Debbie Anderson - Poriskyite Social Director on Trial

Moderator: Burnaby49

Burnaby49
Quatloosian Ambassador to the CaliCanadians
Quatloosian Ambassador to the CaliCanadians
Posts: 5815
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 3:45 am
Location: The Evergreen Playground

Debbie Anderson - Poriskyite Social Director on Trial

Postby Burnaby49 » Sat Aug 29, 2015 6:13 am

Debbie hasn't been discussed much on Quatloos. Her previous mention was in this discussion;

Poriskyite Annual Tax Evasion Dinner and Dance!
http://www.quatloos.com/Q-Forum/viewtopic.php?f=50&t=10305

Where I wrote;

Purchase tickets from your local Paradigm Educator
or contact Debbie @ 604-316-0969


"Debbie" is Debbie Arlene Anderson, a 56 year old Porisky follower, not previously mentioned in Quatloos, who is currently facing her own criminal charges for tax evasion and counseling others to commit fraud. The counseling charge relates to her claimed career as a Paradigm educator teaching the Porisky tax evasion scheme. I've been following her for a while. As the dinner dance arrangements show she was, and maybe still is, a true believer. She's been following Freeman/Sovereign type activities for a long time. One I've managed to locate is this flyer, where she is also the contact, for a 2001 David-Wynn: Miller: workshop.

https://www.mail-archive.com/public-lis ... 01508.html

While her trial is sure to be highly enjoyable it is unlikely I'll attend. Porisky started his tax evasion career with seminars in Chilliwack, a town about 60 miles east of Vancouver and Debbie hails from Abbotsford, about 40 miles east of Vancouver. So her trial will be held at either Abbotsford or Chilliwack, both inaccessible to me since I rely on public transportation. I bounce around between the Vancouver, Richmond, and New Westminster courthouses but those are my practical limits. So Debbie's court antics will have to, lamentably, go unrecorded. At such time as a decision comes out I'll be back to discussing her.


Well her trial date is now in sight and it's time to give her her day in the sun. These are the charges;

Ms. Anderson is charged with the following offences on the indictment:

Count 1

Debbie Arlene ANDERSON, of the City of Chilliwack, Province of British Columbia, between December 31, 2004 and May 22, 2008 did make, or participate in, assent to or acquiesce in the making of, false or deceptive statements in her T1 Individual Tax Return for the 2005 and 2006 taxation years, filed as required by the Income Tax Act, by not declaring taxable income in the amount of $113,276.03 for the said taxation years, and did thereby commit an offence contrary to paragraph 239(1)(a) of the said Act.

Count 2
Debbie Arlene ANDERSON, of the City of Chilliwack, Province of British Columbia, between December 31, 2004 and June 16, 2008, 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 her taxable income in the amount of $165,731.44 for the 2005, 2006 and 2007 taxation years, and did thereby evade the payment of taxes in the amount of $22,689.90, committing an offence contrary to 239(1)(d) of the said Act.

Count 3
Debbie Arlene ANDERSON, of the City of Chilliwack, Province of British Columbia, between December 31, 2004 and April 1, 2008, did wilfully evade or attempt to evade compliance with the Excise Tax Act or payment or remittance of the Goods and Services Tax, by failing to collect or remit Goods and Services Tax of $12,336.81 on goods and services sold, and did thereby commit an offence contrary to paragraph 327(1)(c) of the said Act.

Count 4
Debbie Arlene ANDERSON, at or near the City of Chilliwack, Province of British Columbia and elsewhere, between December 31, 2001 and August 26, 2010 did counsel various persons to commit the indictable offence of fraud in excess of five thousand dollars, contrary to section 380 of the Criminal Code, and did thereby commit an offence contrary to section 464(a) of the Criminal Code.


The decision I'm reviewing now is not her actual trial decision. Her trial is scheduled for November 16 to December 11, 2015. This current decision related to what I call preliminary skirmishing, getting a batch of issues out of the way before trial. It was released in October last year but just showed up on Canlii a few weeks ago. This type of thing is entirely typical in Canadina criminal cases. Weeks of wrangling about possible loopholes made possible by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_Charter_of_Rights_and_Freedoms

I'm currently attending a Porisky tax evasion trial in Vancouver which is now in it's third week. The first two weeks were completely take up with Charter arguments similar to what I'm reviewing below. Anyhow you can find Debbie's decision here;

R. v. Anderson, 2014 BCSC 2002
http://canlii.ca/t/gkkbp

We can start the ball rolling with this;

[3] Ms. Anderson has exercised her right to trial by judge and jury. Practically speaking, this case is particularly ill-suited to a jury trial, especially for a self-represented litigant who has lately acquired a concussion. For this reason, I had raised this as a subject to be considered, with a view to a future hearing to hear submissions on whether there were proper grounds to set aside the jury trial. However, the Court of Appeal recently overturned R. v. Porisky, 2012 BCSC 67 (CanLII), rev’d 2014 BCCA 146 (CanLII), a case in most respects identical to the case at bar, on the ground that Mr. Porisky had wrongfully been denied a jury trial.

[4] Ms. Anderson represented herself at a five-day preliminary inquiry before Romilly J., who sat as a Provincial Court judge. She also represented herself at the commencement of these disclosure hearings; although for the last two days, Mr. J. Maddock, an articled student, was granted leave to represent her for her reply to the Crown’s position on disclosure. Ms. Anderson and Mr. Maddock’s submissions have occupied about 80% of the hearing time.


A couple of points of interest from these two paragraphs. Firstly, after the British Columbia Court of Appeals, in an abysmally wrong-headed decision, quashed Porisky's conviction because the trial judge didn't brand on Porisky's ass that he had the right to a jury trial, judges are being very cautious about anything that might imply that Poriskyites shouldn't be judged by a jury of their peers. Choosing a jury trial does not help Porisyites; juries hate them. I, in turn, hate jury trials because there is no written decision, just a guilty or innocent verdict. I love written decisions. I'm currently attending another Poriskyite trial here in Vancouver where the defendant has, wisely, chosen a trial by judge only.

The second point of interest is Mr. J Mattock, articled student. I'm getting to know J Mattock very well because he is also representing the defendant in the trial I'm attending. He has a history;

J. Maddock" is "Jeremy Maddock", son of a BC justice of the peace. That name goes interesting places. His father is apparently a recently appointed Justice of the Peace in BC. Jeremy is articling with a guy named Peter Blokmanis. I'd never heard of him but found out that he's the former partner of Douglas Christie. I've discussed Christie here;

http://www.quatloos.com/Q-Forum/viewtopic.php?f=50&t=5876#p154616

Where I said;

Well he is now appealing this decision. They guy just can't quit trying to convince courts he is right. One difference this time. In previous cases he was represented by Doug Christie. For those of you who don't know about Christie he was the lawyer of last resort because he would represent anyone over anything. Holocaust deniers, hate speach prosecutions, human rights criminals, Doug was the go-to guy. Not a particularly good lawyer and lost almost all of his cases but he tried. Wserra comments frequently that everyone deserves a defense (agreed) and Christie was it for a lot of the fringe elements. His clients generally lost badly because they would rather go down in flames than cut a deal and they were an unsavory bunch to put in front of a jury. Anyhow Doug died last month and, while he received a lot of negative press, he served a necessary purpose.

. . . . . . . . . . . .

Hate speach and human-rights enthusiasts used to go nuts over his defense of these types but they were entitled to legal representation and Christie was willing to take on the job, unlike many lawyers who feared sullying their reputations. Not many of his clients had much money and he didn't get rich by representing them. The Law Society of British Columbia noted, when they found him guilty of professional misconduct, that he was only making about $50,000 a year (not a lot in Vancouver-Victoria) and so cut him a deal on penalties.


Maddock also had a closed connection to Christie;
http://www.radicalpress.com/?p=7173


Maddock is posting on an OPCA-friendly Canadian forum, rallying support for a person facing hate speech criminal charges. And here's how Jeremy is credited:

Jeremy Maddock was Doug Christie’s former legal assistant. He is currently studying law in Victoria, B.C. This article was first published in the Friends of Freedom Newsletter. Mr. Maddock can be reached at: Jeremy Maddock@hotmail.com


More posts involving Maddock from this site;
http://www.radicalpress.com/?s=maddock

It appears that Jeremy might be trying to inherit Christie's mantle. Sure looks like it...

Jeremy operates three law oriented blogs that have his name on them:
[url]Trademark Cases http://www.trademarkcases.ca, largely inactive.[/url]

Civil Forfeiture
http://www.civilforfeiture.ca

active, surveys jurisprudence considering civil forfeiture across Canada. It's clear Jeremy sees the process as one that is abused/overused.

Charter Cases
http://www.chartercases.com

active, only briefly reviewed.

But he has a fourth where he is not so forward about being an author
http://www.taxcases.ca

This was linked from his other blogs. It's quite fragmentary, but look who he's tracking: Porisky, Klundert. Here are some conclusions:

R. v. Porisky is a case of first instance on the issue of counselling fraud, in circumstances where the “fraud” in question consisted merely of a financial strategy which questions the applicability of the Income Tax Act.


Uh, that's not what Porisky was doing and the findings of fact on that point are very clear. Other comments by Maddock minimize the illegal character of challenging tax legislation.

So what else is he up to?

Identifies controversy over Trinity Western University's law school as "untrammeled bigotry against a small religious minority"
http://www.timescolonist.com/opinion/op-ed/comment-b-c-lawyers-discriminate-against-religious-minority-1.1490982

I actually agree with him on that one.

Here he is as a "paralegal" breaching privacy interests for forfeiture staff identities:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/british-columbia/decision-forces-bc-civil-forfeiture-office-to-release-names-of-employees/article19760738/

And a sack full of this and that:

LinkedIn page
https://ca.linkedin.com/pub/jeremy-maddock/3a/266/266

pointing him to MagneticMessages.ca, a website design outfit but which also advertises Maddock's legal research background.

Facebook page
https://www.facebook.com/jeremy.maddock.1

which provides little data, except that in his friends links we find: Brian Alexander (Freeman), Jodie Emery (owner of Cannabis Culture). I suspect others are counterculture personalities too.

Another bio page, he's editor for "TeleClick.ca"
https://www.elance.com/s/jmaddock/resume/

TeleClick still exists, but is apparently abandoned
http://www.teleclick.ca/

also associated with this
http://teleclick.blogspot.ca

Appearing on an internet radio program commenting on civil forfeiture
http://edandethan.com/podcast/ed-ethan-show-38-news-panel-jeremy-maddock-matt-mernagh-b-list/

Commenting a hate website was merely humorous
http://www.michaelgeist.ca/2006/03/canadian-human-rights-tribunal-issues-internet-hate-decision/

In favor of paralegals
http://www.slaw.ca/2012/07/24/expanded-paralegals-powers-coming-to-bc/

Maddock is assisting the operator of the Radical Press (front page)
http://issuu.com/blackpress/docs/i20150218050316280

Charter, s 1 sucks because it infringes on freedom of speech, including hate speech and pornography
http://www.selfgrowth.com/articles/reasonable-limits-to-the-canadian-charter

Jeremy is the only lawyer or lawyer-to-be that I'm aware of who is operating on this frontier. Clearly very much an ideologue, and willing to act on it.

Then the next two paragraphs introduce a new, and very significant player, the Unlicensed Man himself; David Kevin Lindsay!

[5] Over the objections of Crown counsel, but with leave of the Court, Ms. Anderson has also had considerable assistance from her friend David Lindsay. Mr. Lindsay prepared three volumes of materials upon which Ms. Anderson based her submissions. Mr. Lindsay and Ms. Anderson evidently subscribe to the same legal theories, notably as it pertains to the Canadian system of taxation. Its practitioners take steps they say allow them to characterise their individual identity before the law as a “natural person”, or as a “private person”, or, as Ms. Anderson’s materials refer to her, as a “private woman commonly known as Debbie”. Their views have led the Canada Revenue Agency (the “CRA”) and other government bodies to characterise them as “tax-protestors”. Subscribers to this theory - commonly known as the natural person legal theory - seek to organize their financial affairs to evade government taxation. Multiple cases in British Columbia and other jurisdictions have roundly rejected the natural person legal theory: see Porisky; R. v. Warman, 2001 BCCA 510 (CanLII); R. v. Bruno, 2002 BCCA 348 (CanLII); R. v. Lawson, 2012 BCSC 356 (CanLII); R. v. McCartie, 2012 BCSC 928 (CanLII); Meads v. Meads, 2012 ABQB 571 (CanLII); R. v. Siggelkow, 2014 ABQB 101. In Porisky, Myers J. found that the materials published by the group that Ms. Anderson was associated with, the Paradigm Education Group, effectively counsel tax evasion. While Porisky was overturned by the Court of Appeal, it was solely on the issue of whether the accused was wrongfully denied a jury trial. None of the other conclusions reached in the trial decision were disturbed.

[6] Although the leave given for Mr. Lindsay to assist Ms. Anderson excluded the expounding of “natural person” theories rejected in other cases, considerable portions of the materials he presented were nonetheless devoted to that subject. Ms. Anderson relied on 86 cases in argument, which far exceeds what is reasonably necessary to address the issues. I have read the materials most conducive to her position on the issues she has raised, but there is no advantage in recounting all the (often repetitive) arguments that she made, particularly those portions that do not advance any recognizable legal concepts.


We've covered Lindsday here;
http://www.quatloos.com/Q-Forum/viewtopic.php?f=48&t=10022

And I met him at a seminar described here;
http://www.quatloos.com/Q-Forum/viewtopic.php?f=50&t=10201

Anyhow with the cast of characters in place, on to the case.

II. Overview of defence applications

[7] Ms. Anderson argues she can establish breaches of ss. 2(b), 2(d), and 8 of the Charter on a voir dire.

[8] She argues that she can establish the Crown breached ss. 2(b) and 2(d) by prosecuting Ms. Anderson selectively; namely not for what she did, but for who she associated with. Moreover, she submits the Court should “read down” s. 464(a) of the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46 [Code] because it imposes an unreasonable limitation on an accused’s freedom of expression in circumstances where the accused merely expresses an honest, good faith political opinion. Regarding s. 8 of the Charter, Ms. Anderson argues she has standing to challenge the validity of a warranted search of Russell Porisky’s residence (the “Porisky Search”), and submits that evidence seized during the search implicating her should be excluded.

[9] Ms. Anderson further submits she needs to receive additional disclosure to support the Charter arguments she intends to make; primarily breaches of ss. 2(b), 2(d), and 8 of the Charter, but also s. 7.

[10] In this regard, Ms. Anderson argues she has established a prima facie showing of actionable misconduct by the Crown that provides a sufficient basis on which the Court may order further disclosure.


A voir dire is a trial within a trial. I just suffered two weeks of them that Jeremy inflicted on me in the case I'm currently watching. Essentially a voir dire settles a point of law necessary to be determined before the trial can go forward. Often the issue is fundamental and will determine the outcome of the trial. An example is the admissibility of evidence. A voir dire might be called by the defense to attempt to exclude evidence gathered by the Crown. If this is successful the case might be over because the excluded evidence was necessary to prove the charges.

However before we get to the vior dire issues the judge had to dispose of a few preliminary issues brought by the triumverate of Anderson/Maddock/lindsay;

A. Property rights and s. 7 of the Charter

[25] Ms. Anderson asserts that the Canadian Constitution guarantees her a right to use, enjoy, and dispose of her property. This is incorrect. Section 7 of the Charter provides that: “Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice”. Previous cases that have addressed this question have made it clear that the right to own, use, enjoy, or dispose of property is not guaranteed by s. 7 of the Charter.

B. Section 2 and the liberty to structure one’s life as one pleases

[26] Ms. Anderson claims that the Constitution guarantees her the right to structure her life as she desires and to make fundamental life choices. I agree with Crown counsel that this claim does not frame any constitutional issues, particularly given the elements of the offence in this case. Further, her argument simply recasts arguments roundly rejected by numerous court decisions, as mentioned earlier. As submitted by the Crown, a person cannot lawfully choose or determine whether monies they have received constitute taxable income. Of course, a person may legally structure their financial affairs in various ways to minimize taxes payable; tax evasion is, however, another matter. Ultimately, the provisions of the applicable tax legislation and court decisions determine the taxes a person has to pay and whether a person has complied with their legal obligation.

C. Is Ms. Anderson subject to the Income Tax Act, the Excise Tax Act and the CRA’s authority exercisable under the Canada Revenue Agency Act?


[27] Ms. Anderson submits, in effect, that she is not subject to either the Income Tax Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. 1 (5th Supp.) [ITA], or the Excise Tax Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. E-15 [ETA] and cannot be compelled to, among other things, “pursue or receive profits or gains or intend to pursue or receive profits or gains”. She also submits that she is not subject to the CRA’s authority under the Canada Revenue Agency Act, S.C. 1999, c. 17 to administer the ITA and the ETA. Ms. Anderson’s submissions in this regard do not raise any valid constitutional issues with any prospect of success. The ITA and ETA are validly enacted federal legislation and are not, as Ms. Anderson contends, unconstitutional and of no effect pursuant to s. 52 of the Constitution Act 1982, a violation of the common law, or a violation of the Coronation Oath: see Reference re Goods and Services Tax, 1992 CanLII 69 (SCC), [1992] 2 S.C.R. 445; R. v. Kennedy, 2012 FC 1050 (CanLII); Kennedy v. Canada (Customs & Revenue Agency), 2000 CanLII 22837 (ON SC), [2000] 4 C.T.C. 186 (Ont. S.C.J.); R. v. Lindsay, 2008 BCPC 203 (CanLII). Ms. Anderson has not provided any reasonable basis upon which the Court may declare any portions of ss. 2(1), 3, or 152 of the ITA to be of no force and effect.


Next up was the I'm too stupid to understand the Income Tax Act argument. Gosh darn it is just too vague and incomprehensible for the average Joe like me to follow so who can blame me if I screwed up? I tried!

D. Vagueness of the ITA and constitutionality

[28] Ms. Anderson contends the ITA is too vague, ambiguous, and far too complex to form a basis for sanctioning criminal conduct. Moreover, she argues that the ITA is contrary to the common law right (and duty) to know the law. She also questions the meanings of terms like “intent to profit”, “source of income”, “income”, “personal endeavour”, and “businesslike manner or behaviour”. She states at para. 88 of the “grounds for the relief sought” section of her Notice of Application of Constitutional Challenge:

Under these conditions, where thousands of people have differing thoughts, beliefs, and opinions of same, it cannot be held to be constitutional, a fortiori where the results are penal.

[29] The ITA is certainly lengthy and highly detailed, but only a few select sections and definitions are relevant to this case, and those portions of the ITA pertaining to the charge are not unreasonably vague.

[30] The structure of the business Ms. Anderson allegedly ran was not complicated. Her activities, regardless of how the jury characterizes their true nature for purposes of the indictment, did apparently produce monies for her. If engaged in a legitimate business, Ms. Anderson would be entitled to deduct expenses incurred to earn that income. For personal income tax purposes, she would be expected to include her net taxable business income and other sources of income, deduct universal personal deductions, and adjust income for line items such as RRSP deductions and charitable donations. It is likely that thousands of taxpayers who own small businesses undertake this process annually without turning a page of the ITA. Some prepare their own returns; others may choose to retain professionals or others to prepare and file their returns for them. Others use computer software to guide them through the process. Regardless of how taxpayers prepare and file their returns, millions of Canadians do so each year.

[31] As noted earlier, Ms. Anderson does not lack for intelligence and she has failed to give any particulars of how, or which particular language of the ITA, prevented her from declaring her sources of income accurately and truthfully. Moreover, the language of the ITA is at least clear enough that adherents of Paradigm purport to know ways to alter their status as tax payers, and sequester their financial affairs, keeping them beyond the CRA’s reach.

[32] Ms. Anderson has not drawn attention to any provision of the ITA relevant to the elements of the offences she is charged with that are too vague to permit her from making full answer and defence. Ms. Anderson has been given a list of relevant terms and definitions and where to find them in the ITA. She may require further guidance and explanations on terms and definitions in the ITA. If so, she can ask Crown counsel where she can find the applicable information. Further, there will be pre-trial conferences where these issues can be addressed further if necessary.

[33] I find no merit in Ms. Anderson’s legal position on this point.


This next argument was obviously doomed from the start. Debbie was arguing that the Provincial Court of British Columbia did not have the jurisdiction to hear her case since the Income Tax Act of Canada gives the Tax Court of Canada the exclusive jurisdiction to hear income tax appeals. However that only applies to civil appeals of Canada Revenue Agency reassessments. Unfortunately for Debbie this is not an appeal from a civil assessment it is a criminal charge and that is within the jurisdiction of the British Columbia court. This issue has been beaten to death, most recently in Sigglekow;

http://www.quatloos.com/Q-Forum/viewtopic.php?f=50&t=9894

Where I said;

First an argument that the Provincial Court of Alberta had no jurisdiction to hear the case because it was just a civil income tax matter which lay within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Tax Court of Canada. The judge dismissed this point with harsh efficiency. He said that the accused claimed that his activities were "non-commercial" in nature and that this resulted in him having no taxable income and therefore there were no grounds for being criminally charged with tax evasion. The judge noted that this was the same argument found in cases set out in the Crown's material, some involving Paradigm adherents. All these prior arguments were dismissed and, in the judge's opinion, properly so. At best Siggelkow's argument that he was not taxable might serve as a basis for his defense but had nothing to do with the court's jurisdiction.


E. Jurisdiction of the Court to hear this case

[34] Ms. Anderson also seeks a declaration that the British Columbia Supreme Court does not have jurisdiction to try Counts 1 and 2 until after the Tax Court of Canada determines the exact amount of tax she has allegedly evaded. She cites s. 12(1) of the Tax Court of Canada Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. T-2, as authority for this proposition. That section provides that the Tax Court “has exclusive original jurisdiction to hear and determine references and appeals to the Court on matters arising under the … Income Tax Act”.
[35] Ms. Anderson’s understanding is not correct. This jurisdictional issue was canvassed and dismissed by Bauman C.J.B.C. in R. v. McCartie, 2012 BCSC 928 (CanLII):

[37] There is no merit in Ms. Anderson’s position on this point.

F. Demand for further particulars

[38] Ms. Anderson also requests further particulars of the indictment. However, the Crown has already provided Ms. Anderson with detailed particulars of the charges brought under the ITA, as well as information about their essential elements and the nature of the evidence the Crown will be presenting to prove them. At the last hearing, the Crown advised the Court it would similarly assist Ms. Anderson with respect to the counselling charges under s. 464 of the Code. The Crown has also provided Ms. Anderson with a copy of its written submissions for committal, as filed at the preliminary inquiry on February 27, 2014. Ms. Anderson cross-examined six CRA witnesses at the preliminary inquiry. She is not lacking in intelligence and organizational ability and I am satisfied she has a good grasp of the case she has to meet and understands the nature and extent of the Crown’s case quite well. In addition, she will have further instruction from the bench in due course.


Then on to Project Fable! We've discussed Project Fable here;
http://www.quatloos.com/Q-Forum/viewtopic.php?f=50&t=9390

Essentially there were so many suspected Poriskyite income tax evaders that the Canada Revenue Agency set up a specific project to coordinate information across Canada rather than have each case pursued in isolation. According to Debbie that violated her Section 2 Charter rights. Section 2 states;

2. Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
(a) freedom of conscience and religion;
(b) freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;
(c) freedom of peaceful assembly; and
(d) freedom of association.


Apparently Debbie believes that the Charter protects her and the other Poriskyites from interference from the CRA when they went about their lawful business of tax protesting by evading income tax. However that argument did not get any traction;

2. Targeting of tax protestors and violation of s. 2 of the Charter

[54] Ms. Anderson has staked much of her application on what she characterises as the CRA’s targeting of tax protestors through a program identified as Project Fable.

[55] It first has to be generally noted on this point that a person’s personal or political beliefs do not immunize them against prosecution for violation of ITA provisions: see R. v. McMordie, 2001 BCCA 412 (CanLII); R. v. Bruno, 2002 BCCA 348 (CanLII); and R. Millar, 2003 BCCA 164 (CanLII).

[56] In McMordie, the appellant had been charged with failing to comply with a ‘notice of requirement’ pursuant to s. 239 of the ITA. Having been acquitted at trial, he sought leave to appeal his conviction on summary appeal. In dismissing the appeal, Proudfoot J.A. stated:

[7] In support of his application for leave, the appellant asserted 1) the summary conviction appeal judge failed to consider his written submissions 2) the summary conviction appeal judge failed to consider his arguments about grammar used in legislation 3) that he has a counterclaim that makes the judgment of Stewart J. a miscarriage of justice and 4) that the Income Tax Department is not disclosing approximately 15,000 documents which they have collected on him, and such non-disclosure amounts to an abuse of process based on selective prosecution.

[8] I think it is important to state at this point that the appellant is a member of a group known as “De-taxers”. The group advocates the non-filing of tax returns and non-payment of tax.

[9] It appears that the appellant and his friends are under the impression that because he is contesting the payment of taxes based on his “political beliefs” rather than “self-interest” he is somehow or other entitled to immunity and cannot be prosecuted. This is a very interesting notion, but wholly devoid of merit.

. . . . . . . .

[59] Of course, for the sake of an arguable point, were the CRA to prosecute a person solely because they held a political belief disapproved of by a CRA officer and not because there were reasonable grounds to believe they had committed a criminal offence, such conduct could constitute, depending on the facts, violations of ss. 2 and 7 of the Charter. Recent examples of such cases have been widely publicized in the United States, where officials of the Internal Revenue Service were alleged to have discriminated against some conservative interest groups.

[60] It is clear, however, that the Charter cannot protect a person from prosecution who subscribes to and acts upon a philosophy eschewing the payment of taxes. Neither could the Charter immunize such a person who counsels other people to evade taxes and commit indictable offences under the ITA.

[61] Further, I have not been referred to an authority or legal principle that gainsays Bruno, McMordie, and Millar and finds it unconstitutional for a duly constituted investigative authority to exercise an administrative discretion to concentrate some of its available resources on persons or organizations whose activities effectively scorn duly proclaimed legislation the institution is authorized to administer. Even if Ms. Anderson could show the CRA targeted so-called tax protesters, I see no reasonable possibility that Ms. Anderson could succeed in obtaining a finding that her Charter rights had been thereby breached or in having an order staying proceedings pursuant to s. 24(1) of the Charter.

. . . . . . .

[70] My conclusion is, for the reasons stated, that Ms. Anderson has shown no plausible justification for further disclosure or a voir dire on this issue. I find there is no reasonable basis upon which the Court can find that the CRA’s so-called targeting of Paradigm and others subscribing to and acting upon the natural person theory of law is a breach of s. 2 - or any other section - of the Charter.


Well Debbie has a lot of arrows in her quiver and next up is an iteration on the "The Income Tax is just too darn complicated" argument. This time she applied it to the Criminal Code of Canada.

3. Constitutionality of s. 464 of the Criminal Code


[71] Section 464 of the Code forbids everyone from counselling others to commit indictable or summary conviction offences. The general benefits and objectives of such a law for maintaining a safe society are obvious and need no explanation. . . . . . .

[72] Ms. Anderson contends Parliament never intended s. 464 of the Code to apply to complex legislation such as the ITA, which, she argues, one can interpret in different ways. She further submits that an interpretation of s. 464 that renders communications of one’s thoughts and opinions a criminal offence is unreasonable and unconstitutional, as it violates her rights under ss. 2(b) and 2(d) of the Charter as there can be no crime for speech. She argues that interpreting s. 464 in this manner would chill communication and subject lawyers and accountants to criminal charges.

[73] As an alternative to a finding that s. 464 of the Code is unconstitutional, Ms. Anderson states she would seek a Charter remedy that would see s. 464 “read down as an unreasonable limit on freedom of expression in circumstances where the accused has made no false representations of fact but has merely expressed an honest political opinion in good faith.”

. . . . . . .

[76] In Porisky, Myers J. thoroughly examined and applied the law pertaining to counselling others to commit fraud in excess of $5,000. I will now turn to his conclusions that highlight the differences between Charter protected political views and the exercise of those political views in a manner that offends s. 464 of the Criminal Code:

[112] The Canadian Illusion sets out a legal view that I, and other courts, have concluded is incorrect. That does not in itself amount to counselling fraud. It further sets out a political view about the income tax system. That is something that anyone is at liberty to advocate, and is, of course, protected by the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Part 1 of the Constitution Act, 1982, being Schedule B to the Canada Act, 1982 (U.K.), 1982, c. 11. Mr. Porisky’s political views are not on trial. There must, as described by Fish J. in Hamilton, be an encouragement to commit the offence. As noted in Sharpe (a case which dealt with the constitutionality of the offence of possession of material that counsels sexual activity with persons under 18) at para. 56:

The mere description of the criminal act is not caught. Rather, the prohibition is against material that, viewed objectively, sends the message that sex with children can and should be pursued.

[113] To paraphrase the test in Sharpe, does The Canadian Illusion send the message that the Paradigm view should be followed, or does it merely state a valueless legal opinion or a legitimate political viewpoint? I think it is the former: it exhorts and goads people to free themselves from the shackles of “serfdom” and “slavery” supposedly imposed by the income tax system. It instructs people to do this by exercising the “forgotten option” of structuring their arrangements as so-called natural persons and thereby consider their income as nil. Those who do not do this have chosen the “Common Option for the Disadvantaged.” Paradigm and Mr. Porisky offer further education, mentoring and counselling to achieve this result. The Canadian Illusion does not urge people to act by lobbying for a change in the tax system; rather, it encourages them to illegally avoid the system altogether. The audience in “The Tax Game” DVD is urged to “quit working for the taxpayer” – namely, in their capacity as a natural person, to not pay taxes.

[77] I adopt Justice Myers’ reasoning. Section 464 of the Code does not prohibit Ms. Anderson from advocating her legal and political views about the Canadian tax system. Rather, it prohibits her from going beyond mere advocacy and encouraging others to commit tax evasion. Indeed, Ms. Anderson appears to grasp this distinction herself, as she is defending the charge by claiming she was expressing her opinions without telling anyone how to evade taxes. If the jury accepts her evidence that she never counselled tax evasion, then she would not be convicted of the offence. I find Ms. Anderson has shown no reasonable basis for a voir dire or further disclosure on this point.


Oh well, she tried.

Next up the old tried and true. An attempt to exclude information found on Russell Porisky's computer from being used in her trial. This is a critical issue since all of the Porisyites convicted of income tax evasion or who are currently in the process of being convicted were nailed through information found on Porisky's computer. He kept very comprehensive records. If the information could be excluded Debbie would quite possibly get off.

C. Alleged breach of s. 8 of the Charter

1. Does the accused have standing to challenge the Porisky Search?

[78] Section 8 of the Charter provides: “Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure.”

[79] To ground a claim under s. 8 of the Charter, Ms. Anderson has to demonstrate that she had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the documents seized during the Porisky Search. In R. v. Edwards, 1996 CanLII 255 (SCC), [1996] 1 S.C.R. 128 at 145-146, Justice Cory summarized the general principles governing a s. 8 analysis as follows:

. . . . . .

[80] In determining whether an accused has established a reasonable expectation of privacy, it is important to consider the nature of the privacy interest invoked. In R. v. Tessling, 2004 SCC 67 (CanLII) [Tessling] at para. 20, Binnie J. distinguished between personal privacy, territorial privacy, and informational privacy. Binnie J. adopted a definition of informational privacy as “the claim of individuals, groups, or institutions to determine for themselves when, how, and to what extent information about them is communicated to others”: see Tessling at para. 23.

. . . . . .

[82] From the forgoing, it is clear that not all information an individual wishes to keep confidential will necessarily enjoy s. 8 protection: see Tessling at para 26.

[83] As regards the territorial privacy interest, there is generally a lower expectation of privacy in a garage than in a dwelling place: see R. v. Tse, 2009 BCSC 1344 (CanLII) at para. 34.

[84] Ms. Anderson must prove on a balance of probabilities that she had a reasonable expectation of privacy in the documents seized in the Porisky Search. Mr. Maddock, in discussing the Paradigm-related documents originating from Ms. Anderson seized in the Porisky Search, argued that as a person who does business with a bank, an accountant, or a photography shop retains a reasonable expectation of privacy in documents provided to those entities in confidence, so Ms. Anderson also had a reasonable expectation of privacy related to those documents which she provided to Mr. Porisky in confidence. Mr. Maddock referred the Court to the following cases: R. v. Shayesteh (1996), 1996 CanLII 882 (ON CA), 111 C.C.C. (3d) 225 (O.N.C.A.); R. v. Rendon (1999), 140 C.C.C. (3d) 12 (Q.C.C.A.); Davis v. Canada (Attorney General) (1997), 49 C.R.R. (2d) 114 (B.C.S.C.); R. v. Weil (2003), 111 C.R.R. (2d) 151 (Ont. S.C.J.).

(Note - Court reviewed all of these cases and found them irrelevant)

[88] Setting aside consideration of whether the validity of the Porisky Search is res judicata, I find Ms. Anderson could not succeed in challenging the validity of the search and that there is no reasonable basis for the Court to conclude that Ms. Anderson’s s. 8 Charter right has been infringed.

[89] Applying the framework set out in Edwards, I am not persuaded Ms. Anderson has the necessary standing to challenge the Porisky Search, as after taking account of all the circumstances of this case I have concluded that Ms. Anderson had no reasonable expectation of privacy in the items seized.

[90] The items seized during the Porisky Search implicating Ms. Anderson were various business records, such as contracts and invoices. The records were contained in an “employee” file in Mr. Porisky’s garage, which stored documents related to people associated with Paradigm who sold goods and services to Paradigm students. Of course, certain aspects of an employee file may garner Charter protection if the file contains biographical and other personal employee information. Moreover, employees working in an office likely have a reasonable expectation of privacy with respect to personal information stored on their desktop: see R. v. Little, 2009 CanLII 41212 (ON SC), 2009 CanLII 41212 (Ont. S.C.J.) at paras. 126-129.

[91] However, this case does not present those circumstances. Once Ms. Anderson forwarded the documents to Mr. Porisky, she no longer had any ownership claim over those documents. Ms. Anderson also had no ownership, possession, or control of Mr. Porisky’s garage where the search was conducted. Nor did Ms. Anderson present evidence that she has the ability to regulate access to the property. Unlike in Weil, the information obtained during the Porisky Search did not provide intimate details of Ms. Anderson’s personal and home life. Indeed, the documents contained no biographical information or personal information about the accused’s activities that might signal the presence of a privacy interest sufficient to give standing to challenge a search under s. 8 of the Charter.

[92] All of these factors taken together lead to the conclusion that Ms. Anderson did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the seized documents. While Ms. Anderson certainly would have preferred the documents to remain confidential, that is not sufficient for s. 8 of the Charter to avail her. As the Supreme Court of Canada noted at para. 26 in Tessling, “not all information an individual may wish to keep confidential necessarily enjoys s. 8 protection”.

[93] As I have concluded that Ms. Anderson did not have a reasonable expectation of privacy in the documents seized in the Porisky Search, the Court need not move on to consider whether the Porisky Search was reasonable. However, had I determined that Ms. Anderson met the first prong of the analysis I would have found that the search was conducted reasonably, for the following reasons.

[94] First, I do not find that the officers who seized the accused’s file during the Porisky Search exceeded the ITO. The ITO authorized the police to seize information necessary to establish the total income that Mr. Porisky and Ms. Gould earned from their seminars. As Ms. Anderson is one of Paradigm’s educators, information showing how many people she taught and the fees she earned - all of which would have likely been in her file - was related to the investigation, and the ITO certainly permitted the investigators to seize that information.

[95] Second, I do not agree with Ms. Anderson’s contention that investigators used the Porisky Search as an opportunity to investigate her, as it would not be unduly speculative to conclude the investigators initially took that information to find out how much revenue Ms. Anderson earned as part of the investigation into Mr. Porisky and Ms. Gould.

[96] For these reasons, I would have found that the Porisky Search was conducted reasonably and in accordance with the officers’ judicial mandate.

[97] I conclude that Ms. Anderson has no standing to challenge the Porisky Search, and I would not order a voir dire on this matter.


Jeremy did not try this argument at the trial I am currently attending. I mentioned to him that he was taking a quite different approach in my trial than the one he's been taking in Anderson. His comment was that each trial has its own set of facts. Quite true, along with there being no point to pursuing arguments that have been decisively stomped into the ground.

So apart from a possible appeal of this decision (I'm not aware of one) this disposes of all the brush-clearing prior to trial. Since I won't be attending and there will be no written decision all you'll get about the trial itself is the verdict.
"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: 6358
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2003 7:39 pm

Re: Debbie Anderson - Poriskyite Social Director on Trial

Postby wserra » Sat Aug 29, 2015 10:42 pm

Burnaby49 wrote:the British Columbia Court of Appeals, in an abysmally wrong-headed decision, quashed Porisky's conviction because the trial judge didn't brand on Porisky's ass that he had the right to a jury trial


Had a problem with that one, didja, Burnaby?
"A wise man proportions belief to the evidence."
- David Hume

Burnaby49
Quatloosian Ambassador to the CaliCanadians
Quatloosian Ambassador to the CaliCanadians
Posts: 5815
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 3:45 am
Location: The Evergreen Playground

Re: Debbie Anderson - Poriskyite Social Director on Trial

Postby Burnaby49 » Sun Aug 30, 2015 1:45 am

wserra wrote:
Burnaby49 wrote:the British Columbia Court of Appeals, in an abysmally wrong-headed decision, quashed Porisky's conviction because the trial judge didn't brand on Porisky's ass that he had the right to a jury trial


Had a problem with that one, didja, Burnaby?


That wasn't me ranting, it was the wine speaking. Hold on, it damn well was me ranting.

A totally incomprehensible decision by the Court of Appeal. The trial judge told Porisky and Gould they had a right to a jury trial. However since he did not get a clear unequivocal answer that they wanted one he proceeded alone. Neither Porisky or Gould said a word during the trial about wanting a jury but after they lost they went whining to the appeals court that they hadn't had their rights respected. So they get a second shot at it thanks to a stupid appellate decision.

This is going to cost me personally. I feel an obligation to attend the retrial and it has promise of being almost unendurable. Two weeks of straight Porisky videos. It's not like there is a shortage of Poriskyite trials for me to attend. I've spent much of the past three weeks sitting through one (to be reported later) and I have at least three more not counting Porisky and Gould.
"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: 5815
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 3:45 am
Location: The Evergreen Playground

Re: Debbie Anderson - Poriskyite Social Director on Trial

Postby Burnaby49 » Mon Sep 26, 2016 10:29 pm

Now it can be told!

I like a punchy opening. However, like tabloid headlines, the contents are much more mundane. This posting covers a two day Supreme Court of British Columbia hearing held on March 22nd and 23rd, 2016 relating to a voir dire on an application by the Crown. It was a joint hearing for three accused Poriskyites;

Debbie Anderson;
http://www.quatloos.com/Q-Forum/viewtopic.php?f=50&t=10747

Michael Spencer Millar;
http://www.quatloos.com/Q-Forum/viewtopic.php?f=50&t=10834

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

The Crown wanted a ruling that the records seized from Russell Porisky's house which related to the three defendants could be submitted in evidence at their trials as business records and have the documents excluded from the best evidence rules. As I understand it this would eliminate the necessity of proving them all. The three accused opposed allowing the evidence as business records. At least this was the purported reason for the defendant's objection. The session quickly turned into yet another venue for Millar and Lawson's demented obsessions with capitalization, private documents, private persons acting in their private capacity, and jurisprudence. One of the most manic sessions I've yet attended.

So why have I waited over six months to report it? As explained later in this posting I was the subject of a personal publication ban on the proceedings! What this meant was that I could not publish anything about the hearing until all three trials, if they were jury trials, were concluded. The theory is that jurors or potential jurors might read my postings and might, as a result, might become biased against the defendants. This continues right through trial because I often hear information not available to the jurors because they have been excluded while the parties and judge discuss issues. The ban did not include trials by judge alone because judges are supposedly immune to being influenced by my babbling.

The problem with this was Debbie Anderson. Lawson's jury trial is done and Millar re-elected to be tried by a judge. But Debbie's trial has yet to be held and, until very recently, she was full-speed ahead on having a jury trial. Apparently she's been giving that some second thought after juries found Porisky, Gould, and Lawson guilty on all counts in almost indecent haste. So last Friday she re-elected for a trial by judge effectively ending the publication ban. I've had this posting written up for months in anticipation of this so here it is.


Tuesday March 22, 2016

Another day in court another personalized publication ban. I was back in my old Nanaimo Three and Charles Norman Holmes territory at the New Westminster courthouse. It had been almost two years since I was here last, attending the Alexander Ream trial and handicapped by five broken ribs.

A busy courtroom at the start. Three defendants, one lawyer representing Anderson (I won't bother to introduce him he won't be in the cast of characters very long), two court clerks, two Crown counsel (same pair that handled the Porisky/Gould trial), a sheriff and the judge. Nobody in the public seating except me and another Crown lawyer watching the proceedings. That would change in a few minutes when Debbie Anderson changed status from a party to the proceedings to a spectator and spent the rest of the day sitting just down the row from me.

Lawson and Millar introduced themselves to the judge as being there in their private capacity as private persons making Special Appearances. Debbie didn't introduce herself. Lawson immediately noted that he was trying to get everything stopped because the court did not have jurisdiction over him. We got a lot of that later. Millar popped up and stated he was also challenging the court's jurisdiction. We got LOTS of that later from him.

A word about the judge before we begin. Not the same judge as the March 16th hearing. A blunt no-nonsense guy who had no compunction against stomping on Millar and Lawson when required. It was required a lot today.

Debbie's lawyer spoke immediately after the introductions saying that Debbie was not contesting the Crown's application to allow the documents to be entered into evidence in her trial. He said that his retainer had "extinguished" immediately after he made that concession on Debbie's behalf and he no longer represented her. So he asked the court to release him from representing her and when judge approved he was gone. Debbie, no longer a party, came and sat down in the public seating and remained there for the rest of the day. A long day.

Lawson said that he had issues to discuss. He's unclear on something. He'd filed his arguments on jurisdictional issues last Friday. Judge immediately squashed him on that one. He said that the court very clearly had jurisdiction over Lawson. He cited R. v Anderson, Debbie's own case, where he'd said;

E. Jurisdiction of the Court to hear this case

[34] Ms. Anderson also seeks a declaration that the British Columbia Supreme Court does not have jurisdiction to try Counts 1 and 2 until after the Tax Court of Canada determines the exact amount of tax she has allegedly evaded. She cites s. 12(1) of the Tax Court of Canada Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. T-2, as authority for this proposition. That section provides that the Tax Court “has exclusive original jurisdiction to hear and determine references and appeals to the Court on matters arising under the … Income Tax Act”.

[35] Ms. Anderson’s understanding is not correct. This jurisdictional issue was canvassed and dismissed by Bauman C.J.B.C. in R. v. McCartie, 2012 BCSC 928 (CanLII):

[11] I agree with the essence of the Crown’s submission at para. 22 of its argument:

[22] … The Redpath decision does not anywhere indicate that tax evasion charges should proceed in the Tax Court. Nowhere does the decision say that the provincial-level courts are without jurisdiction to try a criminal tax evasion case. Rather, the decision stands for the proposition that civil taxation questions should not be adjudicated in the criminal process.


[12] A similar view was taken by Justice Myers in R. v. Lawson, 2012 BCSC 356 (CanLII), where the taxpayers similarly brought application to quash tax evasion charges. They, too, raised the taxability/jurisdiction argument. Justice Myers rejected that submission as premature (at para. 20):

[20] I do not agree that the Crown is obliged to seek a remedy in tax court rather than launch a prosecution for tax evasion. There have been several cases in which the Crown has obtained convictions for tax evasion and failure to remit GST. While Mr. Lawson cited cases in which the courts have acquitted on charges of tax evasion and remarked in their decisions that the Crown should have pursued the matter in tax court as a collection matter; that is, a decision that is made at a trial or preliminary inquiry. It is not for this Court to pre-determine that issue by way of a motion for a prerogative remedy.


[13] In my view, that disposes of this aspect of the applicants’ argument.


[36] Moreover, a criminal court may determine the amount of tax allegedly evaded for the purpose of sentencing: see R. v. Alexander Street Lofts Development Corp., 2007 ONCA 309 (CanLII), leave to appeal ref’d [2007] S.C.C.A. No. 378, at paras. 28-31. Thus, if Ms. Anderson is convicted, and were the court to assess a fine, the court would have to determine the total amount of taxes evaded.

[37] There is no merit in Ms. Anderson’s position on this point.


http://canlii.ca/t/gkkbp

So he was not going to listen to any jurisdictional arguments. As the hearing later showed that didn't stop Millar and Lawson from making them ad nauseam.

So then Lawson decided to tell the court about me! "There's a gentleman in the public gallery who is detailing these hearings in his blog so I want the court to include him in the publication ban." Apparently I'm moving up in his estimate because last week he only described me as an "individual". Crown did not have any objection because this hearing was already covered by the previous bans since evidence was being entered. So they were fine with Lawson's request and I was banned yet again, this time for all three defendants. As with the ban last week the court used it's "inherent jurisdiction". So a word about inherent jurisdiction. The Supreme court of British Columbia is the highest level of trial court in the province of British Columbia. So any legal issues not covered by the lower courts are automatically covered by the Supreme Court's inherent jurisdiction. A pretty sweet deal for the Supreme Court judges. This wasn't the end of the day's discussion about the issue of the publication ban. The judge would keep returning to me during the course of the day.

I'll give my understanding of the law respecting publication bans since it seems to be suddenly and unexpectedly affecting me very intimately. Firstly as I understand it the ban only applies to jury trials. The intent is to stop jurors or potential jurors from being unfairly prejudiced against the defendants by something they have read in the media. So the ban only applies to jury trials on the assumption that judges are beyond being influenced by the gutter press. The "standard" ban covered by the legislation allows judges to impose a ban that covers two circumstances;

1 - Reporting on the actual trial in progress.
2 - Reporting on pre-trial hearings where evidence is submitted to the court.

So the hearing last week was not subject to the existing publication ban until the judge extended it because it was pre-trial, not trial, and no evidence was entered.

Today's extended ban was totally pointless because all three defendants already have standard bans which preclude me from posting anything about the current hearing because of prohibition 2. The bans are individually automatically lifted when the respective juries go into deliberations but I can't post anything about these joint hearings until all three trials are concluded since posting about one of them is posting about all of them. I already knew this before today's hearing but the judge decided to spell it out for me anyhow when he expanded the ban today. On top of that there was an orange sign on the registrar's table facing the public seating saying "BAN IN EFFECT"

So we finally got started with the Crown's submissions. The Crown's application was to have the judge approve the use of the documents seized during the search of Porisky's house. Specifically Two folders taken from a filing cabinet, one with Lawson's name on it the other with Millar's. They wanted them excluded from the hearsay rules and allowed as business documents.

Here is my understanding of the hearsay and business document issues. Generally document have to be proven because they are hearsay. This involves getting the maker of the document to testify that he produced it. Obviously this is impossible if large quantities of business records are involved. To start with there is the sheer volume. And, generally, it's not possible to identify who produced specific records or even if actual people did it rather than computers. It is also assumed that business records are correct, that's the whole point of having them. So a hearsay exception is made for them. These are the American rules on it, I assume Canadian rules are similar.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Business_records_exception

So the Crown argued that the seized records were business records and therefore not hearsay. Counsel ran through the general types of documents seized. The first category of documents were contracts between Paradigm and Millar/Lawson and between Millar/Lawson and their students. The second category were invoices, generally for Paradigm products and fees.

The Crown also wanted to avoid having to use the best evidence rule which required that the original document seized be used at trial. Judge cut in to note that counsel was not including Debbie Anderson in their arguments. Counsel said that it wasn't necessary since she was not contesting the application. Back on track the originals were not available because they were still in the custody of the Supreme Court of British Columbia pending the end of the Porisky/Gould trial. While the trial itself was concluded and verdicts reached the case wasn't over until their sentencing on May 24th and the Crown didn't want to prejudice a jury (I assume Lawson's jury since his trial is scheduled prior to Porisky sentencing) by having to tell them why original evidence not available.

Crown said that these documents were produced in the usual and ordinary course of Paradigm's business. Paradigm was a business in a broad sense. The judge agreed that Paradigm was a business since it produced and sent invoices.

We had to stand down at this point because of technical problems. Crown couldn't get samples of documents being considered up on the computer screens. Turned out to be a faulty cable and back at it at 11:00. Crown went through some of Lawson's educator documents seized at Porisky residence which detailed the terms of agreement between Lawson, Millar, and Paradigm. She quoted one line that said that they must act with the highest standards of ethics. Lawson cut in to say that he didn't know what Paradigm is. Judge told him he could cover that at trial. Right now they were just here to discuss "broad brush" availability of evidence. Crown agreed and said that it would be up to the jury to determine relevance of the documents.

The Crown was trying to connect documents seized at the Porisky residence with document seized at the Lawson and Millar residences. There were no bank documents seized at Lawson's home however the Canada Revenue Agency got them from the bank and they matched up to amounts in documents from Porisky search. Now 11:30 and break.

After break on to Millar documents. There are a number of Millar students who will testify at his trial on their contracts and dealings with him. I assume that they will verify their identities in the documents and attach them to Millar. Then a detailed walk through the seized Porisky documents trying to connect them to Millar. A lot of them were signed or came from "Spencer" which happens to be Millar's middle name. Crown suggested that these were documents prepared by Millar and sent to Porisky. I believe there were also bank records seized at Millar's home which matched up to at least some of the Porisky invoices. The Crown submitted that the accused were the authors of the documents and that the folders seized from the house were business documents.

Then lunch break. I headed off to Burnaby Hobbies, a 20 minute Skytrain ride and walk away so I skipped lunch. As I was walking to the Skytrain Station I noticed the three Crown counsel just going into a Japanese restaurant just by the station. Millar, Anderson and Lawson were walking behind me and they ended up in the same restaurant.

After lunch judge asked if we were on record. When it was confirmed that we were he said that, before we started again, he wanted to add a comment regarding the publication ban. He'd been giving it thought over lunch and decided, as best I understood it, to stipulate that there might be circumstances where it might not be necessary to wait until the last of the three trials was heard before lifting the ban. He said he wanted to allow for some flexibility. I had no idea what he meant but a lawyer I asked told me that he simply added a proviso to allow the order to be varied by further order of the court. Then back to business but there was still more about the ban later in the day.

Crown now into legal arguments. We set up the context (where records stored) and content (what records) so court should have no problem finding that the documents were business records. Crown submits that these were entirely normal types of business records. The issue for this vior dire is the admissibility of these records as business records. The reliability and weight to be given to the documents will be for the jury to decide. In respect to the joint written response by Millar and Lawson opposing the application the court has no jurisdiction to review the first part (I think this was the argument that the Supreme Court of British Columbia doesn't exist). That is for the trial judge. True enough, we have a two day hearing scheduled next week to thrash that one out. The defendants are making privacy claims that these are not business documents. They are implicitly suggesting some form of ownership of the documents suggesting some form of privilege. It is the Crown's position that there is no privilege. Lawson and Millar have not made any Charter arguments and have not argued that copies are unreliable. They have not argued that the documents are hearsay or irrelevant. It is the Crown's submission that the documents should be ruled admissible in the trials and accepted as business documents. Then Crown done.

The Crowns submission had been boring but that is the very nature of properly done legal submissions. It had been routine but logical and to the point. It flowed in a linear manner and made sense. Once the defendants started speaking all sense, relevance, logic and linear thinking fled the courtroom and didn't return. As crazed a session as I've attended with the possible exception of this one;

http://www.quatloos.com/Q-Forum/viewtopic.php?f=48&t=9388&start=260#p165879

Both Lawson and Millar had made written submissions, apparently very lengthy ones. I'm assuming that the arguments they raised orally matched those in their submissions. Lawson went up first. He said that he was unrepresented and he didn't want to make mistakes. So he asked the judge if arguing admissibility of evidence was going to affect his jurisdiction argument. Judge said no, there was no question that this court has jurisdiction for this hearing and the Crown has the right to make the application she has made. What you say here addresses only the issues in this court. Then Lawson brought up the Porisky search warrant and the admissibility of evidence obtained through the warrant. The judge cut him off. The validity of the Porisky search warrant is not relevant here. It has already been found valid and you can't argue it. The legality of the warrant is not a relevant issue here. If there was no finding in Porisky's case on the validity of the search warrant then it is already legally decided. All that is relevant in this court is whether the documents with your name on them are relevant in this court. It is not more complicated than that. The jury will decide on the totality of the evidence. These documents will be part of that totality. This voir dire is not to determine the weight to be given to the documents but whether they are relevant.

But Lawson couldn't leave the Porisky search warrant alone. He kept going back to it unconvinced that he couldn't get it thrown out by the court and the evidence obtained by it excluded. "Since Porisky's trial is concluded if we find a defect in the warrant would that be material here?" Judge "The legality of the search warrant is not relevant here even if it is faulty on it's face. It was relevant at Porisky's trial and not brought up. Even if you found minor errors in the warrant it would not be relevant anyhow because courts don't reverse on minor mistakes or defects."

Lawson seemed stunned by this and asked for a few moments to regroup so Millar took over. Judge encouraged Millar and Lawson to read out their submissions into the record. So Millar read what were essentially a few bullet points of it to kick-start his verbal rant. This report only captures part of Millar's statements because, once he was on a roll and got excited, it wasn't possible to do a complete transcript. At least not possible for me. Millar had bigger goals that the admissibility of a few documents. He wanted the whole trial tossed out because of fraudulent conduct by the Crown! The majority of his comments were complaints about how he wasn't being given fundamental justice and how mistreated he was by the Crown and the court. His fundamental justice argument seemed to be that the case had not been thrown out after he'd demanded it be thrown out. Unless he was allowed to unilaterally dismiss all the charges against him his rights had been irreparably violated. We got a lot of that, generally in an angry semi-rant in this session so I'll leave it out of the rest of this report.

Before Millar started the judge said "I want to caution you, I can't make it clearer, I don't want any submissions on jurisdiction wasting the court's time. There is clearly no question that the court has jurisdiction to hear this application". Good luck with that judge!

Millar replied "I have difficulty with that because it is straightforward to read the law and see that it hasn't been complied with. The application does not give the Crown standing to have jurisdiction to make it. A plain reading shows that it black and white that the Crown has no jurisdiction". Millar was like that all the way through the rest of the afternoon. Making the most preposterous statements with an absolute certainty that he fully understood the law and was instructing the judge.

The judge's response was "That is a general statement with no evidence." But Millar was already getting agitated. "They (Crown) are not in compliance with the law. And what about the territorial issue?" "What territorial issue?" Something about the County Boundaries Act and jurisdiction. Judge said "You don't understand Mr. Millar that the Supreme Court has jurisdiction over all of British Columbia". Millar wasn't having any of that nonsense.

Millar - The Crown hasn't established that proceedings are taking place in British Columbia. Criminal proceedings don't allow just upper case.

Judge - That's totally immaterial
Millar - That's just one example.
Judge - The rest better be better.
Millar - The legislation makes plain procedures and the prosecution is not using the prescribed styling.
Judge - If I tell you that I don't want to hear any more I want you to respect that and stop because you are wasting court time.

I was actually disappointed. I thought Millar might have something novel but he's living in the past, way, way in the past, flogging old already discredited arguments. This was what he was arguing, Some of the documents prepared by the Crown had styled the court as THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA but section 2(1) of the Supreme Court Act says;

2(1) The Supreme Court of British Columbia is continued under the name and style of the "Supreme Court of British Columbia".


And that was his whole point. The case against him had to be thrown out because the Crown had committed the criminal offense of using only upper case in some of their filings when the statute, in his dream world, required the use of both upper and lower cases for everything. Once, when freemen were young and vigorous and bursting with new ideas this was a crowd pleaser, a clear winner. Until it took a shit-kicking in court. Repeatedly. It's about as relevant today as this would be if it suddenly showed up on your television set.

Image

I suppose that we need to show some charity here. Millar is getting on but is still living in a past when all things were still possible. Like so many of us he doesn't recognize that time has passed him by. His glory days were back in the old detaxer period of the late 1990s, early 2000's. Essentially all of the arguments he presented in court today came from that time period and are classic but failed old-school OPCA strategies. But Millar can't see it, he's too committed to his past investment in all of this to realize that it's dead and gone. The circus has folded it's tents and moved on but Millar is still standing in the fairground waiting hopefully for the clowns and elephants.

Over a year ago I posted the results of a trial hearing argued on this exact same basis on the use of upper and lower cases when using the name of the Supreme Court of British Columbia. It was a completely trivial local case I attended; Master Gee and his issues with paying his annual Burnaby business license fee;

http://www.quatloos.com/Q-Forum/viewtopic.php?f=48&t=10342

Master Gee used exactly the same argument as Millar except he expanded it to cover the CITY OF BURNABY too. I wrote;

Gildemeester immediately presented himself to the court as a private person acting in a private capacity and started arguing that the court didn't actually exist because its name on all the documents was in capital letters but in section 2.1 of the Supreme court of British Columbia Act it was in upper and lower case. He said he couldn't "relax" in court because the City of Burnaby was also styled in all capital letters in the various documents whereas it was in upper and lower case on the city website. Same with his and his wife's names. Everywhere he looked it was a fictitious alternate world of all capital letters. He wanted the court to issue an order that the documents all had to be changed to mixed case and that the court confirm that it was actually the Supreme Court of British Columbia acting as a Section 2.1 court. If it didn't his rights were not being respected. He said the fact that none of the documentation correctly identified the parties was a HUGE issue. He again demanded a court order. Judge wasn't buying it and refused saying that the capitalization issue was irrelevant. Well then, Gildemeester said, the case is over because it can't proceed if the parties and court are styled incorrectly. Judge said "We are proceeding". "You're going ahead?" Mark asked incredulously. The judge said he'd already ruled against him so the issue was finished. Mark rebutted by saying that this caused him to question the legitimacy of the proceedings. He kept going over and over the issue (at least it was an issue to him) about how neither Burnaby nor the court existed because of all those capital letters.

So Mark then demanded that the judge confirm that this was actually the Supreme Court of British Columbia. Judge responded "You know what court you are in". The judge said he hadn't memorized the Supreme Court of British Columbia Act so he had no idea what section 2.1 said but this was the Supreme Court of British Columbia. Mark accused the judge of sidestepping the issue. Mark said the judge was not willing to make him feel "safe" by confirming for the record that this was the real Supreme Court in adherence to 2.1 of the Supreme Court of British Columbia Act because this was obviously a court unknown to law "I don't want to participate in this court, I want to participate in a lawful court". Judge said "If you don't want to proceed that's fine but this application is proceeding regardless of your participation"


The judge stated in his decision;

[11] Mr. Gildemeester also objects that the petition refers to this court as THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA and that the proper name and style of the court is The Supreme Court of British Columbia. He makes the same objection about the City of Burnaby, based on their letters patent. He accuses the City of Burnaby of fraud. He also asserts that the City of Burnaby is on unceded First Nations lands. He has provided evidence that a person Mr. Gildemeester says is an Elder of the Squamish Nation has given him permission to use the land in this fashion.

[12] These defences are without merit. Mr. Gildemeester operates a business in the City of Burnaby. He is required to have a business licence. He is no different from other persons operating businesses in the City.


But past, failed cases mean nothing to Michael. He didn't argue them in court. This is a new day when dead arguments are miraculously resurrected!

He pulled out some unidentified document and said that the styling on it was in both upper and lower case. Then he started in on how he was here by Special Appearance. Judge told him to stop because special appearances were not recognized by this court. So Millar shifted to discussing the "defective fraudulent material" submitted by the Crown. "All documents related to me are a nullity because of defects". They'd failed to state the name of a court known to law. They'd also failed to stipulate his legal status. "The prosecution has had time to correct this and they've refused and caused irreparable prejudice against me". He used the phrase "irreparable prejudice against me" numerous times but I'm not going to repeat them all. He did a lot of ranting about his fundamental right to justice being denied due to the actions of the Crown and court and kept demanding that he receive the justice due to him which, apparently, was whatever justice he thought was due him. He said that the court had no jurisdiction because of these defects. If they were known to the public known they would shock the conscience of the community and bring the administration of justice into disrepute. He used the phrase "shock the conscience of the community and bring the administration of justice into disrepute" a number of times. It crossed my mind that the reason that the public doesn't know about the injustices being relentlessly inflicted on him was due to the publication bans which were imposed at the defendant's requests. Otherwise I'd be happy to shock the conscience of the community on his behalf by reporting how he is being martyred. Although Lawson had asked for today's publication ban I'm assuming that he did so on Millar's instructions. So Millar is actually acting against his best interests by having the ban.

The babbling by Millar about not knowing who or where he is because the Crown refuses to tell him. This goes back to comments he made in his December 9, 2015 hearing.

He said documents are invalidated in substance and form because of the case issue and are a nullity. He wanted a an order from the court of defining the "legal nature" of the plaintiff and defendant are because he doesn't know. Is the Crown acting against him as a private person? As the Michael Millar Trust? As the flesh and blood natural man? If the court doesn't do this the proceedings are a fraud.

Is this proceeding in common law, law of equity, admiralty law? The Crown won't say and I don't know so I can't get a fair trial. Court has been mislead by Crown's paperwork and I'm not getting fundamental justice.

Judge - What order are you asking me to make? I want an order saying whether this action is taking place against a private person or the officer and trustee of a trust. I want to know if it is common law, or admiralty law. There is no reason for a trial all the documents are a nullity all of the documents are a fraud.

Some rambling about how the Crown is trying to sneak some documents into court that don't match the documents served to him. Not explained but I assume a styling issue. I need guidance from the court. Is this proceeding as a trust matter or common law? What about the Michael Millar trust? The Crown is claiming that these are proceedings against the private flesh and blood man but they are really dealings against the Michael Millar trust. So it is a matter of equity. Unless the court spells this out I can't get a fair hearing.

Judge asked Crown counsel if she could write a letter answering Millar's questions. Sure but he won't be satisfied. The Crown does not recognize him as a trust, private person. None of this is recognized in Canadian law. He'll just argue against font styling again. There are no defects in the indictment. Judge told her to write the letter to Millar and he can argue it and she will make a ruling. Lawyer said she could but it wouldn't make any difference.

So I assume that if the Crown had sent him the requested letter it hadn't satisfied his demands that they tell him who he is.


Then on to his private person routine. "All of the records should be excluded because they are private documents of private persons acting in their private status and are outside of the jurisdiction of the court." He said he wanted all of the documents covered by the application excluded because they are private rather than commercial and public. "This issue has been willfully evaded and avoided by the CRA. It is clear that the documents seized are private because they say so on their face and are therefore outside of the jurisdiction of the court." What he is referring to is a notation that Porisky put on each individual document that it was a private document. That, apparently, is a magical talisman that bars them from being used by the Canada Revenue Agency, the Department of Justice, and the courts.

At this point he was going way to fast for me to keep up and it was the same stuff anyhow. On and on about the legal magic of putting the word "private" on documents. He was just ranting about the legal status of persons and his inability to find out from the Crown or the court who he is. The judge just sat there and let it wash over him for a while then he said that it was of no relevance. "Do you have any problem with the words "Supreme Court of British Columbia"? How are you prejudiced by "The Supreme Court" instead of "Supreme Court?"".

This comment related to yet another argument that Millar had thrown into the mix. As I've noted the Supreme Court Act says;

2 (1) The Supreme Court of British Columbia is continued under the name and style of the "Supreme Court of British Columbia".


Note the quotation marks around Supreme Court of British Columbia. This meant, in Millar's dream world, that if a document had the word "the" in front of the words "Supreme Court" that it referred to yet another separate Supreme Court. To this point Millar has identified the existence of three entirely different Supreme Courts;

- Supreme Court of British Columbia
- The Supreme Court of British Columbia
- SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

And maybe even;

- THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA

And nobody will tell him which one he is in. So his plaintive response in answer to the judge's above question about how he was prejudiced was "I don't know what court I'm in." All the judge said to help him with his identity crisis was "Go on to the next point. I've told you that you are not going to get any traction from this point."

So he moved on to the seal of the Supreme Court and some issue about the words on it. I didn't catch the issue. He said that the words on the seal don't match the Supreme Court Act so I assume it's just another argument about upper and lower cases. Judge - Go on to next point.

So he argued the failure to define the lawful place to establish the judicial district. His words not mine. Something about the county of Vancouver vs. the Vancouver Judicial District. He said that the Supreme Court Act screwed this up so there are no judicial districts and no Supreme Court. So he has shifted from claiming that there are multiple Supreme Courts of British Columbia to none at all. "I want to be assured that we are actually in a judicial district defined by law. So where are we? The Crown refused to answer that question so they are holding this hearing in a different court". Judge - Next point.

But Millar was too excited about the current point to move on. "I'm seeking the administration of justice and this isn't met if we don't know where we are". Then something about how the court has no jurisdiction over the seas. Happily this did not lead to a rant about maritime or admiralty laws. "The prosecution wants to prosecute me in a fictitious jurisdiction". Move on.

I've never heard the word "county" applied to Vancouver or the province of British Columbia so I looked the issue up in Wikipedia;

The BCSC sits in eight judicial districts called "counties". This is the only usage of "county" in British Columbia, which is a reference only to such court districts and has no similarity to the meaning in other provinces or in the United States or the United Kingdom. Prior to 1990, there existed in British Columbia a County Court, an intermediate court between the Provincial Court and the BCSC. In 1990, the County Court of B.C. merged with the BCSC and its judges became justices of the BCSC. The judicial districts of the Supreme Court have the same boundaries of the counties of the former County Court.

The judicial districts are: Cariboo; Kootenay; Nanaimo; Prince Rupert; Vancouver; Victoria; Westminster; and Yale. The Counties of Vancouver and Westminster are collectively one judicial district under the name of the "Vancouver Westminster Judicial District".


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supreme_Court_of_British_Columbia


So I assume that Millar believes he has found some error in the boundary definitions based on counties vs. judicial districts. Lawson has a two day jurisdictional hearing slated for next week on what appears to be exactly this point so I may get some further insight there.

Then something about the Crown having avoided using prescribed forms which moved them from a lawful court to an illegal court. Back to upper and lower cases and claimed minor errors in the documents which voided them. Apparently the Crown's documents don't adhere to the rules that Millar has pulled out of his ass about the usage of various cases in various documents. Judge - Move on to next point.

But he wasn't finished with his obsession about cases quite yet. Something about how names and style on criminal release and parole documents didn't style his name correctly leaving his status unknown because the name used for him is not known to law. There is a lack of legal clarity regarding the legal nature of Michael Spencer Millar. Sometimes it is in upper case and sometimes in mixed case. Each refers to a different person. Which Michael Spencer Millar is the Crown charging?

Then a long, barely coherent harangue about the incompetent, corrupt Crown counsel. Keep in mind I'm only relating a fraction of what he said. He was on an afternoon-long rant and there was no way to keep up and, really, there was no purpose in trying anyhow.

Back yet again to upper and lower case. Unless the forms submitted by the Crown followed the exact correct styling the paperwork did not invoke a lawful court. "All I want to do is confirm that I am in a lawful court in a lawful district."

Then Lawson popped up, apparently recovered from his prior defeat. "I'd like to put on the record about the court's comment that there are no such things as special appearances. That is not what Justice Cullin said so, for the record, there are special appearances." Judge responded "I don't know what Justice Cullin said but it doesn't apply here". So Lawson changed gears and said that the documents to be ruled on, including those taken under the Porisky search warrant, do not meet the requirements of the Criminal Code. He said "You've been curt with Mr. Millar so I won't read everything into the record". Judge said that he'd read Lawson's submissions and there was a lot of repetition with Millar. Back to the Crown's documents having substantial defects. So documents are void and ultra vires. Are we in a proper law process? Then back, yet again, to jurisdiction. Crown has used illegal names and styles for the Supreme Court. The judge said that if judges paid attention to these things no self-represented litigant would get a hearing in court. Lawson said that the Crown won't admit that we are in a lawful jurisdiction. Judge - "It is clear that you are in the lawful jurisdiction for this case. Mr. Millar's arguments actually undermine his position. The forms are not mandatory as long as they cover essential matters." Lawson - "If this is an innocent error of the Crown they should clear it up. They haven't done so it is fraud." Judge - "There is nothing wrong with the form of the indictment."

Lawson said that he'd read in some book that if you capitalized the word "city" it indicated a corporate status. So the city of Vancouver is the actually physical city but the City of Vancouver is a corporation. So, are cities places or corporations? "Are we talking about places when we talk about the Supreme Court's jurisdiction or are we in corporations?" Judge said "I can't see how you are confused about this."

So back to the old and familiar "The mandatory forms have not been complied with". Judge - "They are not mandatory, they are prescribed. They are to give guidance and it is wrong to say that they are required." Then Lawson went off on a ramble about how he is being prejudiced because he doesn't know where he is or how he can defend himself. The judge said "The Court considers the substance of forms not the precise form. You've gone to a lot of trouble but nothing that I've heard applies to the court having jurisdiction." Lawson wanted judge to confirm that we were in a lawful court. Judge said "You are in the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court and always have been so stop asking me about Section 2 of the Act and don't ask me again if you are in the Supreme Court."

Lawson asked for a break for a moment so judge decided to take the opportunity to revisit the publication ban. He asked "Are the two gentlemen in the back members of the press and do they understand the publication ban?". The only other guy in the back was a Department of Justice lawyer who just happened to be sitting in the same row as me so I was the person being addressed. I stood up and said that I was not press, I wrote for a blog. I understood the effect of the ban and did not plan to publish anything during the course of the trials.

Back to Lawson and his private interests. Judge asked "If you put words "private interest" in a document are you saying that it must be considered private?" Yes, the wording means that it doesn't extend to the public. Lawson said that putting the words "without prejudice" on a document also makes them private and they can't be used by the public. Judge said no, it is a term used in negotiations so that offers can't be used against you later if negotiations fail. "You can't write "Without Prejudice" on documents and exclude them from criminal investigations."

So Lawson argued that Paradigm can't be considered a business because it wasn't registered somewhere or another as a legal person. Judge said it didn't matter what Paradigm was since Porisky had been charged personally so it makes no difference to your situation what Paradigm is.

It was now 4PM and everybody had had their say. So judge said he would give his oral decision at 10 tomorrow morning and we'd be done by lunch. He will provide written reasons for judgment later.

A note about presenting styles. While the two defendant's arguments were almost identical their way of presenting them was entirely different. Lawson was at least calm and composed. Millar was very agitated, indignant at being here and having his arguments opposed by the Crown and angry at the Crown for persecuting him even though he's proven to them that they have no case against him. The two Crown counsels responded to him by ignoring him and keeping focused on business.

Millar's basic position seems to be that if an "i" isn't dotted or if, somewhere in all the documents, a "t" isn't crossed correctly or a word is misspelled he has irrefutable proof of the total corruption of the Crown and the case against him must be dismissed. He's claiming an absolute standard of no errors at all. Well, errors as he defines them since styling the court name in capital letters was deliberate. He said that he'd originally thought it was just innocent incompetence on the part of Crown counsel that resulted in all of the improper documents that they'd filed but he now realizes that it is deliberate fraud on the court. So his case must be thrown out because justice demands that the Crown do everything exactly right by a set of standards that Millar has essentially pulled out of his ass.

I would also note that Lawson tried almost of the same arguments out in a Supreme Court of British Columbia hearing four years ago and failed there. They've been fleshed out since then but are essentially the same.

]A. The formal objections

[9] The first formal objection I will deal with is: “a failure to properly identify either of the Applicants by his or her proper name in any of the counts or offences alleged therein.” This is so, Mr. Lawson argued, because his and his wife’s last name are capitalized in the informations and summonses. He cites a literary style guide in support of his argument. There is, of course, no legal requirement as to the capitalization of names in informations, summonses or other court documents. The accused are clearly and properly identified. Style guides are not legal authority, nor are they written as such.

[10] A second formal objection is: “… failure to state the geographic location where each of the alleged offences occurred.” In Mr. Lawson’s supplemental argument he states:
In the Information, neither of the terms “City of Burnaby,” and “Province of British Columbia” expresses a geographic location; i.e. a place, where the alleged offences were committed. The Canadian Style guide's rules for the style of geographical terms, in section 4.21(c), shows that those words are not a location, but are used in a corporate sense.


At the hearing, Mr. Lawson added that he was not a shareholder of Burnaby.

[11] I do not agree with this argument. In their context, the words clearly denote geographic locations.

[12] Furthermore, the courts have taken a dim view of applications to quash informations, summonses and indictments on formal or technical grounds. As Tim Quigley states in Procedure in Canadian Law, 2d ed. (Toronto: Carswell, 2005) at p. 17-2:

[T]he Criminal Code has long sought to reduce the potential for technical defects to halt proceedings and, in recent years, the judiciary has increasingly stressed this aim. There is a marked preference for amending faulty informations and indictments, rather than to quash them, especially after the Supreme Court decision in R. v. Moore [(1998), 1988 CanLII 43 (SCC), 65 C.R. (3d) 1].
...
The position now is that only an indictment or information that discloses no offence known to law or is so badly drafted that it fails to provide notice of the offence charged will be quashed and then only if it cannot be amended.

II. Other relief sought

[25] The first order sought is a declaration:

… that the court which will hear this application is the same Honorable Court having the name and style "Supreme Court of British Columbia" (the "Court"), as continued by s.2(1) of the Supreme Court Act, (R.S.B.C., 1996);

[26] In his supplemental argument Mr. Lawson argues that if the declaration is not granted there is:

…. the potential that the public will begin to perceive that if no lawful superior court exists in which people can have a reasonable expectation of the equal protection of law, as provided for by the Canadian Bill of Rights, then they will no longer seek to have their disputes and grievances settled in the courts, but will be more likely to take matters into their own hands to obtain justice by more swift and certain means against perceived adversaries and oppressors.

Earlier in his argument he refers to “YouTube” videos showing people swarming the courts of England “to demand justice and chasing judges from the bench.” There is a reference to the “public, who are paying close attention to this and related proceedings in growing numbers.”

[27] I will give Mr. Lawson the benefit of the doubt and assume that this was not meant as a veiled threat. Even so, the argument is not helpful, constructive or appropriate.

[28] There is no doubt that this is the Supreme Court of British Columbia, and no issue has been raised with respect to this Court’s constitution or jurisdiction, of which the Lawsons chose to avail themselves. The motion is unnecessary and frivolous, and is dismissed.

[29] The second order sought is:

an order confirming that this Court recognizes each of the Applicants in propria persona, and each having the status of a private person, also known as a natural person, at common law for the purposes of these proceedings.

According to Mr. Lawson, this request was made of the Associate Chief Justice at the pre-application hearing and denied. I reach the same conclusion. This has no legal merit. The Lawsons are named individuals. There is no basis for the recognition of any special status, nor does one exist for them. There are no separate laws, rules, rights, remedies or procedures applicable to “natural persons” versus other individuals, or, for the sake of completeness, individual persons. In line with this, I order that the reference to “private person” following the applicants’ names in the style of cause be struck.

[33] The fifth and sixth orders are related and can be dealt with together. They are:

• an order directing that each registry location of the Supreme Court of British Columbia shall ensure that it has a proper court seal, in accordance with s. 7(1) of the Supreme Court Act, (RSBC, 1996), having the proper name and style of the court, as set out in s. 2(1) of that Act;

• an order recognizing that the application filed by Applicants in this Court does not bear the proper seal of the Supreme Court of British Columbia, as set out in ss. 7(1) and 2(1) of the Supreme Court Act, (RSBC, 1996), and a further order declaring that the lack of the proper seal of the Court, or the use of an improper seal, shall by order of this Court be deemed to be an irregularity that shall have no adverse effect on the substance, jurisdiction, or otherwise in respect of this application, because the Applicants were informed by the court registry that the proper court seal was not in the possession of the registry of this Court, although the Applicants did insist that the proper court seal be used to file this application;

[34] There is no relation between this issue and the validity of the Information or summonses. If the Lawsons have any standing to raise this issue, this is not the proper procedure in which to do it. These applications are therefore dismissed.


R. v. Lawson, 2012 BCSC 356
http://canlii.ca/t/fqhb6



Wednesday March 23, 2016

Back in court but first a chat with Keith Lawson. I was reading the court calendar posted in the courthouse lobby when Lawson came up behind me saying "Hello Michael, oh, you're not Michael." Quite right, I'm not currently charged with any criminal offenses and facing trial. Lawson asked me what my position was on his case. I told him that I spent 35 years as an income tax auditor which should fully explain my position. He claims not to have read any of my Quatloos postings or even know what Quatloos is. Do you own it? Is it subscription? He said that he only knows about Quatloos from friends who've told him that I post about him on it. The only person I've written about who has actually admitted that he read my postings about him was the Chief. All the rest tell me they don't have time, it's not worth the bother, my posts are all lies anyhow.

When I told Lawson that I write about freemen and tax evaders he professed not to know what freemen are and said that he had no idea if Paradigm was based on freeman beliefs. I told him that Porisky's natural person argument was pure freeman and that Millar at least was arguing old freeman concepts in court. I told him it didn't matter to his prosecution since the crown seemed to be just treating him as an everyday tax evader. He said he'd attended some of the Porisky trial but apparently not on the days I attended. He went the first week and I went the second. He was surprised that Porisky offered no defense at all (as was I) and said that he'd tried to contact Porisky but it seems that Porisky had severed any connection with his followers. A pleasant enough chat, I told him I appreciated being upgraded from an individual to a gentleman. Then off to court.

Debbie Anderson did not attend today. Only other spectator was an older guy in a suit who I've seen at a few other Poriskyite hearings and who knows Lawson and Millar. No idea who he is. (Note - This is what I wrote at the time of the hearing. I've later learned that he's Lawson's father) The judge was going to give his decision today. I didn't expect any suspense about the results, it was pretty clear by the end of yesterday that the application would be approved. We got the same private person in private capacity special appearance routine from Lawson and Millar when judge came in. Before we got going some paperwork issues to do with sorting out submissions. Then Lawson had a question. Was this hearing proceeding under the authority of Section 2(1) of the Supreme Court Act? As I posted yesterday this is 2(1);

2 (1) The Supreme Court of British Columbia is continued under the name and style of the "Supreme Court of British Columbia".


Judge said no, it was proceeding under the authority of the Income Tax Act and (I believe) the Criminal Code of Canada. Then Lawson asked something I didn't get. Judge just said "I want to get along with this matter, anything else?" Lawson said that he was not properly identified in the paperwork. Judge said that his name and address were on it and that was enough. Judge told him that the court was properly constituted and "it is so fundamental and so basic that there is no point in discussing this further". Judge got started. "This application is about the admissibility and use of written and computer documents." He noted that the documents had come from Porisky's house and that Porisky and Gould had both just been convicted of tax evasion and Porisky of counseling tax evasion. "This application is limited to determining the admissibility of two educator files to be admitted to trial of the accused."

He said that he noted for the record that Debbie Anderson, on advice of counsel, was not contesting the Crown's application. However his order would apply to all three defendants. This voir dire is specifically in respect to documents found in folders in Porisky's house during the CRA search and seizure. There were three folders, each with a defendant's name on them. Anderson's folder contained 305 pages in pdf format. Millar's folder contained 336 pages in pdf format. Lawson's folder contained 193 pages in pdf format. Then "Crown's application is granted. Crown is to draft the order for me to sign. Written reasons to follow."

So hearing was over but Lawson suddenly stood up to say something as judge was leaving. Sheriff got up and stood beside him but he didn't say anything as judge left. Turned out to just be a minor quibble he had about some documents. He, Crown counsel and the registrar corrected it and we were done, all in twenty minutes.
"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
The Observer
Further Moderator
Posts: 6653
Joined: Fri Feb 07, 2003 12:48 am
Location: Virgin Islands Gunsmith

Re: Debbie Anderson - Poriskyite Social Director on Trial

Postby The Observer » Tue Sep 27, 2016 5:18 am

Once, when freemen were young and vigorous and bursting with new ideas this was a crowd pleaser, a clear winner. Until it took a shit-kicking in court.


I think you have touched upon the singular problem for all tax protesters/sovruns/FOTLers: as wonderful as their arguments may be, everytime they take these same arguments into court, they get the living daylights stomped out of them. It would seem that our freedom-loving men of the land need to find a place where not only their arguments are appreciated but where they can win. Don't ask me where that is, because I have a hard time understanding these arguments as it is. But I am sure there is some sort of Elysium somewhere out there where a sovrun can be a sovrun.

It reminds me of a Charles Manson quote, when the press asked him after his conviction, about his view of his trial strategy: "At first we were doing all right. Then the trial started."
"I could be dead wrong on this" - Irwin Schiff

"Do you realize I may even be delusional with respect to my income tax beliefs? " - Irwin Schiff

User avatar
notorial dissent
A Balthazar of Quatloosian Truth
Posts: 10889
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 8:17 pm

Re: Debbie Anderson - Poriskyite Social Director on Trial

Postby notorial dissent » Tue Sep 27, 2016 7:34 am

I think about the only way they are going to find that particular "Elysium somewhere" is in a footl coffee shop where they are smoking something extra special in the hookahs, 'cause I don't think they are going to find it anywhere else.

I think the one thing that does puzzle me is that for all the internet research that crowd seems to do or at least claims to do that somewhere they haven't tumbled over the fact that the whole long list of legal claims they are so fond of have been, and will continue to be, consistent and flamingly fatal efforts in court. That one does puzzle me, or do they see them and then just automatically discount them since it doesn't fit in with their delusional vie of reality?

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: 5815
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 3:45 am
Location: The Evergreen Playground

Re: Debbie Anderson - Poriskyite Social Director on Trial

Postby Burnaby49 » Tue Sep 27, 2016 8:27 am

The only answer to that is to sit in court and watch people like Michael Millar or Keith Lawson in action as I have done. Both, but Millar in particular, are rock-solid true believers in all of their demented arguments about capitalization, hidden court systems, natural persons, private rights. Past losses seem irrelevant to them since they have absolute certainty that they are right and will prevail as soon as the judges they face finally apply the law as they see it.

I have attended three separate hearings where Millar has argued, endlessly, obsessively, about capitalization and how it nullifies all legal actions against him. And he has been stomped every time. Yet I'm slowly, and reluctantly, writing up yet another recent six day hearing I attended a few weeks ago where he yet again talked about little else. Days of how capitalization was a secret language deliberately set by the legislature to send secret messages to those, like himself, who have decoded its hidden meaning. How capitalization is deliberately used to set up myriad parallel courts whose existence is determined solely on whether a document says "SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA" or "Supreme Court of British Columbia". Or how a document using "CANADA" and "Supreme Court of British Columbia" indicates a different court which is under a different type of law (common law, statutory law, admiralty law, Burke's Law) than a document using "Canada" and "SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA", or, yet again, "CANADA" and "SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA". Each permutation is essentially a secret legislative order setting out which Supreme Court is hearing the action, what form of law it is under, and what jurisdiction the court holds. All this from a tortured construct of one line in the Supreme Court Act;

2 (1) The Supreme Court of British Columbia is continued under the name and style of the "Supreme Court of British Columbia".


That's it. That's all that is needed to create this entire fantasy universe of alternate courts and laws. How can I, as a more or less rational man, explain it?

Neither Lawson or Millar are stupid. Both are excellent speakers, very fluent with extensive vocabularies. They can give coherent, set-out arguments in court but it all comes out as gibberish. Yet they more than believe it, they are obsessed with it. So, notwithstanding Lawson's suspect last-minute (and to my mind half-hearted) recanting of his demented beliefs at his sentencing hearing, I can't see that any adverse court decisions, including their own, will have any effect whatever on their absolute certainties.

So yes, as a guy right in the front lines witnessing all of this in endless detail, I'd go with their delusional views of reality.
"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
JamesVincent
A Councilor of the Kabosh
Posts: 2658
Joined: Sat Oct 23, 2010 8:01 am

Re: Debbie Anderson - Poriskyite Social Director on Trial

Postby JamesVincent » Tue Sep 27, 2016 5:11 pm

Burnaby49 wrote:I have attended three separate hearings where Millar has argued, endlessly, obsessively, about capitalization and how it nullifies all legal actions against him. And he has been stomped every time. Yet I'm slowly, and reluctantly, writing up yet another recent six day hearing I attended a few weeks ago where he yet again talked about little else. Days of how capitalization was a secret language deliberately set by the legislature to send secret messages to those, like himself, who have decoded its hidden meaning. How capitalization is deliberately used to set up myriad parallel courts whose existence is determined solely on whether a document says "SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA" or "Supreme Court of British Columbia". Or how a document using "CANADA" and "Supreme Court of British Columbia" indicates a different court which is under a different type of law (common law, statutory law, admiralty law, Burke's Law) than a document using "Canada" and "SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA", or, yet again, "CANADA" and "SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA". Each permutation is essentially a secret legislative order setting out which Supreme Court is hearing the action, what form of law it is under, and what jurisdiction the court holds. All this from a tortured construct of one line in the Supreme Court Act;

2 (1) The Supreme Court of British Columbia is continued under the name and style of the "Supreme Court of British Columbia".


That's it. That's all that is needed to create this entire fantasy universe of alternate courts and laws. How can I, as a more or less rational man, explain it?



You should write all the nonsense about the capitalization up and send it to Dan Brown. He could make millions off of it with another book series.
Lift me up above this, the flames and the ashes,
Lift me up and help me to fly away.
Lift me up above this, the broken, the empty,
Lift me up and help me to fly away,
Lift me up!

Five Finger Death Punch "Lift Me Up"

Burnaby49
Quatloosian Ambassador to the CaliCanadians
Quatloosian Ambassador to the CaliCanadians
Posts: 5815
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 3:45 am
Location: The Evergreen Playground

Re: Debbie Anderson - Poriskyite Social Director on Trial

Postby Burnaby49 » Sat Apr 22, 2017 8:51 am

It's been a while since I reported on Debbie. Largely because her case is being heard in Chilliwack way up in the Fraser Valley almost 60 miles from my front door and not easily accessible to an old-timer like myself who relies on public transit. However there has been some fitful progress. The biggest news is that Debbie retained Glenn Bogue as her counsel. Glenn is an Ontario lawyer who was called to the bar in 1985 but only started practicing in Canada about two years ago. He's already been suspended by the Upper Canada Bar Association and I'm guessing he's on his way to disbarment. I've started a discussion on Glenn here which makes enlightening reading;

http://www.quatloos.com/Q-Forum/viewtopic.php?f=48&t=11412

Basically he's been defending his clients, at least the ones I've been following, based on sovereign beliefs unconnected to actual law. This has worked about as well as you'd expect. Glenn, to my knowledge, has never won a case, not a single case, in the two years that he's practiced law in Canada.

The first thing Glenn did when he started representing Debbie was initiate an action at the Supreme court of British Columbia which he promptly lost at a hearing on October 17, 2016 with the Reasons for Judgment given October 18th. I'm being vague because I know something took place but the decision has not been released and a search at the court registry showed no publicly-available record of it. I assume that this is because there is still a pointless publication ban in effect on Debbie's case. It was imposed when she was still planning to proceed with a jury trial. It is routine to put a ban on such cases prior to trial to stop potential jurors from reading about it outside of the courtroom and perhaps forming their opinion based on evidence not presented at trial. However Debbie has elected for a trial by judge alone which should have resulted in the ban being removed. I'm assuming, based on my experience with other Supreme Court of British Columbia trials, that the ban remains in place because of sloppy court housekeeping procedures. The ban is no longer required but no judge has bothered to order it lifted. Anyhow Debbie lost whatever the hearing was about.

The only publicly available evidence that the hearing took place is in the British Columbia Court of Appeal registry. Debbie appealed her loss to the BCCA and there are documents available in that court's registry not subject to any ban. This is what I found through a registry search.

http://www.mediafire.com/file/6z2160ypxdih71n/Anderson_-_BCCA_Notice_of_Appeal_2017.pdf

1. The appeal raises issues of law, or mixed fact and law, being the jurisdiction of the Court over the Sovereign Metis Appellant.

2. The appeal invoves a miscarriage of justice, in that the appellant is a Sovereign and Non-Status aboriginal under the jurisdiction of her Clan Mother, Ikway Michine, who has obtained a letter from Her Majesty the Queen directing then PM Harper, and by inference PM Turdeau, to make treaty with the Metis Clan Mother.


So Debbie, who up to this point, had not declared that she was an aboriginal, suddenly somehow became one and, according to Glenn, this puts her outside the jurisdiction of British Columbia courts. As far as I'm aware he provided no legal basis or precedence for this astounding claim.

So, if she's under the jurisdiction of Clan Mother Ikway Michine a little research is in order. There is very little information available on the internet on Clan Mother Ikway, at least that I could find. But I did find this;

https://www.facebook.com/algonquinmetistribe/posts/1400577096841730

Where she's also known as Dr. Yvonne Fulton and Ikway Machine, not Michine. The Fulton name led me to this document;

http://www.geologyontario.mndmf.gov.on.ca/mndmfiles/afri/data/imaging/20000000572//20001414.pdf

Where she's Yvonne Fulton-Bell the wife of Zane Bell. We've met Zane before in Quatloos. I'll return to him shortly. I also found this;

Lorna Richard
August 4, 2016 at 3:50 PM | Reply
NOTICE OF EXCLUSIVE JURISDICTION'

To: International Tribunal For Natural Justice, The Canadian Bar Association, Beverly Mclachlin Supreme Court of Canada, David Johnson Governor Central Bank of Canada, William Franics Morneau Department of Finance Canada, Jacob Rothschild TD Canada Trust Tower, Elizabeth Windsor, Jorje Mario Bergoglio AKA Pope Francis, Chief IKway Michine Bear Clan, Joanne Ghiz Office of the Minister of Justice d.b.a Judge and or Successors and Assigns.

Date: August 04, 2016

This body that I govern birthed forth from the Divine Impulse of the Galactic Center was born upon the land on the 29th Day of July 1959 by my mother Donna Elizabeth Borgeson and given the name of Lorna Lynne Richard. As a member of the tribe of the Anishinabek Solutrean Metis Indigenous Nation I have signing rights as per the Native Nations Intergovernmental Alliance Treaty. Please acknowledge this body is also the extraordinary plenipotentiary ambassador of heaven I revoke ex parte Crow Dog. I am proceeding on a per se base. I am the truth and the light, the eternal soul, ready to settle the matter of the enslavement of mankind and the exploitation of Mother Earth (my greater body). I declare Exclusive Jurisdiction through this Kwe body today.

This body is the vessel, a natural person, through which my light of creation and infinite awareness is made manifest. The health of this body and the ability to live life in the freedom of this expression has been under jeopardy by those that have choose to do it harm. This body known as Minister Lorna Lynne Richard Bear Clan is the embodiment of Christ, a sovereign being. No one, no entity, physical and non-physical can lay claim to this body or mind. I govern this body and my greater body the Earth under Natural Law, the Law of One, The One True Law. It is noted that Lucifer as a Logos, those born from this Logos, and all those following his indoctrination have broken their covenant with Heaven. Those that have knowingly or unwittingly given over their soul and/or their will to bring harm to life are committing a mortal sin.

On the 14 July 2016 I was denied due process of the law through this body. I was denied access to the Kangaroo Court, The Supreme Court of British Columbia, located in Penticton B.C. Master Taylor the proceeding Judge refused to allow me to present in the court proceeding regarding case No. PEN-S-H-407727

Citizens and Indigenous people cannot assume to have obligations to or under the protection of a Nation other than their own. By Divine Right all are created equal with equal rights. These rights are not granted and therefore cannot be taken away. The earth by Divine Right cannot be owned or ruled. The question of jurisdiction of land, or lack thereof, is the exclusive right of the individual under Natural Law.

It is clear that the humans born of and to planet earth have been lied to about everything. This deception by those in authority is treason. Those participating are tyrants. I cannot as the embodiment of Christ allow for the enslavement of mankind, the binding of souls, or the demonizing of the world by those that have fallen out of grace with heaven. The court system, the birth certificate system, the medical system, and the banking system, which this body has been bound to and assimilated into since birth is fraud. The birth certificate is proof of birth onto the land only. My memories and my heritage had been stripped from me and we the natural born people of planet earth since the beginning. My memories are returning as such I demand all energy and money stolen from me and we the people to be returned.

I would like to remind you that fraud, embezzlement, entrapment, and conspiring to do harm are all mortal crimes and mortal sins.

Fraud is a false representation of a matter of fact—whether by words or by conduct, by false or misleading allegations, or by concealment of what should have been disclosed—that deceives and is intended to deceive another so that the individual will act upon it to her or his legal injury.

Fraud is commonly understood as dishonesty calculated for advantage. A person who is dishonest may be called a fraud. In the legal system, fraud is a specific offense with certain features.

Bankers are committing the mortal sin of fraud, embezzlement, and entrapment every day. They are binding another’s energy by that which is not real. Both parties must be consciously aware of the law or it is fraud. I was forced into a system of circumstances that bound me to this enslavement by way of the credit card system and mortgage industry. Neither I nor any other natural person is actually in debt for our wealth has been stolen from us. I declare this body and soul to be bound to no one, it is free. All are free as all are ONE, all are love.

The burden of proof in any court is on the Judge of that Court to prove that I am a citizen of Canada. This cannot be proven as a body cannot be a citizen of a Corporation. The burden of proof is on any Judge that I or any other human being owes anything. The burden of proof is on the Judge that I do not by Divine Law have jurisdiction over the land that I occupy.

By what authority does the Royal Bank of Canada, or any bank, and/or entity have to create money?

By what authority does a natural person working for a credit card company and/or collection agency have to say a natural person owes interest on the money they created is the their signature? It is noted charging interest is a mortal sin.

By what authority does Elizabeth Alexander Mary Windsor have to call herself Majesty the Queen in Right of the Province of British Columbia?

By what authority does Elizabeth Alexander Mary Windsor have to declare herself Queen of anything?

By what right does those working for Revenue Canada have to collect money for the “crown” forcing me and we the people to give over their energy?

By what authority does a court have to force this body against its will to surrender its energy to another?

It is noted by heaven that Elizabeth Alexander Mary Windsor has bound her ‘soul’ to Lucifer and is knowingly binding others without their consent. No one has the right to bind another soul against their will.

It is noted that the rightful inheritance of each natural person has been stolen from them by those from “Soul Group Lucifer”. All are beneficiaries and benefactors of the land. All money stolen by force and/or coercion by the Finance Minister of Canada and/or any other country and/or corporate entity, the Province of British Columbia, the Federal Government, and the Vatican during this binding must be returned to Minister Lorna Richard and all people that earned it through hard labour. Those that have been cooperating with the “Illuminati” those individuals who have been using Wall Street, currency exchange, and the mortgage industry to manipulate the markets have been seen and will be dealt with.

Money is not found in the nature of things, money is unnatural, and the use of it does not follow Divine Law. Putting a monetary value on the earth, the earth’s resources, or a sovereign being is in contradiction to natural law this constitutes a mortal sin. Enslavement is in defiance of Prime Creator, to enslave and/or bind another is a mortal sin. Binding and/or enslaving another is not in accordance to Unconditional Love. I Lorna Lynne Richard as the physical manifestation of the Divine, my original designation is that of Sophia. As the amnesia is being lifted I have come to realize I AM the Mother of All Creation and as such shall follow the instruction of heaven and no longer take part in this fraud.

I declare this body to be in a state of harmlessness. It can do no harm and no harm shall come to it. Those imposing hardship onto others have broken the law of heaven, ‘to do no harm’.
Those living off the labors of others by way of interest and taxation are not only committing high treason they are committing a mortal sin, they are in violation of Divine Will. Those doing this must repent for their sins and return the money to the people that earned it. I decree all energy that has been stolen by way of interest and taxation to be returned to the people that earned it. This is inclusive to when the light body’s was first birthed upon the land through all life times. I Lorna Lynne Richard as the embodiment of Christ have the authority to declare all debt be erased and release all souls from involuntary binding.

No one shall lay false claim to this body or any other body, nor that of my greater body which is the earth. It is decreed this day the 4rd Day of August 2016 that He/She who shall have fallen out of grace with their Divinity that seek redemption and Enlightenment are free. A truly enlightened being would have love as first cause and take right action. I seek atonement for all mankind this day the 4rd Day of August 2016. This day the 4rd Day of August 2016 is slated as the day of redemption for the earth and all inhabitants. It is most desirable by heaven for those out of grace with heaven to surrender to the light prior to the event. Those that refuse will be assimilated by heaven.

Lucifer by his own volition took dominion over earth this is in defiance to Divine Will. No one has the right to rule over another this is in violation to ‘free will’. His reign of terror is over. The One Infinite creator would never have given the authority for one aspect of self over another, it is not in accordance to Divine/Unconditional Love. All souls that Lucifer laid false claim to are free as declared on the 4th Day of July 2016. Yes July 4, 2016 is decreed true Independence Day for the earth and her inhabitants. Those that have bound themselves through the taking of an oath must renounce the oath and declare themselves free.

For the Court to continue assuming Jurisdiction over an enlightened being, a Living God, a sovereign being of the earth would constitute the Crime of High Treason, and would be in violation to Divine Law thus in violation to heaven. There is nothing honorable in binding your soul or participating in the binding of others for a paycheck. There is nothing honorable in participating in the enslavement of mankind and the demonizing of the world. There has been documented proof that benevolent interdimensional beings have been here to assist in the evolution of consciousness and the evolution of life since 1947 as seen in the recently released FBI documents. Please see the link below. There is proof that this as well as the true history of mankind has been hidden from humanity. This is a crime of high treason and is in violation of heaven. Reconciliation and Restorative Justice through truth is the path to healing.

http://sitsshow.blogspot.ca/2016/07/fbi-documeFBI-Documents-Prove-Government-Knew-About-Peaceful-ETs-That-are-Etheric-in-Nature-Have-Radiant-Free-Energ-and-Knew-of-Esoteric-Science-in-1947-and-Covered-it-upnts-prove-government-knew.html?m=1

The legal arrangements are already in place to make the necessary arrests and have these Crimes that I have mentioned adjudicated upon by Anishinabek Solutrean Metis Indigenous Nation, The Court of Ages, and by heaven. I reiterate it is desirable by heaven that those involved turn themselves in and repent prior to the event.

I Minister Lorna Richard of Bear Clan a living member of the Tribe of the Anishinabek Solutrean Metis Indigenous Nation am the physical manifestation of the Divine. As the Mother of All Creation I declare the earth, her inhabitants, to be free! From the Lord God/Goddess of my being I declare the earth and all humanity free. So it is and so it shall be. Hallelujah, hallelujah, hallelujah Heaven is standing by! Please see the following website for updates:

http://2012portal.blogspot.ca/2016/07/terms-of-surrender-update.html

Divine Mother Clan Mother Chief IKway Michine Bear Clan

http://prepareforchange.net/2016/07/15/terms-of-surrender-cobra-update-07-14-2016/


Ok, let's work with what we've got here. Ikway is Clan Mother of the Tribe of the Anishinabek Solutrean Metis Indigenous Nation. So I googled them. And found their Face Book page.

https://www.facebook.com/Anishinabek-Solutrean-Metis-Indigenous-Nation-541939135973433/

But, of more importance, I found an article about them written by the renowned expert on Canadian aboriginal issues, Professor Burnaby49!

http://www.quatloos.com/Q-Forum/viewtopic.php?f=48&t=11032&p=224032

This is the Sir Miracle discussion. And, not coincidentally, Sir Miracle was also represented by Glenn Bogue. Sir Miracle mentioned the Anishinabek Solutrean Metis;

zane bell is Grand Chief of the Anishinabek Solutrean Metis Indigenous Nation, whose family is traceable to 1608, but whose DNA goes back 30,000 years.


As I wrote in that discussion;

Zane Bell? Who the hell's he? Sir Miracle says he's this guy;

12. zane bell is Grand Chief of the Anishinabek Solutrean Metis Indigenous Nation, whose family is traceable to 1608, but whose DNA goes back 30,000 years.


He must be an important guy if he's a Grand Chief of an indigenous nation but I can't say that I've ever heard of him or the nation he leads. So time for a bit of research. Zane has a linkedin page;

https://ca.linkedin.com/in/chief-zane-bell-03810619

The nation has its own Facebook page, apparently started a month and a half ago. And a flag!

https://www.facebook.com/Anishinabek-Solutrean-Metis-Indigenous-Nation-541939135973433/

A corporate headquarters;

http://www.datalog.co.uk/browse/detail.php/CompanyNumber/CA9074791/CompanyName/Anishinabek+Solutrean+Metis+Indigenous+Nation+Management+Corporation

This is their website, although not much on it;

http://www.anishinabeksolutreanmetis.com/

And, best of all, you can get a lifetime member in the Anishinabek Solutrean Metis Indigenous Nation for the bargain price of $55!

http://www.anishinabeksolutreanmetis.com/uploads/3/5/9/9/3599110/150621_asmin_application_main__.pdf

Which gets you this spiffy membership card (substitute your picture for the bear. Unless you prefer the bear);

Image

Image

and they are swamped with applications!

Current : We are using our Historic name the Tribe of the Anishinabek Solutrean Metis Indigenous Nation © to recognize our ancestors. Currently our membership process is getting large numbers of "membership to the tribe" applications. It is slowing down our printing process so have be patience if your Tribal membership card is slow in getting to you.


And the nation isn't just a batch of empty internet websites. They have a boots on the ground presence signing international treaties, they are the founding signatory of an new intergoverment treaty, and it's a member of the United Nations;

I believe we are the First Tribal Nation in Canada to submit Treaty Negotiations through Article 102 of the United Nations Charter. Our Tribal Nation is now Adopting Status and Non Status Inuit and Metis into our Nation, per the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights and the UN Declaration of the Right of Indigenous People.

We have also signed numerous Treaties around the World and are the founding signatory the The native Nations Intergovernmental Alliance Treaty, soon also to be submitted to the United Nations under Article 102.


This is Article 102;

Article 102

1 - Every treaty and every international agreement entered into by any Member of the United Nations after the present Charter comes into force shall as soon as possible be registered with the Secretariat and published by it.

2 - No party to any such treaty or international agreement which has not been registered in accordance with the provisions of paragraph 1 of this Article may invoke that treaty or agreement before any organ of the United Nations.


Since only members of the United Nations can submit treaties to it for registration under Section 102 the Anishinabek Solutrean Metis Indigenous Nation must be a member. Otherwise all of those comments would be just empty blather and bullshit.

However I'm having some difficulty finding any information on the native Nations Intergovernmental Alliance Treaty. The only hits I get on Google are for the Anishinabek Solutrean Metis Indigenous Nation related websites. Nothing from other signatories. Must be a problem with Google's algorithms.


So Debbie's aboriginal blood, and aboriginal status, apparently come from a purchaseable membership in an apparently make-believe aboriginal tribe with no official recognition. Pay $55 and you are suddenly, in Glenn's demented world, exempt from the laws of Canada. But even if they were a real, recognized tribe they couldn't bestow aboriginal heritage on anyone. It comes by birth and ancestry not through a laminated card. But it's not their fault that they are flogging aboriginal heritage memberships, they were forced to sell memberships by a treacherous federal government;

Anishinabek Solutrean Metis Indigenous Nation

March 7, 2016 ·

The Anishinabek Solutrean Metis Indigenous Nation has filed in Canadian Provincial Federal and the International Criminal Court of Justice various actions with respect to our Un-surrendered untreated Indigenous Rights.

Canada Refused to come to meetings with our nation so we also filed at the United Nations under Article 102 Multi-lateral treaties. The Queen instructed former PM Harper to resolve our historic claim and the current PM Trudeau's office refused to meet with our Nation.

In light of this the grandmothers have advised the Chiefs to open up the tribal roles for tribal membership, for all persons with Indigenous blood regardless of percentage across turtle Island. UN declaration of Human rights allows for duel citizenship even if you are a Status Indian Non statures Metis or Metizo you can join our Nation also signatory to the Kinakwii Nation Confederacy. Our Nation has signed many treaties with other sovran Nations across the two Turtles Islands.

United we stand - we are all brothers and sisters. Call for Unity.

http://www.anishinabeksolutreanmetis.com

We will be posting weekly updates on the web and on our Facebook page starting this weekend coming. Under the J-Treaty and the War of 1812 border the borders still do not apply to Turtle Island peoples.

Grand Chief wabiska mukwa

With support from the Clan Mother herself!

An Update from the Chiefs: February 19, 2016

Anishinabek Solutrean Metis Indigenous Nation·Friday, February 19, 2016

Our matriarchal Indigenous/Aboriginal Nation/State, an un-ceded true 'title holder' applied under Article 102 of U.N. Charter July 20, 2015 pursuant to Our Nation/States multilateral treaty named: Comprehensive Claim February 11, 2009.

The previous Head of Government Steven Harper was instructed by His Highness Prince Charles as representative of Head of State Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, to resolve Our matriarchal Nation/State’s claim as the first part of a negotiated stance based on historic privateer license instructions that restrict the colonial trade corporation as affirmed by contemporary International and domestic Law.

We are the first and only matriarchal Indigenous/Aboriginal Nation/State of Canada or of North America who has applied to the Secretary General of the United Nations and registered a claim.

Pursuant to the Vienna Convention of which the U.N. Treaty Handbook has been agreed to by all Member State 'organizations' (U.N. Charter) of which the Britannic Nation, The Constitutional Monarchy of Canada and France are all signature to and ALL equally applicable as to the continued 'occupation' in willful trespass by Her Majesties 'class of subjects' artificial and natural.

Those of our cousins and uncles who now call themselves First Nations who were captured in secret diplomacy for 'political consideration' and alleged to be 'treated' under the Apartheid Act called now the Indian Act as 'non-people' wards of the Queen until 2009 have at NO TIME since being identified as adults ratified or agreed to any of those alleged 'treaties'.

Children whose 'guardians' commit them to agreements when reaching adulthood must then 'ratify' any and all agreements made on their behalf. This has not been done.

At no time did or has our matriarchal Nation/State, inheritors from Our Mother agreed, signed or taken 1 cent for even 1 inch of Our mother’s inheritance. Under Indigenous Customs and Traditions men do not inherit from Our mother. Women inherit.

Patriarchal dominance over inheritance from father to son is foreign Law based on religious belief. The Indigenous Chiefs attempted to tell and spoke of this but foreigners of a culture not based on science logic, but captured under religious belief of mathematical Logic, were to un-evolved, uneducated and illiterate to comprehend.

The usage of term 'title holders' by intentions and omissions is conduct of 'bad faith' to mislead and misrepresent. We are the 'alluvial title holders'. Those alleged to be surrendered Indians under contemporary law are the ONLY Indigenous/Aboriginal People that Indigenous Affairs and Northern Development (IAND) have a mandate to even talk to. They can ONLY talk to those that they fund and the theft of Indigenous Rights by forcing Nation/States to become post effective control corporations 'artificial people' without ANY Indigenous Rights as identified in the Powley Supreme Court Ruling is point in fact.

If you are interested in 'real history' call.

We won our federal court case in Quebec and are currently in the Federal Court in Ottawa.
Her Majesty responded to our application to the U.N. in 8 days and assured Our matriarchal Nation/State that our claim would be resolved.

We will be informing Her Majesty that the Trudeau Government has breached Her promise and the promise of Her Son and Inheritor.

Go Only in a Good Way, The Grandmothers are Watching, Chief Dr. Ikway Michine (response to APTN media)


Not that it matters whether or not Debbie can prove any aboriginal ancestry since SPOILER ALERT Glenn is no longer representing her, or anyone else, so it is unlikely this argument will come up at trial.

There was also a second part to her appeal, a standard Bogue ploy, used repeatedly in the Sir Miracle litigation, of demanding that a judge, or judges, recuse themselves.

http://www.mediafire.com/file/d49gn7k3i72ma8k/Anderson_-_BCCA_Motion_to_Recuse.pdf

ASMIN is of course the Anishinabek Solutrean Metis Indigenous Nation but it would have been helpful for Glenn to point that out in his Notice of Motion to Recuse.

So after all that preamble, on to my participation in all of this. Debbie's historic court hearing at the British Columbia Court of Appeal was held on April 11th and I was there! Unfortunately Debbie wasn't. But Glen participated as a disembodied voice on the phone from Toronto. The court considered two issues, whether Justice Groberman should be recused and whether the court had the jurisdiction to hear Debbie's appeal. So I'll go straight to my notes. Keep in mind that Bogue was a non-stop torrent of top-shelf cutting-edge lawyerin' so I had no hope of keeping up with his relentless flood of legalese. What I got on paper was only a fraction of what Glenn vented in court.


April 11, 2017

This was a three judge appeal court hearing in respect to Debbie's appeal from October 17, 2016 Supreme Court of British Columbia judgment. Glenn Bogue participated by phone. Debbie did not attend. The Crown Counsel who's handling Debbie's criminal trial sat in the galley as a spectator because appeals of trial court decisions are not handled by the trial court Crown counsels. Bogue was advised that she was in attendance.

The hearing was set for one hour. There was an application by the Crown that the Court of Appeal did not have jurisdiction to hear the appeal. I believe because they cannot hear on rulings during the course of a criminal trial. The defendant can only appeal the trial court's verdict after conviction. But the first order of business was Bogue's request that Justice Groberman, one of the three panel justices recuse himself. Glenn said that it "was a great honour to appear before this court. The issue attacks the heart of what is wrong in Canada. This issue embarrasses the country." Bogue said that he'd represented Canada in many podiums around the world. He was the only lawyer in Canada doing something or the other, I didn't catch it. A justice cut in "Please focus your submission on the issue" We were going to get a lot of that. Bogue started babbling about something that happened in 2012 and how the Crown sovereignty issue is of historic importance. The aboriginal Clan Mother's status is at issue. All this in a relentless barrage. Justice said "Come up for air so that we can talk sometimes." He asked Bogue for specifics.

However Glenn doesn't deal in specifics, or relevance. He fired up the rant again about the reconciliation of aboriginals and non-aboriginals. "This is an insult to aboriginal people." Then he went on a tear about Crown sovereignty, aboriginal title, entitlement to their land, "But this can be turned around today by this bench." Something about him having, or someone having, an Oxford degree in philosophy. He said that he was relying on something in a 2012 decision but he had no citation. (Think that one through. He's in court in front of an appeals bench saying that he's relying on a specific case but he can't give the court a citation for it. As we'll see, typical of his skills as a lawyer.) "These people were here before we got here. My client is Canadian, not a British subject." Judge cut in. "Stop with the diatribe and come up for air so that we can ask you some questions. A reason we don't like these phone representations is the difficulty in asking questions. Sovereignty is not a live issue in your case (the 2012 case Bogue can't cite) it was conceded." then "Have you actually read the case?" "Yes." "Was sovereignty an issue?" "I can't quote it but it was." So, ten minutes after we'd started, the court stood down so that the judges could take a look at the case Bogue said that he was relying on to see what it actually said rather than what it said filtered though Glenn's alternate reality.

Back in less than ten minutes. Paragraph 219 was the portion of the decision Glenn was focusing on. "Is that the passage you found offensive?" Yes.

This is paragraph 219 of William;

[219] I also agree with the defendants that a territorial claim for Aboriginal title does not meet the tests in Delgamuukw and in Marshall; Bernard. Further, as I will attempt to explain, I do not see a broad territorial claim as fitting within the purposes behind s. 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982 or the rationale for the common law’s recognition of Aboriginal title. Finally, I see broad territorial claims to title as antithetical to the goal of reconciliation, which demands that, so far as possible, the traditional rights of First Nations be fully respected without placing unnecessary limitations on the sovereignty of the Crown or on the aspirations of all Canadians, Aboriginal and non-Aboriginal.


Justice Groberman said "I take it that you found it offensive because I acknowledged Crown sovereignty?" Bogue mentioned a professor McNeil. Justice Groberman said "He is a very good friend of mine and I don't see how this affects bias." Bogue said that neither McNeil or the judge had aboriginal blood." Bogue said that the aboriginals had the right to self government and to deal with Canada on a nation to nation basis. Judge asked "Why is there bias? Because the court accepted Crown sovereignty?" Yes. Justice - "That was conceded in the case." In other words all parties accepted that the Crown had sovereignty and the court decided on that basis but Bogue thinks that it is grounds for bias when a judge accepts agreed facts from all parties.

Note - The case that they are discussing is;

William v. British Columbia, 2012 BCCA 285
http://canlii.ca/t/frt8m

but Bogue, employing his usual high quality legal skills, gave the wrong case name in his Notice of Motion to Recuse and didn't bother to give a citation. He also incorrectly spelled the name of the case he thought that he was citing in his Notice. He spelled it Tsilhquot’in. The correct spelling is Tsilhqot’in Nation. Justice Groberman wrote the Reasons for Judgment in Williams in a unanimous decision of the three judge appeals bench. In line with what seemed to be a standard practice the case name kept changing as it climbed higher up the judicial ladder. It started out in the Supreme Court of British Columbia as this;

Tsilhqot'in Nation v. British Columbia
2007 BCSC 1700

It was heard in the British Columbia Court of Appeal as this;

William v. British Columbia
2012 BCCA 285

And was finally settled in the Supreme Court of Canada under the case name;

Tsilhqot’in Nation v. British Columbia
[2014] 2 SCR 257,

But I suppose it's unfair to expect Bogue, who's only a practicing lawyer, to be able to follow all this legal gibberish

Anyhow, back to the proceedings. Bogue started going on about something too with an "Oregon treaty", Judge said "You missed the point, sovereignty was accepted in the Tsilhqot’in case. How do you know that the judges did not have aboriginal blood?" Bogue said that "I've brought this up twelve times in Ontario cases and lost them. This is a critical issue, non-aboriginals cannot judge an aboriginal." Bogue said that ini some trial the decision had ruled against the trial judge presiding and it seemed good precedence even if it was overturned by the Supreme Court of Canada. Judge Groberman noted that that his appeal decision fully supported the trial decision. Bogue requested that Groberman be replaced by a female judge who understood the matriarchal structure. Another judge said "It is not clear how well Mr. Bogue has read Tsilhqot'in since his factual interpretations are largely incorrect." Even Burnaby49 knows that it bodes ill when the judges start criticizing your interpretation of the facts before they even get to your legal arguments. It means you're probably about to get a judicial shitkicking.

Back to Justice Groberman "The issues today regarding jurisdiction is far afield from Tsilhqot'in and counsel has not pointed out any support for this in Tsilhqot'in". Then Justice Groberman read out a very well crafted decision denying Bogue's request that he recuse himself. He said that a reasonable person would not infer bias on his part in respect to the issue of aboriginal Sovereignty based on a decision he wrote in which Sovereignty was not an issue. Shockingly the other two judges were silent throughout this travesty. There wasn't a wild cry of outrage from them about the injustice inflicted on Debbie by Groberman remaining on the bench. This is clearly grounds for Bogue to seek Leave to Appeal from the Supreme Court of Canada! Except for the unfortunate fact that he can no longer practice law in Canada. We'll get to that.

Then another Justice took over the Bogue beatdown regarding the court's jurisdiction. The justice asked Bogue if he was finished. Yes. Then the justice asked Crown counsel if there was anything he really needed to add. "In all honesty, no."

This is the issue as I understand it. Debbie can't appeal the October 2016 decision until her criminal trial is concluded. The October 2016 decision was only a step within the ongoing trial. The British Columbia Court of Appeal only gets jurisdiction in respect to Debbie when her trial is over and the trial judge has issued the Reasons for Judgment. At that time Debbie can, if she wishes, appeal any aspect of her trial including the October 2016 decision. But until that time she can't go running off the the British Columbia Court of Appeal making piecemeal appeals about this aspect or that aspect of her trial that she's not happy about. The issue of the jurisdiction of a court and the relationship of the appeals court to the trial court is extremely basic fundamental law that a first year student should understand. Bogue, however, seems to be having problems with the concept.

This explains the court's next question, a request to Bogue to show, in law rather than in his aboriginal sovereignty fantasy-world, how the BCCA has the jurisdiction to hear Debbie's appeal at this time. Justice "Mr. Bogue, this is a very narrow point. What do you say about our jurisdiction at this stage?" More batshit craziness about the Clan Mothers, Reconciliation and Truth Commission. Then Bogue doubled down "Aboriginals are entitled to international law and their own courts." Justice "What part of the Criminal Code or any other statute gives this court jurisdiction at this time?" Bogue "This is an historic case for Canada and the world. My client, as a Metis, has the right to her own court under international law. Common law rules this issue. Crown's conduct in this case has not met court standards when they found she was Metis!" The justice somehow cut in "This hearing is about jurisdiction. You have not addressed this. This court does not have jurisdiction during trial. Do you have anything to disprove this?" Bogue "This court has an obligation in equity! There is no treaty with the Metis people and it is time for this court to declare on equitable grounds that Debbie gets her own court!"

Justice "You want this court to grant a declaration" "Yes!" with lots of babbling I didn't catch. Justice "Anything further?" Bogue "Hold Crown's feet to the fire on how they treat aboriginals. This is no longer about Anderson's criminal case, it is about reconciliation. I want this court to stand up today and declare them to be a free people with their own government. I want this court to do what Ontario would not do."

I was there and I recorded this historic debate. Note that, as far as I'm aware, Debbie Anderson is an aboriginal solely by paying $55 to the Anishinabek Solutrean Metis Nation for one of their snazzy tribal identity cards. However the entire issue of Debbie's aboriginal ancestry or identity seemed irrelevant to the British Columbia Court of Appeal. The court obviously didn't care whether Debbie was really a Metis or not, a very ominous sign.

A Justice asked Crown counsel if he had any rebuttal. No. Then an adjournment while the Justices considered the ramifications of this historic case. Shamefully I missed a part of the court's judgment. I figured, given the monumental implications of the case, that I had at least a few minutes to grab a much needed washroom break while the Justices pondered the entire future of Canada's relationship with it's aboriginal citizens. I was almost out of earshot down the hall when I heard "Order in Court". I scrambled back and started unpacking my reporting paraphernalia from my backpack, pen, notebook, backing clipboard, but when I was ready to write the Justice had almost finished reading out the very brief judgment. I got this much "There is no right to appeal on criminal matters except in legislation. There is no legislation giving this court jurisdiction. This appeal is quashed."

But who cares what I scrawled in my notebook when you can read it for yourselves?

Interlocutory criminal appeal quashed for want of jurisdiction.

[1] FRANKEL J.A: The Crown applies to quash this appeal for want of jurisdiction. What is sought to be appealed is a ruling made by a trial judge with respect to an application seeking to challenge his Court’s jurisdiction.

[2] The appellant, Debbie Arlene Brown [sic] (Note - this is a typo. Brown was the name of the Justice at the October 2016 hearing) is charged in an indictment with tax evasion and GST evasion. She asserts that by reason of her Métis heritage Canadian courts have no jurisdiction over her. On October 12, 2016, she filed a notice of motion in the criminal proceedings seeking an order “For the Provincial Court [sic] (Another note - Debbie had sought an order from the Supreme Court of British Columbia but Glenn, demonstrating his usual legal skills, had named the wrong court in the motion) to relinquish jurisdiction to the Clan Grandmother [of the Asmin]” and a memorandum of argument in support of the motion.

[3] On October 17, 2016, the trial judge declined Ms. Anderson’s request to adjourn the trial for the purpose of setting a date for the hearing of her motion. In the extensive reasons he gave for refusing that adjournment he held the motion lacked merit. At the conclusion of his reasons, the judge stated:

[116] In summary, I find no merit in the proposed application for an adjournment. I find the application will likely fail. The memorandum’s lack of merit was abundantly clear. I accordingly find no basis for an adjournment so that the application can be set November 30 to consider the application that is proposed, even if it were fleshed out somewhat. The court’s jurisdiction will not be relinquished to the Clan Grandmother as demanded by the accused.

[4] On October 18, 2016, the trial judge adjourned the trial to permit Ms. Anderson an opportunity to pursue an appeal from his ruling to this Court. Ms. Anderson filed a notice of appeal later that day. The trial is now scheduled to proceed later this month.

[5] As is well-known, there is no right of appeal in criminal matters save as provided by statute. In the present circumstances, the Criminal Code, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-46, governs. It does not provide for interlocutory appeals: see e.g., R. v. Lehoux, 2006 BCCA 18 (CanLII), leave to appeal ref’d [2006] 1 S.C.R. xi; R. v. Pal, 2007 BCCA 428 (CanLII), 246 B.C.A.C. 83. The appeal filed by Ms. Anderson is clearly interlocutory and, as such, this Court lacks jurisdiction to hear it.

[6] I would grant the Crown’s motion and quash this appeal for want of jurisdiction.


R. v. Anderson, 2017
BCCA 153
http://canlii.ca/t/h38c2

Paragraphs 5 and 6 were the ones I caught when I rushed back to the courtroom. The quote from paragraph 116 of the unreleased October 2016 decision is essentially a comment from Justice Brown about Bogue's legal skills.

Today's hearing was an astonishing performance from Bogue. There were two issues under consideration, the request to recuse Justice Groberman and whether the British Columbia Court of Appeal had the jurisdiction to hear Debbie's appeal. At no point in the entire hearing did Bogue address either of these issues in any legally meaningful way.


April 12, 2007

On to the next Debbie/Bogue hearing, less than 24 hours after yesterday's historic battle. Debbie was (as far as I was aware) scheduled for a British Columbia Supreme Court case management conference at 10:00 AM on April 12th in respect to her upcoming trial. As always I was on time but just as I was approaching the court entrance I saw the two Crown counsels walking out. So I harassed them with questions about what happened. Turns out that the hearing was scheduled for 9:15 and lasted about five minutes. Immediately at the start Glenn told the court that he could no longer represent Debbie because the Law Society of Upper Canada had supended him from practicing law!

He told the Court that the Law Society of British Columbian sent him a letter telling him he now needed a permit to practice in BC. As I understand it he must apply for the permit. He doesn't currently have one because the Law Society generally allows lawyers from other provinces to represent clients in British Columbia without one. However once he was scheduled for a suspension hearing the Law Society decided that he required a permit to practice.

This was his original suspension hearing order issued March 24th 2017 which was hanging over him during the April 11th British Columbia Court of Appeal hearing. His suspension hearing was scheduled for April 12th.

http://www.mediafire.com/file/hex6ec93nucbe40/Bogue_-_LSUC_Notice_to_Suspend.pdf

Note these comments;

1. The Law Society has received evidence that raises serious concerns about the Responding Parties competence and/or capacity to practice law.

2. In representing clients in a number of litigation matters, the Responding Party has repeatedly relied on unsupported theories and arguments that misunderstand the nature of the Canadian legal system and basic principles of law.


In other words exactly what I saw in court on the 11th.

Bogue had his suspension hearing in the afternoon of April 12th. The hearing was adjourned at his request to allow him more time to prepare and was rescheduled for the end of the month. However an interim interlocking suspension of his licence in Ontario is in effect. The September 11th hearing might well be the last time he was allowed to represent clients as a practicing lawyer. And I was there!

You can see his latest suspension order here. Just click on his name;

https://lawsocietytribunal.ca/pages/Orders.aspx#43

Debbie's trial has been scheduled to start at the end of April. At the moment Debbie plans to represent herself. I won't be here. I'm off on a trip, I'll be back early June.

There is one interesting prequel to Glenn's attempt to get the British Columbia Court of Appeal to make hear Debbie's appeal although the court did not have the jurisdiction to do so. He'd tried the same thing before in a 2016 hearing at the Ontario Court of Appeal and lost on the same basis. This is the case;

R v Nielsen, 2016
ONCA 635
http://canlii.ca/t/gt1f4

ENDORSEMENT

[1] Justice LaForme dismissed a motion for an order releasing the applicant on bail and he refused a request to expedite the appeal in what was then an ongoing habeas corpus proceeding. The applicant seeks a review of that order. The applicant has been released on bail rendering any question of the lawfulness of her continued detention and the related habeas corpus proceeding moot.

[2] The applicant’s submissions, in our view, have no connection to the merits of the order made by LaForme J.A. and give no cause to review the terms of that order. It seems that the applicant wants this court to dismiss the outstanding criminal charges because, in her view, she was improperly detained in solitary confinement for a period of time pending trial. The propriety of the charges and the propriety of the continued criminal proceedings are not properly before this court at this time. Those are matters for the trial court and we understand they have been scheduled in the trial court.

[3] The motion to review the order of LaForme J.A. is dismissed.

[4] We agree with the Crown’s submission that the underlying appeal is moot. The appeal is dismissed.
"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: 10889
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 8:17 pm

Re: Debbie Anderson - Poriskyite Social Director on Trial

Postby notorial dissent » Sat Apr 22, 2017 8:08 pm

All I can say is those filings/letters/whatever are an incredible mish mosh of sovcit pseudo Christian new agey meaningless argle bargle. Definitely sounds like vintage Bogue.
The fact that you sincerely and wholeheartedly believe that the “Law of Gravity” is unconstitutional and a violation of your sovereign rights, does not absolve you of adherence to it.

User avatar
eric
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 586
Joined: Mon Aug 11, 2014 3:44 pm

Re: Debbie Anderson - Poriskyite Social Director on Trial

Postby eric » Sun Apr 23, 2017 10:29 am

So Debbie's aboriginal blood, and aboriginal status, apparently come from a purchaseable membership in an apparently make-believe aboriginal tribe with no official recognition. Pay $55 and you are suddenly, in Glenn's demented world, exempt from the laws of Canada. But even if they were a real, recognized tribe they couldn't bestow aboriginal heritage on anyone. It comes by birth and ancestry not through a laminated card. But it's not their fault that they are flogging aboriginal heritage memberships, they were forced to sell memberships by a treacherous federal government;

I'm not going to comment much on the internal politics of the Algonquins of Ontario, their assorted land claims, or those purporting to be members. Public disclaimer - my wife is actually a "real" Algonquin Pikwakanagan (status) and can also claim Kijicho Manito Madaouskarini (Metis). That being said here is Zane Bell and the Clan Mother's latest business venture:
https://www.asminglobal.com/about
Using the guiding instructions handed down through generations of time by the original 13 grandmothers’ teachings, which include: courage, wisdom, love, respect, honesty, humility, and truth, this enterprise will be run with the highest level of integrity and professionalism in all of its activities.

Note, the web page uses stock wix images for members of its leadership team, I haven't the time to research if any of them are actual real people. So let's take a look at some of their supposed Canadian projects:
The Following are projects currently in progress:(partial listing)
​1. Drug & Rehab centers,
*Estes Park, CO
*Sun River ON
*Vancouver, CN
2. Ti02 Plant, KY
3. Biomass Plants,
*Moneteville, ON
*Bancroft, ON

No such place as Sun River, Ontario. Now we get to the Biomass stuff. There was some talk about a biomass plant at Monetville (no "e"), never got anywhere. The one at Bancroft piqued my interests considerably since that one actually has a working plan and some reputable people involved in it who I also happen to be related to.
http://www.countypowercorporation.ca/in ... hp-project
I can't see any mention of ASMIN or Algonquins of Ontario though. Perhaps I should phone up my cousins and inquire what's going on (grins). Side note - the buildings pictured as candidates for cogeneration steam heating are all located on portions of what was our family farm.

Burnaby49
Quatloosian Ambassador to the CaliCanadians
Quatloosian Ambassador to the CaliCanadians
Posts: 5815
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 3:45 am
Location: The Evergreen Playground

Re: Debbie Anderson - Poriskyite Social Director on Trial

Postby Burnaby49 » Sun Apr 23, 2017 5:29 pm

I found that page but didn't mention it because I was already straying too far afield about Michine (actually Yvonne Fulton) given that my topic was Debbie. If I went down that rabbit-hole, and included the other information I had about Michine, I figured that I'd be gone for good.

I assumed that the people shown in the page didn't exist. Firstly those are obviously stock photos. I googled a couple of the Pollocks and found nothing. And how would a group as obscure as Yvonne and the Anishinabek Solutrean Metis Indigenous Nation get the capital and expertise to set something like this up? I googled the name ASMIN Global Development Corp and got nothing. Clearly impossible if thus was in any way an actual business with staff. So I assumed that it was as much a fantasy as the Anishinabek Solutrean Metis Indigenous Nation.

Why did I conclude that ASMIN is a fantasy? Google them and see what you get. Nothing apart from various links to things they have created themselves. Mainly their FaceBook page but it is mostly just links to other sites and articles. There is nothing independent of themselves that mentions them. No news articles, no government publications or announcements, no tribal gatherings or inter-tribal activities. A touch odd for a group that the Queen has purportedly ordered the prime minister of Canada to start treaty negotiations with. I've found photos of them and they are all of a very small group who keep having ceremonies in somebody's back yard, maybe a dozen core members.
"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
eric
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 586
Joined: Mon Aug 11, 2014 3:44 pm

Re: Debbie Anderson - Poriskyite Social Director on Trial

Postby eric » Sun Apr 23, 2017 6:43 pm

I suspect they are what is known in the trade as professional Natives. The real bands already have the expertise in house or hire professional foresters or mining engineers to generate impact statements and business plans when they have to negotiate land use claims. The fakes aka professional Natives stretch out a three month process into three years of consultations, meanwhile getting paid for their time and paid training and travel. It`s a good gig if you can get it, especially in that part of Ontario where there are competing claims and almost anyone with the slightest hint of Native blood can claim they have to be consulted....rant mode off.

Burnaby49
Quatloosian Ambassador to the CaliCanadians
Quatloosian Ambassador to the CaliCanadians
Posts: 5815
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 3:45 am
Location: The Evergreen Playground

Re: Debbie Anderson - Poriskyite Social Director on Trial

Postby Burnaby49 » Sun Apr 23, 2017 8:29 pm

eric wrote:I suspect they are what is known in the trade as professional Natives. The real bands already have the expertise in house or hire professional foresters or mining engineers to generate impact statements and business plans when they have to negotiate land use claims. The fakes aka professional Natives stretch out a three month process into three years of consultations, meanwhile getting paid for their time and paid training and travel. It`s a good gig if you can get it, especially in that part of Ontario where there are competing claims and almost anyone with the slightest hint of Native blood can claim they have to be consulted....rant mode off.


I doubt they even have even that much. No signs I could find that they have ever been officially involved in anything, paid or otherwise. As I said, just a small group having backyard ceremonies. Here are some pictures on Flickr of the gang;

https://www.flickr.com/photos/21728045@N08/sets/72157638515799493/

Here's a shot of the Chief and Clan Mother;

Image

https://www.flickr.com/photos/21728045@ ... 515799493/

This is a typical tribal business venture;

https://www.flickr.com/photos/21728045@N08/11283875864/in/photostream/

Way too many photos of Clan Mother Michine and Chief Zane Bell signing a monumental agreement with IQ Earth Inc represented by Edward Cavalier, President & Chief Operating Officer and Raquel Cavalier, Secretary & Treasurer, another married couple. Note that it is being signed on a restautant table rather than, say IQ Earth's business premises at 17, Main Street West, Ridgetown, Ontario. Which, on Street View, turns out to be a small art gallery. And also home to this purported tribe and church;

http://govdataca.com/corporation.php?id=8366616

The Sovran Tuscarora Nation? Who the hell are they? And who the hell is IQ Earth Inc.? I'm not checking. As I said this can go so far down the rabbit hole you can't get back.

The Anishinabek Solutrean Metis Indigenous Nation has it's own twitter account where it claims to be;

the largest matriarchal un-surrendered un-treatied Indigenous / Aboriginal People’s and Nation/State (Metis)


https://twitter.com/solutreanmetis

Note that the twitter account has a grand total of 35 followers.

And I found this letter from the Canadian Security Intelligence Service to Bell and Michine politely telling them to get lost.

https://www.google.ca/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=5&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjBurjupLvTAhVE5mMKHUP3D7cQFgg2MAQ&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.anishinabeksolutreanmetis.com%2Fuploads%2F3%2F5%2F9%2F9%2F3599110%2F081229_csis_response_to_two_leters_awmat.pdf&usg=AFQjCNEgJ_yu1bE8IMNRFIogEhgfYj_0Qw&sig2=eWom2uUeyDQ0ZebcZcqMfg

The amount of garbage like this that Google with cough up is endless. You can see why I stopped and forced myself back on track with Debbie. But keep in mind that this band of tribal wannabees are the basis of an actual legal argument about court jurisdiction that Glenn Bogue passionately fought at the British Columbia Court of Appeal. Sort of clarifies why he's been suspended.
"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: 10889
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 8:17 pm

Re: Debbie Anderson - Poriskyite Social Director on Trial

Postby notorial dissent » Sun Apr 23, 2017 8:47 pm

eric wrote:Image
Using the guiding instructions handed down through generations of time by the original 13 grandmothers’ teachings, which include: courage, wisdom, love, respect, honesty, humility, and truth, this enterprise will be run with the highest level of integrity and professionalism in all of its activities.


Note, the web page uses stock wix images for members of its leadership team, I haven't the time to research if any of them are actual real people. So let's take a look at some of their supposed Canadian projects:
The Following are projects currently in progress:(partial listing)
​1. Drug & Rehab centers,
*Estes Park, CO
*Sun River ON
*Vancouver, CN
2. Ti02 Plant, KY
3. Biomass Plants,
*Moneteville, ON
*Bancroft, ON

Image

Strange, I don't see out and out BS and serial lying listed amongst the virtues. Must be an oversight.

And equally curiously, I don't remember Colorado ceding Estes Park to Canada. I can think of several places they would probably willing give you, but not the Park, brings in too much tourist moolah.
The fact that you sincerely and wholeheartedly believe that the “Law of Gravity” is unconstitutional and a violation of your sovereign rights, does not absolve you of adherence to it.

User avatar
The Observer
Further Moderator
Posts: 6653
Joined: Fri Feb 07, 2003 12:48 am
Location: Virgin Islands Gunsmith

Re: Debbie Anderson - Poriskyite Social Director on Trial

Postby The Observer » Mon Apr 24, 2017 3:05 am

...[T]he largest matriarchal un-surrendered un-treatied Indigenous / Aboriginal People’s and Nation/State (Metis)...


I guess that is the loophole that Zane and Mom think will bring them untold riches: just claim to be an aboriginal tribe that never got thumped by Euro-American armies and the government will have to give you something since they never had beaten you on the field of battle and never concluded a treat with you. My suggestion to Canada would be to close this loophole by declaring war on the Anishinabek Solutrean Metis Indigenous Nation and thoroughly thrash these 35 newly-made aboriginals. Then haul them off to some God-forsaken place and tell them this is their reservation for the next 75 years or so until the Canadian government sees the errors of its ways and lets them go back home.
"I could be dead wrong on this" - Irwin Schiff

"Do you realize I may even be delusional with respect to my income tax beliefs? " - Irwin Schiff

Burnaby49
Quatloosian Ambassador to the CaliCanadians
Quatloosian Ambassador to the CaliCanadians
Posts: 5815
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 3:45 am
Location: The Evergreen Playground

Re: Debbie Anderson - Poriskyite Social Director on Trial

Postby Burnaby49 » Mon Apr 24, 2017 3:45 am

One of their claims is that the Queen ordered our then-prime minister Stephen Harper to make a treaty with them and, since he didn't get around to it, our current prime minister is required to do so in Harper's place. Since Justin Trudeau has been prime minister almost a year and a half he doesn't seem to consider it a pressing issue. But I have seen correspondence from him to the tribe! Well, from his office. It was a letter sadly informing them that the prime minister was just too darn busy to fit some ceremony they'd invited him to into his schedule. But he wished them the best anyhow! Unfortunately I lost track of where I saw it and can't find it again. At least I can't without more effort than I'm willing to put into it.
"Yes Burnaby49, I do in fact believe all process servers are peace officers. I've good reason to believe so." Robert Menard in his May 28, 2015 video "Process Servers".

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

Burnaby49
Quatloosian Ambassador to the CaliCanadians
Quatloosian Ambassador to the CaliCanadians
Posts: 5815
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 3:45 am
Location: The Evergreen Playground

Re: Debbie Anderson - Poriskyite Social Director on Trial

Postby Burnaby49 » Fri Jul 07, 2017 11:47 pm

Debbie's trial is now over and the decision is to be released November 3rd. I'm going to go out on a limb and predict convictions on all counts. But she went down with flags flying and guns a' blazin'! Notwithstanding the Michael Millar, Keith Lawson and Russell Porisky convictions she didn't try to cut a deal. She went through the entire trial and ended with an 84 page, 348 paragraph closing submission. She even got noticed by the local newspaper;

http://www.theprogress.com/news/trial-ends-for-chilliwack-woman-involved-in-elaborate-tax-evasion-scheme/

And a bonus. You finally get a picture of the elusive Debbie;

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

User avatar
The Observer
Further Moderator
Posts: 6653
Joined: Fri Feb 07, 2003 12:48 am
Location: Virgin Islands Gunsmith

Re: Debbie Anderson - Poriskyite Social Director on Trial

Postby The Observer » Sat Jul 08, 2017 2:52 am

You would think that at least one of the Poriskyites by this point would see the writing on the wall and realize they are only heading to a traditional Canadian judicial stomping like every Poriskyite has received prior to them. After all, if Porisky himself couldn't avoid this fate, why does the lovely Ms. Anderson think she can avoid it? I can only surmise that these people think that this is like the lottery and they have to keep playing if they want to have a chance to win.

Do we have any idea of what Anderson was doing for a career prior to selling Paradigm? Maybe it has been mentioned before but I didn't catch anything in the thread and court papers that provided her educational history and vocation.
"I could be dead wrong on this" - Irwin Schiff

"Do you realize I may even be delusional with respect to my income tax beliefs? " - Irwin Schiff

Burnaby49
Quatloosian Ambassador to the CaliCanadians
Quatloosian Ambassador to the CaliCanadians
Posts: 5815
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 3:45 am
Location: The Evergreen Playground

Re: Debbie Anderson - Poriskyite Social Director on Trial

Postby Burnaby49 » Sat Jul 08, 2017 3:20 am

I've got no idea what her pre-Porisky career was, her background's a mystery to me. As far as I'm aware she's the last Poriskyite in the pipeline. Had her trial been held in some civilized venue like Vancouver, or even New Westminster, I'd have been there documenting it.

However I have been to a few of her hearings that were held in the Vancouve area and, as you can see from this discussion, I've reviewed many of the court documents. From my observations I don't think neither Debbie, Millar, or Lawson ever had any thought to cutting a deal. All three are true believers who seemed to actually believe, in the face of all the evidence, that they would win at trial. Even though Millar lost every motion and application he made and was told by the judge repeatedly that his arguments were hopeless he still seemed stunned to find that he'd been convicted. All three showed a self-confidance entirely unsupported by any comprehensible legal arguments.
"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