Judge gives man one year in jail for contempt of court

[blackbird]

A 46 year old man was facing a charge for obstructing or resisting a peace officer.

CBC Lite | News

He unwisely decided to represent himself rather than hire a lawyer.

He held the view that the courts have no validity or jurisdiction and took up the court time with frivolous arguments.

Consequently the judge ruled against him for contempt of court and sentenced him to one year in prison.

Do you think he was given too harsh a sentence?  Was it even the right kind of sentence for a ignorant guy like that?   It appears he was a kind of ignorant person and perhaps he is somewhat mentally ill.  Makes one wonder what kind of education he had and where he got his nonsensical ideas.  Perhaps the internet conspiracy websites.

I am wondering if a shorter sentence and counseling might have been a better option.  He may be put in with hardened criminals now.  He made a grave mistake in that he did not seem to understand the justice system is legitimate and judges must be respected.  He sounds like he was completely ignorant.  I don't even know if he should have been given the option of representing himself.  That may not have been right especially in his case.  He is a bit of nut case.  I am not sure the justice system can function properly by letting mentally-challenged individuals represent themselves.

Edited April 22, 2023 by blackbird

[eyeball]

Definitely sounds like your typical internet forum warrior.

A…Freeman filled with fake news ideology. Here's the link to the story.

What are the chances he straightens out and is reformed? I imagine they restrict access to the Internet in jail so he might stand a good chance.

Let's just hope the prison Chaplain doesn't manage to get into his head, he sounds a tad too impressionable.

https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/british-columbia/contempt-jail-prince-rupert-1.6819182

 

Edited April 22, 2023 by eyeball

[Michael Hardner]

This is kind of what's happening to the convoy leaders.  They're paying the price of thinking they're above the law I guess.

[blackbird]

40 minutes ago, Contrarian said:

I'm not sure if this is a real scenario or is it an analogy?! Just curious, where it happened. 

Many years ago, I used to watch the TV show Cops and would burst out laughing when police officers would pick up a deranged person from the streets and say, 'We'll get you some help.'

What kind of help were they talking about? The person would be put in a cell with other criminals, in a 'pack' or 'mob' environment where they would likely come out as even more skilled criminals, on top of their existing mental health issues.

In my opinion, maybe it's time for society to invest in mental health hospitals and start opening up more for deranged behaviour. The jails are essentially revolving door hotels where people learn "skills". Different type of Uncle Sugar. 

CBC Lite | News

[blackbird]

35 minutes ago, eyeball said:

Let's just hope the prison Chaplain doesn't manage to get into his head

Sounds like you need some help yourself.  Your fallen nature has control now.

[Michael Hardner]

Van Ballion has a whole YouTube channel devoted to these people, if you like karmic Justice, this may be for you. I used to watch it religiously for a short time, until I started feeling sorry for the nutties.

[Aristides]

BC judges let violent offenders walk all the time but you better not criticize the court or you will do jail time. I have no sympathy for this guy but I also think our courts have some seriously screwed up priorities.

[myata]

Sounds like arbitrary self-righteous application of justice in "because we can" style. Rarely a good conclusion.

The ultimate legitimacy of democracy and its institutions, each and any of them is in the service they provide to the citizens in good quality and faith. Very easy to forget. "We think so you are".

[myata]

I'll explain. The judge could not explain why his court is legitimate - what service it provides to the citizens. Yet he sees it fit to assign long prison sentences for non-violent crime, crime of thought and ideas.

This is arbitrary, it crosses the line into repression. When Putin or Xi jail their critics is it  much different? When Galileo and Bruno were persecuted for their scientific views was it essentially different.

Are courts in Canada legitimate only because judges can send you to jail if you refuse to believe?

Democratic legitimacy is not on pretty paper or in a fancy robe. When consensus changes to repression legitimacy is lost don't mind the paper. So easy to forget. Because we can.

Edited April 23, 2023 by myata

[suds]

9 hours ago, myata said:

I'll explain. The judge could not explain why his court is legitimate - what service it provides to the citizens. Yet he sees it fit to assign long prison sentences for non-violent crime, crime of thought and ideas.

This is arbitrary, it crosses the line into repression. When Putin or Xi jail their critics is it  much different? When Galileo and Bruno were persecuted for their scientific views was it essentially different.

Are courts in Canada legitimate only because judges can send you to jail if you refuse to believe?

Democratic legitimacy is not on pretty paper or in a fancy robe. When consensus changes to repression legitimacy is lost don't mind the paper. So easy to forget. Because we can.

I agree. How does rule of law apply when a judge can purposely make an example out of someone by setting an unreasonably long prison sentence? Aren't we all supposed to be equal under the law?

Edited April 23, 2023 by suds

[CdnFox]

22 minutes ago, suds said:

I agree. How does rule of law apply when a judge can purposely make an example out of someone by setting an unreasonably long prison sentence? Aren't we all supposed to be equal under the law?

What makes you feel this is a particularly long sentance given the offense? Have you looked at similar examples and compared them apples to apples?

This is a pretty serious case of contempt and the message SHOULD be sent that if you pull that kind of nonsense there's consequences.

And as to how the system functions - he will have the right to appeal and have several different groups of judges look the findings over and determine if they are reasonable. No one judge ever gets the final and only say.

We are all equal under the law.  But if you argue there IS no  law, as this person did, don't be surprised if you find out the hard way that indeed there is

 

[myata]

11 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

We are all equal under the law.  But if you argue there IS no  law, as this person did, don't be surprised if you find out the hard way that indeed there is

When the law is not to the benefit of a general citizen and democracy, the only legitimacy of it is the force. Then, the difference between democratic law and repressive one is erased. Putin has "laws" and his hand courts can quote the scripture too. The essence of democratic law is not on the paper, not in the robe appointed by some obscure political process and not in the prerogative to dole out jail sentences.

The justice system has to assure the society, a general citizen that the decision is necessary, proportional and just. Anything short of that is arbitrary and can signify a digression into punitive repression.

There's no default prerogative to govern and to deal out law in a democracy, it, the privilege has to be earned and maintained with very high majority of decisions if not every one.

Edited April 23, 2023 by myata

[CdnFox]

8 minutes ago, myata said:

When the law is not to the benefit of a general citizen and democracy, the only legitimacy of it is the force.

When a 'general citizen' believes they are above the law and above democracy - then force is an appropriate response. As was the case here.

10 minutes ago, myata said:

The justice system has to assure the society, a general citizen that the decision is necessary, proportional and just.

So show me that wasn't the case here. I asked you about that and you've ignored it.

It sounds like you think it WAS just and can't argue against that, but just don't like it. Facts don't care about your feelings

10 minutes ago, myata said:

There's no default prerogative to govern and to deal out law in a democracy,

This is NOT a democracy. And thank god - a democracy is two wolves and a sheep deciding what's for dinner.

We live in a CONSTITUTIONAL Democracy which creates the framework for law and governance.

This asswipe chose to ignore that and claim there is no law.  Well - if there is no law then anybody can do what they like INCLUDING LOCKING UP A BLOATED GASBAG FREEMAN.

You have yet to make any case at all as to why this isn't just.  A person who threatens the charter rights and constitution of the people deserves far worse in my books - make your case that he deserved less or admit you're just whining.

[suds]

49 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

What makes you feel this is a particularly long sentance given the offense? Have you looked at similar examples and compared them apples to apples?

No, have you?  A CBC article (provided by eyeball) claims that...Judge David Paterson sentenced Cameron Hardy, in part to deter others from subjecting the court to the theory known as "organized pseudo-legal commercial arguments.''  It's the 'in part to deter others' I find questionable and the fact that the deterrence involved a simple process crime. As wacky as they sound in this case, should someone be imprisoned or get their sentence extended for their beliefs?

Edited April 23, 2023 by suds

[myata]

11 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

When a 'general citizen' believes they are above the law and above democracy - then force is an appropriate response. As was the case here.

There are always two sides to this picture. Democracy serves the citizens not and never the other way around. Judges, courts, politicians circus period exist only for the citizens, not their own holy purposes.

Judge and law is not above the citizen; the mandate to judge and govern has to be earned and maintained by delivering results and decisions clearly to the benefit of the general citizen, understood and agreed by them. And if and when the system forgets that, it enter into undemocratic, repressive territory. Once more: necessary; proportional; just. Explained and agreed by the citizens. No, nothing short of.

15 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

So show me that wasn't the case here. I asked you about that and you've ignored it

See, you already transgressed. In a democracy a citizen never has to prove to the government; always it is the other way around. Government exists for the citizens, not vice versa. In a democracy, that is.

17 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

CONSTITUTIONAL

Paper is not the essence of a democracy. You are mistaken for the umpteenth time in the history. Putin has the paper. Every tyrant and dictator had it.

19 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

This asswipe chose to ignore that and claim there is no law. 

No, there's no default infallible law given from the above and administered by high priests. The mandate to govern; to deliver justice has to be earned and verified by the result.

22 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

You have yet to make any case at all as to why this isn't just. 

It's the other way around, as explained. Either the system proves to the citizens that its decisions are necessary; proportional and grounded; and just; or they are arbitrary and repressive and for that reason lose democratic legitimacy. No, in a democracy the government, any and every branch of it is always checked by the citizens.

[CdnFox]

18 minutes ago, myata said:

There are always two sides to this picture. Democracy serves the citizens not and never the other way around. Judges, courts, politicians circus period exist only for the citizens, not their own holy purposes.

Judge and law is not above the citizen; the mandate to judge and govern has to be earned and maintained by delivering results and decisions clearly to the benefit of the general citizen, understood and agreed by them. And if and when the system forgets that, it enter into undemocratic, repressive territory. Once more: necessary; proportional; just. Explained and agreed by the citizens. No, nothing short of.

See, you already transgressed. In a democracy a citizen never has to prove to the government; always it is the other way around. Government exists for the citizens, not vice versa. In a democracy, that is.

Paper is not the essence of a democracy. You are mistaken for the umpteenth time in the history. Putin has the paper. Every tyrant and dictator had it.

No, there's no default infallible law given from the above and administered by high priests. The mandate to govern; to deliver justice has to be earned and verified by the result.

It's the other way around, as explained. Either the system proves to the citizens that its decisions are necessary; proportional and grounded; and just; or they are arbitrary and repressive and for that reason lose democratic legitimacy. No, in a democracy the government, any and every branch of it is always checked by the citizens.

Blah blah blah blah blah - a whole pile of horseshit without saying anyting.

Explain why this guys' punishment is excessive or admit you're just blathering for the sake of it.  There IS a constitution. There ARE laws and they are passed democratically by ELECTED officials. and every judge's decision is subject to scruitiny.  So what exactly precisely specifically is the problem here?

[myata]

32 minutes ago, CdnFox said:

Explain why this guys' punishment is excessive or admit you're just blathering for the sake of it. 

In a democracy there's no ingrained prerogative to govern. It's a privilege not a prerogative or endless mandate. If you believe there's you've already transgressed to the authoritarian side and that happens very easily and naturally in the absence of any meaningful checks. Governments have to prove to the citizens that they work for them and do it well. Governments exist for the citizens, not the other way around. Governments have to prove. Judge has to explain and convince. Easy to forget, "because we can".

[myata]

This is a non-violent crime. This is a thought crime. A year in a jail, seriously? While violent repeat offenders go of on an early parole routinely? You don't see anything wrong here? This is as arbitrary as it gets.

You're on the path of putins and haven't even noticed. "Constitution", right. Putin had that one too.

Edited April 23, 2023 by myata

[CdnFox]

10 minutes ago, myata said:

n a democracy there's no ingrained prerogative to govern.

There is in a constitutional democracy.

Third time asking - why is this finding excessive?

[blackbird]

Giving a year prison sentence to someone who is mentally unbalanced and his crime was his ridiculous opinions seems kind of bizarre.  It does seem more like Russian's Putin kind of justice.  They imprisoned thousands of people because they expressed an opinion contrary to Putin and his regime.  This guy in Prince Rupert was obviously mentally unbalanced and should have been given ongoing counseling and education rather than being thrown in prison with a bunch of hardened criminals.

[CdnFox]

8 minutes ago, myata said:

This is a non-violent crime.

So's extortion but we lock people up for that.

8 minutes ago, myata said:

 

This is a thought crime.

No, it is not. It is a very actual real world crime. he interfered with police and he showed contempt for the legal system - these are real crimes with real consequences. It's not a 'thought' crime at all.

8 minutes ago, myata said:

A year in a jail, seriously? While violent repeat offenders go of on an early parole routinely? You don't see anything wrong here? This is as arbitrary as it gets.

After interfering with a police investigation? I've got no sympathy at all. If he doesn't believe the court has authority, then what's to stop him from harming someone the next time? If laws don't exist then he can do anything. Better he learns that lesson right now.

And the fact that other offenders SHOULD be in jail longer  doesn't change the fact.

8 minutes ago, myata said:

You're on the path of putins and haven't even noticed. "Constitution", right. Putin had that one too.

So anyone who has a constitution is like putin?
Give your head a shake. 

The constitution is the will of the people and outlines their guaranteed rights and creates the framework for our nation. If you don't like it then feel free to start  a seperatist movement and  create a new nation, but in the meantime you can't blather about 'democracy' and then also demand the rights of the people don't matter.

[blackbird]

12 minutes ago, myata said:

This is a non-violent crime. This is a thought crime. A year in a jail, seriously? While violent repeated offenders go of on an early parole routinely? You don't see anything wrong here? This is as arbitrary as it gets.

You're on the path of putins and haven't even noticed. "Constitution", right. Putin had that too.

This guy gets a one year prison sentence for speaking nonsense while violent offenders and criminals destroying businesses have been arrested and released the next day on bail.  Repeatedly.  Some have long criminal records of criminal offences. The justice system is a disaster.

[CdnFox]

3 minutes ago, blackbird said:

Giving a year prison sentence to someone who is mentally unbalanced and his crime was his ridiculous opinions seems kind of bizarre.  It does seem more like Russian's Putin kind of justice. 

Putin is a big fan of ignoring the law and pretending it doesn't apply to him.' So's this guy.

This guy seeks to undermine the right of every citizen. His legal defense - not his opinion but his stated legal defense - is that there is no such law and the courts have no authority.  It's sedition and an attack on democracy.  We USED to shoot people for that, one year seems pretty light. Especially seeing as in our system that means  half a year where he only has to be locked up on the weekends.

[CdnFox]

2 minutes ago, blackbird said:

This guy gets a one year prison sentence for speaking nonsense while violent offenders and criminals destroying businesses have been arrested and released the next day on bail.  Repeatedly. 

This guy had been released on bail.  Sooooo.... Your point?

2 minutes ago, blackbird said:

Some have long criminal records of criminal offences. The justice system is a disaster.

That means other people need to be locked up longer - not that this guy was locked up too long.

[Zeitgeist]

On 4/22/2023 at 1:20 PM, blackbird said:

A 46 year old man was facing a charge for obstructing or resisting a peace officer.

CBC Lite | News

He unwisely decided to represent himself rather than hire a lawyer.

He held the view that the courts have no validity or jurisdiction and took up the court time with frivolous arguments.

Consequently the judge ruled against him for contempt of court and sentenced him to one year in prison.

Do you think he was given too harsh a sentence?  Was it even the right kind of sentence for a ignorant guy like that?   It appears he was a kind of ignorant person and perhaps he is somewhat mentally ill.  Makes one wonder what kind of education he had and where he got his nonsensical ideas.  Perhaps the internet conspiracy websites.

I am wondering if a shorter sentence and counseling might have been a better option.  He may be put in with hardened criminals now.  He made a grave mistake in that he did not seem to understand the justice system is legitimate and judges must be respected.  He sounds like he was completely ignorant.  I don't even know if he should have been given the option of representing himself.  That may not have been right especially in his case.  He is a bit of nut case.  I am not sure the justice system can function properly by letting mentally-challenged individuals represent themselves.

The judge acted like a tyrant, using his power to crush someone who doesn’t know better.  Nothing will be done about this as usual.