Dean Clifford - A Tale of Two Gurus

[Jeffrey]

Hey Everyone! Guess who is going to be a Defendant in Federal Court? Slander and Defamation of Character/Character assassination are really bad. I want some practice in Federal Court anyways. Let's see how much they like the laws they chose to live by. 60 days in the Rules of Procedure for out of country, like Puerto Rico, where I will have to serve Doazic

So what kind of lawyer do you need for an international slander and defamation lawsuit?

[wserra]

Hey Everyone! Guess who is going to be a Defendant in Federal Court?

OK, I will: nobody.

[ArthurWankspittle]

Hey Everyone! Guess who is going to be a Defendant in Federal Court? Slander and Defamation of Character/Character assassination are really bad. I want some practice in Federal Court anyways. Let's see how much they like the laws they chose to live by. 60 days in the Rules of Procedure for out of country, like Puerto Rico, where I will have to serve Doazic

He does live in his own little world doesn't he? Ignoring whether the defamation has occurred or not, Dean has to justify using Canadian law when he doesn't consent to it and doesn't live in Canada. Then he has to get round the defendants not consenting to Canadian law. He has to get round his mis-reading of the Rules of Procedure, because there is no way that a Canadian court can enforce something in Costa Rica. And finally, having skipped lots of other issues no doubt, he will have to put his jail address as the return address, because that's where he'll be in 60 days time.

[wserra]

Like I said: nobody.

[NG3]

And finally, having skipped lots of other issues no doubt, he will have to put his jail address as the return address, because that's where he'll be in 60 days time.

Not Deano, he's always preached "Live Free or Die", mind you this is reality, not Dean's head, so he'll probably shuffle off to the big house, and continue waffling from there.

A good spell in prison will give him plenty of time for lame posturing, hollow threats and fantasy court actions,

[Arthur Rubin]

i am big into the tiny house movement and the mobile living community. if dean thinks its easy, he is a bigger dimwit than currently noted.

I didn't think that was possible.

[Wake Up! Productions]

Based on the evidence at hand, I have come to the conclusion that ALL of this mess is due to the Cari-lee audio: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nLdbffVaCPw Dean gave the "green light" to his webmaster (Stephen) to take down the only two channels that had uploaded the Cari-lee audio, both mine and Doazic's.

As previously stated by others here, Dean doesn't want that audio out there, as it is a perfect depiction of what might happen in the future for anyone who is foolish enough to donate their time and money, and attempt to move on to the "farm".

That being said, I intend to BLAST OUT this audio recording, using any and all resources at my disposal !!! As the title of one of Dean's prison phone calls read, "I AM NOT BACKING DOWN" !!!

[Burnaby49]

I see one small technical problem with Dean suing Doziac for slander and defamation at the Federal Court of Canada, just a trivial legal thing that Dean should give a little thought to. The Federal Court does not have the jurisdiction to hear it. Slander is a common law offense. The Federal Court of Canada only hears cases related to federal statutory law.

From Wikipedia;

Federal Court of Canada[edit]In 1971, the Federal Court of Canada was established, inheriting much of the jurisdiction of the Exchequer Court. The Federal Court of Canada gained the jurisdiction to hear judicial reviews from federal agencies and tribunals. The Federal Court of Canada had two divisions, the Federal Court – Trial Division and Federal Court – Appeal Division.

On July 2, 2003 the court was again restructured. The Court was split into two separate Courts, with the Trial Division continued as the Federal Court and the Appeal Division continued as the Federal Court of Appeal.

Until 1976, there was substantial judicial support[10][11] for the view that Parliament could give a federal court jurisdiction over any matter (even a matter not regulated by federal statute law), on the basis that "the Laws of Canada" meant not only federal statutes, but provincial ones as well. However, in Quebec North Shore Paper Co. v. Canadian Pacific,[12] the Supreme Court of Canada rejected this notion, as:

provincial law is not pro tanto federal law, nor can it be transposed into federal law for the purposes of giving jurisdiction to the Federal Court

judicial jurisdiction of the Federal Court is not co-extensive with legislative jurisdiction of Parliament, as "the Laws of Canada" carries the requirement that there be applicable and existing federal law

. . . . . . . . .

The Trial Division had jurisdiction to hear judicial review of decisions of federal boards and tribunals, including most immigration matters, as well as jurisdiction in admiralty, intellectual property, and disputes involving the federal government.

The Appeal Division had jurisdiction to hear appeals of decisions of the Trial Division, as well as to determine applications for judicial review of decisions made by specific boards and tribunals, set out in section 28 of the Federal Court Act. Decisions of the Appeal Division could be appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada, but only if leave (permission) was granted by either court.

So Dean, you'll have to use the provincial courts. You know, like the ones that are going to throw your ass in jail in November.

[Wake Up! Productions]

I see one small technical problem with Dean suing Doziac for slander and defamation at the Federal Court of Canada, just a trivial legal thing that Dean should give a little thought to. The Federal Court does not have the jurisdiction to hear it. Slander is a common law offense. The Federal Court of Canada only hears cases related to federal statutory law.

From Wikipedia;

Federal Court of Canada[edit]In 1971, the Federal Court of Canada was established, inheriting much of the jurisdiction of the Exchequer Court. The Federal Court of Canada gained the jurisdiction to hear judicial reviews from federal agencies and tribunals. The Federal Court of Canada had two divisions, the Federal Court – Trial Division and Federal Court – Appeal Division.

On July 2, 2003 the court was again restructured. The Court was split into two separate Courts, with the Trial Division continued as the Federal Court and the Appeal Division continued as the Federal Court of Appeal.

Until 1976, there was substantial judicial support[10][11] for the view that Parliament could give a federal court jurisdiction over any matter (even a matter not regulated by federal statute law), on the basis that "the Laws of Canada" meant not only federal statutes, but provincial ones as well. However, in Quebec North Shore Paper Co. v. Canadian Pacific,[12] the Supreme Court of Canada rejected this notion, as:

provincial law is not pro tanto federal law, nor can it be transposed into federal law for the purposes of giving jurisdiction to the Federal Court

judicial jurisdiction of the Federal Court is not co-extensive with legislative jurisdiction of Parliament, as "the Laws of Canada" carries the requirement that there be applicable and existing federal law

. . . . . . . . .

The Trial Division had jurisdiction to hear judicial review of decisions of federal boards and tribunals, including most immigration matters, as well as jurisdiction in admiralty, intellectual property, and disputes involving the federal government.

The Appeal Division had jurisdiction to hear appeals of decisions of the Trial Division, as well as to determine applications for judicial review of decisions made by specific boards and tribunals, set out in section 28 of the Federal Court Act. Decisions of the Appeal Division could be appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada, but only if leave (permission) was granted by either court.

So Dean, you'll have to use the provincial courts. You know, like the ones that are going to throw your ass in jail in November.

That is something that I knew in my head to be completely WRONG, but I brushed it aside, as I had more important issues at hand - but yes, you are correct. Should Dean wish to sue me or Doazic, he would need to do so in PROVINCIAL CIVIL COURT !!!

[Jeffrey]

Further down in the Facebook post he says he'll be charging them with Perjury and says it's an indictable offense.

So maybe it will be federal after all?

[Wake Up! Productions]

Further down in the Facebook post he says he'll be charging them with Perjury and says it's an indictable offense.

So maybe it will be federal after all?

Misleading Justice
Perjury

131. (1) Subject to subsection (3), every one commits perjury who, with intent to mislead, makes before a person who is authorized by law to permit it to be made before him a false statement under oath or solemn affirmation, by affidavit, solemn declaration or deposition or orally, knowing that the statement is false.

[Burnaby49]

Further down in the Facebook post he says he'll be charging them with Perjury and says it's an indictable offense.

So maybe it will be federal after all?

Well no, the Criminal Code of Canada is Federal legislation but it fall under the jurisdiction of the provincial courts to administer. As does income tax evasion which is a criminal offense under federal legislation. This is why I've been spending so much time in the British Columbia provincial courts watching tax evasion trials for Porisky, Lawson, Stanchfield, Millar, Doerksen et al.

In any case perjury is lying under oath or solemn affirmation about a matter relevant to an official legal proceeding. As Wikipedia says in its general article about perjury;

Perjury, also known as forswearing, is the intentional act of swearing a false oath or of falsifying an affirmation to tell the truth, whether spoken or in writing, concerning matters material to an official proceeding.[1][A] Contrary to popular misconception, no crime has occurred when a false statement is (intentionally or unintentionally) made while under oath or subject to penalty—instead, criminal culpability only attaches at the instant the declarant falsely asserts the truth of statements (made or to be made) which are material to the outcome of the proceeding. For example, it is not perjury to lie about one's age except where age is a fact material to influencing the legal result, such as eligibility for old age retirement benefits or whether a person was of an age to have legal capacity.

So Dean, please show us where Doziac has intentionally sworn a false oath or falsified an affirmation to tell the truth, whether spoken or in writing, concerning matters material to an official proceeding. And, sorry, no matter how important you think you are in the scheme of things your Face Book page does not qualify as an official proceeding and statements made there, whether true or false, do not constitute oaths under the laws of Canada.

Wikipedia also says, in respect to perjury under the Criminal Code of Canada;

The offence of perjury is created by section 132 of the Criminal Code. It is defined by section 131, which provides:

(1) Subject to subsection (3), every one commits perjury who, with intent to mislead, makes before a person who is authorized by law to permit it to be made before him a false statement under oath or solemn affirmation, by affidavit, solemn declaration or deposition or orally, knowing that the statement is false.

(1.1) Subject to subsection (3), every person who gives evidence under subsection 46(2) of the Canada Evidence Act, or gives evidence or a statement pursuant to an order made under section 22.2 of the Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Act, commits perjury who, with intent to mislead, makes a false statement knowing that it is false, whether or not the false statement was made under oath or solemn affirmation in accordance with subsection (1), so long as the false statement was made in accordance with any formalities required by the law of the place outside Canada in which the person is virtually present or heard.
(2) Subsection (1) applies, whether or not a statement referred to in that subsection is made in a judicial proceeding.
(3) Subsections (1) and (1.1) do not apply to a statement referred to in either of those subsections that is made by a person who is not specially permitted, authorized or required by law to make that statement.[4]
This section was amended by section 17 of R.S., 1985, c. 27 (1st Supp.) and by section 92 of the Act 1999 c. 18.

As to corroboration, see section 133.

Mode of trial and sentence

Every one who commits perjury is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years.[5]

Since perjury is a criminal offense a perjury charge can only to be laid by the Crown, not by a private citizen (Sorry Dean you are a citizen of Canada regardless of how much you, and Canada, wished it otherwise). Somehow I missed the part of this discussion where Dean was appointed a Crown Prosecutor.

[Wake Up! Productions]

Since perjury is a criminal offense a perjury charge can only to be laid by the Crown, not by a private citizen (Sorry Dean you are a citizen of Canada regardless of how much you, and Canada, wished it otherwise). Somehow I missed the part of this discussion where Dean was appointed a Crown Prosecutor.

Done, done, done ... thank you !!!

[Burnaby49]

I suppose I shouldn't be to hard on Dean for screwing up the Federal Court's juridsiction. Our other great Freeman legal scholar, Robert Menard, had exactly the same problem as I said in a post on January 23rd in his discussion;

So Rob, why are you doing this and why now? Is it a desperate attempt to do an end run around the criminal charges you are facing as a result of that little fracas in Toronto? The charges in Toronto Police file number 2014-2947747?

It turns out that Rob has not been entirely forthcoming on what actually happened in Toronto at the police stop, portions of which he shared with us in this video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wb13avvbfAs

The narrative I have on what happened is that;

-Menard was stopped in a traffic stop and called 911.
-He showed off his C3P0 badge to the police and claimed to be a peace officer. This resulted in his arrest. Menard actually produced proper identification on arrest, signed his release documents in a conventional manner. He is currently on bail.
-The video and stop evidence was sufficient that the Crown decided to lay a personating a police officer charge (Criminal Code, s 130). That’s a hybrid offence so it could be prosecuted on indictment (5 years) or as a summary conviction offence (6 months).

Well sorry Rob but this won't help you. I'm guessing that the Federal Court of Canada will treat this like the nonsense it is and strike it because;

a) Menard lacks standing in the court because It is a reference question without a basis for Menard to be particularly prejudiced.

b) The Federal Court does not have the jurisdiction to address it. There is no alleged wrongdoing by a federal body, or the federal government. This is not a judicial review of a Federal tribunal. As I understand it the Federal Court can only pass judgment on a federal law if the law breaches the provisions of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms or the law is outside the juridiction of the federal government of Canada. Menard is not arguing that either of these occured.

And we should really cut Dean some slack on the basis that he's an idiot.

[Wake Up! Productions]

I suppose I shouldn't be to hard on Dean for screwing up the Federal Court's juridsiction. Our other great Freeman legal scholar, Robert Menard, had exactly the same problem as I said in a post on January 23rd in his discussion;

So Rob, why are you doing this and why now? Is it a desperate attempt to do an end run around the criminal charges you are facing as a result of that little fracas in Toronto? The charges in Toronto Police file number 2014-2947747?

It turns out that Rob has not been entirely forthcoming on what actually happened in Toronto at the police stop, portions of which he shared with us in this video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wb13avvbfAs

The narrative I have on what happened is that;

-Menard was stopped in a traffic stop and called 911.
-He showed off his C3P0 badge to the police and claimed to be a peace officer. This resulted in his arrest. Menard actually produced proper identification on arrest, signed his release documents in a conventional manner. He is currently on bail.
-The video and stop evidence was sufficient that the Crown decided to lay a personating a police officer charge (Criminal Code, s 130). That’s a hybrid offence so it could be prosecuted on indictment (5 years) or as a summary conviction offence (6 months).

Well sorry Rob but this won't help you. I'm guessing that the Federal Court of Canada will treat this like the nonsense it is and strike it because;

a) Menard lacks standing in the court because It is a reference question without a basis for Menard to be particularly prejudiced.

b) The Federal Court does not have the jurisdiction to address it. There is no alleged wrongdoing by a federal body, or the federal government. This is not a judicial review of a Federal tribunal. As I understand it the Federal Court can only pass judgment on a federal law if the law breaches the provisions of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms or the law is outside the juridiction of the federal government of Canada. Menard is not arguing that either of these occured.

And we should really cut Dean some slack on the basis that he's an idiot.

I was just thinking that. The term "a person who is authorized by law" in the criminal code would have to mean that Dean Clifford is now CLAIMING to be a "Peace Officer" who is "a person who is authorized by law" !!! LMFAO.

[bmxninja357]

Say didn't dean call someone a fag? Does that not constitute hate speech in clear violation of laws and terms of service?

Peace
Ninj

[Burnaby49]

Since perjury is a criminal offense a perjury charge can only to be laid by the Crown, not by a private citizen (Sorry Dean you are a citizen of Canada regardless of how much you, and Canada, wished it otherwise). Somehow I missed the part of this discussion where Dean was appointed a Crown Prosecutor.

Done, done, done ... thank you !!!

I can't take much credit. Dean just makes this soooooo easy.

[Wake Up! Productions]

Say didn't dean call someone a fag? Does that not constitute hate speech in clear violation of laws and terms of service?

Peace
Ninj

I would need to see the an actual reference to that. Do you have a link? The point bein, In the U.K., a "fag" is merely a cigarette.

[Wake Up! Productions]

Say didn't dean call someone a fag? Does that not constitute hate speech in clear violation of laws and terms of service?

Peace
Ninj

I would need to see the an actual reference to that. Do you have a link? The point bein, In the U.K., a "fag" is merely a cigarette.

Pardon my typos - had a few beers on my day off !!!

[Jeffrey]

In the previous CCN video he calls one of the jail guards a fag. Any chance that or his Faceboook activity could be argued to be violating his release conditions?

And WUP check your PMs.