Dean Clifford: Sentencing & Beyond

[Bill Lumbergh]

I recall doing a detailed review which is buried somewhere in this discussion. However with the actual sentencing so close I'm not going to bother to go back and dig it up. Why speculate? We'll find out next month.

The following 14 is what Dean was CHARGED with, however media reports say that he was only found guilty of 12 of the 14. Which 2 charges were dropped, who knows?

1x Production Of Controlled Substance (marijuana): 14 years (max)
1x Failure to comply with condition of undertaking or recognizance 2 years (max)
1x Possession Of Prohibited Or Restricted Firearm: 10 years (max)
1x Careless Storage Of Ammunition: 2 years (max)
5x Contravention Of Storage Regulations: 2 years (max) on first offence, 5 years (max) on subsequent offences
5x Possessing a firearm without a license: 5 years (max)

There's a further wrinkle to this, as some of those charges may be conditionally stayed due to the rule against multiple convictions from a case called Kienapple http://canlii.ca/t/1twxz

In a nutshell, where a person is found guilty two offences that are essentially the same, they can only be convicted of one of them. This could apply to some of those gun charges.

[Wake Up! Productions]

There's a further wrinkle to this, as some of those charges may be conditionally stayed due to the rule against multiple convictions from a case called Kienapple http://canlii.ca/t/1twxz

In a nutshell, where a person is found guilty two offences that are essentially the same, they can only be convicted of one of them. This could apply to some of those gun charges.

I'm not so certain of this. That case appears to be dealing with 2 charges that are essentially the same, but called two different names. Hypothetically, this is like being charged with "bank robbery" and "theft from a financial institution". They are both the same thing, but called two different names.

EDITED:

Also, that case was from 1974, 11 years prior to the 1985 revamping of the Criminal Code.

[Bill Lumbergh]

There's a further wrinkle to this, as some of those charges may be conditionally stayed due to the rule against multiple convictions from a case called Kienapple http://canlii.ca/t/1twxz

In a nutshell, where a person is found guilty two offences that are essentially the same, they can only be convicted of one of them. This could apply to some of those gun charges.

I'm not so certain of this. That case appears to be dealing with 2 charges that are essentially the same, but called two different names. Hypothetically, this is like being charged with "bank robbery" and "theft from a financial institution". They are both the same thing, but called two different names.

EDITED:

Also, that case was from 1974, 11 years prior to the 1985 revamping of the Criminal Code.

A quick search on CanLII will show you that the Kienapple rule is still very much good law that gets regularly applied.

For example, here is a case where it was applied to stay a charge of possession of a gun without a licence because the offender was also convicted of possessing a loaded prohibited firearm: R v. Naples http://canlii.ca/t/232mn

[Wake Up! Productions]

A quick search on CanLII will show you that the Kienapple rule is still very much good law that gets regularly applied.

For example, here is a case where it was applied to stay a charge of possession of a gun without a licence because the offender was also convicted of possessing a loaded prohibited firearm: R v. Naples http://canlii.ca/t/232mn

The first case was a Supreme Court ruling, and the second was an Court of Appeals ruling. Based on this, I would say that Dean would have to appeal his case before the court can act on anything like this.

From what I can see, Justice Martin is free to sentence Dean for each count. It is up to Dean to appeal it. No appeal, the sentence stands. This is where having a good lawyer comes into play.

[arayder]

A quick search on CanLII will show you that the Kienapple rule is still very much good law that gets regularly applied.

For example, here is a case where it was applied to stay a charge of possession of a gun without a licence because the offender was also convicted of possessing a loaded prohibited firearm: R v. Naples http://canlii.ca/t/232mn

The first case was a Supreme Court ruling, and the second was an Court of Appeals ruling. Based on this, I would say that Dean would have to appeal his case before the court can act on anything like this.

From what I can see, Justice Martin is free to sentence Dean for each count. It is up to Dean to appeal it. No appeal, the sentence stands. This is where having a good lawyer comes into play.

And Dean using the appeal process won't be creating joinder with the evil government?

Why would Dean need to appeal if, as he says, he has dismissed his charges all by himself?

The usual explanation freeman gurus like Dean give for going ahead and using the courts they say are merely "fiction" is that they are forced out of necessity to do so. The ploy harkens back to Eldon Warman's invocation of his "Rule of Necessity as being the Right of self defense" to explain why his clients/dupes should participate in court proceedings even though he had told them his previous advice would make them bullet proof.

Dean has already gone over the top by claiming the courts have threatened to kill him if he doesn't show up in court.

[Hyrion]

It is up to Dean to appeal it.

And even if successfully appealed - it may not matter. Imagine the scenario:

• Separate conviction: 6 years

• Paired conviction 1: 4 years

• Paired conviction 2: 3 years

• To be served concurrently

Deaner appeals and the Court Of Appeals says:

• You're right, the two paired convictions should only be 1, pick 1 to revoke, it's still less then the 6 years you need to serve concurrently.

That'd be funny.

[Dr. Caligari]

Deaner appeals and the Court Of Appeals says:

You're right, the two paired convictions should only be 1, pick 1 to revoke, it's still less then the 6 years you need to serve concurrently.
That'd be funny.

Some appellate courts in the United States follow what they call the "concurrent sentence doctrine" under which they won't even consider a defendant's appeal from a conviction on one charge if the sentence runs concurrently with another charge not being appealed, since the appeal won't make any difference. (There are exceptions, e.g., where there are separate fines on each count, or one charge has collateral consequences like license revocation, etc.)

[Bill Lumbergh]

A quick search on CanLII will show you that the Kienapple rule is still very much good law that gets regularly applied.

For example, here is a case where it was applied to stay a charge of possession of a gun without a licence because the offender was also convicted of possessing a loaded prohibited firearm: R v. Naples http://canlii.ca/t/232mn

The first case was a Supreme Court ruling, and the second was an Court of Appeals ruling. Based on this, I would say that Dean would have to appeal his case before the court can act on anything like this.

From what I can see, Justice Martin is free to sentence Dean for each count. It is up to Dean to appeal it. No appeal, the sentence stands. This is where having a good lawyer comes into play.

He doesn't need to appeal. Here's another case: Kidd http://canlii.ca/t/1h985. It's not an appeal, just a regular sentencing case in provincial court. From paragraph 53 onwards the court goes into a lengthy analysis of how the Kienapple rule applies to the charges the accused was found guilty of.

Right in the opening paragraph of that section:

Mr. Kidd has entered a guilty plea to three offences. Certainly, the evidence established that he is guilty of all three; however, an issue to be determined is whether an entry of guilty to all three would offend the rule against multiple convictions as set out in Kienapple v. The Queen (1974), 1974 CanLII 14 (SCC), 15 C.C.C.(2d) 524 (S.C.C.) (Kienapple).

Of course having a good lawyer would be helpful. I don't pretend to know how this rule would apply to the above offences and I'm not going to spend time trying to research it. I'm just pointing out that sentence might not be imposed on all of them. If that happens, it's not because of some glorious freeman victory, but because of this rule.

[Wake Up! Productions]

He doesn't need to appeal. Here's another case: Kidd http://canlii.ca/t/1h985. It's not an appeal, just a regular sentencing case in provincial court. From paragraph 53 onwards the court goes into a lengthy analysis of how the Kienapple rule applies to the charges the accused was found guilty of.

Right in the opening paragraph of that section:

Mr. Kidd has entered a guilty plea to three offences. Certainly, the evidence established that he is guilty of all three; however, an issue to be determined is whether an entry of guilty to all three would offend the rule against multiple convictions as set out in Kienapple v. The Queen (1974), 1974 CanLII 14 (SCC), 15 C.C.C.(2d) 524 (S.C.C.) (Kienapple).

Of course having a good lawyer would be helpful. I don't pretend to know how this rule would apply to the above offences and I'm not going to spend time trying to research it. I'm just pointing out that sentence might not be imposed on all of them. If that happens, it's not because of some glorious freeman victory, but because of this rule.

This is why I love Quatloos - every effort is made to get to the TRUTH, even if it is not what we want to hear.

1x Production Of Controlled Substance (marijuana): 14 years (max)
1x Failure to comply with condition of undertaking or recognizance 2 years (max)
1x Possession Of Prohibited Or Restricted Firearm: 10 years (max)
1x Careless Storage Of Ammunition: 2 years (max)
5x Contravention Of Storage Regulations: 2 years (max) on first offence, 5 years (max) on subsequent offences
5x Possessing a firearm without a license: 5 years (max)

So, under this rule, 1x Possession Of Prohibited Or Restricted Firearm would cancel out 5x Possessing a firearm without a license. And 1x Careless Storage Of Ammunition would cancel out 5x Contravention Of Storage Regulations.

[Hyrion]

So, under this rule, 1x Possession Of Prohibited Or Restricted Firearm would cancel out 5x Possessing a firearm without a license. And 1x Careless Storage Of Ammunition would cancel out 5x Contravention Of Storage Regulations.

Actually, I'd suggest at best:

So, under this rule, 1x Possession Of Prohibited Or Restricted Firearm would cancel out 1x Possessing a firearm without a license.

Explanation:

Deaner has 5 firearms - he's supposed to be licensed for each. There's one prohibited/restricted and four normal long rifles.

So... possession of a prohibited/restricted may cancel out possessing that particular firearm without a license - but it doesn't cancel out the fact he's got 4 long rifles without license.

And.... the careless storage of ammunition does not cancel out the careless storage of the five firearms.

[bmxninja357]

Mr. Kidd has entered a guilty plea to three offences. Certainly, the evidence established that he is guilty of all three; however, an issue to be determined is whether an entry of guilty to all three would offend the rule against multiple convictions as set out in Kienapple v. The Queen (1974), 1974 CanLII 14 (SCC), 15 C.C.C.(2d) 524 (S.C.C.) (Kienapple).

you missed something. dean did not enter a guilty plea. all counts were proven on their merit.

peace,
ninj

[Wake Up! Productions]

Deaner is whining about this on Facebook:

"CANADA- JUDGE FINES MAN $1.30 FOR GROWING 30 POT PLANTS- SAYS LAW OUTDATED" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0LYK8UkWhXc

http://www.cantechletter.com/2015/11/ga ... idiculous/

Dean C. Clifford
33 mins ·

16 months in prison, 90+ days of solitary confinement and admittedly a quarter million in property stolen v. A buck thirty ($1.30) fine. I guess the guy was not a human rights teacher.........

Let's pretend I WAS a Citizen.... which I am not...... apparently this is what happens to Citizens.... and I am what happens to political activists who make the informed decision to leave the incorporated collective called Her Majesty, take all my property/rights back, and start a new Nation with a group of others.

The problem Dean has is that his circumstances were completely different. This guy proved that it was for his own personal MEDICAL use, for which he was denied legal medical marijuana. Dean on the other hand was growing it for the purposes of profiting from the sale of it.

[Wake Up! Productions]

Dean is still soliciting cash funds:



Can't expect a leopard to change its spots.

[arayder]

So let me get this straight.

Dean's clearly going away to the big house for a few years. Yet he is soliciting funds for a the creation of a society he clearly won't be able to manage form his jail cell.

[Arthur Rubin]

So let me get this straight.

Dean's clearly going away to the big house for a few years. Yet he is soliciting funds for a the creation of a society he clearly won't be able to manage from his jail cell.

Perhaps he could. I'm probably granting Dean too much intelligence, but wasn't some Mafia godfather convicted of further running his enterprise from prison?

[Wake Up! Productions]

So let me get this straight.

Dean's clearly going away to the big house for a few years. Yet he is soliciting funds for a the creation of a society he clearly won't be able to manage form his jail cell.

There are a two working theories:

- That Dean Clifford actually believes that he is not going to prison, and that he is free to build his new "society".
- That Dean Clifford is just as much of a con man as Penis of England, and is milking the con until he goes to prison.

If anyone else has any theories, I'd love to hear them.

[Wake Up! Productions]

Absolutely priceless ... classic fmotl BS:

[Hanslune]

So let me get this straight.

Dean's clearly going away to the big house for a few years. Yet he is soliciting funds for a the creation of a society he clearly won't be able to manage form his jail cell.

There are a two working theories:

- That Dean Clifford actually believes that he is not going to prison, and that he is free to build his new "society".
- That Dean Clifford is just as much of a con man as Penis of England, and is milking the con until he goes to prison.

If anyone else has any theories, I'd love to hear them.

We discussed this earlier and I am holding to his playing a game and at the end he will take a stand and die or be taken screaming off to jail.

[Jeffrey]

Our boy Deano, or rather his webmaster, is over in the comments threatening litigation against the trolls and shills.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dm33OsG0Qeg

[notorial dissent]

I'd ask him where he's going to get the filing fees, and then remind him that unsuccessful litigants in Canada get to pay their opponents cost and expenses, even if it takes the rest of their natural lives to do it, particularly if they have good lawyers, and that no real lawyer would touch Deano and his crap since he is a sure loss in court.