Wayne Millard: Dellen Millard Charged With Murder In The First Degree #1

[Alethea Dice]

In this particular case, IMO, DP, being a criminal lawyer, advised DM correctly: give MB POA. Did he know what was coming down? Of course not, but he was preparing for the worse- especially if he caught wind that DM had a condo closing the next day or two.

The condo purchase had already closed on May 7th, 3 days before DM was even arrested.

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/who-is-dellen-millard-charged-in-tim-bosma-killing-2-others-1.2605821

 

[Alethea Dice]

http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/ste...hout-parole-bill-coming-before-june-1.2933479

I'd hate to be DM and MS, negotiating for parole terms, in this political climate. If it comes down to a negotiation, given the direction of the Conservative government, do you think anything less than 75 years for DM, 50 years for MS will be levied?

Will legislation be enacted soon enough that either could be sentenced to life without parole?

This is putting the cart before the horse since neither has yet been convicted of one murder, let alone multiple ones. However, usually this type of legislation is not back-dated and applies to crimes committed after the date of the new legislation. IMHO the legislation doesn't mean a lot since "life" is already "life" in Canada and they can refuse to grant parole any time they want. Also, with the ability to give consecutive parole ineligibility periods, for many convicted, that already means until they day they die.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-debate/by-locking-up-bourque-and-throwing-away-the-key-we-lose-hope-in-justice/article21419211/

 

[Deleted member 102539]

Why did Christina Noudga choose to go straight to trial?
by AnnB

Noudga is also living under strict bail conditions, unable to leave her home except in the company of her parents, who serve as her sureties, unless it's to go to school or work. She has to wear an ankle bracelet and is subject to periodic checks of her online activities. The bail amount was set at $100,000.

On top of all this, there's also the complication of Dellen Millard and Mark Smich, charged with Bosma's first degree murder, going to trial in September of this year. There could be overlap in the evidence at their trial and Noudga's. If that results in judges ordering some non-standard publication bans, the press will likely not be happy. :gaah::tantrum::scared::tantrum::banghead:anic: I wouldn't be happy too.

 

[Carli]

Catching up on my threads, so my apologies if this has been answered somewhere down the line. The 6 plex was solely in DM's name on paper- WM held a 1 million dollar first charge on the property at his time of death. Since it's assumed that DM was sole beneficiary to WM's estate, that first charge would have been a wash. Once DM was arrested, RBC slapped a 3 million charge against the property. 1) could have been taking it as security for another debt. 2) could have been lending more money. Either way, every single cent in that property was tied up by the bank.

IMHO, there's an inherent risk in simply assessing a persons wealth via a flat line method. On paper, WM as an individual may have been worth millions, or perhaps one of his Companies was, however, it's what happens to his estate after his death that really matters. IMO, Millards estate lawyer couldn't have even started to finish the paperwork for WM's death when DM was arrested. No doubt, DM had access to some cash because he was sole heir, but the estate wouldn't have been close to being settled. WM's 2012 tax return would have to be filed and trusting he had investments, those tax forms wouldn't be in until Jan/Feb 2013.

If he had stocks & bonds, they would have to be sold and capital gains/losses realized. RRSP's? Was WM's estate the beneficiary or DM? My point is, this stuff doens't happen instantly or overnight and when you die, all bets are off with the CRA-you can defer taxes no more. IMO, DM wasn't bright enough to truly understand what would happen to his Dad's estate in the event of his Dad's untimely death. Further, it's not unusual for people to have life insurance in place to cover capital gains/taxes that may cripple their heirs when the CRA comes calling. Did WM have insurance in place for estate planning reasons and would it have been paid out in the short 6 months following WM's death? If it was substantial, maybe they were waiting for the Coroner to sign off?

IMO, WM's financial affairs may have been a dogs breakfast when he was murdered, but since DM's cash flow had never been interrupted, DM couldn't quite wrap his head around the complexities of WM's financial world- his main focus may have been on getting the money to close his condo purchase in May. The rapid liquidation of assets after DM's arrest smells more of bank involvement than anything else. I have also wondered if DM had travel plans after the TB murder? The best part of this whole mess may be the fact that DM felt he would never be scrutinized following WM's death- once TPS labelled it "suicide". DM's psychopathic urge to murder 3 innocent people is the spotlight- but I'm thinking forensic accounting will play a huge role in this case. When you die the line up waiting is : CRA, Province (probate taxes), Banks/Creditors...then your beneficiary. Oh...and as far as the "incinerator"??? DM was a Director of Millardair...he can be held liable for anything the Company does or causes. Of course he could try to defer blame to the CEO...lol MOO

Two points: Firstly, I'm not entirely willing to buy the stupidity meme. We understand that he's bought and sold real estate in the past; managed at least one rental property; represented MillardAir in negotiations regarding the hangar and called the Texan to task for not delivering. Actually sounds quite capable in his business role for a very young man. MOO. IMHO. In fact, as I recall, it was the general concensus that WM was the one who didn't have much of a head for business. Not that it makes much difference, of course. The public probably need to characterize DM as dumb as a board. Given the charges, that's understandable. MOO.

Secondly, the link I previously posted, spells out the precise terms under which a company can be subjected to criminal charges. Specifically, such charges arise from criminal actions (or inactions) that caused the company to benefit. (See Westray Mine disaster. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Westray_Mine) Following on conviction for such offenses a company's directors might also be charged for allowing such criminal action or inaction to occur. Personally I fail to see what benefit may have accrued to MillardAir from the heisting of TB's truck or Marty's bike. I also fail to see what benefit may have accrued to MillardAir by murdering LB or TB regardless of whether a company asset, the incinerator, was used. Depending upon how central a role WM as CEO actually played in the company's operations, perhaps the defense could argue that the company benefited from his murder because the CEO's decisions caused the company to be unprofitable. I think that sounds more like a "Saturday Night Live" episode than real life. MOO. IMHO.

 

[Carli]

Why did Christina Noudga choose to go straight to trial?
by AnnB

Noudga is also living under strict bail conditions, unable to leave her home except in the company of her parents, who serve as her sureties, unless it's to go to school or work. She has to wear an ankle bracelet and is subject to periodic checks of her online activities. The bail amount was set at $100,000.

On top of all this, there's also the complication of Dellen Millard and Mark Smich, charged with Bosma's first degree murder, going to trial in September of this year. There could be overlap in the evidence at their trial and Noudga's. If that results in judges ordering some non-standard publication bans, the press will likely not be happy. :gaah::tantrum::scared::tantrum::banghead:anic: I wouldn't be happy too.

I doubt her case would be called first because she's charged with being an accessory to murder after the fact. Ergo, that murder "fact" involving DM and MS must first be proven. If they are found to be not guilty of the charges, then I assume charges would be immediately dropped against her, too. MOO.

 

[Alethea Dice]

Christina Noudga appeared in court Wednesday to waive her right to a preliminary inquiry, opting to go straight to trial.

She has elected to be tried by judge and jury.

She will appear back in court on March 20.

http://www.therecord.com/news-story/5343887-christina-noudga-heading-straight-to-trial-accused-of-being-accessory-after-the-fact-in-murder-of-t/

 

[SnooperDuper]

http://www.therecord.com/news-story/5343887-christina-noudga-heading-straight-to-trial-accused-of-being-accessory-after-the-fact-in-murder-of-t/

If CN is on trial by herself, what do they have to prove within the scope of that trial to find her guilty? That there was a murder, she knew, she freely assisted DM in getting rid of evidence or otherwise obliterating his trail?

 

[Tamarind]

Tamarind, IMO, financial institutions exercise discretion. In this particular case, IMO, DP, being a criminal lawyer, advised DM correctly: give MB POA. Did he know what was coming down? Of course not, but he was preparing for the worse- especially if he caught wind that DM had a condo closing the next day or two. IMHO, the banks would set a plan in order and would be happy if MB executed the plan as quickly as possible. That's not to say that they wouldn't have directions to pay them in place with the lawyer closing the deals. The 3 million dollar charge on Riverside wasn't put there on a whim. A Bank just can't do that. If things weren't in default, the Banks couldn't exercise Power of Sale provisions. No doubt they were moving fast. RBC even put a small 100K charge on the Roseville farm. Now that's an interesting one because it's relatively small. Perhaps securing a LOC to cover legals, provide cash flow or something like that? Yes, we will find out much sooner than later! MOO

MsSherlock - Do we know it was the lawyer that advised him to give POA to his mother? Was there a link for that?

Most people would know that a POA is required if you are not available to sign for something. I didn't say the bank put a charge on the property on a whim. I said that I am not surprised that the bank put a charge as that's what banks do !!! As for the farm, maybe that was charged for an outstanding loan, nothing onerous there IMO.

 

[Tamarind]

If CN is on trial by herself, what do they have to prove within the scope of that trial to find her guilty? That there was a murder, she knew, she freely assisted DM in getting rid of evidence or otherwise obliterating his trail?

That may be difficult. How would you prove someone knew something or that they were acting knowingly? Polygraph tests aren't admissible in courts are they? Where does it say anything about her getting rid of evidence as I must have missed that link?

 

[SnooperDuper]

That may be difficult. How would you prove someone knew something or that they were acting knowingly? Polygraph tests aren't admissible in courts are they? Where does it say anything about her getting rid of evidence as I must have missed that link?

We know CN did not speak to LE (so no alibi for DM) and LE was on DM's trail already the next day and followed him to the hangar and back so it was not about a physical literal escape IMO. Her involvement came days after the initial crime as well. Who knows, maybe DM asked her for help with loose ends and there is a text message record of it. (Or the fight that ensued?)

 

[matou]

My belief is the Noudga helped somehow with transport of TB's truck or removal of the seats in his truck. The trailer was seen in DM's mother's driveway on May 9th and that is the same date CN is deemed to have helped DM "escape". JMO

 

[matou]

Actually, the date associated with CN's charge is so specific it makes me think it has something to do with a time stamped piece of evidence. Video? Texts? Phone calls? Hotel room rental? Plane ticket purchase?

 

[Alethea Dice]

If CN is on trial by herself, what do they have to prove within the scope of that trial to find her guilty? That there was a murder, she knew, she freely assisted DM in getting rid of evidence or otherwise obliterating his trail?

I believe they would have to prove the basics - time and location of the act and that it was actually her who assisted him. Also that she knew the crime had taken place, that she intended to help him, and that she did the act of "providing aid, comfort or assistance" for the purpose of helping him to escape. If he were to be acquitted, I believe her charge would be thrown out.

JMO

 

[Alethea Dice]

What would be the reasons that she would willingly waive her preliminary hearing?

Most likely, a competent defense attorney would recommend waiving the preliminary hearing only if the evidence against the defendant was substantial or overwhelming, and waiving the hearing would benefit the defendant in a significant way. For example, if the case is a high profile matter involving a great deal of publicity, an attorney might recommend waiving preliminary hearing in order to limit the release of information and evidence to the public.

http://www.criminaldefenselawyer.com/resources/criminal-defense/criminal-defense-case/preliminary-criminal-hearing-process-proce

Interesting:

The reasons the defense might waive the right to a preliminary hearing include:

The defendant intends to plead guilty and wants to avoid publicity.....

The defendant is guilty of more than the charged offenses and fears further charges from the potentially damning evidence that may come out at the preliminary hearing.

http://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/when-does-sense-waive-the-preliminary-hearing.html

More at link.

 

[Carli]

I don't see how there could be a preliminary hearing to examine the case against a person charged with knowingly assisting those charged with murder, without first establishing their guilt.

Accordingly I'd add another possible reason to forego the PH. - The defendant wants to stall in the hopes that by the time her case comes to trial, there will be no cause for a trial.

 

[SnooperDuper]

I don't see how there could be a preliminary hearing to examine the case against a person charged with knowingly assisting those charged with murder, without first establishing their guilt.

Accordingly I'd add another possible reason to forego the PH. - The defendant wants to stall in the hopes that by the time her case comes to trial, there will be no cause for a trial.

It makes sense if you imagine CN's intending to plead guilty. Otherwise, why not try all three together?

 

[Variant]

I don't see how there could be a preliminary hearing to examine the case against a person charged with knowingly assisting those charged with murder, without first establishing their guilt.

Accordingly I'd add another possible reason to forego the PH. - The defendant wants to stall in the hopes that by the time her case comes to trial, there will be no cause for a trial.

You might think so, but if Canadian law is similar to what is described for US law in Wikipedia,

"It is now possible to be convicted as an accessory before the fact even though the principal has not been convicted or (in most jurisdictions) even if the principal was acquitted at an earlier trial."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accessory_(legal_term)

 

[Variant]

It makes sense if you imagine CN's intending to plead guilty. Otherwise, why not try all three together?

I think if she were intending to plead guilty she wouldn't have asked for a jury. I suspect that skipping the PH is about minimizing publicity and impact on her family.

 

[Tamarind]

You might think so, but if Canadian law is similar to what is described for US law in Wikipedia,

"It is now possible to be convicted as an accessory before the fact even though the principal has not been convicted or (in most jurisdictions) even if the principal was acquitted at an earlier trial."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Accessory_(legal_term)

Lets hope Canadian Law hasn't stooped to that. JMO

 

[Tamarind]

I think if she were intending to plead guilty she wouldn't have asked for a jury. I suspect that skipping the PH is about minimizing publicity and impact on her family.

I often wonder if people elect for trial by jury because they have reason not to place faith in the justice system. JMO MOO
I also think it should be judge OR jury, not both. MOO