Russell Anthony Porisky - Poriskyite Extraordinaire!

Moderator: Burnaby49

User avatar
Dr. Caligari
J.D., Miskatonic University School of Crickets
Posts: 1518
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2003 11:02 pm
Location: Southern California

Re: Russell Anthony Porisky - Poriskyite Extraordinaire!

Postby Dr. Caligari » Sat Jul 30, 2016 4:36 am

The sentences in the U.S. for equivalent tax offenses would likely be much longer. Porisky is lucky to be living in such a civilized place as Canada.
Dr. Caligari
(Du musst Caligari werden!)

Burnaby49
Quatloosian Ambassador to the CaliCanadians
Quatloosian Ambassador to the CaliCanadians
Posts: 5816
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 3:45 am
Location: The Evergreen Playground

Re: Russell Anthony Porisky - Poriskyite Extraordinaire!

Postby Burnaby49 » Sat Jul 30, 2016 4:50 am

I just finished reading an article on that very issue, how about 80% of American tax evaders get jail but very few Canadian evaders do. Our sentences are also, on average, much shorter. Porisky's sentence was very long for Canada but only a year and a half was for evasion. Four years was for counseling fraud. Given the scope of his scheme and his persistance in pushing it even when it was known it attracted criminal charges he should have got more.
"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: 5816
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 3:45 am
Location: The Evergreen Playground

Re: Russell Anthony Porisky - Poriskyite Extraordinaire!

Postby Burnaby49 » Sat Aug 06, 2016 4:35 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: 5816
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 3:45 am
Location: The Evergreen Playground

Re: Russell Anthony Porisky - Poriskyite Extraordinaire!

Postby Burnaby49 » Tue Sep 27, 2016 1:04 am

Porisky and Gould's sentencing decision has been released. This is what the judge read out in court and you can, if you wish to waste some time, compare it to the version I've previously posted here based on my attempts to desperately scrawl it down while the judge quick-marched through it.

R. v. Porisky, 2016 BCSC 1757
http://canlii.ca/t/gttrn

Some entirely subjective highlights. First the court's understanding of how the Paradigm theory worked. Or, more accurately, the court's admission that it didn't have a clue;

[15] Mr. Porisky and Ms. Gould derived income from the percentages paid by the educators and students to Paradigm for its material. The material that was seized from the home of Mr. Porisky and Ms. Gould demonstrates that Mr. Porisky taught his scheme on a large scale to at least 30 educators and to 800 students. All of these individuals paid a percentage to Mr. Porisky to learn and to disperse the Paradigm theory.

[16] The scheme is difficult to describe. As noted in the case authorities dealing with Paradigm, it lacks common sense and is nonsensical. Mr. Porisky and the Paradigm theory have been analyzed in many cases in respect of the conviction and sentencing of Mr. Porisky's acolytes. There have been seven educators and 17 students convicted and sentenced. There are nine pending matters before this court, the B.C. Provincial Court, and other courts across the country.

[17] Trying to describe the Paradigm theory in a logical manner is impossible and inadvertently lends credence to it. Generally, Mr. Porisky and his Paradigm theory was based on the concept that, as natural persons as opposed to artificial persons, no tax on income was payable. As a natural person, Mr. Porisky, Ms. Gould, his educators and students could arrange their affairs by using contracts for hire, confidentiality clauses, amendments to the signature box on tax returns, disclaimers, and withdrawing from government benefit plans by using forms that Mr. Porisky and Paradigm prepared and provided to them.

[18] These unusual and irregular procedures were aimed at evading liability for the payment of taxes and GST. The materials were used to enable others to structure their affairs as a “natural person working in his or her own capacity under private contract for his or her own benefit”. Mr. Porisky and Paradigm, through Mr. Porisky's tortured logic, taught that the money earned under this arrangement was exempt from income tax and no GST was payable on it.

[19] The Paradigm theory taught individuals that this nonsensical interpretation of the law would frustrate the ability of the Crown to prove the requisite mens rea to secure a conviction for evasion of income taxes or counselling fraud. The theory of Mr. Porisky and Paradigm was that the Crown could not prove intent, or mens rea, if one had an honest belief in the law.


On to ballpark calculations of the overall fraud involved in the scheme;

[23] The Crown admits that determining the scale of fraud counselled through Paradigm by Mr. Porisky is virtually impossible. There are several methods suggested. The first is by using the 7% payments that students were making to Paradigm from their income and extrapolating the taxes that would be evaded, on average, if all students acted on the teachings. This amount is estimated by the Crown to be over $11.5 million.

[24] The second method is by accepting the amounts that other courts have used in their convictions and sentencing of Paradigm followers. Of approximately 800 students and 30 educators, there are 31 known sentencing decisions relating to the Paradigm teachings. The total taxes (GST and income tax) evaded by these 31 individuals was $4,478,930, calculated using the fines imposed and the percentage of the taxes that the fines represented.


Then on to the real victim in all of this; Russell Porisky!

[30] Mr. Porisky says that the various costs associated with this court matter and the matter before Myers J., as well as the time he spent in custody in 2012 following the sentence by Mr. Justice Myers, have had a negative effect on his finances and the family is now counting change to purchase gas for their vehicle. He is currently earning less through his work in construction than he did in the past.

[31] Mr. Porisky also describes his years of dealing with Canada Revenue Agency, including the search warrant executed on his and Ms. Gould's home in 2008, and his apprehension of the court process as having been “most stressful, [and which] occupied much of his waking thoughts and affected his sleep”.


Paragraph 32 is pretty much what Keith Lawson also said at his sentencing hearing. He was always trying to do the honourable thing and act as an honourable man.

[32] Mr. Porisky offered that he attempted to work with Canada Revenue Agency and always tried to do what, in his view, was right.


The judge tosses Porisky's prior sentencing out the window;

[52] The Crown also refers to the sentencing decision of Myers J. following the first trial. I am not bound by the conclusions of Myers J. regarding the global sentences to be imposed on these offenders. Since those sentences were imposed in 2012, there have been several additional authorities in respect of Paradigm educators and students that I must consider. This demonstrates the extent of the potential and actual amount of tax revenue defrauded through Mr. Porisky's counselling and is clearer as each of his followers are convicted and sentenced. The extent of the resources expended by the Canada Revenue Agency and the criminal law to enforce the law is much greater than Myers J. could have known in May 2012, when he imposed sentence, and the enforcement continues. As noted, there are several cases that are pending before the courts.


Then a point I've discussed in some detail in Keith Lawson's discussion. How Lawson continued flogging the Paradigm evasion scheme for three years after the Sydel decision resulted in Eva Sydel being convicted of tax evasion and sentenced to prison for following Paradigm. This didn't phase Porisky and Lawson at all. It was still full speed ahead grabbing that sweet, sweet tax-free cash flow from counseling tax evasion to suckers until the CRA actually shut things down with search warrants and confiscations.

[61] The Crown refers to the high degree of moral culpability of Mr. Porisky, including that he was the mastermind behind Paradigm; he had knowledge of the illegality of the Paradigm theory; Mr. Porisky's persistence in his teaching, despite clear words of the courts in convicting those who followed the Paradigm theory; Mr. Porisky's continued mindset of distrust and defiance of authority of the CRA and the courts.

[62] The Crown also refers to the pre-sentence report, which demonstrates that Mr. Porisky regrets his own financial instability and the stress of the criminal justice process, but does not appear to make any expressions of regret or remorse in relation to the public or those educators and students of Paradigm and the civil and criminal consequences that they face.


Then time to dump on Russ;

[71] I accept the aggravating factors as outlined by the Crown: the multiple tax years and over an extended period of time; that the offences were planned and deliberate; that they were part of an organized pseudo�legal commercial argument scheme that Paradigm operated on a large scale and it was a sophisticated enterprise teaching tax fraud; and the tax amounts evaded by both Ms. Gould and Mr. Porisky were substantial.

[72] I accept that, as aggravating factors, Mr. Porisky was the mastermind behind these offences; that both offenders continued these offences, despite knowing of the criminal and civil pursuit by the Canada Revenue Agency; and by the fact that both offenders maintain their views as noted by the pre-sentence report.

[73] The effect on the community is significant, addressing the number of educators and students; the public funds that have been placed at risk are significant; and the enforcement expenses in relation to the tax evasion and GST evasion and the fraud are large.

[74] I have referred to the mitigating factors of no prior criminal history and the personal circumstances of the offenders, and those are the factors that I have addressed as mitigating factors. I have also referred to the situations of similar offenders committing similar offences in similar circumstances.

[75] I note that the disgorging of profits of an offence by imposing a fine does not address all the principles of sentencing. I thus agree with the Crown that the history of tax filings and correspondence with the CRA by these offenders, the procedural history of this matter, and the content of the pre-sentence report suggest a strong need at effecting specific deterrence. I agree that jail is a necessary part of a fit sentence for all the counts. The offence here is grave, and the degree of responsibility of the offenders is significant, particularly in the case of Mr. Porisky, who was, after all, at the top of this pyramid scheme and derived the greatest revenue and fame from it.

. . . . .

[78] Mr. Porisky, please stand. Mr. Porisky, your moral culpability is higher than any of those who have already been convicted and sentenced of similar offences. I have described you as a mastermind of the Paradigm theory. You were proselytizing it and it was followed by your acolytes. You received significant financial benefit from it, both before and after the theory was discredited by several court decisions. You bear added responsibility.

[79] The wake of your counselling fraud is extensive and continues to grow. I find that the three years imposed as a sentence on Count 4 by Myers J. does not represent an appropriate and fit sentence in 2016.

. . . . .

[80] I find there is no cogent reason to depart from those sentences that have been suggested by the Crown, and I have determined that the cumulative effect of the consecutive sentence is just and appropriate.

[81] I sentence you to 18 months' jail, a jail sentence on Counts 1 and 3, and four years on Count 4. The sentences must be served consecutively. The sentence imposed on you for Count 4 must be served consecutively to the sentence I impose in respect of Counts 1 and 3. These offences are not part of a linked series of acts in a single endeavour. Mr. Porisky, you could have evaded taxes without Paradigm, and vice versa. Your choice to evade taxes and to counsel others to do so gives rise to separate and distinct offences requiring a sentence that reflects the gravity of each offence.

[82] I therefore sentence you to an 18 month jail sentence concurrent on Counts 1 and 3, and a consecutive jail sentence of four years on Count 4. The total sentence is five and a half years in jail, less credit for 404 days (based on the 202 days that you served in custody following your previous conviction, credited on a two to one basis), plus a mandatory fine of $193,333.26 in respect of Count 1, and $66,149.07 in respect of Count 3.


But not to worry. Russ has already appealed his conviction so no doubt he'll be a free man in no time. Be very interesting to see it he's let out on bail while awaiting the appeal result this time. I attended the trial and if there are any grounds for appealing I missed them. Since he (and Gould) essentially put up no defense they can't argue that the judge made a mistake on that basis.

The only possible avenue for appeal that I can see is to contest the judge's charges to the jury, the instructions regarding law that they had to follow while making their deliberations. They might appeal on the basis that the judge did not allow them to argue mistake in law (that they tried to comply with the law but misunderstood it) or to explain the Paradigm theory to the jurors. Both arguments are losers but he has to come up with something if he plans to actually try and work through the appeals system. Perhaps he's just desperately trying to stay out of jail. The last time he appealed, in 2012, he got four years of freedom while his retrial worked its way through the system. Maybe he thinks he can do it again and just wear the Crown out through constant retrials. Not this time.
"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: 5816
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 3:45 am
Location: The Evergreen Playground

Re: Russell Anthony Porisky - Poriskyite Extraordinaire!

Postby Burnaby49 » Thu Nov 03, 2016 2:53 am

Porisky and Gould filed appeals on August 25th. I assume that they are out on bail but I wasn't paying the $6 necessary to access the appeal file and find out.
"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: 5816
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 3:45 am
Location: The Evergreen Playground

Re: Russell Anthony Porisky - Poriskyite Extraordinaire!

Postby Burnaby49 » Tue Nov 08, 2016 6:08 am

I've been wondering how Porisky's and Lawson's appeals were going so this morning I went to the British Columbia Court of Appeal registry and checked out their files. I was greatly relieved to find that Porisky, in his Notice of Appeal or Leave to Appeal, has finally decided to rely on the advice of someone knowledgeable and experienced enough in the law to provide him with at least one valid argument to make in his appeal.

Me.

On February 12th, 2016, the day of Porisky's conviction, I posted this;

So how'd my pubbing go? We have a policy of one beer in each pub then move on so we went to;

The Moose
The Morrissey
Yaletown Brewery
Red Racer
The Railway Club
Steamworks

Then home by 10:00 to find an email waiting for me saying that the jury had decided by 9:20 and found P&G guilty on all counts. Masses of evidence, complex tax law, over a hundred hours of video, four charges with two defendants, over thirty pages of judges instructions, and it took the jury less time to decide than I spent having an evening's pubbing. When you knock off the three hours for lunch and dinner they deliberated about five hours. That's impressive efficiency.


Well this apparently seemed like a damn good point to Russ too because one of his grounds for appeal is;

15. The Jury's verdict unreasonable, upon the following grounds;

a. On February 12th 2016, the Honourable Madame Justice Gropper took an hour to carefully read out to the Jury her CHARGE TO THE JURY that consisted of 38 pages.

Saying; "Each of you must make your own decision whether either accused is guilty or not guilty. You should reach your decision only after consideration of the evidence with your fellow jurors. Your duty is to try and reach a unanimous verdict after a sincere consideration of the facts and the law and an honest discussion with your fellow jurors".
The Honourable Madame Groper CHARGE TO THE JURY page 7 paragraph [21]

The jury cannot have acted justiciably in reaching a verdict in 5 (five) hours given the extensive evidentiary evidence and documentary evidence before it; The Honourable Madame Justice Groper read out her CHARGE TO THE JURY at 11:40am. The jury came back with their decision at 9:11pm, and was said to the court at 9:25pm. With the lunch and dinner breaks excluded the jury deliberated for approximately 5 (five) hours. The Court Exhibit List consisted of 7 (seven) pages, displaying the massive amount of document, book, video, and electronic storage media evidence each juror was Charged with considering.


You're welcome Russ, glad I could help.

As for the other arguments, can't say that I'm impressed but since Porisky and Gould are still unrepresented I suppose it's the best that Russ could do. However they've both applied for legal aid and said that they may amend their appeal filings if their applications for Legal Aid are approved.

So on to the other grounds for appeal. I'll keep it short, Russ is very wordy. When I get around to posting this on Media Fire you can read it for yourselves, if interested.

Whine argument 2 was about an exhibit. Exhibit 26 was an unfinished PowerPoint Russ made in 2007 and had stored on his computer. It was titled "Are Wages For Labour Performed Deductible?" According to Russ this PowerPoint was proof 'for the condensed supported position of Russ Porisky and the authorities he researched and based his foundational beliefs upon." But, notwithstanding that this evidence was available in the exhibits, he was found guilty anyhow. Proof indeed of an unreasonable jury verdict!

Argument 3 - With all of the "voluminous documentary evidence on record" there was no evidence that Russ had ever applied for a "commercial registered business number "BN". Apparently this proved that he was not required to collect or remit GST.

Argument 4 - The judge did not allow the jury to take Porisky's 1999 Income Tax Act into the jury room with them. This contained "post it notes, highlighted sections, and folded corners. It supports Mr. Porisky's due diligence in his years of research."

Argument 5 - Something about Exhibit 26 again. Apparently the PowerPoint slides supported his position that his income was not taxable.

Argument 6 - Back to argument 3 and the BN. Not applying for a BN apparently proved that he was not in pursuit of profit. I suppose this meant that if he actually had any profits (as Crown contended) they were not taxable because he got them by accident. Like lifting the couch cushions and finding a $100 bill there. Just wild chance. Porisky included in this ground for appeal that he'd written a letter to the CRA and Department of Justice in 2004 stating his rights and principles. He didn't explain in the Notice of Appeal what this comment had to do with anything.

Then back to that five-hour verdict. That really gnaws at him. Those years of work, his brilliant analysis of why he didn't have to pay tax explained in vast detail in the Paradigm publications, the dozens of videos explaining all this. And it was all summarily dismissed by the jury in less time than it took me to swill a few beers. To show how it burns just check the answer to this standardized question on the form;

16. If a new trial is ordered and you have a right to a trial by jury do you wish a trial by jury? No.


What does he want from the appeal?

i. . . . an Order to quash or set aside the Jury's verdict on Counts 1,3, and 4 as the Jury verdict unreasonable; and could not be supported by the weight of the evidence . . .

j. . . . an Order to quash the convictions and sentence, and entering a judgement (sic) of acquittal . . .


and signed and dated (August 25th) at the bottom with, under his name, this plaintive notation;

Appellant in custody, Russell Anthony Porisky per eg


It might have helped his appeal had he shown the slightest interest in his trial while it was being held rather than just sitting there like a store dummy. It's difficult, after the fact, to contest entered evidence or complain about evidence not entered if you did not object to the first or try and enter the second.

And, on an entirely different note;

Donald Trump Wins The Election!!!!!!

No, that is not my political position or my electoral forecast, but the learned and reasoned opinion of an expert in the intricacies of the American electoral system and an infallible prognosticator of tomorrow's events; a bulldog leashed to a railing a few feet from me while I had a coffee this morning.

Before going to the registry I went over to the Terra Bread Bakery in Olympic Village for a coffee and an almond croissant. A fair distance out of my way but if it was convenient I'd weigh 300 pounds by now from those croissants. Overcast but not raining so I sat outside. A customer leashed his bulldog to the railing beside me and went in. A woman at a nearby table immediately came over and fawned on the dog. She kept asking it who was going to win, Donald or Hillary? I was too slavishly obsessed with my oral gratification to catch the answer but she announced to us all that the dog had gone with The Donald. She went around the restaurant telling everyone about this miracle. I don't think the dog was a Trump fan, it seemed barely interested. Perhaps it was just being modest.

So ignore those lying polls, that's a prediction you can take to the bank!
"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
wserra
Quatloosian Federal Witness
Quatloosian Federal Witness
Posts: 6359
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2003 7:39 pm

Re: Russell Anthony Porisky - Poriskyite Extraordinaire!

Postby wserra » Tue Nov 08, 2016 2:32 pm

Burnaby49 wrote:Donald Trump Wins The Election!!!!!!


My only comment on this entire remarkably stupid two-year exercise in civic torture:

https://youtu.be/WLYHu0AG8GI
"A wise man proportions belief to the evidence."
- David Hume

Burnaby49
Quatloosian Ambassador to the CaliCanadians
Quatloosian Ambassador to the CaliCanadians
Posts: 5816
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 3:45 am
Location: The Evergreen Playground

Re: Russell Anthony Porisky - Poriskyite Extraordinaire!

Postby Burnaby49 » Wed Nov 09, 2016 9:10 am

Meet the greatest political prognosticator of this election cycle! A Canadian!

Image
"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: 5816
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 3:45 am
Location: The Evergreen Playground

Re: Russell Anthony Porisky - Poriskyite Extraordinaire!

Postby Burnaby49 » Tue Mar 07, 2017 5:18 am

In my posting of November 9th, 2016 I wrote;

So on to the other grounds for appeal. I'll keep it short, Russ is very wordy. When I get around to posting this on Media Fire you can read it for yourselves, if interested.


I was referring to putting up Porisky's Notice of Appeal on Media Fire. I finally got around to it;

http://www.mediafire.com/file/fd0mdwpuxe6rxt3/Porisky_2016_BCCA_appeal_notice.pdf
"Yes Burnaby49, I do in fact believe all process servers are peace officers. I've good reason to believe so." Robert Menard in his May 28, 2015 video "Process Servers".

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


Return to “Canada”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest