"Chief Rock Sino General" - Freeman guru-to-be?

[The Observer]

who says im a man...

Ok, he is getting worse. Now he is suffering from gender confusion.

[LordEd]

So, how could there be a first person? or any at that if im not one ?

Used the 1st person in I'm (I am). Clear admission to person-ness. Get him his government issued cards and pay the shills their commissions.

[Dr. Caligari]

who says im a man, or a freemen or freeman at that, where in anything i post have i made such a claim, its rejected and wont be addressed again. Your insults dont bother me, i just wish to be clear im not one nor will ever claim to be one.

... then we'd better call animal control.

[LordEd]

Not an animal either under that definition. "He" is 3rd person masculine, so doesn't apply to our freeman* friend here.

Ex: "He is a good dog"

Also not an "it" as "it" is 3rd person neuter singular.

Ex: "It is a turnip".

So Mr. Chief here is nothing, and should be afforded the same rights and responsibilities as nothing.

* Note: I don't particularly care if you** accept the freeman title or not. It allows me to summarize your** general beliefs down to a single word without having to repetitively repeat them. This is for the benefit of those who understand what those beliefs are, and not yours**.

** Pronouns used for those here who understand what "first, second, and third person" mean grammatically. You**(yes, a recursive footnote) are probably the only one here who does not understand the statements at hand.

[grixit]

i think we need to resort to the non personal pronouns: what, that, which, one, and of course, whatever.

[LordEd]

So where is that freeman who can not be referred to? I could use some more comedy at the self*-contradiction

* assuming nothing has self-awareness, of course.

[GC_SDNPBC]

Mr. General:

Please note that the hearing of the petition of the Society of Notaries Public of British Columbia v. Sino General AKA Sino Cameron General AKA Chief Rock AKA Hajistahenhway, Notary Public will be held at 9:45 AM on Friday, November 29 at the Courthouse at 800 Smithe Street, Vancouver B.C.

You have the right to appear in person or by counsel and to file a response to the petition and the affidavit material filed by the Society of Notaries. I would recomend that you obtain legal advice prior to the hearing. If you wish additional copies of the court filings that have already been served on you personally and delivered by email, please provide a civic address or email address.

Ron Usher, General Counsel
The Society of Notaries Public of British Columbia

[The Observer]

This is interesting and appears to be legitimate - at least by the website for the above organization. Especially considering that Ron Usher is listed as General Counsel for the Society.

Sounds like somebody is deciding to go on a serious warparth against "Chief" Sino.

[Burnaby49]

It's legit.

An odd way to deliver a legal notice but maybe he has a hard time trying to find the Chief.

[The Observer]

An odd way to deliver a legal notice but maybe he has a hard time trying to find the Chief.

It is an odd way, and probably calls into question whether a court would uphold this as a valid legal notice. I suspect that the mention of previous service and mailings were done to perfect what the law requires to meet the standard for notice, and that this forum post is only to show the court to what lengths the Society went to in order to give ample notice of the hearing. It also seems to suggest that counsel may have indications that the Chief might not appear.

But I agree that it does appear that the Chief is making himself scarce when it comes to receiving a legal notice to appear. Apparently he doesn't have a lot of confidence in his magic words if he is resorting to dodging service.

It reminds me of a similar situation here on the Q where a promoter got referred to a CPA panel in his state for stepping over the line. He was very bold and brave up to the point when the summons got issued for service, but at that point he vacated his trailer home during the middle night and disappeared.

[Burnaby49]

An odd way to deliver a legal notice but maybe he has a hard time trying to find the Chief.

It is an odd way, and probably calls into question whether a court would uphold this as a valid legal notice. I suspect that the mention of previous service and mailings were done to perfect what the law requires to meet the standard for notice, and that this forum post is only to show the court to what lengths the Society went to in order to give ample notice of the hearing. It also seems to suggest that counsel may have indications that the Chief might not appear.

But I agree that it does appear that the Chief is making himself scarce when it comes to receiving a legal notice to appear. Apparently he doesn't have a lot of confidence in his magic words if he is resorting to dodging service.

It reminds me of a similar situation here on the Q where a promoter got referred to a CPA panel in his state for stepping over the line. He was very bold and brave up to the point when the summons got issued for service, but at that point he vacated his trailer home during the middle night and disappeared.

While I'm not a lawyer I'm sure that Ron's notice here is not sufficient for court purposes as proof of notification. I'd agree that you are right that he is just trying to show that he has done all that he can to notify the Chief. Since Ron is counsel of record for the case he can't comment on it but I can so maybe I'll amble over to the court on November 29th and see what happens.

As an aside from the Chief's specific legal issues the Society of Notaries Public of British Columbia is having significant problems with Freeman types cooking up all kinds of fake legal documents and purporting to notarize them under the claim that anybody can be a notary. I've seen some and they are essentially unintelligible but, in at least the ones I've seen, they tend to generally follow the "silence implies assent" argument. The usual "If you don't reply in two days with a response acceptable to me you agree you owe me $1,000,000" type of thing backed up by pure gibberish. All notarized of course to give them that necessary legal gloss.

The Society (again this is second hand, I'm not a notary either) is trying to stop this from spreading. The requirements for notaries in British Columbia are very stringent and go way past the "I saw this document and signed on the bottom" type of deal apparently common elsewhere;

http://www.notaries.bc.ca/resources/Upl ... ERSION.pdf

And are bound by the Notaries Act;

http://www.bclaws.ca/EPLibraries/bclaws ... 0_96334_01

No doubt the Chief's lack of any qualifications meeting the notarial requirements of the Act and the fact that he is not certifed by the Society will play a large part in his hearing.

[AndyK]

It appears that Ron's notice, posted here, is a courtesy copy for non-court parties who are otherwise interested in the case.

Rather than criticizing Ron, we should applaud him for his post and welcome him to Quatloosia.

Ron: Hang in there, stay on board, and keep on adding whatever you can.

Thanks

AndyK

[The Observer]

Rather than criticizing Ron, we should applaud him for his post and welcome him to Quatloosia.

Well, I certainly did not intend to criticize Mr. Usher, and if my post suggests criticism, let me assure all that this is not where I am coming from. I certainly appreciate the fact that the Society is taking these scammers head on and not avoiding the situation.

[Burnaby49]

Just slated the Chief's hearing in on my calendar and find, that if I manage to attend, I'm in for an entertainment filled day. My wife has us down for two tickets to a geriatric group's Christmas Cinderella pantomime in the evening. My wife tells me that any approximation to real singing and acting is purely coincidental.

[GC_SDNPBC]

If I may clarify my intent, the point of giving Mr. General notice here is to maximize the likelhood that he receives notice of the upcoming hearing. He has not, to the best of my knowledge, filed any response to our Petition though he was personally served with the documents.

He has of course the right to file a reply and appear at the hearing to speak to the matter. I would encourage him to do so. The phrase "Audi alteram partem" is no doubt in Black's Law Dictionary.

As we intend to seek an injunction order it is in his best interest to take this matter seriously. It would be best if he obtained the advice of counsel. If we obtain the order requested further representations by Mr. General that he is a Notary Public or a Commissioner for taking Affidavits for British Columbia would be in contempt of court, and accordingly attract penalties in the discretion of the court.

Ron Usher
General Counsel, The Society of Notaries Public of British Columbia

[GC_SDNPBC]

I should also point out section 138 of the Criminal Code of Canada:

138. Everyone who
(a) signs a writing that purports to be an affidavit or statutory declaration and to have been sworn or declared before him when the writing was not so sworn or declared or when he knows that he has no authority to administer the oath or declaration,
(b) uses or offers for use any writing purporting to be an affidavit or statutory declaration that he knows was not sworn or declared, as the case may be, by the affiant or declarant or before a person authorized in that behalf, or
(c) signs as affiant or declarant a writing that purports to be an affidavit or statutory declaration and to have been sworn or declared by him, as the case may be, when the writing was not so sworn or declared, is guilty of an indictable offence and liable to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years.

[notorial dissent]

Mr Usher, welcome to Quatloos.

I think you have gone out of your way to notify "the Chief" and be fair.

I equally rather suspect that you have also wasted your time, as he will probably claim you served his alter ego or some such nonsense, and that you have no authority over him, oh wait, he'd already done that, so I'm sure he will come up with some other nonsense excuse when next he appears, which won't be voluntarily in court. What I don't expect him to do is grace you with his presence at the court hearing.

I wish you the best of luck, not that you are going to need it, and it appears that one of our brethren will be viewing matters on the 29th.

[LordEd]

It may be worth reviewing that Mr. Chief here is very aware of the complaint and is choosing not to reply from a belief that it does not apply to him, or that any judgement has no effect upon him.

Burnaby49, i would file a response if in-fact there was any real substance to their claims. I am unaware of any Notary Seals that show Sino General as a Notary nor and witnesses who can step forward and say for 100% under oath i am a notary. NOBODY, so, would you reply to a frivolous claim that is outrageous ? Not sure if Ron wishes to wanna drag me into court, i do not fear their system nor do i recognize it in anyways as being valid.

So, in short lol, no i dont plan on replying, its all hearsay and if that is all their replying upon,im sure a racists justice or master will grant them whatever they are seeking but an injunction is nothing more than a fraudulent piece of paper that has no real legal effect upon me or my person i use.

Injunction - injunction (n.) early 15c., from Late Latin injunctionem (nominative injunctio) "a command," noun of action from past participle stem of Latin injungere "impose," literally "attach to" (see enjoin). BTW- Impose, means to practice deceit.
http://chiefrockmusic.wordpress.com/201 ... njunction/
http://chiefrockmusic.wordpress.com/2013/11/07/command/

Interesting, when i see exclusive authority, makes me ask, who granted that and may i see evidence of such ? Like really, its not only racists but its ignorant, that a white european lawyer and judge,master whatever thinks they can impose their will upon my people, why should we listen ? So yes this is my short answer LOL

[LordEd]

He has not, to the best of my knowledge, filed any response to our Petition though he was personally served with the documents.

I would be surprised is Mr. General responds. The term "personally" would confuse him.

Mr. General is under the belief that he is not a 'person' and uses the principles of the "magic hat" to gain powers when it suits him, and discards it when its a liability (like now).

Imagine a world where you can redefine 1+1 to equal 3, and 2+2 to equal duck. Now take these concepts, apply them to an old 7th grade math book, and scribble out the answer key with the new version. You now have Mr. General, doctor of numbers (and animals).

[Pottapaug1938]

Mr. General is also under the impression that "his" people are not subject to "our" laws; and he will give you source after source after source after source to try to prove his point.