The Parasites That Be (TPTB) are getting scared. They don’t know, and they don’t care about The Law in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada.
From: Vancouver Sun (2012-01-19) (http://www.vancouversun.com/business/Opinion+Chilliwack+proponent+natural+person+theory+convicted+counselling+fraud/6019051/story.html)
Chilliwack’s Russell Porisky has been convicted of counselling people to evade taxes through his school, Paradigm Education Group.
B.C. Supreme Court judge Elliott Myers also convicted Porisky and his common-law wife of failing to report a total of $1,127,185 of income derived from the school during the five-year period ending December 2008, thereby evading $225,222 in income tax.
The judge further convicted Porisky of failing to remit $66,133 in goods and services taxes that he should have collected on the sale of Paradigm courses and materials. …
For years, Porisky has been promoting his “natural person” theory, which holds that a per-son can arrange his or her business affairs to receive income as a “natural person” rather than as a taxpayer, thereby avoiding income taxes. …
To promote his natural per-son theory, he wrote books and created instructional DVDs, and Paradigm sold them through its website, www.naturalperson. com. …
“If I make the decision and I go in that box, which person, in the eyes of the law, am I?” he asked the judge.
“Am I Russell Anthony Porisky in my inherent personality as a natural person, or am I a sovereign-granted personality?”
“You’re Mr. Porisky,” the judge replied.
“That’s fairly misleading because that’s not clear enough for me,” Porisky responded. …
I’ve recieved this via an email today.
Media Release – For immediate release
Supreme Court judge errs in complex tax case (January 19, 2012)
VANCOUVER – Russ Porisky, charged with four tax-related offences, has been found guilty on three charges by Judge Elliott Myers in BC Supreme Court yesterday.
Drawing on 10 years of dedicated research on Canadian human rights, Porisky vigorously defended himself and his companion, Elaine Gould in a three-week trial. He is convicted on one count of income tax evasion, one count of failing to remit GST and one count of counseling others to commit an offence. The case, R. v. Porisky & Gould 2012 BCSC 67, charged the two as a partnership, a legal entity that is not a taxpayer under the Income Tax Act, and whose existence was never proven in court.
We are disappointed in the judgment, says Eric Ho, a legal researcher who has studied Poriskys and others material for more than eight years. I do not mean any disrespect, but the ruling once again includes errors and misquotes, just like many previous decisions that challenged the taxing authorities.
Ho further states, I hope that the thousands of supporters across Canada will pursue justice because our legal right to property is at risk. This ruling is just another in a long list of decisions by our courts to suppress our human right, and civic duty, to question the tax regime in Canada.
Some notable errors include, but are not limited to: ignoring Supreme Court of Canada decisions, and failing to explain why Porisky was required to collect GST; yet Porisky has been found guilty for not remitting GST. There are also at least ten misquotes in the written judgment.
Russ findings – that we have a right to private property – should not be controversial because the alternative is that we are all slaves with no private property rights. Those who have truly studied his material, including accountants, tax lawyers, and former CRA auditors find his conclusions reasonable. So why were these same accountants, tax lawyers and former auditors prohibited by the Court from testifying in Poriskys defence? says Ho.
Clearly, this is a highly complex matter that mustnt be judged by the public from media reports. All Canadians, especially tax professionals should examine this case closely. Aside from these professionals, Russ is arguably one of the most knowledgeable Canadians on the Income Tax Act. He has spent over 20,000 hours studying other acts, case law, authorities on how to interpret statutes, and our human rights regarding private property and liberty, says Ho.
Background and facts:
licensed by the Attorney General of BC and taught Professional Development courses for the insurance industry, seminars for the Vancouver Police, and security seminars on television with the RCMP.
Porisky, as Paradigm Education Group, ceased operation in 2009 but the supporters continue to grow. Porisky started as PEG in 2002. His materials included a 200-page Intermediate and 600-page Advance Courses on Canadian human rights. Students across Canada and around the world – many of whom are professionals — began independent studies of the material and participated in active study groups that subjected Poriskys findings to intensive review, often spanning a hundred or more hours per student.
Hundreds, maybe thousands, including accountants, lawyers, engineers and other professionals have studied the material, with many participating in long term study groups. They were prohibited from testifying in Poriskys defence.
Porisky operated as Paradigm without an intent to profit.
The BC Partnership Act defines partnership as the relation which subsists between persons carrying on business in common with a view of profit
The Supreme Court of Canada in 2002 ruled what constitutes a source of income: an activity done with intent to profit.
Mountain Equipment Co-op, a non-profit, generated $261 million in revenue in 2010 and paid only .11% income tax because as a co-op it had no intent to profit.
Foundational to the school materials were verbatim sections of the Income Tax Act, Statistics Act, CPP Act, WCB Act, EI Act.
Private property rights is the exclusive jurisdiction of the provinces as per s.92(13) of the British North America Act of 1867 that formed Canada.
Deem is used over 3800 times in the Income Tax Act, and is defined on the Department of Justices web site as a fact different from what it is in reality
The Excise Tax Act states that there is no need to remit GST if that activity is carried on without a reasonable expectation of profit by a natural person
Eric Ho, email@example.com
Eric Ho Legal Researcher, Canadian Rights Education Group, Skype: knosin