Dean Clifford - A Tale of Two Gurus

[Fussygus]

Having read Mr.Clifford's material and viewed his video's, having previously been agreeable to such ideals for my own reasons, I can appreciate much of what he says. But I can also appreciate what he is missing.

The essence of his position is that everything is based on a trust or contract position. And I wouldn't disagree with him on this basic point. BUT the problem with the way he is interpreting this position deficient because he is failing to see how he is missing the heirachy of the contracts he engages into.

What he is doing is akin to having a house built for you, then asking for a change order over which taps were to be installed, then claiming the original contract to build the house does not exist because the wrong taps were installed. He is calling the contractor and f*#king a*#hole because he didn't install the right taps, or because the paint is they used was Glidden as opposed to Sherwin Williams, and then tells him he isn't paying him while he moves his stuff into the new house.

Mr.Clifford is looking too close to the source for his interpretation of the contract. He is not even allowing the contractor to change the taps, he is just locking the door and saying I don't owe you anything because you breached the contract because you didn't put the right taps. The contractor installed the taps he understood Mr.Clifford had described in his agreement, but Mr.Clifford maintains those aren't the taps he wanted in spite of what would reasonably be interpreted from his request.

When I proposed to my wife I had a belief as to what I was asking of her with her hand in marriage. Likewise, she had an understanding of what I was asking of her too. Now what is to say her understanding and mine are in fact the same? I think I can safely say that in this agreement there are going to be numerous disagreements over the interpretation of the agreement between us. Most of us would try and work through our disagreement before we decide we can't work it out and go each others way, both substantially poorer by the way. Mr.Cliffords logic is that he can accept all the benefits of the marriage even after he has reneged on a term that his spouse understood. So even though the Mrs. could reasonably expect some financial support from him after putting him through law school, he takes the position he does not owe her any duty, and that she should continue to provide him support after law school while he keeps everything he makes as a lawyer to himself. He does this because she isn't party to his work contract, so he doesn't have to give her any of the proceeds of that contract.

So in Mr.Clifford's case at hand, he is denying the court has jurisdiction over him because he owes it no duty, yet at the same time he is bringing actions against others in the same court. In essence he is suing his wife claiming he doesn't owe her anything while digging through her purse for some money.

You can't take a benefit without accepting the associated duty, nothing is free. Don't drive on the roads (benefit) unless you are prepare to follow the rules (traffic laws). Trespassing is a crime and I believe Mr.Clifford knows this law. Society built the roads, courthouses and jails, it has staked a claim to those and others. Stay out and you are free Mr.Clifford, trespass and face the effects of the scripture.

Your actions indicate your assent!

Fuzzy

[wserra]

The essence of his position is that everything is based on a trust or contract position. And I wouldn't disagree with him on this basic point.

I would. I doubt that's the law in Canada, and it surely is not in the U.S.

[arayder]

The essence of his position is that everything is based on a trust or contract position. And I wouldn't disagree with him on this basic point.

I would. I doubt that's the law in Canada, and it surely is not in the U.S.

As a well established fact of law, history and custom the authority of western democracies to make and enforce binding law is not a matter of contract law.

[Jeffrey]

The essence of his position is that everything is based on a trust or contract position. And I wouldn't disagree with him on this basic point.

I would. I doubt that's the law in Canada, and it surely is not in the U.S.

The courts disagree with him on that point.

I'm going to cross link the Fearn decision in this thread because pages 32 to 52 basically apply here verbatim.

http://www.albertacourts.ab.ca/jdb_new/ ... qb0114.pdf

Mr. Fearn’s schema of law is unorthodox and in no way reflects the historical
development of Commonwealth legal traditions, jurisprudence, or academic discourse. His
perspective could just as easily and accurately be expressed in this way:
1.There is a kind of law that I like, which are my own rules, which I call common
law. It applies to me.
2.There are many other kinds of law but they don’t apply to me, because I say so.

This is the shortest way to summarize Dean's beliefs.

The schemes used by the accused had no possibility of success.

No OPCA technique has ever provided any benefit to an accused facing criminal charges

Fee schedules are identified in Meads as a tool of intimidation and a potential basis for
charges under the Criminal Code. Associate Chief Justice Rooke suggested in Meads
that an attempt to apply a fee schedule against a justice system participant is prima facie
evidence of intimidation of a justice system participant: Criminal Code, s. 423.1. I agree, and further conclude that any claim to assert a fee schedule against a hearing judge would be civil contempt of court that warrants judicial response.

The autocomplete for "Dean Clifford" on Google is "dean clifford fee schedule". It'll be interesting to see if they penalize him for the fee schedule and lien nonsense.

An OPCA litigant who states a judge is potentially or actually subject to extralegal retaliation or supervision is prima facie in contempt of court.

Dean has done this in the transcripts we have.

the Court’s contempt authority is an appropriate vehicle to address certain OPCA guru activities because they are, simply put, at attack on the court and its function.

OPCA gurus promote and sell techniques that are either intended to break or frustrate
court processes, or which have historically proven to impeded court function. I believe this is aninstance of public activity which is potentially criminal contempt of court.

This is going to be interesting because we now have case law that would allow them to charge Dean for his Guru activities.

If they decide to throw the book at him, they have a ton of avenues now. I hope someone gets the Fearn decision to Dean.

[Fussygus]

Ok, it looks like I wasn't clear about what I meant when I said "..contract..wouldn't disagree on this basic point."
What I meant was NOT that each is in fact a contract for the terms as per the statute laws etc. What I meant was that they are interpreted in the same fashion as all contracts are interpreted. I do realize that using this wording seems to play to the position of the likes of Mr.Clifford, but my position is that it does not as he believe, renege him from his duties to society. He exists here and as such is bound by those duties according to the laws of this society.

He contends that he isn't bound by the laws of the society if he doesn't want to be. Well I would say too bad, until your army overthrows the one that guards this one, you are bound by these laws until you leave.

The interpretation of these laws is based in the same principals as any contract is interpreted. Whether it be a building construction contract, a marriage contract, or a statute law contract, the means and process are the same. The rules of court dictate rules for interpretation just the same as a building construction contract, you can superimpose them on each other and I would garner the only thing that varies between the two would be the specific details. Ultimately, they both rely on precedence, precedence as to what society feel is equitable. What is fair.

So don't think I'm somehow in a back handed way supporting his position, I definitely am not.

I hope this provided some clarification as to what I was saying.
Sincerely,
Fuzzy

[Clovenhoof]

So don't think I'm somehow in a back handed way supporting his position, I definitely am not.

I hope this provided some clarification as to what I was saying.
Sincerely,
Fuzzy

Your post was great, don't worry about the hair-splitting.

[Hilfskreuzer Möwe]

A result has been posted on the Manitoba Court's website for Dean's hearing yesterday in the Manitoba Court of Queen's Bench - this is the hearing he has not disclosed to his followers:

Docket CR13-01-32571 - QUEEN vs CLIFFORD, DEAN CHRISTOPHER D.

Doc # 17
Reg Date 06-Mar-2014
Court Location Winnipeg-QB
Document DISPOSITION SHEET
Notes KEYSER, J. 06MAR2014 MOTION STRUCK OFF FOR RE-FILLING OF PROPER
MATERIAL

Whatever the application was, it was unsuccessful. My guess is Dean tried yet another of his fake 'get me out of jail!' documents, which was rejected as spurious.

Maybe he really should try "minister" Belanger's notices...

SMS Möwe

[notorial dissent]

The essence of his position is that everything is based on a trust or contract position. And I wouldn't disagree with him on this basic point.

That is just the very very so very old it has whiskers on it "everything is contract" BS that has been the pride and joy of sovrun idjits everywhere, and it was BS when they first trotted it out, and it remains the veriest of BS to this day. There is no legal or reality basis to it whatsoever, and if you think otherwise, then that is part of how you fell down the rabbit hole.

Contracts and trusts are based on law, not the other way around.

[Fussygus]

Notarial, it doesn't seem you read my subsequent post as clarification of the quotation you sent.

I am not saying the law is based on A contract; I am saying that the law is developed based on the same principals AS a contract. That a contract is written and interpreted just the SAME as a contract, but is not in and of itself a contract in the legal sense.

In today's world there is legislation (laws) that dictate the what is necessary in a commercial contract. In a construction contract the law dictates that the construction lien act applies to all construction contracts. The actual contract need not reference the Construction Lein Act because it's terms are DEEMED to be part of all construction contracts in Ontario (or whatever jurisdiction). It is deemed to be part of the contract because the superseding terms are sourced from the legislative laws. In this case you even have the specific term that any terms within the Construction Contract that very from the term of this legislation are considered to have no force and effect. The Construction Contract is read including the terms of the Construction Lien Act. It becomes part of the contract.

So my point wasn't that contracts somehow override the legislation, the legislation in many cases become part of the contract. The legislation in this case has no bearing until a contract is entered into. It serves no purpose until engaged (Uugh, something tells me i might be opening a big can here without articulating enough on the subject).

So the original point was that rule of how you interpret the law and contracts are the same. They are also drafted the same, but laws serve the larger purposes of society, contracts only serve the purposes of the parties. A law can serve the parties to a contract. And let me clear, you don't need to sign anything to be bound by the laws.

Sincerely,
Fuzzy

[arayder]

Team Dean has another update: http://deanclifford.info/2014/03/07/que ... yesterday/

Transcripts posted reveal that Dean was before a case management judge. Maybe some of our learned Canadian colleagues can tell us what this is about.

It seems to me it means the court is forced to waste a fair amount of time and taxpayer's money dealing with Dean's antics.

If Dean's paranoia about "creating enjoinder" has been carried through one has to wonder if the boy has even entered a plea? I know the courts often enter not guilty pleas for freemen who go on and on at sentencing hearings. Does anybody know if this has happened in Dean's case.

[Jeffrey]

Also the Judge was will pushing the court houses new practice directives saying he needs to go on the internet to print these forms out.

That is bullshit, Dean already said in the last two phone calls that he has copies of the directives, he has no need to print them out.

there are some things in the works which can’t be reported on at this moment

Again, I call bullshit. They clearly have full copies of the transcripts but are only releasing snippets in order to control the message OR Dean and his brother are only releasing certain fragments to the Admin who appears to be a true believer.

I particularly like the listing of the bogus filings Dean has made so far by the Judge.

notice of securities fraud, demand to quash, writ of habeus corpus, demand to show cause, demand for particulars and empirical proof, notice of breach of trust and oath, a warrant for release, and a certificate of default and dishonour

Even if Dean is trying to project the image that he's in control and has them right where he wants them, so far he's thrown every single magic document he can think of and none have or will work.

[Hilfskreuzer Möwe]

I think I can offer some possible context. The transcript passages are identified as being from a Jan. 28, 2014 Provincial Court case management meeting. That actually makes sense. At some point Dean's matter is going to a preliminary hearing in Provincial Court, and if the Provincial Court judge concludes the Crown has established a prima facie case against Dean, then the actual trial at Queen's Bench will be heard.

We are pretty clearly in the run up to the preliminary hearing.

Case management hearings are intended to check and see how each side's preparation for the next major step (here, the preliminary hearing) are coming along. The rationale for that is courts hate to have a hearing scheduled, and then on the day that is to start someone says "I'm not ready!" or "I have an application to gum up the works!" and the matter needs to be rescheduled. Huge waste of time, preparation, and sometimes the 'freed up' time is not easily re-allocated in a useful manner. Thus, courts hold these meeting to do things like identify potential evidence or witness glitches, disclosure issues, whether there will be experts (more scheduling and disclosure issues), are there Constitutional/Charter arguments - can those be dealt with, and so on.

The transcript excerpts are from one of these meetings.

At page 8, lines 27-33 Dean talks about his magic paperwork to pop him out of Remand. Dean appears to have already been denied bail. That means the Provincial Court has no jurisdiction to hear a bail review - that belongs to Queen's Bench. At page 9, lines 26-29 the Provincial Court Judge says just that. The bit prior to that (page 9, lines 16-25) is the Provincial Court judge saying "and I've seen your paperwork you should send to QB - it's crap, so you might want to think about some other paperwork for QB - like an actual bail review application - here's where you can get that form", but the judge is being pleasant and indirect, so as to not step outside his/her role and give legal advice.

Then Dean at page 9, lines 30-32 talks about his Federal Court action, which still does not appear on the Federal Courts database, and that I suspect is imaginary. Unless he filed it under someone else's name entirely. And I have no idea who that would be.

Dean seems to have cut out all the actual case management hearing chunks.

This is all the DeanClifford.info news bit says about the Thursday, March 6, 2014 Queen's Bench hearing:

On Thursday, Dean had a hearing in Queens Bench. the judge wouldn’t proceed due to him not having any charges on hand. Dean asked him to get his cuffs removed and he will go down stairs and get them printed out.

I'm going to assume this isn't entirely nonsense. (Yeah - likely an error.) Does Dean have any charges in Queen's Bench yet? No - they're still being processed in Provincial Court. So perhaps Dean was told that whatever procedure he is trying this time is premature, in the wrong forum, in the wrong form - quite possible.

Something of an observation in general - I think Dean and Co. are monitoring this forum and comments of other critics. There had been no comment from Dean's circles about Dean's March 6 hearing (of which I am aware), until this forum posted information leading to a data source that is outside Dean's control, the Manitoba Courts website. I think we're seeing a kind of sheltering and reactive process - Dean and his inner core are desperately trying to spin positive (or at a minimum, inflammatory) responses from actual developments.

For what it's worth. We really are trying to play lawsuit archeology, piecing together shards (some fakes) and then reconstruct an accurate whole.

If Dean is winning (Dean IS winning!) then it makes no sense to only release snippets of transcripts, or not provide the long-promised court submissions. We would read those and say "Dean is WINNING!" - even us skeptics - but I think one can make some logical inferences from the manner in which Clifford's court record has been framed by those closest to them.

It's $1 to get a print out of the charges Dean faces, the "information"(http://www.manitobacourts.mb.ca/provinc ... inks/fees/), critical data that no one has seen displayed in public. That's it. $1. Lots of Dean's followers really want to know the charges against him. For $1 Dean and Co. can provide that data, scan it, load it on their website(s). And it hasn't happened.

What does that tell anyone about the way Clifford and his people are managing this action, and their openness to critics and potential customers?

SMS Möwe

[notorial dissent]

Fussygus, I understood/understand what you were saying and there is no question that contract law and civil functions are intertwined, but the idea you friend was pushing was that EVERYTHING was so dictated, and it isn't.

[grixit]

If all else fails, Dean should just write "BOOM!" on a marshmallow, throw it at the cell wall, and then leave through the hole it blows.

[Fussygus]

Ok Notarial, I think we are on the same page.

What Dean is propagating is an outright ideal that you can decide to enter or exit the law JUST LIKE A CONTRACT. The problem even with this basic premiss is that you CAN'T just enter or exit a contract.

You can't just decide you don't want to finish building the building you contracted to build when you are halfway done....and were paid up front. Contracts don't work like that, you are bound by the terms until completion or the other party releases you from your obligations.

When you are married you can't just decide you are no longer married and walk away with all the assets of the family. Your wife has to agree, or based on the terms of the marriage Contract and/or the terms of societies laws. Would anyone suggest their daughter get married if the end the husband could walk away with all the benefits and none of the liabilities? The laws in this realm have been developed to help articulate the will of society for the sake of administration. The legislated laws simply detail the law of equity.

All the legislative laws do is fill in the administrative details of the law of equity. Mr.Clifford, and the like, fail to appreciate this point when they claim they only follow "God's Laws".

Fuzzy

[arayder]

I think I can offer some possible context. . . .

SMS Möwe

Thanks for the clarification, Möwe.

Team Dean's childish gamesmanship tells us a lot.

My guess is that the March 6th and 7th hearings didn't go too well for Clifford and he's trying to distract the faithful from the fact that he's is working on his fourth month in jail and looking at some time over serious drug and firearm charges.

[Hilfskreuzer Möwe]

I've scouted around the 'net for some (any) commentary on the mighty protests scheduled for Friday inside/outside the Winnipeg courthouse in support of Dean the Bold. So far I have found nothing. I draw no inference from that beyond that I don't think Dean has liberated himself via his court activities this week.

So I engaged in some thought experiments instead. In the offhand chance Dean is found guilty of some criminal misconduct in the Court of Queen's Bench, he may have his sentence reduced one a 1 to 1 basis for time he spent in remand prior to his conviction: Criminal Code, RSC 1985, c C-46, 719(2). While the Criminal Code provision says that is optional, in most cases that sentence reduction is all but automatic.

However, an offender can argue that an enhanced 1.5 to 1 sentence reduction may be ordered "if the circumstances justify it". The meaning of that phrase is currently in dispute, there is an outstanding Supreme Court of Canada appeal squarely on that point.

I'm not suggesting any interpretation of the law one way or another, but since Dean's applications and arguments so far have had no apparent effect, perhaps he might start thinking about this provision. Perhaps one could argue that as Freemen-on-the-Land are super-free, that taking away their freedom is a "circumstance". Perhaps having to file court documents with certain formalities and kinds is a "circumstance". Perhaps lack of access to a notary is a "circumstance".

Merely a thought experiment. Still, Dean could get quite a benefit if he convinced a court he deserves the 1.5 credit (if the alleged misconduct occurred) (if Dean is found guilty) (if Dean is not miracled out of detention by his magical paperwork.) At present, Dean has been detained on Judicial Interim Release for 104 days. If he could prove a "circumstance", then he'd reduce his jail time (if the alleged misconduct occurred) (if Dean is found guilty) (if Dean is not miracled out of detention by his magical paperwork) by nearly a month and a half!

SMS Möwe

[notorial dissent]

The fatal flaw in this thought experiment, is in pairing the concept of thought and Dean together, like it could possibly happen. He has certainly shown no propensity for it so far, so I sincerely doubt he will start at this late date.

[Border Reiver]

The other option is that if convicted and sentenced to a period of incarceration, Dean won't have any reduction in his sentence, since he refused to apply for bail, and his time in pre-trial detention is entirely of his own doing.

[LordEd]

It appears Mr. Menard wishes to engage with Mowe, but only on his own terms, of course:https://www.facebook.com/robert.menard. ... eam_ref=10

Message for SMS Mowe : I saw your invitation to join your forum and give you information. I shall decline. I don't eat the soup when there is a big turd in the pot, and arayders inability to bring anything to the discussion except personal attacks makes him the big turd in your forum pot. Also, it seems unfair to me that you would not reveal your identity while expecting me to reveal mine. I will however extend a counter offer. I would like to record a discussion with you on skype, (you will have to reveal your identity for that, but if you have nothing to hide you should not mind), and then we make that public. The question to be discussed is how can lawful authority be derived from a non-existent imaginary construct such as 'Regina' or 'The Crown'? Let me know if you have the gumption to discuss this publicly, or if you prefer to remain anonymous. I am sure it would be for some reason besides cowardice.

While Menard and freemen in general are entertaining, it probably isn't really wise to be on a first-name basis with them. Burnaby's exposure, while providing first-hand real results, is a greater risk than I'd be willing to take. Even if Menard is so-far non-violent, there's no guarantee that his followers don't have a lesser interpretation of the "no harm" principle.

I also wouldn't recommend going for lunch with him. You'd probably wind up paying the bill, and you wouldn't be allowed in the Cactus Club.