The Brothers Clifford: Darren Murray Clifford's saga begins

[Jeffrey]

p.s. I just noticed that the DC Youtube channel has confirmed the number of charges and that he is facing drug charges confirming the Facebook rumors.

"You are a moron GoldenThroat86. Like to see what will happen with you if you had 26 trumped up gun and drug charges. you would rot in jail for 20+ years."

The 20+ years comment makes me think Dean and his web admin have been given that as an estimate for the how long Dean could be in jail for and it seems accurate given the penalties for marijuana production is max 7 years, the guns I believe are 5 years (no idea if that's per gun), and assaulting that cop which is 5 years.

[rumpelstilzchen]

p.s. I just noticed that the DC Youtube channel has confirmed the number of charges and that he is facing drug charges confirming the Facebook rumors.

"You are a moron GoldenThroat86. Like to see what will happen with you if you had 26 trumped up gun and drug charges. you would rot in jail for 20+ years."

What am I doing wrong? I am looking at Clifford's Youtube page and I can't see any of this

[Jeffrey]

My bad I forgot to link the comments.

https://www.youtube.com/all_comments?v=IB85AjebnnY

It's the Dean Clifford account's response to "goldenthroat86"

[rumpelstilzchen]

Ah thanks.

[Fmotlgroupie]

I hate to be the voice of restraint, but unfortunately Dean really isn't facing anywhere near that much time in jail. In Canada sentences are a long way from the maximum sentence because of built-up case law (common law keeping Freemen (and everybody else) out of jail! A miracle!). Producing marihuana illegally may have a maximum sentence of 5 years, but until recently only one in six people got any jail time at all (off topic link omitted). A minimum sentence of 6 months in jail for 6-200 plants, and one year for more plants, was recently introduced, but those would almost certainly be served concurrently to any other sentences. Unless the guns are prohibited (machine guns, small pistols, or sawed-off shotguns, say) firearms charges don't usually attract a jail sentence. And finally, assaulting a police officer more often than not doesn't yield jail time. All in all Dean will spend a few more months in jail, plead out to a sentence of time served (which would have been counted as double time until recently, if our American readers will believe it)

(Edit for outcome:)

And after all that Dean will ignore the guilty pleas and convictions, say he beat the system after 6 months on remand and avoided 20 years in jail. Victory!

[Hilfskreuzer Möwe]

It’s an interesting question what Dean may be facing.

I think you may have been looking at some older sentencing sources, Jeffrey. The marijuana production provisions have been amended in the not too distant past and make for a less attractive situation.

I also have to differ a little with Fmotlgroupie's assessment, though I too think the most plausible sentence is on the low end of the spectrum.

Let’s presume the grow-op rumour is true. It appears that growing marijuana for the purposes of trafficking, Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, s. 7(b), now only proceeds by indictment, which means Dean is going to ultimately have his trial heard the Manitoba Court of Queen’s Bench. The maximum penalty for any grow-op is a 14 year sentence, and there is a mandatory minimum sentence for any conviction under this provision. So, that means Dean is facing:

• 6-200 plants – six months to 14 years
  
  201-500 plants – 1-14 years
  
  500+ plants – 2-14 years

Let’s presume this is a small grow-op, so the six months to 14 year range is in play. I agree with Fmotlgroupie that a sentence on the low end of the spectrum is probable.

A related issue is whether on multiple convictions Dean would likely be facing sentences served one after the other (consecutive) or ‘at the same time’ (concurrent). There is a lot of variation, province to province, on how you decide to do that. I had a peek at some Manitoba Court of Appeal cases, and it appears that they apply a number of general rules:

• 1. offences that emerge from different crime scenarios, for example two different robberies, get consecutive sentences.
  
  2. offences that are simply different usually get consecutive sentences – ie fraud vs. sexual assault
  
  3. sometimes multiple offences are grouped together and served concurrently if they are a ‘crime spree’.

I must respectfully disagree with Fmotlgroupie that the firearms and grow op sentences would be served concurrently. They relate to fundamentally different forms of misconduct ('gravamens' as the appellate courts seem to like to call them), and would usually result in separate consecutive sentences. They are also not logically interrelated, nor is there a 'cause and effect' element. It's not like sentences for armed robbery and dangerous possession of a firearm where the two offences have a link, even though their gravamens do not necessarily overlap.

From what I can guess Dean's firearms and drug offences are separate kinds of things - two different illegal scenarios linked only by location.

It’s not easy to tell what the exact firearms offences would be, but here are some plausible ones:

• Criminal Code, s. 86(2) - improperly stored firearms – up to 2 years for first offence, up to 5 years on subsequent offence
  
  Criminal Code, s. 88 - possession of a firearm for a dangerous purpose – up to 10 years
  
  Criminal Code, s. 91 – unauthorized possession of a firearm – up to 5 years
  
  Criminal Code, s. 92 – knowing unlawful possession of a firearm – up to 10 years, 1 year minimum if this is a repeat offence
  
  Criminal Code, s. 95 – possession of a prohibited or restricted firearm and ammunition – 3-10 years

Though it is unclear exactly what Dean has been up to I wonder if he has been arrested and released with an order to keep the peace and to not possess firearms. If I am right, then the s. 92 offence is possible. A s. 88 charge is also plausible, the Crown could argue the guns are there to deter a snatch theft of the grow-op.

In many cases a Crown Prosecutor will make multiple charges that flow from the same general scenario, so it would be entirely plausible that Dean was charged under ss. 86(2), 88, 91, and 92 all for the same set of firearms. There may be different additional charges if there are multiple firearms that fall into different categories.

All that said, the sentencing judge would likely group all the ‘weapons offences’ into a single set of sentences that are served concurrently. Dean would then face the worst offence, the others would be subsumed. The number and kind of firearms will nudge the sentence up or down. I think the most powerful argument for a higher sentence would be the association of firearms violence with grow ops and the implicit illegal purpose of those firearms to provide a defence from 'rip off' attacks. That said, a plausible sentence is not going to be too long - I agree on that with Fmotlgroupie.

The other plausible charges are:

• Criminal Code, s. 145 - breach of court order, release condition, or failure to appear – up to two years
  
  Criminal Code, s. 270 – assault of a peace officer – up to 5 years.

There could be a ton of s. 145 offences, and some might be subsumed in the drugs and weapons charges – we just don’t know enough.

All told, it is entirely plausible Dean is facing a maximum sentence of over 20 years. However, I agree with Fmotlgroupie that realistically that a sentence of that duration is very unlikely. Let’s say Dean is convicted on the low-end grow op, multiple s. 92 firearm offences, one separate failure to appear charge, and a mild assault on a peace officer. I’d guess we are looking at a 2 to 5 year sentence. It could be lower. Any time ordered would have to be in custody because Dean cannot get community release, at least one of his convictions has a minimum sentence (s. 742.1(b)).

The really interesting question is where Dean would fall on that scale, and that would be ‘nudged’ by mitigating or aggravating factors. The Criminal Code has a set of basic sentencing considerations, at s. 718:

718. The fundamental purpose of sentencing is to contribute, along with crime prevention initiatives, to respect for the law and the maintenance of a just, peaceful and safe society by imposing just sanctions that have one or more of the following objectives:

• (a) to denounce unlawful conduct;
  
  (b) to deter the offender and other persons from committing offences;
  
  (c) to separate offenders from society, where necessary;
  
  (d) to assist in rehabilitating offenders;
  
  (e) to provide reparations for harm done to victims or to the community; and
  
  (f) to promote a sense of responsibility in offenders, and acknowledgment of the harm done to victims and to the community.

This is where things look nasty. As you can see, these factors don’t look very good for Dean. Dean has a prior history of misconduct. He is probably going to maintain his Freeman litigation strategy and say he’s done nothing wrong – so no acknowledgment of wrongdoing and responsibility, a strong aggravating factor. No guilty plea - he loses a strong mitigating factor. He will not be a good candidate for rehabilitation on the same basis. He apparently has minimal family support, and his social circle ... well, they're not going to make much of a positive impression, I suspect. Particularly if they are in court and 'share their perspectives'.

But 718(b) is where the Crown Prosecutor could really go after Dean. Dean is a leader who engages in criminal misconduct, and, further, advocates it. He encourages ‘resistance’ even while in pre-trial detention. He espouses criminal and anti-social ideology. Thus, the court needs to not only send a message to Dean (specific deterrence) but his community as a whole (general deterrence).

Given that, and the rhetoric I think that can be anticipated, Dean may be facing a sentence at the higher end of my proposed spectrum.

A lot of it will depend on the context in which Dean casts himself, and the associated information presented by the Crown. Does Dean have a criminal history from his Skinhead days? Bad news! Dean's videos and interviews present a troubling person. Another factor will be the perception in Manitoba courts of OPCA litigants. I have not seen a lot of reported case law from there, so I do not have a strong impression, one way or another, on whether Dean is facing a local court that is particularly sensitive to the OPCA phenomenon.

But all that subsumes into another, mystery factor - how the trial and sentencing judge will react. The sentencing procedure is sufficiently flexible that if that judge wants to see Dean spend much time in detention? He/she will find the way. And I have to say, Dean's persona / approach may very well be his worst enemy. I can see a few weeks exposure to Dean leading a judge to want to make a point - and it won't likely be in Dean's favour.

Consider my observations with the same caution as anything said by those who gaze in crystal balls.

SMS Möwe

[notorial dissent]

I'm curious, is there a section about being incorrigibly and incomprehensibly stupid, as both brothers would seem to qualify for that modifier.

[Hilfskreuzer Möwe]

A new Dean and Darren show video has been posted: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xqH4AIQ8Kt0

There's a lot of "yeah, they're stupid" "yeah you're right, they're stupid", Dean wonders where his paperwork is, and so on.

A few highlights:

- Dean wants a copy of the Federal Court Act so he can file a no-contact order with the Crown! That will make Canada go away.

- Dean's habeas corpus filing was in Provincial Court, and that's ... well, going to cause the Court/Crown trouble because the Court thought that was an application in Manitoba Queen's Bench (which is where it actually would belong ... but let's not get picky) and sent Dean back correspondence with the appropriate Queen's Bench forms.

- Dean has a bunch of foisted unilateral agreement documents that now are taking effect as the 30 day period "you must respond by" deadlines have expired. Ergo, Dean has already achieved his release, dismissed his charges, overruled the warrant for his arrest, and many other exciting things. That's because of the maxim of law quoted at the top of those documents: "An unrebutted affidavit becomes a judgment in commerce." And Queen Elizabeth will be taking care of all that.

The next hearing is set for the end of January.

A ton of obscenities, snarkiness, and giggling. I have a difficult time assessing whether Dean is simply playing to his audience, or actually believes what he says. But I think I'm going with the former. Tis strange.

SMS Möwe

[Burnaby49]

I think you are taking Dean's legal expertise far too lightly. He was talking up a blizzard of writs, motions, orders, what have you. He's going to bury the Crown and court in legalese. Issuing a restraining order on the Crown and the court? Sheer brilliance! Sending HRH a no-contact order prohibiting her from contacting him again, an order that under our system extends to the federal and provincial governments and all the courts, departments, agencies and employees therein? Check and Mate! You didn't even mention the letter he sent to the UN. Bet that has the Crown running scared!

However I do have to admit I think Dean is putting way too much weight on the Crown's response to his filing a habeas corpus in the wrong court. And I think that if he is going to argue that a trustee is the highest power in Canada and therefore overrules a judge he'd better have some jurisprudence to back it up. Judges don't give up their illicit privileges easily.

Sounds like Darren's got a big dog.

[Jeffrey]

If the audio is credible then it's about 9 days late.

This situation has reached new levels of crazy,

[notorial dissent]

Oh! Do share???

[Jeffrey]

I was referring to the latest Youtube update which Mowe got to respond to first.

It's just a new level of crazy.

[Burnaby49]

Dean's already removed his video from Youtube. Saner second thoughts on the wisdom of crapping on judges and the courts before his hearing? Naaah . . . . . .

[Hilfskreuzer Möwe]

I’ve come across something interesting – a video that purports to display the transcript of Clifford’s appearances in Manitoba Provincial Court from Nov. 26 to Dec. 3, 2013 (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aq-P8t6dzVA). The format is kind of annoying – the video has a mechanical voice reading out text and scrolls along quite slowly. I wish the uploader had simply posted a PDF, but one accepts the material available.

I have reviewed the transcript and done a little poking to see if the names appear legitimate – they do. The content also appears very plausible, so I think we have the real thing.

I won’t quote from the material (because I am lazy) but simply offer some day by day summaries.

Nov. 26, initial bail hearing before a Justice of the Peace

• - the Crown seeks that Clifford is denied bail on all three bases
  
  - Clifford does not want bail anyway
  
  - The reasons to deny bail include that Clifford has a history and convictions for not appearing in court, access to firearms, and outstanding breach of recognizance charges
  
  - Clifford’s current charges, located in the Regional Municipality of Saint Andrews, are:
  • - weapons offences – “serious ones”
    - “production offence” – it looks like the grow-op charge is therefore confirmed
    - assault on a police officer
    - obstruction of a police officer
  - the Saint Andrews region is rural, north of Winnipeg

Nov. 27, second bail hearing before a Justice of the Peace

• - Clifford refuses to seek bail, refusing to contract with the court

Nov. 28, third bail hearing before a Justice of the Peace

• - a lawyer who represents Clifford’s co-accused, Darren Boissonneault, is present. Boissonneault is already out on judicial interim release (bail). His lawyer is mainly concerned with whether the two co-accused should be tried together or separately, since Boisonneault is not adopting Freeman tactics
  
  - Clifford, who is appearing by teleconference, indicates he refuses to consent to be the legal fiction in court, refuses to plead guilty, claims to personally convened a lawful court of Queen Elizabeth II
  
  - Everyone ignores him
  
  - In light of the situation the Justice of the Peace concludes case management before a provincial court judge is appropriate

Nov. 29, first case management scheduling hearing before a Provincial Court Judge

• - Clifford appears by teleconference
  
  - A duty counsel indicates Clifford has refused his assistance
  
  - Clifford announces he has no standing in the proceeding because he has returned all his government documents to the vital statistics branch, and thus has destroyed his strawman. He then refuses to participate further
  
  - No case management hearing date is scheduled because the lawyers are trying to coordinate their schedules

Dec. 2, second case management scheduling hearing before a Provincial Court Judge

• - the Crown preemptively introduces Clifford as a Freeman-on-the-Land
  
  - while a case management hearing was scheduled for Jan. 31, 2014 scheduling glitches have occurred, so the lawyers will have to return the next day for the judge to order the next appearance
  
  - Clifford says he is not participating, he refuses to answer for the accused. He indicates his being forced to appear in court means the court/state have accepted his “terms and conditions”

Dec. 3, third case management scheduling hearing before a Provincial Court Judge

• - the Crown preemptively introduces Clifford as a Freeman-on-the-Land
  
  - all lawyers agree to a Dec. 19 case management hearing, that is scheduled
  
  - Clifford basically does not participate other than to ask if anyone has found charges against him yet? Answer - yes

Obviously Clifford does say a lot more than that, however the court and lawyers politely ignore him. I see a good deal of institutional experience with OPCA litigants implied by the manner in which these hearings unfold.

As for tactics, Clifford offers nothing new. This is all standard Freeman-on-the-Land motifs and arguments. Utterly ineffectual.

The transcript video was uploaded by someone who calls themself “History Is Now”, and who clearly is a critic of the Freeman community. Beyond that I don’t really have a handle on who or what this entity is.

SMS Möwe

[Hilfskreuzer Möwe]

Dean's already removed his video from Youtube. Saner second thoughts on the wisdom of crapping on judges and the courts before his hearing? Naaah . . . . . .

How interesting.

I am having a difficult time understanding just what Clifford and Co. think they are doing. Is this all a PR exercise? Do they really believe their schemes will take effect? All quite peculiar.

SMS Möwe

[Jeffrey]

Someone should download the videos before they get taken down. I assumed he might start deleting them for a number of reasons. In one if the calls in particular he states the guns are not only in working condition but he used them possibly regularly.

I'm willing to bet 50% of the views those videos are getting are skeptical observers like ourselves and people involved in the prosecution.

And that transcript seems legit. I told you the charges were serious.

[Hilfskreuzer Möwe]

Well, we're not the only ones who have noticed Dean's disappearing videos.

However, it seems different contexts (or assumptions?) lead to different conclusions (http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid= ... 6026184246). Shane Muir's conclusion? The Clifford sites have been hacked!

Naturally Dean's faithful sidekick Norah tells him to shut up.

SMS Möwe

[Hilfskreuzer Möwe]

A few notes.

A further comment to the message thread posted in the previous message indicates the 'official' reason why Dean's telephone recording from jail was deleted:

... these links were meant to be removed as requested by the family.

"The family" is later identified as Darren Clifford.

When I wrack my memory trying to think of why Darren might want that recording suppressed the only thing is a half-recollection that Darren said he too had a future court date. Take that with a kilo or two of salt - my memory is vague at best. Other than that I recall nothing damning in the conversation.

A new update has been posted as Dean Clifford central (http://deanclifford.info/2014/01/21/human-original/). Perhaps it's better described as a non-update. Once one goes past the rhetoric you are left with this:

DEAN’S NEXT SCHEDULED COURT HEARING IS ON JANUARY 28, 2014 AT 1:00 PM IN COURT ROOM 405 AT THE WINNIPEG COURT HOUSE ( Law Legal Courts Building, 408 York Avenue in Winnipeg)

This most likely will be a closed hearing considering this is a kangaroo court of the Manitoba Corporate Provence and is statutory summary judgement in nature where no real law is conducted.

These are star chamber hearings in which are conducted in secret and is evident they are breaking even their own corporate rules and obviously they are not able to see or even acknowledge ones rights.

For those who want to show their support and live local, feel free to show up on the day just to let them know we are aware and we are watching.

Yeah yeah Dean wins yeah go Dean Dean ... yah ... snore ...

Shall we see a transcript via direct channels? My guess - no.

SMS Möwe

[notorial dissent]

For some reason, and I have no real idea why, I thought the Jan 28 hearing was either another arraignment or a further advisement. I didn't think they were anywhere near close to actual court time on him yet.

[Hilfskreuzer Möwe]

So Dean's next hearing was supposedly yesterday. I have seen no comment from within Clifford's camp on the matter, nor from any of the other Freeman community, including his Freeman critics.

Has anyone else spotted anything?

It's rather striking if more community members are paying attention to the trials and tribulations of Alexander Ream, Freeman on the Run, than the archetype of Muscular Freemanism himself.

Oh wait, I found something (http://winnipegalternativemedia.com/201 ... -prisoner/). Todd McDoughell, Winnipeg Alternative Media, "Prairie Truth!" in his video (http://www.youtube.com/watch?list=UUHUn ... r5Z3z74AFk) reports that the courtroom was again closed to the public. Otherwise the rhetoric remains unchanged.

By the way, nice basement suite Todd!

SMS Möwe