Tag Archives: Isabelle McCorkell

Inheritance Rights Attacked: McCorkill Case Lost

Posted on by
Inheritance Rights Attacked: McCorkill Case Lost
 
 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5eQ1634BmFI
 
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EaM3woqKqag
 
 
Paul Fromm explains how free speech and property rights took another hit at the hands of the Supreme Court of Canada in not hearing an appeal in the McCorkill inheritance and free speech case, which he discussed in previous videos with the host, Brian Ruhe. Paul is Director, Canadian Association for Free Expression and Winner of the George Orwell Free Speech Award, 1994.
 
 
 
 
Donations to offset CAFE’s legal costs can be sent by PayPal to
cafe.nfshost.com
 
Paul Fromm explains how they lost the McCorkill inheritance and free speech case, which he discussed in previous videos with the host, Brian Ruhe. Paul is Di…
YOUTUBE.COM

Donations to offset CAFE’s legal costs can be sent by PayPal to
cafe.nfshost.com

Update on McCorkill Case where Judge can Throw Out Your Will for Giving to Politically Incorrect Causes

Posted on by

Preview YouTube video Update on McCorkill Case where Judge can Throw Out Your Will


This is the first video in the history of planet Earth where Paul Fromm and Brian Ruhe made a long distance video by Skype, on June 4, 2016. Paul has been the director of the Canadian Association for Freedom of Expression (CAFE) since 1983 and this is the next in a series of videos on the McCorkill case.

CAFE, Box 332, Rexdale, Ontario, M9W 5L3

__ Here’s my special donation of _____ to help CAFE pay off its legal bills in theMcCorkill Will Appeal which is now awaiting “leave” from the Supreme Court,
__ Here’s my donation of ____to help CAFÉ’s support the victims of state censorship, especially Arthur Topham.
__ Please renew my subscription for 2016 to the Free Speech Monitor ($15).
Please charge______ my VISA/Mastercard#_______________________________________
Expiry date: ______ Signature:__________________________________________________

Name:______________________________________________________________________
Address:_________________________________________________________________

__________________________________________________ _____

Email___________________________________

OR, visit CAFE`s website and donate by PayPal. http://cafe.nfshost.com

Court of Appeals Reserves in Crucial McCorkill Appeal: Key Free Speech & Property Rights on the Line

Posted on by
Court of Appeals Reserves in Crucial McCorkill Appeal: Key Free Speech & Property Rights on the Line
Fredericton, New Brunswick. June 18, 2015. A three judge panel of the New Brunswick Court of Appeals reserved its decision in the McCorkill Will appeal. Panel chairman Judge Kathleen Quigg said: “We are going to try to do it as quickly as possible but it also must be translated (into French). It will take a couple of months.” Experienced court observers predicted a six month wait for the decision.
 
“This case is crucial for freedom of speech and freedom of beliefs and for property rights in Canada,” said Paul Fromm Director of the Canadian Association for Free Expression in a statement before the appeal began.
 
The late chemistry professor William McCorkill left the bulk of his estate consisting of old artifacts and rare coins, variously estimated at between $150,000 and a million dollars, to the U.S.-based White nationalist National Alliance. The will was probated in 2013. When the information became public, a Montgomery based censorship group called the Southern Poverty Law Center complained that the bequest would revive Nazism. The SPLC had no standing in Canada, but Ottawa lawyer, copious human rights complainant and loud anti-racist Richard Warman took up the cry and announced the will should be nullified as the bequest was “contrary to public policy.” Isabelle McCorkell *yes, different spelling), the long estranged sister of Robert McCorkill, who had taken no part in the nine year probate proceedings emerged and made an application to nullify the will on the grounds, get this, that it was “contrary to public policy.” Quickly the Attorney General of New Brunswick, the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs and the League for Human Rights of B’nai Brith intervened in support of this brazen attack on property rights. The Canadian Association for Free Expression intervened to support the lawyer for the trustee, John Hughes of Moncton, and to support freedom of belief, freedom of speech and property rights, specifically, the right of a testator to direct his estate as he sees fit.
 
The application was heard in January, 2014. In June, 2014, in a surprise decision, Mr. Justice William Grant nullified the bequest on the grounds that it was “contrary to public policy.”
 
The bulk of the work of an appeal is in the written submissions presented to the Court. The actual appeal hearing allows each party to highlight their best arguments and the judges to question and challenge these arguments.
 
CAFE’s lawyer Andy Lodge explained: “We are here today because the Court of First Instance found the National Alliance, the beneficiary of the the gift to be unworthy. This is a ground breaking precedent. There are no conditions in the bequest. Some of the evidence in the affidavits [there was no viva voce testimony] was double hearsay. There was no previous case law to rely on. The goals and objectives of the National Alliance should not be in question.
 
Mr. Lodge was repeatedly interrupted by questions from Judge Alexandre Deschenes.
 
Mr. Lodge continued: “The public policy grounds have generally been a last resort in an effort to invalidate a bequest. There has been much discussion about the activities, communications and character of the National Alliance. the test should be McCorkill.” He gave this bequest with no strings or directions attached. “Giving a bequest to a group some find objectionable is not contrary to public policy. It is difficult to evaluate the character of a beneficiary. This could be a very, very slippery slope, It will shift estate litigation to evaluating beneficiaries. You step away from the conditions, if any, imposed by the testator. How is a court to evaluate how an organization might spend the money. This decision opens that door.”
 
Chairman Justice Quigg wondered: “:Just because it’s new law, just because we have no jurisprudence to rely on doesn’t mean we can’t go forth. There’s legislation against the dissemination of hate propaganda. There could be a link here between the National Alliance and dissemination.”
 
Then joining the battle of behalf of CAFE was Mr. Lodge’s associate Jean-Yves Bernard. “Is it to be against public policy to give a bequest to a group or person of bad character?” he asked. Mr. Justice Grant is creating new law.” The ruling, he added, “creates a problem for estate law, as we must now look at the character of the beneficiaries, their worthiness. It brings ambiguity into estate law.”
 
“These cases would be very rare,” Judge Quigg suggested.
 
The Grant ruling  has created “a sliding scale. It makes estate matters very unpredictable,” Mr. Bernard added. “Untiol now a testator could dispose of property as he saw fit, unless he imposed a codicil that was illegal” — like a New Brunswick will, frequently cited in this case,  where the testator wanted his four horses shot.. The Charter supports freedom of belief and the right to support a belief with a bequest.  Already this case has inspired Spence v BMO using ‘public policy’ to state we should write someone into a will because the testator wrote someone out of the will on racial grounds.”
 
Next, John Hughes of Moncton, lawyer for the Trustee or Executor of the Estate, weighed in to support CAFE. “The International Boundary separates the U.S. from Canada,” he explained. The McCorkill will makes a bequest in New Brunswick but the proceeds go to a beneficiary in the United States.”
 
Frederick Fromm's photo.
CAFE Director Paul Fromm with John Hughes, lawyer for the
Trustee of the McCorkill Estate, Provincial Court of Appeal,
Fredericton, NB., June 18, 2015.
 
 
 
“I labour under a restriction because of a lack of funds due to a Court injunction  freezing the funds of the estate. “This injunction has crippled the ability of the estate to defend itself and has caused the abandonment of one of the Estate’s appeals.”
 
 “The beneficiaries are in the U.S. and this raises the question of ‘public policy.’ Whose public policy? There is no evidence that the National Alliance was ever cjarged or convicted in either Canada or the U.S. The National Alliance in the U.S. is protected by the First Amendment of the Constitution.” And, he added, former N.A. Chairman Erick Gleibe stated in his affidavit that the organization has no activities in Canada. “How can a Canadian Court deny a bequest to a U.S. citizen or group?” he demanded. “This is extraterritoriality.”
 
He then turned his guns on the mischievous organization behind this raid on the estate. “The outrage of minorities to this bequest is irrelevant. this estate is being sent to the United States. The Southern Poverty Law Centre is the puppet master behind this case. The League for Human Rights of B’nai Brith [which has since withdrawn from the appeal] in its submissions made clear references to SPLC’s website.”
 
One of the interveners, he added, “went into a rant against Mr. Fromm and CAFE which I objected to as irrelevant.”  He observed that the SPLC separates its contributors from tens of millions of dollars to enrich itself. The Attorney General has been led down the garden path. The SPLC has enlisted law enforcement agencies and seems to have sold a bill of goods to the new Brunswick Attorney General,” he charged. “And the puppet master role of the SPLC seeks to manipulate the Court of New Brunswick. The Wills Act, Sec. 24(2) of New Brunswick holds that a testator may will his bequest as he sees fit. His failure to note this was an error on Judge Grant’s part,” he argued. “the will, therefore, has legal protection in New Brunswick.”
 
In his decision, Judge Grant “characterized the National Alliance as unreservedly criminal,” Mr. Hughes said. “However, we have a special obligation to our own race, to improve its prospects. It is not racism. There was  no evidence of the National Alliance operating in New Brunswick. Yet, Judge Grant points to the participation of the Attorney General of New Brunswick as an intervener to protect the people of New Brunswick.”
 
Further, Mr. Hughes argued, “there is no evidence of National Alliance Internet dissemination in Canada. Therefore, Judge Grant had to jurisdiction to make the findings he did. Groups that don’t value White survival have criticized the National Alliance.”
 
In response to criticisms of National Alliance founder William Pierce’s fictional writings — The Turner Diaries and Hunter — and ther violence associated with race war in those pages, Mr. Hughes argued: “Where would Hollywood or pulp fiction be without fictional violence. Dr. Pierce’s goal in writing was the preservation of the White Race.”
 
“To render a judgement against a group from another country because of its character is an insult to the U.S.,” he added.
 
“Where do we get the authority our own public policy” to a U.S. group?”  Mr. Justice Deschenes asked.
 
Continuing, Mr. Hughes said: “The Executor has asked me to express the point that. Justice Grant may have been biased” in freezing the assets of the Estate and money due the National Alliance and my accounts. He could have entertained a review of the passing (or unfreezing of the assets) of my accounts, but he postponed it until after this appeal.” The lack of funds had restricted Mr. Hughes ability to act.
 
Next came those arguing against the appeal. Mr. Justice Deschenes observed: “Promoting the White Race is not necessarily detrimental.”
 
Arguing for the Applicant Isabelle McCorkell, Marc-Antoine Chiasson insisted: “Promoting the White Race if it is the majority, is detrimental to minorities.” Admitting that such brazen court intervention to nullify a will as contrary to public policy had little precedent, he said: “To suggest that because it’s a novel idea doesn’t mean the courts shouldn’t intervene. This Court is absolutely able and should intervene. There is evidence that the National Alliance is a White supremacist organization. Public policy is that hate propaganda and hate groups offend public policy. So, therefore a gift to the National Alliance offends public policy. Mr. Chiasson then contended that advocating for “White living space flies fully in the face of  public policy.’
 
“Why can’t Mr. McCorkill make a gift to an organization that is functioning legally in the United States without impediment?” Mr. Justice Deschenes queried,
 
“International boundaries shouldn’t be an impediment to voiding the will,” Mr. Chiasson responded. Also, “I don’t believe fear of opening the floodgates [to more litigation] is sufficient grounds not to act.”
 
“But there is no precedent on this issue,” Mr. Justice Deschenes interjected.
 
Mr. Chiasson admitted: “There is not.” Then, he persisted: “The impact of this gift flies against public policy. The fact that this gift would help fund a hate group flies against public policy. I ask the Court to dismiss the appeal and we seek costs from CAFE.”
 
Arguing for the Attorney General of New Brunswick, Richard Williams admitted: “None of us has been able to find a similar case iin our extensive research, as Mr. Lodge has indicated.. This seems to be the first case of its kind in Canada where a beneficiary’s character is at issue. This is a rare instance. The National Alliance has no redeeming qualities. Even a drug addict is someone’s son.”
 
Almost the last word was left to Mr. Justice Deschenes: “If the National Alliance had been performing illegal acts in the United States, the judge [Grant] and parties would have known about it.”
__________________________________________
 
Please consider making a contribution to help CAFE pay its bills in this crucial appeal defending free speech and property rights.
 

CAFE, Box 332, Rexdale, Ontario, M9W 5L3

 

__   Here’s my special donation of _____  to help  CAFE pay off its legal bills in the McCorkill Will Appeal to be heard in New Brunswick this month.

__   Here’s my donation of ____to help CAFÉ’s support the victims of state censorship, especially Arthur Topham.

__  Please renew my subscription for 2015 to the Free Speech Monitor ($15).

Please charge______ my VISA/Mastercard#_________________________________________

Expiry date: ______ Signature:_______________________________________________

 

Name:__________________________________________________

Address:________________________________________________       _______________________________________________________Email___________________________________

 

McCorkill Appeal Delayed as Judge Recuses Herself for Having Accepted Leonard Foundation Scholarship 40 Years Ago

Posted on by

McCorkill Appeal Delayed as Judge Recuses Herself for Having Accepted Leonard Foundation Scholarship 40 Years Ago

Just 48 hours before the New Brunswick Court of Appeals was to hear CAFE’s appeal against the decision of Justice William Grant, one of the three member panel Madame Justice Margaret E. Larlee recused herself. Her reason was that some 40 years ago she’d received a scholarship from the Leonard Foundation which offered assistance to White Protestant applicants.

The appeal is crucial as Justice Grant of New Brunswick’s Court of Queen’s Bench overturned the will of Robert McCorkill who willed the bulk of his estate of old coins ans artefacts to the National Alliance in the U.S. The appeal is vital to freedom of belief and property rights.

In May, 2013, after the anti-free speech U.S. group the Southern Poverty Law Centre (SPLC) protested the bequest, the long estranged sister, Isabelle McCorkell came forth and made an application (nine years after her brother’s death) to have the will overturned, as the bequest to a White nationalist organization was, she argued, “contrary to public policy.” This property rights cancelling argument was raised by Ottawa lawyer Richard Warman who echoed the SPLC complaint. Ms McCorkell was supported by some high powered and well financed interveners, the Attorney-General of New Brunswick, the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs and the League for Human Rights of B’nai Brith.

CAFE intervened on behalf of the executor of the estate, “This is a vital freedom of speech, freedom of belief and property rights issue,” says CAFE Director Paul Fromm,.

The decision came down the same week three Mounties were gunned down in Moncton. Mr. Justice Grant nullified the bequest. “He put a shotgun blast through freedom of belief and property rights when he overturned the will,” Mr. Fromm added.

CAFE appealed.

This morning (March 17) the parties were advised: ” The Honourable Madame Justice Larlee has decided to recuse herself from the panel for the Appeal, which is scheduled in the above-noted matter on Thursday March 19, 2015. The matter will therefore need to be rescheduled by the New Brunswick Court of Appeal.”

Somewhat earlier the Court Registrar advised all parties: “This is to inform the parties in this case that in the early 1970’s while a student at UNB Law School Madam Justice Larlee received a Leonard Foundation Scholarship. The Foundation was challenged some 10 years later in The Leonard Foundation Trust case, a case that will be cited in the one under appeal.
If any of you have any misgivings about Madam Justice Larlee sitting on this case because of an apprehension of bias, please inform me immediately so that appropriate steps may be taken.”

CAFE’s lawyer received no notice of any objection.

Lieutenant Colonel Reuben Wells Leonard (1860-1930) was a civil engineer, mine developer, soldier and philanthropist. He saw action in the Northwest Rebellion in 1885 and in World War I. In 1916, he established the Leonard Foundation.

Wikipedia explains: “Under the Leonard Foundation terms, bursaries were made available to students who were white, British subjects, andProtestant and no more than one-quarter of the moneys could be awarded to females. The goal was to provide financial assistance to needy students who showed the promise of becoming leading citizens of the British Empire. A complaint filed against the Leonard Foundation under the Ontario Human Rights Code in 1986 prompted litigation. The Ontario Court of Appeal held in 1990, that the trust’s exclusionary terms relating to race, religion, nationality, and gender were contrary to law.”

CAFE lawyer Andy Lodge of St. John called the decision and timing “extraordinary.”
The appeal will be rescheduled to May or June.

 

CAFE & Free Speech Supporters Heard In McCorkill Will Case; Judge Reserves

Posted on by
CAFE & Free Speech  Supporters Heard In McCorkill Will Case; Judge Reserves
 
St. John, New Brunswick. January 28, 2014. Lawyers defending the  right of a man to will his estate to a controversial group had their day in court today. At the end of this morning’s session before the Court of Queen’s Bench here, Judge Grant reserved decision about a motion brought by Isabelle McCorkell, sister of the late Professor Robert McCorkill who had willed his collection of antique coins and artefacts to the U.S. National Alliance.
 
However, before the free speech lawyers defending the bequest were heard, the third of three interveners advocating the nullification of the will addressed the court. Danys Delaquis, representing the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs, said: “CIJA opposes anti-Semitism, racism and discrimination. There is no room for any Jewish person in the White space the National Alliance seeks to create,” he complained. “If the bequest is not voided it will be detrimental to the Canadian Jewish community,” he added.
 
“Where is the evidence from Mr. Gleibe and Mr. Streed [the executor] that the bequest will not be used in ways detrimental to the Jewish community?”
 
“The Peel Board of Education had found the National Alliance to be ‘a well known White supremacist organization.’ Therefore, it would be quite reasonable for this court to make this finding of fact as was done in a grievance terminating Mr. Fromm as  a teacher.” A late CIJA affidavit from one Simon Fogel smeared CAFE director Paul Fromm in an ad hominem attack. Mr. Fromm is not a beneficiary in this case. The grievance finding had merely restated accusations about the NA. The grievance board had never investigated the NA.
 
Mr. Delaquis then issued a warning: “If a barrister or solicitor here in New Brunswick adopted the views of the National Alliance, he would soon be out of work. The role of regulatory bodies is vital to see the values of inclusiveness we hold prevail.” The St. John lawyer seemed to see no irony in recommending the exclusion of dissident opinions from his ideal universe of “inclusiveness.”
 
He urged the Court to take an activist approach: “The Courts cannot leave it to the legislature.”

 

 

There are no redeeming qualities in the National Alliance in regard to Canadian public policy,” he insisted. “The National Alliance excludes an entire people from its White space. This is repugnant and offensive. The public interest must outweigh the wishes of Mr. McCorkill. Can the Court allow a testamentary gift to stand that is contrary to public policy?” he challenged the judge.
 
Rising for the defence was John Hughes, a tall stately lawyer from Moncton with a shock of white hair.” “I am acting for the Estate of Robert McCorkill, not the National Alliance,” he explained. “There is no propaganda or hate speech in the will. No one has argued that Robert McCorkill was not capable of making this bequest and the bequest is clear.”
 
“The National Alliance,” he explained, “is described as an incorporated company in the State of Virginia, with an office in West Virginia. There is no evidence the National Alliance has violated any U.S. law and it remains a U.S. corporation in good standing. There is no evidence the National Alliance was ever convicted or charged with an offence in either the U.S. or Canada. Is the NA duty bound to obey the law of any country but its own?” he asked.
 
“The  affidavit of the Southern Poverty Law Centre’s Mark Potok’s points to six ‘contact points’ the National Alliance had in Canada in 2003 — Toronto, Edmonton, Calgary, Vancouver, London, Ottawa — but none in New Brunswick. Potok admits a name can be included on a ‘hate list’ for merely the mentioning of a P.O. Box. Erich Gleibe, National Chairman of the NA, said in his affidavit that, as of 2013, the NA has no programmes in Canada.”
 
“There is no evidence,” he added, “that the National Alliance has ever held a meeting in New Brunswick. Without a credible presence in New Brunswick, the NA is subject to the jurisdiction it resides in; namely, West Virginia, where the glorious First Amendment with its guarantee of freedom of speech is the law that governs it, not the laws of Canada.”
 
“The National Alliance is a peaceable organization that promotes and exchanges ideas and does not cross the line into crime. Therefore, the National Alliance qualifies as a beneficiary under the law governing it — U.S. law.”
 
Photo
CAFE Director Paul Fromm in press scrum
Referring to the applicant and her allies as “the unruly chorus about the law of public policy,” Mr. Hughes argued: “Courts can make decisions for the restraint of the population under their jurisdiction, like the New Brunswick horses in the Wishart case (the frequently cited case where a provision requiring the shooting of the man’s four horses was overturned by a Court.)”
 
“The disposition of this will either way will have no effect on the people of New Brunswick. The appropriate decision is for the Court to follow the guidance of Sec. 17 of the Interpretation Act and dismiss this application with costs.”
 
The final submissions were from Andy Lodge, a well organized litigator from St. John, representing the Canadian Association for Free Expression. “I am not here to defend the National Alliance,” he said. “I have listened for many hours and read through 1,000 pages of legal documentation and I am struck by one point — all the energy and money spent over the past six months, with very little time spent on the actual McCorkill will.”
 
“There is no legal basis,” Mr. Lodge argued, “to challenge the McCorkill will. It is a valid will, properly constructed and compliant with the Wills Act. No words in this will are contrary to any public policy. This is a very significant point and the real reason this Court should refuse this applicant.”
 
“Other interveners,” he continued, “are very concerned about the character, written words and behaviour of the National Alliance. That alone is not enough to challenge a will.”
 
“Make no mistake,” Mr. Lodge warned, “the applicant and the supporting interveners are trying to get this Court to go where no Court has gone before. The applicant is trying to get this Court to evaluate the beneficiary and to find effectively that the National Alliance is not worthy to receive a testamentary gift — the ‘public policy issue.’ Despite legal arguments over the past six months, there is no evidence of any members of the National Alliance being charged with crimes. Otherwise, the representative of the Attorney General of New Brunswick [Mr. Williams] would be downstairs charging the National Alliance.”
 
And, he continued, “even if a person is charged with a crime that does not disqualify him from receiving a bequest.” He pointed out that in the very few precedents where the court did nullify a section of a will it was because of the language of the will; for instance, the much referenced Wishart horse case, where the will mandated the shooting of the horses.
 
“There is no language of hate in this will,” he explained. “My learned friends who want to argue that ‘hate speech’ is not allowed in Canada are engaged in an exercize in futility. The real question gets lost and that is whether to prevent possible future acts from happening a person can be excluded from receiving a gift from a testator in New Brunswick or Canada. There is no precedent for this very large and drastic step where receiving a bequest depends on the character of the beneficiaries. Are we saying a known drug dealer can never receive a bequest? What about Greenpeace or pro-life groups or any organization dedicated to private health care? Some of their beliefs are against current ‘public policy’ in Canada.”
 
Pursuing his argument, he added: “We open beneficiaries up to examination of their writings, character and beliefs. Where is the new line? This evaluation of the beneficiary should not be permitted at all to avoid drastic pitfalls in a free and democratic society.”
 
And, he said, “none of the examples of case law examined the beneficiaries.”
 
Imagine two siblings left an estate. “If we begin evaluating beneficiaries, it would be in their best interests to slander each other as unworthy. It would be in their financial interests to smear each other.”
 
“Would my learned friends be here today if the money had been given to Mr. Gliebe?” he asked. “If the courts allow the examination of the character of beneficiaries, where is the certainty in counselling a client on the drafting of his will?” he wondered,.
 
“This Court shouldn’t be used to debate ‘hate’,” he said emphatically in his lilting Newfoundland accent. “Make no mistake: The applicant and the other interveners are trying to open up the courts to an avalanche of beneficiary disputes. They are opening a Pandora’s Box. There will be no limit to what is potentially relevant.”
 
Mr. Lodge pointed out: “In the past, Courts stuck to the wording of the will to establish public policy. I submit respectfully that a finding for the applicant will do more harm than good.”
 
“We have already seen bad effect happening here, with the attack on other people’s character in the most recent CIJA affidavit [attacking Paul Fromm, Director of CAFE]. Suffice it to say, the affidavit contained personal and irrelevant information intending to discredit Mr. Fromm. It was an attack on his character. He is not even a beneficiary in this case. Why did CIJA do this? Because character has now become an issue in estate litigation! Discredit the other beneficiary and the more likely you are to get their portion of the bequest voided and get more for yourself.”
 
“That is what Isabelle McCorkill is doing here today, trying to get more money,” he charged.
 
“Whether the National Alliance’s values are congruent with the values of Canada should not be the issue. Allowing this applicant to succeed by assailing the character of others should not be permitted,” he concluded.
 
Just before noon Judge Grant announced: “I am going to reserve my decision. I’ll get my decision out as quickly as I can.” — Paul Fromm

 

Judge reserves decision in unusual estate case

Posted on by

TELEGRAPH JOURNAL PIC OF PAUL AND MALCOLMJudge reserves decision in unusual estate case

JENNIFER PRITCHETT Telegraph-Journal
January 28, 2014

 

Malcolm Ross attended the second day of the trial as an observer. Paul Fromm in foreground

Photo: Jennifer Pritchett/Telegraph-Journal

SAINT JOHN – A Court of Queen’s Bench judge has reserved his decision on whether a Saint John man’s will is legal and can bequeath about $250,000 in rare coins and antiquities to an American neo-Nazi group.

Harry Robert McCorkill left his estate to the National Alliance when he died in 2004. A decade later, his sister, some rights groups and the province of New Brunswick went to court to prevent the money from flowing to the white supremacist, anti-Semitic organization.

The trial into the matter, held Monday and Tuesday, saw lawyers from both sides make arguments in an unusual legal case that weighs peoples’ individual right to leave their estate to whomever – and whatever type of organization – they choose against the court’s ability to intervene in special circumstances that are deemed against “public policy.”

There’s little case law on the subject and in many ways, the debate around the McCorkill estate is unique and breaks new legal ground.

Dan Delaquis, a lawyer for the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs, told the court Tuesday that the gift, if it’s permitted to stand, will be “detrimental to the Jewish community” and will result in an erosion of Canadian values because the National Alliance has a mandate of hate and is a well-known white supremacist group.

“We submit in this case that the public interest must outweigh the wish of Mr. McCorkill,” he said.

Marc-Antoine Chiasson, a lawyer for Isabelle Rose McCorkill, argued that one need only look at the National Alliance’s own handbook to see firsthand how it purports a racist message.

He read excerpts of the small handbook in court on Monday, highlighting how it points to “white” living spaces with white schools and residential areas with the overall view to create a white world.

Chiasson also pointed to the words of National Alliance founder William Luther Pierce and described his books, Hunter and The Turner Diaries, which were written under the pseudonym “Andrew Macdonald,” as repugnant.

But Andy Lodge, a lawyer for the Canadian Association for Free Expression (CAFE), told the court Tuesday that the fact that an organization may be considered “morally reprehensible” should have no impact on whether it can be a beneficiary of an estate. He pointed out that there are no laws prohibiting even a serial killer or a drug dealer to receive assets from a will.

For the court to evaluate whether a beneficiary such as the National Alliance is against “public policy,” he argued, would open “Pandora’s box.”

He said it would do more harm than good if the courts started assessing a beneficiary’s past or try to predict how they would spend the money they receive from a will.

Lodge described the court debate over McCorkill’s will as an “exercise in futility.” He argued there is no legal basis to challenge the will because it’s valid, follows New Brunswick’s Wills Act and contains no words that are contrary to Canada’s public policy.

The lawyer said he knows of no law that would prohibit a living person in Canada from giving money to the National Alliance.

John Hughes, the lawyer for the executor of the estate Fred Streed, argued that the application to prevent the disposition of McCorkill’s estate to the National Alliance should be dismissed.

Isabelle McCorkill didn’t attend the trial in Saint John nor did any representative from the National Alliance, a West-Virginia based organization.

Chiasson, her lawyer, has said that the legal battle over her brother’s estate has never been about the money, but rather, about preventing it from going to a neo-Nazi group.

Catherine Fawcett, who represents the League for Human Rights of B’nai Brith Canada, also argued that the gift to the National Alliance is “completely against public policy” and pointed to the connection between hate propaganda and violence.

McCorkill’s estate includes, among other items, a collection of hundreds of Greek, Roman, and Italian coins – some dating back to 525 BC – that he amassed since the 1970s. Some items were once displayed at the University of Saskatchewan’s Antiquities Museum and a release from that institution in 1997 described him as a well-travelled collector and a chemist who spent time at MIT and the Smithsonian Institution.

Little else is known about the man or why he lived in Saint John, where he moved about a year before his death. He lived quietly in a townhouse in Millidgeville and after he died at home in 2004, his body remained at the Saint John Regional Hospital for nearly two weeks while the authorities tried to track down his next of kin.

The National Alliance paid for his funeral and hired Malcolm Ross and William Ross of Moncton to transport, store and take inventory of his assets.

Malcolm Ross, who attended McCorkill’s court hearing in Saint John on Tuesday with his brother, was the focus of a 1996 Supreme Court ruling that found that the former Moncton-area teacher whose off-duty writings claimed Christians were under attack by an international Jewish conspiracy, had in fact “poisoned” the educational environment. The ruling upheld a human rights board of inquiry that ordered Ross into a non-teaching job.

Outside court, he told the Telegraph-Journal that he was there to “observe,” but declined to comment on his connection to the McCorkill matter.

Free Speech Takes A Thumping As Thought Control Forces Argue McCorkill Will Is “Against Public Policy”

Posted on by

Free Speech Takes A Thumping As Thought Control Forces Argue McCorkill Will Is “Against Public Policy”

ST.JOHN, NEW BRUNSWICK. January 27, 2014. “Where is the McCorkill case being heard?” I asked the court officer just before 9:30 this morning here in St. John.

“Courtroom 13,” he answered.

“Is this our lucky day?” I wondered.

The atmosphere inside Courtroom 13 was more frigid for freedom of thought than the bitter Maritime winter outside the courtroom. This morning lawyers argued that the will of the late Professor Robert McCorkill giving a bequest to the White Nationalist U.S.-based National Alliance be set aside. It was like an Anti-racist Action meeting with slogans of “neo-Nazi” “White supremacist” and “racist” snapping through the air in the Court of Queen’ Bench. There was a lot of “hate” in the air or, at least, how much certain people hate “hate.”

Moncton lawyer Marc-Antoine Chiasson led off the complainant’s case before Judge William T. Grant. He represents the long-estranged sister of the late Robert McCorkill who brought this current action to nullify the bequest. She turned up or was found after being silent during the nine years since her brother’s death, after the militantly anti-free speech U.S.-based Southern Poverty Law Centre (SPLC) found about about the bequest soon after the will was probated in May, 2013. The exceedingly well-funded SPLC, an arch enemy of the National Alliance, went on the warpath to stop the bequest. The only problem for them was that they have no legal standing in Canada. Ottawa lawyer Richard Warman was soon being quoted in the press commenting that the bequest should be nullified because I was contrary to public policy. Isabelle McCorkell [yes, different spelling] emerged and, although she claims to live on $1,000 a month hired a pricey Moncton law firm to obtain an ex-parte injunction freezing the assets of the will and then a further application to nullify the bequest. Piling in to support her were the Attorney General of New Brunswick , the League for Human Rights of B’nai Brith and the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs.

” This is an unusual case,” Mr. Chiasson noted. And then the smears and name-calling began: “The Court must decide whether it is acceptable or appropriate to leave a bequest to a White supremacist, neo-Nazi organization that wants to rid North America of Jews.”

“We should not be able to interfere with a will on a whim because we don’t like the beneficiary,” he added. [Then, why are we here? I wondered.]

However, he added, “there is a certain line that cannot be crossed, but the line has been crossed with the bequest to the National Alliance and we ask this Court to intervene.”

“The Court should intervene in very few cases,” he admitted. However, an exception should be made for “hate propaganda” and “hate groups.” He quote Mr.Justice Cory in the appeal to the Federal Court of Appeals in the Don Andrews “hate law case” back in the 1970s. The judge had said that “hate meant the instilling of detestation in others and does incalculable damage to the Canadian community.”

“Sec. 318 and 319 of the Criminal Code prohibit ‘hate propaganda’ and the promtion of genocide,” he added.

The three lawyers arguing for the application repeatedly demanded suppression of people and views their clients didn’t like. “Any group that promotes views contrary to the human rights codes is unacceptable,” Mr. Chiasson announced. “The International Convention for the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination condemn all groups that promote the superiority of a race and the participation in or financing of such groups,” he added. [Did Canada or its Parliament knowingly sign on to such a mental straight jacket.]

“Multiculturalism and equality are the linchpins of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms,” he said. The Charter, it might be noted, for all its talk of “equality” grants special privileges to favoured minorities.

005
Paul Fromm being interviewed by Neville Crabbe of CBC News

So, he argued, “we have adopted the view that, in Canada, the propaganda of the National Alliance, the existence of the National Alliance and the financing of the National Alliance is contrary to public policy.” Mr. Chiasson professed himself outraged that the National Alliance believes in “the preservation of the White Race and racial separation.” Reading from the National Alliance’s 2005 Membership Handbook, he quoted the NA’s programme: “We must have White work spaces, White farms, White schools. … We want an environment where our own nature can express itself. We must root out Semitic and non-Aryan influences.”

Mr. Chiason equated White self-preservation with White Supremacy.

“We just can’t stop ideas at the border due to the power of the Internet,” he complained.

Apparently, dissenting in certain historical debates is against the law, at least in Mr. Chiasson’s submissions: “The National Alliance says ‘the holocaust is a myth’. This is hate speech and contrary to public policy.” He expressed further shock at a comment by the National Alliance: “We have a debt of gratitude to Adolf Hitler who was the greatest man of our era.” [One wonders whether we’d be in Court with a two volume record o fwell over 600 pages of submissions and exhibits if the National Alliance had hailed Joseph Stalin or Mao Tse Tung or even Pol Pot as the greatest man of our era.]

No evidence had been adduced of homicidal inclinations on the part of the NA, but, Mr. Chiasson concluded: “The sole purpose of the NA is promoting hate and killing non-Whites, its sole objective is to create White living space, and, thus, it offends public policy. The gift is illegal and against public policy and should be voided. Mr. McCorkill should be declared intestate and, therefore, my client and her brother would be the beneficiaries of the estate.”

Next up was Richard Williams of Fredericton, representing the Attorney General of New Brunswick. “|Our only interest in this matter is our belief that the bequest is illegal and contrary to public policy,” he said. A strong voice for repression, he declared: “The theme of the Charter and human rights codes is that racism will not be allowed in this country.” He professed himself upset at the notion of “White living space”, although he made no mention of native land claims or special lands for Indians or Eskimos.

He added “there is no redeeming merit” in the National Alliance. Attempting to answer an argument in CAFE’s brief that nullifying the McCorkill will could launch a flood of similar litigation, he concluded: “I never expect to have a case like this again in my career.”

The final presentation of the morning came on behalf of another intervener, the League for Human Rights of B’nai Brith. Representing B’nai Brith, Catherine Fawcett insisted: “The National Alliance has a presence in Canada and is well known to the League.” Whether the NA has actually committed acts of violence “doesn’t matter. They put out ideas that incite hate. Their membership is restricted to White people who support the objectives of the NA. [One wonders whether certain Jewish or Catholic groups might not similarly be restricted to adherents of their faith who support the group’s objectives.]

“What you read in their Handbook,” she charged, “is we will recruit and build infrastructure for final victory. But you must read between the lines. A further danger of the National Alliance is a video game they produced called Ethnic Cleansing,” she added. She didn’t explain what it was about.

“In the NA Handbook, they say: “The holocaust story in engineered by Jews or is full of exaggerations.’ This is contrary to Canadian values,” she insisted.

Elsewhere, the NA says that “AIDS has taken off undesireables among Whites — homosexuals, intravenous drug users, and those who have sex with non-Whites. That, M’lord, is hate.”

In a country that does not have a Second Amendment to protect the right to keep and bear arms, Miss Fawcett was very critical of the NA Handbook urging members to have weapons for the defence of their family or to join the state militia, if necessary. The Handbook recommended a riot gun, a military semi-automatic rifle, a handgun and at least 500 rounds of ammunition.

She took great exception to the NA saying: “The Aryan Race has the right to ensure its own survival and it must have a White living space including Europe, North America and the southern tip of Africa.”

NA Chairman Erich Gleibe in an affidavit “says the National Alliance has no programmes in Canada, but the effect of the National Alliance message is to corrupt people and turn a small receptive minority against multiculturalism. We can stop printed material at the border and we have ‘anti-hate’ legislation but the Internet can reach so many.”

Concluding, she said: “This Court has the power to strike down the testamentary gift to the National Alliance and stop it spreading its message of hate.”

The hearing continues tomorrow. — Paul Fromm

CAFE Accepted As Intervener in McCorkill Case

Posted on by
                   CAFE Accepted As Intervener in McCorkill Case
St. John, New Brunswick, September 3, 2013. The Canadian Association for Free Expression was granted intervener status by the New Brunswick Court of Queen’s bench. CAFE will be supporting the …Estate of the late Robert McCorkill who left a large legacy to the National Alliance. This legacy has been challenged by McCorkill’s estranged sister Isabelle, who came forward nine years after his death after a U.S. anti-free speech group the Southern Poverty Law Centre of Montgomery, AL sought to prevent the NA from receiving the legacy.

“This is an incredibly crucial case,” says CAFE Director Paul Fromm. “The enemies of free speech, with significant Establishment assistance, are seeking to reach the skeletal fingers of political correctness even into the disposition of a person’s private property.”

Supporting Isabelle McCorkell’s [yes, there’s a spelling difference] motion to negate the legacy are the Attorney General of New Brunswick, the League for Human Rights of B’nai Brith and the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs. All are arguing  that the bequest is contrary to the public good. Photo: CAFE Accepted As Intervener in McCorkill Case St. John, New Brunswick, September 3, 2013. The Canadian Association for Free Expression was granted intervener status by the New Brunswick Court of Queen's bench. CAFE will be supporting the Estate of the late Robert McCorkill who left a large legacy to the National Alliance. This legacy has been challenged by McCorkill's estranged sister Isabelle, who came forward nine years after his death after a U.S. anti-free speech group the Southern Poverty Law Centre of Montgomery, AL sought to prevent the NA from receiving the legacy. "This is an incredibly crucial case," says CAFE Director Paul Fromm. "The enemies of free speech, with significant Establishment assistance, are seeking to reach the skeletal fingers of political correctness even into the disposition of a person's private property." Supporting Isabelle McCorkell's [yes, there's a spelling difference] motion to negate the legacy are the Attorney General of New Brunswick, the League for Human Rights of B'nai Brith and the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs. All are arguing that the bequest is contrary to the public good. Marc-Antoine Chiasson, Isabelle McCorkell's lawyer has said: “Hate speech in Canada is criminally prohibited. Secondly, Canada has signed on to numerous international conventions with the specific goal and aim to get rid of hate speech, hate groups and the financing of hate groups.” We signed on to some poxy agreement preventing donations to groups the biased SPLC says are “hate groups”? " The National Alliance is a perfectly legal group in the U.S." Paul Fromm points out. "The New Brunswick Attorney General is arguing that the bequest is contrary to the public good or public policy. Abortion on demand is the laws of the land. Would a bequest to a pro-life group be ruled contrary to the public good? The implications of this case are frightening!" Interestingly, neither of the parties, the petitioner Isabelle McCorkell or John Hughes lawyer for Fred Streed, executor of the estate, were in Court this morning, CAFE lawyer Andy Lodge reported. Mr. Hughes had written to the Court giving his consent to CAFE's intervention. Lawyers for the other three interveners did attend Court. The New Brunswick Attorney General indicated that he neither consented nor opposed CAFE;s participation. The Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs indicated it did not oppose CAFE's intervention, but did "want to go on the record as opposing any substantive evidence CAFE might submit and CAFE's arguments." It might be noted that these arguments are still to be filed. ____________________________________________________________ Please Help CAFE Defend Free Speech from Those Who Would Submit Beneficiaries to Some Politically Correct Litmus Test Time is of the essence. The case goes to Court September 10. Our lawyer has had to devote a good deal of time (and our money!) getting up to speed on this case, We are being billed weekly! We anticipate that the intervention could cost up to $20,000. WE NEED YOUR HELP AND, NOT TO BE PUSHY, WE NEED IS QUICKLY! CAFE, Box 332, Rexdale, Ontario, M9W 5L3 __ Here’s my donation of ____to help CAFÉ's autumn programme, including the intervention in the McCorkill legacy case. __ Please renew my subscription for 2013 to the Free Speech Monitor ($15). Please charge ______myVISA#________________________________________________________________ Expiry date: __________ Signature:_______________________________________________________________ Name:____________________________________________________________________________________ Address:__________________________________________________________________________________

Marc-Antoine Chiasson, Isabelle McCorkell’s lawyer has said: “Hate speech in Canada is criminally prohibited. Secondly, Canada has signed on to numerous international conventions with the specific goal and aim to get rid of hate speech, hate groups and the financing of hate groups.” We signed on to some poxy agreement preventing donations to groups the biased SPLC says are “hate groups”?

” The National Alliance is a perfectly legal group in the U.S.” Paul Fromm points out.  “The New Brunswick Attorney General is arguing that the bequest is contrary to the public good or public policy. Abortion on demand is the laws of the land. Would a bequest to a pro-life group be ruled contrary to the public good? The implications of this case are frightening!”

Interestingly, neither of the parties, the petitioner Isabelle McCorkell or John Hughes lawyer for Fred Streed, executor of the estate, were in Court this morning, CAFE lawyer Andy Lodge reported. Mr. Hughes had written to the Court giving his consent to CAFE’s intervention.

Lawyers for the other three interveners did attend Court. The New Brunswick Attorney General indicated that he neither consented nor opposed CAFE;s participation. The Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs indicated it did not oppose CAFE’s intervention, but did “want to go on the record as opposing any substantive evidence CAFE might submit and CAFE’s arguments.” It might be noted that these arguments are still to be filed.
____________________________________________________________

Please Help CAFE Defend Free Speech from Those Who Would Submit Beneficiaries to Some Politically Correct Litmus Test

Time is of the essence. The case goes to Court September 10. Our lawyer has had to devote a good deal of time (and our money!) getting up to speed on this case, We are being billed weekly! We anticipate that the intervention could cost up to $20,000. WE NEED YOUR HELP AND, NOT TO BE PUSHY, WE NEED IS QUICKLY!

CAFE, Box 332, Rexdale, Ontario, M9W 5L3
__   Here’s my donation of ____to help CAFÉ’s autumn programme, including  the   intervention in the McCorkill legacy case.
__  Please renew my subscription for 2013 to the Free Speech Monitor ($15).

Please charge ______myVISA#________________________________________________________________

Expiry date: __________ Signature:_______________________________________________________________

Name:____________________________________________________________________________________
Address:__________________________________________________________________________________

CAFE Seeks Intervener Status Today in McCorkill Will Case to Protect Private Property & to Defend Free Speech

Posted on by

CAFE Seeks Intervener Status Today in McCorkill Will Case to Protect Private Property & to Defend Free Speech

Cause Number: S/M/49/13
…

IN THE COURT OF QUEEN’S BENCH OF NEW BRUNSWICK

TRIAL DIVISION

JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF SAINT JOHN

BETWEEN:

ISABELLE ROSE MCCORKILL,

PLAINTIFF

– and –

FRED GENE STREED, Executor of the ESTATE OF HARRY ROBERT MCCORKILL (a.k.a MCCORKELL), deceased,

DEFENDENT

LEAGUE FOR HUMAN RIGHTS OF B’NAI BRITH CANADA, CENTRE for ISREAL and JEWISH AFFAIRS, the PROVINCE OF NEW BRUNSWICK, as represented by the ATTORNEY GENERAL,

INTERVENORS

THE CANADIAN ASSOCIATION FOR FREE EXPRESSION,

INTENDED INTERVENOR

Numéro de dossier:

COUR DU BANC DE LA REINE DU NOUVEAU-BRUNSWICK

DIVISION DE PREMIERE INSTANCE

CIRCONSCRIPTION JUDICIAIRE DE

ENTRE:

DEMANDEUR

– et –

DÉFENDEUR

NOTICE OF MOTION
(Form 37A) AVIS DE MOTION

(Formule 37A)

TO:            Marc-Antoine Chiasson

MCINNES COOPER

Blue Cross Centre

644 Main Street, South Tower

Suite 400

P.O. Box 1368

Moncton, N.B.  E1C 8T6

Solicitor for the Applicant,

Isabelle Rose McCorkill

AND TO:  John Hughes

BARRISTER & SOLICTOR

145 Whitfield Trites Road

P.O. Box 29072

Moncton, NB

E1G 4R3

Solicitor for the Respondent,

Fred Gene Street, Executor of the Estate of Harry Robert McCorkill (a.k.a. McCorkell), deceased

AND TO:  Catherine A. Fawcett

LAWSON CREAMER

801-133 Prince William Street

Saint John, N.B.  E2L 2B5

Solicitor for the Intervenor,

League for Human Rights of B’Nai Brith Canada

AND TO:  Danys R. X. Delaquis

CANTY LUTZ DELAQUIS GRANT

43 Broad Street

P.O. Box 6488, Stn A

Saint John, N.B.  E2L 4R9

Solicitor for the Intervenor,

The Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs

AND TO:  Richard A. Williams

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

Legal Services Branch

P.O. Box 6000

Fredericton, N.B.  E1G 4R3

Solicitor for the Intervenor,

Province of New Brunswick, as represented by the Attorney General
DESTINATAIRE:

The Intended Intervenor, the Canadian Association for Free Expression, will apply to the Court at 10 Peel Plaza, Saint John, New Brunswick, on the 3rd day of September, 2013 at 10:30 a.m. for an order that:

The time for service of the within motion be abridged pursuant to Rule 3.02 of the Rules of Court;

That the Canadian Association for Free Expression be added as an intervenor pursuant to Rule 15.02 of the Rules of Court;

In the alternative, that the Canadian Association for Free Expression be granted leave to intervene in the proceedings as a friend of the court for the purpose of rendering assistance to the court pursuant to Rule 15.03 of the Rules of Court; and

Such further and other relief as this Honourable Court deems just.

The grounds to be argued in support of the Motion are:

A hearing was scheduled to take place on July 31st, 2013 before this honourable Court prior to the Canadian Association for Free Expression being able to retain counsel to apply for intervenor status;

The Canadian Association for Free Expression has an interest in the subject matter of these proceedings;

The Canadian Association for Free Expression may be adversely affected by the Court’s decision in the matter;
The granting of intervenor status to the Canadian Association for Free Expression will not unduly delay or prejudice the determination of the rights of the parties;
This matter involves questions of public policy and public interests;
Such further and other grounds as the Canadian Association for Free Expression may argue at or before the proceedings.

The Canadian Association for Free Expression will rely on Rules 1.03(2), 1.08, 3.02, 15.02, 15.03, 7, 39 and 59 of the New Brunswick Rules of Court.
Les défendeurs demanderont à la Cour située à 770, rue Main, Moncton, N.-B, le ________ de _______________, à ________ d’ordonner:

Upon the hearing of the motion the following affidavits or other documentary evidence will be presented:

1. Affidavit of Paul Fromm dated August _____, 2013
À l’audition de la motion, les affidavits ou les autres preuves littérales suivantes seront présentées:

You are advised that:

Sachez que:

(a) you are entitled to issue documents and present at the hearing in English or French or both;
a) vous avez le droit d’émettre des documents et de présenter votre preuve à l’audience en français, en anglais ou dans les deux langues;

(b) the defendant intends to proceed in the English language;
b) les défendeurs ont l’intention d’utiliser la langue française; et

(c) if you intend to proceed in the other official language, an interpreter may be required and you must so advise the clerk at least 5 days before the hearing.
c) si vous avez l’intention d’utiliser l’autre langue officielle, les services d’un interprète pourront être requis et vous devrez en aviser le greffier au moins 5 jours avant l’audience.

DATED at Saint John, NB this ___ day of August, 2013.

____________________________________          Andy W. Lodge

BLR LAW
Solicitors for the Intended Intervenor

The Canadian Association for Free Expression
FAIT à Saint John, N.-B., le _____ jour de _____________ 2007.

BLR LAW

20 Marr Road, Suite 200

P.O. Box 4790

Rothesay, N.B.  E2E 5X5

Telephone:  (506) 848-4444

Facsimile: (506) 848-4445

File No.: 17242-1

Cause Number: S/M/49/13

IN THE COURT OF QUEEN’S BENCH OF NEW BRUNSWICK

TRIAL DIVISION

JUDICIAL DISTRICT OF SAINT JOHN

BETWEEN:

ISABELLE ROSE MCCORKILL,

PLAINTIFF

– and –

FRED GENE STREED, Executor of the ESTATE OF HARRY ROBERT MCCORKILL (a.k.a MCCORKELL), deceased,

DEFENDENT

LEAGUE FOR HUMAN RIGHTS OF B’NAI BRITH CANADA, CENTRE for ISREAL and JEWISH AFFAIRS, the PROVINCE OF NEW BRUNSWICK, as represented by the ATTORNEY GENERAL,

INTERVENORS

THE CANADIAN ASSOCIATION FOR FREE EXPRESSION,

INTENDED INTERVENOR

Numéro de dossier:

COUR DU BANC DE LA REINE DU NOUVEAU-BRUNSWICK

DIVISION DE PREMIERE INSTANCE

CIRCONSCRIPTION JUDICIAIRE DE

ENTRE:

DEMANDEUR

– et –

DÉFENDEUR

NOTICE OF MOTION
(Form 37A) AVIS DE MOTION

(Formule 37A)

TO:            Marc-Antoine Chiasson

MCINNES COOPER

Blue Cross Centre

644 Main Street, South Tower

Suite 400

P.O. Box 1368

Moncton, N.B.  E1C 8T6

Solicitor for the Applicant,

Isabelle Rose McCorkill

AND TO:  John Hughes

BARRISTER & SOLICTOR

145 Whitfield Trites Road

P.O. Box 29072

Moncton, NB

E1G 4R3

Solicitor for the Respondent,

Fred Gene Street, Executor of the Estate of Harry Robert McCorkill (a.k.a. McCorkell), deceased

AND TO:  Catherine A. Fawcett

LAWSON CREAMER

801-133 Prince William Street

Saint John, N.B.  E2L 2B5

Solicitor for the Intervenor,

League for Human Rights of B’Nai Brith Canada

AND TO:  Danys R. X. Delaquis

CANTY LUTZ DELAQUIS GRANT

43 Broad Street

P.O. Box 6488, Stn A

Saint John, N.B.  E2L 4R9

Solicitor for the Intervenor,

The Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs

AND TO:  Richard A. Williams

OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL

Legal Services Branch

P.O. Box 6000

Fredericton, N.B.  E1G 4R3

Solicitor for the Intervenor,

Province of New Brunswick, as represented by the Attorney General
DESTINATAIRE:

The Intended Intervenor, the Canadian Association for Free Expression, will apply to the Court at 10 Peel Plaza, Saint John, New Brunswick, on the 3rd day of September, 2013 at 10:30 a.m. for an order that:

The time for service of the within motion be abridged pursuant to Rule 3.02 of the Rules of Court;

That the Canadian Association for Free Expression be added as an intervenor pursuant to Rule 15.02 of the Rules of Court;

In the alternative, that the Canadian Association for Free Expression be granted leave to intervene in the proceedings as a friend of the court for the purpose of rendering assistance to the court pursuant to Rule 15.03 of the Rules of Court; and

Such further and other relief as this Honourable Court deems just.

The grounds to be argued in support of the Motion are:

A hearing was scheduled to take place on July 31st, 2013 before this honourable Court prior to the Canadian Association for Free Expression being able to retain counsel to apply for intervenor status;

The Canadian Association for Free Expression has an interest in the subject matter of these proceedings;

The Canadian Association for Free Expression may be adversely affected by the Court’s decision in the matter;
The granting of intervenor status to the Canadian Association for Free Expression will not unduly delay or prejudice the determination of the rights of the parties;
This matter involves questions of public policy and public interests;
Such further and other grounds as the Canadian Association for Free Expression may argue at or before the proceedings.

The Canadian Association for Free Expression will rely on Rules 1.03(2), 1.08, 3.02, 15.02, 15.03, 7, 39 and 59 of the New Brunswick Rules of Court.
Les défendeurs demanderont à la Cour située à 770, rue Main, Moncton, N.-B, le ________ de _______________, à ________ d’ordonner:

Upon the hearing of the motion the following affidavits or other documentary evidence will be presented:

1. Affidavit of Paul Fromm dated August _____, 2013
À l’audition de la motion, les affidavits ou les autres preuves littérales suivantes seront présentées:

You are advised that:

Sachez que:

(a) you are entitled to issue documents and present at the hearing in English or French or both;
a) vous avez le droit d’émettre des documents et de présenter votre preuve à l’audience en français, en anglais ou dans les deux langues;

(b) the defendant intends to proceed in the English language;
b) les défendeurs ont l’intention d’utiliser la langue française; et

(c) if you intend to proceed in the other official language, an interpreter may be required and you must so advise the clerk at least 5 days before the hearing.
c) si vous avez l’intention d’utiliser l’autre langue officielle, les services d’un interprète pourront être requis et vous devrez en aviser le greffier au moins 5 jours avant l’audience.

DATED at Saint John, NB this ___ day of August, 2013.

____________________________________          Andy W. Lodge

BLR LAW
Solicitors for the Intended Intervenor

The Canadian Association for Free Expression
FAIT à Saint John, N.-B., le _____ jour de _____________ 2007.

BLR LAW

20 Marr Road, Suite 200

P.O. Box 4790

Rothesay, N.B.  E2E 5X5

Telephone:  (506) 848-4444

Facsimile: (506) 848-4445

File No.: 17242-1See More

Like ·  · Unfollow Post · Share

“Fighting for Democracy” NB Attorney General Seeks to Hijack Scholar’s Will

Posted on by

“Fighting for Democracy” NB Attorney General Seeks to Hijack Scholar’s Will

MONCTON. July 29, 2013. Christian free thinker and himself a victim of Zionist repression, Malcolm Ross reports from Moncton that the New Brunswick Attorney general has entered the fray to try to hijack the will of Robert McCorkill who left a large bequest of ancient coins to the National Alliance, a U.S. White nationalist group. The AG’s office, Mr. Ross told CAFE today, is claiming that it is joining the effort to  nullify the bequest because it “is joining the fight for democracy.” That, says the Moncton author, is “like saying we will invade Afghanistan to bring them peace and democracy.”
“The efforts to overturn Mr. McCorkill’s bequest pose a serious threat to freedom and personal property,” says Paul Fromm, Director of the Canadian Association for Free Expression (CAFE).”Is there now to be a ‘politically correct’ litmus test applied to bequests?” he asked. 

 

Last Tuesday (July 23) the National Post reported on the latest temporary, we hope, victory by a band of mischief makers and meddlers to hijack a bequest by late scholar Robert McCorkill to the National Alliance, a White Nationlist group in the U.S. The Post reported:”

Robert McCorkill lived in Saskatoon and Ottawa before moving to Saint John, where he died in 2004.“Robert McCorkill lived in Saskatoon and Ottawa before moving to Saint John, where he died in 2004.

The sister of a New Brunswick man who left a collection of coins and artifacts worth an estimated $250,000 to a neo-Nazi group in the United States has obtained an injunction.

The court order temporarily blocks any distribution of Robert McCorkill’s estate or transfer out of New Brunswick, Ottawa-based lawyer Richard Warman stated in an email.

McCorkill, who also went by McCorkell, left his collection to the U.S.-based National Alliance when he died in Saint John nine years ago, but the estate has remained unsettled.

The ex parte injunction was obtained on Monday on behalf of McCorkill’s sister Isabelle McCorkill, who will be challenging the bequest on public policy grounds, Warman said.

‘I anticipate that other groups will intervene in support of the application in the coming days,’ he said.

Anti-racism groups had planned to try to stop the National Alliance from receiving the items, fearing they could be sold and help spark a rebirth of the neo-Nazi group that has been in decline since its founder died more than a decade ago. … ‘All assets of the Estate of Harry Robert McCorkill (a.k.a. McCorkell) shall remain in the province of New Brunswick until further order of this court,’ he said.”

A far leftist blogger going by the handle BigCityLib confirmed the role of the busybody Richard Warman. “I’ve written about Robert McCorkell (or McCorkill) a few times.  He was a  Canadian chemist with White Nationalist leanings, and when he died he bequeathed  $1,000,000 in ancient gold coins and other valuables to the National Alliance, an American hate/terror group.  The collection itself is quite impressive: ancient Libyan, Roman, and Turkish artifacts.  It would be a pity if it wound up helping to refinance American Neo-Nazis.
Behind the scenes, a number of people (including BCLSB fave Richard Warman) have been working to stop this from happening.  And it looks like they’ve succeeded, at least temporarily. Yesterday afternoon an injunction was obtained blocking any distribution of Robert McCorkill’s estate ‘until further order’ from the New Brunswick Court of Queen’s Bench.  …  It would be nice to see an academic institution of one sort or another adopt the collection.”
Warman supposedly actually has a full-time job doing something or other at the Department of National Defence. He’s currently preparing for a mega libel trial where he’s suing neo-con bloggers Mark and Connie Fournier of freedominion.com. He’s also recently slapped Arthur Topham another of his victims  (a Sec. 319 “hate law” complaint)  with a threat of libel. Anyway, the mystery remains how he can manage so much all consuming litigation and still discharge his duties at  National Defence. Free Dominion asserts that Warman has filed libel suits or threatened such suits against at least 60 parties in the past dozen years!

In a later report, the National Post  (July 26, 2013) expanded on the role of the newly found litigant, Mr. McCorkill’s long stranged sister Isabel, who apparently only now — 9 years later — has learned about his will and has developed an outrage at the money being left to a U.S. nationalist group: “Robert McCorkill left his collection to the National Alliance when he died in Saint John nine years ago, but the estate remains in dispute.

Isabelle McCorkill, his estranged sister, is now arguing the will should be null and void. ‘We’re not taking any issue with how it’s drafted or anything like that. We’re taking issue with the specific gift to the National Alliance,’ said Marc-Antoine Chiasson, her Moncton-based lawyer.

He contends giving nearly $250,000 to a white supremacist group violates Canadian policy and is against the law. ‘In our view, the gift would basically be financing a hate group, which flies in the face of what we stand for in Canada,’ said Chiasson.

‘Hate speech in Canada is criminally prohibited. Secondly, Canada has signed on to numerous international conventions with the specific goal and aim to get rid of hate speech, hate groups and the financing of hate groups.’

Chiasson says his client, who didn’t have any contact with her brother since 1991, is not interested in the money. But when she learned it had been willed to the National Alliance, she felt compelled to act, he said.”

 

Mr. Ross points out that the long lost sister Isabelle has turned up and, although apparently impoverished, has been able to retain one of Moncton’s top laws firms — most convenient for the meddlers who’d like to nullify the bequest to the National Alliance.

 

Mr. Ross calls the current proceedings “a money grab. They are trying to bleed the estate through litigation.” Sadly, because of the freeze placed by the court last week on the estate’s assets, the current storage costs for the coins and artifacts left by Mr. McCorkill have actually had to be paid out of the executor’s own pocket.”

 

Isabelle McCorkell did not even attend her brother’s funeral. “The National Alliance paid for his funeral,” Mr. Ross, who lost his teaching position because of his anti-Zionist writings in the 1990s, explained.

 

In the past week, John Hughes, lawyer for the National Alliance, has been assembling affidavits from National Alliance Chairman Erich Gliebe, Malcolm Ross and others who have knowledge of the estate.

 

A further hearing will be held on Wednesday. Mr. Hughes will be arguing that the wishes of the testator should not be violated. He is also seeking to examine the newly emerged Isabel McCorkell. Her lawyer argued against it but the presiding judge is apparently going to allow it.

 

The attempt to nullify the McCorkill bequest is a serious threat to freedom in Canada. That the state should be able to alter a will for political reasons is scandalous. Much rides on the legal efforts of National Alliance attorney John Hughes, defending the right of a person to will his estate to the persons or causes he chooses.