Dr. Warren Fischer's Prickly Fate

[The Observer]

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

Only if the governemnt has the evidence to prove. The US Attorney's office is known for not typically taking cases with gaping holes. In addition to substantiating insolvency, inadequate consideration and the fact the parties involved (relatives, business partners) demonstrate a conflict of interest the transaction itself is one that is not a normal practice of the taxpayer (such as including an expensive personal vehicle in a supposed "going-out-of-business sale."). Another factor is whether the transferor still retails control over andInsolvency as applied to the taxpayer in this instance would mean did the transfer leave the taxpayer unable to pay their tax in full. So, a taxpayer could transfer his home that he had a large equity position in (and that would have satisfied the tax lien), and still have personal assets that have minimal value (clothing, cheap furniture); this would leave the taxpayer unable to pay the tax and thus insolvent for purposes of satisfying the tax liability.

[Backo]

Burnaby, thanks for the lower court decision. I don’t know my way around Canadian case law at all.

I agree that the TCC decision is inadequate. It is not surprising that the taxpayer failed to cross appeal an issue decided against it where there is no explicit reference to that decision in the judgment. I think it is implied that the TCC accepted that the parties were not dealing at arm’s length based on the intention to defeat creditors and the lack of exchange of market value consideration but there is probably not much further we could discuss the matter based on those reported decisions.

Just to give you an idea of where I was coming from, in the Australian case Collis v Federal Commissioner of Taxation 96 ATC 4831, the taxpayer sold two of parcels of land at an auction to an unrelated buyer. After the auction the buyer was presented with a contract for each parcel totalling the value of his bid. The apportionment of the purchase prices between the lots were structured to minimise capital gains tax to the seller but made no difference to the purchaser. The purchaser paid the market value for the all of the lots overall but the apportionments had the effect of minimising the seller’s tax liability. This was held not to be dealing at arm’s length. The court cited earlier decisions (citations omitted) including:

What is required … is an assessment whether … they dealt with each other as arm’s length parties would normally do, so that the outcome of their dealing is a matter of real bargaining . Here there was no bargaining, real or otherwise, as to the sale price for that particular parcel of land

That is not to say, however, that parties at arm’s length will be dealing with each other at arm’s length … when they collude to achieve a particular result, or in which one of the parties submits the exercise of its will to the dictation of the other, perhaps to promote the interests of the other

My suggestion is that the second quote would seem apposite to Mr Fishcher’s dealings with the SSG in that either collusion or submission of will has occurred to promote the interests of the other party. However, I bow to your opinion of the Canadian law on this point.

@ The Observer, I agree that it is relatively easy to prove insolvency when the last asset is transferred but most people know they are in trouble well in advance and if they have any assets they strip them away months, or even years, in advance. Proving insolvency at those earlier points in time is difficult. It seems a difficult test to satisfy. I note the other recovery provisions you refer to appear much simpler.

[Famspear]

I'm not sure exactly of the context in which the solvency issue is being presented here, but in general, at least in Texas, proving insolvency is not necessarily required in every case in order to prove that a transfer was fraudulent.

Sec. 24.005. TRANSFERS FRAUDULENT AS TO PRESENT AND FUTURE CREDITORS. (a) A transfer made or obligation incurred by a debtor is fraudulent as to a creditor, whether the creditor's claim arose before or within a reasonable time after the transfer was made or the obligation was incurred, if the debtor made the transfer or incurred the obligation:

(1) with actual intent to hinder, delay, or defraud any creditor of the debtor; or

(2) without receiving a reasonably equivalent value in exchange for the transfer or obligation, and the debtor:

(A) was engaged or was about to engage in a business or a transaction for which the remaining assets of the debtor were unreasonably small in relation to the business or transaction; or

(B) intended to incur, or believed or reasonably should have believed that the debtor would incur, debts beyond the debtor's ability to pay as they became due.

--from section 24.005, Texas Business & Commerce Code.

The debtor does not have to be "insolvent" (in the sense of liabilities exceeding assets) in order for the remaining assets to be "unreasonably small" in relation to the business or transaction.

Further, the assets don't even need to be "unreasonably small" -- if the creditor can persuade the trier of fact that there was "actual intent to hinder, delay, or defraud any creditor of the debtor."

[Burnaby49]

The situation that Backo describes, with the government reallocating value between properties, is covered by Section 68 of the Canadian Income Tax Act:

Allocation of amounts in consideration for disposition of property

68. Where an amount received or receivable from a person can reasonably be regarded as being in part the consideration for the disposition of a particular property of a taxpayer or as being in part consideration for the provision of particular services by a taxpayer,

(a) the part of the amount that can reasonably be regarded as being the consideration for the disposition shall be deemed to be proceeds of disposition of the particular property irrespective of the form or legal effect of the contract or agreement, and the person to whom the property was disposed of shall be deemed to have acquired it for an amount equal to that part; and

(b) the part of the amount that can reasonably be regarded as being consideration for the provision of particular services shall be deemed to be an amount received or receivable by the taxpayer in respect of those services irrespective of the form or legal effect of the contract or agreement, and that part shall be deemed to be an amount paid or payable to the taxpayer by the person to whom the services were rendered in respect of those services.
NOTE: Application provisions are not included in the consolidated text; see relevant amending Acts. 1970-71-72, c. 63, s. 1 "68"; 1988, c. 55, s. 47.

Section 68 does not require the parties be non-arm's length, just that the CRA's amounts "can reasonably be regarded as being in part the consideration for the disposition of a particular property". What this convoluted section means when interpreted is that the government can reallocate values between properties which were sold arm's length. However if the reallocation reassessment is appealed the government has to show that the reallocation is reasonable in court.

Where this section is generally used is in the arm's length sale of real estate where the CRA feels that the allocation between land and buildings is incorrect. Buyers have a bias towards high building values because it can be depreciated against income but the land value is not depreciable. If a seller is indifferent to the allocation then a buyer can pick pretty much any allocation he wants.

A good, recent example of the use of this section is shown in the Transalta case which involved goodwill rather than real estate:

Transalta Corporation v. The Queen 2010 TCC 375

Transalta Corporation v. The Queen 2012 FCA 20

This was the sale of an electrical distribution utility, a government regulated business. The appeal was in respect to the allocation of the arm’s length purchase price in a sale of Transalta Energy Corporation’s assets and business. The purchase and sale agreement had allocated approximately $600,000,000 to net tangible assets and $190,000,000 to goodwill. The CRA allocated the entire proceeds to the tangible assets on the basis that no goodwill exists in a regulated industry. At Tax Court Transalta argued that the allocation was the result of arm’s length hard bargaining. Both side had professional valuators supporting their positions. The Tax Court largely agreed with the Appellant’s position and allowed a goodwill amount of $140,000,000. Both parties appealed this to the Federal Court of Appeal which reversed the Tax Court decision and allowed the entire $190,000,000 as goodwill.

[Hilfskreuzer Möwe]

Media reports indicate that Warren Fischer was sentenced on Oct. 22, 2013:

• http://www.theprovince.com/news/Nelson+ ... story.html
  
  http://www.nelsonstar.com/news/228840261.html

He received a six-month jail sentence and was fined $46,678: 75% of the tax he had evaded.

The Crown had sought a 1 year prison sentence and 100% fine, while Fischer’s lawyer (yeah, he finally got one) suggested a house arrest sentence and the minimum fine, 50%.

In the oral reasons Judge Mrozinski refused to order a conditional (house arrest) sentence because Fischer had failed to comply with prior court orders and had disrupted court processes. He also had continued to practice Chinese medicine after being stripped of his professional certification.

Mrozinski’s response to Fischer’s pleas for mercy during sentencing was “too little, too late.”

Fischer apparently had found jail unpleasant:

During sentencing he said that as a slim, intellectual gay man he was bullied by fellow inmates in jail. He was refused access to the Chinese herbs he takes for medical reasons. He had difficulty sleeping and became ill.

I’m not terribly sympathetic.

No written decision has been released to date – at least as far as I can tell. The media reports match up with the information on Fischer’s action on the British Columbia Courts Online website.

Absolutely nothing I can find from the Irene Gravenhorst and the Sovereign Squamish Nation.

SMS Möwe

[Hilfskreuzer Möwe]

Some people figure it out. They make a mistake, clue in, and move on in their lives.

Some people don't. Fellow Quatloosians, I offer an example of the latter:

• College of Traditional Chinese Medicine Practitioners and Acupuncturists of British Columbia v. Fischer, 2014 BCSC 985 (http://canlii.ca/t/g73cb)

It's short, so I'll reproduce the entire decision:

[1] THE COURT: This is an application by the College of Traditional Chinese Medicine Practitioners and Acupuncturists of British Columbia for an injunction. In particular the injunction that is sought is to restrain the respondent, who I will refer to as Mr. Fischer, from these things, and I will read from the written argument:

• (a) holding himself out to the public as a person who is qualified or registered to practice traditional Chinese medicine and/or acupuncture in British Columbia;
  
  (b) using by or in any medium the word "acupuncture" or "acupuncturist" or the phrase "traditional Chinese medicine," or any abbreviation or variation of them in any title or description of services offered or provided by him in British Columbia; and
  
  (c) providing or offering to provide traditional Chinese and/or acupuncture services to the public in British Columbia.

[2] This matter proceeded before me in Chambers in Vancouver.

[3] At the commencement of the hearing Ms. Lovett was here as counsel for the Petitioner, and there was a man present. He was difficult for me to understand. He said, "I own the name Warren Joseph Darnell Fischer," but he talked about standing on land claimed by the Squamish Nation and asked “who was the injured party”? There was a woman with him who Ms. Lovett understands may be someone who calls herself Kiapilano, and she handed up various documents, which are nonsense as far as I can tell, and this woman tried to take over the proceedings and say that they were dismissed because no one was harmed. I understand that her position was this court does not have any jurisdiction.

[4] After some discussion Mr. Fischer left the room with the woman. There were some people in the gallery who left as well, and there was one person in the gallery who remained until Ms. Lovett's submissions had proceeded for about 10 minutes. So, although there was this appearance at the beginning, Mr. Fischer did not stay throughout the hearing.

[5] I will just briefly set out that there is a requirement that people be registered if they are going to hold themselves out as either acupuncturists or as practitioners of traditional Chinese medicine. I will just simply cite sections from the Health Professions Act; that is ss. 12.1 and 13, and s. 51(4) of that Act. Essentially those say that only people who are registered with the appropriate regulatory body can use the titles. They also say that it is sufficient to prove that the accused has done or committed a single act of unauthorized practice, or has committed on one occasion any of the prohibited acts.

[6] In this case the College was created, as I understand it, by a Regulation, the Traditional Chinese Medicine Practitioners and Acupuncturists Regulation, B.C. Regulation 290, (2008). That Regulation defines “acupuncture”, “acupuncturist”, “doctor of traditional Chinese medicine”, “traditional Chinese medicine” and “traditional Chinese medicine practitioner”, and it also restricts the activities of traditional Chinese medicine and acupuncture to registrants of the College.

[7] In this case Mr. Fischer was for many years a registrant of the College. He was a registrant from November 1999 until March 31, 2013.

[8] After March 31, 2013, Mr. Fischer had some discussions with the registrar of the College in which he said that he was not going to continue his registration because he wanted to take a stand with regard to government. He told the registrar that his issue was with the Canadian government using tax money for war and weapons, and that he had removed all connections with government and had refused to pay taxes.

[9] In fact, Mr. Fischer has been convicted of three counts of making, assenting, or acquiescing in the making of a false statement in his tax returns for the years 2007 through 2009. He was convicted on June 25, 2013. Mr. Fischer was sentenced to six months in custody and fined almost $47,000 on October 22, 2013.

[10] I will not read much from the reasons for sentence of Judge Mrozinski, but I will read paragraphs 33 through 35:

[33] In addition ... for the first time ... during the sentencing hearing, you acknowledged your name when you gave evidence. By this, I am meant, I suppose, to draw the conclusion that your illegal tax protest days are behind you, and that having read the decisions of Justice Rooke in Meads v. Meads, [2012] ABQB 571, you have experienced a sort of conversion.

[34] I am sceptical of this, Mr. Fischer, for a few reasons. First, I have a very difficult time believing that you did not understand the full import of what you were doing prior to being charged. I think you did.

[35] I have even more difficulty believing, particularly given the emphasis in the sentencing on your education and your facility with language ... that you at the same time were so ignorant of the Canadian court system that you felt justified in not attending for trial and conducting yourself as you had done in your various appearances.

[11] The College sent an investigator to seek treatment from Mr. Fischer. I do not need to go through this in much detail for the purposes of these reasons, but the individual investigator, Ms. Harrison, went to Mr. Fischer’s clinic. She requested services. Mr. Fischer inserted needles in various places on her body and attached an electronic machine at one point causing a pulsating feeling. Mr. Fischer also said he would be giving her an herbal remedy to help her sleep. I am satisfied that those acts fall within the definition in the legislation about providing “acupuncture” and prescribing “Chinese medicine”, and so those are acts that can only be performed by someone who is a registrant with the College.

[12] The investigator asked Mr. Fischer about the Squamish Nation at the time of the investigation, and I think that is in part because of the documentation that the investigator was asked to sign. Mr. Fischer said that the “sovereign Squamish nation” was separate from the Canadian government. He said he was not of aboriginal ancestry but that anyone of like mind could join. He told the investigator that the “sovereign Squamish nation” did not support the Canadian government because the government's taxes funded war, and that this alleged “sovereign Squamish nation” would soon be establishing its own banking system and its own currency.

[13] It is not necessary for me to describe in much detail the documentation which has been provided by or on behalf of Mr. Fischer. I would simply describe it as, from a legal perspective, nonsense. It is the kind of documentation described by Justice Rooke in the Meads case. For example, the documentation includes unusual features which are flamboyant, such as multi-coloured text and elaborate ornamentation. It has names with strange punctuation and using copyright and trademark indications. Mr. Fischer's apparent thumbprint in red ink appears at some places. There is reference to lower case "i, man" and “common law” and being an “ambassador” of some group. All of these things unfortunately are characteristic of people who are taking the position that these courts have no jurisdiction, but they are relying on what appears to be utter nonsense.

[14] Mr. Fischer does not appear to have any defence to this claim of the College. I am satisfied that he has continued to practice Chinese medicine and acupuncture, based not only on his admission to the registrar that he apparently was going to carry on without being registered, but most importantly, on the evidence of the investigator about her receiving acupuncture treatment and a prescription for Chinese medicine from Mr. Fischer.

[15] The petitioner is entitled to the injunction sought.

[16] Is there anything else, Ms. Lovett?

[17] MS. LOVETT: There had been declaratory relief sought as well in paragraph 2.

[18] THE COURT: Oh, I am sorry.

[19] MS. LOVETT: Paragraph 3, sorry.

[20] THE COURT: It is in the petition. All right. I am sorry, I was just looking at the written argument. Yes, you are also entitled to the declaration in the petition at paragraphs 2(a) and (b).

[21] MS. LOVETT: Thank you.

[22] THE COURT: So, the order consists of the permanent injunction as set out in the Petition at order sought, Number 1, and the declarations in Item 2(a) and (b).

Nice going Warren! You have failed the Turing Test.

SMS Möwe

[Burnaby49]

I see another Eva Sydel in the making here. Apparently Fischer feels that it was not sufficient to end up in jail from tax evasion but he is now, gratuitously, destroying his career. I can understand the tax evasion. This is a standard everyday crime done for financial gain. A risky, but rational decision, even Richard Branson was convicted of evading British taxes when he was a struggling record retailer and we all remember Leona Helmsley. Fischer's method for avoiding taxes was moronic but the underlying crime was rational. No more than another generic Poriskyite who thought he'd found a loophole. But this new adventure is just pointless self-destruction.

The woman who showed up as his advocate, called Kiapilano at the hearing, is Irene Gravenhorst, about the worst possible mentor he could have chosen and the one that goaded him on to his tax evasion conviction. If he's fallen under her toxic spell he's doomed.



viewtopic.php?f=50&t=9396&start=20

http://www.slate.com/articles/business/ ... naire.html

[Hilfskreuzer Möwe]

Hmm.

At para. 10 Justice Gray reads three paragraphs from the sentencing decision of Judge Mrozinski in Fischer's income tax matter. That seems to indicate there was a written decision prepared but I can't seem to find the source judgment which was quoted anywhere.

Any suggestions Burnaby49? I wonder if I'm missing something obvious. Would that show up in your tax case reporting service?

SMS Möwe

[Burnaby49]

Hmm.

At para. 10 Justice Gray reads three paragraphs from the sentencing decision of Judge Mrozinski in Fischer's income tax matter. That seems to indicate there was a written decision prepared but I can't seem to find the source judgment which was quoted anywhere.

Any suggestions Burnaby49? I wonder if I'm missing something obvious. Would that show up in your tax case reporting service?

SMS Möwe

No help there. I subscribe to Knotia, a service run by Ernst & Young. Knotia is current, not historic, and only retains case references for three months. I've checked the past three months and it is not there. Knotia supposedly posts all tax cases on a daily basis, including provincial court decisions on criminal cases. I check it daily and had the Fischer sentencing decision been posted I would have seen it.

After reading paragraph 10 I also checked to see if a published sentencing decision had come out. Nothing on Canlii apart from the original conviction and your recent case with the
College of Traditional Chinese Medicine Practitioners and Acupuncturists of British Columbia.

http://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcpc/doc/20 ... ZXIAAAAAAQ

http://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/20 ... ZXIAAAAAAQ

The only decision I could find on the British Columbia Provincial court website was the original conviction which just links to Canlii;

http://www.provincialcourt.bc.ca/judgme ... n/bc/bcpc/

So beats me too. All I can assume is that there was a written but unreleased sentencing decision which the Supreme Court of British Columbia was able to access.

[Fmotlgroupie]

I think you two have a lot more familiar with the inside of a courtroom than I am, but my understanding is that a large majority of written decisions aren't "reported" or published. Certainly I've seen a number of written decisions either delivered from the bench or in hard copy, and none of them were reported. Still available if, say, the governing body of a surprisingly official profession went digging through the court files though.

[Hilfskreuzer Möwe]

... my understanding is that a large majority of written decisions aren't "reported" or published. Certainly I've seen a number of written decisions either delivered from the bench or in hard copy, and none of them were reported. Still available if, say, the governing body of a surprisingly official profession went digging through the court files though.

There's a "yes" and and a "no" to that question. In the days of yore (ie 10-15 years ago) the only entities that "reported" judgments were commercial reporter services, things like the Dominion Law Reports, or Alberta Law Reports or the Canadian Tax Reporter. These were businesses that chose, via their own arcane rules, whether they thought a judgment was important enough to be published via their service.

These privately published judgments are given a unique identifier by their commercial reporter. For that most despicable of all judgments, Dunsmuir v. New Brunswick, some of its citations include 291 D.L.R. (4th) 577 and 69 Admin. L.R. (4th) 1. That's Dominion Law Reporters, 4th series, volume 291, page 577, and Administrative Law Reports, 4th series, volume 69, page 1. Those 'citation' identifiers were assigned by those two private commercial law reporters - not the courts.

Most of the time a judgment which was "reported" was a written decision - the judge had prepared a written document that was then added to the court file. Other times the commercial reporter would think an oral decision - one only spoken by the judge in court - was important enough to be reproduced in the commercial reporters. But typically a case found in a commercial reporter was one of those written ones that was an actual document in the court file.

Sometimes the only way to get an unreported but written judgment was to pop open the appropriate court file and see if there was a written decision lurking in there. But - some courts began to make their own indexes of their written judgments, which may or may not ultimately be commercially reported.

There was some kind of random exploration as to how to index these things, but now all Canadian courts (maybe there are still some Ontario hold-outs?) assign every written and filed judgment a neutral citation - those are the identifiers like "2012 ABQB 571", which means "year 2012, case # 571 issued by the Alberta Court of Queen's Bench.

In the bad old days it was possible that a written judgment would be prepared, assigned a neutral citation number, then signed and filed - but it would never make it into an easy to access public resource. The public depended on those commercial reporters to do the publishing. No more - now all written judgments are assigned a neutral citation and made available to the commercial reporters, but all are indexed on CanLII. In theory - every written judgment from a court should now be indexed there.

There are still gaps and exceptions, but not too many.

If you go into the 1990's and early 2000's in some Canadian courts you will find their written decisions were not broadly distributed. In those instances there still may be an archive of some kind, perhaps in local law libraries, where written but unreported decisions are available - if you know what you are looking for. Over time many courts have been going 'back through the files', excavating those old but unreported decisions and putting them up on CanLII with neutral citations. It's a great thing, and the courts and funding agencies (usually law societies I think) deserve a huge thank-you for doing that.

Oral decisions are often effectively lost. There's a window in which recordings of hearings are saved - but if no one orders a transcript of a proceeding during that time then there's a good chance that decision is lost forever. The usual way an oral decision gets recorded is because someone appeals the result, and to do so you have to order a transcript of the oral judgment. That, however, does not move oral judgments into the 'publicly accessible domain', rather they then sit in court files. Sometimes a commercial reporter service will be interested in an appeal and then go back, recover, and publish the lower court proceeding, but not always.

The other secret stash of oral judgments is one accumulated by the Crown Prosecutors, as in most jurisdictions their offices have a policy to order transcripts of potentially useful oral judgments for future use. It's a kind of secret reserve of law that they possess, and which offers some neat tactical advantages.

I bet the CRA does the same thing - Burnaby49?

SMS Möwe

[Burnaby49]

The other secret stash of oral judgments is one accumulated by the Crown Prosecutors, as in most jurisdictions their offices have a policy to order transcripts of potentially useful oral judgments for future use. It's a kind of secret reserve of law that they possess, and which offers some neat tactical advantages.

I bet the CRA does the same thing - Burnaby49?

Actually this filling-in-the-gaps method is (apart from an exception discussed below) unnecessary for tax cases because all Tax Court of Canada and Federal Court of Canada judgments are reported and, as far as I'm aware, always have been. Even oral decisions are transcribed and released. I'm so used to this 100% coverage that I was surprised to find that this is not the case with provincial courts. These judgments are available from Canlii and from the court's respective websites however these on-line postings don't go much earlier than about the year 2000.

Take the Tax Court as an example of case availability. It started posting judgments on-line in 1996 with a grand total of 2 cases. In 1997 this increased to 138 judgments. It hit its stride in 1998 with a total of 592 and peaked at 732 posted decisions in 2003. However 2013 had only 338 reflecting, overall, the much greater complexity of many cases and, probably, the reluctance of many taxpayers with small issues to face the expense and uncertainty of court.

This of course leaves Tax Court decisions rendered prior to about 2000 not readily available on-line. This was covered by a long existing publication called Dominion Tax Cases which produced an annual volume of all tax cases from, I think, 1920 up to current. As the website says;

Dominion Tax Cases (Current) provides you with the full text of all current-year tax cases along with a complete index to all cases. It covers income tax decisions released by the Tax Court of Canada as well as judgments from the Federal and Supreme Courts of Canada and the higher courts of the provinces on questions of federal income taxation.

http://www.cch.ca/product.aspx?webid=100146

Back in the pre-internet days the Canada Revenue Agency purchased large numbers of these annual publications for staff reference. My work group had a full set going back to 1920 except for, if I remember correctly, 1953. Somebody must have swiped it.

The same applies to the Federal Court and Federal Court of Appeal although income tax is only a trivial portion of these court's workload. The Federal Court started posting on-line in 1991 but didn't start posting significant numbers until 1997 with 1,314 judgments posted (1996 had only 144).

The weak link in full coverage of all cases is the problem we are facing in this discussion, the provincial courts. The Fisher sentencing decision is one of a number of tax-related decision from provincial courts that I'm aware of which have not come out in a published decision. The Department of Justice, which handles federal litigation, might collect and reference these but, if so, I'm not aware of it. Keep in mind these will all be criminal cases and there aren't to many of these so it may not be considered a significant issue.

The CRA has a publically available listing of criminal decision here;

http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/convictions/

which actually includes the case of one of our own auditors convicted of corruption and tax fraud;

An investigation revealed that Mr. Granger, while employed as an audit team leader by the CRA, attempted to influence the outcome of CRA audits for various land development and construction companies. Granger received, through corporations he controlled, a total of $1,109,518 in secret commissions. Furthermore, Granger failed to report on his personal and corporate tax returns, the secret commissions received, thereby defrauding the Government of Canada of $630,546 in unpaid income tax and GST/HST.

http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/nwsrm/cnvctns/ ... 0-eng.html

But even this list is not entirely comprehensive. As an example take our own contributor Carl Gustafson (aka Fussygus). Carl pleaded guilty to tax evasion in a Porisky scheme and was sentenced in October 2013;

viewtopic.php?f=50&t=9631

However this did not come out as a reported decision nor was it referenced on the CRA conviction site. I've been periodically checking for a decision on his two co-accused, Allan Curle and Bruce Johnson, but not yet found one. It might well be out but unreleased.

[Burnaby49]

When we last discussed Warren Fisher he'd been convicted of income tax evasion (yet another Poriskyite) and sentenced to six months in jail and a fine. He'd also been issued an injunction from the Supreme Court of British Columbia prohibiting him from practicing traditional Chinese medicine and acupuncture until such time as he re-certified with the College of Traditional Chinese Medicine Practitioners and Acupuncturists of British Columbia.

So what has he been up to since these events in 2013 and 2014? He went back to practicing Chinese medicine without bothering to re-certify with College of Traditional Chinese Medicine Practitioners and Acupuncturists of British Columbia in defiance of the injunction and, according to the Canada Revenue Agency, started evading his taxes again. So, In June 2107 he was charged with five new counts of income tax evasion and, on April 18th, 2017, he was convicted of contempt of court for wilfully breaching the court injunction and sentenced to sixty days in jail.

http://www.mynelsonnow.com/26539/ex-acu ... x-evasion/

This is the decision in respect to the contempt conviction;

College of Traditional Chinese Medicine Practitioners and Acupuncturists of British Columbia v Fischer
2017 BCSC 1045
http://canlii.ca/t/h4fnq

He's still under the thrall of the Sovereign Squamish Nation, a fake Indian band.

[47] The ensuing interaction with Mr. Fischer was video recorded. That interaction is also captured in the affidavit materials of the College. During that interaction Mr. Fischer said that he was not in British Columbia and that he had insurance for his traditional Chinese medicine/acupuncture practice through the Sovereign Squamish Government. He said that he was an ambassador and that all of the property in the office belonged to the Squamish Sovereign Nation. Mr. Fischer also said that he was a "private and special man". When Mr. Fischer was reminded of the Order which prohibited him from practising traditional Chinese medicine/acupuncture, he said he had no idea what he was being told.

[55] Mr. Fischer does not argue, as I have said, that he did not provide traditional Chinese medicine or acupuncture services after the date of the Order. Instead he relies on trust principles and/or equity, as well as on the proposition that he practices Chinese medicine and acupuncture under the jurisdiction of the Sovereign Squamish Government and that the Court has no jurisdiction over him.

He seems to have sent the judge unilateral contracts which the judge had agreed to by not responding;

[26] Mr. Fischer has also sent both written materials and emails to my attention at the courthouse. These communications are very much in the same vein as Mr. Fischer's other written submissions. In particular these communications stated that unless I provided written proof by a given date to “disprove” some 31 different statements or propositions that were advanced by Mr. Fischer, those propositions would be taken to have been "agreed, confessed and accepted".

. . . . . .

[56] The trust and equity authorities that Mr. Fischer relies on simply have no relevance. Similarly the assertion that the court lacks jurisdiction to enforce the Order and the Act is without merit. Mr. Fischer advanced these submissions without any authority. He relied on two documents, which I have had marked as exhibits, which I reviewed and which I am satisfied have no relevance. Mr. Fischer also appeared to rely on the fact that I had not refuted the propositions he advanced. An aspect of this, I believe, is found in my failure to respond to the communications that he had earlier sent to my attention through the Registry.

But let it not be said that the Sovereign Squamish Nation abandoned him without fighting on his behalf;

[25] On January 20, 2017, the parties scheduled a telephone conference with the court. On this occasion a woman, whose name I could not understand, purported to speak on behalf of Mr. Fischer. She did so without the court's consent and she was unwilling to stop speaking when I asked her to do so. Out of necessity the conference was brought to an end, and today's hearing was scheduled.

[27] At today's hearing Mr. Fischer appeared with two other individuals who said they represented the Sovereign Squamish Government. One was the young woman who had participated in the conference call on January 20th. I asked both individuals to return to the gallery. They did so after a brief adjournment during which time the sheriffs were involved. At one point during Mr. Fischer's submissions this same young woman interrupted from the gallery and would not stop speaking when she was asked to do so. The proceedings were adjourned again so the sheriffs could remove her from the courtroom.

Leading to;

[57] The central issue before me is whether the contempt I am dealing with is civil or criminal in nature. In this case I consider that Mr. Fischer's defiance was deliberate and that it was expressly intended to bring into question the authority of the court. This is apparent in multiple ways. It is apparent from the fact that Mr. Fischer originally left Justice Gray's courtroom while the proceeding was ongoing, though I recognize this predates the making of the Order. It is also apparent from the fact that Mr. Fischer told the individuals who executed the search of the Premises in July 2015 that he had sent Justice Gray a letter following the hearing before her questioning the validity of the Order.

[58] Still further, since the making of the Order, and in the context of the present proceeding it is clear that Mr. Fischer has actively worked with others to insulate himself from the jurisdiction of the College and more importantly, for present purposes, from the Order itself. He has, with the assistance of others, created documents, business cards and other materials, all of which are directed to subverting or challenging the Order and to advance the assertion that the Court has no jurisdiction over him.

[59] Further, it is to be recalled that before the Order was ever issued Mr. Fischer, or someone on his behalf, had written to the College indicating that the College had no jurisdiction over him and purporting to provide him with written authority from the Sovereign Squamish Government to practice traditional Chinese medicine and acupuncture. Thus Mr. Fischer has clung to this thesis before the Order was made, at the hearing before Madam Justice Gray, after the Order was issued and now before me. That thesis is in open defiance of the Order and the jurisdiction of the Court.

[60] Furthermore there is some authority that indicates that the breach of an injunction granted under s. 52 of the Act constitutes a criminal rather than a civil contempt. In College of Midwives v. Lemay, 2002 BCSC 6 (CanLII), aff’d 2003 BCCA 583 (CanLII), Blair J. said:

[34] The B.C. government in 1995 designated midwifery as a health profession under the Health Professions Act, thereby moving to make midwifery and its practitioners accountable to the public through the formation of the College of Midwives which became the regulatory and licensing body for midwives practising within the province. In creating the College, the legislature placed the practice of midwifery in a more public position that it had previously occupied, recognizing the potential impact to the public, particularly mothers and babies, from the activities of midwives. Breaches of such legislation therefore become public in nature and for this reason I conclude that Ms. Lemay's actions constitute a criminal rather than a civil contempt.

[61] Finally, there is nothing in Mr. Fischer's submissions, or in his demeanor, which suggests that he is apologetic or prepared to abide by the terms of the Order. Instead it is patent that he has no respect for the Order and, if permitted to, would continue to act as he has. If such circumstances I consider that the breach of the Order transcends the interest of the party to these proceedings. It is a breach that subverts the role of the Court. Furthermore Mr. Fischer's overt and ongoing defiance diminishes public respect for the court system.

[62] Because this is a case of criminal contempt, the College must prove that Mr. Fischer defied or disobeyed a court order in a public way, that is the actus reus of the offence. The College must also establish that he intended or was reckless that his disobedience would undermine the authority of the court. This is the mens rea of the offence; see United Nurses at para. 55. For the reasons that I have described I am satisfied, beyond a reasonable doubt, that both of these requirements have been made out; see also Kamloops (City of) v. Northland Properties Ltd., 2000 BCSC 155 (CanLII), at para. 23, for a more detailed explanation of what constitutes public defiance or public injury.

As self destructive a path as I've yet seen. As Hilfskreuzer Möwe said in the first posting on this topic;

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

So, apparently, after crashing and burning, Warren picked himself up, dusted himself off, got back in the game and is just about to tip over into yet another flaming death-spiral. If the CRA proves he's evaded tax yet again he won't be looking at six months this time around.

[Chaos]

Sovereign Squamish Nation, a fake Indian band

isn't that where the chief rock paper scissors is from?

[Burnaby49]

Sovereign Squamish Nation, a fake Indian band

isn't that where the chief rock paper scissors is from?

No, Chief Rock Sino General has nothing to do with Squamish Nation. He's a Mohawk from Ontario and a member of a legitimate band.

However he does have one thing in common with Fisher. He was also found guilty of contempt of court. in his case for ignoring a court order to stop pretending he was a notary. He was given a conditional sentence and told if he did it again he'd be tossed in jail. Unlike Fischer he smartened up and, as far as I know, has had nothing to do with sovereign issues since. He seems to be doing his best to make ago of a careet in music.