Some highlights from Dean's Greatest Hits:
Para 3-7 provides a summary of Dean's claim:
[3] In his 131 paragraph statement of claim, the plaintiff, who describes himself as “a man under the common law of this land”, and “an heir to this land by birthright and a rightful owner”, and refers to Her Majesty the Queen as a “foreign debtor”, and “a foreign and de facto administration”, claims relief and recompense against Her Majesty the Queen and her agents for actions which constitute “meddling in his life and affairs and attempting to enforce foreign policy on his life and property.”
[4] The actions – and this claim - appear to have had their genesis in unspecified traffic offences alleged to have been committed by the plaintiff. Criminal charges respecting those offences are apparently still pending.
[5] The actions complained of leading to this claim are, according to the plaintiff, contrary to the terms and conditions of a policy document which the plaintiff says he served on the Attorney General for the province, in his capacity as representative of Her Majesty the Queen, and which in its operation grants him “immunity” from “legislation and policies”.
[6] According to the plaintiff, as articulated in the statement of claim, these actions include being “falsely” arrested and “unlawfully” detained by the defendant Bowser (a Winnipeg police officer), having his car “stolen” by the same defendant and his personal effects searched, being further detained “without cause or right” by the defendant Harvey (a judicial Justice of the Peace), having his home subjected to “a violently and maliciously targeted home invasion by agents acting as Her Majesty the Queen” (members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police and Winnipeg City Police), being “robbed” of several items of property of great value to the plaintiff, having charges against him being “invented” by “the robbers”, including the defendant Gulay (a Royal Canadian Mounted Police officer), and being subjected to a number of “kangaroo tribunals” being conducted the defendants Heinrich and Wyatt (sic) (provincial court justices Heinrichs and Wyant) pursuant to “false charges” brought at the behest of defendant Silver (Crown Attorney).
[7] The plaintiff claims that the individual defendants all intentionally and deliberately misrepresented his identity in order to defraud him and violate his common law and natural rights, and that they participated in and perpetrated the fraud of misrepresenting his identity for their own unjust enrichment, personal gain and political motives.
So Dean is relying on a foisted unilateral agreement saying he opted out (para. 5), that he was traveling (para. 6), and brings in the Strawman Strawman (para. 7).
And now we get the details of that July 21 application by Dean:
2321-Jul-2014 Winnipeg - QB NOTICE OF MOTION (MASTER) BY PLAINTIFF, IMMEDIATE RESTORATION OF THE EXCLUSIVE PERSONAL PROPERTY ,
2421-Jul-2014 Winnipeg - QB AFFIDAVIT DEAN C. CLIFFORD, 18JUL2014
Dean wanted his body returned;
[21] The plaintiff filed a motion requiring the court “to issue an order for the immediate restoration of the exclusive personal property belonging to the Plaintiff”. This is expressed to be brought under Queen’s Bench Rule 44.01.
[22] Queen’s Bench Rule 44.01 reads:
Affidavit in support
44.01(1) An interim order under section 59 of The Court of Queen's Bench Act for recovery of possession of personal property may be obtained on motion by the plaintiff, supported by an affidavit setting out,
(a) a description of the property sufficient to make it readily identifiable;
(b) the value of the property;
(c) that the plaintiff is the owner or lawfully entitled to possession of the property;
(d) that the property was unlawfully taken from the possession of the plaintiff or is unlawfully detained by the defendant; and
(e) the facts and circumstances giving rise to the unlawful taking or detention.
Service
44.01(2) The notice of motion shall be served on the defendant unless the court is satisfied that there is reason to believe that the defendant may improperly attempt to prevent recovery of possession of the property or that, for any other sufficient reason, the order should be made without notice.
[23] The motion was not served on any of the defendants, but the plaintiff (correctly) says the motion can be brought without notice.
[24] Queen’s Bench Rule 44.01(2) places the question of whether the motion is to be served or not on defendants within the discretion of the court. On reflection, I have determined that to expend additional time on this motion by requiring service on the defendants would not achieve compliance with the general principle of the rules articulated in 1.04(1), to “secure the just, most expeditious and least expensive determination”, of this issue in this proceeding and that I ought to give a ruling now.
[25] The details included in the notice of motion make it clear that “the personal property” the plaintiff wishes restored is his physical body.
[26] “Personal property” is defined in clause one of The Court of Queen’s Bench Act as:
"personal property" means property other than real property and includes goods, chattels, money, currency, debts, rents, legacies, stocks, shares, bonds, debentures or other securities and other demands due or accruing due.
Thus, items of personal property covered by the rule are things or inanimate objects. The definition does not include a living human body.
[27] Legally and historically, the writ of Habeas Corpus is the remedy respecting a living human body or being. Jurisdiction for granting such a prerogative writ lies with a federally appointed judge of this court, and not a master.
[28] The plaintiff’s motion is accordingly dismissed.
So Dean gets another chance to make a Habeas corpus application. Good luck with that Dean!
Finally we get to Dean's futile lawsuit (paras. 29-38). First, Dean used inappropriate language and plead things that are irrelevant:
[30] This conclusion is based in part on the fact that a review of the statement of claim reveals numerous deficiencies or contravention of the rules relating to pleadings. The statement of claim is rife with instances of evidence being pleaded rather than “material facts”, (for example, biblical quotations) or of clearly inflammatory and scandalous language, (for example, “thugs”, “gang”, “kidnap”, “criminal”). To detail each and every single deficiency or contravention would substantially lengthen – and delay – this decision, and is, in the final analysis, not necessary.
Unfortunately Dean got the law all wrong.
[31] That is because there is a substantially greater and more fundamental reason why this statement of claim must be struck out. The plaintiff’s claim is premised on a foundation which has no basis in law that is known and applicable to this court: there is thus no reasonable cause of action.
You can't unilaterally opt out of the government's authority:
[32] The basis of the plaintiff’s claim , as noted above, is that he claims he has immunity from “legislation and policies” and that he placed Her Majesty the Queen, through the agency of the provincial Attorney General, on notice that “forced interactions against (his) will are subject to penalties, including an hourly charge, and immunity from legislation and policies.”
There's no such thing as a right to travel:
[33] The plaintiff expands on his philosophy in his Motions Brief (doc #21). At para 32 (correctly, para 36), he states:
32. Dean does claim the right to drive, travel, commute upon, access and use the roads and highways which he owns as is his unconditional common law right, in his own private capacity and under his own sovereign liability, without a license or any other form of hindrance by agencies of government, which is clearly recognized in their own Criminal Code of Canada:
“highway” means a road to which the public has the right of access, and includes bridges over which or tunnels through which a road passes; (sic)
[34] The plaintiff says the actions of which he now complains were contrary to this immunity. There is no such immunity known to law.
And the fact he didn't like the law cited by the Defendants ... well, tough:
[35] I take into account the fact of the plaintiff being unrepresented. I conclude however that the plaintiff’s flawed perception and understanding of the law, as illustrated above is informed by his belief system, rather than his lack of legal representation.
[36] For example, the plaintiff dismisses the case law cited by the defendants, much of which has been adopted in these Reasons. He claims the case law referenced by the defendants was “completely irrelevant”, “taken out of context”, and “cherry picked”.
[37] At Part IV, para 7 of the Motions Brief, the plaintiff specifically dismisses one such case, cited by Manitoba Justice, in Sydorenko v. Manitoba, [2012] M.J. No. 70 (Man. QB): this he says was intentionally misrepresented “as being of relevance.”
[38] In fact, the decision in Sydorenko was of direct relevance. It dealt with a situation in which the identical proposition of law to that now being advanced by this plaintiff was relied upon, (i.e. that an individual can opt out of being bound by statutes or legislation of general application), was being advanced by the plaintiff in that case.
[39] While one might feel a degree of sympathy for the plight in which the plaintiff currently finds himself, I can reach no other conclusion but that it is plain and obvious that the plaintiff’s claim has no reasonable chance of success.
[40] The defendants’ motions are therefore granted, and the plaintiff’s motion is dismissed.
Defendants get costs so Dean pays, well, theoretically, he's probably broke.
[41] The defendants are entitled to their costs, which are to be assessed per Class 2.
And Dean doesn't have to sign the order so now he can argue he's not subject to joinder.
[42] For clarity and in the interests of expediency, I also stipulate that the orders need not be submitted for the plaintiff’s signature as would normally be required in compliance with Queen’s Bench Rule 59.03, however the orders once signed must be served personally and forthwith upon the plaintiff.
With this, and his recent confrontation with the court in respect to his criminal charges it might be time for Dean to re-think his strategy. Except that it's Dean.
)