Denise Eddy - Poriskyite heads to a criminal record

Moderator: Burnaby49

Burnaby49
Quatloosian Ambassador to the CaliCanadians
Quatloosian Ambassador to the CaliCanadians
Posts: 5633
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 3:45 am
Location: The Evergreen Playground

Denise Eddy - Poriskyite heads to a criminal record

Postby Burnaby49 » Wed Mar 26, 2014 6:59 pm

But slowly and reluctantly. Denise Marie Eddy, our latest in a long line of Porisky followers, is heading, inexorably, towards trial on the following charges;

1. making false or deceptive statements in her tax returns contrary to paragraphs 239(1)(a) and (d) of the Income Tax Act, RSC 1985, c 1 (5th Supp);
2. wilfully evading payment of taxes contrary to paragraph 327(1)(c) of the Excise Tax Act, RSC 1985, c E-15; and
3. counselling others to commit fraud contrary to sections 380 and 464(a) of the Criminal Code, RSC 1985, c C-46.

However she seems somewhat reluctant to actually face her accusers in an open court and is instead aggressively responding with procedural skirmishing to delay the inevitable. That is of course my take, not how she sees it. Her position is that she needs certain information from the Crown that is necessary for her to make a full answer and defence to the charges against her. The "information" is the issue in the decision linked below which is a court review of a discovery demand she made on the Crown. The request was contained in a 205 page brief, entitled “Supplemental Affidavit in Support of my Motion Regarding Disclosure and Charter Application”, setting out Ms. Eddy’s requests accompanied by three binders of authorities and two volumes of exhibits in support of her Supplemental Affidavit. An impressive package!

Her request encompassed no less than 421 specific items that she suggested must be disclosed. These included:

[9] The general categories of disclosure requested are extensive, and, for example, include: ... all file contents and other media formats, including but not limited to all documents, and or written documents, e-mails, memos, working papers, phone messages, minutes from conference calls, memos [sic], [and] post-it notes ... that may be held by Revenue Canada, the CRA, the Department of Justice, the Minister of Public Safety, and the RCMP commissioner, among others.


It appears that one of her brilliant legal tactics was to demand that all the documents she requested be delivered to her by registered mail and then declining to give a mailing address.

[160] Ms. Eddy has asked for an order that all the documents she has received, and those she still wishes to receive, be provided to her in hardcopy form by registered mail within 30 days of the order. If the Crown fails to provide this, she requests a permanent stay of the charges against her.

[167] The Crown further submits that Ms. Eddy has refused to provide sufficient particulars regarding how she can be reached. The Crown stated that it was difficult to obtain even the particulars of a mailbox Ms. Eddy uses at a FedEx branch in Red Deer. As a result, sending documents by registered mail is impractical and unnecessary.


However she is a reasonable person who is open to compromise and she said she was willing to drop the disclosure request if the Crown dropped the charges against her. Can't be fairer than that! Unfortunately the Crown was neither willing to drop charges or cough up the information and instead dumped the whole mess on the court to resolve. Unfortunately for Ms. Eddy the court resolved the issue by denying her everything she'd asked for;

[195] Ms. Eddy’s disclosure application is based on her mistaken belief that the Crown needs to prove that it has disclosed all documents, that the privilege claimed is valid and that the withheld materials are irrelevant to the charges against her without any evidence to suggest this is the case. If this were so, the justice system would simply be unable to operate. Our courts do not have the resources to entertain applications demanding proof of proper disclosure in every criminal case. Resources aside, to do so would, as Justice Clackson rightly notes, emasculate the nature of disclosure and the Crown’s role in that process.

[196] The bulk of Ms. Eddy’s submissions appeared to me to be disingenuous. The scope of her disclosure requests goes far beyond what is reasonably required of the Crown. Certain alleged disclosure defects are trivial. Where an accused has no evidence as to the relevance or existence of the documents they seek, the courts are not required to sift through disclosure looking for information that may help them in their defence. Similarly, the Crown is not obliged to investigate for the accused.

[197] Ms. Eddy’s disclosure application must fail. I reach this conclusion based on the following findings:

1. The Crown has not improperly redacted information relevant to the charges against Ms. Eddy. Its claims for privilege are reasonable based on the descriptions provided for each disclosed binder.

2. The Crown has not withheld any relevant sealed documents. Further, if there are sealed documents relevant to this case, Ms. Eddy has not demonstrated the relevance of those documents or why they should be unsealed.

3. The Crown’s decision not to disclose irrelevant material, such as that related to Paradigm Education Group, Porisky, and Project Fable, is reasonable, provided those materials are not also relevant to Ms. Eddy. The Crown is under no obligation to provide what is not reasonably relevant. Ms. Eddy has failed to meet the threshold required in order to demonstrate that relevant materials exist and should be provided.

4. Electronic disclosure to date has provided a reasonable basis for meaningful exercise of Ms. Eddy’s right to answer and defence.

5. The Crown’s decision to require Ms. Eddy to attend at the Red Deer Tax Services Office to view the contents of Binder 11 is reasonable. Those materials have either been disclosed previously or are subject to a third-party privacy interest.


The decision gives an excellent analysis of the scope and limitations of defendant's discovery rights in Canada and is well worth reading for anyone interested in that issue. I'm waiting for the next shoe to drop which will probably be her court complaint that the case should be tossed because her Charter rights have been violated. A standard ploy in doomed cases.


http://canlii.ca/en/ab/abqb/doc/2014/20 ... qb164.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

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: Another Poriskyite heads to a criminal record

Postby Hilfskreuzer Möwe » Thu Mar 27, 2014 3:42 am

Thanks for the summary, Burnaby49!

I tried to learn more about Denise Eddy and generally struck out, except for this very strange notice (http://www.qp.alberta.ca/documents/gaze ... 0630_i.pdf):

Notice of Ownership

The purpose of this notice is to prove and confirm the ownership and possession of the highest title and thereby confirming full ownership of personal private property belonging to Denise Eddy and Harlley Snow who are both natural persons*.

This property includes:
V.I.N. 1B4GP44L6XB897679
V.I.N. 1WF200D1344051518
V.I.N. 1H57H21548388
V.I.N. JT2MX62E8B0016255

Anyone, private or public, individual or corporation, including but not limited to the Government of the Province of Alberta or the Government of any other Province, or the Province of Alberta or any other Province who may have any form of real or assumed claim against any of these personal private property items, shall post such a claim in the Alberta Gazette within 30 days from the publication of this notice. All claims posted otherwise shall be void, of no effect, and unenforceable, and shall thus confirm that the ownership of the highest title and complete undisputed ownership of the herein mentioned items belongs solely and exclusively to Denise Eddy, natural person*, and/or Harlley Snow, national person*.

* Natural person means the definition of natural person as defined in the Canadian Law Dictionary. Specifically, a natural person is “a human being with the capacity for rights and duties”.

Dated at Edmonton, Alberta, June 9, 2004.
Denise Eddy and Harlley Snow.


What makes this document particularly strange is that it was printed in the Alberta Gazette, June 30, 2004 edition, in its "advertisements" section. The Alberta Gazette is the official publication for government proclamations of new legislation, regulations, government appointments, corporation registrations, and so on. And at least this once, as a place to declare your ownership of property as a "natural person", presumably for four motor vehicles.

As for Harlley Snow, he's an Edmonton-area DJ who specializes in cheerleading competitions and Christian events. No hint of any OPCA affiliation that I could identify.

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: 5633
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 3:45 am
Location: The Evergreen Playground

Re: Another Poriskyite heads to a criminal record

Postby Burnaby49 » Tue May 06, 2014 1:37 am

I ended my prior post on Denise Eddy by saying;

I'm waiting for the next shoe to drop which will probably be her court complaint that the case should be tossed because her Charter rights have been violated. A standard ploy in doomed cases.


Well, our dauntless Denise has done exactly that!

http://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abqb/doc/20 ... c385417051

Not that it required much prescience on my part. When a case is totally hopeless for a defendant it is an absolute textbook defense to try and get it tossed on a Charter breach. All of the Poriskyites who have gone to court to date have been found guilty of criminal tax evasion and there is little doubt that this will be Denise's fate once she has run out of delaying actions so the Charter is really all that she has left. However it is helpful to find a hook that will attach your case to a Charter breach and unfortunately Denise just couldn't manage find one. All she really did was regurgitate, at the Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta, the same doomed arguments that she lost on Application at the same court.

[4] Ms. Eddy now:

1. challenges the constitutional validity of this step,
2. argues Criminal Code, s 536.3 discriminates against self-represented litigants,
3. argues her Alberta Provincial Court case management judge is not authorized,
4. requests the preliminary inquiry be transferred to the Court of Queen’s Bench,
5. complains that she has not received adequate Crown disclosure, and
6. demands the Crown serve her documents via registered mail, and nothing else.


The challenge referenced in Point 1 above was;

[3] On November 4, 2013 Crown Counsel (Public Prosecution Service of Canada) filed a Notice of Intention pursuant to Criminal Code, ss 540(7) and 540(8). The Notice reads:

TAKE NOTICE THAT, at the preliminary inquiry of the above-captioned person counsel for the Attorney General of Canada intends to adduce the documents, copies of documents, certified copies of documents, business records, financial reports, records, entries in books or records, copies of same, witness statements, notes and photographs and other such materials referred to in Schedule “A” of this Notice, pursuant to the provisions of the Canada Evidence Act, R.S.A. 1984 c. C-5, the Income Tax Act, RSC 1985, c1 (5th sup), and the Excise Tax Act, RSC 1985, C E-15.

TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that, at the preliminary inquiry of the above-captioned person, counsel for the Attorney General of Canada intends to adduce the documents, copies of documents, certified copies of documents, business records, financial records, records, entries in books or records, copies of same, witness statements, notes and photographs and other such material referred to in the Notice, as credible and trustworthy evidence pursuant to subsection 540.(7) of the Criminal Code. Schedule “A” of this Notice includes a summary of evidence the Attorney General of Canada intends to tender at the preliminary inquiry as credible and trustworthy evidence pursuant to subsection 540.(7) of the Criminal Code.

TAKE FURTHER NOTICE that copies of the aforementioned documents, copies of documents, certified copies of documents, business records, financial records, records, entries in books or records, copies of same, witness statements, notes, and photographs and other materials have been provided to you in disclosure. Affidavits which have not been previously disclosed are attached.


However the skeptical court seemed to think that her real goal was just to continue stalling;

Ms. Eddy also seeks to have her May, 2014 preliminary inquiry adjourned prior to resolution of her Charter challenges, which appears to be the principal intended purpose of this application.


Unfortunately the court is less than sympathetic;

[17] Ironically, Ms. Eddy points to Criminal Code, s 536.3, claims to have been handicapped by this provision intended for her benefit, and even cites R v Gallant; R v LeBlanc itself as a key authority on this provision.

[18] In Doman v British Columbia (Superintendent of Brokers) 1996 CanLII 8411 (BC CA), (1996), 85 BCAC 210, 31 BCLR (3d) 357 (BCCA), Justice Southin commented on the character of parties who complained about slow proceedings where the delay has been caused by the unsuccessful attacks launched by those very same parties:

... [this] constitutes an abuse of process calls to my mind the delightful Yiddish word “chutzpah” which is sometimes explained as a man who has been convicted of murdering his parents seeking mercy on the ground that he is an orphan.

I think the same is true for Ms. Eddy, when she characterizes the omission of self-represented litigants from s 536.3 is an intrusion on her constitutional Charter rights, rather than a shield against her own potential folly.


All of her other arguments were dismissed in short order and the court concluded by, very bluntly, telling her to get lost. Having your filings called "drivel" must be very hurtful;

VI. Conclusion

[40] Many times in the Applicant’s circuitous argument the Applicant claims that her Charter rights will be violated if this Court does not adjourn the May 26, 2014 preliminary inquiry date before this decision is handed down. I am very suspicious that the object of the application before Justice Acton and before me is simply to derail the proceedings against her by making one spurious application after another in this Court to prevent the Provincial Court with proceeding to the preliminary inquiry stage.

[41] No matter how many times the same arguments are made in the 31 page Notice document, let alone the voluminous Affidavit, each argument is totally without merit and for the most part, are an abuse of the process of this Court. I will not treat this drivel as requiring an in depth answer beyond those in these reasons.

[42] The application is dismissed.

[43] In light of Ms. Eddy’s developing strategy of litigation delay I order she is precluded from filing anything in the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench related to this proceeding prior to the conclusion of the Preliminary Inquiry without first obtaining leave of the Court.

[44] The parties may speak to costs by appointment, if necessary.


What's next for our increasingly desperate Denise? Really, apart from actually facing the charges at a criminal trial, all she has left is another try at a Charter breach.
"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: 5633
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 3:45 am
Location: The Evergreen Playground

Re: Another Poriskyite heads to a criminal record

Postby Burnaby49 » Mon Jul 07, 2014 7:59 pm

Another chapter in the saga of our dauntless Denise.

http://www.albertacourts.ab.ca/jdb_new/ ... qb0391.pdf

She has been sanctioned for costs after losing a hearing trying to defend herself in a criminal matter. This is an extremely rare event; in fact I believe this to be the first time it has ever happened in Canada. Costs are commonly awarded in civil cases but in criminal proceedings the defendant is given great leeway to defend himself as best he can. Denise can take quiet pride in being the first person in Canadian jurisprudence to breach that barrier! Dean Clifford, take note, you may be second!

First a brief chat about Denise herself, the decisions don't really give a feel for her. I've heard that she is an extremely unpleasant individual who's hostile, arrogant, negative attitude in court is costing her, the court is getting pissed off. She is demanding a jury trial. Not, I think, a good idea based on the impression a jury would get of her from her conduct in court.

This decision is not a new issue, it is a follow-up to the decision I discussed in my May 05 posting. Denise lost that one very badly and the Crown has asked for costs in respect to that action which the court seems quite happy to grant.

Note the progression of precedences being established by Alberta courts in respect to sovereign/freemen. First the massive and authoritative Meads v. Meads set out the history of freeman litigation in Canada along with an analysis of the major cases.

http://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abqb/doc/20 ... qb571.html

This has become the cornerstone of all subsequent Canadian sovereign decisions. As our new Scottish poster The Nidhogg has related it is now being cited by Scottish courts. Next up were the Fearn decisions; discussed here;

viewtopic.php?f=48&t=9616

"Fearn v Canada Customs, 2014 ABQB 114" expanded the reach of Meads by applying its principles in a criminal context. However Glenn Winningham of the House of Fearn, being, if possible, even more relentless and repellant than Denise, appealed his losses and, as a result, was declared a vexatious litigant. This was very unfortunate for Denise because Glenn's vexatious litigant decision did something new, it set up a four pronged Fearn test to establish whether costs should be granted against defendants in criminal matters.

http://www.albertacourts.ab.ca/jdb_new/ ... qb0233.pdf

So Alberta has established a progression of building blocks, all authoritative, setting out the rules of engagement for sovereigns and hemming them in with actual law rather than freemen gibberish. This is the hostile environment Denise Eddy is facing in her garbage applications and arguments. The Crown's justification for requesting costs was;

II. The Parties’ Positions
A. The Crown


[11] The Crown submits that Ms. Eddy should pay costs in this instance. Fearn v Canada Customs provides a four-part test. Ms. Eddy’s April 17, 2014 application was entirely unsuccessful, and based on either a collateral attack or a deliberate misinterpretation of the law. The Crown drew a parallel between Ms. Eddy’s submission and the “legal numerology” employed in court by Russell Porisky: R v Porisky, 2012 BCSC 67, [2012] 4 CTC 160, retrial ordered 2014 BCCA 146, see also Meads v Meads, 2012 ABQB 571 at para 95, 543 AR 215.

[12] Ms. Eddy’s application is an example of a hearing identified in Fearn v Canada Customs that is ancillary to a criminal proceeding:

... a meaningless application to a different court to challenge the criminal proceeding or court jurisdiction ...
Further this application was for an improper purpose – to cause delay in the progress of this matter to trial.

[13] The Crown stressed that a cost award against a criminal defendant is an unusual, even extraordinary remedy, but one which is appropriate to deter abuse by Ms. Eddy of the Crown and courts. Crown counsel submits Ms. Eddy has no intention of following court processes, and as evidence provided an April 19, 2014 letter from Ms. Eddy to the preliminary inquiry judge, Judge Bilodeau. In that letter, written prior to release of my written judgment, Ms. Eddy indicates I gave directions to Judge Bilodeau. Ms. Eddy again raised issues that were decided at earlier hearings. This is one illustration of why Ms. Eddy must be subject to more direct court control.

[14] The Crown provided a bill of costs of $1912.07, which was derived from the 8(1) “Application requiring written briefs” tariff in column 1 of Schedule C of the Alberta Rules of Court, Alta Reg 124/2010, s 10.29(1) [the “Rules” or individually a “Rule”], however, the Crown indicates it would not object to a nominal award. The objective here is to denounce Ms. Eddy’s strategy of delay and abuse of court processes, and that she is deterred from further misconduct of this kind.


However impoverished disabled Denise valiantly fighting alone against overwhelming odds claimed she was trying her best and, in fact, should have costs awarded in her favour even though she had lost! Her cost claim was based on her opinion of what she is worth rather than what she actually spent.

B. Ms. Eddy

[15] Ms. Eddy argues she should not be subject to a cost award. That subject was not argued at the April 17, 2014 hearing. She continues to argue her April 17, 2014 arguments had merit; she was sincere and honestly believed she was right. Ms. Eddy stresses that she is a self-represented litigant, but she is trying her best.

[16] Ms. Eddy notes cost awards are discretionary, and cited a number of authorities, including: Cyre (Next Friend of) v Knol, 2006 ABQB 560, 151 ACWS (3d) 58; Ontario (Minister of Transportation) v Miracle, 2003 CanLII 19327 (Ont SC); R v Martin, 2012 NSPC 115, 323 NSR (2d) 376. The former two decisions are irrelevant as they did not occur in a criminal proceedings. R v Martin does not involve costs.

[17] Ms. Eddy says her arguments were not a collateral attack because she stopped asking questions during rebuttal when instructed to do so. Ms. Eddy notes that in Fearn v Canada Customs no cost award was actually made against the accused, and that in the Judicature Act, RSA 2000, c J-2, s 23.1(2) vexatious litigation is characterized by “persistent” misconduct. She says she does not repeat her mistakes. In any case, Ms. Eddy says she cannot pay a cost award, she has no money, and would instead prefer an alternative penalty such as community service or incarceration. Ms. Eddy explained she is disabled and cannot work.

[18] Ms. Eddy also filed a bill of costs that totaled $2,424.33. As I understand her document she has billed her activities at $400.00 per day. Curiously, she seems to have ‘double billed’ several items, for example at line 11 charging $400.00 for her activities on June 11, 2014, but then charging another $400.00 for an unnumbered line item marked as “Court Appearance (per day incl travel), also $400.00.


The court was entirely unsympathetic to her plea because, well you know, they decide based on law, not defendant's whining;

III. The Law

A. Costs in the Criminal Proceedings


[19] In a civil action it is presumed that the unsuccessful party will pay an amount of money, “court costs”, to the successful litigant: Rule, s 10.29(1). This amount is intended to compensate a successful party for the cost to engage in otherwise unnecessary litigation.

[20] However, this is a criminal matter, and in that context any award of costs is exceptional. This is true for both trial and associated procedures: R v Taylor, 2008 NSCA 5 at para 55, 261 NSR (2d) 247. Ms. Eddy’s April 17, 2014 application hearing falls into the criminal litigation costs scheme.

[21] As Justice Tilleman observed in Fearn v Canada Customs at para 122, in the Charter era an accused person’s right to full answer and defence means that “courts are generous in their evaluation of defence conduct that has a potentially suspect character.”

[23] Fearn v Canada Customs at paras 125-127 reviews the very limited history of costs in the criminal law context, but observes at paras 128-130 the increasing incidence in criminal proceedings of a category of frivolous and vexatious litigation strategies that were comprehensively reviewed in Meads v Meads: “Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Arguments [“OPCA”]. OPCA strategies are a “cottage industry” of products intended to sabotage and frustrate litigation and subvert court authority: para 247.

[24] Justice Tilleman proposes at para 133 a set of four criteria for when costs may be awarded against a defendant who employs strategies that cause illegitimate and unnecessary steps in a criminal proceeding:

1. the accused is the one who initiates a hearing, application, or process;

2. the accused's position relies on a clearly illegal or incorrect basis, such as a known, identified, and rejected OPCA strategy;

3. the accused is entirely unsuccessful; and

4. the hearing, application, or process is not a direct component of the criminal trial or sentencing process, but instead is ancillary to the criminal proceeding itself, for example:

a) a meaningless application to a different court to challenge the criminal proceeding or court jurisdiction;
b) an application to deny trial court jurisdiction;
c) an attempt to enter irrelevant evidence or witnesses;
d) an application for representation of the accused by an inappropriate representative, such as an OPCA guru; and
e) an application for release of the accused from pre-trial detention outside the judicial interim release process, such as a frivolous habeas corpus application.

[25] The application before the Court in Fearn v Canada Customs met all these criteria: para 138. It was Fearn who made the application: para 6. The application was entirely unsuccessful and hopeless as a collateral attack (para 31), legally incorrect and based on spurious OPCA concepts (para 91), and frivolous and vexatious (para 110). Fearn’s application was intended to pre-empt and terminate a criminal action against him in Provincial Court, so it was outside the ‘normal’ stream of the trial process.

[26] Nevertheless, Justice Tilleman did not order costs even though those were warranted, but only as this was a new development in the common law authority of the Court:

[27] Ms. Eddy is not owed the same courtesy. She is presumed to know the law. In addition, Fearn v Canada Customs itself was cited in the Eddy Disclosure Decision at para 189, a March 20, 2014 judgment of Acton J in response to an earlier and also unsuccessful application by Ms. Eddy in Queen’s Bench.


So the court applied the newly minted Fearn test, much to Denise's disadvantage;

[28] The test composed by Justice Tilleman is structured to evaluate OPCA strategies, a specific category of frivolous and vexatious litigation. I see no issue with application of this same procedure to a clearly futile application by an accused, no matter the nature of that defect.

[49] Ms. Eddy’s April 17, 2014 application has many of these features. I have already concluded that she knowingly advanced spurious arguments that she knew were false. She attempted to re-open topics that had already been decided. To do that is an abuse of process.

[50] In the Eddy Preliminary Hearing Decision at para 43 I observed that the April 17, 2014 application is a facet in a larger “developing strategy of litigation delay.” Put another way, Ms. Eddy’s April 17, 2014 application was litigation for an ulterior purpose: to interfere with the timely administration of justice. That too is an indicium of vexatious litigation: Chutskoff v Bonora, at para 92; R v Fearn, 2014 ABQB 233 at para 48; O’Neill v Deacons, 2007 ABQB 754 at para 25, 83 Alta LR (4th) 152; McDonald Estate (Re), 2013 ABQB 602 at para 44.

[51] Ms. Eddy continually makes unfounded allegations of Crown misconduct, fraud, and concealment of information necessary to her defence. Unsubstantiated allegations of conspiracy, lawyer misconduct, persecution, and concealed facts and hidden records are a recognized feature of vexatious litigation: Chutskoff v Bonora, at para 92; Onischuk v Alberta, 2013 ABQB 89 at para 35, 555 AR 330; Koerner v Capital Health Authority, 2011 ABQB 462 at para 21, 518 AR 35; McMeekin v Alberta (Attorney General), 2012 ABQB 625 at paras 27-29, 38, 543 AR 11.


What really seemed to get the judge worked up was Denise's willingness to outright lie to the court and, more particularly, misrepresent what the judge actually said in his hearings to judges in other hearings;

[52] Further, Ms. Eddy lies to the Courts. Her April 19, 2014 letter provides several examples. At paragraph 11 of that document she says on “at least three occasions” Crown counsel has misled the court, saying it has discharged its disclosure obligations, but “this is known not to be true.” This is a lie. Ms. Eddy continues:

... Crown counsel appears to believe that they are not required to obtain these statements from the investigative agency nor ensure that the investigators properly prepare statements for those they interview.

This Court has found the opposite and repeatedly told Ms. Eddy exactly that.

[53] This, however, pales in comparison to the manner in which the April 19 letter transmits what are allegedly my instructions to Judge Bilodeau. I remind, this letter was written days prior to release of my reserved Eddy Preliminary Hearing Decision judgment. Ms. Eddy opens the letter with the sentence:

This letter is written in direct response to your suggestion and the direction of Justice Marceau.

Subsequently in paragraph 7 Ms. Eddy writes:

Justice Marceau suggested that I bring to your attention R. v. Hathaway, 2005 SKPC 99, which speaks to the matter of arguing points regarding evidence at a “pre-hearing”.

The letter generally demands various steps that relate to the preliminary inquiry and its procedure.

[54] However, this is what I said to Ms. Eddy during the April 17 hearing about my inter-relationship with the Provincial Court and conduct of the scheduled May, 2014 preliminary inquiry:

Even if I decided, which I’m not going to, even if I decided the provincial court had done something wrong with respect to conduct of the preliminary inquiry you cannot get into this court and have me direct what they will do at this point.

... But as I said to you before, it is not my role to tell the judge at the preliminary how to run his preliminary inquiry.

[55] Ms. Eddy misrepresented what I said in her communication to the Provincial Court. Given her litigation history to date I infer that act was intentional and conclude on a balance of probabilities that she intended to mislead Judge Bilodeau. An intentional attempt to mislead the court is contempt of court: Alberta (Child, Youth and Family Enhancement, Director) v B.M., 2009 ABCA 258 at para 92, 460 AR 188, citing with approval Berube v Wingrowich, 1999 ABQB 547 at para 21, 251 AR 128.


So the judge dropped the hammer on Denise big-time;

[57] Ms. Eddy’s excuses and explanations for her misconduct are hollow. She pleads for understanding: she is a misunderstood, confused, self-represented litigant who is trying her best. That is false. As Justice Shelley observed in her evaluation of a vexatious litigant in McMeekin v Alberta (Attorney General), 2012 ABQB 456 at paras 199-200, 543 AR 132:

[t]here is a well-established principle in law that a person can be presumed to have intended the natural consequences of their acts ... People make mistakes, and (hopefully) learn from them. When a person takes an incorrect action, is informed of their error, but then persists and commits the same ‘error’ again and again, that is evidence that the person does not misunderstand their action is incorrect. Rather, that indicates the person wants to break the rules.

My review of Mr. McMeekin’s conduct in this action, and in others, satisfies me that is exactly what Mr. McMeekin has intended. His ‘missteps’ in this proceeding were not accidental, but intentional. ...
[Emphasis in original, citation omitted.]

[58] This also describes Ms. Eddy. One example of her intentional disobedience of court instruction and procedure has been her persistent attempts to re-open the Court’s conclusion that Crown disclosure was adequate. She does so on nothing more than bald allegation and utterly ungrounded allegations of Crown misconduct.

[59] Another example occurred at the hearing of this application. Ms. Eddy attempted to re-argue her Criminal Code, s 570(7-9) Charter challenge even though that had been subject of the Eddy Preliminary Hearing Decision. She only dropped that issue after I explicitly ordered her to stop, even though the Eddy Preliminary Hearing Decision at para 37 explains the prohibition against collateral attack, that the disclosure subject was closed, and explicitly warns her at para 38 “... that collateral attack applications of this kind are a potential basis for a cost award against an accused in criminal proceedings ...”.

[60] There is also the overall context of this litigation. The Crown observed that there have been to date 21 attendances in Provincial Court since the information was sworn against

Ms. Eddy on April 13, 2012. Ms. Eddy in her Eddy Disclosure Decision and Eddy Preliminary Hearing Decision materials detailed how her complaints of inadequate disclosure were a basis to argue that she could not proceed with various preliminary steps in the criminal action. As I have previously observed, those complaints about inadequate disclosure had little or no basis in fact. For her to continue those complaints after receipt of the Eddy Disclosure Decision was an abuse of process.

[61] Together these factors lead me to conclude that Ms. Eddy’s April 17, 2014 application is a kind of proceeding that warrants deterrence and court sanction. This is an instance where I conclude on a balance of probabilities that exercise of the judicial discretion to award costs is appropriate. Ms. Eddy’s abuse of the court and the Crown is intentional, malicious, and is designed to interfere with the administration of justice. She intends to avoid potential criminal sanction for her alleged misconduct by sabotaging the progress of this matter to trial.

[62] I conclude this is an instance where a cost award against the Accused, Ms. Eddy, is appropriate. For me to not respond in some manner to Ms. Eddy’s conduct brings the administration of justice into disrepute. The courts of this country universally recognize and zealously protect the right of a person accused of criminal misconduct to control and develop a response to prove their innocence and protect their freedom. However, that principle is a shield, not a sword.

[63] Ms. Eddy has, intentionally and without legal basis, attempted to delay and sabotage the inquiry and investigation by Canada and Canadians into her alleged misconduct. The April 17, 2014 application had nothing to do with her right to full answer and defence but was instead an abuse of court procedure and an insult to her fellow Canadians. That requires response.


While the court awarded costs against Denise they were, essentially a warning rather than an attempt to compensate the Crown.

[65] Ms. Eddy argues she is too poor to pay and she is disabled. That is perhaps ironic considering Ms. Eddy in her bill of costs values her own in-court and legal preparation activities as worth $400.00 per day. I agree with the Crown that Ms. Eddy’s request for community service or time in gaol, rather than costs, is inappropriate as those are criminal sanctions.
[66] I believe a significant cost award is appropriate to communicate to this litigant that it is time to alter her conduct. In light of Ms. Eddy’s claim of poverty I order an award of $1,000.00, approximately half the Crown’s bill of costs. This amount shall be paid to the Crown within 30 days.


However this opens the door to more costs against her and, as the court said, it will not be as lenient in the future;

[74] This Court will not tolerate further improper interference with the former objective. If Ms. Eddy chooses to maintain her current trajectory then she should anticipate additional exercise of this Court’s inherent jurisdiction to control its processes: either further awards of costs, or exercise of its contempt of court authority. She, and other like-minded persons, should be aware that their right to a fair trial does not make them immune from court sanction when they abuse that right.
"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
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: Another Poriskyite heads to a criminal record

Postby Hilfskreuzer Möwe » Tue Jul 08, 2014 4:11 am

This is a very interesting decision. I can only imagine how the legal academic community is going to freak when they discover this. Much rushing about, shrieks of "Access to Justice!" "Persecuted Self-Represented Litigants!" "The Sky is Falling!"

That said, the conditions where a cost award would occur are pretty carefully restricted. I personally don't have any issues with a little coaxing in circumstances such as this. But what I'm really itching to see is how long it takes for this to be applied to defence lawyers who engage in, for example, endless series of disclosure applications.

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]

Jeffrey
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 2517
Joined: Tue Aug 20, 2013 2:16 am

Re: Another Poriskyite heads to a criminal record

Postby Jeffrey » Wed Jul 09, 2014 9:39 am

She, and other like-minded persons, should be aware that their right to a fair trial does not make them immune from court sanction when they abuse that right.


If one of the purposes of these additional sanctions is as a deterrent to future OPCA litigants, then I think we all realize that it won't be effective given that outside of the handful of Quatloos readers and the court staff, nobody is aware of what the current rules of engagement are.

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: Another Poriskyite heads to a criminal record

Postby Hilfskreuzer Möwe » Wed Jul 09, 2014 1:49 pm

Well, I suspect that judgment is circulating through the Federal and provincial crown prosecutor's offices like Ebola. Pretty much any crown prosecutor will be very, very interested in this new addition of their toolset.

As for the OPCA community, it wouldn't surprise me if that comment was directed more to Eddy's Poriskyite buddies. We have spotted at least one more in Alberta (viewtopic.php?f=50&t=9894&p=168814).

There's a bunch of them going through the criminal trial process, and they're all obviously sharing data and techniques. In a few rare cases they've even advertised more broadly to the OPCA community as a whole on how they are sabotaging the progression of their respective litigation, and they'll teach their tricks.

Naturally, for a price.

So I'd not be surprised if that is to whom Justice Marceau is communicating. At least for the moment.

As has been suggested, there's a good chance Mr. Clifford will be facing this same kind of application soon. That seems to me to be a good way to draw this judgment to the OPCA community's attention.

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: 5633
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 3:45 am
Location: The Evergreen Playground

Re: Another Poriskyite heads to a criminal record

Postby Burnaby49 » Sun Feb 22, 2015 4:05 pm

A quick update on Denise. Her Preliminary Inquiry has been concluded and she is now progressing to her trial for evasion and counseling.
"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: 3499
Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2003 7:02 am
Contact:

Re: Another Poriskyite heads to a criminal record

Postby grixit » Sun Feb 22, 2015 8:53 pm

Has anyone heard from Mowe lately?
I voted for Hillary, and i didn't even get a stupid tshirt!

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

User avatar
Pottapaug1938
Supreme Prophet (Junior Division)
Posts: 4929
Joined: Thu Apr 23, 2009 9:26 pm
Location: In the woods, with a Hudson Bay axe in my hands.

Re: Another Poriskyite heads to a criminal record

Postby Pottapaug1938 » Sun Feb 22, 2015 9:09 pm

I hope that the Royal Navy didn't find him and sink him.
"We've been attacked by the intelligent, educated segment of the culture." -- Pastor Ray Mummert, Dover, PA, during an attempt to introduce creationism -- er, "intelligent design", into the Dover Public Schools

Burnaby49
Quatloosian Ambassador to the CaliCanadians
Quatloosian Ambassador to the CaliCanadians
Posts: 5633
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 3:45 am
Location: The Evergreen Playground

Re: Denise Eddy - Poriskyite heads to a criminal record

Postby Burnaby49 » Thu Feb 04, 2016 7:07 pm

In my May 5th, 2014 posting I said;

When a case is totally hopeless for a defendant it is an absolute textbook defense to try and get it tossed on a Charter breach. All of the Poriskyites who have gone to court to date have been found guilty of criminal tax evasion and there is little doubt that this will be Denise's fate once she has run out of delaying actions so the Charter is really all that she has left.


This is exactly what has happened. Late last year she tried another voire dire arguing various Charter breaches such as;

1. Ms. Eddy's Position

[12] Ms. Eddy complained that hers 8 Charter rights were breached in a number of ways that will be set out in more detail below in these reasons. However, for the purposes of this element of the voir dire decision, these complaints may be summarized as follows:

1. Ms. Eddy had a privacy interest in the materials and information that were obtained by the CRA when they searched the Porisky and Gould residence and obtained information relating to Porisky and PEG.

2. The searches of the Porisky and Gould residence were either illegal, or the CRA lost lawful detention of evidence that was obtained from those searches.

3. The transfer and/or copying of documents that were in the possession of the Burnaby CRA offices to Edmonton CRA investigator Hartley was in itself a warrantless search, and that search breached Ms. Eddy's s. 8 Charter rights.

4. Subsequent to the transfer of evidence and information concerning the Porisky/PEG searches to Edmonton CRA investigator Hartley, the Crown lost lawful detention of that information, and that too was a breach of Ms. Eddy's s 8 Charter rights.

5. The Porisky/PEG-derived evidence should therefore be excluded from the Crown's case at trial, which has 'downstream' implications on the legality of other searches, including one of Ms. Eddy's residence.


The notorious Associate Chief Justice J.D. Rooke rejected the whole thing and Denise apparently folded almost immediately after the voir dire decision was released. Pled guilty and was sentenced this morning to three charges;

tax evasion - 100% fine
GST evasion - 100% fine
counselling fraud (Poriskyism!) - 2 years less a day conditional sentence

So in other words she played her cards about as well as she could have - ran an aggressive defence, then folded rather than go to trial, which is exactly what a sensible defence lawyer would have done.

I'll do a bit of an analysis on her various as-yet unreported decisions as soon as they are up on Canlii.
"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: 5633
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 3:45 am
Location: The Evergreen Playground

Re: Denise Eddy - Poriskyite heads to a criminal record

Postby Burnaby49 » Tue Feb 16, 2016 9:52 pm

I've finally got some time to fit Denise Eddy into my Poriskyite write-ups. On February 4th, 2016 Denise pled guilty to income tax evasion, GST evasion, and counseling fraud. The last posting I'd done on her before this was February 22nd, 2015. That missing year was not an inactive one. Denise spent it trying hard, very hard, to get out of the charges by having them dismissed for various reasons, mainly Charter based. Her main tactic seems to have been an attempt to swamp the court with documents, the vast majority entirely irrelevant. These were dealt with in two pre-trial hearings, essentially mini-trials to clear away issues before the actual trial which was scheduled this month. In October 2015 Denise tried to dump an avalanche of inadmissable or irrelevant documents on the court in the guise of it all being part of an affidavit. Associate Chief Justice J.D. Rooke responded to this and he was not amused;

R v Eddy, 2015 ABQB 744
http://canlii.ca/t/gn8kq

[5] Ms. Eddy on October 19, 2015 filed a Notice seeking various Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, Part 1, Constitution Act, 1982, being Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (UK), 1982, c 11 [the “Charter”] remedies. This was accompanied by a document that purported to be an “Affidavit”. That document was some 1,277 paragraphs and 866 pages, with 112 exhibits (an additional 959 pages), for a total of 1,835 pages.

[6] On November 3, 2015 I conducted an oral hearing on scheduling of certain voir dire applications in the criminal case management of this case. At that time I denied acceptance of the “Affidavit”, which I merely accepted as, and changed the designation of the document to, “Argument”. The basis for the denial was that the document was replete with irrelevant material, opinions, arguments, hearsay and other matters inconsistent with a proper affidavit at law. I explained these defects in detail to Ms. Eddy at the November 3, 2015 hearing, identified specific examples from the October 19, 2015 “Affidavit”, and provided her with an excerpt from Stevenson & Côté, Alberta Civil Procedure Handbook 2016 (Edmonton: Juriliber Limited, 2015) that illustrated the legally correct content of an affidavit.

. . . . . . . .

[8] Though I rejected the October 17, 2015 document as an affidavit, I permitted the Accused to file a proper legal affidavit on facts specifically relevant to the issues at hand on the voir dires, but only on my leave, so as to ensure any new purported affidavit was valid in law. I warned Ms. Eddy to not re-argue matters relating to the trial of Russell Anthony Porisky. I also stressed that Ms. Eddy should not return to disclosure issues that had been previously addressed in an earlier decision of this Court by Acton J, reported as R v Eddy, 2014 ABQB 164 (CanLII), 583 AR 217.


Denise didn't take the hint and responded with a much smaller (only 451 pages!) but still inadmissable document. So Rooke told her to get lost;

[10] On November 16, 2015, the Accused provided another document entitled an “Affidavit” which is 1,937 paragraphs over 451 pages, for which she sought leave, referencing the same exhibits and exhibit numbers (para 8) as in the “Argument”.

[11] This was accompanied by a table of the discrete Charter issues that Ms. Eddy had identified. There are 120 issues in total.

[12] I sought input from the Crown, who in a letter dated November 18, 2015 (both to be marked for identification at the next oral hearing), argued that leave to file the November 16, 2015 “Affidavit” should be denied.

[13] I agree. For the reasons that now appear below (so not as to delay the matter further), and for any supplementary reasons I may decide to provide later, leave to file the November 16, 2015 “Affidavit” is denied. Those reasons, primarily referencing only the first few pages, but continuing throughout the document, and some examples, include that the Accused:


But she was given one last chance to try and get it right;

[17] Ms. Eddy has previously has been cautioned by this Court that her written materials raise the question of whether she advances her arguments in good faith (R v Eddy, 2014 ABQB 164 (CanLII) at para 196, 583 AR 217; R v Eddy, 2014 ABQB 234 (CanLII) at para 40, 583 AR 254; R v Eddy, 2014 ABQB 391 (CanLII) at paras 37-38, 583 AR 268), and that she cannot re-litigate or collaterally attack court decisions (R v Eddy, 2014 ABQB 234 at paras 34-39, 583 AR 254; R v Eddy, 2014 ABQB 391 at paras 40, 59, 583 AR 268).

[18] The Accused will have one further chance to file proper affidavit evidence by December 4, 2015, provided that I grant leave, failing which her opportunity to provide relevant evidence may be lost.


So she took her last shot at stopping the trial and had her voir dire, essentially a mini-trial before the big event. On January 22, 2016 this decision was released relating the results. A complete failure;

R v Eddy, 2016 ABQB 42
http://canlii.ca/t/gn8kr

Yet again another massive data-dump.

[7] On December 4, 2015, the Court received an application for a leave to file a third purported affidavit from Ms. Eddy. This one was 236 pages and 1,430 paragraphs, and despite my detailed instructions shared the same defects that were present in the October 17 and November 16 documents. In light of the need to move this procedure forward, and provide the Crown an opportunity to respond before the scheduled hearing, I ordered this document would not be accepted as an affidavit generally but that Ms. Eddy may refer to this document on a paragraph by paragraph basis as a potential source of evidence, and that I would then evaluate the content referenced to see if it constituted proper evidence, and admit it or exclude it, where appropriate.

[8] During the voir dire hearing that followed, I reviewed paragraphs in the December 4, 2015 document as those were referenced by Ms. Eddy, and, in the process, struck out/excised many paragraphs as containing material that is improper for an affidavit. However, I allowed such material, again, to be treated as written argument. Nevertheless that review process did not capture all the defects in the December 4, 2015 document, and some improper purported affidavit material remains that should be, at most, argument.


Her argument about using material against her which was obtained from the Porisky search and seizure has already been beaten to death. Many of the Poriskyites have had a go of it and all have failed;

[11] Ms. Eddy advances a number of s 8 Charter breach allegations that relate to information that was obtained by the CRA in the process of the CRA investigating Russell Porisky, his wife Elaine Gould, and the PEG multi-level tax evasion organization. Information relating to Ms. Eddy was discovered during investigation of Porisky and PEG. This information then became the basis for a CRA criminal investigation of Ms. Eddy as also allegedly having engaged in illegal PEG-related activities. The initial investigation of Porisky and PEG was conducted by CRA investigators operating from the Burnaby CRA offices. Later, that information was transferred to the Edmonton-area CRA investigator Wade Hartley.

[12] Ms. Eddy complained that her s 8 Charter rights were breached in a number of ways that will be set out in more detail below in these reasons. However, for the purposes of this element of the voir dire decision, these complaints may be summarized as follows:
1. Ms. Eddy had a privacy interest in the materials and information that were obtained by the CRA when they searched the Porisky and Gould residence and obtained information relating to Porisky and PEG.

2. The searches of the Porisky and Gould residence were either illegal, or the CRA lost lawful detention of evidence that was obtained from those searches.
3. The transfer and/or copying of documents that were in the possession of the Burnaby CRA offices to Edmonton CRA investigator Hartley was in itself a warrantless search, and that search breached Ms. Eddy’s s. 8 Charter rights.
4. Subsequent to the transfer of evidence and information concerning the Porisky/PEG searches to Edmonton CRA investigator Hartley, the Crown lost lawful detention of that information, and that too was a breach of Ms. Eddy’s s 8 Charter rights.
5. The Porisky/PEG-derived evidence should therefore be excluded from the Crown’s case at trial, which has ‘downstream’ implications on the legality of other searches, including one of Ms. Eddy’s residence.

[13] Ms. Eddy argued, apparently factually correct, that investigation of her alleged misconduct began with the Porisky/PEG investigations and dates to at least 2003, if not earlier. She asserted that she was inextricably intertwined with those matters. The CRA investigator assigned to her case worked with the Burnaby investigators. She complained that her ability to scrutinize this period of the CRA investigation against her has been hampered by the Crown’s refusal to disclose materials from the Porisky/PEG investigation itself.


And Denise's argument was rejected just like all the others;

[17] I agree with the Crown. Eddy has no privacy interest in any documents, materials, or information that was derived from investigations of Porisky, Gould, PEG, or any other participant in the PEG scheme. That means this Court rejects all alleged s 8 Charter breaches that flow, directly or indirectly, from the manner in which Porisky/PEG-derived evidence:

1. was initially obtained,
2. was transferred between government actors,
3. was subsequently retained, and
4. used in the investigation of Ms. Eddy.

[28] In conclusion I find that Ms. Eddy has no legal standing to argue a breach of s 8 Charter rights in relation to the Porisky/PEG-derived evidence, and that any of that evidence or its ‘downstream’ products or derivatives should not be excluded from evidence or as a basis for subsequent searches, arrests, or other Crown activities.

[29] In closing on this argument, I note this exact scenario has already been evaluated in relation to another person involved with Porisky and the PEG. In R v Anderson, 2014 BCSC 2002 (CanLII) at paras 78-97, Brown J evaluated whether PEG “educator” Debbie Arlene Anderson had a privacy interest in materials and information that were obtained by the apparently same searches that targeted Porisky, Gould, and the PEG. Justice Brown’s analysis and conclusions parallels mine. Prior to that, Wilson J of this Court in R v Siggelkow, 2014 ABQB 101, also rejected s 8 Charter-related arguments advanced by an additional PEG “educator”, Edwin Siggelkow, that also targeted Porisky/PEG-derived materials, but on other bases.


Then on to the trivial;

[30] Ms. Eddy alleged s 8 Charter breaches that emerge from a number of related arguments, all of which flow from the operation of Criminal Code, ss 489.1-490. These sections provide judicial supervision of materials seized during searches, after those searches have been conducted. Section 489.1 creates a regime where government actors who seize property pursuant to Criminal Code, ss 487.11 or 489 then report to the courts on the status of seizures. For example, s 489.1 requires that where anything is seized by a peace officer that “as soon as is practicable” that the peace officer “shall”:

1. return the thing seized and report to a justice that the peace officer has done so (Criminal Code, s 489.1(a)), or
2. bring or report about the thing seized to a justice (Criminal Code, s 489.1(b)).
Ms. Eddy argued that a failure to report “as soon as is practicable” has the effect of rendering the possession of seized property illegal, and therefore a breach of s 8 of the Charter.


It seems that Denise didn't want just the original seized documents returned she wanted the Crown to destroy all of their copies of them thereby leaving no evidence on which to base a prosecution. Not doing this was a breach of her Charter rights. Judge Rooke wasn't buying it;

[45] The effect of these provisions is that, even if Ms. Eddy’s document-based evidence was returned via the s 490 procedures, the Crown is both entitled to make and keep copies, and those copies are deemed as having the same effect as originals. This makes plain Parliament’s intention when it comes to the return of seized documents - s 490 is not intended to deny access by the Crown to the information seized, but rather to provide a mechanism so that materials (in this case documents) that are no longer directly necessary (as originals) may be returned to their owners.

[46] I conclude the same is true for both ‘hardcopy’ and ‘electronic’ data. This conclusion collapses Ms. Eddy’s arguments that a s 8 Charter breach may result from the Crown’s continued holding of seized information beyond what is permitted under Criminal Code, ss 489.1-490. At most Ms. Eddy could obtain return of the original electronic and physical documents. She could never demand return or destruction of copies. If lawfully seized, those are permanently in Charter-compliant custody of the Crown.

[49] This is a second independent basis on which I reject Ms. Eddy’s 489.1-490 arguments. Once informational evidence (electronic or hardcopy) was obtained with a valid search warrant Ms. Eddy has no Charter right to interfere with the Crown’s possession or use of copies of that evidence. Even if she had been entitled to return of the original informational evidence, taken from her residence, Ms. Eddy could not have stymied the Crown’s ability to use copies of the seized information as a basis for searches, further investigation, or in its impending criminal trial.


Even if she had a point about the documents not being returned "as soon as practicable" the court wsn't going to find in her favour without her presenting evidence to back up her argument.

[55] Since Ms. Eddy has the onus to establish whether or not a s 489.1 report was made “as soon as practicable”, and since she has not provided evidence of the CRA investigators workloads, schedules, or information on the complexity of what was seized, I conclude she did not establish, on a balance of probabilities, that any s 489.1 report was not made “as soon as practicable”. While I do not find that she has a s 8 Charter right in any case, the fact that she has not established a factual foundation for her argument is another reason I reject her proposed Charter breach claim.

4. Conclusion

[56] I therefore globally reject Ms. Eddy’s various Charter breach arguments wherever those rely on the Crown’s alleged failure to meet Criminal Code, s 489.1-490 procedures so that the Crown lost legal control of seized property and information.


So she said that the Canada Revenue Agency employee who gave her an envelope was a liar and this gave her a free pass out of the charges.

[58] Ms. Eddy argued that the products of the 2010 search of her residence ceased to be lawfully detained on January 24, 2011. This is allegedly a consequence of an unfair hearing before Provincial Court Judge Kirby, where the Crown applied for continued detention of property that had been seized from Ms. Eddy’s basement suite residence via Criminal Code, ss 489.1-490. The defect that Ms. Eddy identified is that an affidavit of Wade Hartley in support of that application allegedly included a lie by Hartley. The affidavit describes service of notice and supporting materials for the January 24, 2011 hearing

[59] Ms. Eddy argued that the affidavit and written notes Hartley prepared to document service of the January 24, 2011 hearing notice could not have been delivered in the manner described. Hartley deposed he stood at the threshold of the building Ms. Eddy occupied and observed a third party deliver the envelope that contained the notice and supporting documents by sliding it under the door to Ms. Eddy’s basement suit. Ms. Eddy personally testified on the arrangement of the entrance to the building’s basement suites and argued, with the assistance of photographs, that this is impossible. She argued that Hartley would, at a minimum, have had to enter the structure and occupy a landing beside the back door to have seen the delivery occur.

[60] It appears that Ms. Eddy argument is that this misstatement should mean the January 24, 2011 hearing was invalid, and that the Crown lost lawful detention of the residence search products at that point.


Judge Rooke didn't place quite the same anount of importance on the issue that Denise did;

63] The first basis on which I reject Ms. Eddy’s argument is that the inaccuracy, if indeed there is one, is trivial. Presuming for a moment that Hartley did physically enter the step area to observe the envelope delivery, that distinction is, at most, minor, and any intrusion into the shared space of a multitenant residence is inconsequential.

[66] I therefore conclude that Ms. Eddy has no basis to challenge the warrant on which property seized from her residence was detained. The defect identified by Ms. Eddy (if it existed) cannot subvert the Kirby PCJ order. This a second independent basis on which I reject Ms. Eddy’s argument.

[71] I therefore conclude that Ms. Eddy has not proven, on a balance of probabilities, that her Charter rights were breached, directly or indirectly, through the ongoing detention of property seized from her residence. I note that my analysis of the legal implications of the Crown retaining seized information may have other applications to the alleged Charter breaches identified by Ms. Eddy. My conclusions as law apply equally to those other alleged breach scenarios.


Then to the real bottom-barrel nit-picking arguments;

[72] At the time of the search warrant on her residence Ms. Eddy lived at a basement suite at 8524 84 Ave. in Edmonton. The ITO identifies that as the address for the search, and the search was conducted on that location. However, Ms. Eddy claimed that what purports to be the Land Titles record for that building indicates the address as 8522 84 Ave., and argued that means the 8524 address is incorrect, and it should be ‘struck out’ of the ITO, as a consequence, presumably leaving the ITO without any target address.

[73] I conclude the fact that there are, or may be, variant addresses for Ms. Eddy’s residence is irrelevant to the question of whether the Crown obtained authorization to access that location - and it did - and it had evidence that linked Ms. Eddy to the 8824 variant of that address - which it did. Ms. Eddy has not proven any defect in the ITO that requires any further investigation.


This goes on and on. Anyone interested can read it themselves. I'll skip to paragraph 123 where Russ Porisky enters the story again;

[122] Ms. Eddy, in her written argument, complains that the Crown engaged in abusive litigation when it identified her as an Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Argument [“OPCA”] litigant in a number of preliminary hearings. The “OPCA” term was coined by myself in Meads v Meads, 2012 ABQB 571 (CanLII), 543 AR 215, to identify a collection of pseudolegal arguments that are sold on a commercial basis by “OPCA gurus” on the basis that these strategies will purportedly defeat genuine legal obligations, enforce demands on government and private actors, and ‘money for nothing’ scams to provide funds from secret, concealed sources. Ms. Eddy, in the oral hearing, relied on her written argument on this point. As I understand it, Ms. Eddy argued that her being associated with vexatious OPCA litigants breaches her s 11(d) Charter presumption of innocence, and is discriminatory, contrary to s 15 Charter.


Well judge Rooke quite literally wrote the book about OPCA litigant in Meads v Meads and he actually coined the phrase Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Argument in that decision;

Meads v. Meads, 2012 ABQB 571
http://canlii.ca/t/fsvjq

So he wasn't agreeing that just the use of the OPCA designation was, in itself, sufficient to constitute a Charter breach;

[124] First, I wish to confirm that Ms. Eddy, in this voir dire, and in my review of this action, has at no time exhibited any indication of being an OPCA litigant - that is to say, she has not argued OPCA pseudolaw and her materials scrupulously have avoided those vexatious and abusive strategies. I find, as fact, that she is correct in saying she is not an OPCA litigant. That said, she is not an entire stranger to the OPCA phenomenon. She has been apparently involved with notorious Detaxer guru Russell Porisky and his PEG organization: Meads v Meads, at paras 87-98. Porisky and PEG propagated a universally rejected OPCA anti-tax scheme that “natural persons” are not required to pay income tax: R v Klundert, 2008 ONCA 767 (CanLII) at para 19, 93 OR (3d) 81, leave refused [2008] SCCA No 522; R v Lindsay, 2011 BCCA 99 (CanLII) at para 27, 302 BCAC 76, leave refused [2011] SCCA No 265; Kennedy v Canada (Customs and Revenue Agency), 2000 CanLII 22837 (ON SC), [2000] 4 CTC 186, 2000 DTC 6524 (Ont Sup Ct J). The Crown alleges Ms. Eddy participated in the PEG scheme as one of the “educator” subordinate gurus. Whether that or not is true is a question for trial, and not this voir dire.

[125] What is relevant to the question of whether the Crown engaged in some form of misconduct when it characterized Ms. Eddy as an OPCA litigant is whether this warning was in some manner malicious or intended to harm Ms. Eddy. I conclude it was not. Ms. Eddy, as I have noted, is not entirely unrelated to the OPCA phenomenon. Nor are all of her PEG fellow travellers innocent courtroom participants. For example, PEG Detaxer Gerald Blerot engaged in in-court misconduct which required that he had to be physically restrained by the RCMP: R v Blerot, 2014 SKQB 2 (CanLII) at paras 12, 14, 2014 DTC 5029, affirmed 2015 SKCA 69 (CanLII). In brief, the Crown had a reasonable basis to have a concern Ms. Eddy may engage in OPCA-related misconduct. To her credit, she has not, and the Crown has not persisted in continuing to flag her in this manner without basis.

[126] More broadly I believe, on a policy basis, that no sanction or criticism should be advanced against a party who notifies a court that litigation has a potential OPCA character where that is a reasonable possibility. OPCA litigation is by definition frivolous, vexatious, and an abuse of process: Meads v Meads. As I noted in ANB v Hancock, 2013 ABQB 97 (CanLII), 557 AR 364, the fact an individual is an OPCA litigant is not relevant to the validity of their action or arguments (para 19). Those are tested on their merits - and if they are OPCA-based, they fail. However, OPCA affiliation is also associated with a range of litigation and criminal misconduct: para 20. Some OPCA litigants who have appeared in this Court are potentially very dangerous persons, such as the Montana Freeman Dale Jacobi who is described in Perreal v Knibb, 2014 ABQB 15 (CanLII), 581 AR 275.


And, well before Porisky's jury found him guilty, Judge Rooke commented on the futility of his natural person defense;

[128] I therefore conclude that Ms. Eddy’s complaint of being improperly classified as an OPCA litigant is accurate, but it does not indicate an abuse of process by the Crown. I conclude, on a balance of probabilities, that it was reasonable for the Crown to indicate a potential OPCA character to Ms. Eddy’s conduct given her association with Porisky and PEG. This notification to the courts proved unnecessary, but Ms. Eddy has not suffered any prejudice to her Charter rights as a consequence.

[129] I note in passing that, at the closing of Ms. Eddy’s voir dire, the Crown suggested it would make an application to prohibit Ms. Eddy from advancing the “natural person” Detaxer argument promoted by Porisky and the PEG. Ms. Eddy indicated she had no intention of making any argument of that kind, which is again to her credit, since to do so would obviously be futile given Canadian jurisprudence on that subject.


Then Denise claimed that the whole matter should be dropped because of undue delay in getting to trial, justice delayed is justice denied. And Judge Rooke agreed with her about the delay!

[171] The analysis of Ms. Eddy’s alleged s 11(b) Charter breach involved several interrelated subjects: the length of delay, the cause of the delay, and the prejudice to Ms. Eddy that relates from the delay.

[172] First, I conclude that the time it has taken to get to this matter to trial, approximately 43 months, is prima facie evidence of inappropriate delay. Both the Crown and Ms. Eddy agree on this. As noted, waiver is also not a factor.


Except that it was her own damn fault that it took so long.

[182] Review of the court transcripts makes it very plain there is no question about who was trying to advance the action - that was the Crown. In R v Godin, one lawyer attempted to move the action to trial (unsuccessfully) because the lawyer met “radio silence”. That is not the situation here. The Crown, figuratively speaking, encountered a concrete wall, covered with barbed wire. Ms. Eddy refused to cooperate at every step, complained about disclosure, filed yet more disclosure requests, refused to elect the forum and format of her trial, advancing spurious Charter complaints, and engaging in collateral attacks on prior decisions.

[183] I will provide one example to illustrate Ms. Eddy’s behaviour. A point of contention was that the Crown refused to permit Ms. Eddy to make copies of private tax information that related to third parties, but from the beginning the Crown offered to permit Ms. Eddy to view these items. Ms. Eddy refused to cooperate with this procedure, and instead demanded hardcopies of these items. She also complained that she should not have to travel to Edmonton to view this disclosure. At the December 4, 2012 hearing the Crown explained that it had attempted to satisfy Ms. Eddy’s concerns by having CRA employees travel to Red Deer, where Ms. Eddy lives, and then she could view the documents. Ms. Eddy, however, refused to enter a room that contained these documents unless she was accompanied by an unidentified male person. Ms. Eddy would not identify this individual, and so he was not permitted to enter the room that contained the third party materials. Ms. Eddy then aborted the process entirely.

[184] I note that Ms. Eddy’s misconduct during this period was so bad that both Justices Acton and Marceau concluded she was not making her applications in good faith, but instead was attempting to actively derail the criminal proceeding. Marceau J in R v Eddy, 2014 ABQB 391 (CanLII), [2014] DTC 5098 took the highly unusual step of ordering costs against Ms. Eddy in response to her April 17, 2014 application, which was made very shortly before the first scheduled preliminary inquiry. Justice Marceau concluded Ms. Eddy had engaged in conduct that, in a civil context, would have made her a vexatious litigant (paras 49-50), made unsubstantiated allegations of Crown misconduct (para 51), lied to the court (para 52-55), and specifically that her persistent demands for disclosure were ungrounded and an abuse of process (paras 58-61).

[185] Assembled, it is quite obvious who caused any non-inherent or institutional delay that occurred between the August 8, 2012 hearing and the first scheduled preliminary inquiry on May 26, 2014. During this period Ms. Eddy blocked the advance of her trial where she could, and advanced, and ultimately litigated, a series of complaints that had no legitimate foundation. The Courts and Crown attempted to move the action forward. Ms. Eddy resisted without a valid basis. When one steps back and examines the flow of litigation as a whole, it is Ms. Eddy who, therefore, was the cause of all delay during this period.

[188] I therefore allocate the period between August 8, 2012 and May 26, 2014 as:

1. inherent delay: 10 months;
2. delay caused by limitations due to institutional resources: 1 month; and
3. the remaining delay was caused by Ms. Eddy: 325 days.

[189] I stress I see no basis to conclude the Crown’s conduct in any way contributed to any of these delays.

[192] Returning to the approach indicated in R v Godin, there is no question who is the ultimate cause of the May 26, 2014 to January 19, 2015 delay period. That is Ms. Eddy - again she is the one who set ‘the dominos in motion’. I note the next preliminary inquiry was set for a little over seven months after the first post-illness hearing, which I conclude is a reasonable time that does not attract any institutional delay.

[193] The chief question is whether the Crown should be allocated any part of this delay period because it could not reschedule to an earlier date. The June 11, 2014 transcript reveals the Crown had tried to make arrangements for an earlier date by adopting a ‘full paper’ preliminary hearing and on the hope that Ms. Eddy would admit her identity. Ms. Eddy emphatically refused that alternative: “... I absolutely don’t agree to a full paper preliminary.”: June 11, 2014 transcript, p 5, line 25.

[194] Justice Cromwell, in R v Godin at para 23, is explicit that the fact a litigant offers an alternative date which cannot be accommodated by the other party does not shift or make neutral the cause of a delay. If Ms. Eddy’s chief concern had been a more timely preliminary inquiry then she had that alternative, but she refused that. The Crown Counsel and its witness were not at Ms. Eddy’s ‘beck and call’. I conclude the Crown took reasonable steps during this period to move the litigation forward. Objectively, this was merely more of what had occurred before. The Crown struggled to advance the action, while Ms. Eddy continued to do the opposite.

[195] I therefore conclude this entire period of delay should be attributed to Ms. Eddy.


In total;

202] I therefore conclude that, in total, the period between when charges were laid against Ms. Eddy’s and the time of her impending trial should be allocated as follows:
• inherent delay - 22.5 months
• institutional delay - 1 month
• delay caused by Ms. Eddy - 24.5 months
• delay caused by the Crown - none
[203] In brief, the majority of pre-trial delay, over two years, was caused by Ms. Eddy.

[209] The time this matter took to come to trial, that is not attributable to Ms. Eddy, is 23.5 months. The R v Morin guidelines indicate are 14-20 months. The inherent and institutional delay here does exceed that range, but that difference is not unexpected given this is not a simple trial with little evidence. Instead, the Crown and Ms. Eddy face a lengthy trial with a jury. Given the institutional stress on the Alberta courts, particularly the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench, this is not an unreasonable time to trial. When considered in combination with the prejudice to Ms. Eddy that has resulted I conclude that unreasonable delay has not occurred, and therefore that Ms. Eddy’s s 11(b) Charter application must be denied.


Denise's submission was so huge that even Judge Rooke admitted he may have omitted a point here or there but, barring that, Denise was toast;

D. Conclusion

[219] Because Ms. Eddy filed a total of over 2,000 pages of actual or purported evidence and argument, in addition to about eight days of oral argument, it may be easy to miss a discrete issue not covered by the above analysis. I do not believe that is the case, but, if alleged, it can be brought to my attention for a supplementary decision and reasons.

[220] In light of my rejecting Ms. Eddy’s s 11(b) Charter application, I therefore order this matter to proceed to trial, as scheduled, commencing at 10 a.m. on Monday, February 22, 2016, with jury selection at 9 a.m. on Thursday, February 17, 2016, all at the Edmonton Law Courts.


Denise had given it her best shot, fought a monumental battle and gone down in total defeat. The road was finally clear to put her on trial. A trial she obviously concluded she couldn't win. So she caved and pled guilty.

However it wasn't a total defeat for her. These were the original charges;

[1] Denise Marie Eddy [“Ms. Eddy”] is charged on an information, sworn February 27, 2015, which lists eight tax-related criminal offences:

1. four counts of making false or deceptive statements in her T1 Individual Tax Returns, for the taxation years 2005-2008: Income Tax Act, RSC 1985, c 1 (5th Supp), s 239(1)(a);

2. engaging in tax evasion for the period of December 31, 2004 to January 1, 2009 by understating her taxable income for the 2005-2008 taxation years: Income Tax Act, s 239(1)(d);

3. wilfully evading payment of taxes for the period of December 31, 2004 to January 1, 2009 by failing to collect or remit goods and services tax returns for taxation years 2006-2008: Excise Tax Act, RSC 1985, c E-15, s 327(1)(c);

4. between July 10, 2003 and October 13, 2010 counselled various persons to commit the indictable offence of fraud in excess of $5,000.00: Criminal Code, RSC 1985, c C-46, ss 380, 464(a); and

5. between July 10, 2003 and October 13, 2010 counselled various persons to commit the indictable offence of fraud in excess of $5,000.00, who then committed fraud, making Eddy a party to those offences: Criminal Code, s 22.


The Crown, I'm assuming as part of a plea bargain, cut the eight charges down to three. The multiple income tax and GST evasion charges were reduced to one on each count and the charge of being party to the fraud of others was dropped. I'm assuming that had she not made the plea and saved the court the cost and trouble of a jury trial her case would have gone forward on all eight charges and, given the history of all prior Poriskyite trials, she would have been found guilty on all of them. So by pleading guilty she seems to have saved herself from actual jail time by being given a conditional sentence.
"Yes Burnaby49, I do in fact believe all process servers are peace officers. I've good reason to believe so." Robert Menard in his May 28, 2015 video "Process Servers".

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

User avatar
notorial dissent
A Balthazar of Quatloosian Truth
Posts: 10631
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 8:17 pm

Re: Denise Eddy - Poriskyite heads to a criminal record

Postby notorial dissent » Wed Feb 17, 2016 1:59 am

That darn Justice Rook, just goes around spoiling everybody's, but ours, fun. He's a real meany that Justice is. :snicker:
The fact that you sincerely and wholeheartedly believe that the “Law of Gravity” is unconstitutional and a violation of your sovereign rights, does not absolve you of adherence to it.

Burnaby49
Quatloosian Ambassador to the CaliCanadians
Quatloosian Ambassador to the CaliCanadians
Posts: 5633
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 3:45 am
Location: The Evergreen Playground

Re: Denise Eddy - Poriskyite heads to a criminal record

Postby Burnaby49 » Wed Feb 17, 2016 2:06 am

notorial dissent wrote:That darn Justice Rook, just goes around spoiling everybody's, but ours, fun. He's a real meany that Justice is. :snicker:


That's Associate Chief Justice Rooke if you don't mind. I try to be accurate about these things. If I ever end up in his court I want to keep on his good side. Not that Burnaby49 has been fiddling around with his taxes! Just creative accounting, well within acceptable limits.
"Yes Burnaby49, I do in fact believe all process servers are peace officers. I've good reason to believe so." Robert Menard in his May 28, 2015 video "Process Servers".

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

User avatar
notorial dissent
A Balthazar of Quatloosian Truth
Posts: 10631
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 8:17 pm

Re: Denise Eddy - Poriskyite heads to a criminal record

Postby notorial dissent » Wed Feb 17, 2016 11:41 am

Quite true, he is definitely worthy of his full and well deserved title.
The fact that you sincerely and wholeheartedly believe that the “Law of Gravity” is unconstitutional and a violation of your sovereign rights, does not absolve you of adherence to it.

User avatar
wserra
Quatloosian Federal Witness
Quatloosian Federal Witness
Posts: 6312
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2003 7:39 pm

Re: Denise Eddy - Poriskyite heads to a criminal record

Postby wserra » Wed Feb 17, 2016 12:19 pm

Burnaby49 wrote:Just creative accounting, well within acceptable limits.


A CPA once told me that any good CPA has larceny in her heart.
"A wise man proportions belief to the evidence."
- David Hume


Return to “Canada”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest