Ed Rob Menard's FOTL Claims

[Paul]

It appears that McCormick got off very lightly, given the number of charges, the previous convictions, and that the loaded, restricted firearm when not licensed charge carries a minimum three year sentence.

 

[Chaetognath]

It appears that McCormick got off very lightly, given the number of charges, the previous convictions, and that the loaded, restricted firearm when not licensed charge carries a minimum three year sentence.

Interestingly, that is the one mandatory minimum sentence that has been struck down as unconstitutional, at least in Ontario:

R. v. Smickle, 2012 ONSC 602​

It would seem Mr. McCormick did not argue that point.

Chaetognath.

 

[arayder]

As a member of Freeman on the Land, McCormick believes he has the right to carry a loaded handgun, and during the trial he boasted of his speed on the draw.

Well, they’re no dang good unloaded.

Seriously, it’s one thing to carry a revolver and another to have it on your person when you threaten a police officer.

As an American gun owner with a carry and conceal license I find this sort of behavior antithetical to the responsible behavior required of armed citizens. Handguns aren’t for settling arguments or for threatening anybody, least of all the police.

They are for personal protection in the event one’s life and limb is threatened!

This is the sort behavior I have to explain I don’t endorse every time somebody gets nervous when they find out I have a CCW license.

The court record says: Mr. McCormick was carrying a loaded revolver. . .modeled on an antique from the United States in the nineteenth century. . .

In the old days in the American west it was considered perfectly acceptable to shoot and kill any armed man (sorry ladies, they were sexist) who threaten to kill you, whether or not he reached for his piece.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gunfighter

More than one old west lawman gunned down some suspected criminal just because he said, 'I'm gonna' kill yew, Marshal!"

One wonders if the free wheeling Quick Draw McCormick would be willing to extend his freeman philosophy to include that code?

I rather doubt it. I suspect he wants to threaten the cops as he pleases and yet expects them to peacefully deal with him at all times.

 

[thebicyclist]

New words added, not rewritten.

Removed and redefined too

 

[psionl0]

Menard never seemed to realize that folks rightly sensed he had something to hide when he used a fez to hide his bald head, over sized clothes to hide his gut and never gave a straight answer to a question.

True, there was always a smell about him. However, it was his public breach of the MA he had with JREF which he consented to that revealed his serf like status.

 

[ComfySlippers]

...However, it was his public breach of the MA he had with JREF which he consented to that revealed his serf like status.

That or 10+ years of selling very old lies to the gullible whilst, at the same time, never practicing what he preached because he knew he'd end up in Court.

 

[LashL]

Interestingly, that is the one mandatory minimum sentence that has been struck down as unconstitutional, at least in Ontario:

R. v. Smickle, 2012 ONSC 602
​

It would seem Mr. McCormick did not argue that point.

Chaetognath.

Well, the Ontario decision in R.v. Smickle (which is being appealed by the Crown, as an aside) was a decision by an Ontario Superior Court judge and is not binding on the N.S. court in R. v. McCormick anyway, as the latter was a decision by a N.S. Supreme Court judge and the two are at the same level, despite the different names in the different provinces.

 

[Horatius]

Well, the Ontario decision in R.v. Smickle (which is being appealed by the Crown, as an aside) was a decision by an Ontario Superior Court judge and is not binding on the N.S. court in R. v. McCormick anyway, as the latter was a decision by a N.S. Supreme Court judge and the two are at the same level, despite the different names in the different provinces.

It's not binding , but it might be persuasive, and in any case, it's interesting that a FoTLer, the type who usually brags about how much "research" they've done on the law, completely missed the one aspect of the law that has had the greatest direct impact on his life. You think he might have caught that, were he any good at research at all.

Instead, as is typical, he wasted that time coming up with "self serving misinterpretations".

 

[psionl0]

That or 10+ years of selling very old lies to the gullible whilst, at the same time, never practicing what he preached because he knew he'd end up in Court.

Everybody here knows that he is as real as a $3 bill (created by his own signature of course ) but his MA breach is the real gotcha! Now we have actual proof that he is a liar.

 

[Mojo]

Well, the Ontario decision in R.v. Smickle (which is being appealed by the Crown, as an aside) was a decision by an Ontario Superior Court judge and is not binding on the N.S. court in R. v. McCormick anyway, as the latter was a decision by a N.S. Supreme Court judge and the two are at the same level, despite the different names in the different provinces.

Is this to do with it being in a different jurisdiction? In English law appelate court decisions are binding on other courts of the same level (apart from the Supreme Court which is allowed to change its mind).

 

[Border Reiver]

Is this to do with it being in a different jurisdiction? In English law appelate court decisions are binding on other courts of the same level (apart from the Supreme Court which is allowed to change its mind).

Despite the names (Ontario Superior Court of Justice and Supreme Court of Nova Scotia) these are courts of first instance and at the same level, so the decisions of a different provincal court are not binding on the courts of another province - they can influence, but are not binding on any court other than those of that province.

 

[D'rok]

Is this to do with it being in a different jurisdiction? In English law appelate court decisions are binding on other courts of the same level (apart from the Supreme Court which is allowed to change its mind).

What Border Reiver said.

Canadian federalism and the division of powers means that each province administers its own justice system. The exception is the Federal Court/Federal Court of Appeal, which adjudicates matters falling under the sole authority of the Federal Government. The final court of appeal for the whole country is the Supreme Court of Canada.

 

[Mojo]

Ah. I thought they were appelate courts, not first instance. Are appelate court decisions from one province binding on courts in another province?

 

[D'rok]

Ah. I thought they were appelate courts, not first instance. Are appelate court decisions from one province binding on courts in another province?

Nope. But they can be persuasive. How persuasive depends on the court (and on the decision). There is an informal hierarchy of provincial appellate courts with the Court of Appeal for Ontario at or near the top.

 

[arayder]

Well, they’re no dang good unloaded.

Seriously, it’s one thing to carry a revolver and another to have it on your person when you threaten a police officer.

As an American gun owner with a carry and conceal license I find this sort of behavior antithetical to the responsible behavior required of armed citizens. Handguns aren’t for settling arguments or for threatening anybody, least of all the police.

They are for personal protection in the event one’s life and limb is threatened!

This is the sort behavior I have to explain I don’t endorse every time somebody gets nervous when they find out I have a CCW license.

The court record says: Mr. McCormick was carrying a loaded revolver. . .modeled on an antique from the United States in the nineteenth century. . .

In the old days in the American west it was considered perfectly acceptable to shoot and kill any armed man (sorry ladies, they were sexist) who threaten to kill you, whether or not he reached for his piece.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gunfighter

More than one old west lawman gunned down some suspected criminal just because he said, 'I'm gonna' kill yew, Marshal!"

One wonders if the free wheeling Quick Draw McCormick would be willing to extend his freeman philosophy to include that code?

I rather doubt it. I suspect he wants to threaten the cops as he pleases and yet expects them to peacefully deal with him at all times.

This boy is one weird bird

As near as I can tell McCormick carried a reproduction .44 caliber cap and ball revolver.

This is not the .45 Long Colt Peacemaker seen in old western movies. Rather it’s the Peacemaker’s predecessor which required each chamber be filled with a black powder load, a bullet pressed on top and a percussion cap (as in “bust a cap“) placed on top.

This is the gun Wild Bill Hickok used in .36 caliber before he was shot playing the dead man’s hand, aces and eights, in Deadwood, South Dakota.

I suspect the authorities felt compelled to shot the reproduction gun before the trial to:

1. Show that despite being a reproduction of a 19th century antique it was a real firearm, capable of real harm. The .44 caliber was the most powerful handgun of it’s era and was supplanted in power in modern times only by the .357 magnum, .44 magnum “Dirty Harry” gun (which’ll blow your head clean off) and the new .50 Smith and Wesson.

2. Unload the handgun. It is easier to shoot the rounds than to unload the pistol. Wild Bill was said to have fired his revolvers each morning as practice and reload them rather than go through the chore of unloading them. Unlike modern revolvers which allow the shooter to eject cartridges, loaded cap and ball revolvers are unloaded by the laborious process of draining the powder out of each chamber, removing the cap and pushing the bullets out the other way. It’s likely that the only person around with the several tools needed to unload the revolver was McCormick himself . . . and he may not have had them!

This handgun is widely available in the U.S and can be ordered and shipped via internet and in many states may be delivered to one’s door with no background check. http://www.cabelas.com/catalog/brow...EGORY_SEQ_104503680?WTz_l=SBC;MM;cat104701680

I suspect the handgun’s “under the radar” status is what attracted McCormick to it in the first place.

The weird thing is that it is huge, hard to conceal handgun . If McCormick wanted a pistol for self protection and not to intimidate he should have gone for a slim modern semi-auto pistol. Heck, there are even smaller cap and ball revolvers available in smaller calibers, .36. 32. 31, 22.

I contend that McCormick’s handgun isn’t about self protection, or even a warped sort of lawful resistance to authority .

It’s just another freeman wanting to do as he pleases, where he pleases.

Quick Draw McCormick could legally wear this gun in Arizona (and get laughed at for the useless old gun), but the boy is just too ding dang lazy to move there.

 

[LashL]

Is this to do with it being in a different jurisdiction? In English law appelate court decisions are binding on other courts of the same level (apart from the Supreme Court which is allowed to change its mind).

None of the courts involved in the cited cases are appellate courts, and in any event, neither of the cited decisions are binding on the other. These are just two separate judgments in two separate cases by two separate courts at the same level, and neither is binding on the other. That would also be the case if they were in the same jurisdiction even though, in this case, they are not.

Despite the names (Ontario Superior Court of Justice and Supreme Court of Nova Scotia) these are courts of first instance and at the same level, so the decisions of a different provincal court are not binding on the courts of another province - they can influence, but are not binding on any court other than those of that province.

^ As I said above, and as Border Reiver expanded upon above (except that such a decision is not even binding upon courts in the same province at the same level), a decision by a court of competent jurisdiction at first instance is not binding upon another court of competent jurisdiction at first instance in the same province, never mind in another province. A decision by the Ontario SCJ or the Nova Scotia SC would only be binding upon lower courts in the same jurisdiction (e.g. small claims court cases or similar).

Ah. I thought they were appelate courts, not first instance. Are appelate court decisions from one province binding on courts in another province?

Neither the Ontario SCJ nor the Nova Scotia SC is an appellate court in respect of the referenced cases and the decisions rendered. In those instances, they are both courts of first instance. And, no, the decisions of appellate courts in one province are not binding upon appellate courts in other provinces. That said, the decisions of certain provincial appellate courts tend to carry significantly more weight than those of other provinces, even though they are not binding.

Nope. But they can be persuasive. How persuasive depends on the court (and on the decision). There is an informal hierarchy of provincial appellate courts with the Court of Appeal for Ontario at or near the top.

As D'rok mentions above, there is indeed somewhat of a hierarchy among provincial appellate courts insofar as their influence and persuasiveness is concerned. Ontario is at the top, without question; British Columbia tends to feature second, third, or fourth (depending on the issue, and depending on the judges who've delivered the judgments - the BCCA has delivered some very sketchy decisions that have sort of taken away from what would otherwise be a solid second place) and Quebec typically features dead last most of the time. Nova Scotia is making a good run, and has been taken more seriously in recent years than it has been in the past. Alberta and Manitoba appellate decisions are given at least some weight, if only occasionally. Saskatchewan and New Brunswick seem to have some serious work to do still. Newfoundland and PEI are doing their best, but they haven't gained any real judicial respect from the rest of the country's appellate courts to date. Similarly, the three territories are pretty much ignored.

That said, I will use decisions of any one of the provincial appellate courts (except Quebec) in a factum if I think it will help in a given case. I just don't expect it to help much unless it's from Ontario, B.C., or Alberta most of the time.

 

[Border Reiver]

Nova Scotia - land of "flexible" limitation periods.

 

[Mojo]

Thanks for the explanations.

 

[D'rok]

And so it begins:

http://consumerpurchasers.ca/

Time to get the RCMP involved.

 

[Paul]

You'd think with all that free time Rob could have put together something that wasn't just a superficially prettyish con...


Who am I kidding, it's Rob we're talking about, having access to a template and some (probably) free graphics doesn't do anything to improve the give us your money and we'll do some magic on it con. I do like the amusingly stupid addition of artists, and the truly Menardian justification and definition, though.