Robert John: of the familymacmillan takes CRA to Court

[Burnaby49]

I'm always suspicious when a person extols beliefs in court with great passion when those beliefs, just by odd chance, are to the person's financial advantage. Sovereign and freeman beliefs tend, by and large, to revolve around money. Largely how they can avoid paying money (taxes, mortgage, credit card debt) but at the same time have all the advantages that money bestows (the house the mortgage is on, government services, whatever they bought with the credit card). Then there is Menard's freeman debit card that he claimed allowed you, for a real money payment of $250 a month to him, to access $2,500 a month out of thin air. And Let's not forget Peter of England and the WeRe Bank that literally manufactured money out of thin air. At least that was how Peter explained it.

Well meet Robert John: of the familymacmillan, another follower of that grand tradition. Robert owes tax, a lot of it, and doesn't want to pay;

[3] Some context is necessary here. Robert MacMillan currently owes about $220,000 for unpaid income taxes (and perhaps other charges) relating to the 2012, 2013 and 2014 taxation years, and about $43,000 for unpaid goods and services tax (GST) accrued between June 2012 and March 2017.

Robert wants $10,700,000 from the Canada Revenue Agency (and the auditor in charge of his file) to compensate him for the pain and suffering he's faced because of the CRA trying to get him to pay his outstanding taxes. He also wants the return of all taxes collected from him back to his teen years.

However, you can tell from the above quote that his valiant cause was doomed right out the gate. This was part of his argument;

[8] In his submissions, the plaintiff said he had filed materials showing “I have detached myself from my legal name”. He indicated that his legal name is a construct of the government that was carried out through a fraudulent birth certificate scheme. The false construct that is his legal name is not, he said, something that involves him “as a man” and he has no connection with it. Accordingly, the tax debts in question are not owed by him.

Robert filed this lawsuit under his true name, Robert John: of the familymacmillan, the name he'd bestowed on himself as a natural man. But what did the judge call him throughout proceedings? That false construct devised by the government to allow them to steal his money, Robert MacMillan. The judge didn't even bother to at least try and analyze Robert's detailed, finely reasoned arguments. Instead he just stomped on him;

[10] It is obvious that the plaintiff relies on the very type of baseless pseudo-legal arguments that Associate Chief Justice Rooke discussed at length in Meads v. Meads, 2012 ABQB 571 (CanLII). Simply put, these sorts of arguments are sheer and utter nonsense. It is hard to know whether to condemn the proponents of these preposterous arguments or whether to sympathize with them for having being duped by others into believing them, but the result is the same. These arguments have never been successful in any court, and they have never been successful because they are, as I have said, sheer and utter nonsense.

[11] The plaintiff's claim that he is somehow distinct from a separate entity that is his given name was dealt with by Rooke A.C.J. in Meads at paras. 322 to 324. It is a subset of nonsense from the greater nonsense that typifies these sorts of cases. It is a concept unknown to the law, to logic and to common sense.

[12] It is obvious that the claim is frivolous and vexatious as those terms have been described by the authorities.

. . . . .

[14] But as I have said, the plaintiff's claim is founded upon a nonsensical premise and so it must be struck in its entirety. Accordingly, the notice of civil claim filed by the plaintiff is struck and the action is dismissed. The plaintiff’s application for judgment is also dismissed.

Robert John: of the familymacmillan v Johannson
2017 BCSC 1069http://canlii.ca/t/h4j2m

[notorial dissent]

I don't know about this whole detaching himself from his name thing, but it is pretty safe to say that Robert John has detached himself from reality.

[The Observer]

Well, he certainly detached himself from doing a modicum of research into how many people before him had tried similar arguments and won. He would have discovered that the answer was "none."

The judge didn't even bother to at least try and analyze Robert's detailed, finely reasoned arguments. Instead he just stomped on him;

I notice in quite a few of your reports that Canadian judges do a lot of stomping as part of their reasoned determination for why they are not ruling in the favor of the idiot. Is this just natural Canadian justice seeping out? Or is it part of their regimen as they go through the hallowed halls of law school? Or do Canadians just love to stomp a man when he is down?

[Burnaby49]

Because they have big feet and are willing to use them. You have to have at least size 11 to qualify on the provincial benches, size 12 for the Supreme Court of Canada. No exemptions for female judges.

And it's working! Freeman court cases are down, way down, from when I started my court reporting. Back then I'd even have conflicts where I'd have to pass on one hearing to attend another. But now that the Poriskyites are done I have nothing on my schedule and have no expectation of a resurgence. This seems to be the story right across Canada, the surge of now-stomped freeman cases has abated and sovereign activity seems to have gone into a death-spiral. I'm guessing that years of accumulated court losses, repossessions, criminal charges, and other failures without a single victory to report anywhere in Canada has finally had an effect on people's thinking that moronic sovereign arguments are the solution to their financial or legal problems.

So you may have seen the last of the Burnaby49 court reports and freeman reports in general except for the few small-fry now and then like our current subject. I'll have to find a new hobby.

[The Observer]

So you may have seen the last of the Burnaby49 court reports and freeman reports in general except for the few small-fry now and then like our current subject. I'll have to find a new hobby.

Sadly, I tend to agree. Thanks to Rooke's OPCA ruling and the rest of the Canadian justice system being consistent, most of your crazies have gotten efficiently stomped to the point that they have no credibility among the general populace. I suspect that once in a while, someone will run across the nonsense on the 'Net and will take a stab at it, only to be quickly handed their head by the system.

It took much longer here in the US to get to the point where at least now we don't have a bunch of gurus clogging up the courts with their followers being the sacrificial victims. There are still one or two out there that are still scamming and selling, but the sovrun movement is now what is taking up the courts' precious time with their felonious antics.

[Burnaby49]

Well there's still Allen Boisjoli currently going through the grinder but he's in Edmonton so out of my reach. In any case his defenses and arguments are too crazed to supply me with reasonably interesting material. I need at least a veneer of rationality in order to put out a worthwhile report. Michael Millar tested me on that issue.

[Burnaby49]

I have to agree that Rooke royally screwed things up for all of us. If he'd just kept to the business at hand and ordered Dennis Meads to stop being an idiot I would have years of Freeman idiocy still to come. But he had to blabber away for 185 pages on a decision that required a half-dozen pages tops. The MacMillan discussion is a poster boy for the damage Meads has done to my entertainment possibilities. The judge didn't even have to think about the issues. He just passed his judicial reponsibilities over to Meads v Meads and let ACJ Rooke do the heavy lifting.

[SteveUK]

I'm frankly amazed that our freedom fighting friends keep trying this crap. I mean how many more public failures does there have to be before they get the hint?

That's the problem with sov-cit-erry nowadays. Hardly anyone has a new angle.

C- , must try harder.

[notorial dissent]

I think the old saw applies here.

"Those who fail to learn from the past are doomed to repeat it(, and repeat it, and repeat it)." Parenthetical mine. Also, too, "the definition of insanity is repeating the same action over and over and expecting a different result each time" would seem to equally apply.

[eric]

More on the above:
http://nationalpost.com/g00/opinion/col ... ogle.ca%2F
With respect to the claim that freemanism is dead in Canada, the above article also references a couple of other cases to show that it is still active, at least in BC. Canadian readers may also find the following article interesting...
http://www.canadianlawyermag.com/legalf ... eeman.html

Along with Justice Rooke, in 2016, he co-published A Judicial Guide to OPCA Litigation: Tips and Tricks for members of the judiciary. Netolitzky examined 725 reported Canadian court decisions that involved OPCA litigation in some form.

and....

The impact of appeals to the federal tax court was seen in August 2013 when the National Post outlined how de-taxers were clogging the federal tax court and identified 385 cases that used language and arguments similar to the Freeman-on-the-Land ideology of natural citizens being exempt from paying taxes.

My own thoughts on the "freemanism is dead" thesis is that the model has simply changed - there's enough knowledge out there that there is no longer any need for gurus and the judiciary has become so adept at dealing with OPCA arguments in a speedy fashion that there is no longer the protracted battle with "wins" posted to youtube.

[notorial dissent]

One of the unintended or at least unexpected side effects of the innerwebs and anti-social media is that it can in many ways make the gurus superfluous, except in the case of people who really do need/want someone to lead them around by the nose, and there are still a fair number of those out running around loose and unsupervised. The information is out there for the fool hardy and stupid to find if they really want to go it alone, and there will always be those, but in the main, most people want to be told something they want to hear by someone they want to trust, that's how gurus and demagogues work.