issue is a red herring. Judge - were videos tendered at last trial. Crown - yes. Judge - Does Porisky know what is in the 9 1/2 hours you plan to present at trial? Crown - yes, he appears in the vast majority of them and is the sole presenter in most. While there was a large volume of material seized we do not plan to enter all of it. Porisky has plenty of time to think up his closing statement to the jury.

Porisky's turn for rebuttal. Crown making it sound like I'm highly experienced and know what I'm doing. Judge - Crown just said that you know the material. Porisky said that he has to become aware of the issues and develop them. I haven't had time to do anything. I have to research and develop case. Judge - You are repeating yourself from prior statements, do you have anything new? I'm trying my best to learn and develop.

So judge gave decision. Forget it. In response to the request to adjourn a reconsideration is unusual. This is not an application. There can be an application if the situation changes. Porisky says he needs time to consider list of issues however this has been ongoing since 2009 and Porisky and Gould have been through a trial already. There are no special rules giving unrepresented litigants extra time to prepare. I disagree with Mr. Porisky that he is starting from square one. He is familiar with the issues.

No more time is required. Some of the issues were heard at the original trial and I can hear the rest when you are on trial. Mr. Porisky is obviously very familiar with the content of the videos since they are his videos. Only 9 1/2 hours in any case. I agree with the Crown that this is not new and further delay is not necessary.

Porisky had said he also needed more time to prepare his statements to the jury. Judge said that this is up to the accused at trial so it should be done then.

The witnesses will be done at the end of the Crown's evidence. None of these matters are such that I should reconsider my decision to adjourn the trial.

In light of what Porisky and Gould have said about their defense the judge agreed to extend the trial another two weeks.

Then we got down to the actual pre-trial issues this conference had been called to address. Crown had a couple of points on logistics of presenting electronic Data. Counsel said they could do it one of two ways. Have the court set everything up through its own resources or let the CRA do it. They had a full set of equipment to handle electronic data they could bring into court and the staff to run it. Crown prefers CRA because from experience they know it works well.

Second matter the physical exhibits. Our intention is to bring to court only items we plan to include as evidence. Much more evidence is being held i storage by the CRA and is available for viewing by Porisky and Gould if they wish.

There are some legal documents we seized which we want to enter, including the Sydel case, which go to mens rea but we will need your ladyship's permission to enter them.

Regarding Porisky's potential witnesses the Crown had concerns that they may be called to tender their beliefs in Porisky's system. This is opinion and interpretation of law rather than fact. We will need to discuss this before the witnesses are allowed. It's 10:00 so I'll wrap up (45 minute session starting at 9:15, eaten up by Porisky's adjournment request). There is an issue with the indictments. When Porisky and Gould were convicted they were acquitted of some charges on their original indictment. Since the Crown did not appeal these they are moot. However we are currently using an identical indictment to the original which includes these charges. Judge - I want a new indictment. Crown - That was discussed at a prior pre-trial hearing and Porisky's lawyer said that Crown could not proceed with new indictment. Judge - I spoke too soon, I won't make any directions. Crown - We want to take the acquitted charges out of indictment. Judge - We will discuss later. I'll set another hearing for early January.

Porisky was still playing the same tune on the old trumpet - Massive download. I'll need time to consider and understand it. I need time to understand what Crown just said. (note - Crown said what I've related, anybody reading this need time to figure it out?). Judge - Consider it now. Don't down tools until the holidays are over. Be ready at the next hearing.

Porisky took one last desperate shot at it "If I have to make an application I'll need time to research and develop."

Gould, however, accepted the inevitable - I'll be ready by January. If I want to make a charter issue what do I do. Judge advised her on timelines since, by law, Crown has to be notified in advance of any charter challenge. Crown said yes, they wanted the required notice.

Then the judge told Porisky that if he wanted to make another application like the one today or if he wanted anything from the Crown he had to put it in writing next time (as opposed to just springing it on Crown and court orally at the next hearing). Judge asked Crown to provide clean indictment and counsel said she'd have it by next hearing. Crown counsel said that if they had to use old indictment she'll ask the judge to dismiss the previously acquitted charges at the beginning of the trial. Then, fifteen minutes into overtime (with two lawyers waiting their turn) we were done.


Note - In my original posting I said;

So he answered that he had thought up a batch of new pre-trial issues that he hadn't considered until after he lost his adjournment request and "I haven't had time to research them." He wants to challenge some Crown affidavit evidence, he wanted to argue the admissibility of evidence seized in the search (note, there is a three day hearing already scheduled in January to consider this exact issue), he wants to make a Charter argument about excluding some evidence.


The sentence in red is incorrect. There is a three day hearing on the issue of evidence admissability in March and it involves three Poriskyites, Anderson, Lawson, and Millar, but the hearing does not involve Russell Porisky. I mixed it up with Porisky's pre-trial conference hearing in January.
"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

LaVidaRoja
Basileus Quatlooseus
Posts: 762
Joined: Mon Sep 01, 2008 1:19 am
Location: The Land of Enchantment

Re: Russell Anthony Porisky - Poriskyite Extraordinaire!

Postby LaVidaRoja » Fri Dec 18, 2015 5:10 pm

If he tries this again (I'm not ready, I need more time...) do you think the judge will be as patient or will she lower the boom on him?
Little boys who tell lies grow up to be weathermen.

Burnaby49
Quatloosian Ambassador to the CaliCanadians
Quatloosian Ambassador to the CaliCanadians
Posts: 5800
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 3:45 am
Location: The Evergreen Playground

Re: Russell Anthony Porisky - Poriskyite Extraordinaire!

Postby Burnaby49 » Fri Dec 18, 2015 7:03 pm

Don't know. Giving him eight weeks for a relatively simple trial is showing more indulgence than I think warranted but I'm not a judge. While she is patient she's also been pretty firm with Russ. I think he overplayed his hand by acting almost totally ignorant of the facts of the case and how the court system operates. He needs to do basic research? If he found an indulgent judge he could spin that into a decade of delay. Their revolving door lawyers seemed to be the last straw.

One thing I found of interest that I hadn't noted. It was a comment by the judge at last week's hearing. He got a retrial on appeal because he had a trial by judge only and he convinced the appeals court that his rights to a fair trial had been violated because he wasn't given the option of a jury trial. So the court said fine, have your jury trial. Last week the judge told him he had the option of changing from a jury trial to a trial by judge only if he wished. So what he's really done is get another shot at it any way he chooses regardless of the reason the appeal was allowed. Personally I think inflicting a jury with eight weeks of Russ droning away would be a big mistake. There might be some resentment against him regardless of any possible merits of his case.
"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: 10882
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 8:17 pm

Re: Russell Anthony Porisky - Poriskyite Extraordinaire!

Postby notorial dissent » Fri Dec 18, 2015 7:13 pm

I think you have a very valid point, I think inflicting that much nonsense on a jury is a sure way to lose any sympathy they might foolishly have had, I know I wouldn't be thinking kind thoughts after much of it. Wonder if he'll pull another stupid and go for a judge only trial again.
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.

Burnaby49
Quatloosian Ambassador to the CaliCanadians
Quatloosian Ambassador to the CaliCanadians
Posts: 5800
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 3:45 am
Location: The Evergreen Playground

Re: Russell Anthony Porisky - Poriskyite Extraordinaire!

Postby Burnaby49 » Wed Jan 27, 2016 9:57 am

The revised indictment;

http://www.mediafire.com/view/aq9hw1r15h5wvuz/Porisky_-_Filed_Indictment_25339-14.pdf

Monday was day one of the Porisky/Gould trial but I wasn't there. I was attending another court hearing I'll eventually post but I got a report on Porisky's hearing. The jurors showed up but some apparently had valid excuses not to serve so they were excused. After that there weren't enough jurors left to proceed so the trial was adjourned until they could dig up some alternates. Trial is scheduled to restart Wednesday January 27th, Actually today here in Vancouver but I won't be there. It's 1:00 AM and I'm just back from an evening of pubbing so I'll be sleeping in.
"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

obadiah
Captain
Captain
Posts: 163
Joined: Thu Sep 23, 2010 2:47 pm
Location: The Gorge, Oregon

Re: Russell Anthony Porisky - Poriskyite Extraordinaire!

Postby obadiah » Thu Jan 28, 2016 1:22 pm

Burnaby49 wrote: It's 1:00 AM and I'm just back from an evening of pubbing so I'll be sleeping in.


While less entertaining for the masses, MUCH more productive of your time!
1. There is a kind of law that I like, which are my own rules, which I call common law. It applies to me.
2. There are many other kinds of law but they don’t apply to me, because I say so."
LLAP


Return to “Canada”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest