Dean Clifford: Sentencing & Beyond

[bmxninja357]

its already in the thread (or one of the recent dean threads). when you have a charge that has lots of associated charges the main charge often is the only one prosecuted. otherwise a single charge could become a hundred more charges.

when it comes to growing dope there is a threshold for the grow to be considered commercial. over 5 plants.

and dean claimed that he had given pot to med patients, which is trafficking. because they never bought from him directly does not exclude the surrounding evidence.

im pro pot but i buy it like almost everyone else, from a drug pusher. or dealer, or buddy. at law they are all the same.

peace

[bmxninja357]

@wup,

Supreme Court of Canada in Prince at p. 219 in Kenny:

In general, the particularization in one offence of an element of another offence should not be regarded as a distinguishing feature that renders Kienapple inapplicable. Parliament may create offences of varying degrees of generality, with the objective (vis-à-vis the more general offence) of ensuring that criminal conduct will not escape punishment because of a failure of the drafters to think of each individual circumstance in which the conduct might be committed, or with the objective (vis-à-vis the more specific offence) of addressing with certainty particular conduct in particular circumstances. In the absence of some indication of Parliamentary intent that there should be multiple convictions or added punishment in the event of an overlap, the particularization of an element ought not to be taken as a sufficient distinction to preclude the operation of the Kienapple principle.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kienapple v R, [1975] 1 S.C.R. 729 is a leading decision of the Supreme Court of Canada that established the rule against multiple convictions known as the Kienapple principle. Justice Laskin, for the Court, held that an accused cannot be convicted of two offences where they are both arise out of substantially the same facts.

John Edward Kienapple was charged with rape and unlawful sexual intercourse with a female under 14 years of age. At trial he was convicted on both charges. On appeal to the Supreme Court his conviction for unlawful sexual intercourse was overturned.

peace,
ninj

[Wake Up! Productions]

its an included offense.

ninj

According to the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, pot is a "Schedule II" substance. The exact Section Dean was charged and convicted of states:

Production of substance

7 (1) Except as authorized under the regulations, no person shall produce a substance included in Schedule I, II, III or IV.

Marginal note: Punishment

(2) Every person who contravenes subsection (1)

(b) if the subject matter of the offence is cannabis (marijuana), is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term of not more than 14 years, and to a minimum punishment of

[To be clear, the MINIMUM PUNISHMENT was in fact struck down, but still remains a guide for sentencing]

(vi) imprisonment for a term of three years if the number of plants produced is more than 500 and any of the factors set out in subsection (3) apply;

Factors

(3) The following factors must be taken into account in applying paragraphs (2)(a) to (b):

(a) the person used real property that belongs to a third party in committing the offence;

(b) the production constituted a potential security, health or safety hazard to persons under the age of 18 years who were in the location where the offence was committed or in the immediate area;

(c) the production constituted a potential public safety hazard in a residential area; or

(d) the person set or placed a trap, device or other thing that is likely to cause death or bodily harm to another person in the location where the offence was committed or in the immediate area, or permitted such a trap, device or other thing to remain or be placed in that location or area.

That "other thing" was LOADED GUNS.

Funny, there is no mention of "trafficking" ??? In fact, it has its own section:

Possession for purpose of trafficking

(2) No person shall, for the purpose of trafficking, possess a substance included in Schedule I, II, III or IV.

[bmxninja357]

they had the grower, no need to make a buy. same effect with no added undercover costs. and it also states in there somewhere the judge is not obliged to use a mandatory minimum for cannabis production. its judges discretion. plus he has admitted to trafficking in cannabis (convicted or not). its what growers do. unless you think he smokes it all himself.....

ninj

[Wake Up! Productions]

they had the grower, no need to make a buy. same effect with no added undercover costs. and it also states in there somewhere the judge is not obliged to use a mandatory minimum for cannabis production. its judges discretion. plus he has admitted to trafficking in cannabis (convicted or not). its what growers do. unless you think he smokes it all himself.....

ninj

I have already amended my post to account for the fact that the mandatory MINIMUM sentence was STRUCK DOWN.

plus he has admitted to trafficking in cannabis (convicted or not).

This is news to me !!! Please provide the SOURCE of this admission.

its what growers do. unless you think he smokes it all himself.....

This merely conjecture - "an opinion or supposition about (something) on the basis of incomplete information".

[bmxninja357]

im not going back through all his post arrest updates and bs. he said he was growing it for medical users or some such. its there. dig through it.

peace,
ninj

[Wake Up! Productions]

im not going back through all his post arrest updates and bs. he said he was growing it for medical users or some such. its there. dig through it.

peace,
ninj

Yes, I remember the "sick friend" excuse, but that does NOT imply "trafficking". If anything, it implies a GIFT !!!

[bmxninja357]

trafficking is trafficking. it does not matter what you call it. if you produced or possessed an illegal drug and passed it to a receiving party you are a drug trafficker. simple as that.

peace,
ninj

[Wake Up! Productions]

trafficking is trafficking. it does not matter what you call it. if you produced or possessed an illegal drug and passed it to a receiving party you are a drug trafficker. simple as that.

peace,
ninj

Ok, based on the definition, I will give you that:

traffic means, in respect of a substance included in any of Schedules I to IV,

(a) to sell, administer, give, transfer, transport, send or deliver the substance,

But the FACT remains, the Crown did NOT charge or convict Dean of "trafficking" - which is a totally separate offence in itself (not an inclusive one as you stated). Perhaps they could have, but they didn't.

But that still leaves your other potentially defamatory libelous statements that Dean is a "drug using" "doper".

Can you PROVE that Dean Clifford is a DRUG USER ??? If not, then you should edit your post.

I can PROVE that Robert Menard is a DRUG USER, but it would also implicate myself as "trafficker" for giving it to him !!!

[bmxninja357]

go back through his updates and all that crap. he says it. plus didnt at least one of his ex friends say something about it?

ninj

[Wake Up! Productions]

go back through his updates and all that crap. he says it. plus didnt at least one of his ex friends say something about it?

ninj

The point is ... if you are going to say things like that, it is YOUR responsibility to "go back through his updates and all that crap" to provide PROOF of your statements.

As I added above ... I can PROVE that Robert Menard is a DRUG USER, but it would also implicate myself as "trafficker" for giving it to him !!!

[Burnaby49]

go back through his updates and all that crap. he says it. plus didnt at least one of his ex friends say something about it?

ninj

The point is ... if you are going to say things like that, it is YOUR responsibility to "go back through his updates and all that crap" to provide PROOF of your statements.

As I added above ... I can PROVE that Robert Menard is a DRUG USER, but it would also implicate myself as "trafficker" for giving it to him !!!

Time to break it up. The topic has been beaten to death and nobody cares. I certainly don't and if Dean does he can speak up about it, he's not the shy type.

[bmxninja357]

well if dean would like to sue me for my vocal opinion of him he can feel free. i could use the money.....

in fact im surprised you would even remotely wonder if dean admitted using pot ever. you know, he might say it in the video where he is firing off the sks. cant remember, dont feel like bothering with it.

and its no extraordinary claim. its out there.

peace,
ninj

[Wake Up! Productions]

Time to break it up. The topic has been beaten to death and nobody cares. I certainly don't and if Dean does he can speak up about it, he's not the shy type.

No problem. I was merely attempting to give Ninja the benefit of my personal knowledge and experience of a Criminal Code charge. If he wants to go around making online statements that he can't prove, that is his problem.

CASE LAW: http://www.hrcr.org/safrica/expression/r_lucas.html

the appellants and a small group of others picketed outside the provincial court and the police headquarters where the officer worked. Mrs. L was carrying a sign prepared by her husband which read on one side: "Did [the officer] just allow or help with the rape/sodomy of an 8 year old?" and on the other side: "If you admit it [officer] then you might get help with your touching problem." She was arrested and charged with defamatory libel under ss. 300 and 301 of the Criminal Code. The following day, Mr. L again picketed in front of the provincial court and police headquarters. This time, he carried a sign with a similar statement. He was subsequently arrested and also charged under ss. 300 and 301. At trial, the appellants argued that their freedom of expression as guaranteed by s. 2(b) of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms had been infringed. The trial judge agreed but concluded that s. 300 was saved by s. 1 of the Charter. He found both of the appellants guilty of defamatory libel under s. 300 and held that they should have known that the statements on their placards were false. The Court of Appeal upheld the convictions.

[bmxninja357]

here is some dean videos i forgot about. so much rubbish. lol.

http://www.thehealthcure.org/rick-simps ... ion-of-it/

peace,
ninj

[Wake Up! Productions]

here is some dean videos i forgot about. so much rubbish. lol.

http://www.thehealthcure.org/rick-simps ... ion-of-it/

peace,
ninj

Holy sh*t - you managed to find the few Youtube videos that "Exploited" didn't DELETE on Dean's behalf !!! BRAVO !!!

[bmxninja357]

in the second video dean claims that at 37 he has never once smoked pot.

interesting.
ninj

[Wake Up! Productions]

in the second video dean claims that at 37 he has never once smoked pot.

interesting.
ninj

Not saying that he has or hasn't, but he just doesn't strike me as a "pot head". If he was, he would be more MELLOW, and not so ANGRY !!!

[bmxninja357]

we should ask one of the folks who bailed on deans con and let the cats out of the bag. we know he was drunk from kari's audio. so we should ask if he does drugs. got anyone you could fire a email to? i dont think we can take his word for it as he is known to lie. alot. a whole lot.

peace,
ninj

[Jeffrey]

You won't get a straight answer. I've heard Dean sold the pot, I've heard he didn't sell it and he smoked it all. I've heard the weed was terrible. Also that it wasn't actual weed but converted into marijuana oil for cancer patients.

Just leave it marked as unknown in your mind.