And a sixpence in her shoe.traditional rhyme which details what a bride should wear at her wedding for good luck
I have a copy of Millar's Notice of Appeal but I'm not going to do a detailed review of it. Millar has carried his hallmark "everything but the kitchen sink" style from the courtroom to his Notice of Appeal with relentless repetition. Even the clerk at the British Columbia Court of Appeal registry who printed the notice out for me commented on the huge number of Grounds For Appeal of Conviction that Millar had listed. I've had enough of relating Millar's gibberish over and over so I'll instead just try and analyze the basic themes. That hopeful bridal poem gives me a handy reference guide to break it down into topics. If you are so inclined you can read the document here;http://www.mediafire.com/file/5hq3xhdowowwll1/Millar+BCCA+appeal.pdfSomething Old
Millar has included every last argument he made in court and is trying, yet again, to re-litigate them all. Every one of them. No argument, no matter how many times he lost it at trial or in prior hearings, has been discarded. The bulk of the notice is just padding due to his obsessive repetition, a style he used in court at a cost to me in time wasted while he incessantly rambled on about capitalization and all of his other beloved arguments. They are all back here for an encore. As examples of repetition
- Grounds 1, 6, 23, 23 and 24 are all relate to capitalization.
- Grounds 12, 25, 26, 27, 28 and 31 relate to the Stewart
decision. I'll discuss Stewart
in more detail in "Something Borrowed".
- Grounds 8, 9, 10, 11, 14, 15, 16, 17, 20 and 22 cover his claimed status as natural man and a private person with private property and private contract rights immune to law and taxation.
- Grounds 2, 3, 5, 6, 7, 18, 19, and 21 all relate to how the nasty mean judge abused and mistreated him, ignored his legal brilliance, had him detained and cuffed and inflicted various other indignities to the point that it shocked the public conscience! Also the judge failed in her duties by refusing to act as his defense counsel and, in that role, finding him not guilty. Ground number 18 is going to particularly impress the Court of Appeal, but not favorably, because it's an outright lie;
18. During a chambers hearing called because of the above notice being filed the day before, immediately prior to jury selection, the judge ordered me to be taken into custody by the sheriff without warning or proper explanation as to why, creating an atmosphere lacking in impartial, reasoned adjudicator who would seek to de-escalate and maintain the decorum of the court process, completely inconsistent with the public's expectation of how a judge should treat an accused, unrepresented party and was shocking to the conscience.
I was there and saw the entire event. Millar started ranting at the judge and she told him to stop. He didn't, in fact he ranted even louder. She told him if he didn't stop she'd have the sheriff put him in custody. He ranted on and he was cuffed. I wrote about it here;http://www.quatloos.com/Q-Forum/viewtopic.php?f=50&t=10834#p227241
So the judge warned him, ordered him to stop, and told him the consequences if he didn't. He was handcuffed because he chose not to obey the judge's clear instructions. Apparently, in Millar's world, he can disrupt proceedings whenever he wants with intemperate rants and, if the judge responds by trying to keep order in her court, he has grounds for an appeal. He takes the position that he could act as badly as he wanted and the judge had the responsibility to gently "de-escalate" a situation he created through of his own offensive aggressive behaviour. But his comments in ground 18 opens up questions. Firstly what members of the public had their expectations violated? I was the only member of the public at the hearing and I thought the judge's actions completely appropriate. And who's conscience was shocked? I've not noticed any groundswell of public indignation at the reprehensible treatment inflicted on Millar. In fact the "public" seems unaware of his existence.
Perhaps Millar thinks he can give the Court of Appeal one of his indignant hours-long speeches about this abuse and the court will sympathize at the injustice of it all. Except that they will have the transcript, will read what actually happened, and have it confirmed that anything Millar says can't be trusted unless backed by the record. Something New
Appellants are not allowed to introduce new arguments on appeal. The trial is over and the purpose of the Court of Appeal is to review the judge's decision, not give the appellant another shot at things he could have argued at trial but didn't. But when have rules of court had any meaning for Michael? So he's trotted out a few new ones he didn't get around to trying at trial. First is the Stewart
case which is discussed below. Millar did not bring up Stewart
at trial, at least that I can recall, but now he's seen the light and become a convert. Millar does not mention Stewart
by name or citation in his reasons but he's clearly referring to it in comments like these;
26. The judge did not use the test for source of income prescribed by the Supreme Court of Canada, which is a miscarriage-legal error, or she did not know, therefore not a fair hearing legal error by not applying the legal tests, Not considering a reasonable interpretation, which ignores the individual accused state of mind.
27. From reading the judge's decision it is apparent that she did not use the source of income test prescribed by the Supreme Court of Canada and this constitutes a serious error of law of one of the essential elements of the charge.
Note to Michael - If you claim that the Supreme Court has prescribed a source of income test you'll have to cite the case and show them an actual prescribed test. Just a vague comment that there is one and the judge ignored it won't cut it with the Court of Appeal. They will want the facts supporting your accusations.
Another new argument is not explained and I don't know what he's getting at. In Ground 13 (also mentioned in passing in 9) he claimed that the court and Crown presumed that he was an Agent of Her majesty, acting under franchise or license for all activities at all times. It might relate to his not remitting GST tax in respect to his business activities (although "business" is a fraught word within the Grounds of Appeal). It appears that by assuming that he was acting under franchise the court denied all of the private person rights he would have otherwise had and constantly demanded. No doubt he'll flesh it out with a few hours of explanation at his hearing. Something BorrowedStewart (Stewart v. Canada
,  2 SCR 645, 2002 SCC 46 (CanLII), http://canlii.ca/t/51sg
) was a Supreme Court of Canada decision in respect to expense deductions. Essentially, if you are losing money on a business venture can you deduct these expenses against other income? Stewart
said yes. Keith Lawson tried to turn this decision on it's head and use it as proof that it was really about the taxability of income. It was his argument that Stewart
allowed him to choose whether his income from Paradigm was taxable or not. The Supreme Court of Canada, through Stewart
, allowed him to claim that his income was from a hobby and, if he said that magic incantation "this is a hobby", any money he made from any source became tax free. Lawson said that once he'd made that determination nobody, the CRA, the government, the courts, could argue or dispute it. Apparently, apart from Lawson, nobody in Canada, all the tax lawyers, accountants, judges, understood that this was the true meaning of Stewart
. Needless to say it didn't work for Keith. I reviewed Keith's obsession with Stewart
Apparently Millar's confidence in his own legal interpretations is shaken, at least to some extent, and he appears to have thrown Stewart
in as insurance. Millar did not make any Stewart
arguments at trial, at least while I was watching, but he's suddenly seen the light and become a convert on appeal. If Lawson wins on it in his appeal (0% probability) Millar wants to be on the bandwagon too.
He's also appropriated Lawson's argument that if a defendant comes up with a more lenient interpretation of the law than the court or Crown's interpretation then, for some reason, the court is required to accept the defendant's interpretation. Lawson said in his Notice of Appeal;
14. Where a statute is reasonably capable of two interpretations, the most favourable to the liberty of the Appellant was to be utilized. In a complex statute such as the Income Tax Act, where the legal onus is on the Appellant to voluntarily comply with the terms and provisions therein, errors of interpretation and/or application of the Act by the Appellant cannot form a basis for criminal or penal liability. These are not strict nor absolute liability offenses. The Honourable Trial Judge failed to so exercise her discretion accordingly
Millar has come up with esentially the same argument;
30. The judge has failed to consider and apply three fundamental legal principles; to read the act as a whole, consider possible alternative interpretations, and apply the more lenient interpretation.
So in their dream world all they have to do is tell the judge that her interpretation of the law is wrong, that they have a different interpretation, and they get to walk. Doesn't matter if the judge is actually wrong or if they are right, they just have to say that they thought their interpretation was right. Hell of a loophole!Something Blue
That would be me, caught in my own personal Groundhog Day nightmare of having to review this garbage over and over and over . . . And a Sixpence in Her Shoe
This is the one line that doesn't easily fit within the narrative. More of a personal note on Millar's current circumstances. The judge waived the victim surcharge fine because Millar is, as the court noted, impecunious and unable to pay even a small fine. So no doubt even finding some small change in the couch cushion or in a shoe in the closet would no doubt be a welcome augmentation of his income.
In addition to the above a few odds and ends that don't fit the themes.
In Ground 33 Millar complained that the Crown broke the law in asking for a DNA sample. Clearly a reason to throw everything out! I was in court when the request was made and, while the judge refused the request, she certainly found nothing odd or illegal about it. I guess she has no ability to interpret the law either, a point Millar has been making all through the Notice of Appeal. He has the same complaint about having his Paradigm material seized and forfeited. Since it is the private property of a private person the Crown had no right to take it under the warrant in the first place and certainly no right to keep it.
I'll leave you readers to interpret Ground 35. Just gibberish to me.
The Court of Appeals doesn't know what it's facing. Most appellants want to get it done with but it's my guess that Millar would be happy to argue, demand, rage and admonish the court for decades if the court allows it. It won't. The Court of Appeal doesn't have to contend with the weighty issues of guilt or innocence, just legal correctness, a much easier task. Although Millar will do his best to re-argue his entire case from scratch the appeals court will soon have him on a tight leash. I believe they actually allocate the amount of time an appellant has to present his case and, unlike the Supreme Court of British Columbia they mean it. What's he going to do if he's unhappy about that? Appeal? Supreme Court of Canada here we come!
And there's big trouble brewing for Michael. It's right there in the document. Something that I'm sure a legal expert like Michael has noticed but has chosen not commented on directly in his Grounds of Appeal. The British Columbia Court of Appeal is, like the Supreme Court of British Columbia, an illegitimate court not sanctioned by legislation!
Ground 24 of Millar's notice stated;
. . . . it was admitted by the prosecutor they intended to prosecute the case in the "Supreme Court of British Columbia pursuant to the Supreme Court Act section 2(1)" and in the "Vancouver Westminster Judicial District and County of Vancouver" section 8(d.1) which it appears the trial and decision ultimately did not take place within . . .
Section 2(1) of the Supreme Court Act states;
2(1) The Supreme Court of British Columbia is continued under the name and style of the "Supreme Court of British Columbia".
And 8(d.1) says;
(d.1) the County of Vancouver and the County of Westminster are collectively a judicial district under the name of the "Vancouver Westminster Judicial District"
Yet, notwithstanding these clear definitions, the name of the Supreme Court of British Columbia was styled on various documents used in his prosecution as THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA rather than the legitimate name as prescribed by 2(1). Same for the judicial districts. This is the entire basis of his jurisdiction defense. If a court doesn't style itself exactly as styled in its enabling Act it isn't a legitimate court and has no jurisdiction.
With this in mind, here is a copy of the Court of Appeal Act;http://www.canlii.org/en/bc/laws/stat/rsbc-1996-c-77/latest/rsbc-1996-c-77.html
Check out the definitions in Section 1 where it says;
"court" means the Court of Appeal
Note the use of upper and lower case. And indeed the Court of Appeal Act styles the court's name throughout as the Court of Appeal. However, in the standardized Notice of Appeal form that Millar was forced to use to file his appeal, the court is referred to as the COURT OF APPEAL. A smoking gun! Exactly the same issue that Millar is appealing in Ground 24! So, if the Supreme Court of British Columbia can brazenly ignore the clear wording of the statute that created and regulates it how can Michael expect anything different from the Court of Appeal? If the Court of Appeal agrees with him about capitalization then it means that it is also an illegitimate court and therefore has no jurisdiction over the Supreme court of British Columbia so it can't give him any relief from that court's decision. But if it doesn't agree with him it's going to support the status quo and agree that the Supreme Court of British Columbia is a legitimate court notwithstanding that it refers to itself in all capital letters. A perfect Catch 22. He's screwed.
And a tragic personal story that came to mind from my found money comment. During our 2015 trip to New York my wife and I were walking across a busy downtown intersection when I saw a wad of bills on the ground in front of me. Right in the middle of the pedestrian crossing with people hurrying each way. It must have been just dropped but when I picked it up and looked around nobody obvious in the milling crowd. So I thought I'd keep it (about $65) with the expectation that it would pay for the rest of my planned visits to McSorley's Saloon (I went seven times in total).
Then my wife intervened. She told me it was bad luck to keep found money and we had to give it away. Huh? First time I'd ever heard of that superstition. When I enquired who I was to give it to she noted that there were plenty of street beggars in New York. I pointed out, quite logically I thought, that If I gave the beggars the money they would have the bad luck passed on to them and they looked like they had enough already. So I generously volunteered to end the cycle by keeping the money and carry the burden for them. She wasn't having that and since I wasn't going to give it away I gave her my newly found wealth so that she could dispose of it. But she kept looking for people who she thought needed it or deserve it which I felt went against the whole point of the superstition. If I got it by blind luck without needing or deserving it then, logically, the recipients should be in the same position. So I told her to just give the whole amount to any stranger on the street. However logic doesn't work in situations like this and she played Lady Bountiful for a few days doling it out in bits and pieces. And I had to pay for McSorley's dark ale out of my own pocket.