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

[Chief2k13]

So before i reply to the most recent posts, i do have a few questions from Hilfskreuzer Möwe
First Mate that needs answering first.

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.

Now, in English we are known as the Cayuga Nation in our language this is not who we are its a whole other name Gayogoho:no pronounced a whole other way with a more in-depth meaning. Part of the Five Nations, Haudenosaunee or People of the Longhouse whom made many Treaties with the King and Queen whoms agreements still stand to this day and as Allies of Her Majesty for fighting in the war to keep this area as is and not United States. I am not of the West Coast nations however there are some Hereditary chief who wish to make me an official Hereditary Chief of these areas. That is near here nor there.

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.]

Ok very good, Now our nations are absolutely Sovereign at least those whom live as citizens of that nation and not Canadians. So, as citizens of our nations there are some whom are training to be or are Judges for our nations courts. Yes we are building Courts and Police and Sheriffs who will be given a task to begin arresting those whom are committed acts against our nations and to be brought forth before our judges for trial and placed into our jails once they are complete. As a nation we have a De Jure Nation/Government which all aspects are being implemented as we speak and worked on, as well as our own currency, central Bank.
(De jure (in Classical Latin de iure) is an expression that means "concerning law", as contrasted with de facto, which means "concerning fact". The terms de jure and de facto are used instead of "in law" and "in practice", respectively, when one is describing political or legal situations.) So yes our courts can and will be issuing judgments for civil cases as well, appointing Notaries whom are and will be bonded with securities among our own nations. Cannot say much more but im sure you are getting the idea. alot of the Nations now do have police and many more will be implementing more and more officers and eventually an Army. So, do we have the right to do so, fucking right, its our land, the occupation of Canada will soon be over may not in the next 10 years but its coming down the pipe. Canada being a de facto Government their laws truly do not have no can ever have real laws, only the ones they enforce behind the barrel of a gun and tazer.

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?

from my understanding and i will be doing more research and going down to the U.S and question a few of the U.S Marshall as it has been told, they are similar to interpol which is like a international police force which can cross borders to make arrest or enforce contracts if bonded and an order from a court is executed. (The International Criminal Police Organization, or INTERPOL, is an intergovernmental organization facilitating international police cooperation)

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.

You must think of this, the corporate officer slides you a set of rules or what not under your door, which to me is an offer. If i keep that paper, my conduct or action would appear to be in agreement by my silence or inaction (which is an action). So, i slide it back outside the door in order to show i dont agree. The contract sticks if i dont do anything and keep it. I know i will get many more questions but this is just how i have come to understand law. Law=contract and contract = law. If it isnt Contract, than we my friends are living under a DICTATORSHIP -A dictatorship is defined as an autocratic or authoritarian form of government in which a government is ruled by either an individual: a dictator, or an authoritarian party, as in an oligarchy. It has three possible meanings: A government controlled by one person, or a small group of people. In this form of government the power rests entirely on the person or group of people, and can be obtained by force or by inheritance. The dictator(s) may also take away much of its peoples' freedom.
In contemporary usage, dictatorship refers to an autocratic form of absolute rule by leadership unrestricted by law, constitutions, or other social and political factors within the state.
a dictatorship is a form of government that has the power to govern without consent of those being governed (similar to authoritarianism), while totalitarianism describes a state that regulates nearly every aspect of public and private behavior of the people. In other words, dictatorship concerns the source of the governing power and totalitarianism concerns the scope of the governing power. - I feel, the last paragraph sounding more and more like Canada at this moment in time. The without consent is what goes on everyday in U.S and Canada. In Mr Greens trial, the officer who arrested him was asked by Mr Green, did you have my consent to enter into my car and do a search ? She said, i DONT NEED YOUR CONSENT !. There we have it, sounds alot like a dictatorship than some Govt who is fair and just, i maybe wrong but if so please enlighten ? And stupid replies with stupid silly thing wont get a reply anymore, disregarded. We are trying to clear the stupid fog here that seems to have most blind.

I am confused. How is that a contract? How would a rule from those two cases apply in a contract setting?

Of course you would be confused, now, that case sure your right it dealt with tax this and that so what...what i am saying is the paragraph its self says alot. “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”. That in itself speaks volumes. I explained this in another thread i think, but mainly i use it for corporations whom im writing to. I wouldnt waste my very valuable time to be totally and utterly ignored. I dont give two sh#ts if the company didnt agree with my document or letter, write back, reply or say something but to completely ignore me and not provide a lick of evidence of an obligation, like really ?????
Now, i was brought to Supreme Court of Bc against CIBC whom brought me there for a stupid a$$ 270.00, it cost 200 to even file a case. They were trying to make an example out of me. Bad move and i won. The lawyer says to me, we dont have to respond to you. Dont have to, like so im in a serious question mode of asking why ? what did i do wrong in order to be ignored ? is this common practice when a debt is in question >? i warned them i dont owe you jack sh%t. Yet they kept on coming and lost against me. Its still up in the air i didnt complete it as im still wondering how i should approach this, criminal complaint against the law firm and CIBC for coercion, fraud and a few other things which im considering. Also to go after them for abuse of court process and being a vexatious litigant and wasting valuable public resources and much more. This case when i do finish will show these a$$holes i am not a joke. The damn lawyer lied right in my face and muttered to the court that we dont wish to bring anything up in this case blah blah fricking criminal, after he was found out. He was waving around a envelope that was alleged to have been sent to me in order for me to show up for trial.

I tell you i did not get it. The notice was sent in Nov, the lawyer was waving around this mail as if i got it and sent it back. yes i sent back the order i got in Dec, wrote refused for cause, return to sender. Cause the order was fraud. I looked at his alleged mail and the post office stamp had DECEMBER on it. He looks at me and goes , what are you some kind of investigator ? and walks away, coward. Oh btw they got a summary judgment against me for not showing up, i listened to the audios, i actually have it, where you hear him say they are wishing to sent a precedence for people like me who are "debt protestors" I never claimed such a title only questioned them and asked for proof i owe anything. So bad mistake, i will bring to light their lies and deceit in the court. Now, also their own documents showed in court i had a zero balance when my account closed, IN THEIR OWN AFFIDAVIT someone sworn an oath that all the facts in there were true and correct ???? Hmmmm thoughts ???????

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?

So, how do you think you got credit ? What did you sign for them to extend you credit for a house or car ? Promissory note, if I signed it and created it for my benefit, do i not get the right to ask for it back ? after i paid off the so called loan? and i gotta ask, is it a loan ?????? or does the signature somehow extend them credit ?
Lets think about this, now, can a bank lend out money from their customers bank accounts ?
Can a bank lend out money from their profits, or would the shareholders be a little upset due to that little bit of lending ?
Can Banks create money out of thin air ? or do numbers get punched in and ledger accounts?
Where does this credit really come from ? anyone ? Please if you could answer this, seeing gold back currency was done away with in 1933, along with silver. So what actually back this currency ? If you say the faith of the people, than if i make a promissory note to tender for payment, is my faith not good enough or is there a certain number of ppl that need to have faith and how does one prove faith or who has it ? again back to the dictatorship laws of Canada we go....Whiteman from England who steals land says its to be so it will be ? Faith in criminals? I hear from others and some ex bankers, Bank of Canada is owned by The Federal Reserve , its bank #13 ? These are some good rumors are they ???

So back to the return of my note? am i be understand i have no rights to the note after its paid off ???? show me a law that says i am not allowed to request it back ???
I will answer the latest replies i just need break from answering this one. Thanks and really glad to have stumbled upon you guys your really fun. Just dont make fun, lets rip this law apart and really get into some of the nuts and bolts. typos and what not are to be expected im typing fast to keep up with my thoughts.

[wserra]

A good example of why IMHO it's fairly pointless to engage these guys in a dialog - at least past the point of showing the casual reader how much nonsense they spew. ChiefInsertCurrentYearHere is obviously wrong about tribal status, the meaning of "de facto" and "de jure", the U.S. Marshalls, contracts, the most basic commercial transactions, and likely everything else about which he opines. But challenge him, and all you will get is page after page of word salad.

My opinion only. Don't let me discourage those of you with the patience of a saint (Möwe comes to mind) from continuing if you wish. Quatloos does perform quite well with Google.

A word to Chief2k13: this board does not have many rules. However, one of them is that we do not permit claims of success in violating the law without verifiable proof. I'm not saying that you've done that so far, but you're close. If you claim, for example, that your "nation" has succeeded in achieving sovereignty from Canada, or that you have been able to ignore law because of your "status" or for any other reason, you must provide verifiable proof of your success, and of the reason why you succeeded. We have all seen the claims of magic bullet successes in beating traffic tickets, only to find out that the cop didn't show. If you do not provide such proof, the claim is subject to deletion.

[Dr. Caligari]

from my understanding and i will be doing more research and going down to the U.S and question a few of the U.S Marshall as it has been told, they are similar to interpol which is like a international police force which can cross borders to make arrest or enforce contracts if bonded and an order from a court is executed.

I am going to ignore wserra's advice (not usually a smart thing to do) and respond to this snippet:
(1) U.S. Marshals have absolutely no power or authority outside the U.S.; (2) Interpol does not cross borders to make arrests or enforce contracts; (3) if you are this clueless about things which are so basic, it's pretty clear that you just make stuff up.

[LordEd]

Hello Chief,

I'm in from JREF and saw your thread.

To be clear, I do not believe in any of the FMOTL/OPCA/sovereign/etc style arguments and believe that given enough time, the arguments will lead to a self-contradiction. I am less familiar with your exact methodology, but enjoy the theoretical arguments. Also to be clear, I believe actual real-world implementation of these arguments to be insanity. I expect, in turn, that you can simply classify me as a brainwashed/government disruptor/shill/sheeple. In reality, I'm just a geek who had too much fun in a philosophy course years ago.

So now that we can skip the sheeple/tinfoil hat arguing, on your question about the creation of debt and money. I have studied this in a bit of detail, but I do not have a financial background. It started with somebody repeating the term "fractional reserve banking" over and over. As is always recommended, I "did my own research" and came up with my own conclusions.

So the question I am going to answer is this section:

So, how do you think you got credit ? What did you sign for them to extend you credit for a house or car ? Promissory note, if I signed it and created it for my benefit, do i not get the right to ask for it back ? after i paid off the so called loan? and i gotta ask, is it a loan ?????? or does the signature somehow extend them credit ?
Lets think about this, now, can a bank lend out money from their customers bank accounts ?
Can a bank lend out money from their profits, or would the shareholders be a little upset due to that little bit of lending ?

Lets not mix fiat into this yet. Just the lending and creation of debt. I prefer to tackle this understanding of money by creating a new bank. The first bank of Sino in this instance.

Perhaps your entire facebook group wants you to secure their money and makes deposits into your bank. So you start out with $10,000

Money in bank: $10k, Money on accounts owed to depositors: $10k

So right now you have a 1:1 ratio of money. If all of your depositors asked for their money back, you can hand it over.

Now we get into lending. The amount of "money" in the bank is a fixed value. You have no control over that. What you have control over is the amount in the accounts. You must remember that you have an obligation to pay-out those accounts on demand of your customers, but also that in most instances, money will just sit in those accounts.

So you are able to extend a loan without too much worry of a bank run (explained later)

So lets extend a $1000 loan. You make an entry is somebody's account, and you make an entry that you are owed money. You get them to sign an agreement to repay and interest terms.

Money in bank: $10,000 | Credit in account: $11,000 | Money owed: $1000

And the lender takes out the money to buy something.

Money in bank: $9,000 | Credit in account: $10,000 | Money owed: $1000

So lets repay it. 1) Interest added, 2) Money and interest deposited, 3) Cancellation of debt

Money in bank: $9,000 | Credit in account: $10,000 | Money owed: $1030
Money in bank: $10,030 | Credit in account: $11,030 | Money owed: $1030
Money in bank: $10,030 | Credit in account: $10,000 | Money owed: $0

Now the bank has more money that in account. Note that in 3, the created money was destroyed. Some argue that this system means the bank will have all of the money eventually because they get interest. You must remember that the banker needs to eat too, so that interest gets spent in salaries, etc.

Lets do a non-repayment:
Money in bank: $9,000 | Credit in account: $10,000 | Money owed: $1030
Money in bank: $9,000 | Credit in account: $10,000 | Money owed: 0

Just like the creation, that debt is destroyed. However, the bank has a problem now. It has less money than deposits, and no loan to balance it. It can't just create more money because that does nothing to the 'real' money in the bank. It will have to get a lot of interest and other loans to make up that lost $1000.

Now the bank run. They here you have not enough money and everyone asks for their money back. You can only hand out $9,000, and $1000 is still owed to somebody. Your bank has been run and you now have nothing. Your depositor has lost their money. Search youtube for "bank run" in "its a wonderful life".

So, how do you think you got credit ? What did you sign for them to extend you credit for a house or car ?

Agreement with bank.

Promissory note, if I signed it and created it for my benefit, do i not get the right to ask for it back ? after i paid off the so called loan? and i gotta ask, is it a loan ?????? or does the signature somehow extend them credit ?

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

Lets think about this, now, can a bank lend out money from their customers bank accounts ?
Can a bank lend out money from their profits, or would the shareholders be a little upset due to that little bit of lending ?

Yes to all. They do lend their own profits as well because they can get a return on them, which keeps shareholders happy. As long as there is enough money to service their clients' requests for withdrawals, the system continues. They must have enough in reserve.

So to be clear: The lender's signature has nothing to do with the creation of money, other than assuring the bank of your intent to repay. The bank will not lend you without believing you will repay.

If you don't repay, the bank must repay itself out of profits.

[tm169]

when they slide you documents under your door and you dont slide it back, you keep it. That is called an adhesive contract.

You must think of this, the corporate officer slides you a set of rules or what not under your door, which to me is an offer. If i keep that paper, my conduct or action would appear to be in agreement by my silence or inaction (which is an action). So, i slide it back outside the door in order to show i dont agree.

I'm not sure the law recognizes the type of contract you are referring to here.

I have come across "contracts of adhesion" but I understand the definition differently.

These are "standard form" or "take it or leave it" contracts. They are not a question of consent as to whether to contract or not, rather it is either take my terms and conditions or go and shop somewhere else.

You can read a bit more about these (in English law) in the Denning MR case of Butler Machine Tool Co Ltd v Ex-Cell-O Corp Ltd [1977] EWCA Civ 9

As JamesVincent rightly observes, consent doesn't arise per se when you are talking about criminal or quasi-criminal law. The one and only way to "opt out" of domestic criminal law is to leave the jurisdiction in question by emigrating and abandoning your citizenship.

So, how do you think you got credit ? What did you sign for them to extend you credit for a house or car ? Promissory note, if I signed it and created it for my benefit, do i not get the right to ask for it back ? after i paid off the so called loan? and i gotta ask, is it a loan ?????? or does the signature somehow extend them credit ?

Because of the confusing wording of the bills of exchange act people have tried many times over the years in court to try and show that a loan contract was in fact a promissory note.

You are by no means the first person to argue that a loan agreement creates a promissory note. In fact it was attempted back in 1846.

Firstly according to section 83(1) Bills of Exchange Act (not sure of Canadian Equivalent) a promissory note must be unconditional. Clearly most loans and mortgages have a series of express and implied conditions.

Secondly the intentions of the parties can determine if a document is or is not a Promissory note.

In Sibree v Trip (1846) it was held the both parties must intend for the document to be a promissory note in order for it to be treated as such. In that case the note was found to be a loan agreement.

Per Pollock CB: "we cannot suppose that the legislature intended to prevent parties making written contracts relating to payment of money, other than bills and notes; and this appears to me to be merely an instrument recording the agreement of the parties...and to be rather an agreement than a promissory note."

Here is a more recent quote on the subject from Clayton v Bradley
http://i41.tinypic.com/30cym4g.jpg

So back to the return of my note? am i be understand i have no rights to the note after its paid off ???? show me a law that says i am not allowed to request it back ???

Without meaning to sound rude I have just shown you the law stating that it isn't a note, thus the onus is on you to show us the law which says you areallowed to request it back.

[LordEd]

This is the Canadian equivalent: http://laws.justice.gc.ca/eng/acts/b-4/FullText.html

16. (1) A bill of exchange is an unconditional order in writing, addressed by one person to another, signed by the person giving it, requiring the person to whom it is addressed to pay, on demand or at a fixed or determinable future time, a sum certain in money to or to the order of a specified person or to bearer.

176. (1) A promissory note is an unconditional promise in writing made by one person to another person, signed by the maker, engaging to pay, on demand or at a fixed or determinable future time, a sum certain in money to, or to the order of, a specified person or to bearer.

As for requesting it. I think you can request anything you want, but they can choose to say no, or even ignore the request.

[Chief2k13]

Ok, Well, who first.

Metis land rights in Manitoba?

I am not sure i can really comment on this as my perspective on Metis anything is a little unclear, from what understanding Metis are folks whom are half Native cree and French and i dont wish to comment on their position as i have no real info about it nor do i claim to,i can speak to nations whom have been here long before French and long before any settlers came to occupy and illegally steal land with their so called laws and contract/treaties fooling many into signing something they had no capacity to sign due to the miscommunications and not fully understanding exactly what was sign and impact it would have 100 years later.

You know, i notice cherry picking going on here, pick this area out and speak on it and that area, but one thing i would like answered is, Dictatorship and whether you think Canada or U.S fits in the area ? I did post how its defined and i have audio i will post of the question to a police officer who say she done need your consent to enter into your private property.???

As for treaties, there are many that were signed in the 1700's and even some from late 1600's that are still in affect today, if one knows how to assert those agreements but many courts are very ignorant of those agreements.

http://www.mindserpent.com/American_His ... onshi.html
http://www.lynngehl.com/2/post/2013/04/ ... ampum.html

trea·ty
/ˈtrētē/ Noun-A formally concluded and ratified agreement between countries.
treaty (n.) late 14c., "treatment, discussion," from Old French traité "assembly, agreement, treaty," from Latin tractatus "discussion, handling," from tractare "to handle, manage" (see treat). Sense of "contract between nations" is first recorded early 15c.

A contract between Nations, So a contract huh, is that what i just read ? who said a treaty is not a contract ?

Anyways as i said and lets focus on this for a moment. 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. So, if in fact these are not contracts, am i to assume these Govts are run as a dictatorship of some kind but hidden in a democracy type setting as to fool the many ?? How can any nation go to anothers land and setup shop and start executing THEIR LAWS on another owned property, which was held my the original nations that were here. So what does Country actually define as in English language, Etymology

country (n.) mid-13c., "district, native land," from Old French contree, from Vulgar Latin *(terra) contrata "(land) lying opposite," or "(land) spread before one," from Latin contra "opposite, against" (see contra-). Sense narrowed 1520s to rural areas, as opposed to cities. Replaced Old English land. As an adjective from late 14c. First record of country-and-western music style is from 1942. Country club first recorded 1886. Country mile "a long way" is from 1915, American English.

World English Dictionary
country (ˈkʌntrɪ)
— n , pl -tries
1. a territory distinguished by its people, culture, language, geography, etc
2. an area of land distinguished by its political autonomy; state
3. the people of a territory or state: the whole country rebelled
4. an area associated with a particular person: Burns country

So i think im missing a few replies and questions i am trying to get around to all of them. One question that did pop up in my mind was the questions of whether there was a meeting of the minds and if offering up a cheq for a lower amount is in fact fair ? and another question

One starting point I spied on your Facebook page (which I imagine Canadian and English law are united) is "foisted unilateral agreements" or tacit contracts.
My understanding is one can't create a legally binding contract nor can you prove a set of facts exists by creating a "tacit" agreement.
It is no different from acceptance of a contract by silence or where there is no meeting of minds and no intention to create legal relations.
Felthouse v Bindley (1862) is a good starting point and available online:
http://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/CP/1862/J35.html

foist (foist)
tr.v. foist·ed, foist·ing, foists
1. To pass off as genuine, valuable, or worthy: "I can usually tell whether a poet . . . is foisting off on us what he'd like to think is pure invention" (J.D. Salinger).
2. To impose (something or someone unwanted) upon another by coercion or trickery: They had extra work foisted on them because they couldn't say no to the boss.
3. To insert fraudulently or deceitfully: foisted unfair provisions into the contract.
foist (fɔɪst)v.t.
1. to force upon or impose fraudulently or unjustifiably (usu. fol. by off, on, or upon): to foist inferior goods on a customer.
2. to put or introduce surreptitiously or fraudulently (usu. fol. by in or into).

force (n.) c.1300, "physical strength," from Old French force (12c.) "force, strength, courage, fortitude; violence, power, compulsion," from Vulgar Latin *fortia (cf. Spanish fuerza, Italian forza), noun use of neuter plural of Latin fortis "strong" (see fort). Meaning "body of armed men, army" first recorded late 14c. (also in Old French). Physics sense is from 1660s; force field attested by 1920.
force- 19. to bring about or effect by force.
20. to bring about of necessity or as a necessary result: to force a smile.
21. to put or impose (something or someone) forcibly on or upon a person: to force one's opinions on others.
22. to obtain or draw forth by or as if by force; extort: to force a confession.
23. to enter or take by force; overpower: They forced the town after a long siege.
force (v.) c.1300, from Old French forcier "conquer by violence," from force (see force (n.)). Its earliest sense in English was "to ravish" (a woman); sense of "to compel, oblige" to do something is from c.1400. Related: Forced; forcing.

im·pose (m-pz)
v. im·posed, im·pos·ing, im·pos·es
1. To establish or apply as compulsory; levy: impose a tax.
2. To apply or make prevail by or as if by authority: impose a peace settlement. See Synonyms at dictate.
3. To obtrude or force (oneself, for example) on another or others.
4. Printing To arrange (type or plates) on an imposing stone.
5. To offer or circulate fraudulently; pass off: imposed a fraud on consumers.
v.intr.
5. (tr) to pass off deceptively; foist to impose a hoax on someone

[/quote]

So i posted a few definitions there and if one were to look at foisted it would appear that i would have to force these corporations at some physical level not to respond in kind or in good faith. If you got a cheq for a lower amount and you didnt agree that it will settle the account, you suggesting that cannot send the cheq back and reject the offer ? They foisted to cash it ? I can see how you may feel someone is being forced but no one has a gun to your head saying cash my cheq and agree to the offer. Ignorance of law is of no excuse and excuses no one, so i guess that one only works if you are a lawyer or a member of the law society ? is that what i am to understand ??

Also, can you guys please let me know whether or not we as private individuals have the unlimited right to contract for ridiculous amounts if we so choose ? If i wanted to charge say, 10,000 an hour to do something, you saying im not allowed ? and that is a yes, why and by what authority can another set limits on what i wish to contract for ? No one is stopping thess corporations from sending back a Chq that was tendered in good faith and who is to say it was not ????? I lost my job , i paid my rent and cable blah blah feed my 3 children, only thing left is 40 bucks and i offer 20 of it to settle an account as that is best i can do for now. You trying to say that isnt good faith ? You trying to say im not allowed to make an offer ???? Collection agencies can do it, tell me i owe 1000 and offer me a settlement of 50% off, so if i pay 500 now the 1000 is wiped, i got letters that say that. So, only corporations are allowed to run a muck and do as they wish ??

Im uploading a audio from a call from Rogers, where i signed a contract and the rep signed as well twice to confirm he did not change the agreement. I altered the contract, as i feel its my unlimited right to amend any contract i enter into to make the terms agreeable to me. So i changed the 72.49 to 2.49 per month and the rep signed off and gave me a galaxy 2 phone along with it. Now Rogers does not wanna honor this signed off and executed contract. Now either 1. I am not allow to alter contracts 2. making a counteroffer is illegal in contracts 3. signed contracts are not binding at all in anyway shape or form even thoe there are signatures there and money exchanged along with property. . So i am to understand this is what all you guys/gals are saying to me in this form ???


i will address the most recent post as best as i can. I just have a few questions that have gone unanswered. Also, tacit acquiescence, Estoppel by acquiescence are terms ONLY to be used by lawyers and allowed to be used by them only, in everything single situation in all legal realms ?

[AndyK]

Many animated cartoons have a sequence where one or more of the characters runs off a cliff and continues to run in a straight line at the same level. It isn't until one of them stops and looks down that the law of gravity comes into play.

Chief2k13: don't look down. You will suddenly find out that you are unsupported and will crash and burn.

[Chief2k13]

Andy K what the F#$k does your reply have to do with any of the questions or content of the posts ?????? If your only here to try to poke fun or make immature comments please save it for your other high school friends as this these posts are mainly for the matured minded only.

[JamesVincent]

Couple of things.

1. You can charge whatever you want, doesn't mean someone will pay it. I charge $30/ hr (depending on the job) and get turned down quite a bit. If you do indeed charge $10k/ hr and someone is foolhardy enough to pay it then congratz.

2. If you sign into an agreement and the other person countersigns and then you alter that agreement there is a word for it. It's called Breach of contract. You agree to pay x amount, the other person agrees, and then you change the agreement to read y amount, you have a breach. You changed the contract without the authorization of all parties involved and very likely will be facing a civil action if it is worth it.

3.

You know, i notice cherry picking going on here, pick this area out and speak on it and that area, but one thing i would like answered is, Dictatorship and whether you think Canada or U.S fits in the area ? I did post how its defined and i have audio i will post of the question to a police officer who say she done need your consent to enter into your private property.???

What?

4.

Anyways as i said and lets focus on this for a moment. 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. So, if in fact these are not contracts, am i to assume these Govts are run as a dictatorship of some kind but hidden in a democracy type setting as to fool the many ?? How can any nation go to anothers land and setup shop and start executing THEIR LAWS on another owned property, which was held my the original nations that were here. So what does Country actually define as in English language, Etymology

What? I seriously have no clue what it is you are trying to say here, even less clue then the last one i said what to.

5. I don't think any saying that making an offer to settle is done in bad faith, expecting a company to be bound by that offer is. All you have done is submit an offer, the addressee, as it were, is under no obligation to accept that offer. Even if they cash that check, deposit it, whatever, there was never an obligation to accept it since it is not agreed upon by both sides. You may very well agree that you only have $20 bucks to pay a $1k obligation, the company will still wait for the other $980. And take civil action to recoup that money if necessary.


I just went through a few real quick, about all my stomach can handle right now.

[JamesVincent]

I've lost track of the context, if it was ever here at all, but a sign in or near a parking space may be an offer of contract, which the parker agrees to by parking there. This is in addition to any laws alluded to by the sign, and it may apply if the parking space is on a street.

And, of course, the sign may not be indicative of the law. I recall a Nolo Press book, I believe How to Win Your Case in Traffic Court, which mentions an instance where the "No Parking" sign was placed after the car was parked.

One of the things with traffic signs, or parking signs, can also be if they were put there by a municipality or by a private owner. Example, handicapped parking signs. Here, as in Md. or maybe Anne Arundel specific, a handicapped sign that is not noted on the sign to have been placed by the Anne Arundel County Police is not enforceable by the Police. It can say $500 fine all day long, you will not get a ticket or towed by parking there without a valid handicapped tag. They were placed by the private owner of a property who cannot actually make a handicapped spot, it has to be done through the legal system. They make look at you funny or make faces at you or even refuse to serve you because of it but you can't be ticketed for it. As explained to me by an Anne Arundel Police officer one night when I asked why he didn't ticket the jackass who parked in a handicapped spot and left me no where to park while I was still in my leg brace and had a valid handicapped sticker. Same thing with certain no parking signs. Now, the company who put the sign there may very well have the right to impound your vehicle if he wishes but you cannot be ticketed for it.

[Chief2k13]

I forgot to point out the rogers agent signed after the alteration.

[AndyK]

Andy K what the F#$k does your reply have to do with any of the questions or content of the posts ?????? If your only here to try to poke fun or make immature comments please save it for your other high school friends as this these posts are mainly for the matured minded only.

What it means is that every single one of your positions, arguments, and analyses is (as has been pointed out by others who you choose to ignore) is totally unsupported in law either by statute or court decision.

In fact, {as you have been told, repeatedly) everyone who has attempted to apply the same logic you are using has failed -- crashed and burned -- gone off to join the Norwegian Blue.

As to your appeals to morality, good luck with them. If you can convince enough of the registered voters in your country to go along with you, you can get changes made to the laws to reflect your views.

Until then, aim downwind.

[LordEd]

Im uploading a audio from a call from Rogers, where i signed a contract and the rep signed as well twice to confirm he did not change the agreement. I altered the contract, as i feel its my unlimited right to amend any contract i enter into to make the terms agreeable to me. So i changed the 72.49 to 2.49 per month and the rep signed off and gave me a galaxy 2 phone along with it.

Why would he offer you a discount of 96% per month plus give you a phone? The value of that contract would not cover the components in the phone, let alone service.

Can you tell me how that conversation went? That could help in understanding the 'agreement' you came to.

[grixit]

In fact, {as you have been told, repeatedly) everyone who has attempted to apply the same logic you are using has failed -- crashed and burned -- gone off to join the Norwegian Blue.

Shuffled off this mortal strawman, run down the gold fringed curtain, and joined the common law jury invisible!

Dishonored, refused for cause, and gone to meet his guru!

He's null and void! If you hadn't nailed him to his liberty tool, he'd be lying on the land, pushing up libbies!

His redemption processes are now history!

This-- is an ex-sovereign!

[JamesVincent]

Question for the people from the Great White North out there. Does Canada have a Federal Reserve? Looking at some Google hits for this Capt. Zeleny he apparently tried to go against the Scotia Bank(?). And in his letter to the CEO referenced the Federal Reserve.

http://americankabuki.blogspot.com/2013 ... abank.html

Being the President and CEO of the bank, and with many years of experience behind you, I would ask you to explain to the court the principles of Modern Money Mechanics as published by the Federal Reserve. Please include the fractional reserve system which is adopted by the Bank of Nova Scotia. Fiat currency and the BNS’s debt/money creation story and inflationary practices, need to be explained to the court and placed on public record.

And where did we see the "bill" talk before? You know, you don't owe the clerk anything because you were not presented a "bill". Chief Rock has a large writeup on it on his Facebook page but I think we saw that from someone else.

https://www.facebook.com/notes/chiefroc ... 8791119280

[LordEd]

Question for the people from the Great White North out there. Does Canada have a Federal Reserve? Looking at some Google hits for this Capt. Zeleny he apparently tried to go against the Scotia Bank(?). And in his letter to the CEO referenced the Federal Reserve.

The Bank of Canada, I believe, has the equivalent function (central bank/lender of last resort).

I think the letter is asking him to explain something written by the Federal reserve, not that the Federal reserve is somehow related to Canada.

[Chief2k13]

https://www.facebook.com/notes/chiefroc ... 5884324280

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

In other words, you saying that there is a contract does not mean there is a binding contract.

Are you telling me, if i dont have the unlimited right to contract ? I cannot verbally contract with someone ?(Keep in mind fido and rogers and telus verbally contract all day) If another benefits in anyway by something from me, you saying the benefit doesnt constitute a binding contract, or if the actions of the offeree fall into line with what was offered, that doesnt make a contract ? like the private parking lot, sign says dont park here unless you agree to the stipulations herein and one of them is to gather all your personal information from the dept of transportation.
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 ?

Even a verbal contract has to have two people, or more, verbally agreeing to the contract. And there has to be an all around intent to enter into the contract, not just one person saying, "if you do this you owe me blata blata bruh." Or " If I do this then I don't owe you blata blata."

So yes you are right, two or more people need to be part of a contract. By saying "if you do this you owe me blah blah blah" - So by bringing this up, your under an impression that you do not have the right to make determinations for yourself or the free will to make private agreements with corporations or private people for whatever the amount you determine ? You know, Pair Hilton makes 2million for a few hours to attend parties, you trying to tell me that isnt her right to charge that amount ? she should go with 30/hr ?

There has to be an actual interchange of ideas or agreements between the parties. You cannot force someone else to accept a contract YOU created, and, no matter what you think, obeying the law is not obeying or entering into a contract.

So, if i send a document that is fully transparent in all aspects of what i am doing. They are quite capable of reading i would imagine, you trying to tell me there is no court cases that upheld a contract that someone entered into by their conduct and it was upheld by the courts ? Say a ski lift in Bc, on a sticker goes on your zipper, its says they are not liable if you get hurt while riding. By riding you take full liability for whatever happens. That is not a contract ? if someone got hurt there is no recourse ??? How is it force, did you read what force defines as, i wasnt there making them not reply or reject my offer.

What i dont get, is, you are saying this but you got any quotes from a contract law book, cause i got like 4 books here and they all speak about what an agreement is, what going silent can mean or an inaction. i think i posted it here already. So all those authors of contract law are idiots ? So your saying all laws by Govt are a dictatorship i MUST obey, i MUST FOLLOW A FOREIGN LAW? So, im a slave ?

We went through this awhile ago in a different thread, don't remember which one, about consent, tacit or otherwise. You can say all day long how obeying a traffic sign makes you accept a contract but obeying traffic laws is not a contract, it is a law. Punishable by the removal of the privilege of needing to obey traffic laws.

You know i guess you dont have rights if privileges are being taken away, you should look into that, cause rights and privileges are quite different.

1. You can charge whatever you want, doesn't mean someone will pay it. I charge $30/ hr (depending on the job) and get turned down quite a bit. If you do indeed charge $10k/ hr and someone is foolhardy enough to pay it then congratz.

So, if someone does agree to pay it, congratz? Actions and conduct determine an agreement - 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. I guess whoever wrote that contract law book is an insane freeman ? Like i get 1000/hr for my time, sometimes i get 1500/hr or for half hr depends on what i am doing. I get sometimes 300 for 10mins. I make very good contracts and i dont ever force anyone to enter into my contracts. Although silence is a killer in contract law or inaction. Can you tell me why its not right? I was in court and a judge asked a question, guy was silent and judge goes i will take your silence as your agreement. So, in supreme court they have a notice to admit. They give you 14days to respond to the facts and if no reply is documented its agreed all facts are true. So you telling me silence or inaction does create agreements. I think some real study an real life court experience is needed in this forum for alot of the members. I been in court quite alot and hear quite alot of ignorant justices and masters. They wont and refuse to answer alot of questions asked. I wonder why. anyways...i gotta go read another chapter.

[Chief2k13]

Thanks guys for all the case laws and quotes i get from them, its quite good and i enjoy them.

[wserra]

one thing i would like answered is,

I'll ignore my own better judgment - it must be OK, I do it all the time - and respond.

Perhaps the reason you're not getting answers is that your questions are all but incoherent. Whether that is due to incoherent thinking or deficient powers of expression - or both - I have no way of knowing. I suspect both.

Dictatorship and whether you think Canada or U.S fits in the area ?

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.

I did post how its defined and i have audio i will post of the question to a police officer who say she done need your consent to enter into your private property.???

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?

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.

One question that did pop up in my mind was the questions of whether there was a meeting of the minds and if offering up a cheq for a lower amount is in fact fair ?

The question isn't whether you think it's fair. You keep posting stuff like "I'm entitled to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness, so I don't have to pay taxes". No one cares about your conclusions. The question is what the law has to say about the situation. For just one of hundreds of similar cases:

Maniaci has failed to offer any evidence establishing Citibank or Northland expressly agreed to accept the partial payment in full satisfaction of Maniaci's obligations on the credit card. Maniaci has also failed to introduce any evidence Citibank or Northland agreed to waive the provisions of the credit card agreement which permitted acceptance of late or partial payment without a waiver of rights. If the court accepted Maniaci's argument, any credit card holder could extinguish their existing credit card debt by mailing the credit card company a check for partial payment marked “payment in full”, unless the credit card company endorsed the check reserving its rights.

Held, "payment in full" endorsement did nothing, bank gets summary judgment (i.e., no trial needed, bank wins) and its attorneys fees. Citibank (South Dakota), N.A. v. Maniaci, 23 Misc.3d 1103(A), 881 N.Y.S.2d 362 (Table), 2009 WL 865605 (N.Y.Dist.Ct. 2009).

No one who matters cares about dictionary definitions of "foist" or "impose".