Michael Millar - Detaxer & Poriskyite's tax evasion trial

[Burnaby49]

Millar and Lawson have belatedly made my local newspaper.

http://www.theprovince.com/news/local+n ... story.html

You read it here first!

One error in the report. As I understand it Millar's November 17th hearing, while called a sentencing hearing, is not to sentence him. It is for both sides to give arguments on what they consider an appropriate sentence to be. The actual sentencing will be at a later hearing.

As an example Keith Lawson had his first sentencing hearing, where he claimed that he was just an honourable man trying to do the honourable thing by counseling tax evasion, was on September 23rd. He wasn't actually sentenced until October 31st.

[Burnaby49]

That newspaper article quoted from the reasons for judgment regarding Millar's convictions however, at the October 11 court hearing where he was found guilty on all charges, the judge just gave an oral decision with written reasons for judgment to follow. The article prodded me to check if the decision has since been released. It has.

R. v. Millar, 2016 BCSC 2039
http://canlii.ca/t/gvg6p

Right at the start the judge treated Millar's astoundingly well-reasoned, indeed definitive, legal analysis of capitalization and jurisdiction as no more than a steaming heap of worthless gibberish;

[4] Mr. Millar argued that there was some significance to whether legal documents spelled his name or words like "Canada" using all capital letters or partly capital letters and partly lower case letters. He referred to Black's Law Dictionary and argued that using all capitals reflected capitis maxima, and using partly lower case letters reflected capitis diminutio, and related to whether a person had status as a natural person or as an artificial person.

[5] The eighth edition of Black's Law Dictionary defines capitis diminutio as “Latin (reduction of status) Roman law, a diminution or alteration of a person's legal status”. Black's goes on to provide a quotation from a book describing Roman private law in the years 178 to 179.

[6] There are numerous flaws with Mr. Millar's argument. First, our legal system does not apply Roman law. The Roman law of almost 2,000 years ago is of historical interest only. Roman law is not even the historic basis of our law.

[7] Second, there is nothing in the definition in Black's which refers to the use of capital letters or lower case letters. The Latin word "capitis" means “reduction of status” or “condemned” or “sentenced”, and does not refer to capitalization of names in court forms.

[8] In this case, while the proceedings were still in the Provincial Court, Judge Rodgers directed that any argument based on whether letters were in capital or lower case would not be entertained. This ruling was not drawn to my attention until after the completion of the evidence portion of the trial.

[9] In any event, whether capital or lower case letters are used in the court forms in the spelling of any names is of no significance.

[10] Mr. Millar also argued that these proceedings are invalid on a jurisdictional basis and argued that Canada is a foreign jurisdiction to British Columbia.

[11] Mr. Millar made a similar argument in connection with a mid-trial application challenging the admission of evidence seized from his home. On June 2, 2016, I dismissed his application, and responded to his arguments about the significance of counties and judicial districts. It is not necessary for me to repeat my reasons on that point in these reasons for judgment.

[12] British Columbia is a province within the country of Canada, and North Vancouver is in British Columbia. All four counts allege that Mr. Millar of North Vancouver, B.C., committed the alleged offences. Count 4 alleges that Mr. Millar is "of the District of North Vancouver, Province of British Columbia, and elsewhere".

[13] The jurisdiction of this Court is provided by s. 244(3) of the Income Tax Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. 1 (5th Supp.), which I will refer to as the “ITA”, and s. 332(3) of the Excise Tax Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. Ed15, which I will refer to as the “ETA”. The evidence establishes that Mr. Millar was resident and found within British Columbia.

So Michael, if you're reading this (they all deny they read my posts) you can win an appeal of this decision just by showing that the trial judge made a mistake in interpreting the law. You don't even need to go any further than these few paragraphs! The above quote clearly gives you a guaranteed winning appeal argument in respect to both jurisdiction and capitalization. She didn't even bother to address your argument that Canada is nothing but a legal fiction! Don't be discouraged that this is, by my count, the fourth time you've lost each of these arguments in front of three different judges in two different courts. The British Columbia Court of Appeal will no doubt be more receptive to your legal genius.

And the court's discussion of your natural person argument was little more than a travesty;

[27] The Crown's analysis concluded that in 2004, Mr. Millar received about $36,500, and his related expenses were about $11,000, for net earnings of about $25,500. The analysis for 2005 concluded that he received about $83,000, his expenses were about $39,000, and his net earnings were about $44,000. The analysis for 2006 concluded that his receipts were about $66,000, his expenses were about $28,000, and his net earnings were about $38,000.

[28] It is not necessary for the Crown to prove the exact amounts that Mr. Millar actually earned in the years 2004 through 2006. The evidence demonstrated beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Millar earned more than one cent in each of the three years, 2004, 2005, and 2006. As a result, the statements in the filed tax returns were false.

[29] Mr. Millar did not testify at trial, and he did not provide submissions explaining his basis for reporting that he earned one cent in each of those years.

[30] Generally, Mr. Millar argued that the ITA only applies to "artificial persons" who agree to be taxpayers by taking various steps. He argued that by entering into contracts as a "natural person" with others who are also described as "natural persons", the recipient of funds is not required to pay income tax on amounts received under those contracts.

[31] The primary flaw in this argument is that the ITA does not make a distinction between "artificial persons" and “natural persons”.

[32] Section 2(1) provides, and has provided since at least 2004, as follows:
2 (1) An income tax shall be paid, as required by this Act, on the taxable income for each taxation year of every person resident in Canada at any time in the year.

[33] The reference to "every person resident in Canada at any time in the year" is not limited in any way. The fact that in some other legislation, distinctions are made between, for example, corporations and people, is irrelevant. The broad definition in the ITA clearly applied to Mr. Millar, and there was no basis for him to report one cent in earnings for those years.

[34] In argument, Mr. Millar invited me to comprehensively discuss the Paradigm theories. It is not necessary for me to do so. The essential question is whether the ITA applies to people purporting to organize their affairs as natural persons, and it does.

Although I'd disagree with the learned judge in paragraph 34. From what I recall Millar did not invite the judge to discuss the Paradigm theories, he demanded that she do so. If he was to be decided against he demanded that she go through the whole Paradign belief system showing, in detail, how each part was wrong. He claimed that he had been proven right in his interpretations of law because neither the CRA or the Crown would sit down and argue with him Interminably until he was satisfied that they were right and he was wrong. Given his inability to see he is wrong in any aspect after years of adverse court decisions I can see why the CRA didn't accept his challenge. Now he can add the court to that sorry roster of institutions who won't engage in endless debates. The court even had the temerity to questioned whether Millar believed in his own gibberish;

[59] Mr. Millar did not testify at the trial. There was no evidence that he actually believes what is set out in the Paradigm material. In any event, the argument that the ITA did not apply to Mr. Millar because he chose to structure his affairs as a “natural person” is an argument which does not provide a defence on the basis of mistake of law. It is a jurisdictional argument which is irrelevant to the fault requirement of the charge of tax evasion. As a result, the Crown has established the elements of Count 2 beyond a reasonable doubt.

The big one, the charge that is going to have Michael facing jail time, is counseling;

[84] I turn to Count 4, counselling fraud. Two sections of the Criminal Code are mentioned in Count 4, and another is relevant to the charge.

[85] Section 464(4)(a) of the Criminal Code applies where the offence allegedly counselled, being fraud, was not committed. The section provides as follows:

(a) every one who counsels another person to commit an indictable offence is, if the offence is not committed, guilty of an indictable offence…

[86] The term "counsel" is defined in s. 22(3) of the Criminal Code as including "procure, solicit or incite".

[87] The courts have explained that "inciting" means that the counselling must urge, stir up, or stimulate the other person to commit the offence. It requires deliberate encouragement or active inducement, urging, persuading, or encouraging. "Procuring" has been held to mean to produce by endeavour, setting out to see that something happens, and taking appropriate steps to produce the intended result. "Procuring" has also been held to mean to prevail upon, induce, or persuade a person to do something.

[88] "Soliciting" means to ask repeatedly or earnestly for or to seek or to invite.

[89] Fraud is dealt with in s. 380 of the Criminal Code. That section provides in part that:

380 (1) Every one who, by deceit, falsehood or other fraudulent means … defrauds the public or any person, whether ascertained or not, of any …money…

(a) is guilty of an indictable offence …where the subject-matter of the offence … exceeds five thousand dollars…

[90] The elements of the offence of fraud are:

a) first, that another person, in this case the government, was at risk of being deprived of something of value. In this case, the allegation is that the thing of value was money in the form of income taxes;

b) second, that the person who committed fraud or was counselled to commit fraud caused the risk of deprivation by deceit, falsehood, or other fraudulent means;

c) third, that the person who caused the risk of deprivation intended to do so; and

d) fourth, that the value of what the government was put at risk of being deprived of was in excess of $5,000.

[91] In general terms, the Crown's allegation of counselling fraud in Count 4 is that Mr. Millar counselled others to commit income tax evasion, which the Crown says is a particular type of fraud. It is not necessary that the Crown prove that anyone actually committed fraud or income tax evasion as a result of anything Mr. Millar may have done. To prove this charge, the Crown is required to prove only that Mr. Millar counselled others to commit income tax evasion.

[92] The elements of counselling the commission of fraud, as set out in the indictment, are these:

a) first, that Mr. Millar counselled others to deprive the government of money in the form of income taxes;

b) second, that Mr. Millar counselled others to do so, meaning to deprive the government of income tax, by using deceit, falsehood, or other fraudulent means; and

c) third, that Mr. Millar either intended that others would commit the offence of fraud, or knowingly counselled the commission of that offence while aware of the unjustified risk that those counselled were likely to commit the offence as a result of his counselling.

[93] This charge relates to Mr. Millar's conduct in providing students with Paradigm materials and teaching them the Paradigm “natural person” theory.

And the judge had no problem nailing Michael on that one too;

[111] Mr. Millar argued that he did not pressure the students to file their taxes in a certain way. I accept that the students made their own choices about how to file their income taxes or whether to file at all. However, Mr. Millar's conduct, of entering into contracts which describe him and the students as “natural persons”, in teaching people that they did not have to report income earned as “natural persons”, and in advising Mr. Dobie and Ms. Gabriel that he or Paradigm could assist them if CRA disagreed, were all acts of deliberately encouraging students to evade income tax by not reporting income that the students considered that they earned as “natural persons”.

[112] The Paradigm support estimator itself is a tool to encourage people to pursue an education in the Paradigm theory on the basis that the cost of that education would be less than the taxes they would avoid by following the teachings, and Mr. Millar showed this tool to Mr. Dobie.

[113] Further, by selling the Paradigm DVDs and materials, Mr. Millar was encouraging people to follow the Paradigm theory and thereby evade income tax.

[114] The Crown has established beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Millar counselled others to deprive the government of money in the form of income taxes. He counselled them to do so by not declaring income they allegedly earned as “natural persons”. That is a deceptive and fraudulent basis for failing to disclose income, as I discussed in connection with Count 1.

[115] Mr. Millar intended that the students would apply the Paradigm theory by filing tax returns without disclosing income they earned allegedly as “natural persons”. That is the natural result of entering into contracts as a “natural person”, according to what Mr. Millar taught, such as what he taught Ms. Gabriel in the group classes.

[116] In fact, three of Mr. Millar's students who were witnesses at trial did file tax returns without disclosing income they earned supposedly as “natural persons”. Those three individuals were Ms. Gabriel, Ms. French, and Mr. Irwin.

[117] The evidence showed that Mr. Millar committed the offence of counselling within the period between December 31, 2001, and August 26, 2010. The Crown did not show that Mr. Millar did so for that entire eight�and�a�half-year period, but the Crown is not required to do that.

[118] The evidence from the Crown did show a total of 238 students, and receipts from students over the period from February 2004 to September of 2008. I refer to the deposits regarding Mr. Bombois, apparently a student, and Mr. Porisky, essentially the leader of the Paradigm program and a person who appeared in the Paradigm videos and DVDs.

[119] The Crown has proven the elements of Count 4 beyond a reasonable doubt.

[120] As a result, convictions must be entered on all four counts.

[The Observer]

The obvious problem is that Millar needs to get his case in front of a Roman tribune so that Roman imperial law can be applied. Unfortunately, since he cannot claim Roman citizenship, I would think the odds of him winning are stacked against him, while the chance of getting sentenced being chained to oars on a slave galley is more likely.

[grixit]

Nah, i think the roman judge would have let him off with 40 lashes and 10 years in a dungeon with hot and cold running rats.

[The Observer]

Nah, i think the roman judge would have let him off with 40 lashes and 10 years in a dungeon with hot and cold running rats.

Not, even a cursory reading of Roman law shows that kind of sentence can only happen extrajudicially under a Roman governor of an outlying province. Even then, if the crowd turns against you, you could end up being crucified.

[Burnaby49]

I recently posted about Millar's hearing on delay, his application to have his trial stayed on the basis that the entire process had taken too long under the ancient principle "justice delayed is justice denied". The factor giving people like him new hope in this area is the recent Jordan decision released by the Supreme Court of Canada which has set an upper limit of 30 months between charges being laid and the conclusion of the trial. I also posted a link to the Supreme Court of British Columbia decision on his application which showed a lot of fine parsing by the judge on applying the Jordan criteria to Millar's situation.

This is fairly trivial in Millar's case (except to him) but the concern has been that it will derail trials on much more serious offenses. We just got our poster-boy with a murder trial being stayed as a result of Jordan.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/ottawa/le ... -1.3854568

No doubt many more to follow.

CBC Ottawa found two other murder cases that have already exceeded the Supreme Court's length benchmark of 30 months for serious criminal cases.

■Michael Belleus. He was charged for the 2012 murder of Levy Kasende. There have been multiple delays at the preliminary hearing. The case is approaching three-and-a-half years.
■Devontay Hackett. He's accused of second-degree murder in the killing of Brandon Volpe. The case is approaching three years and, like the Morin case, is scheduled for trial in Janaury (sic).

Since this is a brand new rule courts and the legal system are struggling with the implications. Millar was just part of the leading edge of building up a body of precedence.

[Burnaby49]

Time to get down to a new batch of Poriskyite postings. I've got Millar, Balogh, and Lawson to report on and a few Fiscal Arbitrators too. So on to Michael.

He had a sentencing hearing today. Not where he is actually sentenced but where both sides give their submissions on the appropriate sentences for his convictions. If you'll recall he was convicted of income tax evasion and counseling fraud by teaching the Paradigm tax evasion scheme to students. The counseling conviction is by far the most serious. The amount of taxes he personally evaded were relatively minor (as he pointed out in court) but the counseling charge has attracted jail time for most of the individuals convicted of it. So we had the whole day slated for the two sides to wrangle it out in front of the judge.

I'm getting well known to court staff. I'd just settled in when the sheriff, a new one to me, asked "Are you the blogger?" He asked me if there was a publication ban on proceedings. There was but it is no longer in effect. Millar arrived late and cranky. It took a while to get things going and he spent it yammering at Crown for their perfidious mistreatment of him. His complaint was about the Crown's written submission on sentencing. Crown had sent it to him last week the same time that it had been submitted to the court. But he ranted away how Crown had promised he'd get it a week after his October 11th conviction but he actually got it a month after. Crown said that she'd made no such promise but he was adamant that he had the right to have it for at least a month before this hearing. He's made up a new court rule and I was there when it was born! Crown said, literally, tell it to the judge. He did.

Keep in mind that this is the Crown's submission which was given to him. He got it within the time frame required by the court and he had it at least a week before the hearing. He didn't say what else was more important that week. In a prior hearing when he explained why he didn't initially address the charges for over a year after they were laid he said "life happens". Guess that darn life happens thing got in the way again.

Judge showed up and Crown told her that Millar wanted an adjournment. Counsel said that it was no shock to Millar that the Crown was requesting jail time but that he was probably shocked by the duration of the proposed sentence, three and a half years. Crown did not agree to an adjournment. The delay was already too long and the Crown was ready to proceed. Millar's turn. The prosecution told him that he'd get their submission the following week after the conviction hearing but he only got it ten days ago so he had just a little over a week instead of over a month. This three week delay in getting it to him was the fault of the Crown and it was unfair if he didn't get a three week adjournment to make up for the delay caused by the Crown. It's not a fair hearing if he doesn't get it. Judge asked him if he was planning to get counsel. "Absolutely!" However when the judge got specific "Do you plan to have counsel act for you at trial?" he waffled. He has to research, consider his options, check if any counsel will take his case, no specific answer.

Crown - We are ready to go. Millar said that it is a matter of record that Crown said it would only take a week. A note - I've been pretty thorough in reporting what was said at his conviction hearing and I have nothing about any promise by the Crown to provide submissions by a fixed date. As I wrote;

So guilty on all count. Then I think the judge got over-ambitious. She asked Crown if she was ready to proceed with her sentencing submissions and, if so, how long would it take. Crown said that she could but noted that we were almost out of time. It was 9:50 and our courtroom time ended at 10:00. Judge asked Millar if he wanted to make submissions. "Absolutely." Crown estimated a day was needed so Judge left to find a one-day slot. While we waited lawyers and spectators for the next hearing trickled in. Judge came back and asked parties if November 17 worked for everybody. Yes.

Crown is busy until then with Debbie Anderson's trial up in the Fraser Valley.

That last sentence is significant.

Judge asked Crown if she agreed with Millar's comments. No, it was a shock to me when Millar brought this up last week. Crown said that she wouldn't have promised to produce it in a week because she had a jury duty trial a week after the sentencing hearing and had no time to write up the submission. She said that she'd spoken to Millar after the hearing and said that she'd get him Keith Lawson's submission. Millar cut in - "I correct this! I don't have a copy of Lawson. The Crown told the Court one week! In any case getting this in one week (a week ago) creates an impossible situation for me.

So the judge decided. She said that she said she had two points to consider. "Should I allow an adjournment and should I attribute the delay to the Crown?" This hearing is five weeks after the October 11th hearing. There is a dispute between parties over the background facts. Millar said that the Crown told him he'd get their submission in one week but it took four weeks. Crown denies this. The Crown wants a three and a half year jail sentence. Crown says that Millar should have anticipated that they were seeking a jail sentence even if not that long.

So the judge allowed the adjournment based on the severity of the proposed sentence but did not attribute the delay to the Crown. She said that when defense requests an adjournment the delay is usually attributed to the defense. Millar had no right to a three week written notice of Crown's submission. So the delay is attributable to Millar.

I'd been expecting to hear Millar going on and on about capitalization, jurisdiction, and the natural man all day. Way off topic but when has that stopped him in the past? Instead it was like school letting out early. Except that this is only an adjournment so I still have the actual hearing to face.

[notorial dissent]

I'd say Miller showing up late, cranky and confused sounds like a VERY common and unremarkable occurrence. I'll bet the actual hearing, if it ever gets to happen(I'm betting he'll demand another delay for reasons), will be a right laugh fest.

[Burnaby49]

Millar had a sentencing hearing today and it was reported by our local papers.

http://www.theprovince.com/news/local+n ... story.html

http://vancouversun.com/news/local-news ... asion-scam

Overall a good summary of the day. I was there and am writing it up in much more detail. It will take a while, I have pages of almost illegible notes.

For whatever reason the picture at the top is a screen capture of Russell Porisky from one of his Paradigm videos. Perhaps because they can't find one of Millar, he wasn't into making videos.

[Burnaby49]

This write-up was finished on December 17th. I'm at about my limit for the endless repetition of Millar's obsessions and it's been a struggle to force myself to sit down and write this. It was another very long day in court listening to the same gibberish I've been reporting on for over two years. So I've not bothered to proofread it. if it doesn't make sense in points nor did much of my day in court.


December 13, 2016

Another Michael Millar hearing today. A very, very long day. Started at 10:00 and finished at 4:00 which may not sound like a lot but I was the one who sat through it. Total spectators at the start were an individual who I think was a Crown lawyer, the newspaper reporter, two friends of Millar, and me. Unlike the Lawson sentencing hearing David Lindsay did not show up. The room was huge, one of the biggest in the courthouse. A quick, possibly incomplete count totaled 103 spectator seats along with a jury box. Keith Lawson's sentencing hearing was in a tiny room that sat less than 20.

This was Millar's sentencing hearing. Not where the sentence is given by the judge but the hearing preceding that where both sides make submissions to the court on their positions regarding sentencing. Crown justifying why Millar should be tossed in Federal Super Max and Millar arguing that he should get a pension and the thanks of parliament. This being a Millar hearing all of that went sideways almost immediately.

Although Millar had said at the last hearing that he intended to get counsel he was not represented. Immediately at the start Millar changed his opening identification from being a private person acting in his private capacity to "Michael Spencer attending for Michael Spencer Millar". Turned out that Millar had just submitted a petition to the Supreme Court registry. He wanted a number of things.

1 - His file sealed by court order.

2 - An adjournment because, apparently, there was a hearing next Friday that would consider the legal nature of the person charged.

3 - Something about the petition seeking a court order and direction on the trust status of the name Michael Spencer Millar. Apparently he's now his own trustee.

4 - Today's hearing cancelled in light of this new development.

Judge asked Crown if she knew anything about this. No, first she'd heard. So judge stood down while Crown reviewed petition but she told Millar that a filing of a petition doesn't stop proceedings. Crown asked him why he wanted to seal the file. Because Court wouldn't agree with him on the issue of the nature of the person and trust. So he's back to arguing private persons at a sentencing hearing. This is the first I'd heard about the trust issue. I think that the petition was to try and get an order to make the Court finally argue with him about private persons and other issues he'd lost but I couldn't get a real sense of what it was about from proceedings. So 20 minute break then back at it. Millar was calm and composed. That didn't last long. Judge asked him if there was anything he wanted to say about the adjournment request. "It will impact the Court regarding a matter not resolved. The petition needs to be heard and decided to determine the nature of the party being sentenced. This has not yet been properly discussed". A comment here. He spent most of the day acting as if he had not yet been convicted and was still arguing his case. The judge eventually beat the realization that the conviction was a done deal into him later in the day.

Then he said something about "exclusive equity". He said that this would impact the Court's ability to sentence him and the nature of the sentence they could impose.

Crown said that they were willing to proceed. "I've read the petition which was served on no one. It covers issues already dealt with by this court and the provincial court. There is no question about his status before the court. His petition is more nonsense."

Millar - Private exclusive equity related to the trust has not been dealt with. I want the private trust matter dealt with privately. Private matters are dealt in private. He didn't seem to realize that even if he has an arguable point it is too late. He had his chance to enter what he wanted at trial.

Judge decided on the adjournment request immediately. She said that Mr. Millar asked for an adjournment from the October sentencing hearing to get legal advice. I'm dismissing the application. This petition covers issues already considered by the court. Capitalization, jurisdiction, nothing in the petition gives reasons for an adjournment. So I deny the request for an adjournment. Millar fired up about how the question was not answered that he asked at the February 12th hearing. On about whether or not this was a section 2(1) Supreme Court or some other Supreme Court of British Columbia. Is this the Supreme Court, yes or no? He was getting agitated. Then on about county boundaries and judicial districts. He said that at a February 12th hearing the judge had ordered the Crown to answer these questions. Note - I wasn't at the February 12th hearing so I can't confirm what he's on about. Apparently Crown was suppose to clear up some questions he asked at the hearing but he's questioning the Crown's answers. On and on about the hearing transcript and how the Crown was being evasive. Apparently it is his understanding from the transcript that the prosecution agreed that that the case occurred in the Supreme Court as defined by the Act and within Vancouver's boundaries. Why did they refuse to answer this before? I couldn't make any sense out of why he was arguing this and failed to see what he hoped to gain by these comments.

Judge cut in. "We're not dealing with this."

Millar - "I have questions!" He was getting worked up.

Judge - "I don't answer questions".

Millar overrode her angrily stating that he demanded answers. Judge got angry "I'm not addressing this!" In my opinion he was right on the edge of another handcuffing. Crown cut in to say that Justice Brown gave a complete answer to all of the questions.

Millar - "This is a new Question! Are you refusing to answer? All I want is a yes or no."

Judge told Crown to proceed. So Crown started the ball rolling by making its submission. Crown wants 3.5 years penal sentence and a $24,000 fine equal to 100% of taxes evaded. Two six months sentences concurrent on the GST and income tax evasion convictions and a three year sentence consecutive to this on the counseling fraud charge.

"When we consider Paradigm as a whole, not just the teachings, there was the organization and structure to assist students if the CRA came knocking on the door."

I missed a lot of the Crown's submission because counsel moved briskly with details from evidence. Overall she had an excellent mastery of the facts of the case. Judge kept asking her about this or that piece of evidence and she'd refer to it immediately.

Crown said that 230 individuals were involved with Millar (this seemed to be students and people who attended his lectures). Millar acted deliberately in joining Paradigm. He made his living promoting Paradigm. Discussed culpability. The issue is to deter Millar and people like him. His degree of responsibility is high and this is a serious offense. We have to consider offender's conduct and character in the proceedings including his conduct today. This is relevant to sentencing.

Judge - What were his bail terms? Did he spend a few days in jail? Crown said that she wasn't sure but jail term minimal and only a few days.

The effects of Millar's actions not just the $24,000. There is the cost of enforcement including the cost of actions against his students. On to the impact of the Paradigm scheme. As of November 1st there have been 32 individuals sentenced for following Paradigm. Judge - How many are Millar's? Crown - None as I've said in paragraph 20. Because of taxpayer privacy we can't go onto details of Millar's students and why we've used an extrapolation of available information. At this point, 11AM, Keith Lawson came in and judge called a break.

I'd guess about 20 spectators at this point but almost all students. During the break I passed by the instructor discussing the hearing with some of the students. He was apologizing to them for there being no interesting cases for them to watch. He'd hoped to find a first degree murder.

After the break only five spectators left. Lawson, a man and woman with Millar, the reporter, and me. Millar came back into the courtroom and called the sheriff over. He'd found a wallet in the lobby and was handing it in. The Supreme Court of British Columbia has an absolutely terrible design. It has a seven story multiple galleried lobby covered and walled in with glass. Essentially a massive glass bubble. In the summer the court turns into a greenhouse and in winter the lobby outside the courtroom is frigid and the courtroom not much better. I put on a sweatshirt, sheriff his jacket and Millar abandoned wearing just a plain shirt and put on a warm jacket.

Back to the hearing. Crown confirmed that Millar spent only one night in jail when he was arrested in 2013. Bail terms very light. $500 cash and a promise to keep the peace, surrender his passport, provide his address and meet reporting conditions. These were initially to meet with parole officer every two weeks then this was changed in November 2014 to meeting with officer when called.

Crown next presented their book of authority. In the oral submission Crown only discussed the Paradigm educator decisions. This included Porisky and Gould's second trial. Crown said that Porisky's personal circumstances about the same as Millar. Both have former spouses, blended families, and adult children.

Crown said that courts often ask why OPCA schemes are relevant. They are vexatious, nonsense, take a social cost of those that pursue them. They have a social effect on the community at large.

While Millar was not responsible for the Paradigm scheme he was Russell Porisky's surrogate. He stood in for Porisky at various seminars.

Crown went through cited cases starting with Baudais. Quatloos discussed Baudais here;

viewtopic.php?f=50&t=10245&p=177767#p177767

Baudais apparently gave a sincere statement of remorse and his wife had brain cancer. He was her primary care-giver. These are two mitigating circumstances not in this case.

On to Blerot which Quatloos discussed here;

viewtopic.php?f=50&t=9275

He was similar to Millar in that he wanted a jury trial but ended up as a judge only trial because he didn't show up for jury selection. Crown cited paragraph 24 of Blerot;

[24] I digress for a moment with respect to the question of identification of Mr. Blerot. Mr. Blerot refused to acknowledge that his was name. In fact, he refused to refer to himself by that name since his persona as a natural person did not allow him to do so. As will be seen from this scheme, Mr. Blerot submitted that the person he was born as no longer existed for legal purposes as through a self-declaration he has become a natural person and a human being. If the Court wanted to refer to him as Mr. Blerot, that was fine, but he was not going to acknowledge that that was who he was. He would refer to himself as the beneficiary of the estate of the natural person of Gerald Blerot and somehow believed that this created two separate legal entities, one of which may have been subject to government authority; the other certainly not. It was clear from the evidence of the Crown that the Gerald Blerot appearing in court before me was the person charged in the indictment and the person over whom the evidence that was led related to. Among the documents seized were pamphlets which describe in general terms the concept being spouted by PEG. It should be noted that this is a sophisticated operation. The pamphlets were professionally done. There were also available DVDs and in-depth training sessions that were meant to lead people through the process to ensure that they no longer have to pay income taxes provided for the Income Tax Act of Canada.

R v Blerot, 2014 SKQB 2
http://canlii.ca/t/g2x8q

On to Kovaluk and Williams who were also covered in Quatloos;
viewtopic.php?f=50&t=8968

Williams was a Paradigm educator who was sentenced to five years imprisonment. He was an American with a history of similar convictions in the United States. His students evaded $4,500,000 in tax. Kovaluk was his dentist wife.

Then Edwin Siggelkow;
viewtopic.php?f=50&t=9894

He was an educator who had over 100 students on contract.

Crown also noted Denise Eddy;
viewtopic.php?f=50&t=9899

And discussed Richard Cory Stanchfield;
viewtopic.php?f=50&t=10464

Stanchfield pled guilty and expressed remorse.

After this review Crown discussed aggravating circumstances. Millar's actions were planned and deliberate over a number of years. Mentioned Millar used OPCA tactics. Millar was an integral part of the fraudulent Paradigm scheme. He continued to counsel Paradigm when he knew that the CRA was pursuing Paradigm students. Since day one he has continued his tax beliefs throughout the process including today. He is incalcitrant. Crown went on how he won't drop the capitalization and font issues although told to stop. Crown noted how he introduced himself to the court today.

On to a prior convictions. A conviction in for refusing to comply with a requirement to file his 1994 to 1997 Income Tax returns. This is the case;

Her Majesty The Queen v. Millar, 2002 BCSC 182
http://canlii.ca/t/1gnbx

He was actually acquitted in the Provincial Court of British Columbia because;

[6] A number of defences were raised by Mr. Millar. The trial judge rejected all but one of them. The charges were dismissed on the ground that Mr. Purda was not identified on the face of the notices as a “Director-Taxation of a District Office.” The learned trial judge held that the Mr. Purda’s title as set out in the notices was not “an office with authority to issue Requirements pursuant to Regulation 900.”

But this was reversed because;

[12] In R. v. Galbraith the court was considering whether there was sufficient merit in Mr. Galbraith’s application to extend the time for filing an appeal. As part of that consideration the court considered the issue of the identification on the face of the notice of the person whose signature appeared on the notice. The court adopted the Crown’s submission that Regulation 900(2) of the Act does not impose a statutory requirement that the exact words of “Director-Taxation in a District Office of the Department of National Revenue” be used. I also adopt that position.

[13] In both Galbraith and the case before me there is no confusion or ambiguity as to the identity of the signatory. Mr. Purda in the instant case is identified sufficiently. It is not necessary in this case for me to go further and decide whether the absence of any title on the face of the letter would affect its validity so long as the signatory in fact holds the position designated in Regulation 900(2).

[14] As a result, I conclude that the trial judge was in error in holding that because of the insufficient identification of Mr. Purda’s position on the face of the notices, the notices did not meet the requirements of the Income Tax Act.

[15] I have reviewed the trial judge’s reasons. It appears to me that the trial judge found that all other elements of the offences had been made out by the Crown and the other defences of Mr. Millar could not succeed. For that reason I am satisfied that the Crown’s appeal should be allowed and the verdicts of acquittal on all counts should be set aside.

[16] The Crown has urged that, rather than ordering a new trial, verdicts of guilty should be entered against Mr. Millar. I am satisfied that in this case this is the appropriate order.

[17] This matter will therefore be remitted to the trial court to impose a sentence that is warranted in law.

This reversal was done by a single judge of the British Columbia Supreme Court. Millar appealed that to the British Columbia Court of Appeal but lost.

After Crown mentioned this case Lawson cut in asking "What is the proper form that Crown must use to enter this evidence". Crown said that she didn't know that Millar disputed that he hadn't filed returns. He can address this in his submissions. Judge asked Millar "Do you agree that you didn't file returns?" "I disagree, I don't remember." So judge told the Crown that they hadn't proven that he didn't file his returns. Crown would address this issue later.

On to mitigation - Crown said there were no mitigating circumstances. Then back to reviewing comparable cases saying that the most comparable case was Baudais. Lawson had medical issues and provided primary childcare. Blerot had a sick wife. Crown was apparently using Baudais as the most relevant comparable because he too seemed to have no mitigating circumstances.

So Crown was recommending the three and a half years plus the 100% fine, forfeiture of all seized tax related material, and a DNA sample. Millar said that he wanted something returned. Details after lunch. Crown wanted the fine paid in monthly installments starting six months after release from custody with an acceleration clause if a payment was missed. Apart from any questions from the judge Crown was done at 12:23 so time for lunch an return at 2:00 for Millar's turn.

After lunch only four spectators. First some comments from the Crown. Counsel addressed the judge's question in the morning about proving it was our Michael Spencer who was convicted in 2002. Crown said that while both the 2002 Spencer and the Michael Spencer standing in court today shared the same full name Michael Spencer Millar and they had the same birthdays they could not prove it was the same person beyond reasonable doubt. That would require fingerprints or a witness from first trial. So Crown conceded that the 2002 conviction could not be used for sentencing purposes.

Millar's turn. The request for an acceleration clause causes him to wonder how the prosecution reads things into laws that aren't there. He questioned and disagreed with the forfeiture clause in the submission because seized property was the private property of a private person and he wants everything back. Millar is doomed. He seems to have no idea why he is there. This is his chance to give his arguments why he should have a light sentence and he's gone ignored it all and gone totally sideways chasing his personal obsessions. He seems uncertain how to present his case. He complained to the judge about the Crown using the phrase "Paradigm tax fraud scheme" in their submission. Is it a fraud or is that an assumption. Judge read paragraph 114 from her decision convicting him of tax evasion which reads;

[114] The Crown has established beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Millar counseled others to deprive the government of money in the form of income taxes. He counseled them to do so by not declaring income they allegedly earned as “natural persons”. That is a deceptive and fraudulent basis for failing to disclose income, as I discussed in connection with Count 1.

R. v. Millar, 2016 BCSC 2039
http://canlii.ca/t/gvg6p

Then, unbelievably, Millar asked judge if he was allowed to re-argue facts she'd found in her decision. No. He said his overriding concern in the Crown's entire submission is the "overlap of activities of Paradigm, Porisky and my activities. " It was unfair to associate him directly with Porisky or Paradigm. Paradigm may have gone nationwide but there is no evidence connecting it to me. His role was limited and not essential or significant to Paradigm or Porisky. It's guilt by association. He didn't like the Crown's comment that he promoted Paradigm material. This is a commercial concept. It wasn't about promotion it was about education. He's still arguing his case although he's already been convicted.

Unlike his usual confidant articulate presentations he seemed hesitant and disjointed. I couldn't figure out what points he was trying to make. Instead of making his own submission he was going through the Crown's submission and, seemingly at random, complaining about this or that point. He said he didn't know why the Crown said he "deliberately" promoted Paradigm. He said that the Crown was making things look as bad as possible. He started on about commercial and private businesses. Crown used the word "profit" which moves it from private to commercial. Is earning a living outlawed? Profit has commercial connotations.

Judge - It sounds like you are arguing your conviction but you've been convicted. What is the proper sentence?

Millar - We're not there yet!

Judge - We are there. What is your sentence?

Millar - No sentence. No other Paradigm educator or student set up the foundation of a private person and private law. So I'm a unique point. (note - that is how I read my notes of comment)

Judge - You were Convicted. You brought this up at trial and were convicted. You lost. Are you saying that since they lost on one argument and you lost on another argument you shouldn't go to jail like they did?

Millar - No, that's not my submission.

Judge - OK, explain your submission.

He pulled out the sentencing guideline about the nature and circumstances of the offense. "These were private activities and you found them not to be private."

Judge - No. I found that they didn't matter. Then judge read out paragraph 33 of his judgment;

[33] The reference to "every person resident in Canada at any time in the year" is not limited in any way. The fact that in some other legislation, distinctions are made between, for example, corporations and people, is irrelevant. The broad definition in the ITA clearly applied to Mr. Millar, and there was no basis for him to report one cent in earnings for those years.

R. v. Millar, 2016 BCSC 2039
http://canlii.ca/t/gvg6p

The one cent comment refers to him filing tax returns reporting one cent of income. Judge then said "You've lost. I've convicted you."

At this point Millar seemed totally off balance. It was my thought that this was finally the point where he realized that he couldn't argue and delay any longer and he was going to be sentenced regardless of what he did.

He mentioned the moral culpability and blameworthiness section of sentencing guidelines. "I did it in good faith so I have no moral culpability". He said he tried to do things in a good faith way. Judge said "I'm going to stop you. You did not testify at trial and say what you believed and given Crown the chance to cross." Millar - "Why would anyone teach it if they didn't believe? That would be crazy." He said that a lower court decision isn't conclusive until it is lost at appeal. This was exactly the argument that Lawson made at his sentencing hearing to explain why he'd continued to teach Paradigm after Eva Sydel was convicted of income tax evasion after following Paradigm. Lawson made two points, that trial court decisions are essentially meaningless unless they are appealed and the conviction is confirmed and that they are also meaningless until there is a "critical mass" of adverse decisions.

Millar said that he'd argued that he was right but nobody would allow him to be right. A lot of back and forth with judge I missed trying to catch up. Millar said that there was no air of reality to the Crown's case. "I had no idea what a can of worms I was opening up. The law has to be understood by the average person or it can't be upheld." Judge said "I'm not aware of that rule and it doesn't affect sentencing." So Millar went off on a tangent about common law rights, foundational principles of law, superior to Income Tax Act. "That's why it was a human rights case." He'd acted innocently and in good faith. It was outrageous that the Crown assumed that he'd acted deliberately.

He was just floundering now. "I have great respect for the law. I agree with denouncing unlawful acts." Then back to common law. "My offense was not unlawful nor was it illegal. There was an alleged loss of funds to Her Majesty but there was no harmed party because the Queen is a legal fiction so no harm was done to the peace, only to Her Majesty. The Income Tax Act is not part of common law. The gravity of offense in my case is just under alleged $25,000. This is not missing from Her Majesty's purse but alleged just not put there."

Then he stopped and started poking around in the papers on the table in front of him. After a few minutes of his paper shuffling the judge called for the afternoon break but told Millar before we recessed that she needed to know how long he needed (it was 3:10, break until 3:30, and court ends at 4:00). "I don't know". Judge wasn't satisfied with the answer. "I convicted you on a very serious matter and Crown wants you to get three and a half years. You've had a month to consider your arguments and you can't tell me how long you think you'll take?" "I don't know."

During the break Millar and Lawson sat in the lobby conferring. After break Millar started by mentioning a case, I didn't catch the name, where the amount taken was "$15,000 plus change". His argument was the proportionality of the sentence to the gravity of the offense. He only had $25,000. Responsibility is based on knowledge of being wrong. He had his beliefs after his investigations and queries which weren't answered. His responsibility is diminished. He has a lower responsibility because he tried to be in compliance with the law. Crown intervened "He's trying to give evidence at this point."

A few comments from me. He's fixated on the $25,000 of taxes evaded and is arguing that he shouldn't be given a prison sentence for such a minor amount. But only six months of the Crown's recommended three and a half year sentence was assigned to the tax evasion charges. The remaining three years was the counseling fraud charge and he's not mentioning that. I think that his comments about unanswered queries were in respect to a batch of letters that Russell Porisky sent out to Canadian members of parliament. If I recall correctly they laid out the natural man argument of the Paradigm theory and invited the MP's to tell him why it was wrong. None responded so Porisky said that he took this as confirmation that Paradigm's teachings were correct.

Back to Millar. Witnesses said that there was research with honest intention. The level of material shows that he didn't have knowledgeable intent. He quoted a paragraph in the sentencing guidelines saying that sanctions other than prison should be considered. Even though other people have been imprisoned doesn't mean that he should be. Nobody harmed, non-violent. Not malicious or harmful to any man or woman. The only one claiming harm is Her Majesty for $25,000, the alleged missing $25,000. Note - This is not, legally, an alleged amount, the judge accepted it as a fact). Back to argument that his students had free choice. He seemed to be lost, just grasping at arguments. No evidence that one payor not paying tax makes other people pay more taxes. That's just propaganda. He said that most taxes are paid through payroll deductions which mean those individuals volunteer to pay tax.

Up to this point his arguments after break were at least to some extent addressing sentencing issues but then he returned to the foundational position of the private man vs. the public duty. He didn't contract to participate in a public duty. Then he was back on his $25,000 of tax over four years. He didn't intend to make a profit. No profit motivation. Not fair for such a low dollar amount. The whole idea that I taught and participated was profit motivated is completely unrealistic. Millar wasn't actually making a presentation with these points. Millar was rummaging through the Crown's submission, pulling out paragraphs and trying to refute them rather than giving a structured presentation. He was totally disorganized.

The judge said that he wasn't going to finish today. Millar said that he suspected not. So one more day of sentencing arguments scheduled and adjourned.

As far as I can tell Millar, after being given a month to prepare for his sentencing hearing, came to it totally unprepared for anything except a further continuation of his obsessions with capitalization, jurisdiction and private persons. He's lost these arguments over and over in court but seemed to think he had the right to continue arguing them forever. Even worse he didn't seem to understand the basic purpose of the hearing. He seemed to think it was yet another chance, in a string of endless opportunities, to fight the charges through argument, adjournment, and applications where he controlled the process through his demands on the court. As best I could tell he hadn't yet come to the realization that that ship had sailed and, whether his legal positions and beliefs were good, bad or indifferent, they were now totally irrelevant. For almost the entire day everything the Court and Crown said just deflected off him unheard and it was only late in the afternoon that the judge was finally able to break through his almost impervious shell of denial and convince him that he was going to be sentenced regardless of what he did. When that finally hit him it threw him so far off-balance that he floundered. For the only time since I've been watching him he seemed hopelessly confused and at a total loss for words.

So, what's next. He'll have one more shot at putting together a coherent sentencing submission. After that he's done and the judge will sentence him. Almost certainly to jail. The 100% fine on taxes evaded is a given, it's mandatory upon conviction. Then the appeal.

Wait! I forgot the petition. It must be trundling through the system. I don't have details as to what's in it but I can guess. He's petitioned the court to order his trial judge to finally directly address all of his arguments in detail. He wants the judge to try and refute his obsessions with capitalization, jurisdiction, his interpretation of the County Act, the Equity Act, common law and his analysis of the right of a private person engaged in private business to have his affairs immune from the CRA and the court. If he's wrong he wants a detailed legal analysis why. Then, another guess, he wants the right to argue the judge's conclusions.

So, a question. Why would a court do that? He's had the chance to present all of his arguments at trial and he'd been convicted. Why would the same court require the trial judge to expand her reasonings in her judgment to include a copious analysis of all of Michael's deluded interpretation of law. Sorry, not law, but beliefs. His belief about secret courts brought to life by the variations in capitalization in legal and court documents has nothing to do with law. His belief that Canada actually doesn't exist as a valid country but is just a "geographic fiction" has nothing to do with law. That's why the Crown has, in numerous instances throughout these proceedings said that he had made arguments "unknown to law". Numerous judges have unanimously ruled against him on these issues. As Millar said he'd "opened a can of worms" and now that he's convicted the court won't see any reason to open it yet again.

[Burnaby49]

Time to make my last Millar post. Maybe my last. I attended his sentencing hearing yesterday morning and he's been sentenced. Apart from possibly covering his appeal I'm finished with him. Except, except . . . . . Except that I have an earlier hearing I haven't written up yet. And I may not. I'm sick of his overwhelming obsessions about capitalization, jurisdiction, natural man, and that's what that day was all about.

To backtrack. My last posting was for the December 13th sentencing hearing. This was not where he was to be actually sentenced but for sentencing submissions. Each side makes arguments on what they think is the appropriate sentence now that Millar has been convicted. The hearing should have ended on that day except for the problem that Millar apparently does not want the hearings to end. He is willing to obsessively ramble on about his legal beliefs forever if the court allows it. So the December 13th hearing, which should have been over in a few hours, lasted all day. It started with a petition of some sort that, according to Millar, would end the case without sentencing. So, to quote my prior posting, he wanted;

1 - His file sealed by court order.

2 - An adjournment because, apparently, there was a hearing next Friday that would consider the legal nature of the person charged.

3 - Something about the petition seeking a court order and direction on the trust status of the name Michael Spencer Millar. Apparently he's now his own trustee.

4 - Today's hearing cancelled in light of this new development.

Number 3 is significant because it came up in today's hearing.

Anyhow since he didn't finish his submissions another court date had to be scheduled to allow him his shot at minimizing his sentence. In the event "another day" was way to optimistic. It took at least another two and a half days of hearings.

I didn't bother going to the next scheduled hearing, I'd had enough. But I went to the January 27th hearing, the one I've not yet written up, thinking that it was the final hearing when he'd be sentenced. No such luck. He was still on his submissions but even that got thrown overboard as he pulled yet another application out of nowhere. He wanted the judge to recluse herself for bias. We spent an entire day of Millar yammering incessantly about his grievances. His main proof of bias? Even though he was correct in all of his legal arguments the judge had decided against every one. Since she knew he was right she must be bias otherwise he'd be a free man. The only other possibility, which he alluded to, was that perhaps the judge was too incompetent and uneducated in law to understand his legal arguments. Either way he was being railroaded. Bottom line was that he seemed to imply that the only way she could prove she was not bias was to agree with his application and confirm that she was bias. That's the kind of thing that I've come to expect at Millar's hearings.

However Millar used almost the entire day, a long, long day, to re-argue, yet again, about capitalization, jurisdiction, Judicial Districts, his capacity and status as a natural man, and all the other failed arguments he won't let go. I have eight pages of scrawled single spaced 8X11 notes of the day's gibberish and I just didn't have the energy to post it. So I passed on attending the next two hearings where the judge refused his bias application and he finally finished his submissions. So, on February 28th he was at last sentencing.

I was a bit concerned about making it to court on time. It was snowing and downtown Vancouver was expected to be swamped with protesters because the Trumps were in town. Two of The Donald's sons and a bunch of lesser Trumps were here for the official opening of the Vancouver Trump Towers. In the event snow was just a sprinkling and the protest fizzled. I knew Millar had at least one other attendee apart from myself because Keith Lawson's Millar's father was on the same Skytrain car as me. He's attended Millar's hearings from time to time and I suppose he wanted to be here at the finish. Turned out a lot of others did too. I got to the courtroom about ten minutes early. No Millar. He came about five minutes late but not a problem since we started about fifteen minutes late. Three sheriffs this time. They generally have two or three at sentencing.

An ominous note. Before the hearing started the clerk asked Crown counsel if she was aware that Millar had filed something in registry yesterday. No. I doubt it was a surprise. He's been springing applications on the court and Crown without warning since the process began. There was no reason to expect today would be any different regardless of the fact that everything was over and his entire role was to be quite and listen to his sentence. By the time the hearing started we had a dozen spectators. Myself, one of the Crown counsels who chose to sit in the cheap seats, Jessica, a Crown counsel who'd worked on the case for years them quit just before it was over to join the provincial government legal services, Both Keith Lawson and his father, Master gee; this is Master Gee;

viewtopic.php?f=48&t=10342&p=181582

I'd actually met Master Gee at a previous Millar hearing and we had a pleasant chat. He said he'd read my postings about him at least ten times and was initially very angry at me but eventually concluded that I just didn't understand the point he was trying to make. True enough.

Back to the list of attendees. A woman who came with Millar, a lawyer all dressed up for court, and a bunch of others I couldn't identify. Impressively ten of the twelve attendees, including myself, took notes during the hearing.

The court started and Michael started his opening spiel however he'd changed it. In the past he's said, after giving his name, that he was in court in his private status as a special appearance. Today he said he was not a trust or a surety of his trust. He went on about being a flesh and blood man, something about the spirit, I think he mentioned the creator, he caught me off balance and I didn't get it all. Not that it lasted long. As always he seemed settled in for the long haul but the judge interrupted him with "You are not to speak. If you continue I shall have Mr. Sheriff put you in custody". Conveniently Mr. Sheriff had moved his chair so he was sitting very close to Millar. Millar knew she'd do it because she'd done it before when he wouldn't stop ranting;

viewtopic.php?f=50&t=10834#p227241

And the sheriff beside him was the one who cuffed him last time. So Millar shut up.

Then the judge noted that Millar had submitted a document. She said it was irrelevant and there was no need to discuss it. Millar blew up and started ranting IT'S ABOUT JURISDICTION! IT'S ABOUT TRUSTS AND TRUSTEES! Judge brutally cut in "You are not to speak, if you continue I'll have Mr. Sheriff put you in custody". Mr. Sheriff started to rise and Millar shut up again. This time he kept quiet until the end when he had another little hissy-fit.

Once the judge started she just read out a prepared sentencing decision which I assume will be published. So I didn't bother to try and note down all the details. I couldn't in any case; she was going way too fast for me to keep up. So just a few highlights.

The Judge noted the two sides positions on the appropriate sentence. Millar had said that no sentence at all was appropriate, Crown wanted three years. Judge went through the history of the sentencing submissions going through the various hearings.

At Crown's request judge granted a conditional stay on count 1. This was because counts 1 and 2 were, while different charges, almost the same. Count 1 was for making false statements in tax returns count 2 was tax evasion. Since he was convicted on both one had to go. Procedure is to retain only the most serious charge which is evasion.

Judge went in to Millar's personal circumstances. 55 years old, no health issues and no responsibilities for child care. No job or income, no proven prior convictions. She was obviously comparing him to Keith Lawson. The judge's wording of the phrase "no proven prior convictions" was significant since Millar does have a prior conviction and the judge had been notified of it. This one for failing to file income tax returns when demanded;

http://canlii.ca/t/1gnbx

This issue came up in a prior hearing when the Crown tried to enter the conviction into evidence. The judge, a stickler for rules of evidence, asked how the Crown could prove that the Michael Spencer Millar convicted on November 21, 2001 was the same Michael Spencer Millar currently standing in the courtroom. They couldn't. There was some discussion about getting someone involved in the 2001 conviction to identify him but the Crown apparently decided the issue wasn't significant enough to pursue. The judge asked Millar if it was him but, very uncharacteristically, he declined to answer. So he avoided having the prior entered as an aggravating circumstance at sentencing.

Judge continuing Crown's list of aggravating circumstances judge noted that Millar had had 238 students and wrote up 60 contracts for hire. The contracts were the key document in Porisky's tax evasion scheme since they allowed the taxpayer, in Porisky's dream world, to opt out of the taxpaying system by becoming independent contractors rather than employees. This meant that the employer would stop sending the CRA incriminating information about the ex-taxpayer so that they hopefully fell off the radar.

Judge went though the net income, as calculated by the Crown, that Millar evaded tax on. About $145,000 over five years. On average about $29,000 a year. Paradigm wasn't exactly a gold mine for him.

An aggravating circumstance, in the judge's opinion, was that he relied on Paradigm gibberish throughout the trial an indeed to the current date. No remorse. Another aggravating circumstance was that he kept teaching Paradigm material and getting new students even after he knew that the CRA was pursuing Paradigm students and that Eva Sydel, another Paradigm obsessive, had been convicted of tax evasion for using the Paradigm teachings.

I wrote about Eva Sydel here;

viewtopic.php?f=50&t=7827#p131049

This is her conviction decision;

http://canlii.ca/t/1p2m1

The judge noted that Sydel was convicted in May 2006 but Millar continued to flog Paradigm bullshit (not judge's phrasing) for another two years until 2008.

More aggravating;

- Part of organized group

- Multiple years

- Counseled 238 people

No mitigating factor of remorse since he was still arguing Paradigm theory at trial and sentencing.

Judge went through a list of previous Paradigm convictions provided by the Crown for guidelines on sentencing. A very subjective review something like buying a house. You know, that house down the street is similar but has an extra bathroom so worth more, that one is also similar but smaller lot. A series of adjustments to determine how the house you are buying compares with similar houses in the neighborhood. Judge did same to determine a sentence compatible with previous sentences. She compared the number of students, taxes evaded, personal circumstances of convicted, guilty plea vs. trial, I lost track of it all.

First decision was whether to impose a conditional sentence, essentially house arrest with a lot of exceptions, or jail time. If jail time should the sentences for the various offenses be consecutive or concurrent. Judge said that conditional sentences in prior decisions based on guilty pleas not appropriate. She mentioned Keith Lawson's sentence. This is Keith's sentencing hearing;

viewtopic.php?f=50&t=8223&start=80#p235941

Lawson has serious medical issues and was responsible for taking care of three young children. Millar had neither of these mitigating circumstances.

After a lot of "on one hand but on the other hand" and discussion about deterrence, gravity of offense, denunciation, similarity to other sentences etc the judge decided that consecutive custodial sentences were appropriate. So she gave him a six months jail sentence for evasion and a two year jail sentence for counseling fraud. Sentences to be consecutive for a total of two and a half years. She imposed the minimum fine of 100% of taxes and GST evaded. This was about $25,000. Counseling was obviously the big one. I doubt he would have received jail time if he was just charged for tax evasion. Judge noted that Paradigm educators had received custody sentences ranging from six months to five and a half years (Russell Porisky, the man himself!) but neither end of the range was appropriate.

Judge considered the payment schedule on the fine given that Millar was heading off to the slammer and had no job or assets when he got out. She'd actually done a calculation showing that if he got a minimum wage job at 37.5 hours a week for 50 weeks a year he'd make about $25,000 a year. Actually not much less than he made as a Paradigm educator. Judge figured once he'd gotten back on his feet, three or four months after release, he could pay $250 a month out of this. The minimum wage in British Columbia is currently $10.85 per hour which I calculate, using the judge's annual hours, comes to $20,343 per year. So she must have assigned him a wage slightly above minimum.

Crown wanted DNA sample. After a review of circumstances around a mandatory sample judge declined to grant Crown's request.

Last issue was forfeiture of property. Millar wanted everything seized returned because, as we know, he is a private person and that is his private property. In Millar's dream world that meant the Crown could not seize anything. However he and Crown had worked on a list of what was actual personal property and what was material relating to his evasion and Paradigm teaching. Judge agreed to the forfeiture of the agreed items.

The victim surcharge was last. Millar argued that there were no victims. Judge disagreed. The Crown lost revenue, both from Millar and, at least temporarily, from any of his students who followed his teachings. Other taxpayers were also victims since they had to pay for the government services that Millar used but evaded paying for. But, while the judge concluded that a surcharge was appropriate she declined to impose one since it was unlikely he'd be able to pay it.

Crown was asked if she had anything to say. Nope. Millar was asked if he had anything to say and he blew up again. I DON'T VOLUNTEER TO GO TO JAIL AND I WON'T GO TO JAIL! I WANT MY BOND BROUGHT FORWARD FOR SETTLEMENT! But the judge has left without listening and sheriffs were closing in so Millar stopped ranting. He was taken into custody for processing but, at his request, not cuffed.

That last rant explained a lot. The document he'd tried to enter and that the judge had said was irrelevant was a fake bond he'd written up supposedly as full payment of all charges. The "settlement" was probably the reversal of his conviction and sentencing. He, like many sovereigns, seems to believe that you can just write up a bond and it magically becomes real money. Which begs the question; If he was correct why was he broke instead of living like a millionaire. Just churn out more bonds when cash runs a bit low.

I'm guessing that the petition he'd made to the court in the December 13th hearing, which I'd quoted earlier in this posting;

3 - Something about the petition seeking a court order and direction on the trust status of the name Michael Spencer Millar. Apparently he's now his own trustee.

Was also a failed attempt to foist these bullshit bonds on the court. Even apart from this prior failure Millar knew, or should have known that it wouldn't work because some fellow Poriskyites had tried exactly the same thing and been slapped down by the Alberta Queen's Bench;

viewtopic.php?f=50&t=11310#p239405

Millar has already appealed the decision and sentence. I'll probably go over to the appeal court registry and get a copy of his notice of appeal. I'm guessing that he thinks he can start the whole process all over again with endless litigation and arguments about private persons, capitalization, secret courts, jurisdiction and the rest of his failed beliefs. He's going to be in for a rude shock. Any attempts at relitigation will be stomped on pretty quick in front of the appeal bench.

Millar has really screwed himself. He's an articulate intelligent individual with the apparent ability to have had what most of us consider a reasonably prosperous life. Instead his ant-government obsessions have left him 55 years old with no assets, no income, no job skills, a criminal conviction and with a jail sentence coming up.

[Burnaby49]

Shortly after posting Millar's court report I ran across this from last year;

http://canlii.ca/t/gvsw1

The decision, in its entirety is;

[1] The applicant Mr. Zeleny claims to have been in possession of pieces of paper that he purports are “historic financial instrument(s) (bonds)”. From the copies filed I note that:

(a) Unlike valid government bonds, the usual recitals of a clear obligation to pay, payment or redemption date, interest rate and intervals are not present. The wording of the documents themselves is nonsensical.

(b) There are numerous misspellings of critical words, such as “Unted States of America”, “The Onited Staes”, “Minisiry of Finance”, Minisidy of Finance”, “pricipals and Interests”, “the departmnt of The treasury”, “irtest free note”, and “Valid for Evev”. There are more examples. Often there is no spacing between words.

[2] Anyone reading these documents can see at a glance that they are not to be taken seriously. Mr. Zeleny, however, takes them very seriously. He asserts that they are currently worth 127.5 billion U.S. dollars.

[3] Rather than take his documents to an American bank or American government agency -- the logical choice if they had any air of reality -- Mr. Zeleny, a Canadian citizen, attended a Canadian Embassy in Thailand and left the “bonds” there. They were subsequently assessed by the RCMP. Since around May of 2016, Mr. Zeleny’s overtures to have discussions with Canadian government officials related to these documents, including the Minister of Finance, have gone unanswered. He has therefore commenced an application against the named respondents. He seeks per his originating process and factum “compensatory damages” for the “value of the bond”, and also what he calls “treble damages” (tripling of damages) relying on a general reference in Black’s Law Dictionary. The total amount sought in his application is therefore $510,000,000,000 U.S. dollars (510 billion dollars). To put this number somewhat in perspective, the published Canadian federal budget for 2015 (total estimated revenues) was about 290 billion Canadian dollars which, after the currency conversion, is less than half of the amount claimed.

[4] Upon receiving Mr. Zeleny’s application the Department of Justice (“DOJ”) delivered a ‘Requisition for an Order of the Court Dismissing this Application’ per Rule 2.1.01(6) of the Rules of Civil Procedure. Other than that, no material by any responding party has been filed. Mr. Philippe Lacasse counsel for the DOJ appeared at the return date of the application on September 6, 2016. He directed my attention to Rule 2.1.01 and urged me to dismiss the proceeding on my own initiative as being frivolous and vexatious. I made an order at that time staying the proceeding on an interim basis and, per the summary procedure found in Rule 2.1.01(3), allowed an opportunity for written submissions only. Mr. Zeleny has provided his written submissions but has also included several motions for interim and final relief including a request that I recuse myself because of a lack of familiarity with world finances.

[5] Mr. Zeleny’s written submissions are in keeping with the facts as set out above. In my view this is a clear case of a claim that on its face is so completely devoid of merit that it cannot succeed. No reasonable person would expect to obtain the relief sought. I therefore dismiss the proceeding as frivolous and vexatious. No order as to costs.

I assume that Millar's "bonds" are similar. I know, behind the parade again. But I'm only one guy trying to keep on top of an entire nation of craziness.

You'd think that a guy trying to claim $510,000,000,000 U.S. dollars would at least run his court application through spellcheck.

[notorial dissent]

Sounds related to the nutcase we had in NY filing his claim for umpteen bazillion dollars based on his magical Federal Reserve Bonds. For some totally unfathomable reason the Dist Court let this one linger on for quite some time before they finally booted it altogether.

[wserra]

Please refresh my recollection, nd. Which of our illustrious nutcases are you talking about?

[notorial dissent]

The one Neil Keenan filed in S.D. NY as I recall over the So called trillions of dollars of Federal Reserve Bonds he claimed were stolen in Italy from his couriers by US Customs and the Treasury, that he some how conned a real respected law firm to file suit over. That dragged on what two years before it was put out of its misery?

[Burnaby49]

Yesterday I posted about Millar's sentencing hearing and also whined about a prior hearing I'd attended where he yammered on all day arguing that the judge was biased against him. I wrote;

I didn't bother going to the next scheduled hearing, I'd had enough. But I went to the January 27th hearing, the one I've not yet written up, thinking that it was the final hearing when he'd be sentenced. No such luck. He was still on his submissions but even that got thrown overboard as he pulled yet another application out of nowhere. He wanted the judge to recluse herself for bias. We spent an entire day of Millar yammering incessantly about his grievances. His main proof of bias? Even though he was correct in all of his legal arguments the judge had decided against every one. Since she knew he was right she must be bias otherwise he'd be a free man. The only other possibility, which he alluded to, was that perhaps the judge was too incompetent and uneducated in law to understand his legal arguments. Either way he was being railroaded. Bottom line was that he seemed to imply that the only way she could prove she was not bias was to agree with his application and confirm that she was bias. That's the kind of thing that I've come to expect at Millar's hearings.

However Millar used almost the entire day, a long, long day, to re-argue, yet again, about capitalization, jurisdiction, Judicial Districts, his capacity and status as a natural man, and all the other failed arguments he won't let go. I have eight pages of scrawled single spaced 8X11 notes of the day's gibberish and I just didn't have the energy to post it. So I passed on attending the next two hearings where the judge refused his bias application and he finally finished his submissions. So, on February 28th he was at last sentencing.

Just by chance the decision in respect to that bias application was released this afternoon. So, while it won't be the same as having my on-the-spot reporting the decision does a good job of filling in what happened and the result;

R. v. Millar
2017 BCSC 323
http://canlii.ca/t/gxqf7

You can read it yourselves, I'll just post some highlights.

[13] At about 10:10 a.m. on January 27, 2017, Mr. Millar stated that he wished to apply for an order for my recusal on the basis of a reasonable apprehension of bias. He later explained that he sought a mistrial, rather than a substitution of another judge to complete sentencing.

[14] Mr. Millar did not set out his application pursuant to Form 1 of the Criminal Rules of the Supreme Court of British Columbia, S1/97-140, even though he had used that form for applications during trial, including his Charter Section 11 Application.

[15] Ms. Manery advised on behalf of the Crown that she first learned of this application when Mr. Millar started making it orally shortly after 10:00 a.m. on January 27, 2017. However, the Crown did not object to Mr. Millar bringing the application without notice, and did not object to Mr. Millar's failure to provide a completed Form 1.

[16] The hearing of Mr. Millar's Mistrial Application proceeded for most of the court day on January 27, 2017. Mr. Millar made his submissions until about 2:45 p.m. The Crown's submissions followed, and lasted about ten minutes. I reserved my decision on the application to today, February 8, 2017, on the basis that if Mr. Millar's application was dismissed, we would continue with the submissions on sentencing.

In other words trial by ambush. He was constantly doing that throughout the process. Filing things at the last minute without telling anyone.

[42] I turn to what I consider the first particular. Mr. Millar suggested that he was held to a higher standard than the Crown because he was required to make applications following Form 1 while, he alleged, the indictment was not in proper form. Mr. Millar referred to the use in the indictment of capital and small letters and to the words "in the" used in the description of the court.

[43] This objection to the indictment was dealt with in the Conviction Reasons at paragraphs 4-13. It is not necessary for me to repeat those paragraphs. I concluded that whether capital or lower case letters are used in the court forms in the spelling of any names is of no significance. Mr. Millar failed previously in his assertion that the Crown has not complied with the proper procedure through the form of the indictment.

[44] Mr. Millar provided a number of pieces of paper at various times which were not on court forms. On March 5, 2016, I provided Mr. Millar with a 46�page memorandum setting out the court process, including the process for him to make applications and attaching a copy of Form 1. Mr. Millar used Form 1 for a number of applications during the trial, including his Charter Section 11 Application.

[45] As a result, Mr. Millar was not treated differently from the Crown in respect of compliance with court forms. Both the Crown and Mr. Millar were expected to use appropriate court forms.

[46] Mr. Millar can appeal my decision that the Crown's use of capital and small letters had no impact on the legitimacy of the indictment. However, the fact that Mr. Millar's arguments failed does not establish bias. To use a baseball analogy, an umpire is not biased because the umpire called a strike. The judge, like the umpire, must make a call.

Just an attempt to relitigate, yet again, capitalization. It's almost like he hadn't been convicted yet.

[48] I turn to the second particular. Mr. Millar referred to the fact that he asked me questions about whether the court which heard the trial was the court pursuant to legislation he cited, and I declined to provide an answer. He argued that this demonstrated bias.

Again capitalization. Since the forms had what he considered improper styling of the words "Supreme Court of British Columbia" he said that they referred to a different alternate Supreme Court, not the real one, and he kept pestering the judge to confirm that this was indeed the real Supreme Court. Master Gee, who attended some of Millar's hearings, also had the same argument at his hearing.

[61] I turn to the fourth particular. Mr. Millar argued that there were times when my tone was intimidating. I accept that I may have appeared frustrated when Mr. Millar repeated himself or persisted in an argument on which he had already failed.

Although it must have been a sore temptation she didn't come down from the bench in a homicidal fury and beat him to a pulp with her gavel. Given that self-discipline I'd say she was remarkably restrained.

Then back to capitalization. It was an all day obsession;

[63] I turn to the fifth particular. Mr. Millar referred to a different case with a different judge in which the judge manually, in his own hand printing, changed the style of cause to upper and lower case. Mr. Millar argued that there was a perception of bias because I did not do this.

[64] This is another instance of Mr. Millar raising the argument about the use of capital letters and small letters which I dealt with in the Conviction Reasons. I have stated repeatedly that the use of capital and small letters is of no importance. Again, the fact that Mr. Millar failed in his arguments based on capital and small letters does not establish bias.

Then a new legal concept he pulled out of his ass. The judge was required to act as the lawyer for the defendant;

[77] I turn to the eighth particular. Mr. Millar argued that he was not given "all the assistance that was possible and allowable" for assisting an unrepresented party. He argued that I could have assisted him in cross-examining a witness from the Canada Revenue Agency (“CRA”).

[97] I turn to the tenth particular. Mr. Millar initially argued that I did not provide any cases to assist him. During the course of the hearing of the Mistrial Application, I reminded Mr. Millar that I provided both him and the Crown with a list of cases which were possibly relevant to challenging the Crown's arguments regarding the use that could be made of audio and video recordings seized from Mr. Millar's home.

Then he had words about the judge's demeanor;

[104] I turn to the twelfth particular. Mr. Millar argued that I gave a discouraging look when he referred to legal maxims. He suggested that legal maxims are legally binding.

Same bullshit that Dean Clifford tried. He'd dig up legal maxims from centuries ago and say that they trumped statue law.

Then the brush-off.

[108] In summary, none of the 13 particulars of Mr. Millar's allegations give rise to a reasonable apprehension of bias. Whether considered individually or collectively, a reasonable person, properly informed of the full context and the court process, would conclude that there is no reasonable apprehension of bias.

[109] As a result, I must dismiss Mr. Millar's mistrial application.

[wserra]

The one Neil Keenan filed in S.D. NY

Ah yes, the "Dragon Family".

So many nutcases, so little time.

[notorial dissent]

I think the last time I saw Keenan's name mentioned it was in connection with one or another of the RV scams.

[Burnaby49]

The one Neil Keenan filed in S.D. NY

Ah yes, the "Dragon Family".

So many nutcases, so little time.

And I'm the one who seems to have them all. I've got two more I'm trying to get around to posting.

[notorial dissent]

That clear, crisp, soggy northern climate must be conducive to it.