Verdict: GUILTY for both Millard and Smich of 1st degree murder #3

DNA Solves
DNA Solves
DNA Solves

New Posts

I'm not at all convinced millard will qualify for legal aid. Not if his mom, who he transferred assets to after his arrest, could fund his defense. I remember reading about Richard Wells, who did more or less the same thing and it was a huge scandal. I can't see legal aid making the same mistake twice.
 
I say let him retain a lawyer at legal aid rates and then have the "estate" pay back legal aid from DM's frozen funds before the Bosma's collect the rest in their civil suit. ;)

At least that will keep the lawyer's fees in check. No $500 an hour going out to attorneys to eat away at the funds that should be going to the victim's families. Pretty sure Dungey didn't make 1.2 million dollars for his efforts.

MOO
 
I really honestly believe DM is broke, or very close to it.

I think if he has any cash, it is less than $500k.

I think WM's estate holds up to $2.9M and DM can't access that...so I am unsure that the Bosmas would be able to get at it either. If this goes to a fight, who has more right to WM's estate: WM's distant heirs (both he and DM were only children) or the Bosmas? If DM has no claim to WM's money, how can the B's take claim?
 
JuneBug67 said:
It's intended to be an extraordinary measure when a DI is handed down. Preliminary hearings allow a defendant a preview of crown witnesses and strategy and when a defendant desires this standard step in the trial process but is denied, that must be justified. I have no problem with this challenge at all, and in fact welcome it. Why were these direct indictments and were they justified? The public needs to be able to have faith in these kinds of extraordinary decisions.
Click to expand...

There were several reasons to justify that decision. I had a big long post written about that, but my browser crashed and I lost the whole thing.. and I couldn't stomach going back to do it over again at the time.

Here is some of it:

.... Young persons do not generally have a right to a preliminary inquiry, and where, in an exceptional case, the right to one is conferred on a young person, the same principles apply as where it is conferred on an adult: the preliminary inquiry is optional, and it is not available if the Crown prefers a direct indictment.
Click to expand...
https://scc-csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/7359/index.do

Direct Indictments are most frequently used where:[SUP][6][/SUP]


  1. delays in the trial could deprive the accused of the right to be tried within a reasonable time;
  2. the physical or psychological health of witnesses, their age, their safety or that of their relatives, and the difficulties involved in having witnesses testify more than once;
  3. preservation of the integrity of the Crown’s evidence by, for example, protecting informants and ongoing police investigations;
  4. a risk that evidence could be destroyed;
  5. public safety reasons;
  6. the need to avoid multiple proceedings caused, for example, by delays in making arrests;
  7. the accused was wrongly discharged following the preliminary inquiry because of errors, or new evidence has been discovered;
  8. a preliminary inquiry would be unreasonably costly, complex or long, or would be inappropriate because of the nature of the issues or the evidence;
  9. the alleged offence is so controversial that it is in the public interest to try the case as quickly as possible; and
  10. certain guidelines set out additional, broader criteria, such as the need to maintain public confidence in the administration of justice, the public interest, or the fact that the case is notorious or of particular importance to the public, that the direct indictment is the most appropriate procedure in the circumstances, or that there is a special need to expedite proceedings.

The Attorney General does not need to give reasons for deciding to prefer a direct indictment.[SUP][7][/SUP]


The power under s. 577 is a discretionary power of the Crown.[SUP][8][/SUP] However, it is reviewable for violations of the Charter. [SUP][9][/SUP]


The consent of the Attorney General should generally be found on the direct indictment with a signature. However, may still be valid by attaching a letter from the Attorney-General consenting to the indictment.[SUP][10][/SUP]


The "recommendation package" addressed to the Attorney General setting out a recommendation for laying a direct indictment is privileged and not disclosable.[SUP][11][/SUP]


Preferring a direct indictment where disclosure obligations have not been met may breach s. 7 of the Charter.[SUP][12][/SUP]


Abuse of Process

The exercise of power under s. 577 can be reviewed as an abuse of process.[SUP][13][/SUP]


To warrant a remedy, it must be shown "that a discretion was exercise for improper or arbitrary motives".[SUP][14][/SUP] There must be "clear and convincing evidence supporting the allegations before the Court."[SUP][15][/SUP]


The defence may be able to have the court order evidence be taken from the justice system participants involved in the decision and the documents related to the decision to direct the indictment.[SUP][16][/SUP] There is a high standard to warrant such disclosure requiring evidence of mala fides or "flagrant impropriety".[SUP][17][/SUP] Further, the applicant must show that the documents fall under an exception to solicitor-client privilege.[SUP][18][/SUP]
Click to expand...
http://criminalnotebook.ca/index.php/Direct_Indictments
 
Bellers said:
I'm not at all convinced millard will qualify for legal aid. Not if his mom, who he transferred assets to after his arrest, could fund his defense. I remember reading about Richard Wells, who did more or less the same thing and it was a huge scandal. I can't see legal aid making the same mistake twice.
Click to expand...

It seems like it is somewhat of a catch 22. He can't retain a lawyer without handing over retainer fees. He can't hand over retainer fees if all of his money is from his father's estate and that money is on hold by the courts. There can't really be a resolution to whether those funds would ever get released, until such time as he is found guilty or not guilty of WM's murder. And then throw in the thing about having to hold a trial within a reasonable time period. But even if Legal Aid were to approve DM, if it later turned out that he was found not guilty of the WM charges, and then he therefore subsequently came into possession of his father's inheritance monies, he would have to pay it back, wouldn't he (I hope so???).

These things are scary to me because if DM is out of money, or he otherwise knows that he will end up in the end without money (because say he knows he is guilty, and guesses he will be found guilty), there is nothing stopping him from trying his best to hold up the courts at every turn, since it's not his own money he's dealing with.

Wasn't it reported at an earlier time that DM had chosen a lawyer for his charges in his father's death? But yet now it is reported that he has not secured legal counsel? Is this because he failed to produce the required retainer? Is this why his counsel in the Bosma trial has not committed to representing him in his other two trials - if they might have to abide by the policies of the Legal Aid lawyers? That would be most fitting if DM qualified for legal aid on the one hand, but on the other hand, his choice of legal representation was greatly reduced.

I'm not sure what the policies are exactly, for lawyers who are paid via Legal Aid.. however I do know of an (expensive) lawyer in my area that will not deal with Legal Aid cases because he disagrees with whatever their policies are. If one of his clients were to have to deal with Legal Aid, he would refer them on to someone else. I am thinking it could perhaps have something to do with maximums allowed to be charged, or the way that things can be charged, etc. Would be interesting to know what kind of stipulations a lawyer has to agree to in order to be funded by LA.
 
SnooperDuper said:
I really honestly believe DM is broke, or very close to it.

I think if he has any cash, it is less than $500k.

I think WM's estate holds up to $2.9M and DM can't access that...so I am unsure that the Bosmas would be able to get at it either. If this goes to a fight, who has more right to WM's estate: WM's distant heirs (both he and DM were only children) or the Bosmas? If DM has no claim to WM's money, how can the B's take claim?
Click to expand...

I think there is more. We need that chart of the properties and their selling prices back again. ;)

Most wills do not just name a sole beneficiary and no other instructions for where the money is to be distributed in the event that the either the sole beneficiary predeceases them or that they should both die at the same time (in an accident of some sort). There is usually a list of alternates in a will should this be the case. I can't believe that WM wouldn't have done this and I see no reason why he would not have named MB since they still appeared to have been on good terms and he seemed to have no other family that he was in contact with. Not to mention that any beneficiaries listed in insurance or retirement savings plans will override your will. Did WM change any plans that he may have had while married and were still in existence to list his son and not his ex wife as his beneficiary? If MB is somehow in line to receive any funds should DM not qualify due to a conviction on his father's death, I believe the Bosmas have got it covered by including her in their lawsuit? And of course there is the matter of the questionable transfer of property right after his arrest that needs to be sorted out. I do not believe that MB should be profiting in any way from this tragedy and that her net financial worth should be any more than it was prior to the murder thanks to some "fancy accounting".

MOO
 
Kamille said:
I think there is more. We need that chart of the properties and their selling prices back again. ;)
Click to expand...

Remember, $5M was vaporized when the hangar was built for $9.5M and sold for $4.5M. That's a huge loss.
 
SnooperDuper said:
Remember, $5M was vaporized when the hangar was built for $9.5M and sold for $4.5M. That's a huge loss.
Click to expand...
Easy come- easy go. I have to laugh when I think back to the early days on this forum when DM supporters insisted that he was a savvy business man- an investor and talented in so many ways. If he would have had a brain he would have got the MRO up and running and then sold it off. IMHO, it's disgusting that millions of WM's wealth have evaporated at the hands of incompetence. I agree- he's shaking the nickels out of the piggy bank. MOO
 
Kamille said:
I say let him retain a lawyer at legal aid rates and then have the "estate" pay back legal aid from DM's frozen funds before the Bosma's collect the rest in their civil suit. ;)

At least that will keep the lawyer's fees in check. No $500 an hour going out to attorneys to eat away at the funds that should be going to the victim's families. Pretty sure Dungey didn't make 1.2 million dollars for his efforts.

MOO
Click to expand...

more like at least $1000/hr
 
deugirtni said:
It seems like it is somewhat of a catch 22. He can't retain a lawyer without handing over retainer fees. He can't hand over retainer fees if all of his money is from his father's estate and that money is on hold by the courts. There can't really be a resolution to whether those funds would ever get released, until such time as he is found guilty or not guilty of WM's murder. And then throw in the thing about having to hold a trial within a reasonable time period. But even if Legal Aid were to approve DM, if it later turned out that he was found not guilty of the WM charges, and then he therefore subsequently came into possession of his father's inheritance monies, he would have to pay it back, wouldn't he (I hope so???).

These things are scary to me because if DM is out of money, or he otherwise knows that he will end up in the end without money (because say he knows he is guilty, and guesses he will be found guilty), there is nothing stopping him from trying his best to hold up the courts at every turn, since it's not his own money he's dealing with.

Wasn't it reported at an earlier time that DM had chosen a lawyer for his charges in his father's death? But yet now it is reported that he has not secured legal counsel? Is this because he failed to produce the required retainer? Is this why his counsel in the Bosma trial has not committed to representing him in his other two trials - if they might have to abide by the policies of the Legal Aid lawyers? That would be most fitting if DM qualified for legal aid on the one hand, but on the other hand, his choice of legal representation was greatly reduced.

I'm not sure what the policies are exactly, for lawyers who are paid via Legal Aid.. however I do know of an (expensive) lawyer in my area that will not deal with Legal Aid cases because he disagrees with whatever their policies are. If one of his clients were to have to deal with Legal Aid, he would refer them on to someone else. I am thinking it could perhaps have something to do with maximums allowed to be charged, or the way that things can be charged, etc. Would be interesting to know what kind of stipulations a lawyer has to agree to in order to be funded by LA.
Click to expand...
Several years ago I met a person who was in the middle of a nasty divorce and everything had been frozen. They were able to get legal aid with the understanding that if and when things became "unfrozen" they would have to pay it back. I have always imagined that that is what DM would do- obtain the legal aid and if he gets money out of WM's estate, he would have to pay legal aid back. MOO
 
deugirtni said:
http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toron...th-of-his-father-set-for-march-2018-1.3816105



In this article, it states that DM WILL rely on legal aid, not that he will be making application. Wow.
Click to expand...

As I interpret the article, it would appear DM has been approved for legal aid in his defense in the WM murder trial, but it is not necessarily true that DM will receive legal aid for the LB trial (which is what another round of litigation is about).

His status re the LB trial is separate from the workings of the WM case. I haven't seen any clear indication that he has resolved the issues around legal representation for the LB trial, but one of the earlier articles quoted the judge as saying that he should apply for legal aid, but the trial date would not be postponed again.

The whole thing is fairly complex so I may have missed some information here.
 
Something else that I was wondering about wrt the Millard/MB financial quagmire. POA gives power over investments too, does it not? True that it would appear that he had a cash flow problem at the time of his trial, but it has been said that he was also investment savvy. Could there have been investments that could have been siphoned as well while MB was in control of his finances?
 
deugirtni said:
Wasn't it reported at an earlier time that DM had chosen a lawyer for his charges in his father's death? But yet now it is reported that he has not secured legal counsel? Is this because he failed to produce the required retainer? Is this why his counsel in the Bosma trial has not committed to representing him in his other two trials - if they might have to abide by the policies of the Legal Aid lawyers? That would be most fitting if DM qualified for legal aid on the one hand, but on the other hand, his choice of legal representation was greatly reduced.
Click to expand...

It is quite possible that the reason DM's trial lawyers in the Bosma case (Pillay & co.) may not be lawyers who handle appeals. This is fairly common - some lawyers don't do appeals, while others may specialize in them. Still others, like Dungey, appear to be comfortable handling both.

However, it's also true that a client dependent on Legal Aid has a reduced number of possible lawyers to represent him at any level, because some lawyers simply don't accept legal aid. So for the WM trial at least, we know that DM will be obliged to accept the services of a legal aid lawyer, who may not be his first (or second or third) choice. Apparently DM has someone in mind to represent him for the LB trial, but it's not clear whether he will have the assistance of legal aid for that case. The MSM reports suggest he has yet to apply for it.
 
Surely DM's antics to delay LB trial won't allow him to get out of these charges due to the length of time it is taking to get to trial? Good grief! Can't the legal community see what he is doing? Any excuse for delay after delay..... Enough already. Let's get this show on the road.

Isn't CN's trial starting next month? That ought to be interesting....
 
An article from 2013 regarding a murder in which Stephen Bernstein (the lawyer for which DM wanted to hold up the LB case for a full year) defended one of the accuseds, the father of the slain teen. This case was one in which the two accuseds were pointing the finger at one another. They were both found guilty. Sounds like a horrible case.
http://www.intelligencer.ca/2013/06...etail-tortured-life-parents-murder-trial-told
 
palisadesk said:
It is quite possible that the reason DM's trial lawyers in the Bosma case (Pillay & co.) may not be lawyers who handle appeals. This is fairly common - some lawyers don't do appeals, while others may specialize in them. Still others, like Dungey, appear to be comfortable handling both.

However, it's also true that a client dependent on Legal Aid has a reduced number of possible lawyers to represent him at any level, because some lawyers simply don't accept legal aid. So for the WM trial at least, we know that DM will be obliged to accept the services of a legal aid lawyer, who may not be his first (or second or third) choice. Apparently DM has someone in mind to represent him for the LB trial, but it's not clear whether he will have the assistance of legal aid for that case. The MSM reports suggest he has yet to apply for it.
Click to expand...

I believe that all of the appeal cases are handled by lawyers different from those who represented each of DM and MS in the Bosma trial.. however at an earlier time, i thought it had been published in MSM that a specific lawyer would be defending DM in the case of WM's murder charges. After looking it up however, I am mistaken in that Peter Boushy was only apparently hired to represent DM at his preliminary hearing into the case. Perhaps he wasn't satisfied with the outcome of the prelim and so seeks yet another to defend him at the actual trials?

Peter Boushy, current president of the Hamilton Criminal Lawyers' Association, will act as Millard's counsel at the preliminary hearing on the first-degree murder charge of killing his father.
Click to expand...
http://www.thespec.com/news-story/6...n-millard-hires-hamilton-lawyer-peter-boushy/
 
SnooperDuper said:
Updated one

http://www.websleuths.com/forums/attachment.php?attachmentid=103455&d=1477101406

This one divides the properties values into DM and WM's estates and has a debts owing column
Click to expand...

Are you sure that all of those properties (the ones where DM gets the entire proceeds) are in his name, as opposed to 'Millard Properties' name? I guess there are a lot of variable possibilities as well, such as interest (expense) that may have accrued (ie if interest was charged from the time when DM was supposed to pay for his Distillery condo, or interest that MB may have charged him for the bridge loan of $400,000), realty fees that may have been payable, legal fees, etc?
 
deugirtni said:
Are you sure that all of those properties (the ones where DM gets the entire proceeds) are in his name, as opposed to 'Millard Properties' name? I guess there are a lot of variable possibilities as well, such as interest (expense) that may have accrued (ie if interest was charged from the time when DM was supposed to pay for his Distillery condo, or interest that MB may have charged him for the bridge loan of $400,000), realty fees that may have been payable, legal fees, etc?
Click to expand...

LW got a $10k commission for doing nothing; DM has a $1M outstanding tax bill no doubt related to the business; DM was putting $15k of parts on a credit account per month...yeah there are a lot of other expenses and little money left over to pay for them.

DM may be sitting on millions at the moment for example if he hasn't settled that $1M tax bill yet. The thing is, he's bankrupt; things ultimately don't add up positively.

I think when DM spoke of the "family coffers running dry" he meant that the money that was easily accessible, the assets that were easily liquidated (i.e., not the real estate) had been exhausted.

I think he is burning all of the real estate money now, and there is not enough to cover his debts.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

DNASolves

Who is Fairfield County Jane Doe (1993)?

Members online

... and 153 more.
Total: 747 (members: 154, guests: 593)

Online statistics

Members online
154
Guests online
593
Total visitors
747
Totals may include hidden visitors.

Forum statistics

Threads
609,787
Messages
18,258,039
Members
234,762
Latest member
weatherman78
Back
Top