Byrun was an enthusiastic member of the Detax movement, a precursor to the Canadian Freeman movement. I could give a background on the Detaxers but I’m too lazy so, instead, I’ll just quote from a 2014 Quatloos posting by Hilfskreuzer Möwe;Kenneth R. McMordie, Also Known As Byron Fox, Also Known As Byrun Fox, Also Known As Byron Foxx, Also Known As Byrun Foxx
https://www.quatloos.com/Q-Forum/viewto ... 48&t=10036I have become increasingly curious about the very early OPCA phenomenon in Canada. I think one can distill OPCA-related activity into a number of ‘waves’:
• 1980? – 2000: the precursor individuals
1998 - 2006: the Detaxer movement
2003 – 2013: the Freemen-on-the-Land movement
2012 – onward: the post-Freemen
These date ranges are approximate, and I hope at some point to suggest more definite benchmarks. That said, two of these movements are fairly well defined.
The Detaxers emerged largely from Alberta and British Columbia, and focused their efforts pretty much exclusively on avoiding income tax obligation. There was some interest in a broader-based avoidance of government authority, but at least the majority of litigation related to income tax. Prominent gurus include David-Kevin: Lindsay, Eldon Warman, Russell Porisky, Tom Kennedy, Daniel Lavigne, and Gordon Watson. The most successful of these on a commercial basis was Porisky, who at one point managed a large cross-Canada network of promoters who taught his techniques. The Detaxer movement’s collapse was a consequence of its continual failure to actually meet its objective and public prosecution of its gurus and promoters, particularly members of the Porisky ring.
In the early 2000’s I was a Vancouver-based CRA auditor, peripherally involved in the CRA’s response to the local Detaxers. This included Byrun’s antics since he lived within the area covered by the Vancouver tax office however I never dealt with him directly. You’ll note that Byrun is not included in Mowe’s list of gurus. He was a publicity seeker rather than an intellectual theorist. He was constantly yammering away on the seamier talk-radio programs. I remember one comment he made in a radio interview that, at least in his mind, proved that his tax bullshit actually worked. It was along the lines of;
"Byrun Fox has never paid income tax and the Canada Revenue Agency has never assessed him and never will"
Note the careful use of the third person. It made the statement entirely true! Byrun Fox had never paid tax and the CRA had no intention of pursuing him over it. This was because Byrun Fox, being a fake name that McMordie pulled out of his ass, was about as much interest to the CRA as Luke Skywalker and his fellow Jedi's. Kenneth McMordie, however, was another matter and was actively investigated by the CRA. Rather than re-invent the wheel I’ll give Bryun's story by reposting an entry about Bryun/McMordie/McKenna et al put on Quatloos over six years ago by another anonymous character with a fictitious name. As an aside can’t you Quatloosians come up with more inventive aliases than monikers like ‘Burnaby49’? The guy’s home town and year of birth? He must have put a whole ten seconds thought into that one.
So the posting ended with Byrun on the hook for $16,00,000. How did he respond? How did the story end? I’ll quote some other source yet again, this time from his death announcement;You've triggered some memories with that one Mowe! Takes me back to my working days in Vancouver CRA when the Detaxers were actually a significant problem for our auditors. But you left out my favorite, a local boy, Kenneth Robert McMordie, aka Byron Fox, aka Byrun Fox, aka Byron Foxx, aka As Byrun Foxx. He was a big name here and was a hero to the entire Detax movement when he actually won an acquittal from a charge of failing to file Income Tax returns! They went nuts with comments like;
So what was this "grave error" that allowed Byron to walk? There is no argument that there had indeed a major blunder. Byron had been charged with failing to provide the demanded income tax returns within a specified time period. To quote from the appeals decision;Truthferry
The prosecution failed to show that Byron was carrying on business at the time of trial and dismissed the charges for want of jurisdiction in accordance with s 244(3) of the of the ITA (Sorenson fantasy versiononly).
Section 244(3) of the Sorenson fantasy version of the ITA, published by SORDID SORENSON FANTASY AND FAIRYTALE PUBLISHING INC, of no fixed address, reads as follows: Everyone who is not carrying on some form of business at the date of the trial to hear charges for failing to comply with a demand under section 231.2.1 of the ITA (actual version) is immune from prosecution for want of jurisdiction.
This provision was upheld by the SORENSON SUPERIOR KANGAROO APPELATE COURT in room 101 of the Eric Martin institute for retards with the honorable Mrs Sorenson (mom) presiding. This ruling has thrown the administration of the ITA (actual version) into disarray.
P.S for everyone else I will get the real details later.
Truthferry
My limited inquiries about this case have revealed that Byron Fox was initially getting slaughtered in court. The judge was arbitrarily refusing to hear evidence, call witnesses, and was maliciously sabotaging Byron's case in many other ways.
Byron was then permitted to make a written submission of his arguments, upon which the judge cited a "grave error by the prosecution" as his reason for dismissing the charges.
http://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcca/doc/20 ... RpZQAAAAABCOUNT 1:
Kenneth R. McMordie, Also Known As Byron Fox, Also Known As Byrun Fox, Also Known As Byron Foxx, Also Known As Byrun Foxx in the City of New Westminster in the Province of British Columbia, unlawfully failed to comply with the notice in a personally served letter dated the 10th day of November 1999 made upon him pursuant to paragraph 231.2(1)(a) of the Income Tax Act in that he did not provide to the Minister of National Revenue at Surrey, British Columbia, between the 15th day of November 1999 and the 15th day of January 2000 a Completed and signed Individual income Tax Return on form T1 for Taxation Year 1997 including a statement of Income and Expenses for each business activity carried on during the year, required from him contrary to subsection 238(1) of the Income Tax Act, R.S.C. 1985, c.I (5th Supp.) as amended. (Emphasis added)
Specifically the court order Fox was charged with disobeying was that he had been required to file the returns within 60 days of November 15th 1999. The trial level judge, more in sorrow than anger, pointed out that the morons representing themselves to be competent Crown Counsel were incapable of counting to 60. They had entered evidence proving that Fox had not filed the required returns by midnight, January 14th, 2000, but this was only 59 days. The 60 day period ended at midnight January 15th and the Crown had entered no evidence in respect to January 15th. Since there was no evidence entered in court to show that Byron had not filed on January 15th the judge let him off. Even if Byron had only won on a technicality the Detaxers had a good laugh at the stupidity of the Crown in screwing up by one day!
Except that the Crown hadn't screwed up, the judge did. The 60 day period had expired at midnight on January 14th as claimed by the Crown and the judge was the one incapable of counting days on a calendar once he ran out of fingers and toes. So the Crown trotted off to the Appeals court with (I assume) a calendar with a big 1 written over the square for November 16th, 1999, a 2 on the square for November 17th and so on until the 60th square on January 14th, 2000. To quote from the decision of the Court of Appeal of British Columbia;
Well Byron, not in any way deterred, appealed from this. He listed grave injustices, not the least of which was that nobody would listen to him;The offence was proved once the provincial court judge was convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that with respect to each count on the Information the accused had not provided the necessary by and including January 14th of 2000. That flows from the relevant requirement being that the material be produced within sixty days of what proved to be November 15th, 1999. November 15th does not count toward sixty days and January 14th, 2000, is the last of the sixty days that did count. All of this is the net result of: Income Tax Act section 238(1); section 231.2(1); what appeared on the face of the relevant requirement itself; section 231.2(1) of the Income Tax Act; and the proper calculation of the sixty days within which the material had to be provided where the relevant requirement was served as noted above, on November 15th, 1999.
The trial court judge acquitted the accused because he concluded that the offence was not established absent proof of failure by the accused to provide what was demanded by the end of January 15th. That was a wrong conclusion by the provincial court judge. Once the bell tolled midnight on January 14th, 2000, the offence was complete. It is obvious that the trial court judge was in fact convinced beyond a reasonable doubt of each element of the offence and in law the accused had to be convicted on each count.[paras. 7-9]
The appeal court disposed of this argument in short order[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.
[10] The appellant points to para. 4 of the summary conviction appeal judge’s judgment as proof of his first point that the judge failed to consider his argument. That paragraph reads:
The Crown's statement of argument filed February 15th, '01 complies with sub-rules 14 and following of Rule 6 of the Rules of this court. On March the 12th '01 the Respondent filed a thick book. Whatever it is, it proved upon the briefest inspection to be other than what is demanded by the Rules of this court noted above.
I read this decision back when it came out and tried to read the sample pages appended to it. Total gibberish. Not even compete coherent sentences. Just nonsense about "colour of law" and admiralty courts.[11] The appellant has ignored the judge’s later comments about reserving judgment to reconsider the material once more. Furthermore, I have had the chance to go through the document referred to and I have made more than a brief inspection of it. I attach, as Appendix “A”, some sample pages. In my view, it is totally unintelligible. Even the shortest of sentences are incomprehensible.
[12] The appellant’s first ground of appeal therefore has no prospect of success. For the same reasons, the second ground of appeal has no prospect of success either.
However Byron may have had a point about the court being biased against him. Apart from the fact that NOBODY WOULD LISTEN the appeals court had this to say;
Clear corruption and bias. The court concluded;[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.
While I enjoyed reading these decisions at the time they were only a preamble to one of the funniest comedy films I've ever seen, and Byron played his part in it.[15] Here, there is no abuse of process. The appellant has been prosecuted, and rightly so, not unfairly so. Accordingly, leave to appeal is denied, and no stay of proceedings will be granted.
The background to the film is given in yet another decision. A Ms. Gibbs, an apparently not particularly bright woman, fell for the Detaxer spiel and stopped filing returns for her bookkeeping business. She got a 60 day requirement to file, failed, and ended up in court just like Fox. She had a lot of Detaxer arguments at trial (read the decision, it's great for showing the brain-damaged arguments these guys came up with). It's at;
http://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcpc/doc/20 ... b24AAAAAAQ
Her main argument seemed to be that she was just too conscientious. She wanted to pay her tax but damn it, she just couldn't find a true copy of the Income Tax Act and without one she couldn't calculate her taxes owing. It wasn't for lack of trying. To quote from the Gibbs court decision;
Unfortunately after all her efforts, the judge didn't buy it and rubbed her nose in Bryon's prior loss where he had argued the exact same issue;[42] So at that point it seems that Ms. Gibbs in particular had accepted from McMordie that there was no requirement to comply with the provisions of the Income Tax Act unless what in her view amounted to an officially certified copy of the Act could be produced. She said she made inquiries of the local tax departments in Vancouver. They were unable to produce one to her satisfaction. She went to Ottawa and went to the National Library of Canada and couldn't find such a copy. She said that she tried to get access to the Parliamentary Library but could not get access because it was only open to Members of Parliament or people who had specific permission from a Member of Parliament. She says that she has made inquiries, and other people with whom she works have made inquiries, to get copies of what they describe as an officially certified copy of the Income Tax Act to no effect. She describes how she's consulted the Department of Justice website, said that prior to the year 2000 there was no copy of the Income Tax Act on that site. She says that since the year 2000 there is, but it is an unofficial version and contains a disclaimer, I take it similar to that in the CCH version, or for example in the Stikeman version.
[43] Her evidence is that all her efforts have been to find such an Act because she must be satisfied as to what the law is in order to then be able to comply with the law, and in the absence of such a document she says that she's unable to comply with the law because she doesn't know what it is. She as well says that all of her efforts to get further information to assist her in complying with the law such as having the tax officials complete the Public Servants Questionnaire or comply with the Demand for Information which, as I say is set out in her letter of November of 1998, has all thwarted her efforts to comply with the law. She says accordingly then that she has exercised due diligence and the court should be satisfied at least on a balance of probabilities that she has done so.
However, on to the film! The decision gives the bare bones of the plot of our Academy Award worthy documentary;[44] Dealing firstly with the issue of the Income Tax Act, it seems to me that this issue has been dealt with by courts in slightly different applications but nonetheless the issue is still the same. It's been dealt with myself in earlier applications wherein they sought production of the Act. The issue was before Madam Justice MacKenzie of the Supreme Court of British Columbia in February of 2001, in the case of Her Majesty the Queen against Kenneth McMordie, also known as Byron Fox. He was the same gentleman who appeared and gave evidence before me in this case. This bears the New Westminster Supreme Court Registry number XO58621.
[45] In that case, Mr. McMordie by notice of motion was seeking access to an officially certified copy of the Income Tax Act which he said he required in order to make full answer and defence. At paragraph 7 of that decision, Madam Justice MacKenzie said that there was no such requirement for a true and certified copy of the Income Tax Act to be produced and that as a result there was no prejudice to Mr. McMordie's right to make full answer and defence. She felt she was bound by the decision of Tysoe J. in R. v. Holly Bruno, July 26th, 2001, New Westminster Registry XO58115, a decision of the B.C. Supreme Court. In that case where Ms. Bruno had also argued for the disclosure of what's described as the original Income Tax Act, which I take would also mean an officially certified copy of the Income Tax Act that Tysoe J. had concluded at paragraph 7, and I quote:
The second argument is essentially that the original of the Income Tax Act has not been produced to Ms. Bruno. I am satisfied that the laws of the country are contained in the 1985 Revised Statutes of Canada, as amended from time to time thereafter. Those statutes were available to Ms. Bruno. She has been convicted pursuant to that statute and the conviction is valid.
And he dismissed her appeal. At paragraph 7 in McMordie, Madam Justice MacKenzie goes on to say:
I am not persuaded on the material and the arguments before me that Mr. McMordie would be infringing copyright laws by photocopying the 1985 Revised Statues of Canada Income Tax Act for court purposes.
She goes on then to dismiss that aspect of his application.
[46] In the evidence before me, indeed I am satisfied that, well, firstly that I would be bound by Mr. Justice Tysoe, and secondly, I am satisfied that his characterization of the existence of the Income Tax Act in Canada is in fact correct. On information which has been argued before me, including letters from the Law Clerk of the Senate, I am satisfied that indeed the task may be cumbersome but can be done, that one can ascertain the Income Tax Act of Canada by reference to the 1985 Revised Statutes of Canada, the Income Tax Act, and then following through the years thereafter all of the amendments which have been made from time to time to that Statute. The fact that it cannot be produced in a compilation officially certified in my view does not raise an issue as to whether or not it exists.
"Amissah" was Robert Ammisah, a Vancouver CRA auditor. "Haymer" was Steve Hamer, Ammisah's team leader. I knew them both. Hamer was there because we had a policy that any meeting with a Detaxer required that there be at least two CRA employees so there was at least one witness. Gibbs had agreed to meet Amissah at her house to discuss her tax problems. However what they actually faced was a Detaxer ambush. There was a gang of about half a dozen of them, including Fox, hiding in the kitchen with a video recorder. They actually looked a pretty pathetic bunch. Your standard unemployable unmarriageable basement dwellers.[24] A meeting was set up to meet with Ms. Gibbs and Ms. Enman on September the 29th of 1998, and I'm satisfied that the various requirement letters were already prepared, and indeed apparently had been prepared as early as August the 17th, 1998, for service on Ms. Gibbs and Ms. Enman both in their individual capacities for the tax years 1996 and 1997, and as well to be served on Ms. Gibbs and Ms. Enman in their capacity as directors for the Count On Us Bookkeeping Services Inc. for the taxation years 1996 and 1997, and that when Mr. Haymer and Mr. Amissah prepared and agreed to meet with Ms. Gibbs and Ms. Enman on September the 29th of 1998, it was indeed part of their intent to serve those documents on them.
[25] When the two men attended, they were initially met by Ms. Enman at the door. I've heard some evidence as to what happened at the door, and Ms. Enman's evidence that she was brushed aside, but it seems clear to me from her evidence that as well upon seeing them the issue of them being required to, that is Haymer and Amissah being required to answer certain questions or complete certain questionnaires was brought up almost immediately. Suffice it to say that both Mr. Haymer and Mr. Amissah entered into the house at 3535 East 45th Avenue and sat down in the living room. Ms. Gibbs came in and then Mr. Haymer opened up his briefcase and produced the requirement notices whereupon Ms. Enman called to a number of other people who she had asked to come and be present for this meeting.
[26] The number of others is not exactly sure, but I'm satisfied there were at least three others in addition to Ms. Enman and Ms. Gibbs. One of those other men was a man named Stan Cayer, who had with him a video camera, and in fact in preparation for the meeting he had put a remote, I believe it's a remote microphone on to Ms. Enman so as to be able to record her conversations, audio conversations at least with Mr. Haymer and Mr. Amissah.
[27] It's clear that once the witnesses were called into the living room that Mr. Cayer came in and began to record the events with his video camera. That brought the meeting to an almost immediate halt. Mr. Haymer said they were leaving and there was some discussion back and forth about them staying so that people could get answers, but the answers it seems to me clearly are answers that related to this Public Servant Questionnaire and were not answers related to any matters of direct fact relevant to the filing of the income tax returns. They left, and at one point there was a shoving incident between Haymer and Cayer. I heard evidence regarding various people's opinions as to whether it was an assault or not. It is not for me in this trial to make a judgment on that. It's clear that tempers were heated at that meeting.
[28] Haymer and Amissah then left. The notices which they had served on Ms. Gibbs and Ms. Enman are shown in Exhibit 1, tabs 1 and 2, and tabs 5 and 6. In essence, they require of both her as an individual to file within 60 days of the date of service income tax returns for the taxation years 1996 and 1997, as well as on behalf of the corporate entity, Count On Us Bookkeeping Services Inc., corporate income tax returns for 1996 and 1997. I am satisfied that no such returns were filed within the 60 day period as demanded.
When Ammisah and Hamer came in the house the troglodytes were lurking in the kitchen hopping up and down with excitement and filming themselves while the audio picked up the action from the living room. Gibbs demanded that Amissah fill out a huge Detax questionnaire filled with questions, some actually impossible to answer (see the decision for details on the form). He of course refused and when he did our lurking freedom squad bust out of hiding and started yammering Detax nonsense at the two CRA employees. Hamer immediately called the meeting over and they left but the Detaxers blocked them from getting to their car. The video shows Ammisah and Hamer in the front yard asking the gibbering morons to stand aside and them refusing. So Hamer pushed through them, just brushed them aside, and he and Ammmisah drove off. This drove the Detaxers into a frenzy of excitement. "Did you see that? He assaulted me! He assaulted me!" "He touched Me! That's Assault!" "We have them on criminal charges". They looked like they were about to wet themselves with excitement.
How do I know all this? Our battered assault victims immediately took the incriminating tape to the local RCMP station and demanded that the Mounties press assault charges against the two vicious government thugs. The Mounties watched the film, had a good laugh, told the Detaxers to fuck off, and gave the film to the CRA. Realizing its entertainment potential the CRA used it as the centerpiece of an in-house Detaxer training session which was where I saw it.
Good times, good times . . . .
So what happened to Byron after these reversals. He decided to take a different path. Fraud.
to quote from the British Columbia Securities Commission decision on the scheme that Byron participated in;
The Commission ordered that;3 Manna was a fraud invented and implemented by the respondents into which more than 800 investors deposited about US$16 million. They received as little as US$3 million, and no more than US$5.6 million, back. There is no apparent hope of recovering the rest.
4 Hal (Mick) Allan McLeod created the Manna scheme and, with David John Vaughan’s assistance, expanded it. The expansion became more aggressive when Kenneth Robert McMordie, who used the name Byrun Fox, and Rosiek joined the scheme later.
5 The Manna scheme’s form changed in minor ways and used various entities to perpetrate the fraud: Manna Trading Corp Ltd., the Manna Humanitarian Foundation, and the two Legacy entities, Legacy Capital Inc., and Legacy Trust Inc. All of these entities (which we refer to collectively as “Manna”) were in reality a single sham investment scheme which, in this decision, we refer to as the Manna scheme.
6 Manna induced investors to loan it money and told them that their funds would be placed with experienced traders who had a long history of producing double-digit monthly returns through foreign currency trading. Manna told investors that it had “an annualized trading history of profit returns not less than 20% per month (240% per year),” and that Manna’s profits enabled it to pay consistently high rates of return. Manna said it had historically paid returns to investors of 125.22% per year. Manna portrayed the investments as low-risk. It said the investments were “safe” and “secure” and that Manna was “continually mindful of capital preservation.”
7 Manna promised investors 7% monthly returns (later reduced to 5%), sometimes compounded. (A 7% monthly compounded return works out to 125.22% per year.) Investors who became “affiliates” or “consultants” could bring in new investors. When they did so, they earned a commission on the amount invested and a continuing share of the return on the new investment.
8 Some investors invested through a “private common law spiritual trust.” The trust was a mechanism Fox concocted ostensibly to avoid the application of tax and securities laws to investments in the Manna scheme.
9 All of these statements were misrepresentations. There is no evidence that Manna placed investors’ funds with foreign currency traders, or that the investors’ funds earned returns from any other source. Manna had no trading profits. No Manna investor experienced the historical returns Manna said investors did. Manna had no source of revenue other than investor contributions. The trust structure was a sham.
10 Manna also told investors that some of the returns Manna earned from its foreign exchange trading profits would be used for humanitarian causes. There is no evidence that any Manna funds went to humanitarian causes.
11 The reality is that Manna was a Ponzi scheme. Manna fraudulently used the investments of later investors to fund the promised returns to earlier investors, to pay commissions to the affiliates and consultants, to invest in an online gaming business, and to buy real estate in Costa Rica.
12 McLeod, Vaughan, Fox and Rosiek fraudulently used investors’ funds to enrich themselves.
13 This was a deliberate and well-organized fraud that resulted in the loss of at least US$10.4 million, and probably closer to US$13 million, by more than 800 investors in British Columbia and elsewhere.
http://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsec/doc/2 ... RpZQAAAAABMcMordie/Fox
17. under section 161(1)(b), that McMordie, also known as Fox, cease trading permanently, and is prohibited permanently from purchasing, securities or exchange contracts;
18. under section 161(1)(d)(i), that McMordie, also known as Fox, resign any position he holds as a director or officer of an issuer, registrant or investment fund manager;
19. under section 161(1)(d)(ii), that McMordie, also known as Fox, is prohibited permanently from becoming or acting as a director or officer of any issuer, registrant or investment fund manager;
20. under section 161(1)(d)(iii), that McMordie, also known as Fox, is prohibited permanently from becoming or acting as a registrant, investment fund manager or promoter;
21. under section 161(1)(d)(iv), that McMordie, also known as Fox, is prohibited permanently from acting in a management or consultative capacity in connection with activities in the securities market;
22. under section 161(1)(d)(v), that McMordie, also known as Fox, is prohibited permanently from engaging in investor relations activities;
23. under section 161(1)(g), that McMordie, also known as Fox, pay to the Commission $16 million, being the amount obtained, directly or indirectly, as a result of his contraventions of the Act;
24. under section 162, that McMordie, also known as Fox, pay an administrative penalty of $6 million
https://www.quatloos.com/Q-Forum/viewto ... 23#p171723
Specifically he fled to Cambodia where he’d been living since.4 fined $26M in B.C. Ponzi scheme
Scam collapsed in 2007
CBC News • Posted: Oct 26, 2009 4:49 PM ET | Last Updated: October 26, 2009
The British Columbia Securities Commission has imposed $26 million in penalties on four people it said ran a Ponzi scheme that victimized 800 people.
The BCSC released the ruling Monday against Hal (Mick) Allan McLeod, David John Vaughan, Kenneth Robert McMordie (also known as Byrun Fox), and Dianne Sharon Rosiek.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/business/4-fine ... e-1.825734
However, Mr. Evans said it will be difficult to collect on the penalties imposed against the four accused. He said Mr. McLeod, Mr. Vaughan and Mr. McMordie did not participate in the hearings and have "fled the jurisdiction." The BCSC does not know where they are. Mr. Evans said Ms. Rosiek has reported having no assets.
https://cambodiaexpatsonline.com/newswo ... 45490.html
His official cause of death was cardiovascular disease but a family member claimed otherwise saying it was covid;
He left tax avoidance and fraud out of the CV. Guess you can’t cover everything in a life as full of achievement as Bryun’s.We learned that my (Sue's) brother Ken McMordie aka Byrun Fox passed on Monday. Ken was living in Cambodia when he succumbed to complications form the Coronavirus pandemic. Ken lived a storied life beginning with a spot on a local tv show and a career that included a variety of positions from sales and private investigations to gemology. He was inventive, creative, with a unique perspective on life.
Ken touched many lives and left an indelible impact on those who knew him. It is with much sadness that he left in such a terrible time. he will be missed.
The covid diagnosis is also supported by a first-hand source, Bryun himself claimed covid was the culprit. At least (writing under the name ‘Jed McKenna’) he claimed, shortly before his death, to have been infected with it. Far from being concerned about it he welcomed it, WELCOMED IT!!
http://jedmckenna.createaforum.com/new- ... was-covid/I usually get what I want, and this time it was COVID.
« on: June 25, 2021, 12:48:46 am »
My thinking was that a natural immunity is the way to go, last week, a student friend and student here, and I, got CV.
We knew what to do for it and it is diminishing, quite nicely, but it is not to be taken lightly.
So, I am a little slow in responding to students and members. Actually a little slow in responding to everything. But we had the best treatment right at hand, self-administered and it saved us much grief.
I will be up and running in a week or so.
Much love, Jed.
And, like Mak Parhar, he was fighting it off, getting better, and decided it wasn’t covid after all;
Then it killed him.Howdy folks:
I was wrong, I only had a head cold and I assumed that because my student had the real thing.,,, I had it too. A. took massive amouns of HCQ, like really big. I took more modest amounts, and it almost killed me. The side effects list is scary. I can only walk ten or twenty feet and then have to lie down. Very strange indeed. It has a half life approaching plutonium, and really felt like HRC invented it,
Things are going to be slow for while, but I will manage. Thanks much for you kind words and patience,
Much love, Jed
