Burnaby49 wrote:... Unfortunately I found a few minor problems. His initial basic hurdle is that I don't see any relief that Dean has requested which falls within the jurisdiction of the Federal Court of Canada to grant. They get very sticky about jurisdiction. ...
Burnaby49, in my opinion, nails it on the head. This Statement of Claim, beyond being a mash of all kinds of random data, just has almost nothing to do with the Federal Court. That court’s chief function is to provide a forum which deals with lawsuits against the Canadian federal government and its various subordinate bodies and agencies, and judicial review of decisions of the same.
(To be fair, the Federal Court also has some interesting intellect property functions, is an Admiralty court – odds and end – but that are not relevant to Dean and his action.)
Dean complains about a lot of stuff. I’ll try to break it down a little, and suggest how the Defendant (Canada I guess) will respond:
- Paras. 1-5, 10-17, 22-24, 26, 29 - Dean is not subject to your authority because of stuff.
Response: Nope - Meads v. Meads, 2012 ABQB 571
Para. 8: Dean has a fee schedule.
Response: Sorry, that doesn’t work – Meads v. Meads. We hope you’re not pointing that fee schedule at government actors or the courts, because that can be contempt of court or a criminal offence: Meads v. Meads, Fearn v. Canada Customs, 2014 ABQB 114.
Paras. 18-21: Dean’s attempts to participate in the Manitoba Provincial Court have been frustrated by that body’s failure to hear applications, and other procedural justice complaints.
Response: We’re terribly sorry to hear that, but you do know that the court which has a supervisory role for the Manitoba Provincial Court is instead the Manitoba Court of Queen’s Bench. Maybe you should tell them about this awfulness?
Paras. 24-25, 31: Dean has never been told what the cause of action is against him.
Response: Hmm, the record shows you’ve been told over and over what charges you face – shall we fax you your Manitoba Provincial Court record again? Oh wait, here in para. 34 and when you ask for relief you talk about the informations against you – you’ve already got the data.
Para. 25: Its hard to do my legal research while trapped in jail.
Response: You’re in a facility run by the Province of Manitoba. The Federal Court would listen to this complaint if you were in a Federal Penitentiary. Try the Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench. Oh – and listen very carefully – this is a valid basis for a habeas corpus application Dean – you CAN use that for this complaint about your detention conditions: Mission Institution v. Khela, 2014 SCC 24
“27.) Plaintiff is being compelled to do the impossible and remedy a non-injury”
Response: Oh, don’t you worry – we don’t want a remedy, we want to put you in a metal box for awhile. That’s called punishment. Perhaps you’ld like to read the Criminal Code? Oh – and by the way, authority to apply a Criminal Code sanction is a question for the Manitoba Courts, not the Federal Court.
“29.) Defendant is violating international law, the natural rights of the Plaintiff, and the law of this land.”
Response: Uhmmm… you know international law operates between countries, right? You’re not a country. (And the Federal Court doesn’t have jurisdiction to hear disputes between countries.) Natural rights are a myth, but have you heard of this Charter of Rights and Freedoms thing? Try that next time. As for the law of this land, you don’t seem to identify any legislation or common law right that’s been breached. This might be valid question for the Federal Court – if you are arguing a tort injury, problematic Federal tribunal action, or so on. Care to clarify?
“30.) Defendant owes Plaintiff a duty of care as Plaintiff is completely at the mercy of Defendant and defenceless.”
Response: In many cases Canada does have a duty of care to persons in Canada – but it’s not tested on that basis.
Para. 31: Queen Elizabeth has lots of duties.
Response: actually she’s a figurehead/symbol thing.
Para. 35: My business and reputation is ruined, other people think I’m a jerk, and I’ve been in a metal box for 128 days because “of blatant fraud by Defendant.”
Response: If we (Canada) did that then you’ld have a right to complain about that. Sadly, you need to make a false prosecution lawsuit and for that to happen you likely need to prove that you were falsely prosecuted. All the reasons you say you are immune to state action/supervision are false: Meads v Meads.
Para. 36: I’m a victim of “intentional identity fraud”!
Responses: If you think you’re not the person who should be facing criminal action then you might want to tell the Manitoba courts about that. It’s not the Federal Court’s job (or if we did try to do that, that would be a collateral attack on their decisions to date.)
Paras. 37-38: I’m a political prisoner. I have lots of rights and those have been infringed.
Response: Are you making a Charter argument? If you are you should say so.
Page 12 – Relief Sought:
- a) Order to quash a bunch of Provincial Court informations.
Response: That’s the job of the Manitoba Court of Queen’s Bench – they supervise the Manitoba Provincial Court. Talk to them.
b) Release without delay!
Response: If you want bail go to the Manitoba courts. If you want a habeas corpus application on some residual basis go to the Manitoba courts.
c) Give me my stuff back!
Response: We might be able to help you there if you identify the stuff in question, which Federal government actor took your stuff, and how that was unlawful.
d) “… a declaratory judgment recognizing the private, independent and sovereign status of the man, Dean C. Clifford”.
Response: No: Meads v. Meads
e) “Plaintiff requires an injunction against Defendant for all future statutory contact. Plaintiff wants no statutory contact with Defendant under any legal title.”
Response: No: Meads v. Meads.
f) Pay my invoices!
Response: No – fee schedules don’t work: Meads v. Meads.
g) “Plaintiff requires an order for Defendant to correct all records in all departments and organizations to reflect proper status of the private-man, Dean C. Clifford.
Response: The Federal Court could conceivable grant this request as a remedy for a judicial review – but we won’t because your alleged “proper status” is bunk: Meads v. Meads.
Miscellaneous: your letter which is the last page of your Statement of Claim is a foisted unilateral agreement and has no legal effect:
Meads v. Meads.
Well, that probably was overkill on my part. In any case, Burnaby49 is correct – Dean is in the wrong court, Dean is arguing against well established legal precedents, and Dean is not providing the necessary details of the alleged misconduct that would base a legally valid statement of claim.
I anticipate an application by the Crown to strike out this action in the not too distant future, and that Dean will be ordered to pay the Crown’s legal bill for having to respond to this twaddle.
It’s interesting to me that Dean writes his legal documents using motifs from US rather than Canadian practice – for example, in Canada litigants are referenced as “
the plaintiff” or “
the defendant”, while Dean seems to mimic US court documents I have read. A second observation is that I’m kind of surprised Dean is using basically the same arguments/concepts he advanced in his
habeas corpus-like applications in Manitoba Queen’s Bench. It’s as though he really does not have any other arguments in his arsenal, and so is repeating the same schemes, again and again, feeling around for the correct court in which those may have a magical effect.
(Hint – there isn’t one.)
It’s all rather … pathetic. Dean has played himself up as a legal giant, but this is so incredibly unsophisticated. If you compare Dean’s arguments to those advanced by Glenn Winningham of the House of Fearn, Glenn at least identifies the correct courts, makes applications that are potentially valid in law, and cites occasionally relevant authorities.
Even "minister" Belanger has offered a better 'legalish' foundation for his schemes.
Dean? Legal maxim after legal maxim.
I don’t get it. Was this all Dean ever had? It’s just so … slapdash.
SMS Möwe
