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

[wserra]

Your implies i somehow created situations where i caused harm in order for there to be a victim at all?

When you tell people that they can have a free lunch, you encourage them to come in and order.

[The Observer]

Entirely wrong. He's going to tell her;

A) If she didn't get the magic personal embossing seal (available from Vancouver Stamp Works, supplier to the Chief) which, in his interview, he said was integral to making it all work, then that is the reason she failed.

or;

B) If she got the seal she got the wrong one. Magic tricks don't work without the proper tools.

Wait a minute. Are you implying that the Chief didn't stamp Ms. Miller's documents with the correct seal?

Say it ain't so, Chief!

[LordEd]

Careful. If you bring up too many facts, the chief will simply fall back to the racist card.

Not sure why he's helping one of his oppressors actually.

[Bill Lumbergh]

He had some big story how it worked for him once with a phone or cable bill or something where I think the creditor actually just gave up trying to collect. The other participants weren't exactly the most financially astute bunch so it probably seemed sensible to them. Unfortunately my ability to absorb the Chief's teachings was impaired by the fact that I've actually taken a real contract law course taught by a lawyer.

This is likely the case for every instance of so-called freeman "victories". It's simply not economical for the creditor to sue and then try to collect on the outstanding amount.

Back in my student days I worked at a law firm that handled this sort of thing largely as a favour to the bigger clients. It was grunt work (calling the debtor, trying to work out a settlement, and if it made sense, launching a suit in small claims court) and so it was pawned off on the students. The thing is, though, that if the amount owing fell below a certain amount, our clients would spend more money litigating than they would ever hope to get back. If we couldn't work out a settlement with the debtor, then these low-paying files would just be closed. Where debts are settled for less than the full amount largely has to do with a simple cost-benefit analysis: "Well, person X owes us $200 in cable bills... he is unemployed and can only pay up $100. We could sue him for the full amount, but legal fees would be well over $1000, plus having going through the ordeal of collecting on our judgment will bump the cost even more. So we might as well just take the $100."

Magic incantations and seals and amazing cheque-contracts have nothing to do with it. Ever.

[The Observer]

Magic incantations and seals and amazing cheque-contracts have nothing to do with it. Ever.

And you see the same with some tax protesters who claim that their sure-fire UCC filings have stopped the government in its tracks from attempting to collect the "illegal" income tax from them. But what they are not telling you is that they don't have two pennies to rub together and the government has moved on to where there were bigger fish to fry.

And this is what may happen in Ms. Miller's situation, if she doesn't get too pushy, contentious and argumentative with the system in trying to "eliminate" her debt. And of course, our dear Chief will be sure to claim all the credit for her "victory."

[Chief2k13]

Well, how about you guys make remarks after she gives it an attempt, you see, she is going to practice some contracting, what is so wrong with her giving it a go ? You guys are so negative, wow, absolutely no positive outlook at all. She has free will, she can do and try whatever she likes. I am just someone who loves contract law and treaties, the research and responses i have gotten are quite interesting to me. Anyways guys, as it shows people could careless, you think people are THAT STUPID? Come on, ppl doing this are very well educated, many ppl are aware, look at her BF Tony, he is well researched he has ppl who help him research and look into things. He will be up front and honest with everything, i am going by how its terms and stipulations are played out. The game itself of offer and counter-offer.

Nothing special about what i enjoy studying and engaging in, contract is the best thing, i think, for anyone to be a master at. IF law was not an unilaterial contract, i would pre-suppose law is nothing more than a master slave relationship, cause if all men/women are supposed to be "free" this means, free to consent to be governed by whomever they so wished, even to govern thy self. No one accepts that they are a Subject to any Queen or King, those days are over. Its a bunch of Bullshlt either way you try to spell it out.

Imposing a Queens law on folks on our lands is nothing more than fantasy because no Queen or King has any right to our lands, if they think they do bring me something to show me my creator granted them some kind of right over our lands. They are just like anyone else who walks these lands, they bleed, they piss, they shit, they eat, they fuk, they drink, get drunk, are happy and etc...etc... nothing makes them higher or in a position to tell anyone else what to do, especially corporations. Corporations are nothing more than paper that people bring to life by working for it or doing what has been written by another man/woman. Anyways, glad to have you guys/gals reading this. Really shows me you are very inspired with your position of what you believe.

[AndyK]

Yawn.

[The Observer]

Well, how about you guys make remarks after she gives it an attempt,..

No need, we have seen how these "attempts" have ended before. No reason to expect it to end any differently than it has in the past. And Chief, the basis for that is that old chestnut by Einstein that observes conducting an experiment over and over again in hopes of getting a different result is the definition of insanity.

...[Y]ou see, she is going to practice some contracting, what is so wrong with her giving it a go ?

In my experience, when one is practicing, there is the expectation that one will make errors -after all, that is why one practices to work the errors out of their efforts. So that is the main reason why it would be wrong for her to practice. She is going to make a mistake that is going to cost her dearly. I guess that doesn't really bother you that that might happen, huh?

And implicit in your statement about her practicing is that what you are "teaching" her may not work straight out of the box for her. Why is that? Are you not "teaching" her correctly? Or are your "spells" just not good enough to take on the system? Why are you selling this stuff to people if it isn't going to work?

But you know, I see your point about no harm in practicing. I have this nephew who wants to be a surgeon in a few years. He has been reading a lot about surgery on Wikipedia and I think there would be no harm in him practicing about what he has been reading. How about if you and him get together for a few sessions and let him practice on you, Chief?

She has free will, she can do and try whatever she likes.

I am sure that is how you are going explain in the future why you are not at fault for what happens to her.

I am just someone who loves contract law and treaties, the research and responses i have gotten are quite interesting to me.

It is nice that you love contract law, but it would be even nicer if you actually understood it.

[notorial dissent]

What it REALLY comes down to, it that when you are "teaching" someone something that you know/or should know if you were honest is an out and out lie, and that what the person you are "teaching" is going to be doing is essentially fraud, then the pointing and laughing of people on the outside who do know better is perfectly reasonable and acceptable, as is trying to point out to your "student" that she is preparing to stick her hand down the garbage disposal while it is turned on, but then she probably knows that as well since she is relying on you as a teacher, since she has run out of legitimate methods and is relying on the illegitimate-you now for help. You might get away with this with minor bills, student loans, doubt it a whole lot.

[Fussygus]

In response to your comment Chief:

"Imposing a Queens law on folks on our lands is nothing more than fantasy because no Queen or King has any right to our lands, if they think they do bring me something to show me my creator granted them some kind of right over our lands."

I have to ask, what makes it YOUR lands?

Now don't take my comment as being condescending in any way, I am very sympathetic to your position and thinking on things. I just want to impart the thinking I have done in this regard.

If we were all born to a mother and father just the same. Eat, poop, pee....etc all the same, what makes the lands yours as opposed to mine? Who actually is the possessor of something that you can't take with you?

If someone builds a road to get to a lake does it become their land? If someone builds a house on a deserted island, does it become their land? If I clear some land that no one else is using for any purpose, then undertake to grow some crops there to sustain my family, do I gain a right to that property? Now consider these questions regardless of the fact we live in Canada, consider these questions as if we discovered a new land. If I discovered a land the size of Canada can I claim it entirely for myself? Would it be just for me to exclude all others from that land even though I was not using it for anything? Would the conscious accept Bill Gates owning the most fertile land and doing nothing with it while those around it were starving and trying to grow food on rock?

If your neighbour was starving and you had a plentiful garden, would your conscious allow you to throw your surplus away versus giving it to your neighbour? If you neighbour's wife was dying and needed to go to the hospital but their car was broken down, would you let them use your car? I'm sure you would, but you would likely have certain rules that you would understand to exist even if they aren't said (return it in same condition, if you are unable to then make amends in some way).

Likewise when a road, hospital, airport, etc etc, is build by someone they will have rules, some detailed others are just understood.

Fuzzy

[LordEd]

Well, how about you guys make remarks after she gives it an attempt, you see, she is going to practice some contracting, what is so wrong with her giving it a go ? You guys are so negative, wow, absolutely no positive outlook at all. She has free will, she can do and try whatever she likes.

Have your received compensation in any form for services to aid her "giving it a go"?

Was she forced into signing the student loan documents? Note: Being unable to go to school without getting the loan is not being "forced".

Did she accept the loan and loan terms? Did she receive the money and go to school?

There is already a contact. I assume it would be simply stated as "borrow $x, no interest until you are no longer a full time student, then repay $y per month and add z% interest afterwards". The student loan company/government fulfilled their side of the bargain. Why should she be able to change the terms of her obligation?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jsW9MlYu31g

[Jeffrey]

FYI, he said in the BTR interview that he gets paid for his guru services; so I doubt he's going to admit he's wrong.

[arayder]

I am struck by how often freemen "give it a go" and experiment with their theories, especially in light of the fact that the exact same theories have already been rejected in the clear light of open court.
-----------------
Cop Out Clock Update: It has been 2 days since Robert Menard received a counter offer to join the discussion on the Qualtoos Forum. So far there is no word whether Mr. Menard has accepted the offer.

[Fussygus]

Here is how I see it in a non-detailed sort of way.

When someone (person, corporation, society) stakes claim to a piece of land they engage that they will occupy those lands. If there are no objections their occupation becomes vested (per sa) within a period of time.

So as an example this society has staked claim to the lands that the roads are built on. In staking this claim they are the occupiers of this land and become liable accordingly. If someone wanders onto the property the occupier has a liability to their safety. Why? because they aught to know the hazards that exist on that property. How would your conscious feel if someone had a covered well and your daughter fell in because it couldn't be seen? I don't doubt everyone would feel a wrong happened. Regardless of any statute or regulation, everyone would feel the same way, that an innocent child died because of carelessness. Sure it was carelessness on the child's part for going to an unknown place but isn't every new place a child goes a new place?

The law of the land, the law of equity dictates that he who derives a benefit from a thing shall be burdened with the duty which attaches that that thing. In this case the occupier of the land has a duty to look out for all those that should pass on that land. Should you restrict people from crossing that land? Would it be proper to make someone walk 100miles around just because you don't want any liability? At what point do you restrict someone from crossing the land you occupy? Do you allow them to so long as they don't damage that the property, is this an equitable solution to protect your crops? I'd say an equitable request is that a passer by be allowed to cross the property so long as they don't damage it, they follow the beaten path from one side to the other to not damage the planted field.

If a mining company has 400ton rock trucks running within it's claim, is it unreasonable to erect a fence and prevent the children in the adjacent playground from entering the property? I think simply saying no entry is not sufficient in equity, the potential risk is too great. In the opinion of our peers if a child got run over then I'm sure we would all agree the occupier did not do enough to prevent what was clearly a risk. That they did not fulfill their duty.

Forget everything else, a road is nothing but claimed land. Land claimed by the society that built it. As the society that claims the land that the road was built on has the associated liability, this society has put in place certain rules to protect those that would pass on this property. Those rules include ensuring that anyone who would drive a vehicle on those roads (no different than the 400ton rock truck) are competent (licensed) and have sufficient resources to indemnify the occupier (insurance) should they cause harm to another passer over the land for the benefit of being able to use an inherently dangerous vehicle on the lands that it occupies. You wouldn't allow a roofer on your roof without a fall arrest harness to protect you from liability, why would you allow an unlicensed, drunk, blind, uninsured, child drive in across your land, would you? (no offense to blind people, but I assume they can't drive to make a point)

The same liability could be said to apply to your own driveway, you have claim to the land, you accept liability for those that would pass on your property.

So you better keep your walkway clear of snow and ice.

Fuzzy

[notorial dissent]

A minor quibble. The "road" society is "claiming" is actually built on land that society, i.e. some governmental or private unit, actually purchased and owns and maintains, and is responsible for. Therefore, society is not claiming it so much as owns it outright, and as such has every right to determine the usage and conditions of usage of that property.

[Fussygus]

Ahh yes, that is correct, I just didn't feel like running on with post so I left out specifics for instances, but I hope my general principle is understandable.

The situation could likewise be similar for those that would lord over us (boss, parent, etc), but we can leave that discussion to another day. Liability attaches to benefits. Drive a car on my claimed land, accept associated liability (cost) to do so.

Fuzzy

[notorial dissent]

The problem, is that if you get too general, the stupid supersedes reason with some people, and then you are worse off than you were from the start, and with some people stupid is all you have to work with.

[Fussygus]

On reread of your responding post Notarial, I would have to disagree about society "owning" the land.

What does it mean to say you "own" anything? Is there a specific event that triggers such ownership? "I have a receipt, therefore I own it!" What if someone else says that the person you bought it off of didn't own it so could not have sold it to you?

My point is that in-spite of anything, ownership is simply a "claim". You can only claim ownership, and barring anyone else making claim otherwise, you can walk around with confidence that such a claim is unchallenged. Likewise, possession doesn't prove ownership, it only provides evidence of ownership, same as a receipt. There is nothing that can be had which definitively indicates "ownership" all you have is evidence that "claims" ownership (stick you flag in the ground, and claim it is yours.).

"Possession is 9/10th the law" could be better said as "possession is the highest and best evidence of ownership" or at least the most significant form of evidence.

Having been intimately involved in court process, I can say with certainty that no ownership is absolutely certain, it is only a claim based on the preponderance of evidence.

Likewise, your children are "agreed" to be yours based on the same forms of evidence (DNA, Looks like you, has been raised by you and a nearly constant companion, etc... but what if you were given wrong baby from hospital?). They are deemed your children because nobody has claimed otherwise, more than because you have a document that says so.

I would go so far as to say the only things you truly "own" without any claim is your physical self, your body. No one can own it otherwise, though they can stake a claim to your freedom they cannot actually own another persons being.

So to say society owns the land can be said to be correct....or at least it is a correct claim.

Fuzzy

[Jeffrey]

Hey Chief, I got some questions in case you still read this thread.

In your interview with Winston Shrout from April of last year you mention that you were helping a guy who had a car towed, got beat up by police and had his friend drive over to witness it. Coincidentally that describes one of Deans encounters with the cops identically. Now Dean is using Winston Shrout strategies to try to get out of jail.

My question is, what relationship exists between you and Clifford. Were you offering him notary services for his attempts at getting money from fee schedules or getting his trucks returned? Are you involved with his attempts at using a notary to get out of jail currently? Have you been paid for these services? What do you know about the relationship between Dean and Winston?

[Burnaby49]

I've already posted the court decisions I'm citing here in two other discussions but I thought it worth repeating here in the Chief's forum. The other postings related to the recent court failures of Freemen types to impose their wishes on other parties through the use of the notorious Foisted Unilateral Agreements; one-sided contracts that the Chief argues are legally valid if the recipient does not reply with stipulated information within a stipulated time period.

As noted earlier in this discussion the Chief was prohibited by the British Columbia courts from pretending he is a notary. As far as I can tell a large part of his pretend-notary career has been in "notarizing" these fake Unilateral Agreements. He also said, in a seminar I attended, that if you tendered only partial payment for a debt and the creditor accepted it that extinguished the entire debt. Both of these claims by the Chief have been rejected by the British Columbia courts so I thought I'd spell it out here to give the Chief something to consider if he wanders over here from time to time to see if he's still remembered.

The Chief wasn't as inelegant as to call the documents he fake-notarized something as crude as Foisted Unilateral Agreements, that moniker was foisted on them by Judge Rooke in Meads v Meads. The Chief's documents were called INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL CLAIM WITHIN THE ADMIRALTY ab initio ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDY. I've got a bunch beside me as I write. The one on top of the pile is from Yasmine Marian Wali (Secured Party and Claimant) to Mary Polak, head of the British Columbia Ministry of Transportation with a CC to the Chief Financial Officer of the Vancouver Police Department. It has to do with a little unpleasantness between Yasmine and Mary. Apparently Yasmine received notice from Vancouver police that the Highway Traffic Act applied to her, a claim she denies. Apparently, as a result of some disagreement between the parties the police impounded Yasmine's car. So she mailed this agreement saying that Mary and the Vancouver police owe her $10,000,000 with interest at 10% per month compounding daily. Additionally if these miscreants try and oppose Yasmine's right to this money they owe her an additional $100,000,000.

"This implied contract will be binding and will be the acceptance and/or full consent to the stipulation herein." The Chief loves flowery legalese! It goes on to say that the offerees consent by their "performance ". This performance is evidenced by not actually performing since they bind themselves to the terms by remaining silent or by inaction. If they chose not to agree they had respond in ten days by registered mail to the Chief. Response had to be on a point-by-point basis via sworn Affidavit under respondents full commercial liability. Dance puppets Dance! Just to make sure the respondents understood how serious this is the document also said not responding in an acceptable manner in the stipulated time period imposed estoppel on them and they could take no legal recourse against any term in the agreement. Powerful stuff!.

This is typical of the crap the Chief was merrily notarizing. I've got all kinds of them. Anyhow none of the Chief's unilateral contracts were the specific focus of a written trial decision although a number were noted and rejected orally by the court in hearings I attended. Now a couple of Canadian court decision cover this quite nicely.

First up to bat is Gail Blackman;

viewtopic.php?f=48&t=10207

A debt deadbeat who tried to unilateral contract her financial problems away;

http://canlii.ca/t/g8zcf

The applicants in this action were two lawyers representing the bank that Blackman had stiffed on an unpaid line of credit. The respondents were Mr. and Mrs. Blackman and 8750432 Canada Inc., a private corporation The applicants had sent the Blackmans a demand letter for payment of the $21,076.50 debt plus accrued interest

She responded by sending them the following foisted unilateral contract;

THIS IS A PRIVATE COMMUNICATION BETWEEN THE PARTIES
NOTICE TO AGENT IS NOTICE TO PRINCIPAL- NOTICE TO PRINCIPAL IS NOTICE TO AGENT
Applicable to all successors and assigns
Silence is acquiescence/Agreement/Dishonour

COUNTER OFFER
October 30, 2013
[Address]
Dear Mr Myers,

I hope you are having a wonderful day. In follow up to your letter to Gail Blackman dated October 24,2013, I find this a serious issue and would like to resolve it but before I am able to engage in any kind of business with you, I would require verification of the following from you;

1. Proof of standing, and/or
2. A lawful contract between yourself and Gail Blackman, and/or
3. A contract between you and the bank to deal with this specific matter, and/or
4. A notarised copy of your power of attorney from the bank to verify your standing.

Your failure to provide the requested verification of your claim by registered post within five (5) business days constitutes agreement of the following terms;

1. You are a third party interloper
2. You have no legal standing
3. You have no first hand knowledge of this matter
4. Your claim is fraudulent
5. Any damages I may suffer, you will be held culpable, including any negative marks made to credit reference agencies, of which you will, at your own cost have removed.
6. The apparent account in question is settled and closed, that you will no longer pursue this matter any further
7. You agree to pay for my time and effort in this matter.

Further communication from you, either by phone or mail or registered mail will confirm that you are personally now assuming full commercial LIABILITY for the unlawful and fraudulent claims of the National Bank, OR, you are confirming that you are an equal respondent on the commercial lien and affidavit of obligation that may be created should the harassment continue.

Should you provide the requested evidence that I owe your organization or your client any outstanding amount and that you can provide proof that they have assigned your agency, I will be happy to pay any verified claim in full.
Please provide the requested verification, in writing, by registered post within 5 business days of the date of this letter. No response from you will be deemed as your acceptance of the terms of this NOTICE.

Sincerely,
Gail Blackman
All Rights Reserved

No assured value. No liability. Errors & Omissions Excepted
WITHOUT PREJUDICE. WITHOUT RECOURSE. WITHOUT ASSUMPSIT

The lawyers responded to this by rejecting Ms. Blackman’s unilateral imposition of obligations and advising that a court claim would be forthcoming. So she sent the lawyers yet another with the message;

Who are you? As you have failed to provide any proof of standing, as there is no lawful contract between you and GAIL BLACKMAN, and/or GAIL MARIE BLACKMAN and/or LARRY BLACKMAN and/or LARRY CURTIS BLACKMAN. Any debts owed by GAIL BLACKMAN, and/or GAIL MARIE BLACKMAN and/or LARRY BLACKMAN and/or LARRY CURTIS BLACKMAN are paid.

As you have failed to provide any proof of standing, nothing is owed to you. Continued communication attempts, without proof of standing, are attempts to defraud, deceive, manipulate and/or waste valuable time and will result in the attached fee schedule, in effective immediately.

CEASE and DESIST all harassment, communication and communication attempts with GAIL BLACKMAN, and/or GAIL MARIE BLACKMAN and/or LARRY BLACKMAN and/or LARRY CURTIS BLACKMAN immediately.

By: Gail Blackman

When the lawyers failed to obey her she liened their personal property and they went to court to get the liens removed. The judge was not kind to the use of Ms. Blackman's equivalent to the Chief's INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL CLAIM WITHIN THE ADMIRALTY ab initio ADMINISTRATIVE REMEDY.

[25] Whether or not the respondents are OPCA litigants (Ms. Blackman says they are not and claims to have been unfamiliar with the term), a number of the characteristics of such litigants, as described by Rooke A.C.J.C.Q.B.A. in Meads, are present in this case.

[26] An often employed tactic of OPCA litigants is said to be the use of “foisted” obligations in various forms – with the recipient being given a limited amount of time to respond and disagree, failing which they are held to have agreed to the terms of a unilateral agreement.

[27] The fee schedules sent to the applicants are typical of foisted agreements and are wholly invalid and devoid of merit (see Meads at para 470).

The next case, one decision on it four years ago the most recent this year, had to do with a Freeman type who didn't want to pay his taxes.

viewtopic.php?f=50&t=10222

First he tried and end-run at the Federal Court of Canada to get the Federal Court to tell the evil CRA to go away. Unilateral contacts were part of the decision and it didn't work well for our tax dodger;

http://decisions.fct-cf.gc.ca/fc-cf/dec ... VjaAAAAAAB

First the Federal Court gave a little history;

[4] The Agency responded by providing them with a copy of an auditor’s report. In turn the Drosdovechs sent something titled “Notice of Default and Opportunity to Cure”. Among other things, the appeals officer at the Agency was called upon to state facts and law, disclose evidence, and provide a sworn affidavit. Mrs. Drosdovech said: “I hereby conditionally accept the claims and jurisdiction of Canada Revenue Agency upon verified proof of claims, supported by evidence, made under oath, full commercial liability and penalty of perjury.” The Agency was called upon to rebut the statements, which the Drosdovechs chose to call a contract, and that failure to respond constituted an agreement to all the terms and conditions of the so-called contract, and that if no response was forthcoming it was agreed that the Agency was forever estopped from collecting taxes allegedly owed.

[5] The Minister did not do what the Drosdovechs told him to do. He responded with a Notice of Confirmation of the assessments for the years in question.

Then dropped the hammer on his little foisted contract dream;

[13] The main thrust of the submissions is that it is impossible to construe a contract between the parties by which the Minister agreed not to confirm the reassessments and not to take measures to collect monies owing thereunder. I agree.

[14] The obligation to file tax returns and to pay taxes said therein to be owed are imposed by law and have nothing to do with the consent of the taxpayer. A settlement offer was proposed. The Drosdovechs did not accept it. That is the end of the matter. They may wish to call their response a “conditional acceptance”, but the most that can be said is that it was a counter offer. The counter offer was not accepted. It is as simple as that.

[15] The Drosdovechs can speak all they like about administrative processes, their “Notice of Default and Opportunity to Cure”, settlement by silence or inertia, collateral estoppels, failure to provide prima face evidence and “Petition for Agreement and Harmony within the Admiralty…”, all they want. In fact and in law, they have no cause of action. These proceedings are frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of process.

[16] Taxpayers cannot claim some process by which this Court becomes involved in determining whether income tax assessments are correct. The Tax Court of Canada has exclusive jurisdiction in that area. Although they are currently out of time, and notwithstanding that they maintain the position that an administrative process parallel to the jurisdiction of the Tax Court was created, the Drosdovechs have sought an extension of time from that Court. I am told no decision has been made as yet.

[17] In accordance with the inherent right of this Court to control its own process, I strike out all the applicants’ pleadings and order that the case be dismissed, without right to amend. In the circumstances, it is not necessary to consider the applicants’ motion for an interlocutory injunction.

This decision came out in 2010. Not taking its lessons to heart Drosdovech still tried the foisted unilateral contract route in 2011 where he paid off a totally insignificant part of his tax debt then claimed that since the CRA accepted his payment they agreed that the remainder of his debt was extinguished. This issue was addressed in his 2014 bankruptcy hearing;

http://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/20 ... NTcAAAAAAQ

[18] On January 11, 2011, he purported to appoint a representative of the CRA and of the court as interim fiduciary trustees for the estate of the bankrupt.

[19] On October 23, 2011, he offered to settle his outstanding tax for $5,000 in installments of $100 a month, and he voluntarily paid eight installments of $100.

[20] He says he interpreted the CRA’s cashing of these cheques to be acceptance of the offer to settle in excess of $700,000 of tax debt for $5,000. This appears to be a foisted unilateral contract tactic (Meads at para. 447). The CRA did not respond, and so the bankrupt took the position prior to the bankruptcy that they had accepted the contract. This settlement offer is, of course, not an enforceable contract. Both parties must agree to the terms to be legally bound, and a person cannot foist a contract without the consent of the other. The bankrupt did not rely on this foisted settlement at the discharge hearing.

So Chief, I've given you two cases dumping on your unilateral contract scheme. They aren't the usual Freeman type BS citations of something that took place a long, long, time ago in a place far, far away. The decisions are recent, one was in Ontario and the other right here in the province where you live. So now you show us a case where someone using your argument won. A good starting point would be to tell us exactly what happened to Yasmine's demand for $10,000,000.