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

[Hilfskreuzer Möwe]

Spotted a new Canadian Freeman-on-the-Land guru-wannabe: “Chief Rock Sino General”. He represents something of a new flavour to the movement, as he is aboriginal, Mohawk specifically, and also is a ‘hip hop’ artist. His anti-government activities appear to be a newer development (2010-ish); I see musical activities running back over a decade, but according to the The Encyclopedia of Native Music he hasn't released anything since 2001.

Chief Rock seems to be living in the Vancouver area. British Columbia, as a whole, is something of a hotbed for Freeman and other OPCA activities.

He does not seem to have a dedicated ‘commercial’ website, but instead has opted for social media:

• music website: http://rpm.fm/artist/chief-rock/
  
  Facebook: http://www.facebook.com/ChiefRock2k9

I suspect that on the World Freeman Society forums he is “chief2k10”.

But his main activity is on a Facebook group which he runs, entitled “CONTRACT LAW Studies and research”: http://www.facebook.com/groups/421863931237818/

This group is interesting as it has some odd features.

First, it is being run as a sort of ‘question and answer’ forum, but also as a location for Chief Rock to promote his “Game Changer” workshops, and offer sample documents. It may be incorrect to actually characterize Chief Rock as a guru, as he seems, in a leadership role, to be attempting to gather others to ‘unjigger the system’. Perhaps just a step on the path.

What is being discussed in CONTRACT LAW is comparatively unsophisticated, to my eye. For example, the “Notice of Default” document at this link (http://www.facebook.com/groups/42186393 ... 608691950/) uploaded in April 2013 by Chief Rock, bizarrely seems to attempt to settle a Canadian’s tax debt with reference to various IRS documents and USPS Registered Mail, with various Canadian text padding added to what I can only guess is a standard form Sovereign document. In a way it’s seriously old-school – the mainstream Canadian gurus are far beyond using awkwardly hybrid documents like this.

Chief Rock also slinks around Vancouver looking for contracts to the public, which he then photographs and posts on the forum, such as parking notices. That is an offer to contract! One could point out various municipality legislation and bylaws govern such things, but why ruin his fun?

The discussion forum is rather chaotic, as I am seeing persons with very different perspectives discussing their activities – everything from A4V to Strawman concepts, personal copyright, spurious lien theory, refusal to contract – it’s all mashed together.

Another curiosity is the participation of other gurus. While Canadian gurus do not usually criticize one another (the exception being minister Belanger), here I see posts by Robert Menard and “Bondservant Edward-Jay Robin”.

And they’re trying to read contract law texts. No, not fakey ones, but actual law textbooks, and though many that are being pointed at as sources are dated, this is a domain of law where a 20 year old text is still pretty relevant. [Thank you Law Lords of England!] Though naturally when the forum participants encounter principles that do not mesh with their preconceptions, such as that silence does not form a contract, then out come the legal maxims! It’s odd to read.

Thus far not a lot of actual exposition from the fellow. His Facebook page has a couple documents which again emphasize the unsophisticated state of his concepts. For example, this discussion on how everything is admiralty and contract law:

• THE REVOLUTION OF THE MIND IS HERE: http://www.facebook.com/notes/chiefrock ... 3007484280

An excerpt:

Now, i would recommend that you go and do some research on admiralty law, the contract game. The reason this is so important, is due to the fact that everything we all do is relation to a contract whether you believe it or not. It is said out of a 1906 set of law books, almost the whole procedure of life, implies or rather is, the continual fulfillment of contracts. Having said that, moment to moment is the fulfillment of a contract. Like, what everyone feels a contract is a paper with two signatures, with both parties full agreement. This is one of many types of contracts, but what about the contract which you enter into when you go sit down some where and eat ? Did you sign any contract ? or what this contract implied by your conduct that you will pay for the food you just ate. There are so many contracts everyone enters into on a daily basis without even knowing this. Why this is so important? Going back to being idle or assuming many of our natives have been idle is to say many of them has been in agreement with everything by the Canadian Govt. In their game of contracts, silence is agreement. This is understood even by the everyday man/woman, example is when a woman asks her man where he has been and accusing him of being out with the tramp of the neighborhood and he goes silent or says nothing, the woman assumes or believes his silence is his full agreement or confession to her allegation of being out with the tramp. Many corporations today deal with or are under the rule of contracts. Canada is no different, Canada is a corporation registered to the United States Corporation. This corporation has to abide by contract law rules, silence being agreement.

The article closes with a set of photos of naval dress uniforms – and hmm… the Canadian Governor General looks just like … omigawd … he’s an ADMIRAL!

And a little audio stimulation:

• This is an aboriginal talk radio program recording. Behold, as Chief Rock calls up Vital Statistics and discovers the dark truth of the birth certificate: http://www.creativetechnology.org/profi ... no-general
  
  Chief Rock chats it up with Winston Shrout: https://soundcloud.com/contract-law-and ... rview-with

Frankly, this all seems a little amateur to me, but we’ll see. Chief Rock seems to have collected a number of interested parties. He appears to be guiding or at least assisting with the in-court antics of a Micah Green, and has posted a number of audio recordings of those proceedings:

• https://soundcloud.com/contract-law-and ... -vancouver
  
  https://soundcloud.com/contract-law-and ... l-17-north

No, not very successful. No reported decisions to date either, as far as I'm aware.

Chief Rock's follower base does not include a large proportion of what are obviously other aboriginal persons. Over the last few years I have watched as various Freeman / OPCA leaders have tried to reach out to aboriginal groups and communities, and thus far there does not appear to have been much favorable response, or rather the opposite, such as with the Sovereign Squamish Government. Hopefully that pattern continues.

SMS Möwe

[grixit]

As i recall, the old mohawks successful resisted the loss of their land to europeans by steadfastly serving notice that the did not consent to being invaded, and further, had not contracted with the militia to receive musket balls.

[Hilfskreuzer Möwe]

Chief Rock is truly a source of some wonderfully bizarre advice. Last night he posted the following on the CONTRACT LAW Studies and Research Facebook group page:

So here are some simple things to do with a Check from your bank. In the memo use it to contract. Memo : Payment in Full to settle acc no.23434 to a zero balance. Or, Memo: Payment in full for settlement and closure of acc no. 23324523. Upon cashing this check the banks conduct is agreed to clear account to zero and close it. Now the issue now, once cashed how do you assert your position ? Well, you print out the banks copy of the cashed chq and your send it off with a document recording the full agreement they entered into. Also, place in there, your terms for them collection on an account as already agreed as settled and closed. Just be creative with your documents and make sure your not being to ambiguous with your language and your very precise with whom your addressing. Give them so many days to reply and i usually give 20days with these ones. So any questions ?

I am at a loss for words.

SMS Möwe

[grixit]

Wow, i thought that one was well and truly dead.

[Hilfskreuzer Möwe]

Wow, i thought that one was well and truly dead.

I know I should probably not be surprised that something so exquisitely stupid would be recycled. Just not one I'd seen before. Or hopefully, will again.

I sense busy times for the British Columbia courts...

SMS Möwe

[Hilfskreuzer Möwe]

Chief Rock seems to have collected a number of interested parties. He appears to be guiding or at least assisting with the in-court antics of a Micah Green, and has posted a number of audio recordings of those proceedings:

• https://soundcloud.com/contract-law-and ... -vancouver
  
  https://soundcloud.com/contract-law-and ... l-17-north

No, not very successful. No reported decisions to date either, as far as I'm aware.

And I was right - another triumph for the Freemen! On June 27, 2013 Chief Rock Sino General alerted his following than an important trial would be occurring the following day in Vancouver, where one of his students, a Micah Hollis Green, would be Facing Down the Man:

ChiefRock Sino General

Mr Green Goes to Court Tomorrow at 9am North Vancouver, this is a trial, so he hopes many will show to give him support. Come watch the show and see how fraud is done so well by these so called Law courts...would be great to have a reporter so in on this one...

Share · June 27 at 11:49am

I was curious as to the result, and so checked the June 28, 2013 British Columbia Provincial Courts adult criminal list results to see how Freeman Green did. He was appearing on a number of charges:

• Criminal Code, s. 129 – resisting or obstructing a peace officer – Guilty:1 year probation under conditions (not indicated), conditional discharge of sentence, no victim surcharge ordered
  
  Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, s. 5(2) – possession of a prohibited drug for the purposes of trafficking – Guilty: sentencing hearing set for July 3, 2013
  
  Criminal Code, s. 145(3) – breach of pre-trial release on bail – Guilty: sentencing hearing set for July 3, 2013
  
  Criminal Code, s. 145(2) – failure to attend court - Guilty: sentencing hearing set for July 3, 2013
  
  Criminal Code, s. 145(2) – failure to attend court - Guilty: sentencing hearing set for July 3, 2013

Chief Rock reports to the faithful in CONTRACT LAW Studies and Research that things went swimmingly!

ChiefRock Sino General
He did pretty good, audio will be posted once its ready.
Saturday at 10:57am

ChiefRock Sino General Judge
reserved judgment for another day !
Saturday at 10:57am

I suspect this is our protagonist (http://www.facebook.com/micah.y.green) He’s a member of all sorts of Freeman, marijuana, and environmental protest groups.

SMS Möwe

[ArthurWankspittle]

ChiefRock Sino General
He did pretty good....

Yes, he's at least going to get jailed for that second charge. Success! Victory!

[Hilfskreuzer Möwe]

ChiefRock Sino General
He did pretty good....

Yes, he's at least going to get jailed for that second charge. Success! Victory!

Indeed!

Chief Rock Sino General does not appear to be in any hurry to report on how Mr. Green did yesterday on his four convictions:

• Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, s. 5(2) – possession of a prohibited drug for the purposes of trafficking – 50 day sentence, 1 year probation, 10 year firearm prohibition
  
  Criminal Code, s. 145(3) – breach of pre-trial release on bail – 7 day sentence
  
  Criminal Code, s. 145(2) – failure to attend court - 9 day sentence
  
  Criminal Code, s. 145(2) – failure to attend court - 14 day sentence

Apparently Mr. Green has spent a bit of time in pre-trial detention, and as a consequence all four of these sentences were fulfilled by that time spent in remand.

But it’s not all over yet, as Mr. Green will be returning to court on July 11 for a hearing to determine whether his should keep the money he had put up for bail, given his two breaches of pre-trial recognizance. My prediction? Not so likely...

My suspicion is that Mr. Green is now “free” once more, unless he has further charges pending. Though admittedly Mr. Green might disagree with whether being loose in our dread public society is really, in any way, “freedom”.

SMS Möwe

[Hilfskreuzer Möwe]

Chief Rock Sino General does not appear to be in any hurry to report on how Mr. Green did yesterday on his four convictions ...

I spoke to soon, and further I appear to have grievously misunderstood the results reported in the previous post. Thankfully, Chief Rock has set things straight (http://www.facebook.com/groups/42186393 ... 102001167/):

ChiefRock Sino General
So, in North Vancouver yesterday Mr Green was set free from being behind bars because he was able to hold his contract. When you play in this game you will be tested in many levels. He went thru many arrogant judges who showed signs of being upset and angry to polite and forceful. He went in and did his verbal contracts, we drew up written ones for his case to the prosecutions office and courts. Now, after 2years of trying to figure this out, he went thru with a full understanding on how this works and what he needed to do. The judge whom brought him out this last time, did not wear a robe and acknowledged his conduct as being good not like many others whom come before. She said a few things but in the end she let him go and he stood there and said i am charging 1million in silver per day i was held, she said that is fine but deal with that with another judge, than announced her retirement. Seem cool most judges retire in front of good people who know the fine rules of honor and contracts. The next judge was wearing a robe who came before him again. Audio will be posted once i fix it and boost the levels. The room was packed with lawyers who came to watch the show and the other judges who were there did not wear robes as well. HE essential was on the PRIVATE SIDE OF THE COURT.

Wow. That's egg on my face. And here I thought Mr. Green had been found guilty and sentenced to time served - instead Mr. Green was released on the basis of his contracts with ... err ... somebody.

I also learned something new today about judicial robes.

Derek Moran
Whats the significance exactly, that the Judge wasnt wearing a robe?

Tlakwagilagame Williams
Black robes represent the god of banking (EL) derives from saturn, judges, grad students, priests....

But every triumph has its slave whispering "Memento homo", or in this case Brian "Freaking Idiot" Alexander (viewtopic.php?f=47&t=9358), who observes that it's all well and good that Freemen get Freed, but it's really time to get down and start enforcing those fee schedules - show the Corporation State we mean Business!

Brian Alexander
well its good he got out...my concern is the games they play with us...like they hold you for a while, then drop the charges...though you end up spending the time in jail the same amount as if you were found guilty...WTF n wake up... recognise that they are happy not getting the conviction, they just want to get you in jail for a while...and if thats by holding you, then dropping the charges...so be it. I'm still waiting for dc to lead the way for collectin for timespent in jail. its what he's boasted from day one since I watched his first his vids.

Brian Alexander
untill people start collecting; they will continue to harrass and then post in in papers so that it appears FMOTL and the like are all crazy and unlawful.[this demoralises the movement and makes it appear to the public that we are wrong, which shrinks and belittles the movement-just what NWO wants] Personaly I would like to see dc and his groupies "rally the troops" and put their actions where their mouth is. Or at least explain why they refuse to do so.

I think "dc" here refers to Dean Clifford.

"... so that it appears FMOTL and the like are all crazy and unlawful." - naw, really, could any fair-minded commonfolk ever get that impression? I just can't see how.

SMS Möwe

[Chief2k13]

Well really and truly thanks alot guys for following the group and cases that have been done. Now, i have questions for you folks here on this site ? Now, the one case with Mr Green, he had a 1lb of weed and got caught again with another 0z of weed later on, obstruct and failures to appear and so on and so forth. Now, i am aware of other ppl who had such things but was placed in jail for over a year with probation. Now he did alot of things in these courts and sure he might have been placed in jail here and there but mainly he has been free for the most part and is free now. So my question is, in your view what other trials are you aware of that judges sat on the case and didnt wear a robe ? How many done this so called Freeman move and still are in jail for terms longer for triumphed up charges or what not. Like we are talking Drug charges here and there was a Provincial Crown and a Federal Crown who were prosecuting this case. So what he serves a week here and a few days there and that is it for these so called charges ? If you listen to the audio of the court date where she retired, she does go on to say he didnt act like the other so called freeman types.

Also,

www.soundcloud.com/chiefrock2k9 has my lastest and greatest songs i am producing. I have put out more than one album i just dont do commercial alot of my music stays underground, however this new album will not be, i plan on taking it as far as i can.

SO, another question, are you trying to tell me everything done on MY PEOPLES LAND IS TRUE AND JUST ? You saying that a group of white guys or English who run CANADA are allowed to come on to MY PEOPLES LAND and execute law ? How is that justice on stolen land ? The raping of 1000s and murder of 1000s of innocent children is 100% not insane but yet guys trying to figure their bs laws and contracts against them is stupid and idiotic ? is that what i am to believe this group is trying to say about other folks ??? I really would like to learn what your perspective is on this whole thing ...as an original from these lands alot of my people are very curious about what is being done and many are doing it privately. I get private messages and i do workshops on my own reserve for many of my people who know our laws and our treaties we have a higher standing than whitemans law that are being criminally executed on these lands.

Do keep in mind, Racist defines or one of them many definitions are - One races who believes themselves to be superior to another. The one race superior to rule over another race...not exact i dont have my dictionary close by but you get the point, if one races thinks they can pass judgment or rule over my people, tells me they are in fact 100% Racist in their own definitions. So please let me see a perspective that shows i am wrong, that they are 10000% able to rule over us as slaves, cause if you are not free, than what do you consider yourself ? If you didnt know a old dictionary i got from the 1800 is defining the word man as Slave. Freeman would be a free slave. I am not a freeman, i am not white or from European decent so that label cannot be used for me. I am of the Haudenosaunee , Six Nations, Cayuga Nation, not Mohawk, just get your facts straight if you wanna speak of me in anyway thanks. I enjoyed reading your posts and thoughts.

[Chief2k13]

Oh and btw, the check you mentioned, tell me how that is silly please? I can only assume you dont know what constitutes a contract ? If you read a contract law book, it spells it out quite easily...conduct or action will show an agreement. Merely action is needed. Like the parking sign, says dont park here unless you AGREE with the terms. Period, dont cash my cheq unless you agree with the terms. Terms being, this cheq is offered to settle the account to a zero balance. Btw it cleared a 6000 visa bills so it cant be that silly in my view But your thoughts of why it is silly and why it shouldnt work would be appreciated thanks.

[wserra]

Welcome to Quatloos, Chief2k13. Does part of your name change every year? Oh, and the part that doesn't seem to change - "Chief" - you rant about racism in another post. Every NDN I know resents the hell out of being called "Chief". Oh, well, different strokes.

Oh and btw, the check you mentioned, tell me how that is silly please?

OK. As a matter of U.S. law - I don't claim to know Canadian - being able to wipe out debts with a "Paid in Full" in the memo field of a check is an urban legend. Sure, there's such a thing as an accord and satisfaction. But at the very least it requires a good faith dispute as to the debt. Trying to get over by sneaking a few words on a check is a bad faith dispute.

I can only assume you dont know what constitutes a contract ?

Actually, I do.

Like the parking sign, says dont park here unless you AGREE with the terms.

Parking laws - in fact, laws generally - aren't contracts.

Btw it cleared a 6000 visa bills

So you say.

thanks.

No problem.

[Hilfskreuzer Möwe]

... Now, i have questions for you folks here on this site ? Now, the one case with Mr Green, he had a 1lb of weed and got caught again with another 0z of weed later on, obstruct and failures to appear and so on and so forth. Now, i am aware of other ppl who had such things but was placed in jail for over a year with probation. Now he did alot of things in these courts and sure he might have been placed in jail here and there but mainly he has been free for the most part and is free now.

You may find it helpful to refer to the Criminal Code of Canada (http://canlii.ca/t/7vf2), specifically ss. 718-719 for the principles that are used to guide sentencing in Canada. From my review of the online completed criminal trial list it appears Mr. Green received a total sentence of 80 days, 1 year probation, and a firearms prohibition. If you refer to Criminal Code, s. 719(3) you will see that Parliament authorizes a sentencing judge to reduce an offender's sentence as a consequence of time spent detained in remand prior to trial:

719(3) In determining the sentence to be imposed on a person convicted of an offence, a court may take into account any time spent in custody by the person as a result of the offence but the court shall limit any credit for that time to a maximum of one day for each day spent in custody.

Higher discounts are possible, but unusual (ss. 719(3.1)-719(3.4).

The usual practice in Canada is that persons who are detained prior to trial will receive this sentence reduction, these days on a '1 to 1' basis. If you are interested in the rationale for that I suggest you read the Supreme Court of Canada decision of R. v. Wust, 2000 SCC 18, [2000] 1 S.C.R. 455 (http://canlii.ca/t/5266). It makes no difference whether an offender is a Freeman, some other form of OPCA litigant, or a run of the mill criminal, even of the most unpleasant kind. Pre-trial detention will usually result in a sentence reduction. For an extreme example of unpleasant criminals who nevertheless receive this kind of benefit, you may find this case of interest: R. v. KDH, 2012 ABQB 471 at para. 14 (http://canlii.ca/t/fs78w).

Mr. Green receives the same benefit as KDH. If Mr. Green was detained for more than 80 days, and I believe that was the case from the records I have reviewed, then the sentencing judge would generally have released him on "time served".

As for the actual duration of any given sentence, you will find that many factors contribute to what is called a "fit sentence", please review the Criminal Code sections I identified above. If you review criminal sentencing case law you will find many examples of how aggravating and mitigating factors are balanced.

So my question is, in your view what other trials are you aware of that judges sat on the case and didnt wear a robe ?

Please read Henry v. Starwood Hotels, 2010 ABCA 367 (http://canlii.ca/t/2dnsq) and Henry v. El, 2010 ABCA 312 (CanLII), 2010 ABCA 312 (http://canlii.ca/t/2d0v7) for the legal relevance of whether a judge is gowned or not.

How many done this so called Freeman move and still are in jail for terms longer for triumphed up charges or what not.

Contrary to your suggestion that "Freemen" receive elevated sentences, I would suggest that is not necessarily correct. For example, in R. v. Petrie, 2013 BCSC 1185 (http://canlii.ca/t/fzhvx) a Freeman who operated a grow-up received a one year house arrest sentence, without any time spent in custody. Of course, a Freeman who is nothing more than a career criminal will probably be carted off to jail, like any other repeat offender, for example: R. v. Boyer, 2007 BCPC 313 (http://canlii.ca/t/1t69j), R. v. Boyer, 2009 BCPC 278 (http://canlii.ca/t/264b5).

In fact, the courts have been explicit that they attempt to provide OPCA litigants with proportional and appropriate sentences. However, when met by meaningless defiance, a different result will occur: R. v. Jastrebske, 2013 SKQB 150 (http://canlii.ca/t/fx72k). You may find the history of Dr. Jastrebske of interest, there is a message thread here that reviews how her life has been very badly damaged by involvement with the OPCA phenomenon (viewtopic.php?f=47&t=9267). I certainly hope you would agree that it is tragic that Dr. Jastrebske was manipulated by persons into wasting so much of her life.

... I am of the Haudenosaunee , Six Nations, Cayuga Nation, not Mohawk, just get your facts straight if you wanna speak of me in anyway thanks. ...

Please accept my apologies for that misidentification. I believe I obtained that information from your entry in the "The Encyclopedia of Native Music" by Brian Wright-McLeod at p. 77. I hope you understand my error was an honest one.

Three final comments in closing. First, I applaud your attempts to study legal texts. I would suggest that, where possible, you consult the most modern texts available. In Canada law evolves over time, and old principles and approaches may be discarded, either because a court has adopted a new approach, or because Parliament or the provincial legislatures have changed the law via legislation. That means that an older text may not provide an accurate explanation of the law as it currently stands.

For example, many Freemen prefer to refer to very old editions of Black's Law Dictionary. This is silly. Not only is that an American text, but in both Canada and the U.S. the legal meaning of words has changed, over time, due to new case law and legislation. If you are interested in the modern legal meaning of words, there are more up to date legal dictionaries, and even in Canada a 2011 book by Justice Côté of the Alberta Court of Appeal, titled "Words That Bind: Words and Phrases Judicially Considered by the Supreme Court of Canada and by the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council to 1949". That book lists what the Supreme Court of Canada says certain words mean. Hard to top that as an authority, at least in this country.

Current legal texts can be grimly expensive, but fortunately almost all Canadian courthouses have an attached public access library, usually operated by the provincial Law Society, where a modern collection of legal reference materials are made available to lawyers and the public. The librarians who operate these facilities are, in my experience, a very well informed and helpful bunch. Another useful resource is a university law school library, if one is nearby. Those usually have extremely broad collections of modern and historical material.

Second, please read case law. If you go into a court with a textbook and the other party arrives with a case, the textbook only says what its author, who is perhaps a very respected fellow, believes the law to be. The case, on the other hand, is what the law is. The case will always win if the case comes from a 'higher' court.

In Canada we are very lucky to have what I believe is the world's finest collection of free Internet-accessible case law and legislation at the CanLII website (http://www.canlii.org). If you have not used this tool I think you would find it very helpful to understand law in this country.

Last, you appear to subscribe to the mistaken belief that all legal obligations in Canada result from contract. I would suggest you read Meads v. Meads, 2012 ABQB 571 (http://canlii.ca/t/fsvjq), in particular paras. 379-416, 447-528. My understanding is that you live in British Columbia. The courts of that jurisdiction accept and are applying this Alberta judgment, for example, R. v. Tyskerud, 2013 BCPC 27 (http://canlii.ca/t/fw4sw). It seems only fair to me that you draw this case law to the attention of those who seek advice from you.

Good luck with your studies.

SMS Möwe

[Hilfskreuzer Möwe]

Oh and btw, the check you mentioned, tell me how that is silly please? I can only assume you dont know what constitutes a contract ? If you read a contract law book, it spells it out quite easily...conduct or action will show an agreement. Merely action is needed. Like the parking sign, says dont park here unless you AGREE with the terms. Period, dont cash my cheq unless you agree with the terms. Terms being, this cheq is offered to settle the account to a zero balance. Btw it cleared a 6000 visa bills so it cant be that silly in my view But your thoughts of why it is silly and why it shouldnt work would be appreciated thanks.

I would very much hope the contract law texts to which you refer mention the importance that a contract represent a "meeting of the minds", what lawyers sometimes refer to, using those silly latin phrases, as "consensus ad idem". That is the idea that a contract is a bargain where both parties agree to what is going to be exchanged. If the two parties do not have the same thing in mind, then there is no enforceable contract.

So let's look at that cheque payment scenario first via a thought experiment. If you and I were to meet and I said to you, if you'll shovel my sidewalk I'll pay you twenty bucks, and you agreed, then our bargain would be that you would do a task for me, and I'd pay twenty bucks. Now, if you did your half of the bargain and asked for payment, and I tried to give you four chickens (we'll presume that those chickens are worth $20), then you would have every right to reject the chickens. We'd bargained work for money - and you would be absolutely right to say that you never imagined you would be paid in chickens.

So, you use a VISA credit card. What's the bargain? VISA is providing a form of payment that you can use. You are promising to repay to VISA the amount VISA paid on your behalf. If you make $1000 in purchases, and try to pay with a cheque that is endorsed for $500, but there is also attached to the cheque a sticker that reads "I'm a magic sticker worth $500", then VISA would have every right to say to you "Hey buddy - I expected to be paid in something equivalent to cash, not magic stickers." And the courts would enforce that outstanding $500 debt.

In contract terms, attaching the magic sticker, or writing on the cheque "this also pays the rest of my debt" is a change in contract terms. VISA never agreed to be paid in that way, and so you could not enforce that new contract term upon VISA.

I am very interested in your claim that 6000 VISA bills have been paid in this manner. Could you please direct me to a reported court decision in Canada where this very important process has been tested and proven? Thank you in advance.

SMS Möwe

[Hilfskreuzer Möwe]

Chief Rock Sino General:

I am actually quite glad you decided to join the Quatloos forum because I have periodically read your messages on the Facebook "CONTRACT LAW Studies and research" forum and I must admit, I have been quite surprised by some your statements. Since I have attempted to answer some of your inquiries in what I hope is a helpful way, would you perhaps mind answering a few questions in return?

In your message thread on liens you said this:

... With private courts out of my nation, a court order has been issued along with the administrative judgment which can be entered into the superior/supreme court as a foreign judgment in order to help with the enforcement of your claim. Keep in mind its all about the claims, i mean contracts. ... [Emphasis added.]

Could you identify to which nation you refer and also tell me about these "private courts"? I thought you were Canadian - I may be mistaken. Do you mean the court of the "Sovereign Sovereign ©Skwxwú7mesh-Squamish™ Government" (http://www.sovsquamishgov.org/)? I understand that government claims to own much of British Columbia.

Later in the same post you say:

... Also, keep in mind, if you are able to hold your contract and get an order from a Superior/supreme court, you can take this order and have the U.S marshals come north of the border and execute enforcement for you. ... [Emphasis added.]

Is the border you are speaking about the Canada / U.S. border? If so, how does this work? I have never heard of "U.S. marshals" enforcing a contract outside the United States. How would the "U.S. marshals" have any authority in Canada? Perhaps you could point me to Canadian legislation that grants this authority? Does this work for other countries, too? If a North Korean court were to order seizure and nationalization of a company in Canada, could North Korean "marshals" enter into Canada and enforce that court order?

In this thread (http://www.facebook.com/groups/42186393 ... 735157437/) you answer a question by Coby Wever:

Coby Wever
What is a "slider contract"?

ChiefRock Sino General
when they slide you documents under your door and you dont slide it back, you keep it. That is called an adhesive contract. [Emphasis added.]

I have never heard of an "adhesive contract" and when I searched on CanLII for that term I never found it. The same for Google. Could you tell me in what contract law text you learned about "adhesive contracts"?

In this post (http://www.facebook.com/groups/42186393 ... 945157516/) you explained the parts of a contract and cited a case:

4. U.S. v. Tweel, 550 F. 2d 297 (1977) “Silence can only be equated with fraud where there is a legal or moral duty to speak or where an inquiry left unanswered is intentionally misleading”.

I thought that was very interesting, and decided to read that case. I found it here (http://scholar.google.ca/scholar_case?c ... 3122934585). The passage you quoted was in turn a quote from another decision, United States v. Prudden, 424 F. 2d 1021 - Court of Appeals, 5th Circuit 1970, which can be read here (http://scholar.google.ca/scholar_case?c ... 5&as_vis=1).

I am curious, have you read either of these two decisions? Did you know that both of these court decisions deal with criminal prosecution of persons who had allegedly evaded taxes, and that the quoted passage has to do with under what circumstances an Internal Revenue Service agent is obliged to disclose a tax investigation may have a criminal aspect?

I am confused. How is that a contract? How would a rule from those two cases apply in a contract setting? Can you show me where a Canadian court has applied a standard for U.S. Federal officials in a U.S. tax evasion prosecution case to a Canadian contract?

You started this discussion (http://www.facebook.com/groups/42186393 ... 808668263/) with the following statement:

Question, how many got a loan(car,student,house etc..) and paid it off fully and received the original promissory note back ? If you did not get it back, that is theft and stolen property. So, now its time to request it back from the people who stole it or is trying to steal it. RCMP , Courts etc... should be called in to investigate. If they fail to provide you the original, they should in honor(not sure many corporations have, well i am sure 100% there is none lol) send you a chq for the full amount of the promissory note you tendered to them when you signed it.

Again, I have never heard of this requirement to return a promissory note. Can you point me to a case where a court has enforced this right? Would this requirement to return a note be a term written in the contract between the lender and borrower? Maybe it comes from legislation?

What if the promissory note were lost or destroyed, even though there was no fault of the bank. For example, what if an earthquake and fire destroyed the bank's records and the promissory note? Would the contract and obligation to repay the loan just disappear? That does not seem fair. Shouldn't everyone abide by the terms of a contract - the meeting of the minds?

I don't want to impose further so I will end my inquiries at this point. You may find other Quatloos forum members also have questions for you - which I hope you could help answer. I have found the people here are very interested in learning, and I suspect they would find many interesting things in your Facebook group:

• CONTRACT LAW Studies and research - http://www.facebook.com/groups/421863931237818/

and on your Facebook page:

• ChiefRock Sino General: http://www.facebook.com/ChiefRock2k9

And an oversight from my previous messages, all the very best of luck with your music career. I too very much enjoy music, though in my case as a D.J. and listener.

SMS Möwe

[Hilfskreuzer Möwe]

Well, this is nice!

Chief Rock Sino General has thoughtfully linked his readership to our Quatloos thread:

ChiefRock Sino General
Wow Guys, i guess we have folks on my group who are part of this forum online, it was pointed out to my by a contact i have on skype...Check it out and let me know your thoughts. If you are one of these ppl from this forum let us know, im sure we will have plenty of questions for you in regards to your perspective. I am truly curious as to what you think, QUATLOOS
viewtopic.php?f=47&t=9377&p=159202#p159202

(http://www.facebook.com/groups/42186393 ... 214608889/)
(http://www.facebook.com/ChiefRock2k9/po ... 3170005024)

On behalf of other residents of this virtual isle I bid greetings to any new readers who land on these sandy shores courtesy of Chief Rock. Welcome! Welcome!

SMS Möwe

[Chief2k13]

Why thank you, i dont mind a bit of logical conversation as long as it doesnt turn into a name calling contest. I read all the replies and will reply in kind, however i am a bit busy with my newest interview of Winston Shrout. Doing edits and uploading a video to youtube. So once im done with my work and play i shall return to address questions. I do hope the readers of the post do come out to play and answer some questions. One question i will answer is, 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. If you look back far enough into the posts you will see the lady whom had experienced this success, she is the one who posted and was giving everyone the good news of her new zero balance. Anyways i will reply back once i get more time to sit and ponder.

[Chief2k13]

Welcome to Quatloos, Chief2k13. Does part of your name change every year? Oh, and the part that doesn't seem to change - "Chief" - you rant about racism in another post. Every NDN I know resents the hell out of being called "Chief". Oh, well, different strokes.

- Well Chief deals with my music name Chief Rock, for short Chief. Every Ndn resents ? Have you had a conversation with EVERY Native ? i think you have it backwards plenty of original people from the Original Nations resent being called Indian not Chief.

OK. As a matter of U.S. law - I don't claim to know Canadian - being able to wipe out debts with a "Paid in Full" in the memo field of a check is an urban legend. Sure, there's such a thing as an accord and satisfaction. But at the very least it requires a good faith dispute as to the debt. Trying to get over by sneaking a few words on a check is a bad faith dispute.

OK, so for starters in my perspective or at least from what i have experienced i have people whom can say for sure their Visa debt was put to zero. She posted about it in the group. Now, your just cherry picking at this moment, PAID IN FULL is only part of the memo on the cheque, Memo: Payment in full for settlement of account #13423234 to a zero balance.
Or Payment in full to settle and close account #12323234234. So upon cashing that Cheque its their agreement to settle the account for the amount tendered for ledger of the account to zero. Keep in mind its ONLY AN OFFER. In contract law, its all about offer and acceptance. You see we make the offer to settle and upon their conduct and i know they read it because other Cheques have been highlighted when they sent mail back to others whom done this showing they were well aware of the memo text, ignorance of law(contract) is of no excuse ? is only good for when they use it and say it to folks getting screwed ??

Parking laws - in fact, laws generally - aren't contracts.

So in the photo of the parking sign and how it reads http://sdrv.ms/1b3OJH4
So in this sign if you notice says We offer this space etc..etc.. and dont park here if you dont agree, by parking here you hereby grant etc..etc...So you trying to tell me this isnt a damn contract ?? You said you know what a contract is now are you denying this isnt a contact ?

Thanks for all the case law that you referenced i have plenty to read now and gain some perspective. Now, do you think or believe there is a private side or public side in society ? If there is a private side, meaning private contracts between people and corporations and public side being judges(justices in Canada as there is no real judge from what i can gather) police officers etc... While in court one time i asked this Justice, are you suggesting that the private records i provided you, which has been settled in the private still grants jurisdiction to the public to a matter that is already settled ? She said no, even thoe she said no, she still wanted to go to trial because the lawyers says we dont have an agreement, but i asked the court if there are any records in opposition to the records before the court ? No answer and they still pressed for trial. Now i also asked whether or not she was aware of the treaties(international contracts) her King/Queen entered into with my nation, which is the Cayuga Nation part of the Five Nations or haudenosaunee..which our two row wampum belt says their LAWS are not to interfere with us and our laws wont interfere with them and we wont try to steer each others vessel. So, we have any other treaties that show we are not to be in their courts period. Anyways she was very ignorant to that and had no knowledge and admitted so on the her bench. So, she lacked the ability to make any legal determination on anything to do the case i was in court for. Also, you suggesting white mans laws have jurisdiction over our nations citizens ? We have many old agreements, i am not a Canadian, i do have a person i use in Canada but i am not a person nor an Indian at all nor do i accept the term or the term of First Nations. So if i missed any parts of the questions i will come back to them. I know another poster had some but i will reply later this was already long enough

[Chief2k13]

Here are some quotes from my contract books and a definition of an agreement

As contract law stipulates,
“An acceptance by the offeree to the offer may be written, oral or implied. The implied is the offeree’s actions or conduct, which can indicate acceptance of an offer.
1.Where an offeror has stated or given the offeree reason to understand assent may be manifested by silence or inaction, and the offeree in remaining silent and inactive intends to accept the offer.
2.When all that is required of the offeree is performance, a unilateral contract is formed upon performance. The mode of acceptance is the conduct of actions of the offeree. No exchange of responses is necessary to indicate assent to the offer; rather, performance indicates the acceptance

Acceptance –Unspoken consent to concurrence in a transaction by virtue of failure to reject it, the receipt of retention of that which is offered.

As for the U.S v Tweel quote, sure it dealt with a tax issue however, i feel it doesnt matter the issue but what was said in regards to being silent. “Silence can only be equated with fraud where there is a legal or moral duty to speak or where an inquiry left unanswered is intentionally misleading”. So, if i send off a document giving a company 20days to respond or to provide me something like a verified contract or a authenticated record of some kind. So 20 days goes by and they dont provide me with anything, so by going silent or not responding could lead me to believe they maybe ignoring me or leaving my inquiry unanswered. So if we are in business or in a contract of some kind like a mortgage i believe they are to provide me with whatever i request in reasonable terms. Even thoe its quite well known that many banks sell the original promissory note because its a security to which i can only assume they deposited into a trust of some kinda as an asset. Thoughts /?

If any of your forum members could research this gentlemen, a Canadian Soilder who worked for Canada to research Canada's threats and listen to his story, working in the field he works in he has access to file and documents most other dont.
http://i-uv.com/captain-deryl-zeleny-up ... july-2013/

[Burnaby49]

At Chief2ki3's suggestion I checked out Zeleny's website and this is what I got right off the bat:

DZ: That was an interesting one. Did a lot of research. I know I am walking into an admiralty court, I know what they’re going to do is give you an offer to contract. And I/you(?) have to counter it. So (here, DZ describes making his personal appearance very status-quo-presentable). [...?] case. And what happens in the morning is largely done(?) in the Judge’s chambers. Discuss the case. So I showed up in time for that. [unintelligible sentence]. And they/we(?) discussed (the various)(?) docket numbers and other(?) [?] information. Terms of the sentence, and so forth. And [?] I spoke up and said “[?] morning, I’m here to answer to this/these(?) charge(s).” And I said, “I’m sorry(?), and who are you?” And he said, “I’m Justice Stone(?), and I’m basically here to discuss the motions to these charges we have here.”

So we have an admiralty sovereign who used to have some minor capacity (an army Captain, dime a dozen) in the Canadian military. So what? He might well have had access to files that most of us don't but, as an ex-civil servant who had access to files not available to the general public, I know that, by itself, means nothing.

Google Zeleny and it turns out he is a hard core OPPT follower hand in glove with Heather Tucci Jarraf.

http://voidmortgage.socialgo.com/topic/ ... -uses-oppt

So much for credibility.