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

[Chief2k13]

Okay i may have a bit of a strong "opinion" of Whitemans court system. I do acknowledge that. However, you all need to keep in mind how many of my people have been raped, murdered and forced to speak, live and conform to whitemans or Englands way of being civilized. Genocide was practiced upon my people all across the title North America or what i people call Turtle Island.

With that said, it is not like i do not have good cause or good reason to have these beliefs. Can ANYONE TELL ME OTHERWISE? was the treatment fair ? were the treaties honored ? No, at all in my view, forced to be a person or labelled an Indian. We are separate from your laws period. If you do not know your peoples history with my people you really need to go do some serious research. There is the Two Row Wampum, its very clear in indicating both our nations agree, we are separate, we are not to attempt to steer each others vessel, period. Nothing ambiguous at all. In anyway, shape or form.

I would say in my view in regards to our agreements with the King/Queen, all agents, assigns are in total breach of contract/treaty by evening attempting to bring an Ally of Her Majesty to any of her Courts for any determination, period. This is not up for discussion, the LAW is clear on our status in Canada. Please, if you feel i may have been a bit harsh or discordant -harsh and jarring because of a lack of harmony. It would be due to the history of my people in regards to the treatment and opinions of your people.

I really do my best in my seminars or talks to praise you guys. On this forum, i do speak in a manner that would contradict my own words in my seminars. I do say to all of the people i teach, these are some good people, they have the best of intention for everyone if you do the right thing. We are not here to argue with them, we are to be courteous to them in the best manner you can do. Keep in mind, these people have families and people who love them. We should treat them as we would like to be treated.

I do say these things, even about police, even in the face of all their atrocities that have taken place against my people. Judges, i say, never lien a judge, never bring a claim against a judge, they are contract law experts in my view. I guess, when i see things happening in court and i hear things being ignored by judge and the prosecutor or opposing parties. It truly make me feel wtf is the damn point of even asking the parties to come at all ? If they dont really care to hear what they have to say. Nonsense or not, its their belief and who are you to disabbuse what they believe, crazy, nonsense or otherwise.

As i said, if their beliefs fall from the norm, it is disregarded as nonsense. As was my peoples were considered savages, uncivilized because we did not hold the same views in religion as your people. Another case of our beliefs being nonsense. So, again sure i have a really good reason to hold the views i hold. I am not a fool, i have spent hours sitting with other contract law folks, as well as law students whom are in their final year. I spoken with ex lawyers, ex judges, its all affirmed but denied. It is not in the interest of the Courts or Canada to allow such views to seem or appear as logical. Its the deny deny deny. The Canadians run around saying this is the land of the free, woman and man who are supposedly free but yet call them insane or say their views are nonsense for claiming to be free?

A free man or free woman is now considered a domestic terrorist really, so this isnt the land of the free, but land of slaves ?

Anyways, as for the post about golfing with judges and discussing how a case will go, sure that is my view. I am not sure if that is how it goes down or not. All i know, is i hear lawyers talk privately on the side making deals. I have been standing there when i used to have a lawyer when i was younger. Making up how it will go, what i am to say, what the deal is before we go in front of judge, i guess its a side bar ? Either way, i cannot prove it one way or another, but as the saying goes, those who deny admit. As for what contract law i teach, i just merely speak on what the book says, the 4 different books i have. I give it to them so they can read it for themselves. I promote them to go out and get these books and read them with a dictionary as to get the best understanding of what is being written.

Anyways. I am all about contract law, i could careless about the free man thing you guys rant on about or the views on it or OPCA litigant, i am about treaties and contracts period, i am not or nor have i ever declared myself anything but one of my people from my nation. I hope you all have a good weekend, if i offended anyone by my words, my apologies. I do my best to just express how i feel.

[Chief2k13]

How can or why would anyone from a nation whom is an ally of Her Majesty wish to be in a court where a Court is going to give a command over a nation does not fall under their jurisdiction to make such a command > > ? Can you give me any evidence that any Canadian Court has Jurisdiction over our nations ? using case law is not going to fly, there has to be something else, an agreement or a contract where my people gave up their autonomy, from what i gather, we are to be sui juris in all aspect or view points. I am not totally against the courts, they deal with some really bad bad people. They help alot of people, however, i just viewed to much bias attitudes by alot of judges. I saw a few fair ones but its rare.

My people are working on their own Sheriffs and courts. Their own jails. We will one day summon your people to our courts, would our opinions be regarded as a higher court ? It as after all our lands. OR again does the Royal family have a higher standing on foreign soil ?

I really dont think my people get a fair shake in European courts, its not in their interest to acknowledge that these lands are ours and ours to determine what shall go on within our lands. If any court acknowledges that, the flood gate will open. We have oil companies buying up land that has never been discussed or brought to any of our leaders attention. Im talking about the real leaders, not band council. Those are Canadian Employees under contract, under Indian act a Canadian act. Anyways im out , got lots of talks i am being asked to do. I spoke at the Rally in waterfront the other night, as requested. We honor an officer with a song and a family. So, yes we acknowledge those who do work to help not hinder.

Oh, BTW do any of you know of any contracts or treaties for the lands here on west coast, as far as i know or heard from elders and chiefs, these lands have never been sold. A few treaties but not for the whole are from North to south of B.C. explain what is going on here? How is it legal, if crown never made deals for these lands ? how is it in trust ? Just curious with all these smart sane people, im sure you would know or have some idea how it is legal, seem defacto to me but who am i really...

[Cathulhu]

I'm an American Indian, and I look it. And on the couple occasions I've had to go to court, including the speeding ticket, I've always won. To date, I have never been involved in a losing case. Of course, I am smarter than this self-appointed "Chief".

Chief Whinypants speaks with forked tongue. Bored now.

[Chief2k13]

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.

Really Observer ? That is your translation to actions speak louder than words ?

Anyways,

I'm an American Indian, and I look it. And on the couple occasions I've had to go to court, including the speeding ticket, I've always won. To date, I have never been involved in a losing case. Of course, I am smarter than this self-appointed "Chief".

Chief Whinypants speaks with forked tongue. Bored now.

Can you please post the cases you won,the ones you speak of. So we all may review what you did or what the case was about. I mean, you surely must have something for us if you can make such a claim. Also, American courts are much different that Canadian courts, you must know that right ? American Indian, so, make yourself known in front of your people, what is your name my friend, what nation?

FYI- in case you guys are a real bunch of nut jobs here or just love to be facetious with your postings, if it isnt already clear, let me spell it out much more clear. Chief comes from CHIEF ROCK the music artist. Get it, good now stop all your nonsensical comments on being a self appointed chief arrgggg its like trying to post with high school kids here, is mowe the only reasonable poster here ?

Chief Rock, you know, like Prince, the self appointed Prince, or the Rock, the self appointed Rock. Shall i go on ?

[wserra]

Okay i may have a bit of a strong "opinion" of Whitemans court system.

Having offered not a shred of evidence to support the opinion. "Trail of Tears" ¬⇒ "2013 courts are racist".

To quote Cat, "Bored now".

[The Observer]

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.

Really Observer ? That is your translation to actions speak louder than words ?

Yes. Take a look back over all of your posts here and the responses to your posts that pointed out where you have erred in your logic, interpretation of law and conclusions. If you are truly listening and comprehending you would notice that you are ignoring the truth. And that indeed is a case where your actions are speaking louder than your words. Actions that can only be described as sticking your fingers in your ears and trying to drown out the truth being spoken to you.

[The Observer]

My people are working on their own Sheriffs and courts. Their own jails. We will one day summon your people to our courts, would our opinions be regarded as a higher court ? It as after all our lands. OR again does the Royal family have a higher standing on foreign soil?

Yeah, sovruns here in the US as well as in Canada have been establishing their own "courts" in the local Denny's and holding "trials" and handing out "sentences" against government officials and employees for all sorts of "crimes" against sovruns. Nothing ever came of these "convictions" other than the sovruns getting lousy food and making empty boasts.

So deny as much as you want that you are not following "freeman" or sovrun practices, utterances like the one above shows that you are marching down the very road that they have built - a road that ends at a steep cliff.

[Chief2k13]

Having offered not a shred of evidence to support the opinion. "Trail of Tears" ¬⇒ "2013 courts are racist".To quote Cat, "Bored now".

Wow, wow is all i really need to say in reply to this comment. Wtf is wrong with you bro really. As Observer pointed out that truth when spoken i merely dont hear it and yet this guy goes. Where is the evidence of your people being raped, murdered and forced into schools where priests and nuns murder, rape and manipulate young children for a living, hired by, you know who, Canada.

RCMP sent into my reserve to overthrow our confederacy and replacing it with a band council chief. Have you no clue, has your head been up your arse your whole life. This is real life brother, my people have just cause to have these feelings and more. Where is our justice? Who pays for the genocide that Canada has done? wserra seriously, i need to give you evidence on history ?

[rogfulton]

wserra seriously, i need to give you evidence on history ?

"evidence on history" is not evidence of your experience in court. Even my eight year old granddaughter knows that.

[LordEd]

RCMP sent into my reserve to overthrow our confederacy and replacing it with a band council chief.

Date/Location of event?

[wserra]

Having offered not a shred of evidence to support the opinion. "Trail of Tears" ¬⇒ "2013 courts are racist".To quote Cat, "Bored now".

Wow, wow is all i really need to say in reply to this comment. Wtf is wrong with you bro really. As Observer pointed out that truth when spoken i merely dont hear it and yet this guy goes. Where is the evidence of your people being raped, murdered

There is no question at all that Native people were frequently treated abominably during the westward expansion of Europeans. Someone with an IQ of room temperature would have gathered my full agreement with that statement by my reference to the Trail of Tears. The point was that you have offered nothing at all to prove that 2013 courts are racist, and even less than nothing to connect 2013 courts with rapes and murders. Someone with an IQ of room temperature would have understood that too.

wserra seriously, i need to give you evidence on history ?

That's actually amusing.

[Chief2k13]

Here is to a video to watch, if your to lazy to watch forward to 17min 40 sec mark where they start talking about the over throw of the Confederacy and replacing it with a band council by force. This video will give you a good insight of what i am speaking of.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C2EOpkVKGgY

Racism, in the context of feeling superior to command a non citizen, to do as the court wishes. As i noticed a non domestic word mentioned. Lets look at what domestic means-

Domestic- existing or occurring inside a particular country; not foreign or international. ( newest definition)

Etymology of Domestic -domestic (adj.) Look up domestic at Dictionary.com
early 15c., from Middle French domestique (14c.) and directly from Latin domesticus "belonging to the household," from domus "house," from PIE *domo-/*domu- "house, household" (cf. Sanskrit damah "house;" Avestan demana- "house;" Greek domos "house," despotes "master, lord;" Latin dominus "master of a household;" Old Church Slavonic domu, Russian dom "house;" Lithuanian dimstis "enclosed court, property;" Old English timber "building, structure"), from *dem-/*dom- "build."
It represents the usual Indo-European word for "house" (Italian, Spanish casa are from Latin casa "cottage, hut;" Germanic *hus is of obscure origin). The noun meaning "household servant" is 1530s (a sense also found in Old French domestique). Domestics, originally "articles of home manufacture," is attested from 1620s. Related: Domestically. Domestic violence is attested from 19c. as "revolution and insurrection;" 1977 as "spouse abuse, violence in the home."

Under our treaties, i am a non-domestic, meaning i am not of Canada, not from Canada. Not a citizen, does that make it much more clear

Who are these unrecognizable people making commands upon the citizens of the Six Nations?

The point was that you have offered nothing at all to prove that 2013 courts are racist, and even less than nothing to connect 2013 courts with rapes and murders. Someone with an IQ of room temperature would have understood that too.

What is there to offer, as i stated. Placing anyone who is original in any Canadian Courts is a breach of the treaty that stipulates, we are separate, we are not to attempt to steer each others vessel, what is so hard to comprehend , Do i need to post the definition of separate? We are not subjects nor subject to the laws of Canada. Post me up some evidence showing where we as a people offered ourselves up to be subjects? Enlighten this poor ignorant fool.

Merely even suggesting we are to be under English/Canadian law is racism period. How and where does this superior claim come from? Under what authority do we fall under Canadian law and why ?

[LordEd]

1920s. Got it. Hearsay racist evidence.

[AndyK]

Merely even suggesting we are to be under English/Canadian law is racism period. How and where does this superior claim come from? Under what authority do we fall under Canadian law and why ?

Perhaps because the armies of the European settlers (and the diseases which they brought with them) beat the crap out of the indigenous people

Face it. That's the way things work.

When one nation conquers another one, the conquerors get to (1) make all the rules, (2) establish a new government, and (3) rewrite history as it suits them.

The old country and all of its rules are relegated to lore and tradition except to the extent which the conquerors deign to recognize.

Chief: the tribes to which you attempt to attach yourself are nothing more than social groups tolerated by the Canadian government.

The Europeans won. The tribes lost. Get over it. Get a llfe.

[Arthur Rubin]

Chief: the tribes to which you attempt to attach yourself are nothing more than social groups tolerated by the Canadian government.

The Europeans won. The tribes lost. Get over it. Get a life.

Actually, in Canada, the "First Nations" do have some exemption from Canadian law, at least while on a reserve.

Much less than the Chief reports, though.

[AndyK]

Agreeing with Arthur Rubin, I'll also point out that indigenous people within the United States also receive some special treatment (not available to other citizens or residents, from United States law.

However, these, and the Canadian, special treatments exist at the pleasure of their respective governments. Such 'pleasure' could change almost without a moment's notice and the impacted people would have little-to-no say in the outcome.

[Pottapaug1938]

The fundamental problem remains: the Chief cannot prove that his assertions have any validity. He can only play the "race card", over and over again, or offer us out-of-context quotes from legal reference books, many of which are outdated and have lost what little value they ever had (besides historical).

[notorial dissent]

Not to mention being from the wrong side of the border.

[Hilfskreuzer Möwe]

... Actually, in Canada, the "First Nations" do have some exemption from Canadian law, at least while on a reserve.

Much less than the Chief reports, though.

Agreeing with Arthur Rubin, I'll also point out that indigenous people within the United States also receive some special treatment (not available to other citizens or residents, from United States law.

However, these, and the Canadian, special treatments exist at the pleasure of their respective governments. Such 'pleasure' could change almost without a moment's notice and the impacted people would have little-to-no say in the outcome.

It's actually a little more complicated than that.

When the Canadian Constitution was repatriated in 1982 and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms was enacted a provision was included that has given aboriginal rights constitutional status:

35(1) The existing aboriginal and treaty rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada are hereby recognized and affirmed.

(2) In this Act, "aboriginal peoples of Canada" includes the Indian, Inuit and Métis peoples of Canada.

(3) For greater certainty, in subsection (1) "treaty rights" includes rights that now exist by way of land claims agreements or may be so acquired. ...

The net effect is that any existing aboriginal or Treaty rights cannot be altered without aboriginal agreement. Further, in Canada the Crown is held to have a fiduciary relationship with aboriginal citizens. While the Supreme Court of Canada jurisprudence on this point is pretty complex, it essentially settles to that there is only a limited capacity for the Crown to infringe on aboriginal or Treaty rights, and that infringement must be associated with a rational and substantial purpose. For example, there is no capacity for a Canadian government to take away an aboriginal right to hunt or fish, but it would be possible to order restrictions on that aboriginal right for ecological or conservation purposes.

It's an evolving area of the law - aboriginal groups are often 'pushing the boundaries' of their rights, sometimes with success, sometimes not. Most of the law is largely created by the appellate courts, since the politicians and aboriginal leadership very rarely are able to agree on much of anything.

So the long and short of it, any non-extinguished Canadian aboriginal or Treaty right is all but permanent. I very much doubt I will live to see significant negotiated change to that. This is unfortunate, as an arrangement has crystallized that I believe most Canadians, aboriginal or otherwise, think is highly unsatisfactory.

SMS Möwe

[grixit]

In the US aboriginal rights are tied to the reservations. You have to be an official member of an officially recognized tribe living among that tribe. And most of the judicial power of these "nations" is more municipal than anything else; they can set speed limits and sales taxes, for other things, like casino gambling, they need state permission. Certainly, none of them can try public officials for rights infringements.

Also, there are situational limitations. Back in the 80s, there was a suit on behalf of a group of eskimos whose right to hunt orcas with kayaks and spears was already established. They wanted to expand that right to be allowed to use modern equipment. This was refused.