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

[Chief2k13]

Again thanks Mowe, i only could wish the others whom post here could break down issues and comment on posts here as you do, that would make this forum a much more welcoming eviroment than what i do see from other posters. Not naming any names but i do enjoy Burnaby49 and Mowe thus far, i feel there is a few others but i cannot think of their names on here.


So, on contract law, the one thing i did catch in your example was the following

The consultant cashes the cheque, but does not reply in the 10 day period to reject your offer.

So, in contract law Canadian/American both affirm that because no one can read the mind of the other parties, intention is determined objectively. Therefore, the act or conduct of the parties are observed to determine the whether an agreement has been reached or not, agree ?>>>>

Now, in your example, consultant cashes the cheque. Now, if in fact the consultant was not in agreement with the amount posted on the cheque, they could have requested or inquired what the cheque was for, no ? Or they could have not cashed the cheque and simply rejected the cheque requesting the full amount as per agrement, no ?

Now, under Canadian legislation Bills of Exchange act there are a few parts i would like to point out and have you make comments on, if you so wish.

1985, c. B-4)). Refusal to receive payment (3) Where the holder of a bill refuses to receive payment under protest, he loses his right of recourse against any party who would have been discharged by that payment

Act R.S.C., 1985, c. B-4
Notice of Dishonour
Marginal note: Notice of dishonour
or by non-payment, notice of dishonour must be given to the drawer and each endorser, and any drawer or endorser to whom the notice is not given is discharged.

So, if they do cash this cheque did they not exercise an ownership claim of the cheque ? Especially i the memo states that by cashing cheque they waiver any further claims. Im sure these are some points i myself would bring up. I have done so in court and judges/masters do not acknowledge that conduct binds the parties.

So, how would it bind me? If i went into a restaurant and sat down, ate and choose to not to pay because i felt the price was not totally clear to me. I saw the price was 5 dollars not 15, i guess the 1 in 15 was wore out. All i saw was the 5 and that is what i thought i was agreeing to. So who is right in this scenario ? A worn out price that shown 5 dollars and a cheque that was cashed but never inquired about what it was for and memo totally ignored, isnt there a saying that says ignorance of law is of no excuse and excuses no one ?

In my front of the judge for me was clear evidence that bank receipts shows payments being accepted over a long duration month to month, which is now a private contact and removes the jurisdiction from the public to continue a matter already settled in the public and not wasting anymore valuable public resources. Judge/master didnt care, didnt acknowledge the contract. Asked me, is there something in writing ? In contract law books, it is said that, a signed contract is merely the memorandum of the contract. Where is it signed when im speaking over the phone to a Rogers agent agreeing to an extension of another 3 year contract ? Nothing signed only orally affirmed, so i would assume the most of the Rogers Contracts are null and void if there is nothing signed ? I am not attempting to be facetious in any way. I merely wish to hear your perspectives. I been reading 4 different contract law books and they all are in agreement with each other. One is from Canada, one is from America and one is from India, one is from England. So, tell me, are they all wrong ? or am i taking it to an extreme with a misinterpretation of the written text with dictionary on hand for definitions ?

[Burnaby49]

Chief2k13 said.

In my front of the judge for me was clear evidence that bank receipts shows payments being accepted over a long duration month to month, which is now a private contact and removes the jurisdiction from the public to continue a matter already settled in the public and not wasting anymore valuable public resources. Judge/master didnt care, didnt acknowledge the contract.

Charles Norman Holmes tried to claim exactly the same thing at his Supreme Court of BC hearing last week. He said the Crown was trying to avoid paying him an amount legally owed under a "private contract" created when the Crown failed to respond, within some stipulated period, to some paperwork he's sent them. As I said in my posting on Charlie's Topic thread;

In any case this was a matter of commercial private contract law, not statute law. Charlie had a "private contract" with the Crown because they had not rebutted his claims in time thereby agreeing to his terms. It wasn't that Charlie was being unreasonable. While the Crown had no case Charlie was willing to negotiate, at least to some extent, the $100,000,000 he was owed, but he was getting no good faith responses from the Crown. A comment here about the cross-fertilization of OPCA beliefs. Charlie is an acquaintance of Chief Rock Sino General and, as related in a prior post, the Chief "notarized" at least some of the documents he submitted in this case. The Chief is big on the magic of unilateral contracts so I'm assuming that is where Charlie got this little idea.

Court didn't buy it and Charlie lost. As I also said in that thread;

I judge these things entirely on the basis of the quote Wserra uses as his signature:

"A wise man proportions belief to the evidence." - David Hume

Words to live by. Hence my response to Charlie's question regarding "had I learned anything today" where I said I would wait on the court decision. In my reality that is where the validity of beliefs are decided.

Court is also where the validity of legal opinions are decided. On that basis your opinion on the validity of unilateral contracts doesn't pass the test; when you get down to it the only test that really matters.

[Chief2k13]

Also, lets not forget A band Council Chief is not a real Chief for the nation. They are puppets for the Canadian Govt who are sworn to uphold Canadian laws in regards to the Indian Act, a hereditary Chief is the actual Chief of the Nations of where they are from, either by bloodline or by appointment by the clan mothers whom hold the right to appoint. They appoint the men into their roles in our laws and form of Govt. Keep in mind, the U.S Govt was or is created out of my nations form of Govt.
http://vimeo.com/74707929

A band Chief is like a rep for Rogers communication nothing more, a rep for Canada, an extension of Canada seeing it is Canadian law not our nations law.

[Chief2k13]

Burnaby49 please re-read my post, i said nothing about silent or not replying. I said, acts or conduct. Also, not replying in good faith where is there is legal or moral duty to reply, what F**K is that, like really, ignoring someones documents is a shoving your head into the sand and acting like oh this isnt happening. Even if the document make on sense at least reply requesting clarification on whatever points that are poorly written. is that so damn hard arrg...

[Pottapaug1938]

Burnaby49 please re-read my post, i said nothing about silent or not replying. I said, acts or conduct. Also, not replying in good faith where is there is legal or moral duty to reply, what F**K is that, like really, ignoring someones documents is a shoving your head into the sand and acting like oh this isnt happening. Even if the document make on sense at least reply requesting clarification on whatever points that are poorly written. is that so damn hard arrg...

Chief, I don't particularly care if the documents are poorly written or if they seem to flow from the pen of Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. The only test of their quality that matters is whether they stand up in court, especially if they also stand up on appellate review, which is a rewording of what Burnaby said at the conclusion of his last post. We here can give our opinions on them, pro or con; but it's the opinions and decisions of the courts that matter.

[Burnaby49]

Burnaby49 please re-read my post, i said nothing about silent or not replying. I said, acts or conduct. Also, not replying in good faith where is there is legal or moral duty to reply, what F**K is that, like really, ignoring someones documents is a shoving your head into the sand and acting like oh this isnt happening. Even if the document make on sense at least reply requesting clarification on whatever points that are poorly written. is that so damn hard arrg...

Chief, I don't particularly care if the documents are poorly written or if they seem to flow from the pen of Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr. The only test of their quality that matters is whether they stand up in court, especially if they also stand up on appellate review, which is a rewording of what Burnaby said at the conclusion of his last post. We here can give our opinions on them, pro or con; but it's the opinions and decisions of the courts that matter.

Exactly.

Chief, you wrote:

In my front of the judge for me was clear evidence that bank receipts shows payments being accepted over a long duration month to month, which is now a private contact and removes the jurisdiction from the public to continue a matter already settled in the public and not wasting anymore valuable public resources. Judge/master didnt care, didnt acknowledge the contract. Asked me, is there something in writing ?

and:

Burnaby49 please re-read my post, i said nothing about silent or not replying. I said, acts or conduct. Also, not replying in good faith where is there is legal or moral duty to reply, what F**K is that, like really, ignoring someones documents is a shoving your head into the sand and acting like oh this isnt happening. Even if the document make on sense at least reply requesting clarification on whatever points that are poorly written. is that so damn hard arrg...

So you are saying your "private contracts" are created by acts or conduct, or apparently by the other party not replying in Good faith where you feel there is a legal or moral duty to reply. Holmes says they are created by simply not replying to his badgering questions. Since the government had neither a "legal or moral duty" to reply to Holmes it was apparently his position that any lack of a response triggers a private contract eforceable in law. It doesn't matter which one, or both of you, are correct. The test is not in going through a sequence of steps which, at the end, creates what you call a private contract. The test, the only test, is to enforce one of your private contracts in court when the other contracting party refuses to abide by the terms you've imposed on them. If you or Charlie can enforce your unilateral contracts in court then you are right. Otherwise, no. Charlie tried and failed.

Mowe has proposed a practical, valid path for you to put your theories of contract to the test rather than post forever about them. Get Tony on board and do as Mowe proposes. If you win then I'll be convinced. Don't kept telling us you are right, go to court and prove you are right. If you are concerned that a judgment will be tainted because of racism by the courts against you as First Nations then switch the roles suggested by Mowe and let Tony be the party saying he only owes you $500 because the $500 contract offer was tacitly accepted, and so there is no debt. If a judge, decides on the basis of racism then he will decide in Tony's favour and will confirm that your private contract concept is valid.

Keep in mind that posting forever on this site or others about how many books on the law of contract you've read, or posing hypotheticals about restaurant meals and Rogers cable, or endless responses to Mowe or me are entirely irrlevant. It doesn't even matter if every reader of this thread agrees with you. All that counts is if you can get a court to agree with you.

[notorial dissent]

Boiled down from the many above paragraphs, what it comes down to, is that your unilateral contracts aren't worth they paper they may or may not be printed on.

They, like you, are a crock.

There is no moral, ethical, or legal reason or duty to respond to nonsense, which is what your papers are. If there is already a valid contract, there is NO duty on the part of the other party to accept a change without real ratification, which means them signing, literally, off on the change. Sending someone a document saying that if you don't respond with whatever time limit signifies acceptance DOESN'T FLY, and is not valid before a court of law. Despite what you might wish to believe. Nor can you make a valid contract by sending such nonsense to another party, as Holmes has repeatedly tried and failed to do with the gov't.

It seems to have escaped your "research", that this sort of nonsense has long been tried, and long been rejected by the courts it has come before.

[wserra]

Also, lets not forget A band Council Chief is not a real Chief for the nation

Well, of course not. The real Chief is the one who gets out of bed one morning, stands in front of his mirror, and anoints himself Chief.

Unilateral contracts, you see.

[The Observer]

Well, of course not. The real Chief is the one who gets out of bed one morning, stands in front of his mirror, and anoints himself Chief.

And no guessing at what the band chiefs' opinion is of Sino and his self-annointment through magical words. Can't imagine that they are welcoming him with open arms.

[Chief2k13]

Burnaby48 and mowe, your absolutely correct. I may view the courts as racist or holding racism as a way to describe their court opinion. Keeping in mind opinion is not based on any facts as it is, only an opinion. I see the courts this way with regard to any original nation who was here first along with their laws. Foreigners laws cannot supercede our laws. If so, show me how so? Would our laws be legal and lawful on England soil or any other foreign land? If not why is a Queen/King royal family have laws and court opinions be fully acceptable and completely sane?

These are questions nobody will address or answer, as the answer is the obvious one. As for welcoming me with open arms, I would say they do or why else would I be requested for doing seminars on my territory and asked to speak at gatherings? Or to conduct shows and songs for my people?

Why does my music have 1000's of hits and downloads? Why are my interview and talks so popular among my people or why I got over 3000 ppl following me.... list goes on and on. I was just asked today to talk and educate a group of my people on law, oops I mean contract....I mean law.

So, back to mowe and burnaby49, yes a contract case to allegedly show my so called tactics. I just follow what I read and I read acts or conduct determine motivate period. As I cannot read anothers mind. In a court audio a judge said we are all bound by a social contract whether we AGREE to it or not. Wtf kind of contract is that ? Nobody has a say or ability to reject or make a counteroffer?

Yes so maybe a test to see what will hold up. I believe prejudice is exercised in court now so not to sure whether a fair determination would be rendered but going in with say Tony would make it an interesting test. I will consider it even with a 200 dollar price tag.

[Chief2k13]

By the way, lets forget about silence or inaction to a nonsense writing as I keep mentioning acts and conduct that create a binding contract. I cannot hear what your saying because your actons speak louder than your words.

[Pottapaug1938]

Chief, like so many others you are under the delusion that the word "opinion", when used in connection with the decision of a court, has a connotation of "our guess." IT DOES NOT. It means that the court is saying "this is how the law is; and until and unless you can get a higher court to say otherwise, you are bound by this decision." In the case of a Supreme Court rendering an opinion, you have two choices: 1) hope that the court changes its mind -- although this happens, if at all, many years later; and 2) getting the relevant legislature to pass, and the relevant executive to sign, a bill changing the law. If a constitutional provision is affected, then you need to go through the procedure for a constitutional amendment.

In other words: your assertions carry no weight until and unless you can back them up with the
unreversed decision/opinion of a court having jurisdiction over the matter.

[The Observer]

I cannot hear what your saying because your actons speak louder than your words.

Translation: "I have my fingers in my ears and am repeating the magic phrase "NANANANANANANA" over and over in a loud voice, so I can ignore the truth."

[rumpelstilzchen]

I was just asked today to talk and educate a group of my people on law, oops I mean contract....I mean law.

Chief, regarding this contract law that you have been teaching. Is it exactly the same contract law that is applied by the courts or is it an alternative version?

[wserra]

Why does my music have 1000's of hits and downloads?

I don't know. Why do pictures of train wrecks?

Why are my interview and talks so popular among my people or why I got over 3000 ppl following me

Alex Jones has 2,000,000. Craziness sells.

[LordEd]

Train vs Tornado: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=azV5bC2br-Q

6.9 million+ views, 17000+ likes.

Train crash test: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zJflu7z4QyI
4.9 million+ views

One of Weird Al's polkas mixed with "my little pony" cartoon video content:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WhOlAU4t9Hs

551,383 views.

[GC_SDNPBC]

There is a fine tradition in Canadian law that lawyers will speak up and protest when unwarranted attacks are made on our judiciary and courts, as "...judges do not and should not speak out to defend their decisions or participate in debates about law and policy." (Barry Gorlick, Q.C., a past president of the Canadian Bar Association)

I reproduce below a selection of Sino General's comments on this forum and in his blog posting referenced in his posting. I'd suggest he look up the word "calumny" as that would be the most gracious way to describe the posts and what follows:` (The text is as in the postings, I won`t bore gentle readers with a constant use of the `sic` notation)

On Quatloos: (Chief2K13)

"Nah i dont wanna go to their injunction court case, for what, same result if i went, im sure they spoke about it over golf him and the judge. Or over brunch whichever, either way i know for a 1000% fact, it would have been same result, so why waste my very valuable time going to a racist court run by mainly criminals for the most part, im sure there are some wonderful judges who are truly honorable but i have yet to see more than 2 since i been here. i have seen one, well, you know what, i saw two."

From the blog by Sino General (Chief Rock):

"So, this article is mainly to point out the total extortion practices that go on regularly here in the Courts that are called Supreme Court of British Columbia, Provincial courts are mainly the worst and as a witness to the absolute bias treatment, prejudice against anyone who doesn’t fall into line with how they wish to you think"

Now, as far as i witnessed in their court system here in B.C, its all a racket, extortion and coercion to the highest degree imposed upon others by the use of Sheriffs whom dont know any different.``

``There is no more impartial judge/master no more.

``Does Ronny truly think someone whom is under protection as an Ally of her Majesty and under treaty agreements made well before Canada was a twinkle in the eyes of murders and thieves, would welcome an open invitation into a RACIST European court rules by bias masters/judges whom are your golf buddies and collude with you over brunch about how the case shall go no matter what facts are real and legit``

It is very important to note the truth of what occurred last Friday morning. Mr. Justice Bowden dealt with the injunction application as he did all the other matters that morning. Dispassionate but not disinterested. Efficient but not rushed. His entire demeanour and decorum throughout the busy court schedule that morning was beyond reproach. Each matter was treated with respect and impartiality. Not a hint of racism. Due consideration was given to parties not present in the court room, including Mr. General. The `rule of law` was obviously in very good hands. The suggestion of any criminality is a gross libel.

It should be stated that I had never met Justice Bowden prior to the hearing, and by his comment in the courtroom he clearly did not know me. To suggest that some sort of deal or collusion had taken place is a deliberate lie of the worst kind.

Ron Usher
General Counsel,
The Society of Notaries Public of B.C.

[notorial dissent]

The courts are biased and racist, in the Chief's mind, since they have ruled against him in every case, and failed to not and bow down to his legal genius.

I fear he has a great deal more disappointment yet to come.

[Burnaby49]

I was at the Applications Hearing where the Notary Society had its injunction approved. I've spent a lot of time sitting in courts and I was very impressed about how the judge decided on this, and all the other issues he dealt with while I was there. Purely professional. If the Chief had any issues about how the court would handle the Notary's petition he should have been there to speak up. I know Ron wanted him there to give his case.

[notorial dissent]

I would assume that they had copies of documents that the chief "notarized" to offer in to evidence to make their case?