Darren Martin - Another Canadian Sovereign

[Burnaby49]

And another actor enters the Martin saga. A recent pre-trial hearing (link below) was held to consider an offer of $300,000,000 to drop all charges against Mr. Martin. Well, actually a bunch of gibberish in letter form from someone entirely unknown to the court who purported to be Mr. Martin's representative although Martin himself had not advised the court of this. The letter (very poorly reproduced in the decision) states that an indemnity had been delivered to the Minister of Finance of Nova Scotia and that the court was now required to:

Kindly settle with prejudice and facilitate with absolute discharge all charges against DARREN MARTIN . . . . . forthwith and without delay.

If there are impediments to Clerk settling with prejudice and facilitate with absolute discharge all charges and the Clerk requires assistance from Indemnitor, please email Indemnitor at . . . .

The Court's response to this very generous offer was:

[4] On 16 May 2013, the Court received by facsimile transmission a letter, authored apparently by one Colin Adam Fletcher. A copy of this document is annexed to this decision as an Appendix. In the letter, Mr. Fletcher purports to indemnify Mr. Martin in the amount of three hundred million dollars and seeks to have Mr. Martin discharged absolutely of all of the charges arrayed against him. This letter is of no legal force or effect, at least insofar as proceedings in this Court are concerned.

The judge appears to be having some concerns that all of the individuals purporting to represent the accused are total fruitcakes.

http://www.canlii.org/en/ns/nspc/doc/20 ... spc34.html

[notorial dissent]

Sounds like a Canadian variant of the "Redemption Method" so prised by our sovrunidjits, and will work just as well up north as it does down here. I don't know how Canada feels about them, but down here they are usually followed by felony charges of attempting to pass a fraudulent financial instrument, don't remember the Fed law cite at the moment, but it is a felony here to try that. This effort might not quite rise to that level under Canadian law, but it would certainly be worth considering it to shut these nutbags down.

[Burnaby49]

Sounds like a Canadian variant of the "Redemption Method" so prised by our sovrunidjits, and will work just as well up north as it does down here. I don't know how Canada feels about them, but down here they are usually followed by felony charges of attempting to pass a fraudulent financial instrument, don't remember the Fed law cite at the moment, but it is a felony here to try that. This effort might not quite rise to that level under Canadian law, but it would certainly be worth considering it to shut these nutbags down.

The judge in this case essentially just ignored the whole issue. The purported representative was obviously just coughing up some paper for his client without any intent to actually show up in court. The guy's address is in Alberta while the case is being heard in Nova Scotia, a 3,000 mile commute.

[Hilfskreuzer Möwe]

Huh, Colin Adam Fletcher. Colin Adam Fletcher?

[Google search]

Hey, whattya know. Two hits on "Colin Adam Fletcher". One is the case cited by Burnaby49. The other is an index of AWOL Albertans who have not been paying the child support they owe their progeny.

Born in 1972. A 'self employed computer technician' from High River. Lookee there - the "(Alberta) Registration Number" in the letter to the Nova Scotia Courts starts with the prefix "1972" and matches the format of an Alberta Birth Certificate number.

Hmm. Only a jerk (or a Freemason) would possibly inform the Alberta Maintenance Enforcement Program of this coincidence...

[type type type] [click]

SMS Möwe

[Arthur Rubin]

Hmm. Only a jerk (or a Freemason) would possibly inform the Alberta Maintenance Enforcement Program of this coincidence...

[type type type] [click]

What was that address again?

(As an aside, in regard US child support obligations, our tenant is paying back child support to Riverside County (California), and Oahu (Hawaii) child support now is writing to her son at this address trying to locate the child's father, who died two years ago in Maui, I believe. They are tenacious, although slow.)

[Burnaby49]

And Mr. Martin beats the rap! For those who followed the saga his initial defense was OPCA arguments which did not go well for him. He was on criminal charges after the CRA found a second set of books and OPCA babble was not going to get him out of that one. However he changed his defense to the argument that his rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms had been violated because the search warrant that was used to find the books was unconstitutionally issued. The court agreed with him on the basis that the judge who had authorized the warrant did not have sufficient information to justify him issuing it. So all the evidence found in the search was excluded and, without it, the criminal case collapsed and charges were dismissed.

I find that there remains on the record insufficient evidence for the Court to conclude that the authorizing justice would have had before him on 22 September 2008, sufficient evidence to authorize the issuance of the search warrant; therefore, engaging in the limited review function as set out in R. v. Garofoli, I find that the only evidence that would have been before the issuing justice would have been evidence of reported low income that would have given rise for concern in relation to excessive, possible excessive business expenses, essentially the same sorts of concerns that were identified by Ms. MacDonald in her referral to the audit section of Mr. Martin’s file. This is insufficient evidence, in the Court’s view, to substantiate the issuance of the search warrant. The Court therefore concludes that the issuance of the warrant, based on the revised record and based on the limited review that I have conducted here this morning, the warrant was issued in contravention of section 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Given the very fair concession that was made by the prosecution yesterday in relation to the section 24(2) issue, the Court will order and direct that any and all evidence seized as a result of that information to obtain be excluded from evidence

I believe (I was never involved in the criminal side of things while a CRA employee) that the second set of books can still be in his assessment but only as a civil, not a criminal matter. While OPCA arguments had nothing to do with the dismissal of charges I don't doubt that it will proclaimed a OPCA victory.


http://www.canlii.org/en/ns/nspc/doc/20 ... Q5IAAAAAAB


http://www.canlii.org/en/ns/nspc/doc/20 ... UwIAAAAAAB

[Hilfskreuzer Möwe]

Sounds like there's an appeal in the works:

• http://thechronicleherald.ca/business/1 ... tax-appeal

This appears to be Mr. Martin's business, Creative Metals (http://www.creativemetals.ca/Default.aspx). I'll give the guy this much, he appears to be a skilled craftsman. I particularly like his less ornamented stair designs.

SMS Möwe

[Burnaby49]

This has been a very contentious issue for the Canada Revenue Agency ever since the Supreme Court made the Jarvis decision in 2002;

http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/200 ... scc73.html

It is such a fine line where a civil audit ends and a criminal investigation starts that it is very difficult for the CRA, even when acting as best it can to keep within the rules, to avoid stepping across the line from time to time. This is the principle area of attack in criminal cases and any error on the CRA's part, as in this case, means the charges are tossed out because of the violation of the defendant's Charter rights. Since it requires a subjective analysis of facts you can have two essentially identical cases go to court and one goes one way and one the other depending on the views of the judges. Another example below.


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

[Burnaby49]

And the case has been resurrected from the dead!

Readers might remember that Martin had all tax evasion charges dismissed because the judge determined that his constitutional rights had been violated. Specifically that the Canada Revenue Agency conducted a criminal investigation against him without informing him they were doing so. The point at which a civil tax audit turns into a criminal investigation is a very subjective issue and the judge in this case gave Martin every last leeway that he could. If the judge could have concluded that the audit was a criminal review before it even started I'm guessing he would have done so. It seemed to be the judge's conclusion that the CRA must go criminal as soon as they find anything wrong at all, an impossible standard to follow down in the trenches but eminently reasonable up in the judge's Ivy Tower. During a normal tax audit the taxpayer is required to provide books and record, answer questions, and cooperate in the audit. Once it goes criminal the supply of evidence shuts off. So advancing the requirement that the Crown go criminal at the earliest possible moment effectively precludes a successful criminal investigation because it would be impossible to get the information/evidence necessary to prove it.

So the Crown appealed the trial court decision and the Nova Scotia Supreme Court agreed with the Crown;

[32] In my view, the trial judge incorrectly overemphasized the relevancy of the auditor's inquiry to a criminal investigation, ignored or failed to recognize the importance of the intended purpose of the auditor's inquiries, and overemphasized any criminal evidence or inculpatory statements of the accused as being tantamount to a full admission of all the elements of the offense.

35] The decision to refer to investigation was made in February 2008. At no time prior to that is there any evidence that the auditor even communicated with the investigative division. The audit was an income audit. That was the focus of the audit once it got underway. The issue with respect to deferred reporting of income was obviously related to the payment of HST. Charges were also laid under the Excise Tax Act for failure to report and pay HST as required.

40] Respecting the issue of intention/purpose and relevancy of gathering information as argued by the Appellant, one must still objectively examine whether the conduct of the auditor crossed the line and "in effect" caused the auditor to act as an agent for the investigators – whether she intended to do so or otherwise. That said, as noted, the evidence, in my view, cannot support the conclusion she crossed into the investigative stage. I find the trial judge incorrectly inferred criminal investigative purpose from mere relevancy to a criminal investigation.

[41] From a review of the transcripts, I restate my conclusion that I find the evidence is clearly consistent with and strongly supports a finding the auditor was engaged in a legitimate audit function to determine tax payer liability more generally. In other words, a civil matter and not crossing into the territory of penal or criminal investigations which would trigger Charter protections for the Respondent. There is insufficient evidence to conclude that an investigation was underway de facto or otherwise prior to the crystallization of the investigative decision in February 2008.

[42] The decision of the trial judge created procedural shackles on CRA regulatory officers; something to be guarded against, assuming the regulatory officers are acting appropriately and within the scope of their authority. In my view, the evidence consistently and strongly supports the auditor was acting appropriately, lawfully and within the scope of her authority and the trial judge erred in his application of the Jarvis factors to the evidence.

[24] For the reasons set out below, I respectfully find:
(1) The determination by the trial judge that the audit had become a criminal investigation prior to February, 2008 unreasonable and cannot be supported by the evidence;
(2) The trial judge erred in law in his application of the predominant purpose test; and
(3) The trial judge erred in law in finding insufficient evidence to support the Information to Obtain.

[25] Accordingly the Appeal is granted and a new trial is ordered.

To my count this was the tenth hearing in this case and now the whole circus has to start over again because a judge didn't understand that the CRA audit section really does have the right to conduct audits.

http://www.canlii.org/en/ns/nssc/doc/20 ... ltIndex=12

[Burnaby49]

Six months from my last posting another chapter in the Martin saga. To recap, taxpayer charged with OPCA tax evasion, goes to trial, gets things quashed on a judge's mistake about how to apply a constitutional right. Crown appeals, judge's bone-headed decision reversed, and a new trial ordered;

[24] For the reasons set out below, I respectfully find:

(1) The determination by the trial judge that the audit had become a criminal investigation prior to February, 2008 unreasonable and cannot be supported by the evidence;
(2) The trial judge erred in law in his application of the predominant purpose test; and
(3) The trial judge erred in law in finding insufficient evidence to support the Information to Obtain.

[25] Accordingly the Appeal is granted and a new trial is ordered

. . . . . . . .

[41] From a review of the transcripts, I restate my conclusion that I find the evidence is clearly consistent with and strongly supports a finding the auditor was engaged in a legitimate audit function to determine tax payer liability more generally. In other words, a civil matter and not crossing into the territory of penal or criminal investigations which would trigger Charter protections for the Respondent. There is insufficient evidence to conclude that an investigation was underway de facto or otherwise prior to the crystallization of the investigative decision in February 2008.

[42] The decision of the trial judge created procedural shackles on CRA regulatory officers; something to be guarded against, assuming the regulatory officers are acting appropriately and within the scope of their authority. In my view, the evidence consistently and strongly supports the auditor was acting appropriately, lawfully and within the scope of her authority and the trial judge erred in his application of the Jarvis factors to the evidence.

Now another trial decision has come out and it seems that Martin has decided to fight simultaneous battles in different courts on the same issue;

R. v. Martín, 2015 NSPC 57

http://canlii.ca/t/gkv1k

The relevant sentence in the new decision is this;

[10] Mr. Martin, in turn, appealed that decision to the Court of Appeal pursuant to the provisions of s. 839 of the Code. I do not believe that the case has been inscribed for hearing as yet.

However, while everybody was waiting for this further hearing in an interminable string of hearings to commence Mr. Martin was back at the original trial court demanding that the judge order the Crown to give him a pile of information.

[11] In his written application dated 4 August 2015, which was brought to my attention late last week, Mr. Martin seeks an array of disclosure from the prosecution.

Since there is still another appeal hearing in the works and nobody knows how it will end up (hint, hint, Darren is going to lose) the judge in this decision says there is no point in bothering with Darren's request, at least as yet;

[12] I dismiss the application as I find that this court has no jurisdiction to deal with it. Mr. Martin is in the wrong court. While a trial court is typically the proper venue for advancing applications for Charter relief, the status of this court at this time as a trial court is notional only; this is because the issue of whether there will be a re-trial remains to be settled in the Court of Appeal. What would be the point of this court ordering today that the prosecution turn over additional disclosure? Answer: no point. Even if ordered disclosed—assuming for the sake of argument that what Mr. Martin seeks exists in a fashion capable of being disclosed—any new evidence would not get to go before the Court of Appeal, absent a fresh-evidence application under R. v. Palmer, 1979 CanLII 8 (SCC), [1980] 1 S.C.R. 759; and if not put before the Court of Appeal, what good would it do for Mr. Martin to have it before the question of whether there should be a new trial winds up getting settled?

The judge seems to be getting a little irritated at all the apparently pointless court time that is being wasted on Martin's stupidity;

[16] The unfortunate backwards irony here is that, notwithstanding Mr. Martin’s protests against income taxation, it remains clear to me from the evidence that I heard at Mr. Martin’s trial that he was paying it. Whether in the amounts or at the times stipulated by law are questions that would have to be settled at trial, should there be another one; but the simple fact is that Mr. Martin was reporting income and remitting tax, all on a regular basis—which leads me to believe that this is a situation that might have been worked out satisfactorily years ago, had Mr. Martin sought the advice and assistance of legal counsel.

[17] In his field of expertise, Mr. Martin does work of breathtaking beauty. His artistry in metalwork is almost without compare.

[18] However, in the field of legal analysis and advocacy, Mr. Martin’s work is deficient.

[19] If represented by counsel, Mr. Martin would have the constitutional assurance of effective and competent representation. Self-represented, he has no such assurance.

[20] Mr. Martin informs me in his written application that he has obsessed over this case to the extent that it has required him to spend a great deal of time away from his business. That represents a substantial amount of lost revenue which would undoubtedly have paid for excellent legal representation many times over.

[21] I cannot compel Mr. Martin to hire a lawyer. What I can do is ensure that Mr. Martin’s time, and that of the court, not be expended in any more unproductive efforts.

[22] As I have ruled already, the court dismisses Mr. Martin’s application, and the court will hear no further applications by Mr. Martin until the appeal has been determined. The outcome of the appeal will decide what might have to be done next and who might have to do it.

[Burnaby49]

Martin's request for free legal aid is refused;

http://supremeadvocacy.ca/on-their-own- ... of-appeal/