I thought I'd update this thread as there have been some interesting posts on Rob's blog. Many of his posts also get posted on the "Free Dean Clifford" facebook page and it appears that he is an admin there.
Anyways, from the June 22 entry we get an update as to the folks previously mentioned who got arrested with a large quantity of illegal narcotics:
First off I want to update you on the drug raid that got the show cause hearing. Although there isn’t much to discuss with it it’s the same old story that we keep hearing over and over. The parties involved began educating themselves too late and didn’t have the knowledge they needed to successfully achieve their goals. As a result they decided to hire a lawyer and the show cause hearing was immediately cancelled. They entered pleas of guilty in an attempt to please the court and get lesser sentences at the advice of their lawyer and are now waiting on sentencing. I don’t know what they will receive for time but rumors are in the range of 7 to 10 years in prison. That useless shit in a suit was worth the money he was paid now wasn’t he?
Ouch.
Now, let's be clear as to what a show cause hearing is in the context of an arrest. For starters, it has NOTHING, I repeat NOTHING to do with proving jurisdiction, "cause of action", or anything of the sort.
"Show cause hearing" is a bit of a colloquialism that has its roots in the basic bail provision in s.515 of the Criminal Code:
515. (1) Subject to this section, where an accused who is charged with an offence other than an offence listed in section 469 is taken before a justice, the justice shall, unless a plea of guilty by the accused is accepted, order, in respect of that offence, that the accused be released on his giving an undertaking without conditions, unless the prosecutor, having been given a reasonable opportunity to do so, shows cause, in respect of that offence, why the detention of the accused in custody is justified or why an order under any other provision of this section should be made and where the justice makes an order under any other provision of this section, the order shall refer only to the particular offence for which the accused was taken before the justice.
In other words, if an accused is held for bail there is a presumption that he will be brought to court an released on his own undertaking unless the Crown can
show cause as to why he should be detained or why a more restrictive form of release is appropriate. In some cases (likely applicable here) the onus is reversed (s.515(6)), and the accused has to show cause why he should be released. In the above case, there can be any number of reasons why those accused folk decided to plead instead of applying for bail, including:
1) No one wanted to bail them out
2) No one could afford to bail them out. In drug cases as big as that, the surety would be on the hook for a very high amount.
3) Given how much time they are looking at, the Crown's position on an early plea is lenient and they don't want to waste time sitting in jail awaiting trial.
One thing is for certain... given Freemanery's track record in court, they are far better off with a proper lawyer.
Anyways, we then learn of another freeman mishap:
Also during the past month another acquaintance, one who should know better, refused to claim ownership of “the name” in court during his recent trial. This resulted in the court taking a recess while they decide what to do with the matter. His approach has been heard around the planet several times where he stated “I’m not the legal person and refuse to be recognized as such.” but he persisted that he was there to deal with the matter. After the recess, if there actually was one since he left the room, they paged his name and immediately found him guilty in his absence.
Ouch. Don't you hate it when that happens?
Rob then gives us his take as to what went wrong:
At the same time I watch this happening in reality I still have people on the internet telling me that claiming the name is granting jurisdiction. I have no idea where this idea came from but it’s long past time people actually woke up and learned who they are and what is there’s. The legal person is your person to use as you please. It’s not you, nor are you a name; and no one is saying you are. They are looking for the surety for the legal name and that is you.
The rest of that post is just an expansion on that but I found this one statement to be odd:
I actually don’t believe these people, especially at the lower levels, are out to harm anyone intentionally. I actually believe that they are uneducated just like the thug who likes the power his piece of tin alleges to give him. And I actually believe that when their authority over your person, legal or otherwise, is challenged and they are forced to prove up or shut up, that they shut up because that is what I have witnessed personally. In Ontario here it’s called rule 21 of the Rules of Civil Procedure.
Why do freemen insist on applying civil law rules and procedure to criminal charges? I've never fully understood this. Rule 21 is used to either determine a question of law that would dispose of some or all of a lawsuit, or to strike out pleadings in a lawsuit against you because they disclose no reasonable cause of action. It has absolutely nothing to do with criminal law, procedure, or charges.
The only other post worth mentioning is the most recent one, where Rob selflessly posts what he claims is his 3-time traffic court winning affidavit. There's nothing really new in it - we've got the long discredited section 32/52 argument, the related "I'm not a government agent" argument, and a fee schedule thrown in for good measure.
Affidavit of Your Name Here
Herein is my affidavit, demand for clarity, and motion to withdraw regarding the matter of the alleged “Drive with seat belt removed” by LAST, FIRST I., Offence number: 1234567X.
I also make it clear that this is not a private matter between me and the corporation called the City of Kitchener but is in fact a matter of public record.
I would like to make clear I am attempting to settle the issue at hand in honor, administratively, without unnecessary court appearances resulting in tax fraud. Should I be presenting this defence before a court, tribunal or person that does not have the capacity of dealing with the issues at hand then I demand that this matter be stayed and brought before a court that is capable regarding the issues herein called the Superior Court of Justice.
I was approaching the red light at the corner of Frederick and Victoria St North when Constable Close passed me, did a U-Turn and pulled up beside me. He looked at me and asked “Did you just put your seat belt on?” I looked at my seat belt and then at him and simply replied “Maybe.” Constable Close then asked me to pull over after the light turned green and I did. He immediately approached my driver’s side door and requested my Driver’s License to which I asked “Am I obligated to testify against myself by providing you with a Driver’s License?” He then stated that I was obligated to provide him with the requested documents. I asked Constable Close if he was familiar with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms (CCRF) and specifically sections 32 and 52. He stated that he was but that the CCRF was irrelevant in this case and that I was obligated to provide him with the documents requested, a fact that I do not believe to be true as I can find no documents where it states that private individuals are obligated to identify themselves in any manner when not breaching the peace or committing any crime. At this time it became clear to me that Constable Close intended to continue to aggressively trespass on my Human Rights by continuing to detain me without cause and threatening me with forcible arrest. It is also obvious to me that Constable Close acted without regard for my unalienable rights as recognized in the Canadian Bill of Rights in this matter and threatened assault and kidnapping (rights to liberty and security of the person) forcing me to operate under duress at the time of the stop. I attempted to make clear to him that I was in fact operating in a private capacity outside the jurisdiction of CANADA or any of its affiliate
provinces, territories or jurisdictions, however, by threats of kidnapping by force I was coerced into testifying against myself involuntarily as can be evidenced by audio recording in my possession.
I also wish to make clear that I hold personally liable ANY individual who violates or trespasses on my God given unalienable rights and reserve the right to prosecution and settlement before a competent court of equity which has jurisdiction to hear such matters called the Superior
Court of Justice.
With my declaration above I now address the matter at hand and demand that, if the Crown claims to the contrary, that they provide to me any and all documents in writing to prove their standing:
I. Proof of Claim in the matter that I was operating as an agent of the government and
performing a specific function of government at the time of the alleged offence in any
manner including but not limited to pay statements, contracts, or witnesses such as
supervisors or work schedules since it is clearly stated in section 32 of The Canadian
Charter of Rights and Freedoms, from here on in called CCRF, (exhibit A) and clarified by
the Canadian Heritage website that the charter only applies to governments, and not to
private individuals, businesses or other organizations (exhibit B) which is the capacity I
operate under at ALL times;
II. Should the above not be able to be provided then I demand proof that somehow the
CCRF is not the supreme law in Canada as declared in section 52 (exhibits A & C) and
that somehow the Ontario Highway Traffic Act supersedes the CCRF as declared clearly
by Constable Shawn Close;
III. In the event that the previous two (2) items cannot be proven and thus the CCRF and the Ontario Highway Traffic Act while in full force and effect do not apply in this matter, then there must be damage or injury that occurred from my actions. As such I then demand evidence of such damage or injury and the injured party be brought forth so I may have the opportunity to settle the dispute privately before being brought before the proper court called The Superior Court of Justice;
IV. Should none of the above be proven I then demand Proof that somehow the Prosecutor in this matter has full lawful authority to randomly take private individuals and process them and “fine” them despite the previously requested evidence and that jurisdiction of the prosecutor encompasses myself in such a manner.
Further I state that if the court desires that I appear in any capacity before them and makes an offer to contract, then I accept that offer should they provide me with payment for my services a fee of $500 / hour (or any portion thereof) with a 4 hr minimum deposit for my time totaling a fee of $2000 in advance with possible further fees required should my presence be required longer than 4 hrs. I will also require a liability waiver for prosecution under statutes, because I do NOT consent to being regulated by statutes whose sole purpose is to regulate a corporation that I do not currently work for. Nor do I have full comprehension and understanding of the corporate standards governing the Corporation of Canada or any of its subsidiary Provinces, Territories or districts such as the City of Kitchener.
In the event that any of the previously demanded actions cannot be proven by the parties representing the Corporate CITY OF KITCHENER, then I demand that the matter be withdrawn without the expense of court services and costs.
Sincerely and without malice aforethought, ill will, vexation or frivolity,
Sworn before me in the City of Your Town in the Province of Ontario this ____ day of ______ 2013:
_____________________________________ Date: _______________
___________________________________________
Your Name Here
Administrator
LAST, FIRST MIDDLE
ALL UNALIENABLE RIGHTS RESERVED
) of our non-Canadian readers. And Burnaby49 (add Vancouver weather dig here).
)