Daren McCormick - Canadian sovereign convicted
Posted: Sat Dec 29, 2012 9:18 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
[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