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

[LordEd]

I will reserve my sarcasm for later then

[Burnaby49]

I will reserve my sarcasm for later then

No, no, it will take me a while to provide new material. Feel free use what you have to fill in the time until then.

[LordEd]

The Freeman have director menard. Perhaps we need director Burnaby to represent the quatloosian nation***** since we're now being spoken of by a notoriously notable notary* under oath** in court***.

* Speaker may be a naughty non notary.
** Speaker may not recognize oath given.
*** Speaker may not recognize court.
**** Nation being a sarcastic reference to the group of posters here and not to be taken as a reference to first nations and such.
***** This footnote space for rent.

[LordEd]

Last update from the chief on facebook

Lawyers done... I'm up next. 130pm. This lawyers doesn't have his shit together ...I gave him more time to prepare so I agreed to break early for lunch
Like
Share

So the question will be, what did the chief do after lunch?

Funny enough, his posters have asked what happened and quoted Burnaby since the chief is not around.

[Burnaby49]

I doubt I'll get my report finished tonight however don't worry about what happened after lunch. You'll be finding out in fulsome detail. Seven and a half of the twelve pages of my notes are my transcription of the Chief's arguments; that's before I even make any commentary. I had no time at all to do anything but try and keep up with the Chief.

I can sympathise with the Chief's lack of any significant postings since the hearing. He must be worn out. He told me that he was to be interviewed by the CBC, the Vancouver Sun, and the Province after the hearing. He said he would also be giving an interview with something he called the Two Row News. Best I can find on that is;

http://www.tworowtimes.com/

This seems to be it but no interview posted yet.

[The Observer]

I doubt I'll get my report finished tonight...

Maybe you could release it in installment like Charles Dickens did with David Copperfield.

[LordEd]

Perhaps you should put it into song.

Or charades while we wait: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DJpY7eT6oNk

[Burnaby49]

Bad news Chief fans, I will probably not make next week's hearing. The sheer volume of Freeman court hearings in greater Vancouver is starting to overwhelm me. I went to two last week, two this week, and just I flipped the calendar to March to put the Chief down and find I have two hearings next week. The Chief and Rory Hawes. This is Rory;

viewtopic.php?f=48&t=10338

Unfortunately they are both scheduled for the same date and time but not the same place. Not even the same municipality. Chief in downtown Vancouver, Rory in New Westminster. Logically I should dump the Chief's hearing because it is just a decision and I can easily get it next Thursday whether I'm there or not while Rory is having an actual trial. So I'm deciding but leaning to Rory. However as I said, you'll get the Chief's decision regardless of which I attend but I wanted to see the response of whichever side loses.

[LordEd]

All you can do is track the biggest player at the time.

Chief is more of a Freeman tool anyway (take that however you like). Take the fake notary out of the game and the magic documents won't sign themselves.

Be safe out there. You're being noticed by the wildlife.

[Burnaby49]

Chief just posted this on Facebook;

So today went well, showed into court with my full regalia, as did the lawyers but judge did not wear a black robe as per norm. The lawyer went on and on about how ppl were coming as freeman on the land, opca litigant, and I was vexatious litigant. Brought nothing but copies of the documents and I requested originals be brought forth into the court as copies can be manipulated ie: photoshop. I made my presentation and informed the court the lack of jurisdiction, lack of au...thority to tell any of my people what they can and cannot do. Their authority stops at Canadians. Their authority cant be spread to places like China or Australia so why does it cross over on to our ppl of our nation? Your a nation on our nation. Your on unceded territory, not sold not conquered. If they are under obligation to Her Majesty even bringing someone like myself to court is a breach /contempt of court/oath and international law. The judge seemed a bit distant but totally critical of lawyers presentation docs. Notary lawyer seemed a bit unprepared but I also brought up the fact that he has no experience or knowledge of native law or treaties. Didn't believe him to be qualified to be making his statements. Squirmed alot while I was up giving my version and questions to the court. Also room was pretty empty besides the big group of people who stood on my side. I also pointed this out. No one from public was on notary publics side to stand With them. They also disempowered the public by saying their not intelligent nor have the ability to create lawful documents that have any force or effect of any kind ... the general public are powerless .... only lawyers and courts can make notices that truly are legally affective ..... There is more but I will type it later. Resumes this Thursday at 9am downtown Supreme Court. Floor 5 I would assume.

I'll give a short response, I'm just on page 2 of my notes so I'm not right up on whole hearing yet. Overall the Chief's posting is accurate as to his arguments however the Society's lawyer did not, as I remember it, call the Chief a vexatious litigant. It went the other way with the Chief saying that the applications against him were vexatious. It is in my notes somewhere and I stand to be corrected if notes read differently when I get to it but I don't think so. The big group of people who sat on his side of the court totaled nine supporters. Not bad but not what I'd call big either. Bernie Yankson and his hopeless case had at least double that and Bernie ended up being declared a vexatious litigant at the end of his hearing.

"No one from public was on notary publics side to stand With them." Nobody? What about me? I was sitting over with Ron Usher and I'm certainly not a notary or lawyer!

Back to page 2. I was too thorough.

[Burnaby49]

Be safe out there. You're being noticed by the wildlife.

I'm sort of getting an indication of that myself. This wave of court hearings I'm attending and the postings I'm making seem to be establishing me a prominant feature in the Vancouver Freeman community. Take the Chief's case. It was initially reported in the Province (Great picture of you Chief, I told you that at the hearing and I'll say it again), and he will apparently be in the National Post today. The Chief told me that after the hearing he was going to be interviewed by the CBC, the Province, and the Vancouver Sun. Yet, unless the transcript comes out, the only detailed report of what actually happened in the courtroom will be mine. And yes, I'm working on it!

So I'm getting the feeling that I'm leaving an impression that I'm the guy that reliably shows up to screw up their narratives of how they actually won in court. Some of them seem quite happy with this, others less so.

The big issue is the face to face part in court. I can't disguise myself there and, unfortunately, that's the part I like most. I'm not all that interested in sniping at them from the sidelines. I want to see what happens when beliefs meet court reality. Usually the court hearings are a very small affair with no spectators except me so I'm front and centre. Even today with all the publicity I was (apart from the CBC reporter who left early) the only spectator who wasn't in the Chief's fan club. Mrs. Burnaby49 is getting a touch nervous about it all and she doesn't even read my Quatloos postings. So we'll see how it goes.

[Burnaby49]

I'm going to follow the Observer's suggestion and break up today's (actually yesterday's) court reporting into two parts. This one will cover the hearing up to lunch. This just leaves a bit of the Society's submissions before we get to the Chief! I'm well aware that you all want the Chief but I'm an anal retentive kind of guy obsessed with chronological sequence. The Chief on Saturday, promise. So off we go;

Bright and early to the hearing. Too early. I thought it was at 9:30 and it turned out to be 10:00. so I was the first to arrive at 9:15. As I guessed a courtroom on the fifth floor. Not just a random assumption on my part, it was an educated guess. I've been inside a lot of courtrooms in the past two years or so. This was originally to be a Chambers Session similar to the one I reported here;

viewtopic.php?f=48&t=9377&start=220#p163974

However when the Chief started posting that this was really an anti-aboriginal issue and he was going to fight it with a request for his supporters to get into the act the hearing, scheduled for last month, was re-scheduled for today. I assumed that this was because of security concerns. The rooms used for Chambers sessions are quite small and insecure. The larger, more secure courtrooms used for criminal trials are on the fifth floor. We got 514. Large, jury box to left, glassed in seating for defendants between the spectators and the court area, and designed for the security needed at criminal hearings. We had two to three sheriffs at all times.

At 9:30 Ron Usher showed up and then at 9:40 three of the Chief's supporters showed up. I recognized one of them as Haimus Wakas. I've discussed Haimus here;

viewtopic.php?f=48&t=9377&start=380#p179035

A few more people straggled up before the 10:00 start. When court opened at 10 Ron Usher, a CBC reporter, the lawyer for the Notaries, a couple of other lawyers and me went in. Chief came in with six supporters (increased to nine a bit later) before judge entered court. As I said, very colourful in his interview outfit. I recognized one of his supporters as Lisa Monchalin. The Observer posted this on her.

Lisa Monchalin, a Kwantlen Polytechnic University professor of criminology who plans to attend court Friday, believes General has a valid point about jurisdiction, saying: “International law applies here, not Canadian law, and Canadian courts do not have jurisdiction here."

The Chief came over and chatted with Ron Usher and me. He was very friendly, remembered me from his seminar that I attended in late 2013. Time flies!

viewtopic.php?f=48&t=9377&start=180#p162842

Then the Chief left the courtroom. I could hear him talking to the sheriffs outside. We got the "Court is in session all rise" at 10:12 but no Chief. He must have been standing right outside the door behind me to my right because the judge looked over in that direction and asked "Is Mr. General coming in?" Chief was paged and he came in and sat in the spectators area with his supporters. Judge asked "Are you Mr. General?" and the Chief said no, he was Hajistahenhway. Judge told the Chief that since he was a party he could sit up front in the counsel area. Chief declined saying he was quite happy with the spectator's seating. Then judge insisted he come up. The hearing was recorded but only in the actual court area and the recording was needed for the transcript. So, before entering the court area, the Chief said he was here in honour as a private person reserving all his rights and under treaty and crossing on these terms. We had three interruptions during the day, two breaks and lunch and for all three the Chief waited outside for the judge to sit and he recited the same mantra before crossing the bar. At the first break he explained to me about waiting outside. If he was in the court he would have to rise when the judge entered and this would put him under the jurisdiction of the court while, if he waited outside until the judge and room were seated, he avoided this. At least that is how I understood his point. The Chief indicated at the first break that he was watching this discussion (I'll get to that) so if I'm wrong he can correct me.

A word about the judge at this point. He seemed to be a very straightforward astute guy. Said little but all to point and corrected and questioned both Notary counsel and the Chief from time to time.

So counsel for The Society of Notaries Public of British Columbia (I'll call them "Society" from this point) started. Judge had a question right off the bat. The heart of the Society's case was a mass of photocopies of documents that they claimed the Chief had notarized after the court issued the November 29, 2013 injunction. The judge asked if the Chief claimed Hearsay on the documents? In other words was the Chief arguing the authenticity of the documents? The Chief had attended an Examination in Aid of Execution on, I think, Monday. This is similar to an Examination for Discovery and is under oath. Counsel for the Society said that at the Examination the Chief had acknowledged that he had signed the documents. Judge said OK.

If anyone needs a refresher in what was in the court order of November 29, 2013, you can find it here.

viewtopic.php?f=48&t=9377&start=220#p163972

Counsel started speech about how the petitioner has the statutory mandate to license and regulate notaries. Respondent associated with OPCA movement. This is important to this application. Judge - "Do you have book of authority?" Yes, (passing it over), then counsel said the respondent is familiar with Meads v. Meads.

The main issue was tying the Chief to the documents in the affidavit. An example counsel gave was the Chief appointing the Nanaimo three to be peace officers. Judge noted this was done before court order so why was it relevant? Background, we are not relying on this for contempt claim but to show why it is important for him to stop.

Then counsel brought up Quatloos. Mentioned how Ron Usher posted and Chief responded challenging the Society and the courts to regulate him.

The first document reviewed had an illegible seal. Judge seemed skeptical that it was the Chief's document. It was brought up because the Chief called himself a private international notary in this one and counsel said it was dressed up to be authoritative. Next document had good reproduction of "Private Notary" seal. Judge - "Were all these documents acknowledged by the respondent to be his?" Yes the ones I'm taking you through. Then the Chief cut in "All my answers were made under threat". This referred to Mondays Examination. Judge - "You can speak later." The examples seemed to revolve around somebody called Kurt Johnson who apparently had a habit of suing any party that disagreed with him, Bank of Nova Scotia, bank's lawyers, and he used the Chief's notary signature as part of his lawsuits. Chief - "These are pre-injunction" judge - "You'll get your chance."

Note - I have a copy of the Society's affidavit with the documents under discussion in it and I've reviewed at lest some of the Bank of Nova Scotia documents. This was an attempt by the Bank of Nova Scotia to collect on an unpaid mortgage of $445,690.79 which was in default. This was the first step to foreclosure. The original notice on this was dated August 5, 2013 (note - I orginally wrote August , 2014). This was in response to documents sent to the bank by Kurt and Notarized by the Chief as a Private Notary. The documents in the affidavit are; Notice of Fault in Dishonor Opportunity to Cure (April 6, 2014), demand for $25,000 before Kurt will deal with bank (June 4, 2014), Notice of Fault in Dishonor Opportunity to Cure (April 8, 2014). All of these well after Chief's court order to stop playing notary. The lawyer for the Society mentioned other documents I haven't seen.

I was getting confused because the lawyer was citing documents signed by the Chief but he didn't seem to be going chronologically and was discussing both pre and post injunction documents. Hard to follow without the documents in front of me. He was trying to show that there was a continuation, post-injunction, of actions started pre-injunction and all notarized by the Chief. This was to demonstrate that the Chief continued what he was doing before the injunction even after it in defiance of the court order. However judge questioned relevance of pre-injunction documents. Judge questioned whether there was proof that the Chief had actually notarized the post-injunction documents. Lawyer replied yes, he admitted to signing the documents during the Examination.

Then on to the seals. Chief had admitted that he had at least two embossed seals that he had not surrendered to notaries as he was required to do under the order. It was confirmed in the Examination that he still had the seals but refused to provide them. Then break time.

I was sitting in the lobby reading a fascinating article in the New Yorker about the magazine's policy on the use of commas (honest, first sentence was "I didn't set out to be a comma queen") when the Chief came up and gave me a friendly slap on the shoulder and asked me if I was enjoying it so far. I said I was really interested in his turn. Then he had a request for me. He'd been following our Quatloos discussion and wanted to participate but he couldn't remember his password. He'd tried to use the "forgot password" function which said it would email him something but never did. He also tried, and failed to get in using the reset. I seem to remember that lunatic Pigpot from WFS had a similar problem. Anyhow could I do something to help him get back on? Told him nothing I could do but I'd check with Webhick.

A note about the Chief. I've always found him pleasant and affable in person. He knows I criticize him in Quatloos but if it bothers him he gives no indication of it. He has been entirely reasonable in his personal dealings with me. That's a big contrast to some of the OPCA types I deal with.

Back to court. Society lawyer heading to closing. He said the Chief said in Examination that he wouldn't comply with any court order, possibly because of his belief system. Chief said "That is incorrect". Judge told Chief that he'd get his chance. Society lawyer really liked Meads v Meads, "extraordinarily comprehensive analysis of the OPCA movement". Brought up two issues in Meads he thought relevant. First split personalities. Chief complicated Examination by going on and on about split personalities. Chief Sino Rock General? Oh, right, that's the guy who's owned by the government. Not me, I'm Hajistahenhway.

Just ask me to dance all the slow ones,
hold me close and take me across the floor,
I'll gently lay my hand on your shoulder,
and pretend this never happened before.

Sorry! I'm listening to EmmyLou Harris as I type this and "I'll be your San Antone Rose" distracted me. It's 2:30AM and I'm starting to fade here. Back to the Chief.

Right, two issues from Meads. Split personality. The Society's counsel had a problem pinning down who was actually at the Examination with the chief going om about Sino Cameron General and Hajistahenhway. Resolved in the end by getting a photocopy of his driver's license. Hajistahenhway disclaimed any responsibility for being the guy named on the license. That Sino General guy named on the license belongs to the government because it says on the license that the license belongs to the government. Nothing to do with me. Judge questioned relevance of this. Relates back to OPCA argument. Chief also said that the birth certificate made out to that guy Sino Cameron General had nothing to do with the Hajistahenhway sitting here at the Examination. He is only the beneficiary of Sino General. So the name on the style of cause on the injunction was not him, it was that Sino General guy. I think the Chief forgets that the notaries, being sort of belt and suspenders guys, had Hajistahenhway on the style of cause too.

Second issue was Chief's explicit disavowal of the court having any authority or control over him. He denied being under the Crown. We went through how all of Chief's documents were all discussed in meads. Thumbprints, postage stamps, multiple signings, citations of irrelevant American court cases and legislation (suggestion that this is all downloaded from internet), Notice to agent is notice to principal and notice to principal is notice to agent, and something I can't decipher from my scrawl.

As a personal comment I think Meads was emphasized too much. Did the Chief breach the court order or not? Motive seems irrelevant to me.

Anyhow judge asked counsel "Do you have any authority on appropriate rates of sentencing?" Judge wanted some guidance on how to evaluate the Society's request for a jail sentence for the Chief based on similar decisions. Nothing directly to point your honour. Judge suggested he rustle something up at lunch break. Will do! It was now 12:20 with10 minutes to go before lunch break and it was the Chief's turn at bat. The Chief just posted on Facebook':

Sino General
Lawyers done... I'm up next. 130pm. This lawyers doesn't have his shit together ...I gave him more time to prepare so I agreed to break early for lunch

Essentially correct. Chief asked the court if we could break for lunch early to allow the Society's counsel time to get his authorities figured out so that he could finish before the Chief started. Judge said fine, back from lunch at 1:20.

A closing word Chief. I just got this from Webhick;

"He's not getting the password reset emails because the email issue with the server is still unresolved. That's why the announcement is still up."

The announcement says;

There appears to be some funny business going on with the server. Suddenly, it has stopped sending any mail from phpBB. Until this issue gets resolved, we're switching back to admin activation. This means that the server will no longer send out an email to activate your account but will instead wait for an admin to do so.

Unfortunately, this also means that if you forget your password the server won't send you a new one. If you have issues logging in, email me at quatloos@lindenashby.org. This includes lost/forgotten passwords. Make sure you email me from the email account we have on file so I can make sure it's really you.

However no need to email webhick quite yet. She says that she's sent you something from the email address we have on file. If that doesn't work I've asked her to send you one to the email address you gave me today. Hope to be squabbling with you soon!

And that's it for part 1.

Get up rounder, let a working girl lay down,
Get up rounder, let a working girl lay down,
You are a rounder.
And you're all out and down.

Weepin' Like a willow and moanin' like dove
Weepin' Like a willow and moanin' like dove
There's a man up country that I really love

[wserra]

Thank you, Burnaby. You got . . . heart.

BTW, has anyone ever seen Burnaby and Mowe together?

[wserra]

I doubt I'll get my report finished tonight...

Maybe you could release it in installment like Charles Dickens did with David Copperfield.

Or Julius Caesar with Gaul.

[Bill Lumbergh]

Thank you, Burnaby. You got . . . heart.

BTW, has anyone ever seen Burnaby and Mowe together?

Where is that devil Mowe nowadays? I haven't seen a post from him in ages.

[Burnaby49]

Thank you, Burnaby. You got . . . heart.

BTW, has anyone ever seen Burnaby and Mowe together?

And so the final deception unravels.

[Jeffrey]

I assumed Mowe may have lost forum access due to the email issues.

[LordEd]

http://www.theprovince.com/business/Unl ... story.html

General maintains that as a Native from the Cayuga Nation, he is “exempt” from Canadian law, and “I don’t believe any evidence exists that we are under Canadian Law.”

“I don’t believe the (2013) injunction had any real merit,” General said to the judge Friday. “This court lacks jurisdiction and never had jurisdiction in the first place to get an injunction.”

General said the court didn’t “have the capacity or authority“ to make a ruling that he believed would supersede centuries-old treaties between First Nations, Canadian governments and the Queen of England, which were the basis of his argument.

But David Georgetti, lawyer for the Notaries Public, said “this is in no way whatsoever a First Nations issue. This is an OPCA issue.”

The day before Friday’s hearing, General told The Province he believed the documents he had notarized were valid legal documents.

Ron Usher, general counsel for the SNPBC, said “I have never seen (General’s) notary seal on a legitimate document. Not once.”

General told The Province that some of the documents he had notarized for people had helped them get rid of their credit card debt.

But Usher said he was “completely skeptical” of such a claim, saying if such people exist, “let them come forward.”

Usher added: “I would put that on the walk-on-water level of improbability.”

[The Observer]

General maintains that as a Native from the Cayuga Nation, he is “exempt” from Canadian law, and “I don’t believe any evidence exists that we are under Canadian Law.”

The day before Friday’s hearing, General told The Province he believed the documents he had notarized were valid legal documents.

So on one hand The Chief insists that the Canadian courts, government and laws have no jurisdiction over him. Yet on the other hand, he claims all of the documents he notarizes can legally impact Canadian subjects, in a sense giving him unilateral jurisdiction over them. I wonder if he even sees the hypocrisy in that mindset.

[bmxninja357]

it has been my experience that in many circles of this nature it is believed that a notary is how documents can pass from one jurisdiction to another, or one nation to another without having to submit to the jurisdiction of the recipient party, country or jurisdiction.

peace,
ninj