Mary Jane Becelaere - Poriskyite?

Moderator: Burnaby49

Quatloosian Ambassador to the CaliCanadians
Quatloosian Ambassador to the CaliCanadians
Posts: 6053
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 3:45 am
Location: The Evergreen Playground

Mary Jane Becelaere - Poriskyite?

Postby Burnaby49 » Fri Sep 25, 2015 4:41 am

She certainly seems like a Poriskyite but she didn't pursue her course far enough for me to find out through the trail of documents. Mary Jane is the latest result of my dredging through Federal Court records. It was a sunny summer afternoon in August, weather was great, Vancouver beaches were packed, all the girls out in their summer outfits, a perfect day to spend in the Federal Court registry digging through old files!

Mary Jane Becelaere (sometimes also spelled as Becelare) was the subject of a Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) inquiry because she seemed to have a strange reluctance to provide them with information. A bit of a backstory is provided in this memorandum of Fact and Law submitted to the Federal Court (I didn't get the date);

Becelaere operated First Class Nails, I assume a manicure business. In 2003 it went belly-up and, for the second time in her life, she went into bankruptcy. She was discharged in early 2004 and she continued on in her business making approximately $4,000 a month. In April 2004 she cancelled First class's GST account. This is a federal sales tax. So in 2006 the CRA dropped by to see what was going on. Business was still up and running so the CRA issued "notional" GST assessments against the business and managed to scoop $3,000 from a bank account. When Becelaere filed her 2005 income tax return she reported no income although money seemed to be generated from the business. So, on July 25, 2006 the CRA issued her with a requirement to provide information. She responded in September with basically nothing so the CRA went to court to get an order to cough the information up. The formal requirement is shown as the first page of this document;

While her "get lost" response starts on page 2. A classic Porisky defense. She went on about how she would respond as the "legal representative" of the taxpayer. She was greatly concerned because, to the best of her knowledge she was not under any investigation by the CRA although they said in their letter to her that she was. She got cranky about their "vexatious" behaviour and constantly bothering her. So she answered the questions in her own Poriskyite way;

Bank account - She gave a number for the account but said it was not the account of the "taxpayer" or for the benefit of the taxpayer nor was it made while she was acting as the "legal representative" of the taxpayer. However she failed to note who the money was for although it was her account.

Stocks, securities, bonds etc - More bullshit about how she wasn't answering the question because she was acting as the legal representative of the taxpayer so she held nothing herself directly, indirectly or beneficially for that mythical creature, the taxpayer. Again no specific answer yes or no.

In the next part of her response she said that she made nothing at all in the time period under inquiry while acting as the taxpayer's legal representative. Note that the CRA had not asked about what the legal representative or the taxpayer made, they wanted to know what Mary Jane Becelaere made. She took that as license to be creative and pretend that it was that other gal, whoever she was, that Mary Jane really knew little about although she shared the same name.

Details about the source of funds for a bank draft of $50,000 deposited in her bank account - She tossed another person in the mix, the Porisky fabrication the "natural person". She deposited the money in her capacity as a natural person and demanded that those half-wits at the CRA show her anywhere in the tax legislation which specifically stated that "natural persons" were required to pay income tax. She must have been right, she was making copious quotes from Barron's Canadian Law Dictionary 4th ed. which, as all we income tax auditors knew, clearly trumped any provisions of the Income Tax Act.

Where did the money go? This is where she pulled out the stops and went full-frontal Porisky. The Media Fire doc doesn't cut and paste and I'm not typing it all out. You can see it yourself on numbered page 22. A big indigestible wad of natural person - legal representative - taxpayer - person gibberish. Basically since she was now a natural person (she flipped her persona back and forth a lot during the letter) who was not acting as the legal representative of the taxpayer whatever happened to the money was none of the CRA's damn business so bugger off! Human rights offenses abounding! Right to privacy breached!

She ended "I trust I have complied with your request for information pursuant to the Income Tax of Canada." I assume she meant the Income Tax Act of Canada but who am I to question the legal knowledge of the proprietor of First Class Nails?

For whatever reason the CRA wasn't satisfied with this and decided to get a court order demanding the information.

So on February 7, 2007, she decided to go on the offensive and tell the judge directly that he was an idiot who didn't have any knowledge of the law and there was no way she could respond to his order because he had screwed it up so badly that it was simply beyond human comprehension to understand what he wanted. It starts at page number A-4 in this document;

First she said it was deficient in correctly identifying the party it claimed it was addressing;

After carefully reviewing the Order that was granted by you in favor of the Applicant, I can find no instructions in the Order that would have me provide any information and documents, held by me in my capacity as a "natural person" as defined in the Canadian Law Dictionary 4thED. By John A. Yogis Q.C.

I looked up the definition in the Canadian Law Dictionary;

"Natural Person: A natural person is a human being that has the capacity for rights and duties.”

Then like a schoolteacher trying to beat some knowledge into the head of a particularly slow student, she helpfully submitted a revised draft court order for him to sign and issue. This one got it right by including the term "natural person" in it, again as defined in the Canadian Law Dictionary. It also included a phrase that the judge somehow missed in his first court order, the one where he was supposed to declare that the Income Tax Act was invalid legislation.

Unbelievably, even with this help, the judge just couldn't get it right and so Mary Jane decided to approach the problem from another angle. So what do we have here? It's the Freeman's best friend, a unilateral agreement! She didn't submit it out of any mean spirited attempt to avoid tax but "to fulfill my duty as a law abiding citizen of Canada". These people put us to shame in their conscientious attempts to uphold all of Canada's laws no matter how irksome. She demanded that the judge respond in writing, within in seven days, advising her about something. It's hard to figure out quite what because it is a single convoluted sentence thirteen lines long that meanders a touch here and there. I think she was requiring him to acknowledge, in writing, that he was knowingly violating her human rights under the Canadian Bill of Rights and that he knew, and didn't care, that the Order he was issuing under the Income Tax Act of Canada was invalid because the Act itself was invalid legislation.

And, if he didn't snap to it and kiss her ass with a response in seven days (by February 21) this stood as his acknowledgement that the order applied only to her as the "legal representative" of the "taxpayer and did not apply to her as a natural person.

The judge didn't reply so she responded to the Order by giving the CRA all the information he'd requested from the legal representative. Absolutely nothing. On February 24, 2007 she wrote a letter to the CRA employee hounding her (page numbered A-5). She told him that there had been some confusion as to the clarity and intention of the judge's order she'd tried to clear up the ambiguity by sending the judge the letter I just reviewed. And, since she'd acted in good faith and the judge had not responded within seven days, it was apparent that he'd confirmed "by his silence" her understanding that the Order to provide information was made to her as the legal representative of the taxpayer and in that capacity only. So she informed the CRA that the "taxpayer" had absolutely nothing. No money, no bank account, no earnings, no stocks and bonds, nothing at all. So there, Court Order responded to in full. I suppose the "natural person" had all that stuff but nobody had asked Mary Jane for information about her.

But that still wasn't enough for those CRA bloodsuckers. So they had Roger R. Lafrenière, Esquire, Prothonotary of the Federal Court respond with yet another court order.

This wasn't good news for our beleaguered heroine. We've met Prothonotary Lafrenière before in my reports. He treats OPCA litigants like road kill. The order said that Mary Jane had established a prima facie case of contempt of the court by willfully refusing to comply with the court order "by improperly questioning the clear terms of the Order dated January 24, 2007 under the guise of seeking clarification". Guise? Another officer of the Federal Court that doesn't understand the law. And, in the unkindest cut of all, he used her sincere attempt to actually provide all of the requested information, as she understood the request, as a weapon against her! The proof of her contempt was her statement that;

...the order was only to be complied with to the extent I acted in my capacity of 'legal representative' of the 'taxpayer' for its benefit and to provide information and documents that are held by me in that capacity only. . .

The Order required Mary Jane to appear before a judge at the Federal Court in Vancouver on April 16th, 2007 to submit her defense on the charge of contempt of court.

Well she showed up and it didn't go well;

She was found guilty of contempt. She pulled the same legal representative, natural person, ambiguous order stunt that she had tried in her letter to the judge.

Thus the only issue before the Court is whether the Applicant knowingly breached the Compliance Order (note - this is either a typo or an error on the judge's part. The Applicant was the Crown, the issue was whether Mary Jane, the Respondent breached the Order). The Respondent submits that the Applicant has failed to establish that she knowingly or willfully failed to comply with the Compliance Order. In her view, the Compliance Order was ambiguous and she complied with the Order to the best of her ability, absent the clarification she sought from Justice Blanchard.

She told the court that it was the CRA's fault. The Order had addressed the legal representative and she had responded in that capacity. But the information and documents they wanted were held by her as the natural person.

Court wasn't buying it;

[13] The distinction alleged by the Respondent is without merit. There is simply no legal authority for this argument. . . .

[14] In my view, there is no ambiguity in either the law or the Compliance Order. In the face of Justice Blanchard's clear rejection of the Respondent's arguments it is inconceivable that she was not aware of the meaning of the Order. . . . . While she may not have agreed with the Compliance Order she was certainly aware if its meaning. The inextricable conclusion is that the Respondent willfully and knowingly breached the Order of this court.

So there! The judge reminded the Respondent that she could easily purge the contempt by providing the requested documents and thereby reduce the penalty.

The judge said he would determine the penalty after written submissions. The Minister of National Revenue felt that the appropriate fine was $3,000 and $2,000 in costs. If she failed to pay 15 days in the slammer;

So she wrote to the judge yet again asking for clarification.

This time no gibberish about natural person/legal representative. Just a request that the judge confirm that her understanding of the penalty was correct. If so she couldn't pay and she was willing to go to jail for a week. So she again wanted a written response from the judge in seven days but this time she didn't add any nonsense that a lack of response meant she was free to go. But it was still a demand to the judge to explain a clear court order.

By August the Crown had waited long enough for Mary Jane to cough up the money required under the court order and, on August 30, 2007, requested that an arrest warrant be issued.

And, on September 11, 2007, the Court issued one;

YOU ARE HEREBY ORDERED to take Jane Becelaere, also known as Mary Jane Becelare, and deliver her to the nearest or most available corrections or detention facility and admit and detain her for 7 days or until she is in full compliance with paragraphs 2 and 3 of the Contempt Order, should such compliance be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the court before the expiration of the said 7 day period.

And that was it from the court file. Nothing to indicate if she was arrested or if she provided information. I assume the Crown just didn't give up, they are pretty persistent about pursuing Poriskyites. I was just at another Poriskyite hearing today with a lot more to come. I looked for her in Google under the various iterations of her name and only found that First Class Nails still seems to be in business. However B.C. Courts online shows a 2008 bankruptcy file for her. She would have had to provide the same documents to the Receiver in Bankruptcy that she refused to show to the CRA so perhaps she coughed up in the end and she really was broke. I'm not going down to Victoria to ask her.

A pretty standard Poriskyite response and answer sequence except for two things. She was unusually aggressive in her continual personally trying to contact and badger the judge, and the contempt conviction and arrest warrant. The first time I've seen either issued by the Federal Court of Canada.
"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".

Return to “Canada”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Common Crawl [Bot] and 0 guests