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