An update on both Blerot and McCaw. First Blerot. I obtained a copy of the transcript of his sentencing hearing;http://www.mediafire.com/view/b6oef3muz ... script.pdf
The whole document is worth a read to see how Canadian courts go about sentencing but a few selections stand above the rest to show what a self-detructive SOB Blerot is. The first selection is Blerot's answer to the court when he was asked if he had read the prosecution's sentencing brief;
THE ACCUSED: I'm not interested in that stuff. I'm not the accused.
THE COURT: Sorry, you're not here to read -- you don't want to read it?
THE ACCUSED: I'm not interested in that. I'm not the accused, nor am I the defendant in this matter. I’m just a human being. I'm here, like, in the capacity of the beneficiary.
THE COURT: I appreciate that you've --
THE ACCUSED: (Inaudible).
THE COURT: I appreciate that's your position, but what's going to happen today, Mr. Blerot, is I'm going to sentence you. And if I sentence you today, to a period of time in jail, which is quite likely, then whether you're a natural person or you're the beneficiary of an estate or whoever you are, you will go to jail. And you, that being the person sitting in front of me, is going to be in jail. Whatever name you want to go by. So that's the risk you're facing today, Mr. Blerot. So that's why I say, you haven't read the Brief. You've heard a summary of what they say. If you haven't read the Brief, I encourage you to do so, and I'm prepared to adjourn to allow you time right now to take a look at it, and then provide me with your comments, if you choose to do so. What would you like to do, Mr. Blerot?
THE ACCUSED: I told you I was not interested in that garbage.
THE COURT: You're not interested in the Brief? Is that what you're saying?
THE ACCUSED: That's what I said.
THE COURT: Pardon me?
THE ACCUSED: That's what I said. I'm not interested in that -- that garbage (inaudible).
After Blerot was sentenced to a jail term and fines this was his brilliant idea about how to avoid going to jail. Just decline to accept the sentence.
THE ACCUSED: Okay. I duly accept the order of the fines. And as far as the benefit for incarceration and corrections, I'll waive those benefits.
THE COURT: Benefits of what? I don't understand what you're saying, Mr. Blerot.
THE ACCUSED: Incarceration, I waive those benefits.
THE COURT: What do you mean by you waive those benefits?
THE ACCUSED: They are a benefit, I don't want them. I waive that.
THE COURT: Oh well, you know, Mr. --
THE ACCUSED: I 1 do not accept those benefits.
THE COURT: Well, quite frankly, it's not a benefit, it's a sentence. And whether you waive or want it, or don't accept it, doesn't really matter much to me. You're going to serve that time in prison, as I've ordered. And the --
And, while Blerot seemed to accepted responsibility for the fines, he had a novel way of trying to pay them off, make the judge pay it for him!
THE ACCUSED: I command you to order the clerk of the court, the administrator, to make a cheque payable to the estate named in the charging instrument, in the amount of the fines, plus the surcharges, and I want those -- I want the cheque given to me today.
THE COURT: Oh, I appreciate what you want, Mr. Blerot, but we've been through this kind of situation before. You don't get to order the clerk of the court to do anything.
THE ACCUSED: You made the order, I duly accept -- duly authorize and duly accept.
THE COURT: Whether you accept it or not, is of little consequence to me, Mr. Blerot. I've made the order of what's going to occur and will occur.
THE ACCUSED: And I duly accept the order, and I waive the benefit of incarceration.
THE COURT: I appreciate what you're saying.
THE ACCUSED: Order the clerk to make the cheque payable in the full amount that you ordered, and I will accept that cheque. And I duly authorize --
THE COURT: And that won't -- and Mr. Blerot, that won't occur. So as I said, under s. 734, the order for payment of the fine, madam clerk -- a order for payment of the fine should be given to Mr. Blerot. It can be mailed -- it can be mailed to him --
THE ACCUSED: I previously put you on notice that you say that I am detained, will cost you and the Prosecutor, the $100,000 a day.
THE COURT: Mr. Blerot, thank you. It can be mailed to him, okay?
THE ACCUSED: I previously put you on notice, that notice continues. That notice has been ongoing since October 10th of 2013.
THE COURT: Thank you, Mr. Blerot. Is there anything further from the Crown, Ms. Newsham, Ms. Janis?
The judge concluded with;
THE COURT: Do you have any questions, Mr. Blerot?
THE ACCUSED: (Inaudible). What's your -- your given name?
THE COURT: Mr. Blerot, we've been through this before.
THE ACCUSED: What's your given name? I know your family name is (inaudible), what's your given name?
THE COURT: Mr. Blerot --
THE ACCUSED: What is it?
THE COURT: -- you're not -- I'm not going to answer any questions for you now. The -- the time for your antics is now over. You'll be taken into custody and placed in the appropriate penitentiary, in accordance with the system. You can close court.
Couldn't happen to a grander guy.
The second document is this;http://www.mediafire.com/view/o058c5u69 ... cision.pdf
The decision from Jerry McCaw's appeal of his conviction for tax evasion. However he appears to have done nothing to articulate his grounds of appeal at the hearing, leaving the appeals court mystified as to what his arguments were. One claimed ground of appeal was that the Crowm had not given full disclosure of their documents to him at trial. However they hadn't because he refused to accept disclosure;
POSITION OF APPELLANT
[ 4] Mr. McCaw did not file any sort of written argument. This Court, during the appeal hearing, requested that Mr. Mccaw elaborate on his stated grounds of appeal, but he chose not to. The thesis and purpose of his oral presentation was uuascertainable and therefore, the court was left only with the consideration of the grounds as set out in his notice of appeal. Unfortunately, these grounds are not articulated in any detail.
They had to deal with stuff like this;
Failure to Provide Disclosure Requested
 The appellant would not tell the court what his concerns were regarding this ground during his oral presentation. The court was then left with having to comb through the transcript to try and ascertain if that ground had merit.
 It appears at the start of the trial the trial judge asked Mr. Mccaw if he had any concerns about disclosure. There was an exchange between the court and Mr. McCaw as follows:
THE COURT: Okay. And so Mr. McCaw, the Crown has raised the issue of disclosure. Usually the defence raises the issue of disclosure but I think that they're sort of dealing with it right off the bat. Are there any issues of disclosure from yourself that you want me to look at preliminarily here?
MR.MCCAW: Youire the trustee, sir [sic].
THE COURT: Okay. So - so the Crown simply raised the question of disclosure. They're saying we've disclosed everything.
MR.MCCAW: I don't know sir.
THE COURT: From your - tl:om your perspective is there an issue that I have to rule on?
MR.MCCAW: Did they disclose the bonds they brought in here?
THE COURT; From your perspective is there any disclosure issue that you think is outstanding?
MR.MCCAW: I'm asking. I'm asking.
THE COURT: Okay, so what's the question'?
MR.MCCAW: I'm asking the Crown here, did you bring your bonds forth?
THE COURT: So you have a question as to some disclosure?
MR.MCCAW: Yes, the bonds - to put my full answer in here, in a commercial venue you must have your bonds up front. I've bonded myself up.
THE COURT: Okay, so you're saying there's some kind of a bond document that hasn't been disclosed to yourself?
MR.MCCAW; That's right. Where's your risk management insurance? Where's tlle public hazard bonds, the
company, the phone number.
THE COURT: I have no idea what you're talking about. Do you want to explain what document you 're looking for?
MR.MCCAW: Then you guys won't have any problem with me liening them.
THE COURT: Can you - can you explain what document you're saying that you weren't provided by the Crown?
MR.MCCAW: I'm not here to educate you people.
THE COURT: Okay. Then you can have a seat then.
THE COURT: Okay, so - okay, so there is no issue as to disclosure. The Crown has on the record that they - they provided disclosure but it's a - the disclosure in issue is that it was raised by the defence so none is raised and so anything else before we start off?
So the appeals court had no problem tossing out that ground for appeal.
 Disclosure is, of course, an important aspect of any criminal or quasi.criminal case. However, I am satisfied that Mr. McCaw was given ample opportunity to receive disclosure and simply did not do so, I can see no merit in this ground of appeal and therefore dismiss this ground.
Next McCaw argued that his Charter rights had been violated at his trial. However the appeals court had difficulty with this since he never mentioned Charter rights during the trial.
 I reviewed the transcript and cannot see where a Charter issue was actually raised by the appellant. The Charter may. in a sense, have come up it seems, when (as mentioned above) the appellant became concerned about what appeared to be another charge. As near as I can determine, there was a search of Mr. McCaw's residence and ultimately various weapons were seized along with business records. The business records would appear to have been seized for the purposes of prosecuting the charges that are the subject of this appeal. There appears to have been some sort of tape that Mr. McCaw became concerned about during this prosecution. However, counsel for the respondent replied that the issue of the search and seizure was the subject of a voir dire held before Justice Dawson of this Court during another trial. Crown counsel provided a copy of the transcript of that decision (June 17, 2013) in which Justice Dawson decided that there had not been any Charter violations in regard to the search and seizure. I am satisfied that even though the appellant has not raised any specific Cha11er concerns, they are nonetheless dealt with in that decision.
 In any event it was incumbent upon the appellant to have raised any Charter concerns, particularly about admissibility, during the trial. A Charter concern cannot now be raised during the appeal when it was not raised during the trial.
(28] I am not satisfied that there is a meritous Charter issue before me and therefore I dismiss that ground of the appeal.
 Therefore, the appellant has not established that the trial judge erred in applying the law to the facts of this case. Accordingly. those two grounds are dismissed.
He also appealed being given a jail sentence for his crime but, at apppeal, he declined to give any reasons why he felt the sentence inappropriate;
 The appellant did not set out in his notice of appeal or during his oral
presentation what his concerns about the sentence might be. However, counsel for the respondent did set out a numbet of cases dealing with sentences pronounced regarding similar offenders. I have reviewed these cases and particularly of Justice Whitmore (as he then was) in the case of R. v. Amell, 2012 SKQB 87, 391 Sask. R. 196. As I indicated above, the trial judge carefully considered all of the usual circumstances in sentencing and did note that Mr. McCaw was an active participant and recruiter of what the trial judge described as tax protestor ideology and this was a course of conduct that went on for several years. I find that the sentence is fit and see no reason to depart from the usual deference provided to a sentencing judge. Accordingly, I dismiss the appeal against sentence as well.
So that got deep sixed too.
The next document is a genuine curiosity, a package of documents that McCaw sent into court prior to his criminal trial to immunize himself:http://www.mediafire.com/view/1va0ebygb ... dacted.pdf
I'm not going to try and summarize it because I have no confidence that I really follow it. One strange part is the way McCaw identifies himself. It is usual to have Freemen types splay their thumb-prints on documents but McCaw, being a professional, includes all ten fingers. Then (check out page 17) he decided to go for broke on the ID thing and included both feet as ID's! He even got his footprints notarized. I assume the notary has to sit and watch as McCaw inked up both clodhoppers and stuck them on the paper.
The idea behind this stupidity seems to come from US sources and it looks like McCaw was trying to "A4V" his criminal proceedings. There is one thing missing from the pdf. McCaw had included, as an attachment, his 2006 income tax return. I cut it out even though it is now publically available. The only item of note in it is the one that got him into trouble; he reported income of $304,555 but claimed a non-existent $439,178 business loss against it.
I mentioned US sources because the source of the documents seems to be the Commander in Chief of the united States government himself, President James Timothy Turner!http://dev.republicoftheunitedstates.or ... 4-of-4.pdf
Mr. Turner is a notable US OPCA personality, as he was none other than the President of the Republic for the united States of America (http://www.republicoftheunitedstates.org/
) - the RuSA. Quatloosians know how well this scheme worked for President Timmy. So a convicted Canadian income tax evader got the material he usd to try and fight his prosecution from the president of the United States!
As far as I can tell the scheme McCaw pulled was a helping of Fiscal Arbitrator scam mixed in with the Porisky fraud. I'm guessing Fiscal Arbitrators because of McCaw's links to the Fiscal Arbitrator scam through his tax preparers. McCaw authorized Damara Consulting to be his CRA interface. Note the letter on page 11 of the pdf from the CRA to McCaw acknowledging that Damara was his duely authorized representative. The tax return which claimed the business loss was also prepared by Demara Consulting. Demara Consulting is an outfit run by Donna Marie Stancer, who along with her husband, are the subjects of a couple OPCA-related bankruptcy proceedings:
Stancer (Re), 2009 BCSC 398
Stancer (Re), 2012 BCSC 1533
Stancer and Demara are also implicated with the Fiscal Arbitrators scheme:http://www.vancouversun.com/business/Da ... story.htmlhttp://blogs.windsorstar.com/news/group ... of-its-ownhttp://blogs.windsorstar.com/news/dsc-p ... rs-charged
And Stancer has come up a few times on Quatloos:viewtopic.php?f=50&t=10077viewtopic.php?f=48&t=9136
And here's another instance where Demara has come up in the courts - what certainly looks consistent with a Fiscal Arbitrators type strategy:viewtopic.php?f=50&t=10077