Dean Clifford - A Tale of Two Gurus

[Fussygus]

"Guilty of Fact" is essentially a position that says "Sure I kicked the dog" without saying "Sure I kicked the dog AND I acknowledge doing so was illegal". I believe I first came across this position from either Marc Steven's (Adventures in Legalland) or some George Gordon stuff.

What one is doing with "guilty of fact" is attempting to leave to essentially make a special plea which would leave the legal determination up to the court. The problem with this method is that it is not an available plea in our system. So it would automatically be considered a not guilty plea and proceed to trial. You can only plead guilty by admitting the facts and agreeing that they were against the law.

In the current judicial system the interpretation of whether anything is lawful or not is based on the facts, the law, AND precedent. The likes of Dean appear to forget the last item. The precedent is essentially the conscious record of the current state of society. Long ago fighting was an accepted social practice among adolescents, now it is considered bullying and can result in criminal charges. Likewise, calling someone a racial slur was never considered a chargeable offense before, now it is. The conscious of OUR society has changed and we see that in the records of the courts.

Dean and Co want to go back to the dark ages when nobody worked together, when there was no society and everyone just did their own thing. But that is not acceptable in THIS society, so he would have to move to another one if he still wants to "beat his wife".

Him not showing up to court is the right thing for him to do if he doesn't assent to the authority of the state (per sa). Showing up in essence acknowledges that the state has authority over him and that he is in fact the one charged. Making them drag him in is trying to claim he is there under duress against his will. This is a proper freeman position (not saying it is going to work) if you don't recognize the state. But it is bound to fail because the conscious society will not stand for freeloading on their boat reaping the benefits without undertaking the duties.

You can't beat your wife and you can't drive on the roads unless you have a license and valid insurance to not only protect yourself but also the rest of society from your driving on the roads.

Fuzzy

[notorial dissent]

Dean and Co want to go back to the dark ages when nobody worked together, when there was no society and everyone just did their own thing. But that is not acceptable in THIS society, so he would have to move to another one if he still wants to "beat his wife".

That is probably as close to a simple summation of, what at least I take to be, the Freeman position.

The problem, like all the rest of the Freeman fantasy, is that that world never ever existed, and Dean and company would soon find themselves quite dead from someone with a differing opinion and a bigger stick.

[Fussygus]

For sure Notorial, he want to go back to wild west, which in reality only existed in fiction. The People wanted law and order. They wanted to be secure from lawless bands roaming the west and killing them. Funny that even the lawless bands probably understood that killing the farmers wasn't necessarily good for them either (kinda hard to only eat meat). I guess this is also why Dean and Co seem to have an affinity for weapons.

He doesn't realize that he too is creating a society with rules even within his organization. That society just like ours NEEDS rules in order to function. Otherwise it too would be a wild west of poorly coordinated news and correspondence. He rules over that society and decides what gets released.

Stop maintaining the roads and see what even his society will say about getting around in this society.

Fuzzy

[arayder]

[Dean] doesn't realize that he too is creating a society with rules even within his organization. That society just like ours NEEDS rules in order to function.. . .

Fuzzy

I think Dean and other freeman/sov gurus have created not a society, but a dysfunctional, parasitic subculture in which the cult's leaders are allowed to misinform, even lie outright, to their flocks. In turn freemen wannabes are allowed to blame their slacker lives on the powers that be.

It's a race to the bottom, or should I say momma's basement.

I call freemanism a parasitic subculture because its cult members know that in the end there's always the benefits of the larger society to fall back upon. . .momma's basement, government housing & medical care, daddy's insurance, tolerant courts and countless other benefits they can draw from without contributing one lick of effort.

Freemen ride in the wagon the rest of us push.

[Bill Lumbergh]

One thing I've wondered ever since I started reading about OPCA is what is the end goal for these true believers? Besides, of course, separating from or abolishing "the system". I mean, let's pretend that everyone across the country jumps on board one of these guru's bandwagon. Everyone "opts out" of the system to form one glorious society of freemen.

Ok, now what?

I have yet to see any guru really delve into how they envision a functioning freeman society, other than the "do no harm" rule. But even that is vague. Who defines what "harm" is? How is the rule enforced? Who enforces it? What is the procedure if someone does harm me? Who comes up with the procedure? Who enforces the outcome? If I refuse to consent to be governed by anyone, how can any measure of justice be exacted over me? The questions are endless. Perhaps not surprisingly, there are few answers.

[arayder]

One thing I've wondered ever since I started reading about OPCA is what is the end goal for these true believers?

Avoiding all responsibility.

Besides, of course, separating from or abolishing "the system". . .

I suspect that down deep freeman gurus and their followers really don't have any expectations of changing the world. This crew can bearly change their socks.

IMHO, the "we're going to change the world" thing is nothing more than a self-deception intended to give the movement credibility.

As far as anyone can tell the only change freemanary has dealt out is jail time and poverty.

[davids]

It's interesting to read about all the multiple charges against Clifford, and how obfuscated his e-henchmen have made that information from his "followers." Whenever I tried to discuss the merits of freemanism or sovereign citizen ideas with a believer, they would almost always mention Dean Clifford as the shining example, because he had in their mythology at least, made himself "untouchable" by "the man." He really fostered this as a marketing / persuasion ploy too. His site once had a description of a meeting he had with a Canadian official where they shot the breeze about his ideas, very much like to public officials from different governments. Now here he is with multiple things piling up. I believe they are just trying to get him to ride out the storm of sentencing without fullly having his followers know they've been duped...so they can work them up into a froth upon his release, where he will no doubt, regale them with stories of his brilliance and how he maneuvered things from behind the bars. Just like he did last time...

[Hilfskreuzer Möwe]

One thing I've wondered ever since I started reading about OPCA is what is the end goal for these true believers? Besides, of course, separating from or abolishing "the system". ...

I don't think abolishing the system is necessarily the end goal. Rather, rhetoric aside, OPCA affiliates prefer an image of where they are free but they operate as a kind of parasitic subcommunity off the social norm. It's not easy to get them to admit that, but that seems an underlying presumption - there will always be someone there to leech off of. Just we don't want to pay anything.

That said, there are thought experiments on just what Freemanistan might look like - if you look at Menard's "Freeman Valley" or "Rob's Very Clever Plan" (it isn't) you can see fragmentary expressions of that. I understand Clifford has also explored that option. Similarly, Mario Antonacci/Andreas Pirelli of the Sovrun Nations/Tacit Supreme In Law Court expresses similar ideas, proposing econik hippy communes.

Practical? Mmm... maybe not. My observation has been that OPCA affiliates tend to be disagreeable, even with each other. The idea these people could self-organize is, to be honest, silly.

SMS Möwe

[notorial dissent]

One thing I've wondered ever since I started reading about OPCA is what is the end goal for these true believers? Besides, of course, separating from or abolishing "the system".

Ah, so you've noticed that deep dark secret.

Near as I can tell, NONE of the gurus or followers or whatever have thought, if what they are doing can even charitably be called thought that far ahead. Most/all of them are still trying to figure out how to get their version of magic papers to work, and to stay out of jail long enough to collect enough grift to get by on before their followers either wise up or get bored. So far I don't see any of them even managing that part of it. Parasite Belanger would seem to be the prime example of Freeman guru, and he is reduced to living hand to mouth off someone's couch these days. Doesn't speak too highly of their lifestyle efficy.

[notorial dissent]

I think Dean and other freeman/sov gurus have created not a society, but a dysfunctional, parasitic subculture in which the cult's leaders are allowed to misinform, even lie outright, to their flocks. In turn freemen wannabes are allowed to blame their slacker lives on the powers that be.

I think you have a pretty close summation of it, since it fails as a culture since it cannot be self perpetuating or grow as that is not built in to the matrix they are using. It is at best and in truth a parasitic barely functional subculture, living off the dominant culture all the while claiming they are independent and self sufficient, just another in a long set of lies and fantasies.

[Bill Lumbergh]

Does anyone know what happened to part 4 of Tony Boutros' tell-all series "Full Disclosure: The Dean Clifford Files"? It seems Youtube and the Global Fact site only have the first 3 parts.

[Fussygus]

I can say from experience that the feeling isn't anything about REPLACING the system that exists, so much as changing the system. Sure others may have opinions that want to abolish the system, I would think the far greater majority would rather the system be changed. Changed to ensure justice is IN FACT served.

When one gets to this state of mind they obviously feel there is something wrong with what is going on in our society. They feel powerless and betrayed by this societies system for bringing about justice. Those reasons can be numerous; tax assessment that garnishes ones wages for improperly claimed tax break while one observes fat cat politicians (perceived) living off those taxes; divorce proceedings that result in crippling sanctions and the loss of ones children; being wronged by a big corporations without any financial means to fight for what they feel is right and a government that has not interest in their need for justice; a perception that there is favouritism towards a specific group or culture, which doesn't include them even though they are struggling to get by. These are just some reasons for the discourse that one may feel in that one goes forth looking for a means to overcome those feelings. Now don't get me wrong greed is also a driving factor to these groups and individuals, but it isn't necessarily financial greed, it is greed for power. Power corrupts absolutely.

In the old days one worked on a farm and had a semblance of power to control their destiny. Today there are many in society that feel powerless in their situation, they feel no different than the slaves of yesteryear. Did the slaves want to change their situation? Of course! Do these individuals want to change their situation? Absolutely! They want dignity, they want to know they somehow matter.

Few people would steal from an employer; badmouth a friend; cheat on a loved one; not pay your share to a society; that they believed truly respected them for who they are. A child doesn't act out and rebel against the parents authority unless the perceived the rules of the house are unreasonable, that their needs are not being respected. (note I say perceived intentionally because it doesn't matter whether others consider such rules to be fare, only what the individual perceives). Likewise for a husband; a wife; an employee; a taxpayer; etc, in all cases there may be perceived wrongs which disrespects the conscious of the individual.

As much as this forum may mock and deride those individuals that would contradict their point of view, there is little concern for the dignity of the individual. This site in essence is a bully towards those who's views would contradict that of the majority of it's readers.

Now don't take this to mean I am against such bullying. Though it is considered taboo to bully anyone in society on the surface, bullying is necessary for the development of society....to an extent. Bullying can the source for someone to gain strength, just as consistently lifting more than you are capable of, or running beyond the point of pain. Teachers bully you, bosses bully you, family bullies you, and society bullies you.

These people feel the bully has pushed them around too much. they feel powerless to the bully and have finally said enough is enough. They are saying you cannot take away my dignity any more!

Are they wrong in feeling this way? Maybe they do have actually been beaten up by the courts or otherwise by those empowered to enforce the laws of the society. Who are we to tell them they shouldn't feel wronged by society. Does this mean we should let them off the hook? Essentially tell the teenager he can go out again tonight even though he came home late and drunk last night. Obviously condoning such behaviour is not necessarily something a parent should do if they truly respected their child. A parent is a parent before they are a friend. Likewise this society has a similar duty....it isn't in the best interests of the individual if the society isn't protected. So regardless of the specifics, the society must ground the individual if they engage in activities that THIS society BELIEVES are not in the best interests of the individual. The consciousness of the society.....which are found in the ever changing precedents of the court of common law. This society finds it's consciousness within the rulings.

Is it perfect? Absolutely not! Is there a better way? It would be hard to say you couldn't improve everything, like perfect T&A or art, it is totally an issue of perception and dependent on the perceiver.

Fuzzy

[Fussygus]

If one looks at the case of R v. Jastrebske it is easy to see how a feeling on injustice can brew to a boiling point. From the reading not only did she loose her entire retirement savings to a fraudster to which it appears Justice was unable to pursue those responsible for recovery; but then the CRA jumped on her and effectively bayoneted her wounded sole. Kicked her when she was down. How would that make anyone feel?

Not saying any of that was not proper, just saying that in such a case an underlying bitterness towards the powers that be would most certainly be understandable. She got robbed, the police did nothing to pursue the perpetrators (not necessarily so, but likely effectual by the record), and then the CRA officers come in and charge her tax, penalties and interest on the stuff that they stole. If she was a business and they stole her inventory she wouldn't have been charged tax on the product as if she actually sold it, she would have written off the loss (or if insured get reimbursed), but the business would not be charged a tax on the product stolen.

Now don't take this as being my support for letting her off the hook to the taxes, I'm just saying her bitterness towards the system is understandable in this case.

Likewise there was a widely reported case of an RV park owner in BC. The story goes that they had a very successful business and an audit was undertaken by CRA. They delivered their financial records to CRA so that they could complete the audit. Subsequently the CRA inadvertently shredded all their original records. The individuals then were reassessed based on what was left which was no expense receipts, because the CRA shredded their receipts. What followed was eventually loosing business, life savings. They tried to pursue justice to which they ultimately ran out of money and hope.

Likewise, without knowing the particulars, I can't necessarily say that what happened wasn't entirely just, but it certainly leave a feeling that society did not serve these people justice. That those empowered to lord over them failed in their duty. The feeling of powerlessness would be undeniable just as it would for a child who is violated by their guardian. They got screwed by those they trusted to protect them.

Fuzzy

[Fussygus]

Here is link to R.v. Jastrebske.
http://canlii.ca/t/fx72k

[tm169]

As much as this forum may mock and deride those individuals that would contradict their point of view, there is little concern for the dignity of the individual. This site in essence is a bully towards those who's views would contradict that of the majority of it's readers.

I see your point in part. I think it's important to distinguish between victims and perpetrators. I know many people who turn to freeman ideas are desperate, distressed and sometimes mentally unwell. I'm also aware that many have legitimate grievances with whatever it is they are using the methods against whether it be the government, bank etc.. I think it's best to look at this on a case by case basis.

I also think the gurus are, whether they believe their own woo or not, deserving of criticism, derision or whatever you want to call it.

The other important point is on many points it is not about a difference of opinion. They are demonstrably wrong. Even if you agree with some of the politics underpinning the theories, try way they are going about achieving that aim is undeniably wrong whatever way you look at things.

[Burnaby49]

We've discussed Jastrebske here:

viewtopic.php?f=47&t=9267&p=158064&hili ... ke#p158064

Frankly I'm not sympathetic. Yes she was defrauded but, as far as I can tell it, happened because she relied on a con artist to help her in her own scheme to cheat the CRA. After she was defrauded she in turn engaged in actual fraud to illegally hide assets in bankruptcy. She brought all of her problems on herself by trying to screw the government on taxes and by directively engaging in fraud when things went south.

She acted so obnoxiously at her trial that she actually forced the court to give her a jail sentence. The Crown didn't want her to go to jail, they asked for a 6 month conditional sentence which she would have almost certainly received except for her hard-core confrontational antics in court.

It does not appear she fell into the con man's tax avoidance scam by chance. She seems to have gone actively looking for a way to avoid paying taxes on her pension. As Mowe notes there was a prior decision where she apparently sued her own employer to stop 'stealing her wages', ie. collecting income tax.

In short she tried to cheat her creditors on bankrupcy, a bankrupcy brought about by her own attempts to get out of paying taxes, and then went full confrontational OPCA in her trial. If she suffered severe misfortune it was all self-inflicted.

A note - My comments on her losing her pension plan through a failed attempt to avoid paying taxes on it are based on my assumption that she followed the same scheme (or a similar one) described in the link above. This may not be correct however it is consistant with her anti-tax behaviour and with how other academics in her position lost their pensions. I'm not aware of any other schemes, investment or fraud, involving defined benefit government pensions where the pensioner took all the money out as a lump sum and "invested" it elsewhere.

As a beneficiary of a government defined benefit plan I can't think of any other alternative reason that Jastrebske might have had to take out her pension that makes sense. The penalty for emptying out the pension plan as a lump sum is extremely severe (full immediate income tax on the entire sum withdrawn, essentially the entire pension). The only logical reason to do it would be if the pensioner found, or more to point, believed he found, a scheme that got it out tax free thereby avoiding all those pesky taxes applicable on future pension payments. Thus the convoluted, and doomed to failure, scheme in the links above. What amazed me about these cases is that people totally uneducated in tax (policemen?) put their whole retirement financial future at risk for a technically dubious high-risk tax avoidance scheme that they had no way of understanding. A case of greed overriding whatever common sense (apparently not a lot) they may have had.

[arayder]

As much as this forum may mock and deride those individuals that would contradict their point of view, there is little concern for the dignity of the individual. This site in essence is a bully towards those who's views would contradict that of the majority of it's readers.

I see your point in part. I think it's important to distinguish between victims and perpetrators. I know many people who turn to freeman ideas are desperate, distressed and sometimes mentally unwell. I'm also aware that many have legitimate grievances with whatever it is they are using the methods against whether it be the government, bank etc.. I think it's best to look at this on a case by case basis.

I also think the gurus are, whether they believe their own woo or not, deserving of criticism, derision or whatever you want to call it.

The other important point is on many points it is not about a difference of opinion. They are demonstrably wrong. Even if you agree with some of the politics underpinning the theories, try way they are going about achieving that aim is undeniably wrong whatever way you look at things.

I have no problem with just about everybody who contradicts my point of view.

The few such folks I do have a problem with include freeman gurus and their active followers who through their willful ignorance and selfishness have convinced themselves that they don't have to obey any law, pay any taxes or behave like adults.

One may opine that such childishness is okay since freemen are demoralized by life's inevitable unfairness, but that point of view simple plays into the subculture's whiny self perception of victimhood.

These folks are not inherently powerless. They just choose to be so. If you think I am making this up just take a look at all the stories the subject of this thread, Dean Clifford, has made up in the hopes his followers will see him as a poor little victim.

Calling Dean and his crew out isn't bullying. It's just telling it like it is.

[Fussygus]

Certainly don't take it as being my position that they were right, or that they didn't deserve what they got. I was just explaining how one could understand what would bring someone to such a mental faculty.
I can certainly imagine there is more that brought about Jastrebske engaging the con man about the pension. She started digging the hole and just kept digging as instead of stopping and putting a bandage on that wound. She was the instrument of her own demise which is obviously a hard pill to swallow. The pill just kept getting bigger as she went along, so likewise did the problem of swallowing it.
She likely engaged in such a scheme because she felt that it was proper for whatever reason, just as an employee steals from his employer, because she perceived she was getting screwed. It doesn't matter that she may have been the exact opposite, what she perceived is what she reacted on. Do stories about Warren Buffet paying less tax than his secretary, or senators spending $350k a year on "travel" give anyone a feeling of fairness? Those stories elicit an emotional angry response which can skew ones perception of reality. The reality that those instances are very isolated and don't reflect fact that the larger majority of our society doesn't steal from the public purse and in fact pays their taxes. Maybe if her perception was more based on the community rather than the individual she might have acted differently.
This society relies on community perception and will pursue those that do not act in such a fashion, because history has shown that doing so is not in the interest of the community...nor in the interest of the individual...in the long run.

Fuzzy

[tm169]

The few such folks I do have a problem with include freeman gurus and their active followers who through their willful ignorance and selfishness have convinced themselves that they don't have to obey any law, pay any taxes or behave like adults.

Yeah I think that accurately describes many followers. I've seen goodf people try to avoid all sorts of debts and conspire to take out cards / loans just to get them "written off".

I can't help feeling sorry for some of them though, same way I would for any credulous and naïve person who got defrauded by their own greed / desperation.

[Jeffrey]

No idea. Could someone summarize that particular piece of drama? It was like 8 hours long and even I couldn't sit through that. They've taken the clip off Youtube and Blogtalkradio and possibly related they've taken the Free Dean Clifford clip with Dean's co-accused roommate.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1BWE2Tg6MfM

I was going over this one, in regards to the "Freeman Valley" concept, Dean goes over his plans very vaguely. Talks about a farm (may or may not be the one that got raided), rental properties, and his plans of people living in his rental properties in exchange for work and doing everything in cash. Dean deserves some credit because his proposed Freemanistan is the closest to being plausible. Give people housing, in exchange they work on your pot farm or do "construction work" cash, solar panels so it's all off grid. Would work fine until CRA or RCMP bust you. York and the Nuwaubians had a similar setup down in Georgia and they were flush with cash.

Mowe tracked down a newspaper clipping that claimed some of Dean's property was seized and sold, it'd be interesting to know the status of that.

Since there's a bit of a news slowdown, that audio also contains a further mention of Dean's father being at odds with his Freemanism. It'd be great to hear his version of what's going on. Darren Clifford's legal status remains murky, we don't know if he beat his case or if that's another lie by the Clifford camp. Still not a peep from Darren Boissoneault and it doesn't show up on the QB site since I assume those charges are federal. The rumors that he is using a lawyer hints at some incredible drama going on behind the scenes. Could Boissoneault abandoned Freeman in the face of serious jail time? Is he selling out Dean, making a deal with the prosecutors? Could Scott Duncan have more insight. All this silence man.