Daren McCormick - Canadian sovereign convicted

Moderator: Burnaby49

Burnaby49
Quatloosian Ambassador to the CaliCanadians
Quatloosian Ambassador to the CaliCanadians
Posts: 5627
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 3:45 am
Location: The Evergreen Playground

Daren McCormick - Canadian sovereign convicted

Postby Burnaby49 » Sat Dec 29, 2012 10:18 pm

A bit late on posting this, he was convicted earlier this year. Got himself into a lot of trouble (and a 3 year sentence) without actually doing anything overt except shooting off his big mouth. To quote:

[13] It appears that on March 31, 2011 Cst. Heycott was taken aside by the appellant in the Amherst courthouse. The appellant told Cst. Heycott that he was trained in quick draw and could out draw police officers. He told Cst. Heycott that he would consider putting a pistol in his pants to go to the grocery store. The officer cautioned the appellant. The appellant mentioned past issues with the police and told Cst. Heycott that if a police cruiser even pulled into his yard, he would kill the car and kill the officers. He challenged the officer to write that down and he would sign it. Again Cst. Haycott cautioned the appellant that should not be saying things like that. Mr. McCormick went on to tell the officer that he had a firearm dating from the 1840s and boasted that it could bore a hole in anything at 85 yards.

[14] As a result, the police decided to arrest Mr. McCormick. The police found Mr. McCormick the next day. He was a passenger in a motor vehicle in the downtown area of Amherst. When Mr. McCormick was arrested the police found a loaded .44 caliber revolver in a holster strapped to his hip. The weapon had no safety. Charges were laid as a result of the possession of that weapon and, following a search of his residence, various other firearm related charges were laid. Of these latter charges, Mr. McCormick was acquitted.


Canada is very much the wrong country to brag to the cops about the right to bear arms. In the states he would probably have been free and clear but up here carring an illegal handgun has a statutary three year minimum sentence.

He didn't help his case when he said, at the Appeal hearing where he requested bail, (denied):

[21] The beliefs espoused by Mr. McCormick at trial, during his application for stay of proceedings, and at the sentence hearing, are based on his claimed status as a “Freeman-on-the-land”. His claim to this status is set out in his notarized statement of July 28, 2010. In this statement, he declares a number of things, including that the authorities are permanently estopped from bringing charges against him and asserts his right to travel on the highways without licence, registration or insurance and to free and unencumbered possession and use of arms and firearms for protection of property, family and friends, and that he may possess, at his discretion, arms and firearms free of statutes and regulations. He also asserts or claims the right to convene a proper “court de jure” to address any potentially criminal actions of any peace officer or justice system participant who interferes with what he says is his properly claimed and established rights and freedoms.

[22] When cross‑examined before me on May 24, 2012, Mr. McCormick maintained that he still believes in the Freeman-on-the-land principles. Nonetheless, he provided assurances during his testimony that he had not breached the recognizance, nor would he breach a new recognizance. He offered two reasons. The first is that he viewed the recognizance as a kind of contract which he would not violate. The second is he would not do anything to put his mother’s land or property at risk, and he knew such would be the case as she would be a surety on that recognizance.


As the judge said at the Pre-Sentencing hearing;

[9] In evidence is a lengthy, notarized statement sworn by Mr. McCormick. According to the doctrines of freeman-on-the-land, publication of such a document magically frees one from the Criminal Code, including the gun laws. In this document, Mr. McCormick asserts his right to bear arms. On the day before the seizure, when he made the threat to shoot police officers who might come into his driveway, Mr. McCormick described at length his beliefs in his right to carry a loaded handgun. He even said that he could have a gun when he went grocery shopping, and he explained his skill at quickly drawing a holstered revolver.

For whatever reason I can't find the trial decision. The two I refer to above linked below.

Pre-Sentencing hearing:
http://www.canlii.org/en/ns/nssc/doc/20 ... sc150.html

Appeal hearing:
http://www.canlii.org/en/ns/nsca/doc/20 ... sca58.html
"Yes Burnaby49, I do in fact believe all process servers are peace officers. I've good reason to believe so." Robert Menard in his May 28, 2015 video "Process Servers".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XeI-J2PhdGs

fortinbras
Princeps Wooloosia
Posts: 2968
Joined: Sat May 24, 2008 5:50 pm

Re: Another Canadian sovereign convicted

Postby fortinbras » Sat Dec 29, 2012 11:25 pm

I found the original case on Lexis:

Regina v. Daren Wayne McCormick
[2012] N.S.J. No. 413
2012 NSSC 288
319 N.S.R. (2d) 17

Docket: CR.Am. 348864
Registry: Amherst
Nova Scotia Supreme Court

G.R.P. Moir J.
Heard: March 12-14 2012.
Oral judgment: March 14, 2012.
(58 paras.)

Statutes, Regulations and Rules Cited:
Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, 1982, R.S.C. 1985, App. II, No. 44, Schedule B, s. 7, s. 24

Counsel:
Mr. Bruce Baxter, for the Crown.
Mr. Daren McCormick, on his own.

Decision

1 G.R.P. MOIR J. (orally):
Introduction. Mr. McCormick moves for an order staying proceedings against him as a remedy under s. 24 of the Charter of Rights. The motion is premised on several allegations of violations of the Charter of Rights by the police or the prosecution.
2 Mr. McCormick alleges:
*
Firstly, that the police unfairly targeted members of his group and the unfairness spread into the prosecution. The unfairness contravenes fundamental notions of justice, such that it would be treated as an abuse of process at common law and is now a violation of s. 7 of the Charter.
*
Secondly, the case against Mr. McCormick resulted from entrapment by the police.
*
Thirdly, Mr. McCormick's right to make full answer and defence was compromised by the prosecution's failure to make certain disclosure.

3 For several reasons, the application for a stay was heard after the trial. For one thing, that is the right place for a stay based on entrapment. For another, the allegations only became clear after trial commenced when witnesses were asked questions tending to put the police and prosecution on trial rather than questions tending to draw evidence relevant to the charges. The more practical approach was to first let the jury hear the evidence relevant to the issues they had to decide.
4 R. v. Pearson, [1998] S.C.J. 86 at para. 13 refers to "the unique nature of an entrapment proceeding after a verdict of guilty". I take that to refer to the unique requirement that entrapment cannot be established until guilt is admitted by plea or proven by trial. I assert that the court can prevent an abuse of any kind at any stage until the court becomes functus, that is, ceases to have authority over the case when it enters a conviction or an acquittal.
5 There was no serious inquiry into whether Mr. McCormick had established a threshold warranting an inquiry into entrapment, or any other abuse. On the contrary, our approach was to defer evidence on misconduct that was irrelevant to the charges.

6 Mr. McCormick faced three sets of charges:
*
Firstly, he was charged with threatening to kill police officers on March 31, 2011.
*
Secondly, he was charged with various weapons offences as a result of the police finding a revolver when he was arrested on April 1, 2011.
*
Thirdly, he was charged with various weapons offences after a residence was searched on the evening of the day of the arrest.

7 The jury found Mr. McCormick guilty on the first two sets of charges and not guilty on the third. It is clear that they were not satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that Mr. McCormick was in possession of weapons and ammunition found in the search at the residence.
8 In addition to the trial evidence, we heard two days of testimony from witnesses called by Mr. McCormick and we received numerous additional exhibits.
9 The witnesses were eight police officers and three friends, Mr. Mark Alan, Mr. Dean Simpson, and Mr. Steven Godfrey. Most of the documentary evidence tended to prove the medical benefits of cannabis, especially cannabis oil, sometimes called hemp oil, and to explain Mr. McCormick's group.
10 Conclusion. I emphatically reject the proposition that there was any misconduct by the police or the prosecution. I will not order a stay.
11 Basis for Suspicions. Some established facts, when stripped away from their context, seem to compel findings of police misconduct.
12 On March 31, 2011 Mr. Simpson swore informations against police officers and a prosecutor, who had been involved in his trial on drug charges. Officers had testified against him about, among other things, the results of heat detection suggesting a grow operation. The prosecutor had gone into the jury room when a juror was present. A mistrial had been ordered.
13 Among other things, Mr. Simpson's informations alleged that the prosecutor had committed offences against the administration of justice and that two of the officers committed or assisted perjury in reference to the heat detection. Mr. McCormick was present when the informations were sworn.
14 The next day a team of police arrested Mr. McCormick and Mr. Simpson. Later, a residence was searched under warrant. It was taken to be Mr. McCormick's home. His parents and brother were there.
15 One of the officers against whom an information was laid had participated in a meeting the night before with senior officers at which it was decided to arrest Mr. McCormick and search his residence. Before either the arrest or the search was executed, the police obtained copies of the private prosecution informations.
16 Mr. McCormick's Group and the Police. As I said, there is context that makes those facts innocent in the sense that one sees there was no relationship between the private prosecutions and the arrests or between the private prosecutions and the search. Part of the context concerns other things Mr. McCormick did on the day the informations were sworn, and things one of his colleagues did. I will deal with those subjects later. For now, let me provide context about the group and the police.
17 The group has two unifying interests. One is associated with the phrase "Phoenix Tears", a deep interest in promoting cannabis, especially cannabis oil, as beneficial, especially medically beneficial, and most especially as an agent for effectively fighting cancer. The other interest is associated with a social movement called Freeman-on-the-Land, which asserts radical possibilities for separating the individual from the state.
18 The Phoenix Tears interest started with a Mr. Rick Simpson of Sackville, New Brunswick. His efforts at production of cannabis oil and using it to treat cancer were described by Mr. Mark Alan when he testified.
19 I have been given scholarly works showing that extracts of cannabis can be effective against some forms of cancer. Witnesses also testified to their lay observations in that regard.
20 Scholarship has been provided to show that cannabis has been with us since neolithic times.
21 Scholarship has even been provided to show a possible scriptural basis for the use of cannabis. It seems fairly clear that the word cannabis came into the Indo-European family of languages from ancient Persian, either directly or intermediately. It is possible that ancient Persian took the word from the Semitic languages. The Hebrew phrase kaneh bosm may mean aromatic hemp, "kan" may have the same root as in cannabis and indeed it may be the source of our word cannabis.
22 The Hebrew phrase appears in Exodus {Exodus 30:23} where God instructs Moses on the preparation of the holy oil for anointments poured on a person's flesh.
23 In light of the medical, historic, and spiritual uses of cannabis, members of Phoenix Tears are indignant that they have been the subjects of searches and prosecutions for the cultivation of marijuana, manufacture of the oil, and distribution.
24 Rick Simpson and at least a half-dozen of his followers have been the subjects of warranted searches and arrests. Mr. Simpson left the country. Mr. Alan is in jail. Mr. Dean Simpson is under house arrest. And, Mr. McCormick is in jeopardy.
25 For the members of the group, this state of affairs constitutes nothing short of oppression.
26 Indignation is understandable. The charge of oppression is not. It fails to allow for the responsibility of the police, the public prosecution service, and the courts to enforce the law.
27 This takes us to the second unifying interest of Mr. McCormick's group.
28 Leaders of the Freeman-on-the-Land movement in places far from here teach a political theory based on a radical interpretation of social contract and of the relationship between social contract and law.
29 For them, the social contract is not a primordial construct founding the legitimacy of government but an actual contract between an individual and the state. For them, not just the collectively but the individual can withdraw from the contract. He does so by observing certain formalities.
30 Mr. McCormick engaged one of those formalities. He had a rather elaborate document notarized and delivered to some officials. In it, he asserted his withdrawal. One of his many claims in the document was a right to bear arms.
31 While respect can be shown for the interest of the Freeman in law and legal history, no respect is due for the next level of teaching. They say that an individual who withdraws from the social contract is beyond the jurisdiction of the state, and the courts, to enforce statute law. That is patently false.
32 This teaching is not only wrong in the sense that it is false. It is wrongful. That is, it is full of wrong.
33 Events of March 31, 2011 and April 1, 2011. That the teaching is wrongful is shown with crystal clarity by one fact of April 1, 2011.
34 On that day, in this town, Mr. McCormick had a holster, on his hip, under his long coat, and in it a loaded revolver. The people in this country have an assurance that the civilian next to them [in a grocery store] and the civilian in the car next to them is not armed.
35 What makes the teaching not just false, but also wrongful, is that it encourages adherents to believe that they are above statute law. That belief can, and in this case did, undermine the security of the adherent and of everyone within firing range of him.
36 On March 31, 2011, after witnessing Mr. Simpson lay charges against officers and a prosecutor, Mr. McCormick approached an officer, and he spoke at length. He appears to have been vehement and emphatic. The jury was satisfied beyond reasonable doubt that what he said amounted objectively to a threat to kill police officers and that he meant to say what he said. Had it been my place, I would have reached the same conclusion.
37 The officer reached a similar conclusion and he reported the conversation to others.
38 About the same time, Mr. Alan approached another officer. He seems to have had the same kind of exuberance for the private prosecutions as did Mr. McCormick. He posed, as a hypothetical, Freemen conducting searches of the homes of the police officers. The officer found it necessary to make a report of this. A corporal took his statement that evening. A meeting was convened at the Amherst detachment of the RCMP. Information was discussed. A staff sergeant, a sergeant, a corporal, and a constable determined that Mr. McCormick represented a serious risk to police officers. No reasonable person can gainsay that conclusion.
39 On the basis of the information gathered, the police determined that Mr. McCormick should be arrested for making a threat. As part of that determination, Crown counsel's advice was sought and received.
40 One officer recorded that Mr. McCormick "is not arrestable". He said this was a typo and "not" should read "now".
41 The officer who actually received the advice recorded it as "there was enough for a Search Warrant, as well as more than enough evidence to support the Threats charges."
42 Mr. McCormick emphasizes that just before this advice was received the officer "was provided copies of the Informations" and he advised Crown counsel "of the situation and the Informations". In fact, the officer called counsel before he got the informations and counsel returned his call after he had gotten them. I find the informations were not the cause of the advice, or of the police decision to make an arrest and seek search warrants.
43 For some reason, the police had difficulty getting copies of the informations from court staff earlier that morning. I know of nothing against the proposition that they were public records at the time. I find that this, and the eventual delivery of copies, implies nothing of significance for my present determination.
44 Mr. McCormick also emphasizes that the police did not arrest him until he was in the downtown. If they believed him to be dangerous, they should have arrested him in his rural home or when they saw him with Mr. Simpson before they went downtown.
45 I am not about to split hairs with the decision of those who had the job of arresting a dangerous person. No objective person with the information the police had could conclude other than they did, that he posed a danger. Indeed, the conclusion was verified by the revolver.
46 I find that the arrest was not motivated by the private prosecutions or by any generalized animosity against the Phoenix Tears group or the Freeman-on-the-Land movement. It was motivated by information the police possessed, including the threat by Mr. McCormick and the hypothetical posed by Mr. Alan in their exuberance over the private prosecutions.
47 Abuse of Process. A prosecution may be stayed as a violation of s. 7 of the Charter when the prosecution contravenes fundamental notions of justice and thus undermines the integrity of the judicial process: R. v. Nixon, [2011] S.C.J. 34 and the cases reviewed in it.
48 This is not a situation, like R. v. Regan, 2002 SCC 12 in which the prosecution became embroiled in the investigation. However, even if that were not so the police conducted the investigation well and fairly. They could not have ignored the threat or the other exuberant statements.
49 [Entrapment ]. Entrapment is established in either of two ways:
*
The police provide an opportunity to commit a crime without reasonable suspicion or without bona fide motives.
*
The police actually induce commitment of the crime.
R. v. Perfect, [2001] N.S.J. 14 (P.C.) and the decisions reviewed by Judge Ross in his decision.
50 The evidence does not establish either proposition.
51 Disclosure. Mr. McCormick complains that he has not been given a copy of an e-mail to his former lawyer explaining the "not" vrs. "now" error. Mr. Baxter explained himself during trial, and I ruled on this issue then.
52 Mr. McCormick asserts that during the trial Mr. Baxter said that counsel had been present for an investigation meeting. That is not my interpretation, and I do not see that his comments reflect adversely on the prosecution.
53 Mr. McCormick asserts that there were violations of obligations to disclose police disciplinary records.
54 The police and the Crown jointly have an obligation under R. v. Stinchcombe, [1991] 3 S.C.R. 326 to disclose a record of a finding of serious misconduct by an investigating officer where the finding is in one of two categories:
*
The finding is related to the investigation.
*
The finding could easily impact on the case against the accused.
Short of that, disciplinary records are within R. v. O'Connor, [1995] 4 S.C.R. 411. See R. v. McNeil, [2009] 1 S.C.R. 66 and see R. v. Melvin, [2009] N.S.J. 397 (S.C.), a decision of Justice Coady.
55 Mr. McCormick asserts two violations. The first is a failure to disclose the private prosecutions. They led to no findings and, in any case, they were known to Mr. McCormick from the beginning when he uttered the threat.
56 The second involves an officer who once left his service revolver unattended. Findings in that case were not related to this one, and the officer's failure could hardly be misconduct easily impacting on the case against Mr. McCormick.
57 To repeat my conclusion, there is no basis in law for a stay. The application is dismissed.
58 I now enter convictions against Mr. McCormick on counts one, two, three, four, and five of the indictment and I enter acquittals on the other seven counts.

G.R.P. MOIR J.

Burnaby49
Quatloosian Ambassador to the CaliCanadians
Quatloosian Ambassador to the CaliCanadians
Posts: 5627
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 3:45 am
Location: The Evergreen Playground

Re: Another Canadian sovereign convicted

Postby Burnaby49 » Sun Dec 30, 2012 1:00 am

I use Canlii.org, a free service that covers Canadian cases. It is generally very comprehensive but has the odd miss, such as this one. However the price is right.
"Yes Burnaby49, I do in fact believe all process servers are peace officers. I've good reason to believe so." Robert Menard in his May 28, 2015 video "Process Servers".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XeI-J2PhdGs

User avatar
grixit
Recycler of Paytriot Fantasies
Posts: 3497
Joined: Thu Apr 24, 2003 7:02 am
Contact:

Re: Another Canadian sovereign convicted

Postby grixit » Sun Dec 30, 2012 2:25 am

It's stunts like that that add unneeded stress to police work. In fact it might make a cop jumpy and more prone to make mistakes.
I voted for Hillary, and i didn't even get a stupid tshirt!

10 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2
. . . . . . Dr Pepper
. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . 4

User avatar
notorial dissent
A Balthazar of Quatloosian Truth
Posts: 10626
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 8:17 pm

Re: Another Canadian sovereign convicted

Postby notorial dissent » Sun Dec 30, 2012 6:23 am

My!!! Isn't that just a bit over the top for your average Canadian!!!! I mean direct unvarnished threatening a peace officer with a gun sort of thing??? I can well imagine the incredulity of the Cst under the circumstances, and the unvarnished stupidity of McCormick to actually threaten him in the first place. I mean that goes above and beyond the status of just generally dumb.

Please tell me he isn't / wasn't living in his mommy's basement???

I just can't imagine his statements and actions going over at all well in a Canadian court. Wouldn't be much better received down here either. For some reason, police don't seem to take kindly to offers to shoot them, imagine that!!

Sounds like our valiant "Freeman-on-the-Land" has some cannabis issues as well, and just generally doesn't play well with others.




The fact that you sincerely and wholeheartedly believe that the “Law of Gravity” is unconstitutional and a violation of your sovereign rights, does not absolve you of adherence to it.

Burnaby49
Quatloosian Ambassador to the CaliCanadians
Quatloosian Ambassador to the CaliCanadians
Posts: 5627
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 3:45 am
Location: The Evergreen Playground

Re: Another Canadian sovereign convicted

Postby Burnaby49 » Sun Dec 30, 2012 8:46 pm

This is where I belatedly got the info re McCormick. These clowns are finally getting some recognition in the newspapers.

http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/12/29 ... em-report/
"Yes Burnaby49, I do in fact believe all process servers are peace officers. I've good reason to believe so." Robert Menard in his May 28, 2015 video "Process Servers".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XeI-J2PhdGs

Burnaby49
Quatloosian Ambassador to the CaliCanadians
Quatloosian Ambassador to the CaliCanadians
Posts: 5627
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 3:45 am
Location: The Evergreen Playground

Re: Another Canadian sovereign convicted

Postby Burnaby49 » Thu Jan 03, 2013 7:59 pm

And yet another Post article on Freemen on the Land (along with other terrorist nutcases). Mika of the Rasila Family looks like he crawled out of a cave. Not my idea of the go-to guy for advice on how to live your life free of government control.

http://news.nationalpost.com/2013/01/03 ... ts-report/
"Yes Burnaby49, I do in fact believe all process servers are peace officers. I've good reason to believe so." Robert Menard in his May 28, 2015 video "Process Servers".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XeI-J2PhdGs

Luxucious

Re: Another Canadian sovereign convicted

Postby Luxucious » Mon Apr 01, 2013 1:47 am

To anyone here on the board:

So I have a question...

I just started listening to some of Dean Clifford's audio. I really like some of his ideas and explanations, but he can be very disrepectful of law enforcement and his language rather crude. I know he was recently in jail for a bit of time, but all his charges were stayed.

Any thoughts on this?

User avatar
wserra
Quatloosian Federal Witness
Quatloosian Federal Witness
Posts: 6310
Joined: Sat Apr 26, 2003 7:39 pm

Re: Another Canadian sovereign convicted

Postby wserra » Mon Apr 01, 2013 1:25 pm

Luxucious wrote:Any thoughts on this?


Sure. Caveat: I, like most of the posters on this board, am from the U.S. We're knowledgeable about U.S. law, and have the resources to verify/refute U.S. legal claims. For example, were Clifford's arrest to have occurred in the U.S., I could likely tell you what's going on with it. Were it on federal charges, I could do so exactly. Canada, less so on all fronts. Burnaby?

That said, Clifford's site is a hodgepodge of what in the U.S. would be abject bullshit, and I strongly suspect is just that in Canada as well. First of all, there is precious little of his stuff explained in writing. It's all videos. You must pay him to get access to his blog, forums, etc. Here is a page filled with videos, each of which has a "Read More" button underneath it - all of which go nowhere with any further explanation. I'm always suspicious of folks who won't put stuff in writing. It's a lot easier to cite law showing that a written quote is nonsense than it is to quote videos. For example, I watched the first few minutes from "Series 3" on that page. He drones on and on about something he calls the "legal person", which sounds suspiciously like his version of the "strawman" BS. But I can't quote it without taking time I don't have, because it's not in writing.

Clifford lists Robert Menard as a "Friend". I don't think I've ever run across someone who can take so long to say so little (and what he does say is laughable). We've discussed Menard numerous times here - use the "Search" if you're interested.

About the only thing his own site says about his beliefs is this: "Dean doesn’t pay Income or property Taxes, he doesn’t drive with a license, insurance or with government plates." Again, I'm no expert on Canadian law. But I'm pretty sure that if he earns income or owns property, and doesn't pay the applicable tax, he violates Canadian law. I'm pretty sure that if he drives a motor vehicle without a license, he violates Canadian law. Perhaps you could point to a written explanation from Clifford as to why he is so special that Canadian law doesn't apply to him.
"A wise man proportions belief to the evidence."
- David Hume

Burnaby49
Quatloosian Ambassador to the CaliCanadians
Quatloosian Ambassador to the CaliCanadians
Posts: 5627
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 3:45 am
Location: The Evergreen Playground

Re: Another Canadian sovereign convicted

Postby Burnaby49 » Mon Apr 01, 2013 6:32 pm

I'm not going to bother wading through Clifford's site, Wserra's comments probably have it pretty much covered. As far as staying his charges is concerned keep in mind he was arrested for doing wheelies in a private parking lot. Not exactly the kind of offense that gives a Crown prosecutor incentive to get out of bed in the morning. They may have stayed rather than dropped charges because they can't be bothered to prosecute but want a ready-made excuse to haul him in again if he causes trouble. Not being a lawyer I'm only guessing. Looks to me like he was put in maximum security because he was being a pain in the ass, not because of any expectation of violence or the severity of his charges.

Wserra wrote:

About the only thing his own site says about his beliefs is this: "Dean doesn’t pay Income or property Taxes, he doesn’t drive with a license, insurance or with government plates." Again, I'm no expert on Canadian law. But I'm pretty sure that if he earns income or owns property, and doesn't pay the applicable tax, he violates Canadian law. I'm pretty sure that if he drives a motor vehicle without a license, he violates Canadian law. Perhaps you could point to a written explanation from Clifford as to why he is so special that Canadian law doesn't apply to him.

This just makes him a garden variety sovereign, Canadian style, just like Eldon Warman, the original instigator of sovereign belief up here. As far as laws are concerned no different up here than in the states. Sovereign are charged frequently for no drivers licenses and when I worked for the Canada Revenue Agency we had a lot of problems with their claims that they weren't legally taxable. It didn't end well for a lot of them, as I've written here before Porisky and wife, Eve Sidel, Chandler Turnnir, and a bunch of others ended up in jail for spouting sovereign beliefs as a basis for tax evasion. By and large they were a lot more administrative trouble than they were worth since most didn't owe enough taxes to warrant using a lot of resources going after them.

Again, from Wserra:

I watched the first few minutes from "Series 3" on that page. He drones on and on about something he calls the "legal person", which sounds suspiciously like his version of the "strawman" BS. But I can't quote it without taking time I don't have, because it's not in writing.

This is just the Porisky argument that got a lot of people in trouble. Very standard and the basis of all the convictions noted above. They claim (as with your strawman) that we are each two people, a natural person and a legal person. The legal person is the fictitious entity created by the state. The natural person is the god created flesh and blood man. Only the legal person is taxable so their "defense" at trial is basically that the legal person may owe tax but the guy sitting in the box is the natural person so the've got the wrong guy. About as deep as it gets.

So yes, Clifford is just a variant of your American sovereigns with possibly a few local twists. They aren't generally in the radar like they are in the states because they don't get violent, at least not often, and their offenses are generally really small-scale stuff.

Luxucious wrote that he "really like some of his (Clifford) ideas and explanations". Well go for it if you are a fan but be advised none of his beliefs have any legal basis and all you'll get out of it is a lot of grief from cops and CRA types with no hope of winning in court except, as with Clifford, where your actions are so pathetic nobody really cares.
"Yes Burnaby49, I do in fact believe all process servers are peace officers. I've good reason to believe so." Robert Menard in his May 28, 2015 video "Process Servers".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XeI-J2PhdGs

User avatar
notorial dissent
A Balthazar of Quatloosian Truth
Posts: 10626
Joined: Mon Jul 04, 2005 8:17 pm

Re: Another Canadian sovereign convicted

Postby notorial dissent » Tue Apr 02, 2013 5:08 am

To summarize what Wserra and Burnaby have opined from both sides of the border, Clifford's crap is just that. His fantasies are not as a friend of mine once put it, "a life enhancing lifestyle", unless one is fond of being arrested, spending lots of time in court, and getting used to institutional settings and food that is. Some times you just can't fix stupid.
The fact that you sincerely and wholeheartedly believe that the “Law of Gravity” is unconstitutional and a violation of your sovereign rights, does not absolve you of adherence to it.

Luxucious

Re: Another Canadian sovereign convicted

Postby Luxucious » Tue Apr 02, 2013 5:25 am

Thanks for all the replies, much appreciated.

User avatar
JamesVincent
A Councilor of the Kabosh
Posts: 2647
Joined: Sat Oct 23, 2010 8:01 am

Re: Another Canadian sovereign convicted

Postby JamesVincent » Tue Apr 02, 2013 5:01 pm

Not even duct tape can fix stupid, though it does muffle the sound.
"Just knowing we're in the same genus makes me embarrassed to call myself Homo." Professor Farnsworth

Chados
Pirates Mate
Pirates Mate
Posts: 107
Joined: Sun Oct 07, 2012 12:10 pm
Location: Somewhere...over the Rainbow

Re: Another Canadian sovereign convicted

Postby Chados » Wed Apr 10, 2013 1:00 am

CanLII is Canada's gift to the legal world. Canadian judges often use our language with a beauty and precision entirely absent from U.S. courts these days.

Thank you, Quatloosians, for brightening my day with some of these opinions.

Burnaby49
Quatloosian Ambassador to the CaliCanadians
Quatloosian Ambassador to the CaliCanadians
Posts: 5627
Joined: Thu Oct 27, 2011 3:45 am
Location: The Evergreen Playground

Re: Daren McCormick - Canadian sovereign convicted

Postby Burnaby49 » Fri Aug 25, 2017 5:46 am

Daren's got himself arrested again. The last time I'm aware of it was a three year sentence for threatening to kill police and carrying an illegal handgun gun. This time it was for a marijuana grow-op he was apparently running on his mother's property. Last time around he was very concerned about putting his mother's property at risk;

[22] When cross-examined before me on May 24, 2012, Mr. McCormick maintained that he still believes in the Freeman-on-the-land principles. Nonetheless, he provided assurances during his testimony that he had not breached the recognizance, nor would he breach a new recognizance. He offered two reasons. The first is that he viewed the recognizance as a kind of contract which he would not violate. The second is he would not do anything to put his mother’s land or property at risk, and he knew such would be the case as she would be a surety on that recognizance.


However this time she's right in the heart of it since the police raided her home along with his property next door;

EAST-Canada friends
21 hrs ·
via Donna Thibodeau SHARE!
ATTENTION CANNABIS WARRIORS!
They tore up Daren Mccormick whole garden, then they went next door and destroyed his mother's house, they would not leave her go back in until they left...Cops from all over, moncton, st John etc...He is in custody right now...1 of the mounties said he may be going to court in the morning...They don't know...PLEASE WHEN WE DO FIND OUT, EVERYONE THAT CAN NEEDS TO SHOW UP! DO NOT MESSAGE HIM HE IS NOT THERE, IT'S THE COPS!


https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=100008220137930


Looks Like he's stuck for the weekend;

Donna Thibodeau
13 hrs · Bathurst, NB ·

DAREN IS BEING TRANSFERRED TO NORTHEAST CORRECTIONAL FACILITY IN NEW GLASGOW NS...NO BAIL UNTIL HIS SHOW CAUSE HEARING MONDAY MORNING IN AMHERST COURT AT 9:30...

Correctional Facility Info:
1-902-755-8547, 10202 SHERBROOKE RD, NEW GLASGOW NS B2H 5C7
In transport now! He seems to be ok considering...He will only get a 5 min phone call when he gets there...

The cops told his Mother they had a warrant at Daren's home but she never seen it, and they never showed her or had a warrant to go in and destroy her home...While this was going on his Mother needed to use the washroom but the police officer kindly told her no and to go behind the cop car!!!

We will confirm time and courthouse...

TO SUPPORT DAREN AND THE CAUSE TO FREE THE PLANT, ANYONE AND EVERYONE THAT CAN SHOW UP TO RECORD AND GIVE SUPPORT WILL BE MUCH APPRECIATED!


https://www.facebook.com/MsKellysGrapevine/

NS stands for Nova Scotia.

Conspiracy theories are brewing!

Donna Thibodeau
7 hrs ·
I just called the Northeast correctional institute at 1-902-755-8547 I said I wanted the address to send something and the receptionist guy said he couldn't find out if Daren Mccormick was there or not because he wasn't getting the updated list until tomorrow morning... :-/ When I kept pressuring him, and said they are going against laws, holding him without bail, what if someone beats him up (I meant officers), law 262 which entails a 10 year sentence, he said Daren was there and he is safe...Why are they withholding information? Brendan Quinlan was also listening in on the conversation...I was on my cell and didn't think off taping the conversation...
"Yes Burnaby49, I do in fact believe all process servers are peace officers. I've good reason to believe so." Robert Menard in his May 28, 2015 video "Process Servers".

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XeI-J2PhdGs

User avatar
arayder
Banned (Permanently)
Banned (Permanently)
Posts: 2117
Joined: Tue Jan 28, 2014 4:17 pm

Re: Daren McCormick - Canadian sovereign convicted

Postby arayder » Fri Aug 25, 2017 1:17 pm

As in Dean Clifford's case one might speculate that the search of Daren's house ends up getting him an illegal firearm charge.

His 2012 firearms conviction must surely have resulted a life long firearm ban. Ya' have to figure gunslinger Daren had at least one old shot gun around the place.

User avatar
eric
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Admiral of the Quatloosian Seas
Posts: 574
Joined: Mon Aug 11, 2014 3:44 pm

Re: Daren McCormick - Canadian sovereign convicted

Postby eric » Fri Aug 25, 2017 4:10 pm

="Burnaby49"
Conspiracy theories are brewing!
Donna Thibodeau
7 hrs ·
I just called the Northeast correctional institute at 1-902-755-8547 I said I wanted the address to send something and the receptionist guy said he couldn't find out if Daren Mccormick was there or not because he wasn't getting the updated list until tomorrow morning... :-/ When I kept pressuring him, and said they are going against laws, holding him without bail, what if someone beats him up (I meant officers), law 262 which entails a 10 year sentence, he said Daren was there and he is safe...Why are they withholding information? Brendan Quinlan was also listening in on the conversation...I was on my cell and didn't think off taping the conversation...

Obviously Daren's friends, although they may have spent periods of incarceration, don't know how the Canadian penal system works with regard to releasing information about inmates. Generally speaking, unless you fall into a few special categories, information about where a particular inmate resides is dealt out on a need to know basis and may require some social engineering. The approved method of making contact with an inmate for the general public is to first send an email asking if that person is in the system. If the answer is positive you then send a letter to a forwarding address where it will be sent to his institution. After that the inmate may reply if desired telling people where he is.
http://www.csc-scc.gc.ca/policy-and-leg ... -eng.shtml for who and how to contact an inmate, or in short form:
To search in CSC's database, CSC requires the person's full name and date of birth. You can submit these by email or contact CSC General Inquiries.

Upon receipt of this information, CSC can confirm whether he/she is under federal custody. However, the specific location of inmates is considered personal information under Canada's Privacy Act, and cannot be disclosed without the inmate's prior consent.

You can write a letter to his/her attention and send it to any of our Regional Headquarters offices.

The letter will be forwarded to the appropriate authorities who will then ensure he/she receives it. At that point, it is up to the inmate to decide whether or not to respond to your request for communication.


Return to “Canada”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest