Dean Clifford - A Tale of Two Gurus

[Jeffrey]

Truly the gods have blessed us on this day.

[Bill Lumbergh]

A veritable gold mine there Mowe! I haven't looked through the docs yet but is there any indication as to where the matter is now?

[arayder]

Oh, my. This stuff is dyn-o-mite! Well done. . .well done indeed!

It seems the documented reality runs counter to the stories Dean's been telling his flock for quite some time now.

I'll volunteer to write up a brief document, easily readable, which will document the facts and show clearly how Dean has distorted them.

The document can be distributed to the freeman community and other interested parties.

I'd like to ask for help, input and frank criticism in developing the document. However, in the end I will take full and sole responsibility for the document's content.

-arayder

[Hilfskreuzer Möwe]

A veritable gold mine there Mowe! I haven't looked through the docs yet but is there any indication as to where the matter is now?

The Provincial Court documents appear to indicate a hearing scheduled for April 14, 2014 at 1:00 p.m. and a second for May 25, 2014 at 2:00 p.m. This is on pages 3 and 5. Unfortunately neither entry seems to identify what that hearing would be for.

My suspicion is that Dean needs to have a preliminary hearing before this goes to trial. Here's another interesting tidbit - somewhere in one of the later documents Dean mentioned the Crown wants a jury trial. Again, if true, that would require a trial in Queen's Bench, so once more a preliminary hearing is required at the Provincial Court before the matter is transferred to Queen's Bench.

One of the charges is Criminal Code, s. 95(1) in relation to the prohibited firearm - which was loaded:

95. (1) ... every person commits an offence who, in any place, possesses a loaded prohibited firearm or restricted firearm, or an unloaded prohibited firearm or restricted firearm together with readily accessible ammunition that is capable of being discharged in the firearm, without being the holder of

• (a) an authorization or a licence under which the person may possess the firearm in that place; and
  
  (b) the registration certificate for the firearm.

(2) Every person who commits an offence under subsection (1)

• (a) is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 10 years and to a minimum punishment of imprisonment for a term of
  
  (i) in the case of a first offence, three years, and
  (ii) in the case of a second or subsequent offence, five years; or
  
  (b) is guilty of an offence punishable on summary conviction and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding one year.

Again, if this is going to Queen's Bench the indictable offence penalty will be in play.

Serious time.

SMS Möwe

[arayder]

One item that leapt out at me is that one of the firearms charges is that Dean was in possession of a prohibited handgun, which is a particularly serious offence. Many handguns can be legally owned in Canada as "restricted firearms", but in this case the gun is simply prohibited. Other firearms charges indicate that Dean was under a court order to not have any firearms at this time.

SMS Möwe

I know Dean has convinced himself that the laws of Canada just don't apply to him.

The foolishness of that belief aside, one has to wonder what made Dean think he needed a prohibited handgun, which I assume was a gun small enough to conceal.

Was he planning to shoot whoever might wander onto his grow-op, or the next cop that pulled him over?

Down here in the states where folks can "carry", those who do have a saying. . . "you can have an attitude and you can have a gun, but you can't have both".

Realizing that Dean's a guy who's bragged about assaulting cops, claims he has the right to use firearms to "resist" them and regards every authority figure he encounters as loathsome, stupid and evil one has to cringe at the notion of him carrying a pistol.

He was an accident waiting to happen. The RCMP did good forcefully picking him up in a public place while he wasn't armed.

[Jeffrey]

Biggest lie right off the bat is that Dean lied or omitted the amount and types of guns.

1. Simonov SKS semi-automatic rifle.
2. Lee-enfield mk3 bolt action rifle
3. Cooey sure shot shotgun.
4. Remington 870 shotgun.

These technically fit the description he gave of heirloom guns but he said there were only two of them in the jailhouse phonecall, now we know there are 4. The storyline may be bullshit however since simply googling those models of weapons, particularly the Remington, you can see they're popular in Manitoba hunting forums and obtainable fairly cheaply, one post has an 870 being sold for $240.

5. FIE Titan 25 semi handgun.

It's possible this also falls under the "heirloom" storyline Dean is pushing since they stopped making them in 1989 but it's kind of a stretch. In keeping with what Mowe points out, .25 caliber are basically the definition of a saturday night special.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturday_n ... _in_Canada

Maybe someone could clarify why they're choosing to charge him under 91(1)a "Unauthorized possession of prohibited weapon or restricted weapon" which is 5 years versus 92(1)b "Possession of prohibited weapon, device or ammunition knowing its possession is unauthorized" which is ten years. It also leaps out at me that they also didn't go with 95 since according to the documents the handgun was loaded which means it falls under "Possession of prohibited or restricted firearm with ammunition" which is also ten years penalty.

Edit: Arayder and Mowe's posted replies while I was typing this up. Quick response to their points. Arayder: Google image the titan 25, it's a stubby cheap little handgun

Mowe: NVM, I skimmed through it and only saw the bottom 91 didn't see the 95 and 96 being charged in 7 and 6 on page 11.

[Hilfskreuzer Möwe]

... Maybe someone could clarify why they're choosing to charge him under 91(1)a "Unauthorized possession of prohibited weapon or restricted weapon" which is 5 years versus 92(1)b "Possession of prohibited weapon, device or ammunition knowing its possession is unauthorized" which is ten years. It also leaps out at me that they also didn't go with 95 since according to the documents the handgun was loaded which means it falls under "Possession of prohibited or restricted firearm with ammunition" which is also ten years penalty. ...

The four long-arms are non-restricted firearms, so yes the Crown could charge under s. 91(1)(a) or 92(1)(a). The distinction is that the s. 91 offence does not require knowledge that the weapons possession is unauthorized - simply having the weapon is enough. So that's easier to prove. My guess is that at this point the Crown does not have the evidence to prove knowledge - but that's only a guess. I see no obstacle to re-charging on s. 92(1)(a) if the evidence appears.

I think the Crown did charge on 95(1) concerning the handgun, see charge 7 on the firearms information.

It's kind of funny how many Freemen have a fixation on the SKS. It's as close as you can get in Canada to owning a Soviet combat rifle - I think that must be a part of the appeal.

SMS Möwe

[arayder]

The Enfield and the shot gun are somewhat explainable as a hand me down military rifle and a hunting shot gun. That's why Dean mentioned only these two.

The SKS would be useful for keeping undesirables out of the grow field. It isn't normally used for hunting since it isn't that accurate and is too heavy to carry around in the field all day.

The .25 mouse gun is for shooting across a card table, or a small room, at somebody trying to take your dope money off you. . .or arrest you. It's a puny caliber befitting Dean's tiny sad life.

Both firearms are the kind of low end pieces gun owners down here in the states wouldn't use for serious business. They are to guns what the '87 Chevy Lumina is to cars.

I figure the legend-in-his-own-mind Dean scrounged these two from the arse end of the gun culture.

[grixit]

Hmm. I'm not a hunter, but i've always thought that if i were, i would want to have a pistol in addition to the rifle, in case my first shot just got some large creature's attention. But i'd definitely want something bigger than a 25.

[The Observer]

t's kind of funny how many Freemen have a fixation on the SKS. It's as close as you can get in Canada to owning a Soviet combat rifle - I think that must be a part of the appeal.

The SKS was a Soviet combat rifle, until the AK-47 replaced it. Of course, the licensing of the rifle all over the world means it is not for certain that Dean's SKS was Russian and the quality would be in doubt as well. Due to the sheer number of these being available, and the fact that this drives the price down, is probably the main reason it would attract buyers like Dean.

[Fmotlgroupie]

Scanning through, I see that The pistol was "obtained by the commission of an offence". I don't know if that might include being illegally imported or sold, but it usually means stolen.

A great big thanks to our anonymous Manitoban benefactor! This is great stuff!

[Hilfskreuzer Möwe]

... Here's another interesting tidbit - somewhere in one of the later documents Dean mentioned the Crown wants a jury trial. Again, if true, that would require a trial in Queen's Bench, so once more a preliminary hearing is required at the Provincial Court before the matter is transferred to Queen's Bench.

I was just puzzling why the Crown would seek a jury trial - why risk that, even though there's no question at all that the Canadian public detests Freemen-on-the-Land. Then I had an ah-ha - the Crown doesn't necessarily want a jury trial, it instead has been preserving Dean's right to have a proceeding of that kind if he wants that alternative.

Dean presumably has refused to plead or select a mode of trial - so the Crown is erring in his favour.

That makes a lot more sense.

SMS Möwe

[arayder]

It's kind of funny how many Freemen have a fixation on the SKS. It's as close as you can get in Canada to owning a Soviet combat rifle - I think that must be a part of the appeal.

SMS Möwe

The eastern block countries unloaded untold numbers of SKS's after the fall of the Soviet Union. They are called the "Soviet Garand" and saw only a few years service before the AK-47 came along. They are durable, relatively cheap and have stripper fed 10 round box magazines. Detachable high capacity magazines are cheap, easy to obtain (here in the states at least) and can be added with a little kitchen table gunsmithing. The rifle's trigger is awful.

I can see a freeman saving from his government checks and getting his hands on one of these for use during the zombie/corporate/WWIII apocalypse.

[notorial dissent]

Yes, thank your friend, it is indeed appreciated, and should make for some entertaining reading.

[davids]

It's kind of funny how many Freemen have a fixation on the SKS. It's as close as you can get in Canada to owning a Soviet combat rifle - I think that must be a part of the appeal.

SMS Möwe

The eastern block countries unloaded untold numbers of SKS's after the fall of the Soviet Union. They are called the "Soviet Garand" and saw only a few years service before the AK-47 came along. They are durable, relatively cheap and have stripper fed 10 round box magazines. Detachable high capacity magazines are cheap, easy to obtain (here in the states at least) and can be added with a little kitchen table gunsmithing. The rifle's trigger is awful.

I can see a freeman saving from his government checks and getting his hands on one of these for use during the zombie/corporate/WWIII apocalypse.

I personally see nothing wrong with someone being a firearms enthusiast, even for Soviet firearms, even if they are semi automatic. I fail to see how that is anything but a statist political position. It has nothing to do with any scam or fraud or con. Some people like guns. Some of them are really solid, admirable people with jobs, families, integrity. Some are not. I just find it bothersome that you believe that saying "I see a freeman saving from his government checks and getting his hands on one of these" is describing anything bad. It doesn't, not to me. Maybe if you're a democratic politician, it does.

[arayder]

The eastern block countries unloaded untold numbers of SKS's after the fall of the Soviet Union. . .

I can see a freeman saving from his government checks and getting his hands on one of these for use during the zombie/corporate/WWIII apocalypse.

I personally see nothing wrong with someone being a firearms enthusiast, even for Soviet firearms, even if they are semi automatic. I fail to see how that is anything but a statist political position. It has nothing to do with any scam or fraud or con. Some people like guns. Some of them are really solid, admirable people with jobs, families, integrity. Some are not. I just find it bothersome that you believe that saying "I see a freeman saving from his government checks and getting his hands on one of these" is describing anything bad. It doesn't, not to me. Maybe if you're a democratic politician, it does.

Apologies if I have offended. I am a gun owner and I hope I am one of those solid people.

But what I am talking about is the idea of taking part of a very limited income to buy a rifle that isn't going to put game on the table, but instead is bought to prep for an imagined apocalypse.

It's not illegal, or immoral, as long as the kids get fed. It's just bush league, IMHO.

[JamesVincent]

The SKS was a Soviet combat rifle, until the AK-47 replaced it. Of course, the licensing of the rifle all over the world means it is not for certain that Dean's SKS was Russian and the quality would be in doubt as well. Due to the sheer number of these being available, and the fact that this drives the price down, is probably the main reason it would attract buyers like Dean.

Last time I looked at them you could get a Chinese SKS for around $200 or so. China still used and issued them long after the USSR went over to the AK.

Hmm. I'm not a hunter, but i've always thought that if i were, i would want to have a pistol in addition to the rifle, in case my first shot just got some large creature's attention. But i'd definitely want something bigger than a 25.

I personally never carried anything smaller then a .44 magnum when hunting. I grew up hunting in an area with a large bear population. All a .25 would do is piss a bear off even more then he already was. Not even really effective against a human for that matter, especially if you tried to shoot an LEO who was wearing body armor.

[arayder]

I personally never carried anything smaller then a .44 magnum when hunting. I grew up hunting in an area with a large bear population. All a .25 would do is piss a bear off even more then he already was. Not even really effective against a human for that matter, especially if you tried to shoot an LEO who was wearing body armor.

Which leads us back to the reality that Dean's only reason to have and carry a mouse gun (which is illegal in Canada) is to allow him to act out his notion of personal protection, which includes shooting cops trying to arrest, ticket or otherwise detain him.

And I point out again that Dean very specifically left the mention of this firearm out of his woe-is-me PR campaign. One suspects he knew very well that the public, and even a few of his minions, would have questioned the wisdom of carrying or even owning this little piece.

Dean's carelessness and ego have been his undoing when is comes to his firearms. He should have taken a page from mafia bosses who never go armed, never get traffic tickets, never so much as jaywalk. . .all done so the cops won't have any excuse for messing with them.

[Jeffrey]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_OlDCQs_Nq4

Perhaps another indication that we and Dean overestimated how many supporters he has. To date the only mention of the inconsistencies that Bill noticed is from WakeuptotheNWO2 who has made a pretty amusing little video about it. Unfortunately he appears to be promoting his own OPCA derivative, seems to believe the highway traffic act only applies to people who have applied for licenses among other nonsense. It'll be interesting to see if the documents Mowe helped obtain will get any response or if people simply don't care.

[Bill Lumbergh]

... Here's another interesting tidbit - somewhere in one of the later documents Dean mentioned the Crown wants a jury trial. Again, if true, that would require a trial in Queen's Bench, so once more a preliminary hearing is required at the Provincial Court before the matter is transferred to Queen's Bench.

I was just puzzling why the Crown would seek a jury trial - why risk that, even though there's no question at all that the Canadian public detests Freemen-on-the-Land. Then I had an ah-ha - the Crown doesn't necessarily want a jury trial, it instead has been preserving Dean's right to have a proceeding of that kind if he wants that alternative.

Dean presumably has refused to plead or select a mode of trial - so the Crown is erring in his favour.

That makes a lot more sense.

SMS Möwe

I'm not sure that the Crown has much say in it though. Assuming the Crown has elected to proceed by indictment, it is up to Dean now to elect his mode of trial (judge alone or with jury).

536(2) If an accused is before a justice charged with an indictable offence, other than an offence listed in section 469, and the offence is not one over which a provincial court judge has absolute jurisdiction under section 553, the justice shall, after the information has been read to the accused, put the accused to an election in the following words:

You have the option to elect to be tried by a provincial court judge without a jury and without having had a preliminary inquiry; or you may elect to be tried by a judge without a jury; or you may elect to be tried by a court composed of a judge and jury. If you do not elect now, you are deemed to have elected to be tried by a court composed of a judge and jury. If you elect to be tried by a judge without a jury or by a court composed of a judge and jury or if you are deemed to have elected to be tried by a court composed of a judge and jury, you will have a preliminary inquiry only if you or the prosecutor requests one. How do you elect to be tried?

See also s.565(1)(c)

565. (1) Subject to subsection (1.1), if an accused is ordered to stand trial for an offence that, under this Part, may be tried by a judge without a jury, the accused shall, for the purposes of the provisions of this Part relating to election and re-election, be deemed to have elected to be tried by a court composed of a judge and jury if

(a) the accused was ordered to stand trial by a provincial court judge who, pursuant to subsection 555(1), continued the proceedings before him as a preliminary inquiry;

(b) the justice, provincial court judge or judge, as the case may be, declined pursuant to section 567 to record the election or re-election of the accused; or

(c) the accused does not elect when put to an election under section 536.

What I suspect is happening is that Dean has refused to make an election and thus he is deemed to have elected trial by judge and jury. Pursuant to s.536(4), a preliminary inquiry will only be held at the request of the Crown or defence. I can't imagine why the Crown would want a prelim here, especially given the protracted proceedings to date. I suspect the Crown is pushing for a trial but perhaps the case management judge is holding things up to give Dean a fair chance to either elect or decide on whether he wants a prelim.

Just some speculation on my part.

The only other thing of note is that the 3 year mandatory minimum under the s.95 offence has recently been ruled unconstitutional by the Ontario Court of Appeal in R v. Nur: http://canlii.ca/t/g22fg