Dean Clifford - A Tale of Two Gurus

[Hilfskreuzer Möwe]

I think it might be helpful to explain a bit about how the Canadian criminal prosecution process operates, because there is some terminology being tossed about which can be a little confusing. What's worse, I think this language is being misinterpreted/misused by Dean & Co., either accidentally or on purpose. Frankly, I'm willing to cut them a little slack on this, as it is something of an odd system.

This explanation is somewhat simplified, so be aware of that there are little hooks and exceptions that I won't cover.

First, there are three different 'dualities' in play here:

• Prosecutorial jurisdictions - provincial vs. federal
  Court jurisdictions - provincial court vs. superior court (Queen's Bench)
  Offence categories - summary conviction offences vs. indictable offences.

There are two pools of Crown Prosecutors in Canada. Each province has an organization of Crown Prosecutors who answer to the Attorney General. The federal government has a separate organization of Crown Prosecutors in the Public Prosecution Service of Canada (PPSC). Both pools can appear in any court. What separates them is that each has the job of carrying out prosecutions for offences that come from two different groups of legislation.

The PPSC is responsible for prosecuting "federal offences" - these are offences that are created by federal legislation. Examples include prosecutions for tax evasions, smuggling activities, environmental offences, and any prosecutions for drug-related charges under the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

The provincial Crown Prosecutors largely deal with illegal acts under the Criminal Code, but also where provincial legislation makes an activity an offence. Here's where things get a little weird - the Federal government is the level of government that actually has jurisdiction for and enacts the Criminal Code, but for whatever historical reason (I've never investigated it) the provincial Attorney Generals and their subordinates prosecute offences for that federal law. So - if it's not a federal offence that is in the PPSC jurisdiction, it's a "provincial offence", and prosecuted by the local provincial attorney general and subordinates.

Sometimes the context of an illegal activity makes all the difference on whether something is a federal or provincial offence. There's lots of gun restrictions in Canada. If you are found in Canada with an illegal firearm that is a Criminal Code offence, and the provincial Crown Prosecutors go after you. If you try to smuggle in that same gun, get caught by Canada Customs, then it's a federal offence as importing that is prohibited by the customs legislation. That's why Glenn Winningham of the House of Fearn was and is continuing to be prosecuted by the PPSC, not the provincial Crown.

So that's the difference between "federal" and "provincial" offences - which pool of Crown Prosecutors are responsible. Sometimes an accused is charged with a mix of federal and provincial offences, and in that case there will often be Crown Prosecutors from both branches in court together, and they tag-team their activities. Dean is in this situation.

(As an aside, this is one of the points where bmxninja357 is exactly right on how the information from Dean & Co. makes no sense - he knows the difference between these two categories. I'm a bit suspicious Dean & Co. don't. More on that later.)

Next let's talk about the two general categories of criminal offence in Canada - indictable offences vs. summary conviction offences. Indictable offences are generally more serious offences, while summary conviction offences are less serious and have lower penalty levels. For example, murder is an indictable offence. Another indictable offence is growing marijuana, Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, SC 1996, c 19, 7(2)(b):

7(2)(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 [depends on the number of plants]

There aren't many strictly indictable offences, it's restricted to things like murder and other very serious crimes. The majority of Criminal Code offences are what are called "hybrid" offences - they can be tried either as indictable offences or summary conviction offences. Their Criminal Code provisions look like this:

95. (1) Subject to subsection (3), 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.

This is one of the charges Dean faces for his pistol. Notice that the provision provides two different penalty ranges - three to 10 years for an indictable offence, and up to one year for summary conviction - but for the same misconduct.

Here's how that works. With a hybrid offence like this, the Crown can characterize an offence either as indictable and go for the three to 10 year range, or as summary conviction and its penalty of up to one year. The reason for this is that it gives the Crown flexibility, in that it can 'flavour' the misconduct as less onerous or a target for a harsher penalty.

I think that Dean & Co. either do not understand this distinction or are playing games with it. My suspicion is that the Crown intends to pursue Dean's firearms offences as indictable offences (big stash of weapons, serious weapons, associated with a grow-op), and in the case of the marijuana production charge they have no choice, that's the only way it can go. So - when you see Dean & Co. speak about "federal offences", I think they actually mean "indictable offences" and used the wrong label.

So that brings us to the last duality - the courts. There are two trial level courts for criminal activity in Canada - provincial courts (ie Manitoba Provincial Court), and superior courts, which are usually named something like a Queen's Bench court, or a "Supreme Court of [province X]". The jurisdiction of the courts is split by the two offence categories. A provincial court (with limited exceptions) can only hear trials where an accused is alleged to have committed summary conviction offences - which usually means a hybrid offence where the Crown has opted for the lower penalty range. Superior courts are the forum where indictable offences are tried (though you can bundle in some summary conviction offences too, if you like.)

Why the two courts? Historically, the superior courts heard all criminal trials, however their jurisdiction to hear simpler, minor offences was taken away and given to the provincial courts. This is because provincial courts have a simpler procedure and are optimized for fast and short hearings. The superior courts and their procedures are much more methodical and detailed, and they are the only court where a jury can be involved.

Hey Freemans! Pay attention! You have no right to a jury on a summary conviction offence! Doesn't matter what the Magna Carta says, or your so-called common-law rights, access to a jury has been extinguished where the potential sanction is minor(ish) - see the Charter, s. 11(f):

11. Any person charged with an offence has the right ...
(f) except in the case of an offence under military law tried before a military tribunal, to the benefit of trial by jury where the maximum punishment for the offence is imprisonment for five years or a more severe punishment;

(A minor aside - accused persons have a (somewhat limited) right to say they want a jury trial, but since that means they would have to potentially face punishment of over 5 years, that may have the effect of choosing whether a hybrid offence is going to be an indictable offence prosecution rather than a summary conviction proceeding. This is a way where Freemanish beliefs can seriously shoot their proponents in the foot, by forcing a prosecution along the path with a more serious potential sanction.)

Another difference between an indictable offence prosecution and a summary conviction prosecution is that the former has an additional step:

• Summary conviction: charges laid in provincial court -> trial in provincial court -> result
  
  Indictable offence: charges laid in provincial court -> preliminary inquiry/hearing in provincial court -> transferred to superior court if there is prima facie evidence of the offence -> trial in superior court -> result

So, as you see, even indictable offence prosecutions may have a step in the provincial court, the preliminary inquiry. This is something of a historical relic, and was intended to screen out really ill-founded criminal prosecutions before they actually went to trial. Over the last few decades the preliminary hearing's function has been reduced to an optional screen, and there is no constitutional right to access that. From what I have observed it is not uncommon for a Crown Prosecutor to schedule a provincial court trial, and when that date arrives, look at the offence and accused and then decide whether to run that hearing as a provincial court prosecution for summary conviction offence(s), or convert the hearing to a preliminary inquiry and go for the more serious potential sanctions, but with the complexity of the superior courts.

Ok - back to Dean - if you read the charges against him there are many that are apparently fairly minor, and even where they are hybrid charges the more logical route for a Crown Prosecutor is to pursue those as summary conviction charges and have trials in provincial court. My suspicion is that is the backstory for Dean & Co.'s announcement that he will be attending hearings on May 12, June 20, and August 22. Those are provincial court trials for his minor offences.

So that leaves us with the firearm and grow-op charges. Dean & Co. have announced the "federal charge" were dropped. I think they mean charges where the Crown may have planned a trial by indictment. Normally those would first proceed to a preliminary inquiry, then to Manitoba Queen's Bench. But, if we are to believe Dean & Co., then 'something has happened' to those charges.

There's a procedure available to the Crown to bypass a preliminary inquiry, which is called proceeding by direct indictment. When the Crown files a direct indictment against an accused that person goes straight to the superior court for trial - the provincial courts are not involved at all. It used to be something of an exceptional way to handle criminal prosecutions, but it is now used with some high profile cases, or where a case may be very complex and so its hard to schedule a preliminary inquiry of sufficient length. Direct indictment is sometimes also used where the accused is self-represented and the preliminary inquiry would likely be a source of delay because it would turn into a mess.

Hmm. That sounds like someone we know, doesn't it?

Dean's gun and grow-op charges were definitely filed in Manitoba Provincial Court - we have the paperwork. If the Crown were to proceed by direct indictment it would have to withdraw the provincial court charges, then prefer a new indictment against Dean, filed in the Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench.

I think the excitement from Dean & Co. - if it has a basis in fact - is probably because this is what is going on. The 'dropped the federal charges' exclamations is in response to the Crown's first step on a direct indictment - withdrawing the charges in Provincial Court that it intends to take to Queen's Bench.

If I am correct, in a little while we will be able to see these charges appear on the Manitoba Queen's Bench online database. I expect this would be an entirely new criminal proceeding docket number.

So now, I suppose, we wait.

To be fair to Dean & Co., if the Crown is switching to direct indictment I can see there being some confusion about what is going on. Their posts may not be entirely disinformation, but just malinformed misinformation.

Oh, and I also agree entirely with bmxninja357 that it makes no sense that Dean would still be in pre-trial detention unless those more serious firearm and drug charges were proceeding in some manner. I think his observation that it makes very little sense for the Crown to proceed when it will never get sentences that are more than the time Dean has already 'earned' in remand detention makes perfect sense.

(It keeps happening to Brian 'Freakin' Idiot' Alexander - and oh how he complains about it. He never gets a trial because he keeps 'serving his maximum potential sentence' before the trials ever occur.)

So I think that's a possible explanation of what's going on. As always, it's a guess. Based on a foundation of highly questionable quality.

So, any votes on whether Dean & Co. will scream BETRAYAL! and SNEAKINESS! if the direct indictment occurs, or will they simply try to ignore the new Manitoba Queen's Bench database entries?

SMS Möwe

[Hilfskreuzer Möwe]

Speaking hypothetically, if someone did want to go hunting for more court files that plausibly involve Dean Clifford then I’d suggest:

R. v. Norman Luke Desautels (aka Normand Luke Desautels) and Dorothy-Anne Denise Desautels: Saskatchewan Provincial Court Proceeding 38576337, in Estevan. Clifford represented them on July 26, 2012.

Darren’s criminal actions in Alberta seem to have the following docket numbers:

• 110812393P1
  
  111436549P1
  
  111487732P1
  
  111487757P1
  
  120701719P1

I think those would be in the Okotoks Provincial Court but I could be wrong on that. I'm having a hard time getting information on Alberta court files.

There’s also this cryptic legal action that allegedly was heard on Nov. 21, 2012 (http://private-person.com/blog/recent-c ... does-rcmp/) but I can’t seem to spot this on the B.C. Courts online database. No idea what that means. I think this is the one that the Nanaimo Five attended in their little motoring adventure.

Oh, those were the days...

SMS Möwe

[arayder]

Thanks for the explanations of the Canadian court system, Möwe. Some of my Toronto relatives in the legal profession have explained some of this to me. But to be honest your posts are clearer and certainly more relative to this thread.

. . . it makes no sense that Dean would still be in pre-trial detention unless those more serious firearm and drug charges were proceeding in some manner. I think his observation that it makes very little sense for the Crown to proceed when it will never get sentences that are more than the time Dean has already 'earned' in remand detention makes perfect sense.

(It keeps happening to Brian 'Freakin' Idiot' Alexander - and oh how he complains about it. He never gets a trial because he keeps 'serving his maximum potential sentence' before the trials ever occur.)

So I think that's a possible explanation of what's going on. As always, it's a guess. Based on a foundation of highly questionable quality.

So, any votes on whether Dean & Co. will scream BETRAYAL! and SNEAKINESS! if the direct indictment occurs, or will they simply try to ignore the new Manitoba Queen's Bench database entries?

SMS Möwe

In the end the truth will out.

As Dean has purposefully misrepresented the facts in each and every one of his past brushes with the law, my money says he'll do so again.

He's doing so as we speak.

It's the only game this one trick pony knows. . lie, play the victim and manipulate anybody foolish enough to believe him.

But Dean has a problem.

After assaulting cops, denying the court's jurisdiction, blowing off hearings, leaving the province against the orders of the court and challenging the authorities to do something about his fire arm guarded marihuana patch the courts have lost their patience with Dean.

After a few more months, maybe years, in the pokey only the most brainwashed Deaner is going to buy the Clifford story. The only question is whether that will provide enough emotional and financial support to keep Clifford afloat.

Well, there's always public assistance.

[Bill Lumbergh]

Excellent summary there Mowe. I will add one more element to this that may actually explain what's going on.

Provincial and Federal Crown prosecutors also have the ability to delegate the prosecution of offences to each other. This is normally done when it would be inefficient to have two Crowns proesecuting. For instance, if a person is arrested for multiple assault charges and the cops find a small amount of weed on him, it would be a waste of resources to assign a federal crown to prosecute the drug charge - that would be delegated to the provincial Crown.

R. v. Luz provides a nice little summary of delegations: http://canlii.ca/t/g1kl2

Here's the interesting part: A delegation can be done via a letter from one prosecutor to another. It may very well be that this is what happened in Dean's case. If the "grow op" consisted of a small amount (say, a plant or two), the federal Crown may simply be delegating those charges to the province for prosecution. The feds may have cc'd Dean on the letter being sent to the provincial Crown to advise him of what's happening. It's easy to see how a bit of freeman logic can distort such a letter into "charges dropped!". I believe one of the recent updates mentioned something about one Crown "handing over the reigns" to another Crown. It wasn't very clear as to exactly what happened, but it does fit into the delegation scenario.

[moshiksss]

A comment in one of the latest videos provides some insight into the motivations behind Dean's actions. The seminar at which he was arrested was $150 a head, I've heard the number of attendees put at 200 which would mean Dean was pocketing $30,000 off that event alone.

This clarifies the bail issue for me. In both the February and current arrest Dean was reluctant to bail himself out, yet in July he posts bail in just a few days. The reason for that, Dean was hurting for cash and needed the money from the Hamilton Seminar. Also explains the marijuana production charge, what better way of setting up some quick cash flow than selling pot on the side. And I think Dean's financial situation is clearly dire based on the interviews near the time of the arrest and some of his court filings and court records.

MAY 2011 VISA BULLETIN PREDICTIONS

[notorial dissent]

Terrifyingly, I think I am beginning to understand how the prosecutions are going with that little bit of previously unknown information. With that in play, I can now see how things have proceeded as they have, and how Dean and Co can and have been able to slant the current goings on.

My next question then would be, if the Provincial Crown succeeded to the charges from the Federal Crown, then if convicted, will Dean still get hit with the Federal penalties as if he had in fact been prosecuted by the Federal Crown?

This is still not to say that it doesn't make my head hurt.

[arayder]

Terrifyingly, I think I am beginning to understand how the prosecutions are going with that little bit of previously unknown information. With that in play, I can now see how things have proceeded as they have, and how Dean and Co can and have been able to slant the current goings on.

It seems the faithful over on the Free Dean Facebook page are convinced that Dean, the masterful, has begun the process of having the charges against him dismissed. They believe Dean will then be freed and get a hefty compensation from the government.

This is an exact replay of the spin put on Dean's February 2013 arrest and jailing.

Dean tells the brainwashed Deaners what they want to hear, not matter how absurd it may be. When it becomes known Dean has the facts wrong, and that the charges haven't been dropped, Clifford and his minions shout that the courts have engaged in trickery in order to entrap him. . .the great Dean Clifford the most feared freeman in the world!

Cognitive dissonance has it's own circle of reinforcement.

[Fmotlgroupie]

My next question then would be, if the Provincial Crown succeeded to the charges from the Federal Crown, then if convicted, will Dean still get hit with the Federal penalties as if he had in fact been prosecuted by the Federal Crown?

Well, he'll get hit with the exact same penalties he would have gotten if prosecuted by the other crown (same maximum penalties and same case law-based sentencing ranges). It'll be the same mix of jail, house arrest, probation etc as for any "normal" prosecution (I.e. the criminal code).

For constitutionally murky reasons (but probably just to confuse international lawyers) any prisoner serving more than 2 years is the federal givernment's problem ("serving fed time") while everything up to "2years less a day" is kept in a provincial prison. But to be clear, this has nothing to do with which crown prosecuted.

[Jeffrey]

The Facebook group seems to indicate that Dean's propaganda campaign has been effective:

Ba Ulmer as granny would say- those fools all that time in jail for a seat belt or any other provencial offense i find offensive
May 10 at 11:59pm

They actually believe Dean has been ~7 months in jail for wearing his seat belt tucked under his arm! (Which btw is not something you should do while driving).

[arayder]

The Facebook group seems to indicate that Dean's propaganda campaign has been effective:

Ba Ulmer as granny would say- those fools all that time in jail for a seat belt or any other provencial offense i find offensive
May 10 at 11:59pm

They actually believe Dean has been ~7 months in jail for wearing his seat belt tucked under his arm! (Which btw is not something you should do while driving).

The current spin and propaganda used by Team Dean is pretty much old hat for them.

I will be interested in seeing exactly what line of B.S. they use in the likely event Dean is held and tried for the drug and gun charges.

[arayder]

At the Free Dean Clifford Facebook page (https://www.facebook.com/freedeanclifford) the Deaner propaganda machine is posing the conspiracy theory that the RCMP set up Dean for posting his own conspiracy theory YouTube (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=50g5HZMbO_8).

In the YouTube Dean claims, but offers no proof, that the RCMP sets up phony terrorism incidents and then kills the complicit "patsies".

This amateurish conspiracy-theory-in-a-conspiracy-theory attempts to paper over the the reality that Dean is charged with some very serious crimes. Crimes which he has already publicly admitted to.

[Jeffrey]

Also interesting that they deleted a comment that referred to Dean as a "thieving tax dodger", shame we can't see whatever it was.

Just wanted to point something out. It was just shortly after this was recorded, that the RCMP really started attacking Dean. Hmmm? -cts, his friend.

I mean that statement is just so ridiculously wrong, Dean's problems with the cops started in the 90s, over a decade before he came up with that half-ass conspiracy theory. UNLESS, he's referring to Dean's July 13 arrest which, yes, was ten days after that video but come on, who are they trying to fool? What we know about that arrest was that Dean was driving with his arm tucked under his arm, which they can pull you over for and Dean admitted to doing. Was driving with a suspended license, which you can't do. According to Dean's own version of events, he pushed the cop first, turning it into a violent altercation and using violence to resist a completely legitimate and lawful arrest. Dean was never "attacked by the RCMP", he went around looking to get into trouble and altercations with the cops.

John Robert Williams "thieving tax dodger"? income tax is fraudulent you fucking knot head. i can give you evidence of that

By Dean's own account, he had his house liened, wages garnished and his ass handed to him by CRA. His "solution" was to switch to doing everything cash. These guys just don't learn.

I particularly like the David-Kevin:Lindsay promo. Fill the Dean Clifford vacancy, there's Freeman money to be made off seminars.

Edit: Looks like David's upcoming seminar is $75 a pop.

[arayder]

The Dean propaganda team seems to be taking the tact of mollifying Dean's crimes by making the Canadian authorities seem like latter day Nazis.

It's impossible to reconcile Dean's claim that the Canadian powers that be kill freedom seekers with the plain, provable reality that these same authorities have for nearly 15 years patiently dealt with Dean's stupid, self-centered BS.

If the Canadian government is the embodiment of the dark side and Dean is the feared freedom stud one has to ask why the cops didn't push his corpse through a wood chipper years ago.

[wserra]

one has to ask why the cops didn't push his corpse through a wood chipper years ago.

Because, if they didn't decapitate him first, it would break the wood chipper.

[rumpelstilzchen]

It's impossible to reconcile Dean's claim that the Canadian powers that be kill freedom seekers with the plain, provable reality that these same authorities have for nearly 15 years patiently dealt with Dean's stupid, self-centered BS.

Isn't Dean aware that he is living proof this claim of his is BS?

[wserra]

Isn't Dean aware

Stop right there, please.

[The Observer]

n't Dean aware that he is living proof this claim of his is BS?

Dean would just explain it away by saying that him still being alive is proof that the powers-that-be are afraid that killing him would expose the whole conspiracy.

[LordEd]

Perhaps dean needs to stage his own disappearance. Of course, that might put a damper on his seminar cashflow. That, and be difficult to achieve while in custody.

[arayder]

It's impossible to reconcile Dean's claim that the Canadian powers that be kill freedom seekers with the plain, provable reality that these same authorities have for nearly 15 years patiently dealt with Dean's stupid, self-centered BS.

Isn't Dean aware that he is living proof this claim of his is BS?

In the past observers have raised the ire of freemen by noting that self destructive behavior such as demonstrated by Dean Clifford is natural selection at work in modern society.

[notorial dissent]

In the past observers have raised the ire of freemen by noting that self destructive behavior such as demonstrated by Dean Clifford is natural selection at work in modern society.

They do seem to get awfully cranked about someone pointing out the obvious, at least what is obvious to anyone with functioning gray cells, to them, but then they also seem to object to looking to the obvious answer to their questions and problems when a dark and complicated conspiracy is what they are really looking for and ultimately come up with.