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

[LordEd]

I tell a collection agency, look put whatever you want in writing as i dont do business on the phone unless im getting paid for my time. So if you wish to call me again its going to be 100 dollars per phone call for my precious time. They call the next day, is that not an agreement ?

No. That would be like going to a restaurant and eating a meal, then pulling out a fee list when they give you the bill. You can argue the fries were cold and try to get it cheaper, but you won't be paid for talking to the manager.

[tm169]

The fundamental and apparently intractable problem is that you are labouring under the grave misapprehension that the relationship between you and the state is contractual or commercial in nature. Any other debate we have is going to be overshadowed by this alternative paradigm you operate in.

I would be however interested in your comments regarding my post about the differences between a loan agreement and a promissory note.

[Dr. Caligari]

Are you telling me, if i dont have the unlimited right to contract ?

No, you don't have the "unlimited" right to contract. You cannot contract to sell me an ounce of cocaine, or your infant daughter. You cannot contract to sell yourself into slavery. I don't know about Canadian law, but in the U.S. you cannot contract to sell me your kidney, even if I need a transplant, will die without it, and am willing to pay you.

I tell a collection agency, look put whatever you want in writing as i dont do business on the phone unless im getting paid for my time. So if you wish to call me again its going to be 100 dollars per phone call for my precious time. They call the next day, is that not an agreement ?

If you respond to this post, you owe me my fee for reading that response, which is 4 ounces of pure gold. Any response by you on this thread will constitute acceptance of my offer.

[Chief2k13]

wserra Quatloosian Federal Witness - I appreciate your replies but making up my own definitions ? really ? Can you quote some that i made up so i can be more aware of this bad habit ?

Clearly not for any standard definition of "dictatorship". You have already shown that you like to make up your own definitions. You can prove a lot if you can just ignore the normal meaning of words.

Again, i placed a few definitions from the Internet, online dictionaries of Dictatorship. Now, you going to blow off those definitions because you dont seem to care much for how it determines what a dictatorship is ?

Ohh. You done gone and recorded one random police officer in a country the size of the U.S. or Canada who done went and made some random comment and you done thought it done prove something? As I said, incoherence in both thought and expression.
But I answered your question. Happy?

Well, again i think i mentioned it the officer was on the stand under OATH mind you. Under questioning during a CRIMINAL TRIAL CASE to be more exact. This officer said , I DONT NEED YOUR CONSENT, so how is this a random comment under oath, i would hope its not a random comment. I did not record this btw and i was in my home territory during this trial.

If in fact Canadian /U.S law are not unilateral Contract usually enforced by a gun or abusive power tripping gun slinging Officer, whom are one of THE most ignorant of law.
Is that written in English? See, I'm tryin' here, but you're not helping

Well i was asking, If these so called Laws are not unilateral Contracts, would it not be a dictatorship because its laws are forced upon me without my consent ? If you say you MUST obey, i ask by what authority must i obey and why ? What gives them the authority over me ? I am not a Canadian never have been and never will be period. i am a citizen on my NATION.
hope that was ENGLISH enough for you.

I have more to reply to but lets leave it at that so we dont get a chance to cherry pick here.

[Chief2k13]

Thanks for your reply Dr. Caligari First Mate and Ships Surgeon but i ask you by what authority am i not allowed to sell whatever i wish(minus baby) ?

No, you don't have the "unlimited" right to contract. You cannot contract to sell me an ounce of cocaine, or your infant daughter. You cannot contract to sell yourself into slavery. I don't know about Canadian law, but in the U.S. you cannot contract to sell me your kidney, even if I need a transplant, will die without it, and am willing to pay you.

So plenty of folks buy and sell cocaine so there goes that theory, plenty of folks buy and sell babies. As for Slavery it would depend on the context of slave as there are a few kind. There are so many who contract for body parts. You may say all those transactions are illegal but again by what authority and how did they get authority over the millions of private folks on my peoples land mass ?

Again i will stop here so i dont keep going giving room for cherry picking. Also i accept your offer for fine gold to be paid on the condition you can determine the benefit i received by reading your post, if anything it may have cause a negative impact

[Dr. Caligari]

So plenty of folks buy and sell cocaine so there goes that theory, plenty of folks buy and sell babies.

So murder is legal because some people commit murder?

As for Slavery it would depend on the context of slave as there are a few kind.

WTF?

There are so many who contract for body parts. You may say all those transactions are illegal but again by what authority and how did they get authority over the millions of private folks on my peoples land mass ?

I think you are having a problem with this thing called "law."

Again i will stop here so i dont keep going giving room for cherry picking.
Also i accept your offer for fine gold to be paid on the condition you can determine the benefit i received by reading your post, if anything it may have cause a negative impact
Chief2k13

Who said anything about a benefit to you? Using your own standard, I created a unilateral contract, which you accepted by performance. Where's my gold?

[Chief2k13]

The fundamental and apparently intractable problem is that you are labouring under the grave misapprehension that the relationship between you and the state is contractual

So again, let me give you this bit of information. In a court case concerning Mr Green a Judge spoke out and said "Everyone is under a social contract whether you agree to it or not ". Now again another public worker tells us you have no choice and from what im gathering from this site, is that the majority of its members agree your unlimited right to contract or make determinations for yourself are restricted and that is very concerning. The audio from this judge is on a youtube video i posted. Again i didnt record any of the audio.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bgbQYMHQG5E

I would be however interested in your comments regarding my post about the differences between a loan agreement and a promissory note.

I will comment on this, i first need to go back and read it again but you did say this

Your signature is not needed to extend the credit. It is simply you acknowledging the agreement on paper.

Now i am sure this has happened somewhere, but can you get a mortgage on a house without a signature, can you not just affirm you will pay it back by verbally saying so ? They should be able to get you to log on to a website and hit agree, its still falls in the realm of conduct by pressing agree, actions indicate an agreement. So why do you have to sign for visa buys? These days not so much but for the longest time you had to sign once purchased. Why do you have to sign for a cheq? Lately i havent signed the back of a Cheq for the past 5yrs now, a little here and there but out of say 100 cheqs i signed maybe 3.

Also, there is absolutely no way these banks dont sell off the promissory notes as securities on the market bundled up ? I cannot say for sure but in the U.S i read about cases where banks brought originals in and there are many other bank stamps on the back of them. I would have to find these stories and the bank court cases it referred to. Anyways.

[Chief2k13]

So murder is legal because some people commit murder?

Yes it is legal, U.S army murder 100's of thousands on foreign land, Iraq for example if you wanted one. Police shoot and murder 100's of people.
http://www.alternet.org/civil-liberties ... g-woodshed
So yes in fact murder is legal but most who do it are hiding behind a badge, others are hired hitmen who get paid under a contract to murder people for high amounts of cash.

So, again you telling me there needs to be no benefit that mere performance makes the contract binding ? I do get the performance part of it.

Yes i do have a huge problem with law, seeing its being FORCED upon folks by guns and threat of violence or detention in some jail. Yes law, please define it for me ?

Please let me know, your telling me i can go to say Japan, setup shop, force those folk to listen to my peoples law and place them in our jails. if they refuse beat the crap out of them if they question why they have to OBEY OUR LAWS. that is what i am to understand

[Dr. Caligari]

I'm not responding to Chief 2k13 until he honors his contract with me.

[LordEd]

Your signature is not needed to extend the credit. It is simply you acknowledging the agreement on paper.

Now i am sure this has happened somewhere, but can you get a mortgage on a house without a signature, can you not just affirm you will pay it back by verbally saying so ? They should be able to get you to log on to a website and hit agree, its still falls in the realm of conduct by pressing agree, actions indicate an agreement. So why do you have to sign for visa buys? These days not so much but for the longest time you had to sign once purchased. Why do you have to sign for a cheq? Lately i havent signed the back of a Cheq for the past 5yrs now, a little here and there but out of say 100 cheqs i signed maybe 3. )

1. Can you get a mortgage without a signature:
Hypothetically, you probably could. However, with a mortgage typically being a long-term, high value agreement, it would be foolish not to have a signed agreement. A mortgage also has more terms to it than simply 'pay it back', such as keeping insurance, ensuring property taxes are paid, etc. Also terms on the 'what-if' you can't pay back.

2. Why do you have to sign for credit card purchases
Because it provides a renewed acknowledgement that you will have to pay it according to your cardholder's agreement. It also is a fraud prevention. If you gave your credit card to the merchant for payment, and then they rang-up a few extra items on a separate receipt, then they would be unable to prove that you had agreed to it.

Also, there is absolutely no way these banks dont sell off the promissory notes

What promissory notes? You were talking about credit card and mortgage agreements.

[AndyK]

So murder is legal because some people commit murder?

Yes it is legal, U.S army murder 100's of thousands on foreign land, Iraq for example if you wanted one. Police shoot and murder 100's of people.

Also, the various indigenous people of North America committed murder upon the refugees from oppressive European governments who were merely trying to find a place where they could live in peace.

Unfortunately, they encountered people who counted their successes by the number of others who they either killed or enslaved.

Issues with that? Try researching some reputable sources on the indigenous peoples of North America, their interrelationships, and their treatment of the European immigrants.

[Famspear]

Your signature is not needed to extend the credit. It is simply you acknowledging the agreement on paper.

Now i am sure this has happened somewhere, but can you get a mortgage on a house without a signature, can you not just affirm you will pay it back by verbally saying so ? They should be able to get you to log on to a website and hit agree, its still falls in the realm of conduct by pressing agree, actions indicate an agreement. So why do you have to sign for visa buys? These days not so much but for the longest time you had to sign once purchased. Why do you have to sign for a cheq? Lately i havent signed the back of a Cheq for the past 5yrs now, a little here and there but out of say 100 cheqs i signed maybe 3. )

1. Can you get a mortgage without a signature:
Hypothetically, you probably could. However, with a mortgage typically being a long-term, high value agreement, it would be foolish not to have a signed agreement. A mortgage also has more terms to it than simply 'pay it back', such as keeping insurance, ensuring property taxes are paid, etc. Also terms on the 'what-if' you can't pay back.

2. Why do you have to sign for credit card purchases
Because it provides a renewed acknowledgement that you will have to pay it according to your cardholder's agreement. It also is a fraud prevention. If you gave your credit card to the merchant for payment, and then they rang-up a few extra items on a separate receipt, then they would be unable to prove that you had agreed to it.

Also, there is absolutely no way these banks dont sell off the promissory notes

What promissory notes? You were talking about credit card and mortgage agreements.

Terminology: As a borrower, you don't "get" a mortgage. The mortgage is not the loan. The mortgage is something you as the borrower "give" (so to speak) to the creditor. You -- as the person who grants a lien on real estate to a creditor -- are the mortgagor; the creditor is the mortgagee.

When you borrow money to buy real estate, you sign a promissory note as evidence of your obligation to pay the lender. You sign a mortgage (or deed of trust) to secure the lender's position. By issuing the mortgage to the lender, you create a security interest (in a broad sense) in the real estate -- in favor of the lender.

In the United States at least, a mortgage on real estate (again, in some states, in the form of a document called a "deed of trust") must be evidenced by a document, a written instrument.

[Chados]

Möwe FTW, in my opinion.

I'm getting out the popcorn and hip-waders, because it's getting both entertaining and hip deep in b.s. up in here.

Chief2k13...my young and stupid brother...do you seriously believe that the statutory laws of the jurisdiction that you are in do not apply to you simply because you woke up on the wrong side of the bed late one morning and decided out of a clear blue sky to aggregate unto yourself aborignal heritage? Even assuming arguendo that you in fact are the citizen of some other mythical land of both milk AND honey, if your body is living in Montreal (or Toronto, or yes, even St. John's), then you're living under the laws of Quebec (or Ontario, or Newfoundland, wherever you may be) whether you personally recognize them or not. And if you choose poorly and intentionally violate the laws of the de facto government, then you're due for a brief and unpleasant meeting with that government's de facto gendarmerie, and shortly thereafter you will get hauled before a de facto judge and then your de facto butt is going to be resident in their de facto correctional facility. And you will lose, in spectacular fashion, every single substantive argument you make to every single judicial officer you come in contact with, thereby filling the random access memory of legal websites like CanLII (God bless 'em!) with amusing little anecdotes and tidbits that our good friend Möwe will no doubt dredge up (he has an amazing facility with CanLII, by the way) and spread across the virtual pages of Quatloos for all Quatloosians to enjoy and learn from. That's the real deal. It simply is.

And I look forward to your establishment of your own military and police with great interest; no move will more quickly get the attention of the Canadian Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, and every Mountie in a red jacket and funny hat. By all means, proceed.

[Arthur Rubin]

In the United States at least, a mortgage on real estate (again, in some states, in the form of a document called a "deed of trust") must be evidenced by a document, a written instrument.

It's in "common law" (the real thing, not Chief-whatever-the-current-year-is's version), but it's no longer in effect in the UK (that is, England and Wales. I have no idea what Scottish law is on the subject.) I don't know about Canada.

Although almost all jurisdictions recognize an E-mail as a "writing".

[JamesVincent]

Yes it is legal, U.S army murder 100's of thousands on foreign land, Iraq for example if you wanted one.

This one sentence proves to me that you have absolutely no clue about anything and I would ask this BS to be over. I will not tolerate someone calling my brothers and sisters murderers. This thread has gone beyond any hope of meaningful conversation, we are and have been at word salad for awhile now and this is the last straw for me. Remove it.

[Chief2k13]

This one sentence proves to me that you have absolutely no clue about anything and I would ask this BS to be over. I will not tolerate someone calling my brothers and sisters murderers. This thread has gone beyond any hope of meaningful conversation, we are and have been at word salad for awhile now and this is the last straw for me. Remove it.

Excuse my thoughts and ideas but are you suggesting that the U.S had any business in another territory bombing folks who for the most part had nothing to do with what they allegedly there for ? I am saying the U.S Govt uses Soldiers to go in and kill and take over lands and resources of other nations. WHo died and made the U.S God ? I can respect an army who is there to protect their citizens not running all around the world bombing,shooting and who knows what else they are doing. This whole discussion was to be on law and to be on, Contracts. I was told murder is not legal and in my humble opinion a bunch of guys in suits made it legal for armies to around shooting and killing folks is all im saying. Can you give me a reason or example of why an army would need to do such a thing to many families and children ? If you feel the killing that was done over was for a just cause do explain? Bin laden? 911? Why was Bush Sr over there and coincidence his son re-enters there to finish what his dad started....anyways we are wayyyy off topic here.

do you seriously believe that the statutory laws of the jurisdiction that you are in do not apply to you simply because you woke up on the wrong side of the bed late one morning and decided out of a clear blue sky to aggregate unto yourself aborignal heritage?

Well, can you explain to me how/where the WHITE EUROPEAN LAW got its jurisdiction over my nations ? You know the original nations that were here and were murdered and raped and had a bio attack on them with small pox in blankets. Please if you could explain why or how a race who isnt from these lands now can determine what i have to do, under what authority please explain ? from what i can gather all those areas you wrote about Toronto, Montreal etc...who are territories already named by our nations the cities you speak of are nothing more than legal bs from English evaders who use force to get their way.

And I look forward to your establishment of your own military and police with great interest; no move will more quickly get the attention of the Canadian Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, and every Mountie in a red jacket and funny hat. By all means, proceed.

Sure we will and are in the process of doing so. Mainly our courts are first and jails 2nd to be built. We will see how they like it when our judges pass down judgements from our laws and Govt rules we had 1000's of years before whiteman came. btw i did not just wake up one day and aggregate myself into my culture i was raised in my culture lived it and breathed it. Do you not know what it is like to have a culture ? Anyways again off topic so can we please stick to what the topic at hand is and the question, the many that have been put out there. Forgive my statements if you are offended in anyways these are merely my thoughts on law and experiences of what i saw and heard in court rooms and in civil matter. I have witnessed some really insane things.

[Chief2k13]

So you have to resort to name calling on here ? Stupid really ? is this high school or some forum where immature minds wonder to argue and name call others about their opinions? Is this the kinda forum i am to believe you run here ? Attempting to belittle my posts is of no affect to me, its your views and i respect it but not if your attempting to offend me.

[LightinDarkness]

...the Visa that was balanced to zero was only done through a private court(personal documents sent) (court=home of a sovereign, dont you live in your body ?), meaning we sent off the cheq, Visa cashed it, it was posted on the online banking statement. The copy of the cashed cheq was therefore sent to visa showing their objective conduct, which shows they agreed to the terms of the cheq. Now, a letter was sent along with the copy of the cheq, the debtors statement of account giving visa 20days to rebut or send a verified authenticated record that rebuts the debtors records. The letter more less was a memorandum of the contract they entered into with liabilities against them for trying to collect on an account that has already been agreed as settled and closed, which would constitute fraud.

I know you won't believe this, but these type of "attach random things to otherwise valid payment instruments" to clear debts are a very old scam in the US and Canada, and they have a 100% failure rate. The reason why people keep turning to them is because it at first appears to work, so everyone runs to the internet to spread the good news. But no one comes back to post when it fails. And it always fails, its just a matter of time.

What happens is the bank receives payment from you and whatever sov'run/freeman legal gibberish you attach to it. Payment processing these days is either 100% automated or done by low level customer service employees who do nothing but open the envelopes, cash the check for the stated amount*, and move on to the next. They throw away anything else inside it. So long as you send something that appears to be a valid payment instrument (a check which they assume actually has money in the account for the amount of the check), it will be cashed and your account credited for the payment. At this point sov'runs/freemen on the land celebrate and think its case closed. Nope, a few days/weeks later the account the check is drawn from comes back as non-sufficient funds, and the bank will reverse the credit.

In the case of your story you are claiming I believe that the check was written for less than the amount of the balance. Much the same process happens. I am sure your "debtor statement of account" probably looked very official and gave the appearance that the account was zeroed out. The front line customer service people received this, thought some error was made on your account because goly gee it does look so official, and probably issued a temporary credit to the account to reflect a $0 balance. That temporary credit eventually expires when no check for the rest of it comes in, and all that money will be owed. But when that happens, again, no one comes running to post their sov'run success story.

[LightinDarkness]

So you have to resort to name calling on here ? Stupid really ? is this high school or some forum where immature minds wonder to argue and name call others about their opinions? Is this the kinda forum i am to believe you run here ? Attempting to belittle my posts is of no affect to me, its your views and i respect it but not if your attempting to offend me.

I've stayed out of this thread and have no dog in this fight, but I have to say in looking through the entire thread your posts have been..well...disappointing. Although you have been given copious evidence via legal citations and case law that your version of law isn't real, you just flat out ignore it. Instead every post makes vague assertions to "white mans contract law" and how because a few hundred years ago people in Canada did terrible things to your people that somehow the law doesn't apply to you.

This isn't reality. It never will be. Its a delusion. And lets just get things clear. I am from the US but like the First Nations in Canada the Native Americans here were subject to terrible, inexcusable injustices. And while you were never subject to those injustices and no one in Canada alive today did anything to you like that, I understand that the oppression of a people in such a way reverberates through future generations. It creates cycles of community violence, spreads poverty, and does in many ways give you a disadvantage that they would not otherwise have. But with all that being said, you are still subject to the law as it is written, not the law as you wish it was. If that law - as laws did in the past - puts some grave injustice on you, then by all means file suit and take it to the highest courts of the land. Get it struck down. That is how you deal with it. You don't deal with it by engaging in freeman on the land cargo cult law.

[wserra]

Clearly not for any standard definition of "dictatorship". You have already shown that you like to make up your own definitions. You can prove a lot if you can just ignore the normal meaning of words.

Again, i placed a few definitions from the Internet, online dictionaries of Dictatorship. Now, you going to blow off those definitions because you dont seem to care much for how it determines what a dictatorship is ?

I thought what I said was quite clear. Whatever you quoted from a dictionary, you asserted that Canada was a dictatorship because one random police officer said that she didn't need consent to search a car. That was your sole criterion. I don't remember seeing a dictionary that defines a dictatorship as someplace where one cop searches a car without consent. In fact, were you the least bit knowledgeable of the law, you could make a better case for your own proposition. U.S. (and I assume Canadian) law permits warrantless, non-consensual car searches in various situations. Still, I don't remember a dictionary that defines a dictatorship as a place that permits warrantless car searches by many police officers, as opposed to just one. Hence either definition is yours.

I write in some detail about a minor point to illustrate the major point: reason will never convince someone irrational. Moreover, in this situation, folks like ChiefDate will never admit error under any circumstances, because they are too invested in being internet gurus.

Further illustration:

If these so called Laws are not unilateral Contracts, would it not be a dictatorship because its laws are forced upon me without my consent?

Obvious answer: of course not. A government which enforces laws only on those who consent to them isn't a government, it's a church. By ChiefDate's definition, every government in the world is a dictatorship. Kinda robs "dictatorship" of any meaning at all. And I would really like to see ChiefDate attempt to convince a victim of a real dictatorship - let's say survivors of the Holocaust, the Gulag, or for that matter the Trail of Tears - that the current U.S. and Canada are dictatorships. Duck.