June 2, 2016
Home stretch, my last posting on Millar's trial. Not the last posting on Millar however. He has a hearing coming up where he plans to try and get proceedings stayed on the basis of undue delay. A delay that, as far as I can see, was mostly caused by him. Then he has yet to get a decision on his trial. When he's convicted he'll have a sentencing hearing then get a shot at appealing. God knows what grounds he'll dredge up for that. Sadly I'll probably be the guy there recording and posting it all.
Well on to my last day attending his trial. The first order of business was the judge's decision on Millar's doomed applications from yesterday. No matter! He has a bright new shiny one to try out on the court today. However ruling first. Judge read from notes so this is my best attempt at getting them down on paper;
Mr. Millar is charged under a four count indictment. False tax returns, tax evasion, and counseling fraud. He filed two notices of application. One contained two separate notices. I dismissed one and heard the other two.
- Private property of natural person. He seeks exclusion of all evidence.
- Audio or video are private conversations of private persons and seizure a breach of private rights.
The evidence includes a warrant to search a bachelor suite on August 25, 2010. The documents seized stated they were confidential contracts between private persons. He raises concerns at the search claiming the status of a private person.
Something about a bundle of documents. He claims a breach of his rights under section 8 of the Charter. His primary argument is that he is a private person entering into private contracts.
Note - This is section 8 of the Charter;
8. Everyone has the right to be secure against unreasonable search or seizure.
Mr. Millar is correct that there is legislation concerning private persons and natural persons. The judge cited some examples from the Criminal Code. It is a basic principle of interpreting legislation that it is to be red as a whole and for their entire sense. These sections were making distinctions between persons and corporations.
I accept that there is (?). However Mr. Millar says he can chose when he becomes a private person and exempt himself from a search. There is no such principle in law.
I this case the warrant was issued under section 487 of the Criminal Code.
This is 487(1);
487 (1) A justice who is satisfied by information on oath in Form 1 that there are reasonable grounds to believe that there is in a building, receptacle or place
(a) anything on or in respect of which any offence against this Act or any other Act of Parliament has been or is suspected to have been committed,
(b) anything that there are reasonable grounds to believe will afford evidence with respect to the commission of an offence, or will reveal the whereabouts of a person who is believed to have committed an offence, against this Act or any other Act of Parliament,
(c) anything that there are reasonable grounds to believe is intended to be used for the purpose of committing any offence against the person for which a person may be arrested without warrant, or
(c.1) any offence-related property,
may at any time issue a warrant authorizing a peace officer or a public officer who has been appointed or designated to administer or enforce a federal or provincial law and whose duties include the enforcement of this Act or any other Act of Parliament and who is named in the warrant
(d) to search the building, receptacle or place for any such thing and to seize it, and
(e) subject to any other Act of Parliament, to, as soon as practicable, bring the thing seized before, or make a report in respect thereof to, the justice or some other justice for the same territorial division in accordance with section 489.1.
Millar says that the voir dire necessary because the search interfered with his private rights. I reject that argument. The Criminal Code is valid federal legislation. Mr. Millar is correct that section 92 of the Constitution Act gives provinces authority over property however that fact that the Criminal Code and Income Tax Act affect property does not make them ultra vires.
Mr. Millar argued about the location of the search saying that it didn't fall within the area in section 9 of the Supreme court Act. That section does not have any bearing on Millar's accommodation. Mr. Millar wants a declaration that this is the Vancouver-New Westminster. This court does not give such a declaration.
This is section 9 of the Supreme Court Act;
9 (1) The court continues to be a court of original jurisdiction and has jurisdiction in all cases, civil and criminal, arising in British Columbia.
(2) The court may sit and act, at any time and at any place, for the transaction of any part of its business, civil or criminal, or for the discharge of any duty.
(2.1) Without limiting subsection (2), and despite any rule of law or enactment to the contrary, any criminal or civil matter that under any rule of law or enactment is to be or must be heard, or that an accused or a party is entitled to have heard, by the court in one of the County of Vancouver or the County of Westminster may be heard at any place within the Vancouver Westminster Judicial District that the court appoints.
(3) Subject to the direction of the Chief Justice, the court must sit in each place where there is a registry of the court as often as is necessary for the reasonable dispatch of civil trials and other business.
(4) The registrar must prepare a calendar of the dates when the court proposes to sit in any place to be published in the registry located there.
The judge said that section 5 of the Law and Equity Act had no application to criminal proceedings. Nor does section 9, that section has no relevance. Section 44 is not applicable to these proceedings. Section 57 is not applicable to a criminal case.
Mr. Millar made an argument that may require further evidence. This was regarding electronic evidence (Skype). Mr. Millar considers it like a wiretap. I will give Mr. Millar opportunity to object. (note - I assume this means when Crown tries to enter it at trial.)
In summary I dismiss Millar's application that there was a violation of his rights under section 8 of the Charter. He is entitled to make an application that items were seized outside the warrant.
My notes are almost illegible at this point but they seem to say that Millar had a new application on the same issues;
1 - An order that the contracts for hire are privileged.
2 - An order that the contracts for hire establish a trust relationship
3 - An order that the examination of his students not be allowed.
He just doesn't stop. He'd be happy to keep doing this over and over forever. Judge said that she dismissed this application as well. Millar zeroed in on the "outside of search warrant" comment and electronic evidence and wanted to renew application on electronic evidence. Judge told him he could object when Crown sought to tender it at trial.
Crown counsel said that she wanted notice of scope of any application regarding Millar's attempt to exclude any evidence he considered outside the scope of the warrant. Judge - Mr. Millar, if you are going to claim evidence was outside the warrant you have to give Crown notice of it or it may be disallowed.
Crown - Millar plans to bring similar applications about the privacy of his bank records. I raise it now because we plan to question witnesses on the bank records. He claims they have the status of private documents.
Judge - I made my ruling that the contracts were admissible. So is there any basis for wanting to exclude these records? Millar - General principle that the bank account was established and identified by private person. The bank has a fiduciary responsibility. Judge - Where is this principle from? (good question. Millar is really big on vague general principles that he claims justify whatever he wants but is very short on law to support his nonsense). A lot of his normal babbling. There is a distinction between the business records of a bank and the records of records of individuals. (Quite true. Banks don't mix their own business records with those of their depositors. So what?) I want the distinction made if these are business records of the bank or of the private person. These were set up as an account of a private person with expectations of privacy. These are private records not records of an artificial person.
Judge - Thank you, I don't need to hear from the Crown. Mr. Millar has objected to his bank records entered in evidence. They belong to a private person. When documents are seized under a search warrant they can be entered at trial. Notwithstanding claims of confidentiality. The fact that the Crown is tendering bank records as business records is not significant. I reject the application.
So, with the applications finally done we got back to the actual trial and one of Millar's students was called as a witness, woman I'd guess in late 40's.
Q - You have a folder? What is in it?
A - Contracts for hire.
Q - What is your job?
A - Supervisor of administration for legal services.
Witness had previously worked for Ubiquity, a privately owned health and welfare center.
Q - Who owned it?
A Ronald and Ellen Conn.
Ronald Conn and Ubiquity are going to play a significant part in both this and the next witnesses testimony so I'll make a digression and give a little of Ronald's background. He's this guy;
B.C.'s securities watchdog says a Vancouver couple bilked 21 investors out of more than $1 million by selling bad shares in a company that produces a hair-restoration product.
Ronald James Conn and his wife Sze Man "Ella" Conn were arrested outside of a Vancouver home last week after a lengthy investigation by the B.C. Security Commission's Criminal Investigations Team and the Vancouver Police Department.
Ronald Conn faces 15 counts under the Criminal Code and 119 counts under the Securities Act for unlawful trading, fraud and breach of bail conditions. Ella Conn is charged with five counts under the Securities Act and 15 under the Criminal Code.
The BCSC says Ronald Conn, and to a lesser extent his wife, solicited over a million dollars from investors between July 2008 and 2010, while he was already banned from trading securities in British Columbia.
Authorities say the couple conducted illegal activities from multiple offices in Vancouver's West Side and Coquitlam.
Ella Conn has been released on bail, while her husband remains in custody awaiting a bail hearing.
This is the third arrest for Ronald Conn and second for Ella Conn related to illegal trading in the securities of the company Follicles. The previous arrests stem from 20 charges against the couple.
Ronald Conn has a lengthy history with the BCSC, with infractions and investigations dating back 14 years.
Ronald Conn was handed a 15-year ban from trading in 1997 for his involvement with Mindoro, a gold and platinum mining exploration company. He also received a $50,000 administrative fine, which he has yet to repay, according to the BCSC. Two other officers of Mindoro were found guilty of distributing shares illegally to 170 investors and lying about the potential earning returns.
In that case, the BCSC concluded that Conn illegally distributed thousands of inflated and illegal company shares while working as an experienced mutual funds salesman – the type of activity he had a professional obligation to prevent.
Ronald Conn induced clients to invest in Mindoro, with his success earning him almost $400,000 US in sales commission. Conn found many of his investors through a course he taught through the Vancouver School Board called Successful Money Strategies Seminars. The course was advertised as introducing participants to wise money management, including maximum investment returns.
The BCSC said that after Ronald Conn realized that Mindoro was a scam, he started another illegal distribution with a company called La Paloma "in a desperate attempt to recoup his clients' investment."
Ronald Victor Markham, whom the BCSC called "the mastermind" behind the Mindoro plan, received a lifetime ban from trading and a $100,000 fine for his participation.
Because Ronald Conn was banned from trading at the time of his arrest, some of the securities charges are upgraded to more serious charges under the Criminal Code.
http://bc.ctvnews.ca/watchdog-says-coup ... s-1.667697
David Baines, our local scam investigator, had an appropriate header for his article;
DAVID BAINES
Lightning strikes thrice for man charged with hair-raising stock follies
In early 2010, BCSC investigators found evidence that Ronald Conn was selling shares of Follicles Worldwide and a related company, Roneen Holdings Ltd.
In May 2010, at the urging of BCSC staff, Crown counsel charged him under the Securities Act with the illegal sale of securities, and with breaching his earlier suspension order. He was arrested and released on bail. That matter is set for trial starting Dec. 6.
One of the bail conditions was that he refrains from promoting or selling securities. But according to BCSC enforcement staff, Ronald Conn, assisted by his wife, continued to sell shares of Follicles Worldwide.
In October 2010, they were arrested on new charges and released on bail. That trial is set for April 23, 2012.
Then lightning struck again last week when they were re-arrested on similar charges. No trial date has been set for this third set of charges.
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/re ... d=65080626
So what happened to those charges and trials? Time to check BC Courts Online. The record is confusing, at least to me. Conn has had numerous charges and hearings from 2008 to February of this year. As far as I can tell this one is done;
Ronald Conn faces 15 counts under the Criminal Code and 119 counts under the Securities Act for unlawful trading, fraud and breach of bail conditions.
File Number 219961 which has the 119 Securities Act charges had a sentencing hearing for him on February 12, 2016 but I can't figure out the sentence or final charges.
Conn also co-authored this book full of new age gibberish;
Take an exciting new journey into the new shift revolutionalizing health care in this provocative handbook on Ubiquitology - healing by connecting mind and body with Spirit. Ronald Conn, Founder of Ubiquity Wellness Centre, North America's foremost private preventative, natural wellness clinic, reveals how after his Near Death Experience he gave birth to his vision and has used revolutionary Ubiquitous healing methods to help thousands achieve their health and wellness goals. Learn how to stay in the Peak Living Zone as Ed Rychkun, Reiki Master and Spiritual Writer takes you to the bottom line of how the Subtle Laws of the Universe work. He tells you why your life is the way it is, and how, by paying attention to the laws of subtle energies, manifesting a better quality life can become a reality. Ronald and Ed provide a mind blowing handbook taking you onto the fast-track to optimum health and quality life through their simple Mind, Body and Spirit Code.
https://www.amazon.ca/Shift-Happened-Ub ... 0978262336
It should be noted that the motto of Paradigm Education Group, Russell Porisky's tax evasion business, was "Shift Happens". As you'll see from the witness testimony the similarity of Conn's book title to Paradigm's motto is almost certainly not coincidental.
So, with that background, back to our witness.
Q - What is Paradigm Education Group?
A - An organization that worked with the Constitution applying the Constitution to natural persons.
Q - How did you hear of it?
A - When was hired at Ubiquity Wellness I was told that I had to meet an individual to discuss how they arranged their contracts.
Q - Who was this?
A - Michael Spencer. Witness pointed at defendant. (Note - Millar's full name is Michael Spencer Millar and he sometimes uses his middle name as his last name.)
Q - Describe the meeting.
A - We met and he went through an application for him as an agent.
Q - What did you understand what you had to do to work at Ubiquity?
A - A portion of my cheque was paid to Mr. Millar.
Q - How much?
A - 7%. Also 3% paid by Ronald Conn to Michael.
Q - What was the purpose of applying the natural person to . . .
Millar - Objection.
Court - Sustained. Too vague.
Millar asked if what he'd said to witness was hearsay. No. If you said something to her it is admissible.
Q - What was Mr. Millar's role in Paradigm?
A - To educate contractors about natural persons
Q - What did Millar tell you about Paradigm?
A - Not much. He just ran through the contracts.
Q - Who was present at the first meeting?
A - Millar and I?
Q - What, at that meeting, did he tell you about Paradigm?
A - Not much. Just that I had to sign to work at Ubiquity.
Q - Did you sign any other Contracts?
A - Just a contract with the owner of Ubiquity.
Morning break.
After break Crown passed some documents to the witness and asked if she recognized them. Yes.
Q - What is it?
A - A folder with contracts for hire, independent agent contract, contract for hire between me and Paradigm.
Q - Where did these documents come from?
A - Michael.
Court - Which Michael? Michael Spencer. Crown entered the documents into evidence and Millar objected. "Those are private confidential agreements between private people." Court - "I've overruled that objection."
Crown put the documents on the screen and went through the contract for hire between Michael - Educator and the witness. Then an agreement between the witness and Ubiquity setting down the terms of the contract of her employment.
Crown asked witness when she last saw the documents and she started getting hazy about when she gave the document to the Crown.
Q - Did you receive any other documents from Millar?
A - When I went to classes about natural persons.
The witness talked about the classes for a bit, how they learned about the structure of the basic law, said they had an educator. Crown asked who and witness got very snippy. "I'm sick and tired of calling him Michael Spencer or Michael Millar. Can I just call him Michael? Court - Yes.
Q - During the term of the contract for hire and independent agent agreement did you pay income tax?
A - No. Why? I was a natural person. Did Millar tell you that you had a choice of paying or not? Don't recall.
Q - What was your understanding of what Millar taught you?
A - He taught us what a natural person was. She said something about the Statistics Act that I didn't catch. Witness couldn't remember or explain the details of what Millar had taught.
Witness had brought some documents that Millar had sold her. One was Porisky's Freedom For All which was put into evidence. Court asked Millar if he had any objections. Witness asked "Does this mean that I won't get it back? Court - It will be a long while. Witness - No, I don't want to give it up. Millar finally objected. "It's not relevant and she doesn't want to give it up." Witness - Can I interject? Court - Yes. The information on the document is the same as the CD (the CD that the Crown had copied all of the evidence on). Court asked Crown if they could have the witness identify a different copy. Crown said that the difficulty was that they would have to break open an evidence box and affect continuity of evidence. So Crown had the witness verify that her same copy was the same as the scammed copy. Yes, identical. Millar - "I admit that these are the same". Court - We won't take your book. Witness thanked the court and said that there was information in it over and above what they taught in Paradigm.
Crown went through her Paradigm education.
Q - Who were in the classes?
A - People at Ubiquity.
Q - Who?
A - Witness mentioned five other people. Said it was sporadic. Sometimes people came, sometimes they didn't. Sometimes four, sometimes seven.
Q - Who taught the courses?
A - Michael.
Q - Anyone else?
A - No. Witness said that she went to these courses for at least a year. She worked two and a half years at Ubiquity.
Q - Where were the classes held?
A - At Ubiquity or at Michaels's home.
Witness identified a few other documents. Copies of cheques she paid for training materials. Direct examination ended after these documents were entered and a few more questions. One I wrote up so badly I have no idea what it is, and these;
Q - Did Michael tell you how much you owed in tax under a contract for hire?
A - No.
Q - Did Michael tell you anything to put on your tax returns?
A - "to the best of my knowledge" and "without understanding"
Then time for cross-examination.
Q - Who introduced us?
A - Either Ron or Ella.
Q - You didn't see a newspaper ad or infomercial?
A - no.
Q - You said that you had to sign a contract to work with Ubiquity.
A - Yes
Q - Court - Did either Ron or Ella tell you that they only hired contractors?
A - Yes.
Q - So that was their decision, nothing to do with me?
A - Yes
Q - So you asked me to enter into a contract to get the education you needed?
A - No. I was introduced to you and had to take the courses to work.
Q - You were contracting as a natural person?
A - Yes.
Q - You learned a lot about law, common law, other types of law?
A - Yes.
Q - Your contract was in the geographical area of Vancouver.
A - Yes.
Q - And you learned about different jurisdictions?
A - I can't recall.
He referred her to two different contracts. One between her and Millar and one between her and Ubiquity. He asked some question that rambled on and made no sense to me until Crown objected.
Q - Did you request these contracts?
A - no.
Q - You had the choice to attend classes, how many to attend . . . Objection, multi-part.
Q - Did you voluntarily attend classes?
A - Yes.
Q - Did you believe I tried to stir you up? Objection. Her beliefs are irrelevant.
Q - Did you believe I was stirring you up or persuading or encouraging you to anything you did not already want to do?
Court - I'm going to allow it.
A - No, he did not.
Q - did you apply the information taught to filing taxes?
A - Yes.
Q - Of your free will?
A - Yes.
Q - You knew potential consequences?
A - Yes.
Q - The education was not solely about income taxes?
A - Correct.
Q - Do you remember that, overall, it was about human rights and taxes only a part of it?
A - Yes. The material was not solely about taxes. It was about Canadian law, Charter of Rights, Constitution, Statistics Act, about how natural persons came to be in common law.
Q - Did you enjoy it?
A - No. I hate law.
Q - Have you red the Income Tax Act?
A - No.
Q - Do you understand it?
A - No. I have used an accountant to file my returns since I was twenty-four.
Then Millar started asking about taxes and Crown objected.
)A note here. Burnaby49 has read the Income Tax Act, almost all of it. I spent 35 years enforcing it. I can say with some certainty that nobody really understands it.)
Q - Your student contract, did you intend it to be private between us, excluding all others?
A - Yes. When I reread it I realized I'd violated the agreement.
Q - When the CRA interviewed you about our relationship did you do it voluntarily?
Crown - Objection on relevance.
Court to Millar - What is relevance? Then allowed.
Q - did you do it voluntarily or did you feel intimidated?
A - I did it voluntarily.
Millar - Did you? Sorry, I didn't expect your answer.
Lunch then back to cross.
You used a phrase a number of times "I had to" but I can't recall context. Oh, there we are. Related to classes.
Q - Both places the classes were held were private places, right?
A - Yes.
Q - Contract was between you and I?
A - Yes.
Q - Did you intent Canada Revenue to be a party to the contract to hire?
A - No.
Q - Did you intend Her Majesty to be part of contract?
A - No.
Q - You intended to have a one on one relationship with all other parties excluded?
A - Yes.
Q - Did I tell you not to put your private compensation on the tax form or was it a choice you made?
A - Choice I made.
Q - Did I tell you that education was about learning about your rights?
A - Yes.
Those are my questions.
So Crown had redirect;
Q - At the beginning of cross you referred as "most unfortunate time of my life" working for Ubiquity. Why?
A - Dealing with taxes.
Rather than give Q&A on this I'll just give summary. Witness got into trouble with CRA by deciding to file tax returns on basis of Paradigm's teachings. She ended up having to pay back taxes and interest. All and all I'd say that she got off lightly.
Millar got one more shot so he lead off with this monstrosity of a question. The contract for hire was a requirement of Ubiquity but you were free to decide with how you filed taxes so did you feel some pressure? Objection. Lots in one sentence. Judge asked him to clarify.
Q - Were you uncertain?
A - The teachings from Paradigm were very well worded and had strong validity. When it was time to pay taxes I was torn between what I'd been doing and what I'd been learning at Paradigm. I thought I was right but later had remorse about how I'd filed. It was my decision not Paradigm's or Michaels. She admitted that she'd voluntarily not reported her income. But she later filed amended returns showing her actual income.
And that was it for this witness. Crown said that there were only two more civilian witnesses rather than the planned five.
So on to second witness, another Ubiquity employee, who told a story essentially the same as the first. He was employed by them for five years. He described Ubiquity as a naturopathic business. Ronald Conn was his cousin. He called himself a business development manager which meant that he arranged loans and financing for clients.
Q - Have you herd of paradigm?
A - Yes
Q - What is it?
A - A group that taught about being a natural person rather than an artificial person.
Q - When did you hear about natural persons?
A - When I joined Ubiquity. I was told how I didn't have to pay tax.
Q - Who told you that?
A - My cousin. And a Mr. Porisky told him by phone that he didn't have to pay tax.
Q - Who did you know at Paradigm?
A - Michael Spencer. I met him at my first week in Ubiquity. My cousin told me that to work for Ubiquity I had to take Paradigm courses. He mentioned the contracts saying that 7% of what he was paid at Ubiquity went to Paradigm. He didn't pay it, the money was taken at source. He entered into a contract for hire between himself and Millar. He went through the same story about the Paradigm education as the first witness. Millar taught them. He and his wife attended classes, they worked together at Ubiquity.
Q - How many people were at meetings?
A - Five generally.
Q - What was the purpose of establishing yourself as a natural person?
A - The main point was that a natural person was not subject to income tax.
He entered some documents into evidence. Court asked "Any objections Mr. Millar, you generally object." "They are private documents." "Apart from that?" "No."
So witness entered documents into evidence the same as the first witness. Millar objected to every one on the basis that they were private property. Overruled.
Q - did you pay income tax on money you earned at Ubiquity?
A - Not at the time but I have since.
Q - Did Millar give you instructions on filing?
A - Mr. Millar told me to file but had us put square brackets. (Note - that is what I have in my notes but either I missed something or witness did not elaborate.)
Q - Did you declare your Ubiquity income on your return?
A - No.
Q - Why?
A - I believed that as a natural person I did not have to pay tax.
Q - Did you pay later?
A - Yes I did. I went to an accountant who had us declare it.
Note - I assume that the accountant tried to report the income under the CRA's voluntary disclosure program. If a taxpayer voluntarily reports undisclosed income he is assesses and pays interest but not penalties. There are some rules regarding whether or not taxpayers qualify for voluntary disclosure.
The disclosure must be voluntary. This means that you don't qualify if the CRA asks you to file a return or starts an audit.
Your disclosure must be complete. Taxpayers often get cute and only disclose income that they think the CRA is going to find anyhow. If the CRA finds othe income not disclosed the voluntary disclosure is invalidated.
A penalty must be involved. In other words, if after looking at a draft of the information you want to disclose, you find that you owe no taxes or penalties are not likely to be assessed, the VDP may not be for you.
The information or return must be more than a year old to qualify. The VDP does not apply to current filings.
So, as I understand the program, Millar would have qualified had he disclosed his Paradigm income before the CRA was aware that he was a Paradigm educator or sold Paradigm materials. This opportunity would have ended once Russell Porisky's computer was seized since the CRA then had the information necessary to identify him. The voluntary disclosure program would only have affected his tax evasion charges. He would still have been charged with counseling fraud, the most serious of his charges.
It appeared from the witness's testimony that the CRA contacted him before he went to an accountant. This would have disqualified him from taking advantage of voluntary disclosure.
This ended Crown's questions. We had a break then on to Millar's cross-examination.
Q - Ron Conn established your connection with Paradigm?
A - Yes,
Q - In order to work at Ubiquity you had to be hired as an independent contractor?
A - Yes.
Q - Set up by Ron?
A - Yes.
Q - I was introduced to you through Ubiquity.
A - Yes.
Q - You entered into a contract with me voluntarily?
A - Yes.
Q - As a natural person?
A - Yes.
Q - In Jurisdiction of British Columbia?
A - yes.
Q - Do you remember the contract defining the jurisdiction of Vancouver, British Columbia, and Canada?
A - I don't remember.
Q - Did you freely chose to attend Paradigm classes?
A - Yes.
Q - Did I tell you that you had to implement information?
A - No.
Q - Were the classes in a private area?
A - yes.
Q - Have you read and understood the Income Tax Act?
Objection. Not relevant.
Q - Did you intend the contract for hire to be a private contract between you and I excluding all others?
A - Don't remember.
Q - Did you intend the contract to include or exclude the CRA?
A - Exclude.
Q - Did you intend to include or exclude Her Majesty?
A - Include.
Q - You are aware that Her Majesty collects taxes?
A - Oh, exclude.
Millar asked a number of questions identical to those asked the first witness and got "I don't remember".
There was a short redirect and then witness done and court over for the day.