Another Poriskyite loser, in French!

Moderator: Burnaby49

Burnaby49
Quatloosian Ambassador to the CaliCanadians
Quatloosian Ambassador to the CaliCanadians
Posts: 5821
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 3:45 am
Location: The Evergreen Playground

Another Poriskyite loser, in French!

Postby Burnaby49 » Mon Apr 28, 2014 6:40 am

At least I assume we are dealing with a Poriskyite. His tactic was basically throw every damn thing at the Tax Court of Canada and hope some of it struck home. Sadly all misses. He has Porisky's natural man v corporate man argument but he also has a lot of Freeman gibberish. On top of it all he lards on an argument that he is a native Indian exempt from tax although he is not, in fact, aboriginal and native Indians are exempt from tax only if they earn their income on a reserve which he does not. I have some difficulty in parsing out details because the case was published in French and the English copy of the decision, linked below, is from Google Translate. It does a very good job but still somewhat convoluted. I've tried to tidy up the quotes but I didn't get obsessive about it.

The Poriskyish stuff is discussed here;

[ 6 ] At the request of the Minister, dated December 2, 2011, the appellant was justified management fees charged for each of the years in issue by invoices he says he himself addressed as a human being to "Christian Girard, legal person ", to which the government has allocated a Social Insurance Number (SIN). This is his living expenses, including food, fuel, housing, health care and travel (Exhibit I-1, tab 5 and 6). No supporting documents are not appended. (sic)

[ 7 ] The appellant argues that every human being is made up of a physical entity (the "natural person") and a legal entity of a different nature (the "corporation") is created when a NAS attributed to the human. According to his arguments, the natural person who is sovereign, that is to say it is free and it has no obligations, while the corporation is property of the state and is therefore subject to the laws of the State [1] .


As far as his claims to be an aboriginal go the court found his evidence somewhat lacking;

[ 12 ] On 14 May 2013, the appellant filed tax revenue changed by indicating that all the required information, except those relating to refund of tax withheld at source on income from employment, are not applicable. He joined a "Certificate of Origin Native" from the company Mikinak. According to the statement appearing on the certificate, the appellant claims to be of Aboriginal origin (Native North America, Native American). This statement was signed by the appellant before two witnesses sworn by a Commissioner for Oaths, André Perreault (Exhibit I-1, Tab 16).

At the hearing, the appellant testified that this statement was made as a result of making a family tree, which he did not know the author. The author of this Family Tree, Thérèse Lachance said affidavit dated March 6, 2014 that she had never received professional training to conduct genealogical research, his skills were limited to whether the person was his client had an Indian ancestor and she was not affiliated with the company Mikinak.

The respondent entered into evidence a document from the Registrar of companies in Québec (REQ) demonstrates that Mikinak is a corporation incorporated under the Canada Business Corporations Act Corporations Act ( CBCA ), whose majority shareholder is M . André Perreault (Exhibit I-4). At the hearing, the appellant admitted that Mikinak was not situated on an Indian reserve.

The caller said he had not made the request to the Ministry of Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada for their Indian status because he did not live on a reservation or in an Indian territory. Moreover, according to maps from the Aboriginal Affairs Secretariat Quebec and Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development Canada, it seems clear that the farm is not located in an area that is part of an Aboriginal nation (Exhibit I -2).


The OPCA argument was that he was not subject to the laws of Canada;

[ 19 ] He acknowledged at the hearing that these costs were not expenses that are deductible under the Income Tax Act (paragraph 18 (1) and h) or 8 (2) of the Act, as the taxpayer declares business income or employment income).

The appellant's argument is rather beyond the ITA. He argues that denying him spending (and therefore applying the Act), the Minister unaware of his rights under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, the Bill of Rights and the Canadian Charter of Rights and freedoms , and placed in a state of slavery and servitude. From what I understand, he claims not to be subject to the established by the various levels of government because it is made to impose a legal personality without his consent laws.


The court saw just a touch of hypocrisy in this;

[ 21 ] The paradox in the argument of the appellant is that it does not feel concerned by the Canadian or provincial laws with respect to its obligations as Quebec or Canadian citizen. However, it also relies on the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Canadian Bill of Rights, both introduced by the Canadian Parliament to call for recognition of their fundamental rights. In addition, it recognizes that it is through joining the company, among other things due to the granting of a number of health insurance or a NAS, withdraw the right to use care health or privilege to drive a vehicle and on the roads: rights and privileges which are also funded by various levels of government, and indirectly by taxpayers through taxes.


However the Tax Court, rather than do a fair and unbiased analysis of our valiant freedom-fighter's position, got lazy and just beat him over the head with Meads v Meads . We're getting a lot of mileage from Meads up here. Amazing in it's own way since it has been cited very frequently in criminal, tax, and civil cases although Meads was just the decision from a low-level family court hearing;

[ 25 ] In this case, one can believe that the caller is that the Associate Chief Justice Rooke of the Court of Queen's Bench of Alberta called "Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Argument [OPCA] litigants" in Decision Meads, 2012 ABQB 571 (CanLII) , 2012 ABQB 571, [2013] 3 WWR 419:

- The caller identifies himself as "Christian Girard." Or "Christian family of Girard" However, "[a] ny litigant Have you uses this" colon dash "motif Almost Certainly Has some kind of background or affiliation OPCA" ( see paragraph 206 of the decision Meads);

- The appellant submitted a copy of his birth certificate to support that it is a legal person. However, "[a] person's birth certificate is a focus of some OPCA schemes" (see paragraph 230 of the decision Meads);

- The appellant contended in his argument that Canada was a corporation because it appeared on the website of the Securities Exchange Commission of the United States and, as a Canadian citizen, he was also a legal person. Or "[i] dentification That A municipality, province, or Canada is a corporation is a clear indication of OPCA affiliation" (see paragraph 222 of the decision Meads);

- The appellant argues that it was created by God and can not be subject to the law of God. However, if the litigant believes to be "subject only to a category of law Typically" natural law "," common law "or" God's law "," this is a good indication that this is a dispute OPCA ( see paragraph 221 of the decision Meads);

- The caller uses to support his call for unusual tax laws. However, "[m] Any OPCA papers mention some obsolete, foreign, gold Typically Otherwise irrelevant legislation" (see paragraph 228 of the decision Meads).


Sadly the result was that the Tax Court was not totally on board with the taxpayer's arguments and chose to accept the Canada Revenue Agency's position, the one based on actual income tax legislation rather than a tax-free dreamworld;

[ 47 ] In this case, I believe that, as argued by the respondent, the appellant chose to believe what suited him from his research on the Internet to evade their tax obligations. The respondent adds that if the appellant had conducted research on the website of the CRA, he learned that he was not entitled to deduct its expenses and that he could not have the status Indian within the meaning of the LI .

I believe that the arguments presented by the appellant had no legal basis and that he acted with willful blindness (gross negligence may arise from the blindness of its author as PG judgments of Canada c. Villeneuve , 2004 FCA 20, 2004 DTC 6077, Panini and c. Quee, 2006 FCA 224). He did not question what he read on the Internet and has consulted person for pointing this out. Its deliberate act in the circumstances denotes a more serious way than just negligence lack of due care.

For all these reasons, I consider that the imposition of the gross negligence penalty on the appellant was justified in the circumstances. The appeal is dismissed and contributions remain unchanged.


http://translate.google.com/translate?s ... edit-text=
"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: 5821
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 3:45 am
Location: The Evergreen Playground

Re: Another Poriskyite loser, in French!

Postby Burnaby49 » Wed Dec 23, 2015 2:44 am

The decision is now available in English;

CHRISTIAN GIRARD, and HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN,
Citation 2014 CCI 107
http://canlii.ca/t/gmn3f
"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

Hyrion
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 616
Joined: Thu Nov 13, 2014 2:33 pm

Re: Another Poriskyite loser, in French!

Postby Hyrion » Wed Dec 23, 2015 7:14 pm

English Ruling wrote:[23] The appellant also argues that he can be subject only to the law of God and that Canada is founded upon principles that recognize the supremacy of God

It dawns on me the future possibility that if the OPCA crowd keep pushing that they may achieve the result of a pure separation of Government and Church.

What would they be pushing? Such things as the "swearing upon the bible to tell the truth" and "the queen has sworn to uphold the bible" are examples.

What kind of pure separation could result? Instead of swearing upon the bible, it changes to you swearing upon telling the truth or going to jail for lieing is an example.

Edited to add:

English Ruling wrote:[23] ... “[t]he preamble to the Charter provides an important element in defining Canada, but recognition of the supremacy of God, emplaced in the supreme law of Canada, goes no further than this: it prevents the Canadian state from becoming officially atheistic. It does not make Canada a theocracy because of the enormous variety of beliefs of how God . . . wants people to behave generally and to worship in particular”

That's a much better response to the situation then what I was thinking. This is why there is more wisdom in others that deal with these issues far more often then I do which shows the lack of wisdom in myself.

Burnaby49
Quatloosian Ambassador to the CaliCanadians
Quatloosian Ambassador to the CaliCanadians
Posts: 5821
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 3:45 am
Location: The Evergreen Playground

Re: Another Poriskyite loser, in French!

Postby Burnaby49 » Wed Dec 23, 2015 8:38 pm

You don't have to swear to god in Canadian courts. You can just affirm. Same deal, you've sworn to tell the truth but not invoked a diety.
"Yes Burnaby49, I do in fact believe all process servers are peace officers. I've good reason to believe so." Robert Menard in his May 28, 2015 video "Process Servers".

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

User avatar
wserra
Quatloosian Federal Witness
Quatloosian Federal Witness
Posts: 6359
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2003 7:39 pm

Re: Another Poriskyite loser, in French!

Postby wserra » Wed Dec 23, 2015 11:12 pm

Same in US courts.
"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