On October 11, 2016, the court convicted Michael Millar of tax evasion. Millar’s main argument involves a Roman law concept, the style of the name. Judge Victoria Gray rejected Millar’s argument, but gave her decision using the same Roman law concept that she says is, “of historical interest only”. We believe style of name is still relevant, but only as part of a defense against tax evasion.
The judge said styling of the taxpayer’s name i.e., Michael Millar versus MICHAEL MILLAR, is from Roman Law. Elaborating, she said, “First, our legal system does not apply Roman law. The Roman law of almost 2,000 years ago is of historical interest only. Roman law is not even the historical basis of law.”
The judge did NOT say the current Canadian legal system does not use Roman law concepts. It just sounds like she did. Read very carefully what she said:
In fact, Victoria Gray could only give her decision while using a Roman law concept that she pooh-poohs is, “of historical interest only”.
Corroborating that style of name applies to modern day law is Section 2(1) of the Supreme Court Act, which says,
“The Supreme Court of British Columbia is continued under the name and style of the “Supreme Court of British Columbia.”
Clearly, the style of name is NOT just “of historical interest only”.
The Supreme Court in New Westminster, B.C. has court stamps in two styles for stamping court documents. One is styled as, “Supreme Court of British Columbia”. This stamp complies with the Supreme Court Act. Call ahead if you want to stamp your documents with this. You need to because the Court locks up this stamp. The court regularly uses stamps styled as “SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA”. This is contrary to the Supreme Court Act.
Millar, like Keith Lawson who we covered earlier, was a Paradigm Education Group (“PEG”) Educator. PEG taught human rights. One such right is owning private property without diminution. This is confirmed by the Canadian Bill of Rights and by the Canadian Government brochure, The Canadian Scene.
“Artificial Persons. In a complex state of civilization, such as that of the Roman Empire, or still more of the modern Western nations, it constantly happens that legal transactions have to be undertaken, rights acquired and exercised, and duties incurred by or on behalf of persons who are for the time being charged with offices of a public nature involving the tenure and administration of property for public purposes. This distinction is conveniently expressed in form by the Roman invention, adopted and largely developed in modern systems of law, – or the property or office itself – as an artificial person of legal capacities and duties.”
Judges, like Crown prosecutors, lawyers, court sheriffs, hold offices. Section 6(1) of B.C.’s Supreme Court Act says, “A judge who resigns from his or her office …”. Victoria Gray therefore could only render the Millar decision while holding an office (a Roman law concept) as a judge. Obviously holding offices is used in “modern Western nations” and is not just “of historical use only”.
Apu’s Theory concludes a name styled with all upper case letters could distinguish an individual holding an “office” as defined by the Canada Pension Plan and by the Income Tax Act from one who is not holding that “office”. However, it is not an explicit rule. That is why the SIN used as a “social insurance number” styled with all lower case letters (instead of the SIN as a Social Insurance Number styled with upper and lower case letters) is needed to definitively identify someone holding that “office”.
“public money means all money belonging to Canada received or collected by the Receiver General …”
The BC Court of Appeal case, Lavers and U.S. Dungaree Seafarers Ltd. v. MNR, says on page 9 that the Receiver General is an office.
Peter Boyce, author of The Queen’s Other Realms, says that, “the office and the office-holder are conceptually divisible but legally indivisible.”
Putting all this together, income reported on a T1 by an individual holding an “office” as defined by the Canada Pension Plan and by the Income Tax Act receiving “public money” belongs to Canada. This is the gist of Apu’s Theory on how income tax really works. This also fits with Pollock’s Principles of Contract, which says that, “(artificial persons) who are for the time being charged with offices of a public nature involving the tenure and administration of property for public purposes.”
PEG advocated claiming in writing your property as private. However, income does not stay as your private property if you report it on your T1 form. Doing so converts it into “public money” belonging to Canada. Moreover, CRA currently does not have a form for reporting private property income. This is unforgivable since the Canada had a form for reporting private property income for the Income War Tax Act between the years 1917 to 1926. If they had such a form back then, why do they not have such a form now? This is entrapment.
If MICHAEL MILLAR, who identifies himself on a T1 with a SIN used as a social insurance number, is holding an “office” as defined by the Canada Pension Plan and by the Income Tax Act receiving “public money”, that must be reported on CRA’s T1 form. Conversely, Michael Millar could be a taxpayer not holding such an “office” and so is not receiving “public money” belonging to Canada, but income as his own private property.
PEG taught Canadians about claiming their income as their private property. I am sure Millar’s intentions was the same. However, he cannot report his private property income on CRA’s T1 form. If he did he would be consensually converting his private property into “public money”. That is why Millar reported zero “public money” income on his T1 returns. He filed honestly. However, CRA does not provide either a form or instructions on reporting private property income.
This system of entrapment is why Canada’s conviction rate for tax evasion is 96%. Millar’s conviction shows the Government continues entrapping taxpayers even after they have been given legal notice of Apu’s Theory. Does this stink? Yes, it sure does.