Dean Clifford - A Tale of Two Gurus

[notorial dissent]

I think Dean suffers from a, you should pardon the phrase, constitutional inability to comprehend that the simple plain definition of most words is the prevailing one, not the overly complicated obtuse convoluted and wrong one that seems to be a VERY common FOTL/sovcit source of never ending fail.

[Fussygus]

I think one of the problems that Dean and Co have is a failure to understand what the "Common Law" is. Or more to say how the Common Law operates.

If one thinks of the title "Common Law" does the term "Common" not somewhat synonymous with a practice or consistency. Or put another way, a majority as in the majority of us think the sky is blue.

One thing Dean appears to do is claim he needs a Common Law court, but then try and claim that the words of any statue that might bind him are somehow to be strictly interpreted (i.e. a person as defined in the legislation does not include me the living man of human flesh). Correct me if I'm wrong but from what I understand strict interpretation is more akin to civil law.

As I see it the intent of the operation of law in a Common Law jurisdiction, which I would say from a basic human consciousness level is everywhere, is to take the view of the people and operate as the commons would believe it should. Now necessarily there is going to be disagreement between the commons thereby resulting in the operation relying on the majority.

We are all given a voice in this society, and that voice can be heard in our courts of law. The results of our voice will become the record that becomes part of the common record. If enough others agree, precedents, then such may naturally morph into enacted law.

Dean and Co what to erase what the common law has created in a single step. This is an impossible task even if you have a well thought out position that would greatly effect all of society. AND they are trying to do it using the laws that have been developed FROM what has occurred in the engagement of Common Law principles. They don't see the inherent contradiction of their position of relying on the Charter of RIghts to contradict the Criminal Code, ITA, HTA, etc. They need to be read TOGETHER, and interpreted based upon what the Commons, the conscious of society, believes is right.

Dean and Co are bound to loose because the Commons have not deemed that the rules (statutes) of THIS society have note come to the common conscious that those rules should not apply to individuals such as himself. Maybe in time if enough of the Commons (society) deem that we need not apply the rules to individuals such as him, then such would result in associated change (just like gay marriage, environmental legislation, equal rights, women's rights, etc).

He is trying to rely on the rules to defeat the requirement to comply with the rules. Creates kind of an conflict in position. I would say he would have better luck running off into the bush and living off the land, and call himself King Sasquatch. If he never comes into the occupied territories of this society then I don't think there would be much problem with him operating his own common law society as he sees fit. But......I bet eventually it would create it's own rules (statutes) in time, if history is any indicator.

Fuzzy

[Llwellyn]

Dean and associates all CHOOSE which terms to use..
In LAW - a PERSON is

Person

In general usage, a human being; by statute, however, the term can include firms, labor organizations, partnerships, associations, corporations, legal representatives, trustees, trustees in Bankruptcy, or receivers.
A corporation is a "person" for purposes of the constitutional guarantees of equal protection of laws and Due Process of Law.
Foreign governments otherwise eligible to sue in United States courts are "persons" entitled to institute a suit for treble damages for alleged antitrust violations under the Clayton Act (15 U.S.C.A. § 12 et seq.).
Illegitimate children are "persons" within the meaning of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
The phrase interested person refers to heirs, devisees, children, spouses, creditors, beneficiaries, and any others having a property right in, or a claim against, a trust estate or the estate of a decedent, ward, or protected person. It also refers to personal representatives and to fiduciaries.

found Via http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/person

Note, I BOLDED the human/person etc.. and then UNDERLINED the additional clause of CAN INCLUDE... the FoTL/Sovereign system tends to skip or ignore the CAN INCLUDE stuff and then just says, oh, it ONLY refers to a corporate being/entity.
This is a great example of how they selectively choose a piece of law or information, and then denounce everything else, even tho it will clearly define things.. But that doesn't suit their purposes.

COMMON LAW .. is a general reference to laws that are COMMON to all.. IE.. Do Not Kill.. again the FoTL system chooses which laws are common to all and skips the rest. In Canada, the laws COMMON to all, are those enacted by the Courts and Parliament (on a federal and provincial scale)

Common Law, is much akin to Common Sense.. in FoTL systems they skip most things and don't have any actual common sensibility.

[noblepa]

COMMON LAW .. is a general reference to laws that are COMMON to all.. IE.. Do Not Kill.. again the FoTL system chooses which laws are common to all and skips the rest. In Canada, the laws COMMON to all, are those enacted by the Courts and Parliament (on a federal and provincial scale)

Common Law, is much akin to Common Sense.. in FoTL systems they skip most things and don't have any actual common sensibility.

IANAL, but my understanding of common law (I'm assuming its basically the same in Canada) is that it is judge-made law. IOW, in the absence of a specific statute, in the past, judges resolved issues and handed down rulings. In subsequent cases involving similar issues, other judges looked to those rulings for guidance. Absent any good reason to rule otherwise, these judges would rule in the same way as the first judge. This, as I understand it, is basically the principle known as "stare decisis", or "look to the decision", that is still used today. This lends uniformity to the application of the law.

The opposite of common law is statutory law. This is law enacted by the legislature, such as Congress or Parliament. When there is a statute that covers a given situation, the statute takes precedence over common law decisions that may have been handed down prior to the statute.

So, arguing in court that, despite the statutes, one must be governed by common law, is simply wrong. If a statute applies to a situation, common law does not. The FOTL seem to reverse this and argue that their interpretation of common law trumps statutory law.

While there may have been a common law prohibition against killing, today, it is strictly statutory law. The statutes specifically define first degree, second degree murder, manslaughter, justifiable homicide, etc. Little is left to the judge's discretion, except into which category a particular killing falls. So, "do not kill" may be common sense, it is not common law.

[Burnaby49]

The Court of Manitoba Queen's Bench has given us a bit of a mystery. This was posted by the court yesterday;

78
18-Jun-2015
Winnipeg-QB

WARRANT FOR WITNESS OR JUROR FOR WITNESS DEAN BOISSONNEAULT - EXECUTED SAME DAY AND TESTIFIED 18JUN2015

The problem is that there is no Dean Boissonneault, at least not associated with this case. Dean's co-accused and 'plant-sitter' is Darren Pierre Joseph Boissonneault. I suspect that the clerk put the wrong name in the file notes and that there is no "Dean Boissonneault" at all. Perhaps there's a little 'Dean v Darren' confusion in the courtroom, particularly if Darren Clifford is helping Dean out.

So, even correcting for that, what's the story? Was Dean Boissonneault called by the Crown and didn't show, or did Dean Clifford's star witness decide to flee to the hills? Did Boissonneault received a sweetheart deal from the Crown on his involvement with the grow-op in exchange for testifying against Clifford. That may no longer be the case if he was an uncooperative witness.

I don't see that Boissonneault's testimony is critical in any case. It shouldn't be. The key fact here is simply possession. Did Dean have this stuff?

So, at some point after Dean was arrested you can be sure he was interviewed - and he would have been given all his Charter warnings, etc, to which Dean would yell that he's not under the Charter, he's under common law. And when police ask about his guns and pot, Dean is almost certain to have yelled back that that is his private property, HE DID NOT CONSENT!, and there is no joinder, yadda yadda yadda.

There - possession is admitted. Dean says that is his stuff. The interview would have been video recorded, and admissible.

If the Crown trots out the usual drug and firearms experts to identify the contraband, that's the end of the trial.

[Jeffrey]

Boissenault provided a videotaped statement saying the guns and drugs were Deans' on page 11 of the indictment:

http://www.mediafire.com/view/oj4dz9ua7 ... c%2009.pdf

I strongly suspected witness intimidation would be Dean's strategy. Get Darren to run away from Manitoba and not testify at the trial. Which would explain the multiple subpoenas and the now warrant. As well as why Darren has been nowhere to be found for the last 2 years.

[Burnaby49]

Party Time!

Dean Clifford4
0 mins
·
Get together at my beach house tomorrow, Saturday, June 20, for anyone in the Winnipeg area that wants to come and that I cannot remember to invite. RSVP here, or by email, or by phone if your are a people that has that as well.

I guess the trial is over for the week. Unfortunately I'll be in Astoria, Oregon pubbing. Damn!

[Jeffrey]

Could he have gotten the charges dropped or delayed or a mistrial declared due to Darren not testifying?

I have little faith in the prosecutors after they let him get off on the threatening to shoot cops charges.

[bmxninja357]

Could he have gotten the charges dropped or delayed or a mistrial declared due to Darren not testifying?

I have little faith in the prosecutors after they let him get off on the threatening to shoot cops charges.

at best witnesses not appearing could get a stay of proceeding. the charges would reappear once the witnesses were arrested. and there is a good chance the witnesses would be locked up or given a fancy anklet until finished their testimony in the case.

but lets face it, the little video of him clearly shooting his mouth and an unregistered sks clearly proves knowledge consent and control. that is a slam dunk. even for a weak as wine prosecutor.

the only reason i now see as to why dean has not cut a deal is either confidence the witnesses will not testify (through friendship or intimidation) or the crown is clear it does not want to deal and wishes for this case to become an example of what happens when you flout your responsibilities to the law.

i often applaud protesters who are willing to do a little time for their beliefs. dean is trying to look out for number one with shoddy legal reasoning. his crimes were commercial in my opinion. all of them related to for profit endeavours. the 'teaching' simply to fill his pocket. the grow to fill his pocket. the guns to protect the grow. more beer money if you dont buy the legal requirements to operate a motor vehicle on a public road. the shitty self serving attitude and sly threats are gun toting doper 101. been there. done that. but i also didnt use an idiot for a lawyer. so he has racked up more time being an idiot than i served in any stretch.

im guessing he still has an out. completely renounce his legal buffoonery in open court. write some letters of apology. wipe his site. get representation, and barter a deal. i just think he is to arrogant to admit defeat, and he cant see the house for the two by fours.

peace
ninj

[Bill Lumbergh]

Could he have gotten the charges dropped or delayed or a mistrial declared due to Darren not testifying?

I have little faith in the prosecutors after they let him get off on the threatening to shoot cops charges.

Highly, highly unlikely. Looks like the (material witness) warrant was executed the same day, so they hauled him in and he testified.

Even if they couldn't find him, or they hauled him in and he refused to testify, the Crown could then admit the videotaped interview as evidence. If Dean had a real lawyer he could probably oppose that, but on his own I don't think he'd know how.

[Jeffrey]

Uh oh:

MARTIN,J - 19JUN2015 - ADJ FOR PSR AND SENTENCING ADJ 05NOV2015 - 10:00

ORDER FOR REPORT (PSR-GLADUE)

PSR is Pre-Sentencing Report and I'm assuming 05 November means the sentencing date. So Deano seems to have been found guilty and it's now at the sentencing stage. 5 months until the sentencing date seems ridiculous.

[Bill Lumbergh]

It's not just any PSR though.. It's a Gladue report? Dean is first nations?

Looks like the crown finished its case then and Dean didn't call any evidence.

[Jeffrey]

Wait a second I just Googled Gladue after reading Bills comment. Is Dean aboriginal?

[Fmotlgroupie]

My best 2 uninformed guesses are:
1)the court database doesn't distinguish between Gladue reports (pre-sentence reports by a probation officer etc looking specifically into how the offender's aboriginal history contributed to the of fence) and regular PSRs., so the entry means something more like "Gladue and/or PSR"
2) One of Dean's OPCA tirades in court was about Canada lacking sovereignty because it's unceded land, or one of the other OPCA/aboriginal arguments (usually more of a BC thing than a prairies thing, but Dean has after all been mustering arguments for a very long time on this.

I bet five Quatloos That Dean doesn't show up in November, putting off more jail time for a very brief time and screwing his sureties out of a lot of money

[Hanslune]

Sadly, I think he'll bunker down and and lethally resist arrest. Since he cannot lose that is his only option left.

[Llwellyn]

He won't lethally resist, he might try to skip out.. but I doubt that also. I would wager that the Pre-Sentence Report is for figuring out his current time served value (for being in remand for a year and a half) and then general recommendations. Given his vocal and disparaging comments about the court/authority etc, I could see them pushing for maximum or near to maximum, since he by his own words is likely to re-offend.

[arayder]

Considering Dean's threats I doubt, that during any arrest in the future, the cops are going to give him any chance to do anything but "keep yo hands war we kin see 'em" (Kentucky dialect).

His November 2013 arrest was made in an open, public area where the cops were pretty safe in guessing he wouldn't have access to his arsenal of cheap firearms.

The cops who carried him off looked like the kind of Canadians whose hockey carriers went nowhere because of their stick handling, not their ability to check the opponent into the boards.

[Jeffrey]

Dean Clifford Guilty of the facts to all. Why argue? I didn't stucco Her Majesty's house. I wanted a cause of action for Fed court for a permanent injunction, now I got the proof Her Majesty is forcing me to stucco Her house for free contrary to their Charter and the ICCPR. Why would I speak to fictions at a biased internal arbitrary tribunal under extreme threat and duress? Be silly to ratify that proceeding with participation. Lol

Dean confirmed guilty on all counts on his Facebook.

[bmxninja357]

Hmmmm.... found guilty or change of plea?

Peace
ninj

[Fmotlgroupie]

Hmmmm.... found guilty or change of plea?

Peace
ninj

I'm going to say a finding of guilt.
1) judges can't accept anything less than a perfectly unambiguous and voluntary guilty plea, and I don't think Dean can go 30 seconds without spouting something
2) a guilty plea after the Crown has presented enough evidence for a conviction buys him zero credit vs. taking his chances with the judge

I think Dean is just trying to say "of course I lost, I threw the game as part of my grand plan". Might have had a shred of credibility if he hadn't waited until after the verdict was read.