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

[Burnaby49]

the CIBC case is a win, CIBC will be getting a case handed back to them, im going after them for vexitous ligation and abuse of court process

Someone who can track Canadian cases: kindly keep us up to date on this one. It should be fun.

I'll try and keep an eye on it but Mowe is the real expert at tracking these things down. I wouldn't get your hopes up. It's been almost a year and a half since anything happened on the file.

[Hilfskreuzer Möwe]

Greetings Chief Rock Sino General. I’m very glad to hear that you have been experiencing success with your music – you must be very excited! A few times in the past one of my personal projects has spun up better than I could have hoped – it was hard to spend time on anything else when that happened. Best of luck!

… note the CIBC case is a win, CIBC will be getting a case handed back to them, im going after them for vexitous ligation and abuse of court process and also, i told them i get 1000/hr and i can prove that as i get over 1000 hr to perform and for speaking engagements to which i can show contracts for my time, most of them 1000.00 paid were only for 30mins. So, i told CIBC if you want me in your court, cause i warned them its a waste of your time but they wanted to make an example of me or create some kind of precedent against my person i use. nah , this is not going to happen. idiots screwed up their own paperwork putting the carriage before the horse awww shoot eh. That case got set a side. I still need to go finish that off i been letting it sit for a bit.

Congratulations on your success! I know you are busy, but I am curious about the lawsuit (others may feel the same way), and would be very interested if you could tell me more about what occurred. Why did CIBC sue, and what did they sue for? Can you explain what was the defect in their paperwork?

I fully agree that if the CIBC lawsuit had no legal basis that you deserve costs for your time in court. But that $1000 per hour amount seems a bit tough to get – that 30 minute thing you also pointed out. Nevertheless, without question your time is worth something. You might be interested in this British Columbia Supreme Court case on court costs: Harrison v. British Columbia (Information and Privacy Commissioner), 2008 BCSC 979 (http://canlii.ca/t/1zt63). I thought the Registrar’s approach to costs for non-lawyers was very fair.

As for Notary thing, Ron Usher is absolutely right, Sino Cameron General is not a Notary public at all. The person i use was never one and can never be one or would wanna be one, especially of B.C …

Thank you for explaining that. I also read a reply you made to a very ill-conceived statement by Robert Arthur Menard on his Facebook page (http://www.facebook.com/robert.menard.5 ... 7310852686), where you wrote:

ChiefRock Sino General
They issue is, Ron Usher the lawyer for the Notaries Society is absolutely correct, Sino Cameron General is not a notary, nor is Chief Rock for that matter. Nevertheless, Hajistahenhway is completely different thing, that is not a person or thing, but a member of a nation that is original to the lands. No jurisdiction to be told what to do, they are clever in their approach not to say we are tell Hajistahenhway what to do but Sino what to do LOL, awww they think they are slick.

I hope I understand correctly, but you are saying that “Sino Cameron General” is not a notary, but “Hajistahenhway” is a notary? If so, I have read some court judgments you might find interesting. One is R. v. Petrie, 2012 BCSC 2109 (http://canlii.ca/t/fxn33), a decision of Justice Ker of the British Columbia Supreme Court. This was a trial of a Freeman who argued he had been identified by the wrong name. Justice Ker said something very interesting – that it is up for the Crown to prove that the physical person who is on trial did something, and that whatever name that person is called is irrelevant: paras. 42-43, 47.

I am sure by now you have had a chance to read Meads v. Meads. At para. 422 that decision collects a group of cases that say people aren’t split into parts, like a physical person and legal ‘strawman’. I’ll quote one part of a decision in that list for you, Canada (Minister of National Revenue ‑ M.N.R.) v. Stanchfield, 2009 FC 99:

Cory Stanchfield’s attempt to argue before this Court that his body comprises two persons which act in different capacities is of one of two things: (1) an inadmissible division of his indivisible entity, or (2) an attempted creation of a second entity in a fashion which is not recognized by law, the result of which amounts to nothing in the eyes of the law. It is an attempt at the impossible and the respondent cannot do the impossible. Therefore, “Cory Stanchfield (the Respondent)” and “Cory Stanchfield, in his capacity as a natural person (the Witness)” is but one person, with one single capacity ...

I am unaware of any Canadian court case that says something different.

I do not know if you see a distinction between an ‘Indian’ vs. ‘non-Indian’ name, but you may find R. v. Crischuk, 2010 BCSC 716 (http://canlii.ca/t/29w67) interesting. That is about a fellow who said this:

The affiant, known as: Mythlim‑Axkw of the Wilps‑Daaxan, is a Sovereign North‑American‑Indian (sic.), given the spiritual appellation of the Mythlim‑Axkw by the Tribal‑Family (Exhibit A), and hereby reserves all rights and claims…as it relates to all parties.

The judge said however that did not matter.

Also, Notaries are being appointed by Cayugas, Also a West Coast Nations has just authorized and appointed another notary to sign and seal documents by two Hereditary Chiefs and clan mothers as they did in Cayuga Nation. So, please tell me you guys have a court file that shows WHITE EUROPEANS have a document or treaty or something that says WHITE EUROPEANS JUDGES or courts have jurisdiction over other nations to tell them what they can and cannot do ? Please tell me you have this, that they can come on our lands and tell our nations how to conduct themselves ??? please you gotta research this please....show me where they were granted authority by her Majesty in anyway...Courts, something ??????? im relying on you guys...i know you can do it !!!!!!!!! also, a Native notary society website is due up and also, the Hague will be contacted by all the nations to join and get an apostille seal to authenticate the notaries as well. Seeing Canada is to chicken shlt to sign up for it arg lol...

Actually I think I already explained in a previous post how potential aboriginal rights operate, and may be extinguished by past events. I think Mitchell v. M.N.R. would be helpful.

Perhaps it might be useful if I look at the specifics of notaries? The Canadian Constitution divides authority between the federal and provincial governments. Section 92 of the Constitution Act says provincial governments have the authority for:

13. Property and Civil Rights in the Province.

14. The Administration of Justice in the Province, including the Constitution, Maintenance, and Organization of Provincial Courts, both of Civil and of Criminal Jurisdiction, and including Procedure in Civil Matters in those Courts.

A couple Supreme Court of Canada judgments talk about how that authority means the provinces have the sole jurisdiction to pass laws that manage groups of professionals like lawyers, notaries, doctors, dentists, and so on. I think you would find Law Society of British Columbia v. Mangat, 2001 SCC 67, [2001] 3 SCR 113 (http://canlii.ca/t/51zn) and Krieger v. Law Society of Alberta, 2002 SCC 65, [2002] 3 SCR 372 (http://canlii.ca/t/51rs) helpful on that.

If you apply the ‘extinguishing’ analysis from Mitchell v. M.N.R. then the question is whether the province of British Columbia has passed legislation to ‘take over’ a subject area – and they did, with the Notaries Act, RSBC 1996, c 334 (http://canlii.ca/t/8488).

I bet you might also be interested to see the interaction of the Notaries Act and common law from way back when British Columbia first became a province – this neat decision talks about a Polish lawyer who tried unsuccessfully to argue she was using ancient, pre-Confederation notary powers: The Law Society of British Columbia v. Targosz, 2010 BCSC 969 (http://canlii.ca/t/2bk8r).

I hope that was helpful and interesting. Just one last little point – it’s pretty clear that the courts have concluded that aboriginal status has no effect on the application of Canadian law, see R. v. Jones, 2000 CanLII 28221 (http://canlii.ca/t/2bqrq). In R. v. Finta, [1994] 1 SCR 701 the Supreme Court of Canada said “… a state has exclusive sovereignty over all persons, citizens or aliens, and all property, real or personal, within its own territory.”

Just a couple questions that I hope you have time to answer. Are you planning to attend the hearing for Society of Notaries Public of British Coumbia lawsuit (Action # 134883)? Could you let us here on Quatloos know the date of that hearing, once you know? That would be very appreciated.

Again, good luck with your music and recordings!

SMS Möwe

[Burnaby49]

Ms. Targosz has been either much married and divorced or she has serious problems deciding who she is. She is listed in the decision as:

Barbara Bonnar, formerly known as Barbara Targosz, Barbara Marta Courville, Barbara Spizewski, and Barbara Bzymek

[Chief2k13]

See this is why i like coming here and chatting it up with you guys. You guys rock, however, the thing i think you are really not considering or maybe you did, i dunno. The laws of any foreign corporation doesnt apply to our nations period. Only if we recognize them or grant them the ability to judge or contract with us. Sure, even in law, a person is a thing, a document. If we were to really break it down, how could you really be a name ? a name is a word is it not ? a word is a speech sound ? This may sound very technical or what not but it is what it is. The European Law folk made shlt up. They say this, they decide that blah blah. For one, I am not Canadian in anyway shape or form period. I did not swear an oath at all and i reject the implied assumed position that i did.
SCHEDULE(Section 24)OATH OR AFFIRMATION OF CITIZENSHIP

I swear (or affirm) that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, Queen of Canada, Her Heirs and Successors, and that I will faithfully observe the laws of Canada and fulfil my duties as a Canadian citizen.

Also, I am not an Indian period. The one thing law doesnt seem to care about is the fact that all their courts are a rackeet. So, tell me how it is fair that a bunch of men who swore like 5-10 different oaths, some are private some are not, swearing to this and that. One of them is secrecy for sure as i know a few RCMP who said that was one of their oaths they had to swear. SO, how is it fair these group of men whom swore an oath to be part of, a lack of a better word, CLUB. This club and its members who golf together and make deals before the judge even sits down. Keep in mind, the judge is a member as well. I think this club is called the Law Society. So all these guys are members who stand before this other member and appear to argue cases or law. How is this fair in anyway ? If you go in and do this without a member of their club its called being a freeman on the land. Cause if a lawyer didnt write it or think of it, its nonsensical no matter if it makes sense or not. So, judge being hired to judge who is part of the law society and lawyer who is there from same club doesnt create a conflict of interest ? Seeing were all members no member is going to agree with me on that cause that would bring down the house of cards, no ?

In the CIBC case, my documents merely were accepting their position on the condition they could provide me ORIGINAL documents that obligate my performance. Now, i said i would pay the debt in full, 270.00, if they were able to show me proof i owed it. They ignored the requests and kept on their paper bashing saying i owe and i better pay , not once ever acknowledging my requests for proof of obligation. They file a court case and loose cause they were caught with their pants down. The actual judge pointed out the mistake, saying Mr General doesnt owe anything by this record, which shows a deposit going in before the closing of the account, so council why are we here ? Council quietly asks for the case to be set a side and not to speak on the matter any further, sorta like, oops shhhh dont look at the affidavit someone swore to be true and now is purging themselves and now that this case is vexatious litigation. When i asked why didnt you guys reply, why didnt you bring me this proof and stop wasting valuable public resources. He says, we dont have to reply to such garbage or non sense, we dont have to provide you nothing, you owe, so you should pay, even after all was said and done. He didnt care to much to speak to me.

The situation is a such,
They went in and got a judgment on my person without giving me notice of the court date. So i was a no show, so judge in the audio goes defendant appears to be disputing this so , this cannot go to a summary judgment and will have to go to trial. Council goes, well we provide service to him and he didnt show up, we called out in the court a few times and he is not here. So judge ruled for them. I get judgement in the mail and i go wtf, this is bs. So, i filed an application to go before a judge and this council waving his proof of service by registered mail, i call up Canada post and quote the number, she says "nope it didnt make it to the destination". I go back in and swear the Canada post worker say didnt make it. I say i will swear up an affidavit on the facts. They wave around an envelope that i sent back writing reject for cause. Which yeah, sure i did that. The case was judged in Nov and the order was sent to me in Dec, the envelope that was being waved around was post marked in Dec. So i pointed that out to the lawyer and he goes " what are you some kind of investigator or something" i nearly died laughing, his face dropped cause he knew he was fuked. So, that is where it stands, i didnt bother going further as i been busy and it really wasnt that important but now i wanna go file a claim for damages and such, judge says during case, what damages ? can you prove damages ? Hmmmmm their case of bs isnt evidence enough ? See what i mean by being part of the club.

How does one prove damage for time wasted and all their bs they seemed to think was legit. I got some transcripts and audio of the whole thing, The judge called my paperwork garbage as well, but all it mainly was asking was for proof, i guess asking for proof is garbage huh ?

[Chief2k13]

oh and Hilfskreuzer Möwe i do find all your research helpful, some really interesting cases for sure, the thing is, everyone who goes in must provide some proof, if there is no document that they can rule over our nations, their implied jurisdiction is denied and rejected cause we are not subjects to Her Majesty period, allies if anything, what does that mean ?

Their inherent jurisdiction is garbage as well, rejected on all fronts. Sure they got the guns and they killed alot of the people and slaughtered many families and children, raped babies but that is just the system that stands there going we are right and just. The doctrine of discovery eh.. Ha, a bunch of guys who protect child molesters makes me sick. Residential schools point in fact. Thanks a bunch for the cases, good reads so far.

[Burnaby49]

oh and Hilfskreuzer Möwe i do find all your research helpful, some really interesting cases for sure, the thing is, everyone who goes in must provide some proof, if there is no document that they can rule over our nations, their implied jurisdiction is denied and rejected cause we are not subjects to Her Majesty period, allies if anything, what does that mean ?

Their inherent jurisdiction is garbage as well, rejected on all fronts. Sure they got the guns and they killed alot of the people and slaughtered many families and children, raped babies but that is just the system that stands there going we are right and just. The doctrine of discovery eh.. Ha, a bunch of guys who protect child molesters makes me sick. Residential schools point in fact. Thanks a bunch for the cases, good reads so far.

I don't see the point in Mowe wasting time advising this guy. He just says it's all bullshit and goes off in his baby raping rant. Seems to be his standard default.

[Chief2k13]

No, its not a default, you trying to tell me our children who were forced into those damn schools to steal our language and culture, did not rape and murder children and babies ? Priests and nuns of all folks whom are not protected by this so called Law Society and now our nations MUST follow our so called master, who say this and that and we are to follow them cause they are all mighty due to the Queen whom our nations fought beside to help keep our nations lands from the U.S. I dunno man, i read alot of the cases but im not aboriginal, nor Indian nor first nations, so none of these laws or labels fall upon me or any other whom doesnt accept those terms to define whom they are as as people, in our own language we got our own terms and words used to acknowledge whom we are, not no white man word or english for that matter which is a magical alleged language. it is interesting thoe

[AndyK]

Is Chief2k13 the one who is agitating for total legalization of marijuana? If not, there must be something else influencing his thought processes.

[Burnaby49]

No, its not a default, you trying to tell me our children who were forced into those damn schools to steal our language and culture, did not rape and murder children and babies ? Priests and nuns of all folks whom are not protected by this so called Law Society and now our nations MUST follow our so called master, who say this and that and we are to follow them cause they are all mighty due to the Queen whom our nations fought beside to help keep our nations lands from the U.S. I dunno man, i read alot of the cases but im not aboriginal, nor Indian nor first nations, so none of these laws or labels fall upon me or any other whom doesnt accept those terms to define whom they are as as people, in our own language we got our own terms and words used to acknowledge whom we are, not no white man word or english for that matter which is a magical alleged language. it is interesting thoe

And what has any of this got to do with your legal issue with the CIBC or your current attempts to convince the courts that you are a notary?

[Chief2k13]

Well, it has nothing to do with it, but i was addressing your

He just says it's all bullshit and goes off in his baby raping rant. Seems to be his standard default

So, that was my reply to that. Now CIBC is not an issue at all, in fact, i am the issue once i go back in to finish it. As well, who said anything about going into to convince anyone ? When did those words come out and say Sino is a notary ? i said that is absolutely correct. Do you not read ? Anyways, let me ask something that has nothing to do with any of this, well maybe it does a bit but lets see.

We went over this in earlier posts, but something was missing. Do any of you, know of any case law or any statue or anything that governs the right to freely contract? Whether verbally or in writing ? Anything ? From what i can gather, people can freely contract how they see fit. If my store has coffee for 20 bucks a cup or 40 bucks a cup, no one is forcing you to drink my coffee at my store. I might not make any profits and i might only get purchases from the more wealthy whom would buy it, just cause, it is more expensive.
Now, People can see my price and say nope, im going to Tims for a coffee, its way cheaper and better. Now, free will and choice is exercised here. Now where does it say or where has a court said or determined People or persons, do not have the right to freely contract for whatever they wish. I mean we covered prostitution, even thoe if a woman or man wishes to engage in sex for money, who is to dictate to them what to do with their body. Yes, laws says no, i get that, but lets not focus on that. Nor can you contract your life away and have someone kill you or etc..etc...other examples. I was more focused on commerce. So, lets FOCUS on the commerce side of it. Like pricing and what i would charge for my labor, or me doing something for a price, like performing. I mean, if Pair Hilton can get 2million for a few hours of partying, who is to say, anyone can be that expensive. IF they, the other party saw your value. So, now this is where you reply with cases and law that tells everyone no you cant do that, your not allowed, we said so. , Oh and what is this social contract i keep hearing about ?

[wserra]

Do any of you, know of any case law or any statue or anything that governs the right to freely contract? ... Yes, laws says no, i get that

Apparently not.

[Hilfskreuzer Möwe]

Chief Rock Sino General:

I am not going to respond to quite a few of your comments, for example on the authority of the state to take certain actions, that consent is required for state and court authority, the status of aboriginal persons in Canada, your status in Canada, and that state authorities form a kind of cabal. I believe I have addressed much, if not all of that, before.

I will leave those subjects with a simple observation. The courts in Canada are required to apply legislation and the law as stated by ‘higher’ courts, which often means the Supreme Court of Canada. I have pointed out to you what the Supreme Court of Canada has said on many issues. If you or someone you advise appears in a Canadian court, they can expect to subject to law, rules, and authority as specified in those sources.

Master Funduk of the Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench explained this process, also known as “stare decisis”, in a decision named South Side Woodwork (1979) Ltd. v. R. C. Contracting Ltd. (1989), 95 A.R. 161:

McDonald is a decision by the Supreme Court of Alberta, Trial Division, now the Court of Queen's Bench. I am bound by decisions of judges of this Court unless they have been overruled by our Court of Appeal or the Supreme Court of Canada, or unless there are contrary decisions by judges of this court, in which case I would face a dilemma (which I could probably "solve" by ordering a trial of an issue).

Any legal system which has a judicial appeals process inherently creates a pecking order for the judiciary regarding where judicial decisions stand on the legal ladder.

I am bound by decisions of Queen's Bench judges, by decisions of the Alberta Court of Appeal and by decisions of the Supreme Court of Canada. Very simply, Masters in Chambers of a superior trial court occupy the bottom rung of the superior courts judicial ladder.

I do not overrule decisions of a judge of this Court. The judicial pecking order does not permit little peckers to overrule big peckers. It is the other way around.

On judges, if a judge is a lawyer when appointed the judge is then required to resign from the law society or law societies to which the now ex-lawyer belonged. That is to avoid conflicts of interest. You may not be aware of this, but judges usually cannot hear a case argued by lawyers from a firm where the judge was previously employed - those judges are 'conflicted out'.

You also may not be aware that one does not need to be a lawyer to be appointed as a judge. It varies province to province. In British Columbia any judge must first be a lawyer for at least five years (or have other legal credentials): Provincial Court Act, RSBC 1996, c 379, s. 6. Alberta has no such requirement: Provincial Court Act, RSA 2000, c P-31, s. 9.1. In Alberta, the only prerequisite is that you be a Canadian citizen.

… Now, i said i would pay the debt in full, 270.00, if they were able to show me proof i owed it. …

On your action with CIBC, I was a little surprised when I saw your comment that the debt in question was $270.00. My understanding is that in British Columbia a trial for a debt of less than $25,000 can occur in Provincial Court: Small Claims Court Monetary Limit Regulation, BC Reg 179/2005, s. 1. Can you explain to me why this matter ended up in the British Columbia Supreme Court instead?

How does one prove damage for time wasted and all their bs they seemed to think was legit. I got some transcripts and audio of the whole thing, The judge called my paperwork garbage as well, but all it mainly was asking was for proof, i guess asking for proof is garbage huh ?

Have you posted these materials online? I don’t think it’s fair for me to comment unless I have had a chance to see what you said. I certainly do not want to misrepresent your approach or what happened - I understand and appreciate that is a concern for you.

Do any of you, know of any case law or any statue or anything that governs the right to freely contract? Whether verbally or in writing ? Anything ? … I was more focused on commerce. So, lets FOCUS on the commerce side of it. Like pricing and what i would charge for my labor, or me doing something for a price, like performing. … IF they, the other party saw your value. So, now this is where you reply with cases and law that tells everyone no you cant do that, your not allowed, we said so. …

There is a great deal of legislation that restricts individuals freedom to engage in commerce. I will just give a few examples. In British Columbia, all contracts of employment must comply with the Employment Standards Act, RSBC 1996, c 113. Section 4 says you cannot contract out of those standards. Many statutes restrict the sale of certain kinds of goods, such as firearms: Firearms Act, SC 1995, c 39. It isn't enough that the buyer and seller want to make the deal.

And of course there are many statutes that restrict when a person may contract with another for certain kinds of services, such a acting as a lawyer: Legal Profession Act, SBC 1998, c 9, s. 15. Most of the terms in insurance contracts are determined not by the contracting parties, but by legislation: Insurance Act, SBC 2012, c 1.1. Any term in an insurance contract that contradicts the Insurance Act has no effect.

Have you read the Business Practices and Consumer Protection Act, SBC 2004, c 2? It has many provisions that alter the right to contract, and for example gives a person a right to unilaterally and without consequence cancel certain contracts. Again you cannot 'contract out' of this legislation: s. 3.

Court decisions also say the freedom to contract is limited and subject to judicial oversight. One situation is when a contract is unconscionable as it is essentially unfair, see Norberg v. Wynrib, [1992] 2 SCR 226. Another situation is courts will refuse in certain instances to enforce ‘fine print’ or 'boilerplate' clauses: Tilden Rent-A-Car Co. v. Clendenning (1978), 18 O.R. (2d) 601, 4 B.L.R. 50, 83 D.L.R. (3d) 400 (C.A.).

Oh and what is this social contract i keep hearing about ?

It is a philosophical idea, nothing more. Wikipedia has a nice introduction to the concept: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract.

I hope I do not seem rude by saying this, but I suspect you would very much benefit from reading some more modern and Canadian legal texts. I sometimes view your "CONTRACT LAW Studies and research" Facebook group, and it seems you usually refer to either very old or U.S. texts. I know I am repeating myself, but again I think it is important to remind you that textbooks are not the law, rather law in Canada comes only from legislation and case law.

That’s what the ‘little peckers’ have to apply.

It seems to me that the notaries society injunction application would be a good way for you to prove your ideas about law are correct. I hope you take that opportunity. I suspect both the readers on Quatloos and your "CONTRACT LAW Studies and research" Facebook group would be interested in the result.

SMS Möwe

[Chados]

And the epic battle of wits between the highly intelligent and resourceful Mowe and our resident fake Indian continues!

I need more popcorn. And what's the over-under from Vegas?

[JamesVincent]

And the epic battle of wits between the highly intelligent and resourceful Mowe and our resident fake Indian continues!

I need more popcorn. And what's the over-under from Vegas?

House closed a long time ago. Even Vegas has enough scruples to try that one.

[Chief2k13]

A new development is the appearance of a Freeman-on-the-Land guru, "Chief Rock Sino General" (viewtopic.php?f=47&t=9377) who seems to be of aboriginal background. Though Chief Rock does not appear to claim special knowledge because he is aboriginal, he may be using his heritage as way to 'plausibly' market his ideas into an aboriginal customer base. He's not 'one of them', but a 'brother'.

Who seems to be of aboriginal background ? Well lets clear a few things up here first. I take the AB to equal =ab- Look up ab- word-forming element meaning "away, from, from off, down;" from Latin ab-, ab "off, away from," from PIE root *apo- (see apo-). Reduced to a- before -m-, -p-, or -v-; sometimes abs- before -c- or -t-.

So, i can only assume, abnormal, absent etc etc..is with this idea, so i conclude aboriginal to fall under this sort of mind set. Now, its the simplest explanation for why they wish to or press this word up the people who are original to the lands. Now, i dont know about you but Original would be the correct terminology to use for such a description of people whom were here before white folks showed up with their biological warfare, greed and disease etc..etc..

So, back to the point of my background. I am of the Cayuga Nation, spelled in another fashion or spoken in another fashion by our own tongue. So, i am not of a aboriginal background but of my ancestors background of being here for 1000's of years. Our nations is apart of the Five nations, or the Haudenosaunee, the people who build longhouses. Our nations are the nations that have treaties (wampum belts), the main one of course is the two row wampum belt, silver covenant chain.
http://www.chiefs-of-ontario.org/sites/ ... 282%29.pdf <<---not sure if it is all 100% accurate but you will get the idea, some explanations are made of these agreements, which stand and continue to stand.

There are many more but those are the most prominent ones that establish our position in a legal fashion that cannot be superseded by any statue or legislation of any kind. It is, also that the Queen as deemed our nations as allies for fighting in the wars along side her armies. She used to offer gifts each year as a memorandum of our alliance. So, being an ally, there is no way anyone from our nations could be or is a subject and are not subject to any Canadian/english laws as per treaty. So, i am not marketing any ideas, i am reaffirming the old agreements alot of my people have either forgotten or do not know how to stand on their treaties properly.

This is why i say, I am not Canadian, the person i use in Canada maybe a Canadian but there is no way i am in anyway shape or form, its fully rejected the idea of it. The person used at this time Sino General, is merely like a ford focus if you will. First off, i was not the creator of this thing, was i ? Did i print it ? The registrar general actually claims full ownership of it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SDbedjFJFf0
So, if i dont own it, how can i be liable for something that is not mine ? If my dog bites someone, sure i am liable for damages no ? I might be way off here but entertain the idea for a minute.

All id made from Govt is their property period, they state it on the id. Identification defines as to make the same as. So, if i choose to agree to be the name on that id, am i not agreeing to be made the same as that plastic card ?

I say this due to the fact that i am not Canadian, the background and heritage i come from does not allow me to do so, i can only merely use the property of Ontario, not make claim to the ownership of such a thing. So, he is not one of them but a brother? What does that infer exactly ?
Thanks Mowe for all your responses.

The one thing i dont get, is if your going to post or comment, does it make you feel better to belittle anothers position ? Why post immature comments or make fun of anothers ideas? Even if they are not agreeable to you, does there need to be this high school approach of bashing those whom dont fall under the mindset of those who claim to be such rational ppl on here ? Would appear to be a bit irrational to me with alot of the smug thoughts and jabs., when your not even man enough to standout and say whom you are, stand on your words be a man, only cowards hide behind their made up names, i can only assume this is your position seeing no one ever wants to make it known whom they are on here, due to all your irrational comments. Tough guy behind the keyboard? Keyboard warrior ? LOL, im out, those were just general comments. Not a shot at anyone fyi

Also, I AM NOT A GOD DAMN FREEMAN, SO NO NEED TO PROFILE IT AS SUCH, i do contract law and the study of it period. arggg....no go back to your regularly scheduled programs

[Chief2k13]

oh and thanks alot of the fake indian comment, it really sits well with me. I am not an Indian at all, im not from India nor do i accept that term to determine whom i am or come from. SO, you are absolutely correct on that notation. Who says its a battle? Are we not merely exchanging ideas and assertions ? I say its all contract.

[The Observer]

So, i can only assume, abnormal, absent etc etc..is with this idea, so i conclude aboriginal to fall under this sort of mind set.

But you assume wrong. The Latin words ab origine merely mean "from the original", defining that the present population descended from the same type of people who first settled the geographical area in question. In other words, the descendants are the same as their ancestors.

Now, i dont know about you but Original would be the correct terminology to use for such a description of people whom were here before white folks showed up with their biological warfare, greed and disease etc..etc..

No, as shown above, "aborigine" is certainly the correct word to show that the people being referenced are considered to be the same as the original settlers of the area.

So, i am not of a aboriginal background but of my ancestors background of being here for 1000's of years.

No, if you are genuinely a descendant of the native settlers of the area, you are being correctly described as an aborigine.

So, back to the point of my background. I am of the Cayuga Nation, spelled in another fashion or spoken in another fashion by our own tongue.

But I think that re-raises an earlier question about whether you have proof of you actually being a descendant of the Caygua Nation. I can't recall that you provided anything of that nature to us.

It is, also that the Queen as deemed our nations as allies for fighting in the wars along side her armies. She used to offer gifts each year as a memorandum of our alliance. So, being an ally, there is no way anyone from our nations could be or is a subject and are not subject to any Canadian/english laws as per treaty. So, i am not marketing any ideas, i am reaffirming the old agreements alot of my people have either forgotten or do not know how to stand on their treaties properly

The problem is that treaties are prone to being broken, lapsing or otherwise ignored. And the only way that one side can force the other side to keep its side of the bargain is through...well, force. As far as I can tell, the Queen has pretty much dominated the Cayuga Nation for the last 200 hundred years or so, and I don't forsee the Cayugas defeating the forces of Canada to restore the status quo. So for you to expect that the court system is going to take notice of and enforce lapsed, broken treaties is not realistic.

[Chief2k13]

You are correct, doesnt matter what amazing documents are made or signed or brought before any Appointed Judge in the Queens name, no judge will ever acknowledge anything having to do with title or rights or laws, or self government when it comes to so called Aboriginals. It is not in their interest to do so, to many corporations will fall and so will Canadian Govt if it is done or acknowledged in anyway. No matter how right or correct one is, that isnt the issue. They dont care, its not of importance, status quo seems to be the way to go and keep this racket running like a tight ship, no pun intended

You say Ab is one thing, yet when i look it shows
from Latin ab-, ab "off, away from," from PIE root *apo-
apo- Look up apo- before vowels ap-, word-forming element meaning "from, away from, separate, free from," from Greek apo "from, away from; after; in descent from," in compounds, "from, asunder, away, off; finishing, completing; ceasing from; back again," from PIE root *apo- "off, away" (cf. Sanskrit apa "away from," Avestan apa "away from," Latin ab "away from, from," Gothic af, Old English of "away from").

Can you show me or link me to where you are reading this ?

Why do i need to prove such status or background, i say i am, that is all that is needed, if you hadnt looked at your seen any photos or songs i sing which come from our nations, what else would you need a dna scan lol. We have ceremonies and song and dances we have done for 1000's of years, if you got any proof that shows otherwise let me know.

[Pottapaug1938]

You say that you [are}, Chief? Well, if that's all the proof that is needed, I say that I am secretly married to one of the hottest women on TV.

And, by the way, you must have flunked Latin, because despite your blizzard of etymology, "ab origine" does indeed mean "from the original".

[Hilfskreuzer Möwe]

Again, I will not be responding to many elements of Chief Rock Sino General’s last several messages as I do not wish to annoy anyone by being repetitious.

You are correct, doesnt matter what amazing documents are made or signed or brought before any Appointed Judge in the Queens name, no judge will ever acknowledge anything having to do with title or rights or laws, or self government when it comes to so called Aboriginals. It is not in their interest to do so, to many corporations will fall and so will Canadian Govt if it is done or acknowledged in anyway. No matter how right or correct one is, that isnt the issue. They dont care, its not of importance, status quo seems to be the way to go and keep this racket running like a tight ship, no pun intended ...

I’m a little puzzled by your comment. Earlier in this message thread I identified a number of judgments of the Supreme Court of Canada where that court has indicated that aboriginal persons and communities have been denied their fair rights, properties, and such. Perhaps you have not had a chance to review those cases? I am referring to:

• R. v. Sioui, [1990] 1 SCR 1025 (http://canlii.ca/t/1fsvg)
  
  Manitoba Metis Federation Inc. v. Canada (Attorney General), 2013 SCC 14 (http://canlii.ca/t/fwfft)

These are very far from the only instances where the Supreme Court of Canada has confirmed aboriginal rights that had been denied by Canadian governments. I will only offer a sample of other examples because the list as a whole is very lengthy. I have made no effort to identify a range of topics, these are simply the first items I identified.

• R. v. Sparrow, [1990] 1 SCR 1075 (http://canlii.ca/t/1fsvj) - west coast aboriginal communities have a right to fish for food that take priority over non-aboriginal commercial fisheries.
  
  R. v. Horseman, [1990] 1 SCR 901 (http://canlii.ca/t/1fsx5) - aboriginal persons are not restricted from hunting by territorial prohibitions, season, method (ie. night lights, dogs, other mechanisms prohibited to non-aboriginal hunters), gender of target animals.
  
  R. v. Gladstone, [1996] 2 SCR 723 (http://canlii.ca/t/1fr8w) - west coast aboriginal communities have a right to harvest and sell certain fish products that takes priority over non-aboriginal commercial fisheries.
  
  R. v. Marshall, [1999] 3 SCR 456 (http://canlii.ca/t/1fqkq) - Mi’kmaq have aboriginal title to engage in certain commercial fisheries.
  
  Mikisew Cree First Nation v. Canada (Minister of Canadian Heritage), 2005 SCC 69, [2005] 3 SCR 388 (http://canlii.ca/t/1m1zn) - the Crown has an obligation to consult aboriginal persons affected by Crown action, in this instance the potential effect of a road outside a reserve but that may affect hunting and trapping activities.

... Also, I AM NOT A GOD DAMN FREEMAN, SO NO NEED TO PROFILE IT AS SUCH, i do contract law and the study of it period. arggg....no go back to your regularly scheduled programs

Thank you for emphasizing that you do not self-identify with the Freeman-on-the-Land community. I have a couple observations on that. The first is that I believe for legal purposes whether someone self-identifies as one or another group, or adopt legal strategies or more generally certain beliefs is principally relevant as to whether one is or is not an “Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Argument litigiant”, usually abbreviated an “OPCA litigant”. The term comes from a case I know which is familiar to you, Meads v. Meads, 2012 ABQB 571.

This is what is sometimes called a ‘functional definition’. It does not matter what a person calls oneself, or to what OPCA movement one is affiliated, what is instead critical are the pseudolegal argument(s), concepts, and schemes advanced by the litigant (para. 4):

OPCA litigants do not express any stereotypic beliefs other than a general rejection of court and state authority; nor do they fall into any common social or professional association. Arguments and claims of this nature emerge in all kinds of legal proceedings and all levels of Courts and tribunals. This group is unified by:

• 1. a characteristic set of strategies (somewhat different by group) that they employ,
  
  2. specific but irrelevant formalities and language which they appear to believe are (or portray as) significant, and
  
  3. the commercial sources from which their ideas and materials originate.

This category of litigant shares one other critical characteristic: they will only honour state, regulatory, contract, family, fiduciary, equitable, and criminal obligations if they feel like it. And typically, they don’t.

Advancing arguments of that kind is vexatious, frivolous, and warrants pre-emptive and deterrent court response: Meads v. Meads.

In Canada (and the Commonwealth) it does not matter what you call yourself, a Freeman-on-the-Land or such, what matters is the nature of the litigation strategy and argument: Vibert-v-AG, [2013] UR 030 at paras. 41-44 (http://www.bailii.org/je/cases/UR/2013/030.html).

Certain concepts, arguments, and motifs are associated with specific OPCA movements, for example see Meads v. Meads at paras. 172-175 for the features of the Freeman-on-the-Land movement.

There may come a point where certain OPCA movements, such as the Freemen-on-the-Land, are associated with specific risk factors so that they warrant automatic treatment but to date that has not occurred: A.N.B. v. Hancock, 2013 ABQB 97, paras. 13, 21.(http://canlii.ca/t/fwx39).

As before, I hope these observations are helpful.

SMS Möwe