"Arthur Doerksen - Poriskyite Horse Zapper"
My alternative was
"They Zap Horses Don't They"
But that really didn't fit in context.
Sadly events intervened. I've been following Doerksen for quite a while. I spent the better part of a month at his trial last summer. He was a follower of Porisky's Paradigm scheme who was charged with income tax evasion. As best I can recall he was charged with failing to report over $1,000,000 in income. I have masses of notes on his hearings that I hadn't yet written up. However, for various reasons, his trial was adjourned on August 26, 2015 (I was there) and scheduled to resume this February, which it did on February 9th, 10th, and 11th. I couldn't attend those hearings because I was attending Russell Porisky's trial at a different courthouse right across downtown Vancouver from Doerksen's trial. I wrote this on the Porisky discussion;
Doerksen's trial was not concluded in February and it was slated to finish at a time when I could actually attend again, a one day continuation on May 27th. Then Doerksen died. So he doesn't get a write-up however I'm going to post a few of my notes on his trial.Thursday - February 11, 2016
Today there were two other spectators at the start of the hearing. One was GI, the CRA employee I'd mentioned yesterday. So I had a chat with him about the Doerksen trial, the one where I'd heard him testify. The trial was held this summer and I sat in for about two weeks of it however it was adjourned until, unfortunately, this week so it conflicted with Porisky. In addition the two trials were being held in different courthouses about a mile and a half apart. So I had to pick one of the two and I bailed on Doerksen. So I asked GI how Doerksen was going. Almost done, might well be concluded today. A trial by judge and decision expected fairly quickly. Might even be written reasons for judgment which we won't get with Porisky since trial by jury.
First a background on Doerksen. The money he made that he didn't pay taxes on was earned from an online business where he sold a device, the Hulda Clark Zapper, which he claimed cured cancer and almost any other disease you can name. This is the device;
http://www.bestzapper.com/images/produc ... jpg?1a2df7
And this is the inventor of the wonderous cancer cure.
She made some pretty big claims for what seems to have been just some batteries and wires.
Actually I'd have to say that the jury is still out on her cancer cure claims since Hulda Clark died of cancer even though she used her own device constantly and Doerksen apparently also died of cancer while claiming that he used the Zapper daily.Hulda Regehr Clark (18 October 1928 in Rosthern, Saskatchewan – 3 September 2009 in Chula Vista, California) was a naturopath, author, and practitioner of alternative medicine. Clark claimed all human disease was related to parasitic infection, and also claimed to be able to cure all diseases, including cancer and HIV/AIDS, by destroying these parasites by "zapping" them with electrical devices which she marketed.
This was Doerksen's promotional website;
He apparently found out about the Zapper when he was diagnosed with cancer and researched cures. According to him the Zapper did the job;
So after his miraculous cure he saw a business opportunity and started selling the Zapper online. Just stick Arthur Doerksen's name in YouTube and you'll get a day's worth of viewing of Doerksen's Zapper promotional videos. My original title derived from one of those videos which I can't locate online but I viewed in Court. He was at a farm, probably in the Fraser Valley, and was extolling all the benefits that farm animals would derive from a regular zapping. With the assistance of a compliant horse owner he zapped a horse. The horse seemed competely indifferent but he and the owner seemed to be pleased by the results. This article in Zaptimes talks about the benefits of horse-zapping and it may be the same woman and her horse that was in the video.
http://www.bestzapper.com/zaptimes/zapp ... mber-2008/
As always there were skeptics;
Everybody at trial, including the judge, seemed to very gingerly skirt around the actual source of Doerksen's income. He was described as having a website that sold natural health products. I've found no indication that he sold anything but the Zappers.
Doerksen chose a trial by judge and, very unusually for a Poriskyite, he had a lawyer, or at least an articling student. Young but astute. The student was also representing Debbie Anderson in her trial and I wrote this about him on her discussion;
The second point of interest is Mr. J Mattock, articled student. I'm getting to know J Mattock very well because he is also representing the defendant in the trial I'm attending. He has a history;
Also, apart from a conspiracy theory or two which the judge shot down, the lawyer did not, at least when I attended, do anything but a conventional defense. No natural man, contracts for hire, or honest belief arguments.J. Maddock" is "Jeremy Maddock", son of a BC justice of the peace. That name goes interesting places. His father is apparently a recently appointed Justice of the Peace in BC. Jeremy is articling with a guy named Peter Blokmanis. I'd never heard of him but found out that he's the former partner of Douglas Christie. I've discussed Christie here;
Where I said;
Maddock also had a closed connection to Christie;Well he is now appealing this decision. They guy just can't quit trying to convince courts he is right. One difference this time. In previous cases he was represented by Doug Christie. For those of you who don't know about Christie he was the lawyer of last resort because he would represent anyone over anything. Holocaust deniers, hate speach prosecutions, human rights criminals, Doug was the go-to guy. Not a particularly good lawyer and lost almost all of his cases but he tried. Wserra comments frequently that everyone deserves a defense (agreed) and Christie was it for a lot of the fringe elements. His clients generally lost badly because they would rather go down in flames than cut a deal and they were an unsavory bunch to put in front of a jury. Anyhow Doug died last month and, while he received a lot of negative press, he served a necessary purpose.
. . . . . . . . . . . .
Hate speach and human-rights enthusiasts used to go nuts over his defense of these types but they were entitled to legal representation and Christie was willing to take on the job, unlike many lawyers who feared sullying their reputations. Not many of his clients had much money and he didn't get rich by representing them. The Law Society of British Columbia noted, when they found him guilty of professional misconduct, that he was only making about $50,000 a year (not a lot in Vancouver-Victoria) and so cut him a deal on penalties.
Maddock is posting on an OPCA-friendly Canadian forum, rallying support for a person facing hate speech criminal charges. And here's how Jeremy is credited:
More posts involving Maddock from this site;Jeremy Maddock was Doug Christie’s former legal assistant. He is currently studying law in Victoria, B.C. This article was first published in the Friends of Freedom Newsletter. Mr. Maddock can be reached at: Jeremy Maddock@hotmail.com
It appears that Jeremy might be trying to inherit Christie's mantle. Sure looks like it...
Jeremy operates three law oriented blogs that have his name on them:
Trademark Cases http://www.trademarkcas ... inactive.
active, surveys jurisprudence considering civil forfeiture across Canada. It's clear Jeremy sees the process as one that is abused/overused.
active, only briefly reviewed.
But he has a fourth where he is not so forward about being an author
This was linked from his other blogs. It's quite fragmentary, but look who he's tracking: Porisky, Klundert. Here are some conclusions:
Uh, that's not what Porisky was doing and the findings of fact on that point are very clear. Other comments by Maddock minimize the illegal character of challenging tax legislation.R. v. Porisky is a case of first instance on the issue of counselling fraud, in circumstances where the “fraud” in question consisted merely of a financial strategy which questions the applicability of the Income Tax Act.
So what else is he up to?
Identifies controversy over Trinity Western University's law school as "untrammeled bigotry against a small religious minority"
http://www.timescolonist.com/opinion/op ... -1.1490982
I actually agree with him on that one.
Here he is as a "paralegal" breaching privacy interests for forfeiture staff identities:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/bri ... e19760738/
And a sack full of this and that:
pointing him to MagneticMessages.ca, a website design outfit but which also advertises Maddock's legal research background.
which provides little data, except that in his friends links we find: Brian Alexander (Freeman), Jodie Emery (owner of Cannabis Culture). I suspect others are counterculture personalities too.
Another bio page, he's editor for "TeleClick.ca"
TeleClick still exists, but is apparently abandoned
also associated with this
Appearing on an internet radio program commenting on civil forfeiture
http://edandethan.com/podcast/ed-ethan- ... gh-b-list/
Commenting a hate website was merely humorous
http://www.michaelgeist.ca/2006/03/cana ... -decision/
In favor of paralegals
http://www.slaw.ca/2012/07/24/expanded- ... ing-to-bc/
Maddock is assisting the operator of the Radical Press (front page)
Charter, s 1 sucks because it infringes on freedom of speech, including hate speech and pornography
http://www.selfgrowth.com/articles/reas ... an-charter
Jeremy is the only lawyer or lawyer-to-be that I'm aware of who is operating on this frontier. Clearly very much an ideologue, and willing to act on it.
So I'm not going waste my time transcribing weeks of notes for a trial that didn't finish. However there was on point of law I thought interesting so I'll review that. It was to do with finding out where Doerksen lived.
Once the CRA concluded that he was a possible income tax evader they needed to do a search of his house. But they didn't know where he lived. The few tax returns he'd filed listed a post-box address and that was all the CRA had. His wife testified that this was deliberate. Not that they wanted to confound the CRA, of course not! But she was in fear of her life from somebody or other so they disappeared so that this person, apparently a parolee they befriended, could not find them. The CRA had somebody hang around the mail drop for a while but he didn't show up. They had evidence he crossed the border to get his Zappers so the CRA asked Border Services to let them know if he showed up. Response was screw you, that's not our job. So CRA asked the RCMP to ask Border Services and this time they said fine, we'll put out a Lookout Notice. What turned out to be important in all of this is that neither the CRA or the RCMP asked that Doerksen's car be detained or searched, they just asked to be notified. However Border Services has a policy that when a Lookout notice goes out a secondary search is automatically done on the car and occupants regardless of the reason for the Lookout. So the next time Doerksen crossed the border back into Canada Customs phoned the RCMP then searched his car and questioned him. The RCMP station was some distance away from the border crossing so they scrambled over and just got there in time to see Doerksen leaving. They followed him home to a residential house in, I think, Abbotsford. Address was given in court but I failed to copy it. With that the CRA conducted a search and found incriminating material.
The defense argued that all of the evidence from the search should be tossed on the basis that it was an illegal search because Doerksen's address had been found as the result of another illegal search because the stop and search at the border was a violation of his Section 9 Charter rights which state.
Defense's argument was that the Doerksen's had their car searched without a legitimate Canada Customs reason. They were just acting on instructions from the RCMP and the CRA.9. Everyone has the right not to be arbitrarily detained or imprisoned.
So our legal eagle argued that the detainment (they had to go into the office to give information) was a Section 9 breach because Border Services had no legitimate reason, within their area of responsibility, to just take him in when they had no hint he was carrying contraband. Judge stopped him at that. She said that Border Services could search anyone for any reason without any suspicion of smuggling. She said that if they wanted they could check every green car or every fifth car without having to justify it.
He agreed but brought up some case. Police were following a car and wanted to stop it but had no reason. They noticed it had a broken tail light, stopped it for that and found drugs. They charged the driver but he got off at trial because judge said that they'd really stopped the car without a valid reason and the light was just cover. Appeals court disagreed and said that the broken light, as trivial as it was, was part of their official duties and allowed them to stop the car. So our law student argued that had Border Services justified the search with even a hint of a legitimate reason that fell within their duties to protect the border the search would have been ok but the entire reason was to aid the CRA which made it an illegal detention because Doerksen was not detained for reasons within Custom's responsibility.
However a Customs officer had testified that it was Border Services policy to search any car flagged with a Lookout Notice regardless of the reason for the notice. This policy was independent of any request in relation to the Lookout Notice. The judge said that our law student had a very creative, well presented argument. I thought he did well too. However the judge decided that since neither the CRA or the RCMP asked that Doerksen be detained or searched the Border Services had not done either to help the CRA. They did it for a Border Services reason, their policy of searching any car on a Lookout notice. Since it was a Border Service policy that caused the search it was done for a legitimate reason within the area of their responsibility and the search was valid.
No doubt that would served as a reason for appeal had Mr. Doerksen lived and been convicted.