Michael Millar - Detaxer & Poriskyite's tax evasion trial

[wserra]

The change was astounding.

Isn't it? One hundred people may tell you that it will be, but you're still amazed when you see it for yourself.

[rogfulton]

Isn't it? One hundred people may tell you that it will be, but you're still amazed when you see it for yourself.

I actually cried tears of joy after my first eye was done.

[NYGman]

But do you now see UV light. Apparently 3% of people who have this extend their ability to see further into the color spectrum. I now see black light as a purple light, illuminating the area, and not just acting to make whites glow. I noticed my bug zapper bulb was lighting the inside of the trap, where as the other eye, it is a dark purple light with no visible light. If I have a blacklight flashlight it would illuminate the room. It is really cool except my perception of purple is not not the same. I like the old deeper purple better, but having UV vision is sort of superpower realm.

In doing research about this phenomena I learned that during world war II that use people like me who can see UV as a way to send and receive messages. somebody could flash a UV light which would only be perceived by the people who could perceive UV light and they could record the message and decode it.

I am now thinking about getting some high power blacklights for the front of my car, so I can turn of the lights and still see, when others can't. Highly illegal, but would be interesting. Perhaps just add high power UV lights to boost headlight performance. Makes me wonder....

Good link on this http://www.komar.org/faq/colorado-catar ... olor-glow/

[Burnaby49]

The change was astounding.

Isn't it? One hundred people may tell you that it will be, but you're still amazed when you see it for yourself.

Intellectually I knew the possible improvements but you don't know how bad your eyes are until one gets fixed and you can compare it to the other. Best I can compare it to is wearing a pair of yellow-brown sunglasses all the time, inside the house and out, then taking them off. Maybe I'll even have some semblance of night vision again.

[eric]

Roughly speaking your night vision will improve - you have removed some of the yellow end so your dark accommodated vision which is best in the blue end will be better. That being said, your replacement artificial lens may substitute some glare from oncoming headlights. In Alberta, the cheapest lens, which are all covered under our evil communist universal health care plan, are actually the best for night driving. Along with the colour difference, that was one of the first things I noticed after I had cataract surgery, along with multiple other things I've had done to my eyes. (Doctor to Eric: You have these issues - Eric to Doctor: Let's schedule them - Doctor to Eric: Sir do you not understand blindness, your surgery is NOW).
Do not get me going on enhanced vision in the blue end, perceived brightness, or visual acuity under enhanced UV, I would just bore everyone to death - colour measurement was my job for years.

[Burnaby49]

Given that my night vision was always poor and dropped down to abysmal with the cataracts it's not a high bar to improving.

A bit of Michael Millar news since we're on his thread. There was a move to free low-risk prisoners because of Covid 19 in the prison system. Pissed me off because if he qualified he'd hardly have done any jail time at all after all those years of court time and delay. So, indirectly, his sentence would have been stayed for delay. However the virus danger in the jails has passed and as far as I know he's still serving his time. We'd left him a few weeks away from his sentencing appeal hearing on March 19th. That was of course cancelled and, as yet, has not been re-scheduled. No rush, it's as hopeless as his trial defence and conviction appeal.

[Burnaby49]

Today's a big day for Michael, he's out of jail! After serving just under six months (less than a quarter of his sentence) he's on day parole starting this morning and living in a half-way house. Even with our very liberal statutory time off for this and that he seems out very early. Maybe covid-19 has something to do with it. So, if he's out, Keith Lawson and Debbie Anderson are probably out too.

[notorial dissent]

So, you are saying they will go back to being useful, productive, law abiding Canadian citizens, amirite???????????

[Burnaby49]

Let's not burden them with expectations beyond their capabilities to fulfill.

[Frater I*I]

Let's not burden them with expectations beyond their capabilities to fulfill.

[TBL]

In a completely unrelated matter, I am very much looking forward to future investigative reporting by Burnaby from a tax court near... well, him actually.

[Burnaby49]

I can make the modest claim that I'm a Tax Court of Canada expert having (admittedly in the far past) testified there on numerous occasions. Indeed I go so far back that my first testimony was when it was called the Tax Review Board in the 1970's prior to it's getting an actual statutory status as a court. Additionally I've spent many hours in the gallery watching hearings and I still, as a retirement hobby, review all decisions released by the court;

https://decision.tcc-cci.gc.ca/tcc-cci/en/nav.do

However I can't say that there's much from the Tax court of interest to Quatloos readers. All of my Quatloos court reports on income tax matters have involved criminal charges and Tax Court does not have jurisdiction over criminal matters, that's a provincial responsibility.

[TBL]

Sure, but I figure if any more Poriskyites end up in court, we'll hear aboot (that's the extent of my Canadian ) it from you? Reading your stories have been some of my favorite experiences here on the Q. No offense to anyone else, but like any other consumer of writing, I await your next epic as my wife waits for Stephen King's next book.

[Burnaby49]

Thanks for the accolades but the well is almost dry. There is one very recent Poriskyite decision just released a week or so ago that I haven't gotten around to writing about but pretty thin stuff. Government chose to hit him with failure to file tax returns charges rather than income tax evasion and the hearing took place in Kelowna, 240 miles away. I just can't dig up the same enthusiasm analyzing a written decision that I can watching the idiocy in a courtroom.

I, in turn, used to enjoy Dark Knight's tales although he was getting too political at the end. I say "at the end" because, without warning or any goodbye, he just stopped posting. Since he was an old guy like me I've sadly assumed a sudden demise.

[TBL]

Burnaby, if you want to send me the CanLII references or even links, I'll read through and post if there's any sovereignty goodness.

[Burnaby49]

Enjoy!

R. v. Merrill
2020 BCPC 150
http://canlii.ca/t/j95qd

[TBL]

This is my attempt to live up to Burnaby’s high standards. I just hope to not screw it up too much.
It appears that getting the entire court records of all words spoken would be somewhat entertaining, even though it appears to be a retread of typical OPCA arguments. Mr. Merrill was quite outspoken in his sovereign oft tried-and-failed beliefs. He, of course, retained no defense counsel, preferring to go it alone. The judge comes right out in the introduction showing the basis of Merrill’s defense:

He believes he is not a “person” within the definition of the Income Tax Act and that he is wrongly charged.

In typical OPCA fashion, he swings for the fences with the typical legal fiction argument that he isn’t “STEVE MERRILL” as listed in the Notice of Requirement, and that because it was served upon Steven James Merrill, it “was not valid” and “they were served on the wrong person.” To cap it off, he claimed the CRA didn’t have the authority to serve the Notice of Requirement and that they “were not a legally binding demand, but rather, a contract offer which he could decline if his precedent conditions of acceptance were not met.”
This seems to be more rehash of typical sovereign positions that they can put conditions on legal notices before they are enforceable. That got a chuckle out of me. Apparently the CRA collections officer spoke to Merrill, and when Merrill refused to take the Notices, left them at his feet. The judge declared this a proper service.
Merrill identified himself in court as “Steven James Merrill, Sui Juris, for STEVE MERRILL Acct [his SIN]”, and was promptly told that whatever he called himself, he was the taxpayer in question and his claims were no defense.
As typical, Merrill said an individual is a corporation, not an “individual person” *yawn* and therefore he has no obligation under the Income Tax Act. Nothing new there, and of course this argument was tossed out with, I imagine, much of the flourishing language, as the utter dross it was.
I think the judge put it best:

I accept that the Notices of Requirement were served on “Steven James Merrill” and that “Steven James Merrill” is the name of the person charged on the Information before the court and is the person I am referencing as “Mr. Merrill” and is the person who has appeared before the court with this matter.

He also ran the “you must show me a certified copy of your Oath of Allegiance to Her Majesty” gem up the flagpole for both the CRA agent and the judge, but the judge was having none of it, although the judge stated he had. Merrill was clearly directed to remit payment to the CRA, not a shadowy random stranger or address, so, out with that crap.
He also demanded that the court documents needed “a seal, a flag, a coat of arms, or any official insignia or logo that would confirm its origin.” I had a vision of his court documents tucked nicely in a perfectly folded Canadian flag.
Of course, Merrill refused to enter a plea, so Not Guilty it is.

Mr. Merrill wrongly believed the Provincial Court had no jurisdiction to hear the matter given the court could not clarify, to his satisfaction, whether the matter was proceeding in Admiralty Court, Civil Court, Criminal Court or Quasi-Criminal court.

Apparently, after repeated claims of the legal fiction argument by Merrill, the judge threw a contempt charge at him, severe enough that he was taken into custody for a couple of hours. This induced even more bemoaning from our oppressed Merrill. He even walked out at some point. This was followed by lectures about how the Crown had no legal reason to proceed since he did eventually file tax returns…you know on January 21, 2020, but the deadline was May 1, 2019.
The end of this little exchange shows why Merrill was put into custody:

Mr. Merrill: I wasn’t planning to stop it from happening.
Judge Smith: When you walked out, that stopped it.
Mr. Merrill: How?
Judge Smith: You are the accused.
Mr. Merrill: No I am not, I am agent for the accused.
Judge Smith: Because of your denial in that regard and your disruptive behaviour, that is exactly why you now find yourself in custody.

Of course, the judge quoted Meads v Meads to counter his OPCA argument of only being the agent of the accused.
After, the judge stated:

Any claim by Mr. Merrill that the court, in detaining him, did not allow him to make full answer and defence is an interesting claim, given it is a claim only open to an accused as opposed to some agent of an accused not on trial.

In the end, the verdict was inevitable, “I am not left with any reasonable doubt that Mr. Merrill is guilty as charged and I find him guilty on all counts.”
I do wish we had complete transcripts, I think there might be some nut-job-gems in there, but alas, this was only the two-page order.

[Burnaby49]

When I read the decision I kept getting flashbacks of sitting in court watching the Millar proceedings and it reminded me of my very first Quatloos posting almost nine years ago;

viewtopic.php?f=50&t=7827

[grixit]

It's so heartwarming to see how the disciple demonstrates what they have learned from a revered mentor.

[TBL]

It's so heartwarming to see how the disciple demonstrates what they have learned from a revered mentor.

The disciple in no way believes he can approach near the mentor's completeness or use of prose, but that in no way impinges the teacher, only the student.