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.