A Chilliwack businessman who advised students that payment of tax is tantamount to slavery, but is also voluntary, was convicted last week on a slew of tax evasion charges.

B.C. Supreme Court Justice Elliott Myers found Russell Porisky and his common-law wife Elaine Gould guilty of failing to pay taxes on $1,127,185 of income the couple earned from operating Paradigm Education Group, a company that urged students to operate as "natural persons." Porisky was also convicted of not remitting $66,133 of GST, and of counselling his students to commit fraud.

Porisky and Gould represented themselves at trial, but Myers found their natural person argument lacked "logic, coherence and consistency."

In his judgment, Myers stated: "The law has long recognised the distinction between a natural person and an artificial person, such as a corporation . . . However, Mr. Porisky twists that into something that the law does not recognise."

Myers surveyed Porisky's teaching material. Students were told: paying tax is voluntary; the tax system is an illusion; the underground economy is not illegal; payment of tax is a form of slavery; the tax system contravenes the "Bill of Rights"; and that it was unlikely that anyone following the Paradigm system would be prosecuted, much less convicted, of tax evasion.

During the trial, as he prepared to testify from the witness stand, Porisky asked Myers: "which person, in the eyes of the law am I?"

Myers replied: "You are Mr. Porisky." Porisky: " "Am I Russell Anthony Porisky in my inherent personality as a natural person, or am I a sovereign-granted personality."

Myers: "You're Russell Porisky." Porisky: "That's fairly misleading because that's not clear enough for me."

Myers then asked Porisky: "Let's assume you get into the stand . . . and the Crown asks you, 'What did you have for breakfast today?' Would it make a difference as to what capacity you were in?"

To which Porisky replied: "For me it would, Your Honour, yes."

In his decision, Myers dismissed all Porisky's arguments.

He began: "When I express my opinion of Mr. Porisky's argument and the Paradigm view . . . I do not mean any disrespect to him."

But he quickly demolishes the natural person argument.

"Mr. Porisky's theory not only does not bear any legal logic but it also fails to accord with common sense.

"It is a failed attempt at word magic and has no validity."

Later, he notes: "Mr. Porisky's analysis picks and chooses snippets from various statutes and cases, and attempts to create logical links where none exist. It is, in effect, legal numerology."

Myers will decide on a sentence for Porisky and Gould at a later date.

tolsen@chilliwacktimes.com