B.C. judge sentences man to 1 year in jail for contempt of court

'The courts of British Columbia are legitimate, or they are not. There is no middle ground': judge

Apr 21, 2023 8:10

Prince Rupert provincial court judge David Paterson says he sentenced Cameron Hardy to one year in jail for contempt of court for disregard for the court's time and taxpayers' money. (Adobe Stock)

A provincial court judge in Prince Rupert, B.C., has sentenced a 46-year-old man to a year in jail for contempt of court, ruling he tried to circumvent the justice system with "pseudo-legal'' and "stupid'' arguments.

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.''

Paterson's ruling details how Hardy, who was facing a charge of resisting or obstructing a peace officer in 2021, considers himself a "freeman,'' meaning he won't accept that courts have jurisdiction over him and falsely believes Canadian law doesn't apply to him.

"The courts of British Columbia are legitimate, or they are not. There is no middle ground. There are no shades of grey,'' Paterson's ruling says.

"Unfortunately for Hardy, the courts of British Columbia, including the provincial court of British Columbia, are legitimate.''

Hardy, who represented himself in court, was charged with "contempt in the face of the court'' for refusing to recognize the court's legitimacy or to follow the court's orders and take part in the trial process.

Misinformation in the courtroom

In his reasons for sentence on the contempt charge, Paterson found Hardy displayed "flagrant disregard'' for the court's directions and orders.

Paterson found Hardy's legal arguments could be harmful to the justice system by turning routine matters into time-consuming exercises, and "his arguments were not merely legally false but often just plain stupid.''

"Hardy's defence was vexatious and frivolous. He had no hope of success; thus, logically, his only purpose was to frustrate the court and waste government resources.''

Paterson ruled that Hardy intended to "harm or deceive the court'' with "nonsensical'' legal theory.

"It seems that phraseology such as 'post-truth' and 'fake news' has become increasingly prevalent in public discourse,'' Paterson's ruling says.

"As a court system, we need to recognize how the growing abundance of misinformation influences people in the political, technological, and societal context, including the courtroom.''

The ruling details how Hardy was first arrested in Prince Rupert in May 2021 and charged with one count of resisting or wilfully obstructing peace officers in the execution of their duty.

Days after his arrest, Hardy was released from custody under the condition that he wasn't allowed within 10 metres of a Prince Rupert liquor store.

In later virtual court appearances, Hardy repeatedly challenged the court's jurisdiction over him, saying he was "not a person. I'm a man commonly called Cameron Hardy.''

His first trial date was set for Sept. 3, 2021, but Hardy wasn't allowed in the courthouse when he refused to wear a mask.

At the time, the judge asked him over the phone if he had a letter from a doctor confirming he was unable to wear a mask for the short walk between the courthouse entrance and the courtroom where the trial was scheduled.



"I don't need another man or woman's permission to breathe,'' Hardy replied.

"I have been breathing my entire life on my own.''

The court eventually issued a warrant for Hardy's arrest for not appearing in court on the set trial date.

A waste of court time 

Paterson's reasons for Hardy's sentence lays out a timeline for several court dates derailed by his "pseudo-legal arguments.''

Paterson made a ruling disallowing Hardy to file documents or make any pseudo-legal arguments at trial, telling him they wasted the court's time and taxpayers' money and had no chance of succeeding.

"My ruling made no difference to Hardy,'' Paterson's ruling says.

He seemed more interested in doing what he could to stop the trial from proceeding and putting on a show for his numerous acquaintances, the judge says.

The judge says he didn't order a psychiatric assessment because he found Hardy to be intelligent but an "anti-government ideologist.''



Commentary by the Ottawa Mens Centre

While the judges comments are correct, it also shows a lack of empathy for the delusional ideas that the public are encouraged to adopt which can be classified as "denial" where the 'freeman' ideas are used as a

"justification" or "rationalization' for  delusional escape mechanisms.


Judicial "legal reasoning" in Canada is about as  horribly flawed as the Freeman where Judges do exactly the same error, they engage in "denial" and fabricate politically correct decisions based on gender.

Across Canada fathers have  next to  no legal rights in family court. Judges engage in "reaction formation" where they fabricate false narratives as part of the illegal process of "justification".

Yes, Fake news is fake news, Fabrication of a narrative by a  judge is the criminal offense of obstruction of justice but you won't see a single judge put in jail for a year as a result.

Cameron Hardy is a delusional believer of what he was shown by a cult of bat-crazy "free-man" and many of them are also anti-government , anti-authority, macho, with delusions of invincibility, invulnerability not to mention complacency when it comes to anything to deal with authorities.

The worst example of Cameron Hardy's dysfunction was his refusal to wear a mask and failing to attend court on the set trial date.


Perhaps the greatest judicial error was the  judge refusing to order a psychiatric assessment.

Wait for it, the judge "found Cameron  Hardy to be intelligent but an "anti-government ideologist" which really means a person suffering from delusions.

This judge demonstrated denial, he saw what he wanted to see , an "anti-government ideologist" rather than a mentally ill frequent flyer of the court room.

Now, we can see that Cameron Hardy represented himself and in Canada there are NO Public Defenders.

There are also no  safeguards to ensure that accused persons are properly represented.

A public defender might have been able to talk some sense into Cameron Hardy, but this article fails to tell us anything that is related to the key part of this story, that he was an unrepresented litigant in a criminal matter.

Everyone should read the 1963 case of Gideo v. Wainwright that brought about the USA public defender system and the right to legal representation, that does not exist in Canada.

Ottawa Mens Centre