Dean Clifford: Sentencing & Beyond

[Wake Up! Productions]

And as I told many years ago you are a legal person and a human.

Actually I must correct you. This is where the whole "Freeman Movement" went astray right from the very onset. The term "legal person" is synonymous with ARTIFICIAL PERSON:



Human beings are legally considered NATURAL PERSONS. We never even enter the realm of Artificial Personhood, ergo, we are never considered "legal persons".

Once you accept this fact, this is where the "legal fiction" argument falls apart.

[bmxninja357]

women were human and not persons in canada until the famous five case. thats why it was on the 50 bill.

In 1928, the Supreme Court of Canada had rejected their request, but a year later, the Judicial Committee of the British Privy Council granted their appeal and found in their favour. Thus can be read at the end of a formal 14-page decision “that the word‘persons’ in section 24 [of the British North America Act] includes members both of the male and female sex.

this was the same as many others were not persons. thus such things as the chinaman laws among several others that were not persons but were still humans. in modern law human and legal person are inseparable. back in ye olde days there was certainly a difference but it is irrelevant today.

peace,
ninj

[Wake Up! Productions]

in modern law human and legal person are inseparable.

Perhaps you missed my point. Human beings are legally considered "Natural Persons". According to Barron's Canadian Law Dictionary, the term "Natural Person" is defined as:

a human being that has the capacity for rights and duties

There is no evidence to suggest that "natural person" is synonymous with a "legal person".

[bmxninja357]

in modern times under modern law they are virtually the same. when your natural person commits a crime or tort able act it will soon find its legal person whether the natural person likes it or not. so for all intents and purposes in a modern world they are the same.

i could go definition shopping and case quoting but i believe the proof rests in the pudding, so to speak.

peace,
ninj

***EDIT*** and if you go back many humans were not considered persons of any kind. and that is in canada.

[Wake Up! Productions]

in modern times under modern law they are virtually the same.

As much as I respect you, I feel as though I must also educate you. You are espousing the very essence of Freeman MYTHOLOGY. The legal terms "natural person" and "artificial person" have very different legal definitions BECAUSE they are two different entities that are not at all "virtually the same".

Artificial Person:


Natural Person:


Because this is the very essence of Freeman MYTHOLOGY, one can not break free and move forward from Freeman MYTHOLOGY until they have accepted this fact.

[Jeffrey]

It's interesting to compare Canadian statutes with U.S. statutes because usually Canadian statutes leave obvious things like that for the reader to figure out while American statutes spell it out.

“Person” means a natural person, corporation, partnership, association, or other legal entity and its lessee, trustee, or receiver.

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/ind ... 8.103.html

(a) There are two classes of persons: natural and artificial.

(b) Corporations are artificial persons. They are creatures of the law and, except insofar as the law forbids it, they are subject to be changed, modified, or destroyed at the will of their creator.

Georgia

11. Person. "Person" includes a corporation, partnership, limited partnership, limited liability company, limited liability partnership, association, trust, estate, any other legal entity or natural person.

http://legislature.maine.gov/legis/stat ... ec102.html

[Wake Up! Productions]

It's interesting to compare Canadian statutes with U.S. statutes because usually Canadian statutes leave obvious things like that for the reader to figure out while American statutes spell it out.

“Person” means a natural person, corporation, partnership, association, or other legal entity and its lessee, trustee, or receiver.

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/ind ... 8.103.html

And this is where the Freeman MYTHOLOGY begins ... because quotes like this lump everything together in one giant pile. Law Dictionaries make the distinction.

[bmxninja357]

The essence of this argument is that only legal persons are required to pay taxes whereas natural persons are not. The concept of a legal person is not made up by tax protesters. The concept of a legal person is what allows natural persons to create an artificial person (a composite person) to which the law still applies.

source: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-o ... le4105306/

thats actually a cool porski item. but my point being no matter what person or not one decides, for whatever reason to call ones self it will not absolve you from your actions. for example dean could call himself an idiot and declare it in open court and still get convicted in every 'legal' capacity he has claimed. thusly its kinda irrelevant unless we were moving to a conversation about business or tax and not criminal law like deans convictions for guns and drugs. or perhaps the lawsuits against him. but at any rate im only really concerned with criminal law. so for my intents and purposes they are all kinda the same in that you cant hide at a fruitcake festival you announced on the internet from charges no mater what legal definition of person or legal entity you use.

and what did become of deans lawsuits? i mean the ones against him not the ones he never filed against anyone.

peace,
ninj

[Wake Up! Productions]

The concept of a legal person is what allows natural persons to create an artificial person (a composite person) to which the law still applies.

What this means is that we NATURAL PERSONS can create ARTIFICIAL PERSONS - otherwise known as companies or businesses !!!

A NATURAL PERSON can create a company.

For example ... a now defunct company that I used to work for ... The "fictional" BUSINESS was in the Husband's legal name, but the physical PROPERTY was in the wife's legal name. The "company" or LEGAL PERSON rented the property from Wife. The point being, even if the business went BANKRUPT, the couple wouldn't lose the PHYSICAL PROPERTY !!!

[Wake Up! Productions]

Dean's https://earthsco.blogspot.com/ is now back up and running. The disclaimer is somewhat threatening in nature:



FACEBOOK:

Once again, getting used to my new phone, I was motivated in the days leading up to the formal creation of a new Society, to provide a video of why we should no longer be chattel of their garbage society of privileges, fraud, theft and slavery. No long write up today, and I could not link a video through bloggers on my phone, so here it is. ESC is up an running again, the members and contributor were all sent emails. Will be public shortly.

Have a great week everyone, future members and future Citizens. I will never condone violence against any competing state system. I will provide a better one. I won't give life to their courts any more, I'll get remedy for all damages and stolen property by thing their taxpayers away and all their pledged property. Her Majesty will drown in odious debt with no slaves to pay it all back.

We will not recognize Her Majesty, as it is a null and void criminal enterprise.

Dean C Clifford

[arayder]

Oh, I get it.

Dean thinks he's created his own little country, whose "shitizens" are immune from prosecution by the Canadian authorities. . .provided they don't have contact with the meanies who who disparage the new country's king.

Somebody google "how to make a cult".

[arayder]

NEW 12 minute "walk & talk" video:

It's over. They're done.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PFaXZzcUMQo

Basically, Dean is complaining about the same police shooting video that Menard already whined about:

https://www.facebook.com/ktla5/videos/1 ... nref=story

But Dean got the facts wrong and characterized the incident in such a way as to suit his needs.

The man shot had been pointing his pistol at by-passers before the police came. He refused police commands to drop the weapon. If I recall correctly the initial reports the pistol turned out to be unloaded.

Looks a little like suicide by cop, to me.

The incident is exactly why police forces around the world are searching for more effective non-lethal weapons.

[noblepa]

in modern times under modern law they are virtually the same.

As much as I respect you, I feel as though I must also educate you. You are espousing the very essence of Freeman MYTHOLOGY. The legal terms "natural person" and "artificial person" have very different legal definitions BECAUSE they are two different entities that are not at all "virtually the same".

<images snipped>

Because this is the very essence of Freeman MYTHOLOGY, one can not break free and move forward from Freeman MYTHOLOGY until they have accepted this fact.

IANAL, but it seems to me that the set of "Legal Persons" includes the subsets of "Artificial Persons" and "Natural Persons". So, in that sense, Legal Person is not equal to Natural Person. All natural persons are legal persons, but not all legal persons are natural persons. Likewise, all artificial persons are legal persons, but not all legal persons are artificial persons.

I am a natural person. I am also a legal person. I am not an artificial person.

General Motors is an artificial person. It is also a legal person. It is not a natural person.

Perhaps this is not the precise legal definition, but it seems to be a pretty good common sense definition. Sometimes, the law does, in fact, follow common sense.

Legal persons = Artificial persons + Natural persons

[Wake Up! Productions]

IANAL, but it seems to me that the set of "Legal Persons" includes the subsets of "Artificial Persons" and "Natural Persons". So, in that sense, Legal Person is not equal to Natural Person. All natural persons are legal persons, but not all legal persons are natural persons. Likewise, all artificial persons are legal persons, but not all legal persons are artificial persons.

I am a natural person. I am also a legal person. I am not an artificial person.

General Motors is an artificial person. It is also a legal person. It is not a natural person.

I do believe I stand corrected. The Oxford Dictionary of Law (5th Edition) states what you did:



EDIT:

However my original argument that human beings never enter into the realm of Artificial Personhood stands. And as such, Freemen are in error to use the term "legal fiction" in reference to a human being.

[Wake Up! Productions]

This Facebook comment from Dean about an hour ago sounds like a set up for a future armed stand-off:

Dean C. Clifford
Fuck their corporate mergers, zero to do with me and they better keep the fuck off my property, it's not theirs anymore.

[arayder]

All the way back to the detax/proto-freeman days the flawed legal thinking was that the courts and governments created persons, including natural persons. The idea was that all the detaxers had to do was reject the creation of their person and they were home free.

Freemen still push the idea and often substitute the language describing artificial persons into the definition of natural persons to make it seem they know what they are talking about.

The problem with the detax/freeman theory is that natural persons are just that. . .natural. . . and have always been considered a creation of God, not human society.

The other thing that deatxers loved to point out is that back in the bad old days, in some societies, people of color and women weren't considered persons in possession of all their rights. The inference was that if governments and courts can un-person a natural person it must follow that they created natural persons in the first place.

The natural person ruse was created after Eldon Warman unsuccessfully argued in the late 1990's that he was beyond the reach of the law because he was a natural person. After the court told him his status as a natural person is precisely what made him subject to the rule of law, he and the rest of the detax brain trust started thinking up kinds of people they could brand themselves as so not to be nature persons. They said they were "flesh and blood men" and a couple of other types I can't recall.

Then Menard and a couple others came up with the "freeman on the land" label. The ruse resonated in the subculture and the rest is history.

[Wake Up! Productions]

Freemen still push the idea and often substitute the language describing artificial persons into the definition of natural persons to make it seem they know what they are talking about.

If there was one piece of advise that I followed from Dean Clifford, it would be to take things to their absolute extreme. When I began challenging the narrative that "human beings are both natural and artificial persons", I came up with this:

If both our civil and political rights are protected through our Natural Person, then how can we simultaneously be enslaved by our Artificial Person? Would one not simply nullify the other?

Upon answering my own question, I began to see that human beings never enter the realm of artificial personhood, and that the term "legal fiction" can not possibly be used to describe human beings/natural persons. This was the beginning of the end of my freeman beliefs.

[arayder]

Freemen still push the idea and often substitute the language describing artificial persons into the definition of natural persons to make it seem they know what they are talking about.

If there was one piece of advise that I followed from Dean Clifford, it would be to take things to their absolute extreme. When I began challenging the narrative that "human beings are both natural and artificial persons", I came up with this:

If both our civil and political rights are protected through our Natural Person, then how can we simultaneously be enslaved by our Artificial Person? Would one not simply nullify the other?

Upon answering my own question, I began to see that human beings never enter the realm of artificial personhood, and that the term "legal fiction" can not possibly be used to describe human beings/natural persons. This was the beginning of the end of my freeman beliefs.

The other notion that gets peddled the idea that all law is contract law and freemen are free to cancel their contract with the government.

Dean makes reference to this idea when he rants that the government assumed authority over him via a fraudulent contract. In his latest Youtube, which you posted, he expands the idea by claiming that the courts and the government never really tell anybody what the rules are. This is, in effect, Dean's admission that he doesn't know what's going on!

Over the years countless posters here and on other forums have told him in exactly where he is going wrong. So how is it everybody and his brother can figure it out, but Dean can't?

All he had to do was actually study the law. They got schools and courses of study for that, ya' know.

The thing about the "all law is contract law" idea is that it ignores constitutional law. The funny thing is that Dean often cites his warped version of Canadian constitutional law as the basis for some of his theories.

He's clueless.

[Jeffrey]

But Dean got the facts wrong and characterized the incident in such a way as to suit his needs.

The man shot had been pointing his pistol at by-passers before the police came. He refused police commands to drop the weapon. If I recall correctly the initial reports the pistol turned out to be unloaded.

They released the 911 tapes to try and calm the masses down:

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/12/14/11 ... -33-times/

I will never condone violence against any competing state system. I will provide a better one.

Yeah okay Deano, you're going to create your own sovereign nation on Canadian soil and Canada is just going to be fine with that.

[Hanslune]

But Dean got the facts wrong and characterized the incident in such a way as to suit his needs.

The man shot had been pointing his pistol at by-passers before the police came. He refused police commands to drop the weapon. If I recall correctly the initial reports the pistol turned out to be unloaded.

They released the 911 tapes to try and calm the masses down:

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2015/12/14/11 ... -33-times/

I will never condone violence against any competing state system. I will provide a better one.

Yeah okay Deano, you're going to create your own sovereign nation on Canadian soil and Canada is just going to be fine with that.

Rule # 1 for nation states: Don't tolerate a second Nation state or political entity on your territory. History shows this NEVER works or if it does you get two or more Nation States on the same territory.

Why does Dean think the Canadian Government and people will let him run his own separate country within their own?