Tag Archives: Robert McCorkill

29th Annual George Orwell Free Speech Dinner Honours the Late Doug Christie

Posted on by

29th Annual George Orwell Free Speech Dinner Honours the Late Doug Christie



VICTORIA, BC. October 18. The 29th annual George Orwell Free Speech dinner was held her today, drawing free speech supporters from all over British Colmbia and from as far away at Ontario and Texas. Keltie Zubko , editor of Friends of Freeom Newsletter of the Canadian Free Speech League and wife of the late free speech champion Doug Christie, is keeping this annual tradition alive. It was an emotional event and a moving and proper tribute to a man who was a giant in the free speech movement in Canada for over 30 years.

The meeting preceeding the dinner was chaired by law student Jeremy Mattock. He recalled: “I worked with Doug for three years and he inspired me to work for a better, freer, more just society.

He discussed the persecution of the planned Trinity Western University law school. “This would be a Christian university and encourage lawyers to be Christian servants of their clients. However, there have been efforts to prohibit future graduates of Trinity Western Law School from getting articling jobs (essential before being called to the bar). The philosophy of Trinity Western is to ask students and faculty to refrain from excessive use of alcohol and drugs and to maintain traditional Christian standards of sexual morality,” he explained. “Yet, many lawyers want to prohibit such people who voluntarily agree to such restrictions from even practising law.”

He warned: “There are increasing and dangerous restrictions on who can and cannot speak out. Evangelist and author Bill Whatcott was fined $17,000 by the Saskatchewan Human Rights Commission for expressing the traditional Christian view on homosexuality.”

“How long will it be,” he asked, “before expressing the traditional Christian view on marriage could land you in jail or be excluded from polite society?”

And, he warned, “web publisher Arthur Topham (radicalpress.com) may face jail time for making available on the Internet what’s available in some bookstores and libraries, books like The Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion and Germany Must Perish. But the government does not go after bookstores or libraries. It goes after the little guy, like Arthur Topham.”


Victoria lawyer Barclay Johnson who wound down much of Mr. Christie’s law practice and represented CAFE in its appeal to Federal Court in the Marc Lemire Sec. 13 case, joked about wearing an Hawaiian happy shirt. He said that crime rates in Canada are falling but police forces keep growing. “Between 2001 and 2012, policing costs rose 8.7% but crime fell 26.7% and police work load decreased,” To justify their expansion and the huge bite they take out of local budgets, police are increasingly in the revenue collecting business. Police salaries are huge. “The average salary for a policeman in Victorias is $96,000 per year,” he said.

“We have way too many police officers. So, they come up with these strategies so that no one will complain about their high salaries. “They are writing tickets like crazy.” He cited a weekend blitz exposed last summer in the Vancouver Province. The RCMP were out in force in the sparsely travelled stretch of Highway 3, between Hope and Princeton. Over 100 cars were seized under civil forfeiture on the spot. One family who had their car seized were in a remote area out of cellphone range. They had to flag passersby just to return to a large town.” That’s also bear country. The police just left them. In that case, Judge Bowden ruled that yiou cabn’t be subject to civil forfeiture for speeding.

Civil forfeiture is a major abuse and both Doug Christie and Barclay Johnson were among the first to expose it more than two years ago. “Why is the government getting into selling used cars? It’s all about money. The municipalities’ biggest expense is policing,” he noted.


]]]]
Paul Fromm, Director of the Canadian Association for Free Expression, gave the keynote presentation about the present state of free speech in Canada. “Sometime next year,” he said, “the B’nai Brith and Richard Warman Sec. 319 ‘hate law’ charges against Arthur Topham will go to trial in Quesnel. Topham is a fearless terrier and will not give up.” CAFÉ has been helping him financially and will continue to help him in this evil case, where he is being prosecuted for material posted on his website radicalpress.com, includingThe Protocols of the Learned Elders of Zion, Germany Must Perish (a hateful book providing a blueprint for genocide of the German people) and Israel Must Perish, a clever Topham spoof of the previous book. For the prune-faced, humourless politically correct, it was a SATIRE, meant to expose and criticize Germany Must Perish,” Mr. Fromm chided.














“This is a crucial case,” Mr. Fromm warned. “We hope to discredit the ‘hate law’ and challenge its application to the Internet. Interestingly, the first two impugned books are freely available at libraries and at some bookstores. Once again, the law is being used to silence the independent, the little guy.”

Good news: The Ontario Civil Liberties Association has entered the fray on Arthur’s behalf and is circulating an on-line petition urging British Columbia Attorney General Suzanne Anton to withdraw her consent to this “hate law” prosecution.

” In New Brunswick, we will soon go to the New Brunswick Court of Appeal in the matter of the McCorkill will,” he said. Robert McCorkill, a retired chemistry professor willed the U.S.-based National Alliance his collection of rare coins and artefacts, valued at upwards of $250,000. The free speech hating Southern Poverty Law Centre in Montgomery, Alabama objected about this support for “White supremacists.” Ottawa lawyer and frequent human rights complainant Richard Warman alleged the bequest was contrary to “public policy.”

“The next thing we knew,” Mr. Fromm recalled, “Isabelle McCorkell (yes, different spelling), the professor’s long estranged sister, who had made no legal moves since his death in 2004, surfaced and challenged the will seeking to have it overturned as ‘contrary to public policy.’ Umm, was someone whispering in her ear? Almost immediately, the New Brunswick Attorney General, the Center for Israel and Jewish Affairs and the League for Human Rights of B’nai Brith sought and obtained intervener status. CAFÉ intervened on behalf of the estate.”

“In June, we were stunned by the decision of Mr. Justice Grant to invalidate the bequest,” Mr. Fromm reported. The reason: the bequest was contrary to public policy; that is, the NA’s views were politically incorrect. For good measure, without even a charge or trial, much less evidence or a defence, the judge found that the National Alliance was guilty of violating Canada’s ‘hate laws.’ This decision puts the boots to property rights and freedom of belief and MUST be appealed. We must win this case or the right to bequeath your property to whom you will may have to pass the litmus test of political correctness,” he warned.

“There is a visceral hatred for Christians on the part of most of the political and legal establishment in this country,” Mr. Fromm argueed. He pointed to last year’s decision in the Whatcott case where the “cultural Marxists on the Supreme Court of Canada” basically ruled against public expressions of traditional teaching on homosexuality. Homosexuals are now a designated “vulnerable minority” although the militant homosexual lobby has won almost every battle it has fought. “The Supremos ruled that not scientific truth, not sincerely held religious belief, not political discourse nor hoest opinion were defences against the accusation of exposing a privileged minority to contempt. Quite simply they hate Christians,” Mr. Fromm warned a subdued audience.

And, the appalling harassment of Christian crusader Bill Whatcott continues. Mr. Fromm recounted Mr. Whatcott’s latest run is with cowardice and censorship. “He sought to organize a meeting on Christian morality in the modern world. He had a lawyer vet a proposed ad in the Regina Leader-Post. The Leader-Post refused to run this tasteful and non-inflammatory ad. Thus, it would be hard to advertise his meeting. Mr. Whatcott then ran off and distributed 5,000 leaflets advertising the meeting to be held in Lee’s Funeral Home. The press contacted the home and asked whether they were comfortable with protests. The management, who agreed with Whatcott’s conservative Christian morality, promptly collapsed and cancelled the meeting, much to the delight of the Leader-Post. The Delta Regina, on seeing the publicity, reneged on its booking. Mr. Whatcott then lined up St. Athanasius Ukrainian Catholic Church. It too wimped out fearing negative publicity. Thus, a conservative Christian cannot find a venue and cannot publicly advertise a meeting to discuss morality vis a vis homosexuality and abortion.”

“Many Canadians have only the vaguest commitment to free speech. Businesses often are utter cowards and censors. We have a lot of work to do, not just in protesting to those businesses that trampled on Mr. Whatcott’s rights but in trying to turn more Canadians on to freedom. Doug Christie always said: ‘It doesn’t matter what is in constitutions or Charters of Rights and Freedoms; you only have the rights you are prepared to FIGHT for,’ he concluded.

Posted on by

019

 

 Canadian Association for Free Expression

Box 332,

Rexdale, Ontario, M9W 5L3

Ph: 905-566-4455; FAX: 905-566-4820

Paul Fromm, B.Ed, M.A. Director

 

April 10, 2014

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

 

 

 

 

 

Happiness

 

Happiness may seem a strange topic for me to raise in my report to you. However, on January 27, I was standing in the lobby of the Courthouse in St. John, waiting for John Hughes, lawyer for the McCorkill Estate, and CAFÉ’s lawyer Andy Lodge. The hearing  in regards to  efforts by powerful forces to hijack the McCorkill will’s bequest to the National Alliance as “contrary to public policy” was over and the decision in the hands of the judge. We were in the middle of a media scrum. With me was former teacher Malcolm Ross and his brother. I saw the lawyers for the four parties seeking to overturn the will walk by.

 

I wondered whether they were happy. I wondered this because beside me stood a man who deep down is serene and happy. Twenty years ago, Malcolm Ross was removed from the classroom in Moncton because of his political and religious views published in books, booklets and letter-to-the-editor on his own time. A “human rights” (they do not include free speech) tribunal had ruled that Mr. Ross’s very presence, as a conservative, anti-Zionist Christian, created a “poisoned” environment. The person complaining against him was the daughter of a prominent Atlantic Jew. She claimed some students had made anti-Semitic comments to her. Now, she did not attend the school where Malcolm Ross taught. He had not taught her. She had never met him, Nor had he taught the students who allegedly made comments to her. 

 

Neither reason nor common sense mattered.  Mr. Ross had poisoned the environment and he was out. The case, argued by Doug Christie, went all the way to the Supreme Court. The Supremos even back then were hard core Christian haters. Sure, they agreed, Mr. Ross had the right to his religious views, just not the right to express them and hope to keep his job. The same nine Cultural Marxists would, a decade or so later, dream up the obligation of “reasonable accommodation.”  If some Sikh wants to pack his dagger to go to school, despite a zero weapons policy, we must make reasonable accommodations for his peculiarities. But, in this environment of inclusiveness and “reasonable accommodation” there was no room for a Malcolm Ross. All the while, Mr. Ross was reviled in a host of news stories and was even the object of semi-obscene cartoons that mocked his Christian faith.

 

So, Malcolm Ross, with a young family, was out of a job. It would be understandable if he were bitter or angry. But, he picked himself up, did other work and persevered. His deep Christian faith and belief that what he had written was true and right make him a serene and happy man. Not jumping up and down happy as a person who has just scored a big win in a lottery might be, but profoundly secure and happy.

 

I too felt elated that what CAFÉ had done with our very costly intervention and the powerful factum (brief) and presentation of our lawyer Andy Lodge would have a good effect. We had come to preserve a man’s right to pass on his estate to a group whose views might be unpopular or politically incorrect. I wondered how the lawyers on the other side felt. On one level, happy, I suppose because they could pocket fat fees from their well-funded backers. But how could they feel about trying to hijack a will and replace a man’s wishes with the politically correct whims of the moment?

 

The Year Ahead

 

We are already deep into the McCorkill case. This case MUST be won or meddlers and troublemakers may try to hijack a bequest to any group. We have made a strong case and await the judge’s decision.

 

I was asked to testify last September at the Warman v Mark and Connie Fournier libel trial. It went dreadfully wrong. The Fourniers and two other bloggers lost and were hit with a judgement of $143,000, which included hefty costs to pay Richard Warman’s legal bills. They are appealing. Canadian libel law is so loosey goosy that a website owner can be made liable for comments posted by anonymous writers on the site. Another libel case involving the Fourniers is now in progress. Marc Lemire reports: “Defamation law in Canada is a glaring example of the archaic state of our laws. This week in an Ottawa courtroom, two Internet bloggers – who both use pseudonyms – are going to state their case before a judge.  In one corner is the defendant, an inveterate blogger who uses the pseudonym Peter O’Donnell (AKA Roger Smith) who is being sued for saying that another pseudonym “Dr Dawg” (AKA John Baglow) is “one of the Taliban’s more vocal supporters”.  And caught in the middle are Mark and Connie Fournier who ran a message board called FreeDominion, where one alias apparently defamed another alias in a back and forth message thread.” CAFÉ is beginning to lobby for changes to this law.

 

CAFÉ continues to publicize Brad Love’s 11-year ordeal and efforts to continue to gag him. I have had articles published in a number of papers about his plight. Canada continues to back and publicize Terry Tremaine’s 10 year battle against Sec. 13 “human rights” (Internet censorship) and Sec. 319 (“hate law”) charges. The Sec. 319 charges were stayed in 2012, thanks to Doug Christie’s heroic efforts. On May 28/29, the last episode in his case will be his appeal against his sentence in a “contempt of court” charge brought against him, as were all the others, by Richard Warman.

 

And, of course, there is Arthur Topham. As of March 13, he faces a full blown trial on “hate charges” for comments, some of them satirical, on his website Radicalpress.com. He is also threatened with horrific bail conditions, including having to shut down his Radicalpress.com website and to post NOTHING on the Internet. CAFÉ will be helping and advising him at the hearing date, April 9 in Quesnel, British Columbia. The date for the trial has not yet been set.

 

One of our biggest challenges is to alert more people to the free speech cause – to turn them on to freedom and to make them aware of the very real threats to free speech and free thought in Canada. We have already held meetings in five provinces – New Brunswick, Quebec, Ontario, Alberta and B.C. this year. Our publicly advertised meeting in St. John attracted a number of new people to the cause.

 

We are proud of the CAFÉ website that we were able to construct because of your generosity – http://cafe.nfshost.com.

 

 

Your Support Pledge

 

And the well deserved praise “generosity”  brings  me to my request that you continue to support CAFÉ. None, and I mean none, of this activity is possible without the resources, without your financial support. We had initially budgeted $10,000 for the McCorkill will intervention. The costs have ballooned and now top $30,000. Many years ago, when I was much younger, a pompous old man wagged a finger at me and pronounced: “If it’s about freedom, it should be free.” What a fool!

 

Those seeking to crush free speech spend large sums of their money and the public money to pursue their goal. Similarly, defending freedom has serious costs – people’s energy, people’s time, people’s courage and, yes, the funding to make the activities possible.

 

I know, as in the past, I can count on your support and generosity. Please use the enclosed coupon and post paid envelope.

 

For freedom,

 

 

Paul Fromm

Director

 

 

 

 

 

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

 

__   Here’s my donation of ____to help CAFÉ’s Spring programme.

__   Here’s my special donation of _____  to help  CAFE pay off its legal bills in the McCorkill will case.

__  Please renew my subscription for 2014 to the Free Speech Monitor ($15).

Please charge ______myVISA/Mastercard#________________________________________________________________

 

Expiry date: __________ Signature:________________________________________________________________________________

 

Name:____________________________________________________________________________________

 

Address:__________________________________________________________________________________           

 

_______________________________________________________Email______________________________

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

Hear Paul Fromm on the Don Black Show at 10:00 a.m. Friday, January 24 Discussing the SPLC’s Efforts to Hijack the McCorkill Will

Posted on by

Hear Paul Fromm on the Don Black Show at 10:00 a.m. Friday, January 24 Discussing the SPLC’s Efforts to Hijack the McCorkill Will

http://www.renseradio.com/listenlive.htm

They can find the archives from there.

The announcement thread on the public side of Stormfront is here:

http://www.stormfront.org/forum/t1017362/

Listen live weekdays 9:00-11:00am ET

to Stormfront with DonBlack & Truck Roy
on the Rense satellite/radio network.

You can also listen live to any show by calling
712-432-7855 from any phone.

Stormfront radio show with host Don Black
back on the air tomorrow!

 The Don and Derek Black Show went on the air on WPBR 1340AM four years ago. We broadcast five days a week for three years, despite considerable expense and relentless threats against the station by our enemies.

Don Black and his long-time co-host Truck Roy are now back, with a bigger audience than ever! We have partnered with the Rense Internet/Satellite network for a live two-hour show, every weekday morning, 9:00-11:00 Eastern Time. This is just before the David Duke Show at 11:00.

Don Black has been an activist fighting for European-American survival for forty-five years, beginning when he was fifteen years old. After many difficult years working to reach our people with the truth of racial realities, he was first to realize the potential of the Internet.

He first started promoting our message on various online services in 1988, before most people had ever heard of the Internet. He then set up a small dial-up computer bulletin board called Stormfront in 1990, while working on the David Duke for US Senate Campaign. This would later go online on the Net.

But it wasn’t until March of 1995 that Stormfront’s reach exploded, when the World Wide Web had made navigating the Net easier for non-techies.

For the first time, we had our own media. And in the years since, with the media monopoly’s control of news broken, more of our people than ever before now understand the truth. But we have a long way to go.

Join Don Black and Truck Roy, with special guest Gordon Lee Baum, CEO of the largest pro-White organization in America, the Council of Conservative Citizens, talk about where we’ve been and where we’re going. Call-ins welcome.

Tune in live here Monday-Friday, 9:00-11:00am Eastern Time. Archives will be available shortly after each show.

Or you can listen to the show live by calling 712-432-7855 from any phone.

If you would like to participate, our toll free call-in number is 877-342-6673

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:__________________________________________________________________________________

Three Parties Supporting Nullification of Bequest to National Alliance Get “Intervener” Status

Posted on by

Three Parties Supporting Nullification of Bequest to National Alliance Get “Intervener” Status

ST. JOHN, NEW BRUNSWICK. AUGUST 19. Powerful groups seeking to hijack a will leaving a bequest to a U.S. White nationalist group were in court here today seeking “intervener” status.
The controversy surrounds the late  Harry Robert McCorkill who died in St. John in 2004. After a long delay. the will was recently probated. Mr. McCorkill, a university professor, left a valuable collection of old coins and artifacts, valued at between $250,000 and $1-million, to  the National Alliance, a  U.S. White Nationalist group headquartered in West Virginia of which he was a member.
 Robert McCorkill lived in Saskatoon and Ottawa before moving to Saint John, where he died in 2004.
The Southern Poverty Law Centre, an extreme but well funded anti-racist group in the U.S., is seeking to prevent the NA from receiving its legacy. They retained the assistance of Richard Warman, an Ottawa lawyer with whom we have clashed on numerous occasions. He styles himself a “human rights” advocate and has filed numerous complaints under the now repealed Sec. 13 of the Canadian Human Rights Act (Internet censorship).
Anyway, soon after Isabelle Rose McCorkill of Ottawa came forth — nine years after her estranged brother’s death. She owns a house in Ottawa but states that she lives on $1,000 a month and is thus unable to post any security. Nevertheless, she is represented by one of Moncton’s best and, one would assume, priciest law firms McInnes-Cooper (Marc-Antoine Chiasson).
.
 In late July, she obtained an ex parte injunction that froze the assets and ordered that they not leave the Province of New Brunswick. The coins and artifacts are in storage in Moncton.
A hearing on the application is set for September 10 in St. John’s. The application seeks, inter alia, the Court declaration that the bequest “is illegal and/or contrary to public policy: …as a result of the failed bequest an intestacy has resulted’ .. the Estate be shared amongst the surviving brothers and sisters; … that costs be awarded to the Applicant.|’ The application is to be heard before the Court of Queen’s Bench of New Brunswick, Trial Division. The case Number is S/M/49/13. Thus, she seeks her “costs” for nullifying the bequest which is the major portion of the estate and, if the application succeeds, walking off with her brother’s assets.
The judge tasked with this matter is Judge Glennie.
However, today’s proceedings were before Judge Grant. The three would be interveners, the Attorney General of New Brunswick, the League for Human Rights of B’nai Brith, and the Centre for Israel and Jewish Affairs were admitted. There was no mention of security for costs.
Indeed, the only previous mention of costs was in Isabelle McCorkell in her affidavit. She said she had limited mans and stated that should there be a requirement of security for costs she could not participate further. There was no mention of security for costs in regards to the three parties granted intervener status today.
John Hughes, lawyer for Executor Fred Streed, sent a letter to Judge Glennie on Friday advising there could be one or two interveners coming forth on behalf of the estate.
A live issue to be argued on September 10 is whether the Isabelle McCorkill motion should be converted into an action. If it is, there would have to be a trial, which would be more costly but which would also, inter alia, permit the cross-examination of Isabelle McCorkell.
The Judge allowed the Estate to pay Revenue Canada from the previously frozen funds. However, a request to unfreeze funds to pay Executor fees, lawyer’s fees, a storage costs in Moncton was turned down.
An interesting sidelight, the lawyer for Isabelle McCorkell was not in court today. When he was finally reached by phone by the judge part way through the hearing, he said he was in another hearing and had not been advised by the court of the date. Whether this was the court staff’s error or a problem at his end remained unclear.
Paul Fromm