Dr. Warren Fischer's Prickly Fate

Moderator: Burnaby49

User avatar
Hilfskreuzer Möwe
Northern Raider of Sovereign Commerce
Posts: 873
Joined: Thu Apr 25, 2013 1:23 am
Location: R R R SS Voltaire 47N 31 26W 22 R R R SS Voltaire 47N 31 2 [signal lost]

Dr. Warren Fischer's Prickly Fate

Postby Hilfskreuzer Möwe » Thu Jun 27, 2013 8:59 pm

And a further streak of flame and debris across the sky marks yet another kill for the CRA:

Acupuncturist Warren Fischer is found guilty of three counts of filing false tax returns, having declared $1.00 in income in 2007-2009, when instead he had a gross income of $444,211.10. To add insult to injury, in 2009 Fischer claimed a business loss of $148,646.00 to negate his 2006 taxes (para. 64).

The majority of the judgment recaps the audit, search and seizure of Fischer’s financial documentation, and calculation of the outstanding income tax.

Fun stuff: Fischer is a member of the Sovereign Squamish Government (see viewtopic.php?f=47&t=6171). He also appears to have been interested in several “tax protestor” schemes, including that of Porisky: paras. 4, 44-45, 48. There is a second "tax protestor" scheme mentioned, "Fiscal Arbitrators", which is new to me, but I see there are cases on CanLII that discuss that too.

Fischer himself refused to participate in the trial, and so the proceeding occurred ex parte: para. 2. Well, that’s not entirely true, because initially “Ambassador” Fischer was represented by Irene Gravenhorst of the Sovereign Squamish Government, until she was thrown out of the court, transcript at: http://www.scribd.com/doc/94839762/SINI ... ANSMAY2012

Very interestingly, Judge Mrozinski also found Fischer guilty of tax evasion (paras. 73-74), as Fischer made no effort to rebut the implied meaning of “tax protester” documents found in his possession and that Fischer had employed such concepts in his communication with the CRA, and via the simple degree of income that was not correctly reported (para. 72):

With respect to his intent or mens rea, I have been guided by the discussion of the Ontario Court of Appeal in R. v. Klundert where, at para 45, the court accepted that the Act is complex and that persons who out of mistake or ignorance fail to pay their taxes may not meet the fault requirements in s. 239(1)(d) of the Act. If there was some evidence on which it could be inferred that Mr. Fischer mistakenly failed to report his income due to lack of knowledge, reliance on an expert, or a mistake of law, an acquittal might follow. But here, there is no such evidence. Rather, the evidence linking Mr. Fischer to the tax protest movement, including his own emails, suggests an intention not to pay tax. It is clear that refusing to pay income tax because one disagrees with the law itself is not a defence. Even without this evidence, Mr. Fischer’s tax returns for the years 2007, 2008 and 2009 are so far from his earned income, which he deposited regularly into his Scotia Account, there can be no question and I find that Mr. Fischer did not do so in error.


Fischer will be sentenced for a single conviction of tax evasion. The false tax return convictions were stayed as included and lesser offences.

Another interesting observation at para. 45 is that the court concludes that in an ex parte proceeding it has no obligation to evaluate and consider any possible OPCA defence because those “defences” are nonsense:

Though this court is aware that there is an association in the evidence between Mr. Fischer and the tax protest movement which has been so fully described by Rooke A.C.J. in Meads v. Meads, [2012] A.J. No. 980, that issue is not before me. While the court has many obligations to the accused in the context of an ex parte trial, or even with regard to a self represented accused, that obligation cannot go so far as to require the Court to raise or consider the sorts of arguments that may be made by tax protestors in regard to these charges as an example.


There has been some interesting news media reporting on this case, the most detailed is provided by the Nelson Star (http://www.nelsonstar.com/news/212999571.html). This rounds out the narrative and drama. Fischer was not present in court for the judgment on Tuesday, but instead “… stood outside with dozens of supporters in peaceful protest.” An arrest warrant was then issued for Fischer. Sounds like he lost his medical licence as well.

While Fischer wasn’t talking, Irene had some ‘stuff’ to say:

Fischer had little interest in talking to media outside the courthouse. Irene-Maus Gravenhorst (who prefers to be identified as ©Irene-Maus: Gravenhorst-Kiapilanoq-CAPILANO™ in print), a member of the Sovereign Squamish Government who has been speaking on Fischer’s behalf, explained that Fischer is awaiting settlement on a counterclaim, which he filed through their government's court, seeking financial compensation for "criminal violations against him." He will not participate in the BC court system until he's received his settlement, according to Gravenhorst.

Fischer is seeking trillions of dollars in damages from everyone involved in the provincial court case, from the judges to the Canada Revenue Agency representatives who searched his home for evidence and the Nelson Police Department officers who supervised the search.


Apparently the “Sovereign Squamish Government’s common law court” has already issued a default judgment in his favour, which includes a $333 trillion daily penalty for non-payment. Good luck with that Warren! I somehow doubt that the Sovereign Squamish Government will provide any useful form of international immunity, no matter what Irene says.

An earlier report (http://www.nelsonstar.com/news/204196021.html) has this explanation as well:

Outside the courthouse, the Star asked Fischer why he hadn't gone inside. He said he would comment on the condition that he be referred to as "©Warren-Joseph-Darnell: Fischer™" in print, then said "we're standing here because we're sovereign and we do not submit to their authority over us."

Fischer also said he was waiting for settlement on a debt contract worth a dollar amount "in the quadrillions" before he would negotiate with the courts.


Something I see quite often from certain Freeman gurus is that the trick to avoid court jurisdiction is just to not show up. Hmm. Guess maybe that does not work either.

For your amusement, here’s a video by the ‘prickly one’ himself, along with his mighty SSG court documents: http://sovcom.net/?s=warren+fischer&sea ... chBtn.y=16

No one disputed his powerful filed documents, so of course, Fischer wins! Take that Corporations of Canada and British Columbia! He’s filed liens too – I sure hope that isn’t an aggravating circumstance during sentencing…

SMS Möwe
That’s you and your crew, Mr. Hilfskreuzer. You’re just like a vampire, you must feel quite good about while the blood is dripping down from your lips onto the page or the typing, uhm keyboard there... [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YNMoUnUiDqg at 11:25]

User avatar
JamesVincent
A Councilor of the Kabosh
Posts: 2647
Joined: Sat Oct 23, 2010 8:01 am

Re: Dr. Warren Fischer's Prickly Fate

Postby JamesVincent » Thu Jun 27, 2013 10:05 pm

Congratulations Canada, you have made the big time. And hell, $333 trillion makes DMVP $20 million look like chump change.
"Just knowing we're in the same genus makes me embarrassed to call myself Homo." Professor Farnsworth

Burnaby49
Quatloosian Ambassador to the CaliCanadians
Quatloosian Ambassador to the CaliCanadians
Posts: 5638
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 3:45 am
Location: The Evergreen Playground

Re: Dr. Warren Fischer's Prickly Fate

Postby Burnaby49 » Thu Jun 27, 2013 10:18 pm

JamesVincent wrote:Congratulations Canada, you have made the big time. And hell, $333 trillion makes DMVP $20 million look like chump change.


So much for balancing the federal and provincial government budgets.
"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: 5638
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 3:45 am
Location: The Evergreen Playground

Re: Dr. Warren Fischer's Prickly Fate

Postby Burnaby49 » Thu Jun 27, 2013 11:34 pm

I'm guessing a jail term on this one if for no other reason than Fischer's complete lack of cooperation in the court process. He turned a three day trial into a three week trial which he didn't attend in any case.

The issue that extended the trial was proving continuity, the path of the evidence found in the searches from wherever they were located to actual entry in court as evidence. The Crown had to spend an inordinate amount of time having various CRA staff give evidence as to how the material was handled and stored. All Fischer had to do was agree that the evidence continuity was valid and the court could have skipped the whole process; the court asked him specifically if he was willing to waive contesting continuity but he declined. When continuity is suspect so that the evidence may be tainted and therefore inadmissible contesting continuity is an entirely valid defense tactic. However at trial Fischer did not attack evidence continuity making the whole validation process a waste of court time.
"Yes Burnaby49, I do in fact believe all process servers are peace officers. I've good reason to believe so." Robert Menard in his May 28, 2015 video "Process Servers".

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

User avatar
grixit
Recycler of Paytriot Fantasies
Posts: 3500
Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2003 7:02 am
Contact:

Re: Dr. Warren Fischer's Prickly Fate

Postby grixit » Thu Jun 27, 2013 11:38 pm

Ambassador Fischer will soon have a new office, fully equipped with a bed and a toilet.
I voted for Hillary, and i didn't even get a stupid tshirt!

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

User avatar
Hilfskreuzer Möwe
Northern Raider of Sovereign Commerce
Posts: 873
Joined: Thu Apr 25, 2013 1:23 am
Location: R R R SS Voltaire 47N 31 26W 22 R R R SS Voltaire 47N 31 2 [signal lost]

Re: Dr. Warren Fischer's Prickly Fate

Postby Hilfskreuzer Möwe » Thu Jul 11, 2013 8:01 am

grixit wrote:Ambassador Fischer will soon have a new office, fully equipped with a bed and a toilet.


And it appears he is already there...

I have spotted a "July 3 Revised Notice" posted by the SSG on behalf of Warren Fischer: http://www.scribd.com/doc/151760004/Revised-Notice-re-©Warren-JD-Fischer™

[The link looks weird, but it works fine.]

It's a scan of a printed and stamped document, so I hope readers will excuse my not quoting it at length. It seems to indicate that Warren Fischer has been "kidnapped", an "act of war", and threatens that the SSG will hold all those corporate state actors to full account for their unlawful activities.

It indicates the SSG is already recognized as a sovereign government by both Canadian jurisdictions, nation states, and international entities.That said...

... the Nelson, BC, Canadian government refuses to recognize his SSG Ambassador status as was demonstrated by refusing to address him by that title in order to call him Mister. This is a title that describes the human being less than fodder. Tax slaves are goyim to Canada's Prime Minister, Stephen Harper who uses the Canadian court system with local police guns to force tax compliance.


The local newspapers are pawns of Rupert Murdock! Canada Health suppresses naturopaths and "traditional healing doctors". Worse - Microsoft is involved:

... CANADA Health main investor is a husband and wife team, controlled by Melinda and Bill Gates, watch the Gates Foundation [youtube link]. Both work with the World Health Organization (WHO) to depopulate the human race by forcing them to take vaccines and immunizations that turn natural persons into mind controlled zombies with pharmaceutical drugs. ...


The judiciary is but another catspaw:

... Judge Lisa can say anything she wants in order to make public statements and she does so to slander, libel and defame peoples by naming them as "tax protestors / evaders" in order to instill fear in people. This nothing new but something that must be researched by the readers. ...


This document implies that Fischer has been arrested and is being held without bail. The authors protest they have been denied "visitation rights", but that as Fischer is a sovereign man the 'Canada corporation' has no right to do so. Oh, and the fact that Fischer does not confirm he wants to talk to SSG members? That means he wants to talk to SSG members.

If Fischer is sentenced? Don't blame us - it wasn't the SSG's fault:

We did not put Warren into jail! It was the Canadian Government court system and Judge Lisa who retaliated to his 'non compliance / resistance' to their jurisdictional kangaroo court proceedings. What placed Warren in jail are two active cards connected to a Social Insurance Number to name him, as a Debtor. This is something that was mentioned in passing in the winder of this year but SSG members had no idea that the accounts were continued with monthly payments. ... This information is crucial because it places Warrne in their jurisdiction. ..."


Warren - buddy - sorry about your impending prison term - HEY - guess what?! It's all your fault!

Now here's where things get really dirty, and Gravenhorst (viewtopic.php?f=47&t=6171) should stare in the mirror long and hard. It appears that Fischer's relatives are attempting to salvage this morass and minimize the harm that has been caused to Fischer's business and personal affairs: see paras. 6.0-6.3, and the paragraph that follows the heading "Should the family hire a lawyer ...". Needless to say, Gravenhorst / the SSG are using this document to interfere in that attempt. Pretty dirty pool.

How about a little rhetoric? Rhetoric is good, right?

De facto corporate governments are insolvent and broke, they have nothing and now their agenda is to bankrupt world currencies in order to create the chaos of a One World Order with an electronic currency to enslave more people as a primary mandate to control with fear. Warren's fearless vision of peace on Earth for mankind is supported by SSG members and together we must fight for his immediate release. People should volunteer their names on the Visit List for Warren and make appointments to support him, write him letters to encourage him, write Lawyers without Borders and request for case directors to help Warren, contact Judges who have walked of the bench because they themselves could not stomach the corruption, Facebook Warren's story, make Warren's case viral via internet because 'they' hate publicity and the truth is our only strength.

[Well, unless it is Rupert Murdock Brand Publicity!]

...

For all those who bitch and complain by being angry at this system but pay the taxes anyway so that they can live in a house, drive a car and eat their buttered bread. Paying taxes and using interest currencies with bank and credit cards, fund weapons of mass destruction to kill little children on the Gaza strip plus many other man made wars. Ignorance is a choice, make the right choice.


Okey Dokey. Ms. Gravenhorst? Sooner or later, you will be held to account. The day cannot come too soon. Even if Warren Fischer has made terribly poor choices - and he has - you have done worse.

I think Associate Chief Justice Rooke got it right on this one in Meads v. Meads, 2012 ABQB 571 at para. 671:

William S. Burroughs in Naked Lunch (New York: Grove Press, 1962, p. 11) wrote: “Hustlers of the world, there is one Mark you cannot beat: The Mark Inside.” I believe that is true for you. At some basic level, you understand that you are selling lies, or at the very most generous, wildly dubious concepts.


In time. In time.

SMS Möwe
That’s you and your crew, Mr. Hilfskreuzer. You’re just like a vampire, you must feel quite good about while the blood is dripping down from your lips onto the page or the typing, uhm keyboard there... [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YNMoUnUiDqg at 11:25]

AndyK
Illuminatian Revenue Supremo Emeritus
Posts: 1299
Joined: Sun Sep 11, 2011 9:13 pm
Location: Maryland

Re: Dr. Warren Fischer's Prickly Fate

Postby AndyK » Thu Jul 11, 2013 1:06 pm

What a farce. The document is totally invalid.

It lacks the mandatory thumb print (Proof that it was signed by a living man) and also lacks the diagonal signature on each page -- proof that the pages were originals and never modified,
Taxes are the price we pay for a free society and to cover the responsibilities of the evaders

User avatar
Hilfskreuzer Möwe
Northern Raider of Sovereign Commerce
Posts: 873
Joined: Thu Apr 25, 2013 1:23 am
Location: R R R SS Voltaire 47N 31 26W 22 R R R SS Voltaire 47N 31 2 [signal lost]

Re: Dr. Warren Fischer's Prickly Fate

Postby Hilfskreuzer Möwe » Thu Jul 11, 2013 3:57 pm

AndyK wrote:What a farce. The document is totally invalid.

It lacks the mandatory thumb print (Proof that it was signed by a living man) and also lacks the diagonal signature on each page -- proof that the pages were originals and never modified,


And don’t forget the mandatory blood!

There’s something unique about SSG documents. In the last few years they have incorporated those square “QR” type barcodes. I’ve always wondered what that was intended to do. When scanned they appear to return a telephone number.

This document seems to provide the rationale behind this unusual formality. The Revised Notice states:

... We seal this lawful paper with due diligence as evidenced by our flesh and blood autograph over the Sovereign Seals supported by a Barcode license that serves as valuable security and consideration, receipt of which is hereby acknowledged and accepted by all parties.


If you read the footnotes, which are blurry and in an itsy-bitsy eye-strain-o-vision font, there is the following:

Barcode value is protected by the red ink autograph as a conscious ownership over the Credit owned through life of the Named bloodline steward to the Lands.


So here we have a new twist on the entire foisted unilateral contract scheme! Adding a barcode to a document in this manner creates the proverbial peppercorn benefit to the recipient which traps him/her into a contract. My equally spurious counter-argument would be that a barcode provides no consideration until the recipient, at a minimum, scans it.

SMS Möwe
That’s you and your crew, Mr. Hilfskreuzer. You’re just like a vampire, you must feel quite good about while the blood is dripping down from your lips onto the page or the typing, uhm keyboard there... [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YNMoUnUiDqg at 11:25]

User avatar
Dr. Caligari
J.D., Miskatonic University School of Crickets
Posts: 1514
Joined: Fri Jul 25, 2003 11:02 pm
Location: Southern California

Re: Dr. Warren Fischer's Prickly Fate

Postby Dr. Caligari » Thu Jul 11, 2013 5:59 pm

Tax slaves are goyim to Canada's Prime Minister, Stephen Harper


WTF?
Dr. Caligari
(Du musst Caligari werden!)

User avatar
grixit
Recycler of Paytriot Fantasies
Posts: 3500
Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2003 7:02 am
Contact:

Re: Dr. Warren Fischer's Prickly Fate

Postby grixit » Thu Jul 11, 2013 8:02 pm

Also note the declaration of intent to jettison their messiah. Should he retain a lawyer at this late date, they will sever all connections and stop supporting him.

That may be his only chance at avoiding hard time.
I voted for Hillary, and i didn't even get a stupid tshirt!

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

User avatar
Hilfskreuzer Möwe
Northern Raider of Sovereign Commerce
Posts: 873
Joined: Thu Apr 25, 2013 1:23 am
Location: R R R SS Voltaire 47N 31 26W 22 R R R SS Voltaire 47N 31 2 [signal lost]

Re: Dr. Warren Fischer's Prickly Fate

Postby Hilfskreuzer Möwe » Tue Jul 30, 2013 4:20 am

A minor update.

Dr. Warren Fischer was scheduled to be sentenced on July 24 for one count of tax evasion. The Nelson Star reports (http://www.nelsonstar.com/news/216785461.html) that hearing has been rescheduled without explanation to August 21, 2013.

The news article confirms that Fischer was arrested sometime after his June 25 conviction, and that he remains in detention.

This report does not indicate whether Fischer has decided to abandon Irene Gravenhorst, her SSG claptrap, and his claim for "quadrillions" in damages against state actors. My suspicion is that decision will have a significant effect on whether Fischer receives a jail or house arrest sentence. Canadian judges appear to be adopting a rule that where an OPCA offender maintains they are outside state authority then only prison incarceration is an adequate sentence, see for example R. v. Jastrebske, 2013 SKQB 150 (viewtopic.php?f=47&t=9267). Arguably, the conditional (house arrest) sentences which apparently were ordered in R. v. Tyskerud (viewtopic.php?f=46&t=9129) could be a counter-example, however no reported sentencing decision has issued to date on that matter, and it is possible that on sentencing the Tyskeruds abandoned their OPCA approaches.

SMS Möwe
That’s you and your crew, Mr. Hilfskreuzer. You’re just like a vampire, you must feel quite good about while the blood is dripping down from your lips onto the page or the typing, uhm keyboard there... [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YNMoUnUiDqg at 11:25]

User avatar
Hilfskreuzer Möwe
Northern Raider of Sovereign Commerce
Posts: 873
Joined: Thu Apr 25, 2013 1:23 am
Location: R R R SS Voltaire 47N 31 26W 22 R R R SS Voltaire 47N 31 2 [signal lost]

Re: Dr. Warren Fischer's Prickly Fate

Postby Hilfskreuzer Möwe » Tue Aug 06, 2013 12:09 am

Media report that Warren Fischer has released on bail on August 1, 2013 (http://www.nelsonstar.com/news/217996831.html). His sentencing for tax evasion remains set for August 21, 2013.

The Nelson Star news report indicates that Fischer’s parents provided the bail, $30,000.00, secured against their home in Trail B.C.

The news report does not explain why bail has been ordered in this case, however one can deduce a tidbit as a British Columbia Supreme Court judge ordered Fischer’s release. An order from that level of court means this was a kind of detention review where Fischer would have to prove something has changed in his circumstances that would warrant his release. My guess? I think he’s abandoned the SSG in favour of cooperation with his family and ‘lawyered up’. The SSG / family conflict was highlighted in the SSG document referenced earlier in this thread. The size of the bail security is unusual for Canada and an offence of this kind.

I did not identify a response from the SSG.

While digging for more details I found an audio interview from April, 2013 of Fischer speaking to an utterly non-confrontational reviewer on a local area volunteer co-op FM radio station (http://cjlypodcast.net/km/KM_July1_2013.mp3). Fischer’s segment is from 42:00 – 59:00. It’s nothing particularly special.

SMS Möwe
That’s you and your crew, Mr. Hilfskreuzer. You’re just like a vampire, you must feel quite good about while the blood is dripping down from your lips onto the page or the typing, uhm keyboard there... [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YNMoUnUiDqg at 11:25]

User avatar
Hilfskreuzer Möwe
Northern Raider of Sovereign Commerce
Posts: 873
Joined: Thu Apr 25, 2013 1:23 am
Location: R R R SS Voltaire 47N 31 26W 22 R R R SS Voltaire 47N 31 2 [signal lost]

Re: Dr. Warren Fischer's Prickly Fate

Postby Hilfskreuzer Möwe » Fri Aug 23, 2013 1:01 am

Fischer's sentencing hearing was yesterday, and while the judge has reserved her decision, there is media reporting on the events (http://www.nelsonstar.com/news/220692011.html). The sentencing decision is due on Oct. 22, 2013.

Sure enough, Fischer lawyered up, claimed he was foolish and mistaken, never intended to do anything wrong, blamed Porisky & Co. for leading him astray, and said he only wanted to stop supporting war. The anticipated legion of friends and family were there to lend support, while Gravenhorst and the SSG were nowhere to be seen. Sensibly Fischer had voluntarily cancelled various frivolous liens he had filed on government actors.

There is some interesting commentary from Fischer on how he has arranged his finances and assets:

"I understand your job is difficult, and I apologize for making it more difficult," Fischer told Judge Lisa Mrozinski, explaining he now understands the separation between government and the courts and, in fact, respects the court's work.

He said he avoided paying income tax because he didn't want his money supporting war efforts. In 2007 and 2008 Fischer filed tax returns claiming no income and in 2009 he claimed a net loss of $150,000.

During that period he declined to cash GST cheques issued to him and mailed his health card back to the government to prevent him from using medical services.

However he continued to pay property taxes, which fund local services, and corporate taxes for the Academy of Classical Oriental Sciences, which he co-founded.

"I felt that I was contributing, while still taking a personal stand against the war," Fischer explained.

He said he plans to speak to a financial planner to find a legal way to avoid income tax, which will likely involve him working for a certified charity that will take the majority of his earnings.

Fischer has already turned many of his assets over to family members — including the Academy and a home he built himself in Uphill. Buckley explained Fischer recently organized his affairs so that much of his income goes to the Sovereign Squamish Government, who cover his housing and medical expenses and pay him a monthly salary of $1,200. His net income, if he were keeping it for himself, would be less than $70,000, according to Buckley. He also said Fischer has around $78,000 in credit card debt and recently received notice of a $193,000 debt owing to Canada Revenue Agency.


His lawyer asks for leniency, but observes that Fischer has continued to engaged in Chinese medicine though no longer a registered medical practitioner! Somehow I don't think that is a positive sign.

Buckley said because of Fischer's limited ability to pay a large fine, he should get the mandatory minimum — a 50 per cent fine and no further jail time.

He pointed out that Fischer is practicing traditional Chinese medicine (though not in good standing with the College of Traditional Chinese Medicine Practitioners) and sees 50 to 60 patients per week. He also teaches 60 students at the Academy of Classical Oriental Sciences.

"It hurts his patients and the students, having him locked up," Buckley said.


And the court does not appear overly sympathetic.

The court received numerous letters vouching for Fischer and explaining his vital role in the community. Some of his students and patients shared their experience with the judge.

Mrozinski acknowledged Fischer is respected, but found it troubling that many of the letters minimized his crimes, calling the taxes he evaded a "paltry sum" and not understanding why anyone would be convicted for such actions.

"Nobody seems to care about what he did," Mrozinski lamented.


The Crown is seeking a one-year sentence, which appears plausible to me, and a 100% evaded tax fine penalty:

Crown prosecutor Nils Preshaw is calling for a 100 per cent fine and one year in jail. He maintains Fischer is not a "conscientious opposer" of the war and greed, not politics, motivated him to evade taxes.

He pointed to income statements prior to 2006 showing Fischer earned six-figure salaries and believes he would be able to pay a fine.


Interesting report - now we know how the SSG finances itself. It attempts to shelter income from its membership. Burnaby49, I would think that Fischer's attempts to place his assets / school / home in others names would be ineffective at blocking CRA recovery? I presume all that will be needed is to establish on a balance of probabilities that those transactions were for the purpose of tax evasion?

I did not spot anything from the SSG on this. No wonder Gravenhorst et al were itchy - Fischer was probably a major source of the funds to support their loafing around.

I peeked at the B.C. Court online records and discovered that Fischer in May 10 of this year was tried for driving without a licence. He didn't show and was found guilty. No indication of a sentence on that.

SMS Möwe
That’s you and your crew, Mr. Hilfskreuzer. You’re just like a vampire, you must feel quite good about while the blood is dripping down from your lips onto the page or the typing, uhm keyboard there... [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YNMoUnUiDqg at 11:25]

Burnaby49
Quatloosian Ambassador to the CaliCanadians
Quatloosian Ambassador to the CaliCanadians
Posts: 5638
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 3:45 am
Location: The Evergreen Playground

Re: Dr. Warren Fischer's Prickly Fate

Postby Burnaby49 » Fri Aug 23, 2013 3:16 am

He gave his money to Irene Gravenhorst and the SSG? HE GAVE HIS MONEY TO IRENE GRAVENHORST? Is he a total freaking idiot? Sorry, the question answers itself. He should be trying for a light sentence under diminished capacity, giving money to Irene is pretty damn good evidence to support that defense.

As far as collecting is concerned it was never my area and I don't know all the remedies that are available to the crown. An obvious one is section 160 of the Income Tax Act which reads:

(1) Where a person has, on or after May 1, 1951, transferred property, either directly or indirectly, by means of a trust or by any other means whatever, to


(c) a person with whom the person was not dealing at arm’s length, the following rules apply:


(e) the transferee and transferor are jointly and severally liable to pay under this Act an amount equal to the lesser of
(i) the amount, if any, by which the fair market value of the property at the time it was transferred exceeds the fair market value at that time of the consideration given for the property, and
(ii) the total of all amounts each of which is an amount that the transferor is liable to pay under the Act in or in respect of the taxation year in which the property was transferred or any preceding taxation year…


This allows the CRA to go after the recipient of funds or property from the taxpayer where he did not receive full equivalent consideration back. This would cover the value of the assets transferred to family members who would also become personally liable for his tax debts. The CRA can seize the house and Academy from whomever has them and sell them. However the key phrase in this case is "not dealing at arm's length". It is unlikely that Gravenhorst and the SSG can be proven to be non arm's length. I would assume the CRA can go with fraudulent conveyancing but I don't really know.

As an example of S 160 in action see link below. The Tax Court judge, in a very badly decided decision, said that Section 160 did not apply where the taxpayer was putting funds into a friend's bank account then using it indirectly. CRA appealed to the Federal Court of Appeal which reversed the Tax Court decision.

http://decisions.fca-caf.gc.ca/en/2008/ ... fca89.html
"Yes Burnaby49, I do in fact believe all process servers are peace officers. I've good reason to believe so." Robert Menard in his May 28, 2015 video "Process Servers".

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

Backo
Gunners Mate
Gunners Mate
Posts: 44
Joined: Tue Jun 18, 2013 6:27 am

Re: Dr. Warren Fischer's Prickly Fate

Postby Backo » Fri Aug 23, 2013 4:08 am

Burnaby, I might have misinterpreted your post but I point out that in Australian taxation law "dealing at arm's length" is a different concept from simply being "at arm's length".

If the transaction is obviously for the purpose of avoiding tax liability and the parties are plainly cooperating to achieve that end then the fact that the parties are at arm's length might not satisfy the "dealing at arm's length" requirement.

I would also assume there are clawback provisions for uncommercial transactions in the Canadian bankruptcy laws. A trustee in bankruptcy would have a field day with these arrangements.

User avatar
The Observer
Further Moderator
Posts: 6588
Joined: Fri Feb 07, 2003 12:48 am
Location: Virgin Islands Gunsmith

Re: Dr. Warren Fischer's Prickly Fate

Postby The Observer » Fri Aug 23, 2013 4:25 am

Here in the US, such transactions come under civil fraud provisions and are addressed as fraudulent transfers. Remedies can include seizure of the assets transferred or, in the case of the asset losing value after the transfer, assessing against the transferee. One of the hurdles that the government must be able to cross is to show that the transfer left the taxpayer insolvent.
"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

Backo
Gunners Mate
Gunners Mate
Posts: 44
Joined: Tue Jun 18, 2013 6:27 am

Re: Dr. Warren Fischer's Prickly Fate

Postby Backo » Fri Aug 23, 2013 5:04 am

Hmmm, proving insolvency at any particular time can be tricky if the debtor fights it. Does the State usually succeed in these types of action in the US?

Burnaby49
Quatloosian Ambassador to the CaliCanadians
Quatloosian Ambassador to the CaliCanadians
Posts: 5638
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 3:45 am
Location: The Evergreen Playground

Re: Dr. Warren Fischer's Prickly Fate

Postby Burnaby49 » Fri Aug 23, 2013 6:10 am

Backo wrote:Burnaby, I might have misinterpreted your post but I point out that in Australian taxation law "dealing at arm's length" is a different concept from simply being "at arm's length".

If the transaction is obviously for the purpose of avoiding tax liability and the parties are plainly cooperating to achieve that end then the fact that the parties are at arm's length might not satisfy the "dealing at arm's length" requirement.

I would also assume there are clawback provisions for uncommercial transactions in the Canadian bankruptcy laws. A trustee in bankruptcy would have a field day with these arrangements.


Section 251 of the Canadian Income Tax Act states:

(1) For the purposes of this Act,
‍(a) related persons shall be deemed not to deal with each other at arm’s length;
‍(b) a taxpayer and a personal trust (other than a trust described in any of paragraphs (a) to (e.1) of the definition "trust" in subsection 108(1)) are deemed not to deal with each other at arm’s length if the taxpayer, or any person not dealing at arm’s length with the taxpayer, would be beneficially interested in the trust if subsection 248(25) were read without reference to subclauses 248(25)(b)(iii)(A)(II) to (IV); and
‍(c) where paragraph (b) does not apply, it is a question of fact whether persons not related to each other are at a particular time dealing with each other at arm’s length.

Definition of "related persons"
‍(2) For the purpose of this Act, "related persons", or persons related to each other, are
‍(a) individuals connected by blood relationship, marriage or common-law partnership or adoption;
‍(b) a corporation and
‍(i) a person who controls the corporation, if it is controlled by one person,
‍(ii) a person who is a member of a related group that controls the corporation, or
‍(iii) any person related to a person described in subparagraph 251(2)(b)(i) or 251(2)(b)(ii); and
‍(c) any two corporations
‍(i) if they are controlled by the same person or group of persons,
‍(ii) if each of the corporations is controlled by one person and the person who controls one of the corporations is related to the person who controls the other corporation,
‍(iii) if one of the corporations is controlled by one person and that person is related to any member of a related group that controls the other corporation,
‍(iv) if one of the corporations is controlled by one person and that person is related to each member of an unrelated group that controls the other corporation,
‍(v) if any member of a related group that controls one of the corporations is related to each member of an unrelated group that controls the other corporation, or
‍(vi) if each member of an unrelated group that controls one of the corporations is related to at least one member of an unrelated group that controls the other corporation.


Section 160 is almost always utilized to cover transfers between spouses. Since they are deemed by the defined in 251(a) to be not dealing at arm's length the only issue is consideration taken back and the CRA doesn't have to prove anything about their actual relationship. That is not true in the current case.

I deliberately chose the case I cited in my posting to show how not dealing at arm's length can be decided by the court on a factual basis under 251(c), a rare occurance. In that case the two people were long-term friends and one was simply accomodating the other. The court determined, from the evidence of their friendship, that they weren't dealing at arm's length. However it is difficult to convince the court to accept 251(c). The factual evidence has to be very strong about the non-arm's length aspect. Straight accomodation of a tax scam is not enough, there has to be something more.

In my opinion, as a guy who used to deal with this stuff, the CRA could not get a court to accept that the parties were not dealing at arm's length in Fischer's case so that S. 160 applied. The fact that Squamish Nation benefits from the deal is in itself not indicative of non-arm's length. Even if it could be proven that Squamish Nation deliberately abetted Fischer's tax evasion (and I see no evidence of this) you can benefit by accomodating tax fraud and be arm's length from the the fraudulent taxpayer, the same as in any other mutually beneficial deal. In my cited case the Federal Court of Appeal said that the recipient of the funds acted out of a sense of moral obligation to the taxpayer but she herself did not benefit. That certainly doesn't apply here where (if Fischer's statements about giving his property to the Squamish Nation are true) the Squamish Nation benefitted to the extent of the value of whatever Fischer gave them.

However if the CRA assesses any of the Squamish Nation parties on a Section 160 basis I'll see it and get back with 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

Backo
Gunners Mate
Gunners Mate
Posts: 44
Joined: Tue Jun 18, 2013 6:27 am

Re: Dr. Warren Fischer's Prickly Fate

Postby Backo » Fri Aug 23, 2013 7:11 am

In the case you cited I can only find a very short passage on the "dealing at arm's length" issue:

at para 28
Why would Ms. Davies give an amount of money to the respondent in consideration for the ability to withdraw the money, when the respondent retains the power to take the money? No prudent, arm’s length purchaser not motivated by the prospect of evading collection of their tax debt would pay the full value of funds in exchange for the right of access that Ms. Davies received. There was no evidence on which the Tax Court Judge could conclude that what was provided by the respondent was equal to the fair market value of the money put into the account.


It seems that the Court has decided the matter on the basis that, as the consideration wasn't market value, the parties were not dealing at arms length. That seems to me to be a pretty low threshold. If CRA could show that Squamish did not provide market value for any assets or funds it received from Fischer, potentially s160(1)(c) is satisfied.

If they structured it as a proper employment agreement and then carried that out that structure as a ordinary business would, then perhaps they are safe. I am going to go out on a limb and guess that these arrangments, once investigated, will prove to be half arsed and a transparent sham.

Burnaby49
Quatloosian Ambassador to the CaliCanadians
Quatloosian Ambassador to the CaliCanadians
Posts: 5638
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 3:45 am
Location: The Evergreen Playground

Re: Dr. Warren Fischer's Prickly Fate

Postby Burnaby49 » Fri Aug 23, 2013 8:34 am

Backo wrote:In the case you cited I can only find a very short passage on the "dealing at arm's length" issue:

at para 28
Why would Ms. Davies give an amount of money to the respondent in consideration for the ability to withdraw the money, when the respondent retains the power to take the money? No prudent, arm’s length purchaser not motivated by the prospect of evading collection of their tax debt would pay the full value of funds in exchange for the right of access that Ms. Davies received. There was no evidence on which the Tax Court Judge could conclude that what was provided by the respondent was equal to the fair market value of the money put into the account.


It seems that the Court has decided the matter on the basis that, as the consideration wasn't market value, the parties were not dealing at arms length. That seems to me to be a pretty low threshold. If CRA could show that Squamish did not provide market value for any assets or funds it received from Fischer, potentially s160(1)(c) is satisfied.

If they structured it as a proper employment agreement and then carried that out that structure as a ordinary business would, then perhaps they are safe. I am going to go out on a limb and guess that these arrangments, once investigated, will prove to be half arsed and a transparent sham.


You are quoting paragraph 28 of the Federal Court of Appeal (FCA) decision. However the FCA was not the court that decided that the parties were not acting at arm's length. The FCA made no finding on this issue since it had already been decided. It was the Tax Court of Canada that decided that the parties were non-arm's length. The FCA decision related to the Crown's appeal of the Tax Court case but the FCA, like all appeals courts, only considers issues put before it in the appeal. Since neither party appealed the Tax Court's decision that the parties were not dealing at arm's length the FCA did not consider the issue.

In making its decision the Tax Court had considered a four part test to apply Section 160. There needed to be:

1. A transfer of property.
2. Parties not dealing at arm’s length.
3. No consideration or inadequate consideration flowing from the transferor to the transferee.
4. A transferor who is liable to pay tax under the Income Tax Act at that time.

The Tax Court decided that 1, 2, and 4 applied but not 3. The court concluded, for no good reason, that there was adequate consideration flowing from the transferor to the transferee so Section 160 failed. Since issue 3 was the only the only issue that the Crown lost at Tax Court this was the only issue that it appealed to the FCA and that the FCA considered.

The Tax Court decision is given here:

http://decision.tcc-cci.gc.ca/en/2007/2 ... cc303.html

There are a couple of problems with the decision.

1 - It is very poorly written, like it was scrawled out during the judge's coffee break. The judge does not clearly give his reasoning.

2 - Thejudge explains almost nothing. He just decides. The FCA adversely commented on this in the paragraph you cited when the FCA was reviewing the Tax Court's judge's analyis of why he thought there was adequate consideration flowing back:

[28] The Tax Court Judge erred in law by failing to conduct any analysis of the fair market value of the consideration. He simply concluded that it was “adequate.” I fail to see how the fair market value of the consideration, if any did exist, would be equivalent to the funds deposited. Why would Ms. Davies give an amount of money to the respondent in consideration for the ability to withdraw the money, when the respondent retains the power to take the money? No prudent, arm’s length purchaser not motivated by the prospect of evading collection of their tax debt would pay the full value of funds in exchange for the right of access that Ms. Davies received. There was no evidence on which the Tax Court Judge could conclude that what was provided by the respondent was equal to the fair market value of the money put into the account.

The point of this paragraph was not to prove that a non-arm's length relationship existed between the parties, that had already been decided at Tax Court, but to show that the Tax Court judge had not explained his conclusion that there was adequate consideration, the only issue under appeal. The comment about "No prudent, arm’s length purchaser not motivated by the prospect of evading collection of their tax debt would pay the full value of funds in exchange for the right of access that Ms. Davies received" was made in the context that it had already been determined, as a question of fact, that the parties were non-arm's length and only in that context would the transaction have taken place. The FCA had already decided the consideration was inadequate.

The quote below is the only comment that the Tax Court made on non-arm's length. It is, frankly, pathetic as the basis for deciding a critical point but it is all there is. It states that the two parties were long-term friends who worked together to help the original taxpayer dissipate her assets.

(l) The Court finds on the evidence that this is correct. Ms. Livingston denied that the Account was opened to put the funds beyond the reach of CRA. The Court does not believe this. The two women had been friends for years before the account was opened. Ms. Livingston admitted that she helped Ms. Davies with her income tax problems, which were basically collection problems, at the time that the Account was opened by Ms. Livingston. For these reasons, the Court finds that Ms. Livingston had learned of Ms. Davies’ collection problems with CRA before the Account was opened by Ms. Livingston. Moreover, the evidence is that the giant majority of Ms. Davies’ indebtedness was to CRA. So, if hiding money from creditors was discussed between them, it was about debts to CRA.
"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