Time for a review of the Chief's 2011-2012 battle with the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce (CIBC) to unilateral contract his way out of paying off a line of credit. This case plays a large part in his mythology of the magic of unilateral contracts. When I attended his seminar on October 26th 2013 (details on page 10 of this discussion) he used it as an example of how you could magically eliminate your debts. Send your creditor a token payment along with a unilateral contract which stated that the creditor accepted this token as payment in full on the debt unless they jumped through a multitudes of hoops the Chief put in the contract. He also mentioned his great victory in his Face Book posting of January 12th where he said;
January 12 at 11:32am ·
Mmmmm I do love a good legal fight but I go fight I lose out on working towards the funds to make a house .. but they will come looking for my person...coercion at its finest ... Notary society wants to put natives in their place and seeing I represent so well ... I'm a good target to make case law with .... I don't fucking think so ... CIBC tried that shit and lost ....
While the Chief claims he beat the bank he has been very parsimonious with details in respect to his legendary fray. I figured it was time to find out what actually happened so, last Thursday, I spent the afternoon at the New Westminster courthouse going through the court records of the case and I copied everything relevant in it to post here.
So did the Chief beat one of the major banks through unilateral contracts and walk away debt free? Beats me! The case has a very ambiguous ending with numerous possibilities as to what happened. I'll go through it so you can see yourselves.
First a little colour to set the scene. New Westminster court file searches are in a very cramped area. You have to stand at a small counter although there are desks and chairs just behind you. There were numerous other people coming and going at the counter, mainly to review their own divorce files. When divorce proceedings are still active only the parties to the divorce can review the file. A woman came in and wanted to see her file. It was explained to her that since only the two spouses or their representatives could access the file she had to provide government issued photo ID, driver's license, passport, citizenship card, whatever had a picture on it. She either didn't have any or didn't want to give it but she didn't see a problem because she had irrefutable proof of who she was, her oral statement "I'm me". She was surprised that that didn't cut it. "Would I say that if I wasn't? Are you saying I'm lying? Look at this face, it's my face! This is me!" She started getting very belligerent when they wouldn't cough up, apparently dumbstruck that her saying "I'm me" wouldn't suffice. She demanded a bible to swear on and said they'd have to accept that as proof.
Since the clerk was making no headway telling her over and over that she had to provide picture ID he got a supervisor to take over. The super kept repeating that she couldn't give our fulminating ball of anger the file without ID and the woman kept demanding the file because her self-identification was good enough and that she wouldn't be standing here identifying herself as the wife in the file if she wasn't. She finally seemed to realize that belligerence and the incessant repetition of "I'm me" wasn't getting the job done so she decided to crank it up into crazytown. She started ranting that her life was in immediate danger, her husband was going to murder her before the day was up if she didn't get the file RIGHT NOW. So if the super didn't give her the file the super would be personally responsible for her death. Was she willing to accept that responsibility? Unfortunately for our demented divorcee the supervisor seemed quite comfortable with that thought, me too brother. So, realizing that the New Westminster court system had just sentenced her to a violent death, she left, but not quietly. I've been checking the newspapers but no reports yet of a homicide due to lack of documentation. If she's proven to be right at least the world will be quieter place for it.
Anyhow, back to the Chief. The first document is this one from March 24, 2011;
http://www.mediafire.com/view/oswds51qy ... ptance.pdf
This was the Chief's opening volley, a Notice of Conditional Acceptance. This document is very similar to others that I've reviewed from the Chief and other users of the three letter scam. The Chief is shocked to find that he owes money, prove it! A "wet ink" signature is necessary and, if the bank doesn't pony one up, it faces these consequences
If in fact respondent cannot provide such evidence, it will be assumed respondent is conducting fraudulent practices against client. If respondent is found to be conducting fraudulent practices against client, respondent will be penalized two hundred and fifty thousand dollars (250,000.00). In addition to defamation of character, this will also carry a two hundred and fifty thousand dollar (250,000.00) penalty for reporting false liabilities against client. In total of five hundred thousand dollars (500,000.00) will be penalized to respondent if in fact respondent cannot provide evidence to their alleged liabilities which have been placed upon client.
As I said earlier " Send your creditor a token payment along with a unilateral contract which stated that the creditor accepted this token as payment in full on the debt unless they jumped through a multitudes of hoops the Chief put in the contract."; well here are the hoops;
You have ten day(s) (10) In receipt of this constructive Notice of Conditional Acceptance. To respond I need a point by point basis via sworn affidavit under your full commercial liability signing under penalty and perjury waving all defenses and Immunities that the facts therein are true not Incomplete and not misleading. Mere declarations will be deemed insufficient response. Failure to respond will be deemed In agreement with alleged account (9892306477) being a zero balance and/or fraudulent practices against client. The matter will be considered closed and respondent will be (n agreement to pay penalties and an Inability to prove your claim.
All responses/communications must be delivered by registered mall only or will not be recognized.
Any paperwork sent by you in response to this Notice which is not In keeping with the specific
instructions herein or does not contain the specific details requested will be returned to you clearly marked REFUSED; NO CONTRACT: INAPPROPRIATE RESPONSE
Don't neglect to read page three, the Chief means business.
The bank responds by (no doubt out of fear of the Chief's wrath) passing the whole problem over to their lawyers.
http://www.mediafire.com/view/dh8dyy1an ... eneral.pdf
This pdf contains two documents, the lawyer's initial letter of May 3, 2011 telling the Chief that they are on the case and a letter of May 10th laying down the law;
We are the solicitors for CIBC with respect to the above-noted matter. We are advised the amount owing on the above-noted account is as set out above. Please be advised i f we have not received payment in the above-noted amount by way of certified cheque or bank draft payable to CIBC and delivered to this office within ten (10) days from the date of this letter, then our client will take such steps as it considers necessary or advisable and as are available to it under the law. This may include, but may not be limited to, commencing legal action for judgment against you for the principal, accrued interest and all costs recoverable by law. We will not feel obliged to give you any further notice of any steps our client may decide to take, except as required by law. Please contact us at this time to discuss arrangements for payment in full. Govern yourself accordingly.
And possibly not knowing the Chief like we do they assume he may just be an innocent gulled by internet shysters;
It appears from your communication that, unfortunately, you have been exposed over the internet, in seminars, by word of mouth or otherwise to a sham debt elimination scheme originating from the United States or Canada. Such schemes continue to be discredited by courts in numerous provinces, and copies of those decisions are available upon request.
Note the vast sum at issue. At the date of this letter the Chief owed $479.11. The initial debt was $272.05 but had been accumulating accrued interest for years. I wondered, reading this, why the bank bothered to go to court over such a trivial amount. That question is answered in a later document.
The Chief responded to this on May 11th, 2011 professing puzzlement as to why the lawyers were communicating with him since he is not a party to any relationship the lawyers have with the CIBC. I've included two different copies of the same document because I wasn't sure how legible my favorite was, the one where the Chief sticks on a one cent stamp to seal the deal.
http://www.mediafire.com/view/8o8le5dlm ... ection.pdf
http://www.mediafire.com/view/uzz8s9zxc ... ion_#2.pdf
Apparently the lawyers keep pestering him because he responded to them again on May 26, 2011 with a Notice of Contract Rejection;
http://www.mediafire.com/view/8wj8a7dxy ... ion_#3.pdf
http://www.mediafire.com/view/wzm21wh68 ... ion_#4.pdf
I've seen a lot of the Chief's handiwork and he's got a huge inventory of documents like this just waiting for a triggering event to unleash them. Here he tells the lawyers he's had enough being pestered by them and from now on it is going to cost them money to deal with him including a whopping fee every time they use his name which is now under copyright. We've seen how that works out.;
I confirm that I have received a written communication from you dated May 10th, 2011 wherein you make reference to an alleged debt owing for account no. 9B92306477. It is apparent that you are still acting on the presumption that some relationship that you may have with Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, is in some way related to me. I will state for the final time, I am not a party to this implied relationship you have with Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce, either directly, indirectly or by means of any tacit consent.
Accordingly, I do not understand why you are continuing to demand payment from SINO GENERAL hereinafter claimant(s) when there is no obligation to honor your demands made by you inasmuch as I am unaware of any contractual relationship between us. As a courtesy and because you may find it helpful, 1 will give only one last warning for and on the record, any further communication from youroffice will result in a default penalty of one thousand dollars (1000.00) per letter, payable in functional Canadian currency. Any actions to collect and/or commence with any judgments against claimant(s) will constitute a forty thousand dollar (40,000.00) penalty to your office and any/all interested parties impeding my administrative process with Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce. Any summons to court will cost your office one thousand dollars (1000.00) per hour taken out of claimant(s) day to deal with any court hearings concerning your office. Your future actions will be your full agreement to the stipulated penalties.
Furthermore, the name SINO GENERAL© is private property, under copyright and brings a fifty thousand (50,000.00) default penalty for using the name SINO GENERAL without express permission, to which you do not have nor has any consent/contract been given for the usage. Govern yourself Accordingly.
Of this presentment take due Notice and heed, and govern yourself accordingly. This FINAL EXPRESSION IN A RECORD is intended as a complete and exclusive statement of the terms of the agreement between the parties
Actually, for such a self-professed expert on contract law the Chief seems, well, a bit dense about how contracts and law work. His response to the bank's demands is an "administrative process"? They agree with his "penalties" not by not responding as stipulated in his Notice of Conditional Acceptance but by actually responding? A cunning trap indeed!
The correct, legally-binding application of the Three/Five Letters scheme actually requires at least three letters so, on June 7th, the Chief fired off the second, his Notice of Fault in Dishonor (Opportunity to cure). Note that the document uses the American spelling of Dishonour indicating that he got all of this crap from American sources.
http://www.mediafire.com/view/g843s44k3 ... shonor.pdf
Here the Chief graciously allows the bank an extension of time to respond to his Notice of Conditional Acceptance in the manner he demanded.
FAULT: For the failure of the honoring of the offer is placing the Respondent(s) at fault. This presentment is the Claimant(s) good faith offer for an extension of the time to the Respondent(s) for making the required presentment by an additional ten (10) days. Respondent(s) have fourteen (14) days, for making presentment at the Sei-vice by and respond to address given above. For the Respondent(s) failure, refusal, or neglect in the presentment of a verified response, as a sufficient verified response is defined below, to this Notice of Fault in Dishonor is consenting with the Claimant(s) entry of a Notice of Default in Dishonor upon the Respondent(s), and the issuance of a certificate verifying Respondent(s) non-performance, acceptance of liability, and Respondent(s) acquiescence and tacit agreement with all terms, conditions and stipulations herein by SINO GENERAL.
However the Chief wasn't cutting them any slack on what he required;
RESPONSE: Only a response that meets the following criteria qualifies as a sufficient verified response:
1. Any response must be made via a sworn affidavit, verified and/or affirmed by a signature under the penalty of perjury, or by a signature under the full commercial liability, of the affiant(s) thereof; and
2. Any response must include a verified and/or affirmed adjusted statement of account; and
3 - All responses must be delivered by registered mail or will not be recognized. No later than fourteen (14) days from the postmark of this presentment.
4 - Any paperwork sent by Respondent(s) in response to this Notice which is not in keeping with the specific instructions herein or does not contain the specific details requested will be returned to you clearly marked REFUSED: NO CONTRACT:INAPPROPRIATE RESPONSE
5 - Mere declarations will be deemed insufficient response.
And if they don't hop to the Chief's commands;
DEFAULT: Default is with the Respondent(s) confession of judgment to the following:
1. The Respondents) waiver of any and all claims, rights, immunities and defenses.
2. The Respondents) in full agreement with all facts and penalties in above-referenced Notice of Conditional Acceptance.
3. The Respondents) full agreement to pay the amounts owed in Canadian functional currency.
Respondent(s) confession of judgment is with these stipulations:
1. Respondent(s) are granting a specific power-of-attomey for the acquisition, procurement and/or production of any and all amounts owing to claimant(s).
2. Respondent(s) are consenting with the filing of encumbrances, including but not limited to liens, writs of possession, writs of execution, and writs of attachment on any and all property, fixtures, accounts, and public hazard bonds by the Claimant(s) against the Respondent(s) up to the amount of Ten million and 00/100 dollars ($10,000,000.00) for any and all actions taken by the Respondent(s) with the hindering, impeding, obstruction and/or delaying of the Claimant(s) rights, titles and interests in any and all collateral in the association with or the security for the above-referenced notice of conditional acceptance.
3. Respondent(s) are consenting with the filing of encumbrances, including but not limited to Hens, writs of possession, writs of execution, and writs of attachment, on any and all property, fixtures, accounts, and public hazard bonds by the Claimant(s) against the Respondent(s) up to the amount of Ten million and 00/100 dollars ($10,000,000.00) for any and all actions taken by the Respondent(s) with the semblance of harassment, coercion, defrauding, and/or defamation of the Claimants) and/or the Claimants) collateral.
DANCE, PUPPETS, DANCE!
On June 23rd the Chief sent the third letter, a three page Notice in Fault in Dishonor Consent to Judgment. No Opportunity to Cure in this one. This is the document that sealed the deal by completing the three letter scheme and binding the bank to the Chief's terms. Unfortunately I somehow missed copying this, maybe it wasn't in the file. I'm not going back to New Westminster to check, I might meet rage-girl again. All I have is this reference to it.
http://www.mediafire.com/view/fas3ug44i ... ervice.pdf
This document basically just says that "the undersigned Notary-Public" mailed off a batch of documents to the bank. One point of interest is that the Chief notarized his own document, he does that a lot. Must be a money saver. Reminds me of our demented divorcee who thought her personal self-identification was sufficient to get confidential files without having to go to the trouble of acquiring legitimate proof.
This boilerplate is typical of a lot of documents on this file that I did not copy. When I reviewed the on-line court file of proceedings there were a lot of affidavits in relation to the number of standard documents. Why? Turns out the Chief loves affidavits, LOVES THEM! Every time he mailed a document to the bank or the lawyers he'd have a witness along to later file an affidavit. The witness would watch the Chief sign and notarize a letter, seal it, then the two of them would march off to a mail box where the witness would watch the Chief drop it in. They'd go back home and the Chief would whip up a statement of events for the witness to sign and the Chief would notarize it as an affidavit later filed in court.
On June 24, 2011 the Bank filed their Notice of Civil Claim with the New Westminster court starting the ball rolling on a court hearing;
http://www.mediafire.com/view/cbbq66pxb ... _Claim.pdf
Note that they ask only for the original $272.05 principal and skip accrued interest.
Next, on July 12th, the Chief hit the bank with a fee schedule for using his name;
http://www.mediafire.com/view/dmpj961lq ... Notice.pdf
Any summons claimant(s) receives to court will cost your office or any party in relation to this matter one thousand dollars (1000.00) per hour taken out of claimant(s) day to deal with any court hearings concerning your office or any party related to this matter in regards to CANADIAN IMPERIAL BANK OF CANADA. Your future actions will be your full understanding and agreement to the stipulated penalties.
Furthermore, the name SINO GENERAL© is private property, under copyright and brings a fifty thousand (50,000.00) default penalty for using the name SINO GENERAL without express permission, to which you do not have nor has any consent/contract been given for the usage. Using the name will be respondents) f u l l and expressed agreement to pay in M l the penalty for using referenced private property. Govern yourself accordingly. Transmission identification # chief2kl010714342
Of this presentment take due Notice and heed, and govern yourself accordingly. This FINAL EXPRESSION IN A RECORD is intended as a complete and exclusive statement of the terms of the agreement between the parties.
Great trick if it worked, how can you be sued or charged with anything if they can't use your name? Also, through some Freeman magic the Chief was now a creditor rather than a debtor. Again, great trick if it worked.
This time he doesn't notarize the document himself; as far as I can tell he has Haimus Wakas do it. I discussed Haimus in my January 12th posting.
The Chief finally responded to the Bank's Notice of Civil Claim on July 28th.
http://www.mediafire.com/view/hv6233y51 ... sponse.pdf
But it isn't the Chief who responds, it's his agent;
"Tendered by: Sino C. General, Living man, authorized representative for this matter"
Essentially he just says that the bank's claims are a pack of lies.
Then the Chief filed this curious document, a request for a court order declaring him indigent. There is no other reference to it in the file and I don't see any indication that anything came out of it. I can confirm there was no order giving him indigent status.
http://www.mediafire.com/view/k40k6xs6b ... Status.pdf
Then we skip a month and a half and end up at November 8th. An affidavit from a bank officer just verifying some things.
http://www.mediafire.com/view/9a8a9nk53 ... idavit.pdf
The affidavit accompanied this document, a Notice of Application to
http://www.mediafire.com/view/b6xu84mk2 ... Strike.pdf
Part 1: ORDER(S) SOUGHT
1.1 Strike Response, grant judgment and order special costs under Rule 9-5(1).
1.2 In the alternative, there being no genuine issue for trial, grant judgment under Rule 9-6(5)
and costs under Rule 9-6(7).
1.3 In the further alternative, grant judgment on the merits and costs under Rule 9-7(15).
1.4 As to the matter of costs only, in the alternative to the foregoing, the Court award costs as liquidated damages under the terms of the contract between the parties, or in the further alternative, the Court finding that there was sufficient reason for bringing this action in Supreme Court, then costs pursuant to Rule 15-1(15), or costs at Scale B under Appendix B of the Rules.
And on December 15, 2011 the court accomodated them by issuing this Summary Judgement order;
http://www.mediafire.com/view/qz5mtph4x ... _Order.pdf
This ordered the Chief to pay the $272.05 principal plus $334.24 accrued interest for a grand total of $606.29.
I managed to get a transcript of the December 15th hearing. It explains why the bank went to court over pin money;
MR. LIDA: Now, in this application , and because of the amount at issue , I'm not seeking special costs. I'm not even seeking costs , I'm seeking disbursements only.
THE COURT: Yes?
MR.LIDA: Now, the reason, I understand, that CIBC has pushed this to a summary trial despite the amount owed is, really, for precedent reasons, for down the road.
THE COURT: Mm-hmm?
MR.LIDA: My instructions are that Mr. General has been assisted, and that there's some suggestion of that in the pleadings, by parties or what - yeah, by parties who have a big interest in fighting banks, including CIBC. So if CIBC backed off its claim because of the small amount, then that would certainly be a victory in the eyes of these parties to assist people like Mr. General, and that's why I'm here.
THE COURT: Yeah. Your application here is to strike the defence and to proceed as a default judgment, then, is that the scheme of things?
MR.LIDA: Yeah, we'd have alternate pleadings.
THE COURT: Mm-hmm.
So the Chief was taken to court as an example to other idiots who thought they could get money for nothing through Freeman magic.
http://www.mediafire.com/view/bgag5kgr2 ... script.pdf
The bank tells the Chief they won and they want their money;
http://www.mediafire.com/view/5dd0i2rgc ... ng_pay.pdf
And he strikes back!
http://www.mediafire.com/view/vcaq1a3lv ... _order.pdf
He wants pleadings struck, judgment in his favour, the court order struck and special costs. He even claimed that the bank was a vexatious litigant.
He backed this up with an affidavit giving his arguments.
http://www.mediafire.com/view/dn8a66k75 ... idavit.pdf
He actually had this witnessed by a real lawyer but made sure to make it all really legit by also notarizing it himself. His points were;
SWEAR (OR AFFIRM) THAT:
1 No notice of application was ever mailed to the address as referenced above and i do not believe any evidence exists to the contrary.
2 No discovery of documents were ever offered for Sino Cameron General's hereinafter defendant to inspection, after several attempts to come in to inspect any/all documents pertaining to the claim.
3 Defendant made several offers to settle the alleged account upon presentment of a bone fide claim, with original signatures.
4 Defendant was not at the Supreme Court in chamber proceedings on December 15th 2011, as no notice was given for defendant(s) presence to be at proceeding.
5 Defendant has first hand testimony in regards to the pending claim and believes the plaintiffs affidavit in support of claim is frivolous and merely hearsay as affiant has no first hand knowledge of any of the events of the account.
6 Defendant believes agent for Plaintiff entered false testimony in regards to the mailing of Notice of Application to defendant as evidenced by the transcripts from the date of in Chambers proceedings which took place on December 15th 2011, at or around eleven(11:00) am.
7 Defendant believes the plaintiffs claim to be frivolous and vexatious in nature, as self executing contract letters were sent to Plaintiff to request documentation in support of their claim in exchange for full honorable settlement of the alleged account. No response was given and non of the facts within the self executing contract were rebutted as evidenced by certificate of non-response.
Most of this is just straight up Freeman bullshit but note points 1 and 4. Those may be responsible for what I called the very ambiguous end to this saga.
The next document is not critical but it has a few points of interest. He calls himself a "duly empowered Notary-Public", the reason the B. C. notaries are pursuing him. He also says he is a nursing student. If so the training fell of the table because he was never employed in nursing. This time he got the document properly affirmed by a commissioner for taking affidavits.
http://www.mediafire.com/view/189e8zef2 ... idavit.pdf
The Chief wants a hearing and this is a scrawled note to the court requesting a change of date from January 31, 2012 to April 2nd. Note that he stated that the document is non-negotiable. Also note the nice notary stamp he had made up at B. C. Stamp Works Ltd. At the seminar I attended he was emphatic that if you wanted to be a notary you had to go to B. C. Stamp and get one just like his. Expensive, I believe he said they were $75, but essential. I'm told that B. C. Stamp was swamped by demands by fake notaries for these stamps so they no longer make them unless there is proof that the customer is a real notary. This stamp is one of the things the original court order against the Chief demanded he surrender to the Society of Notaries Public of British Columbia. He hasn't done so yet.
http://www.mediafire.com/view/8ojr2n80m ... e_Date.pdf
The last document on file was this, an affidavit from the bank stating that they had confirmed that the Chief was not a real notary.
http://www.mediafire.com/view/fmpk7f764 ... idavit.pdf
And then, and then, on April 2, 2012 the judge who issued the original court order set it aside! And that's it, case closed. There is no information in the file, no information anywhere that I can find explaining this. Apparently the judge set aside his own order and the bank, after relentlessly pursuing the Chief, dropped the case. All I can do is speculate so here are some possibilities.
1 - The bank and courts realized that the Chief was going to win based on the unrebuttable Freeman arguments he was going to present in court and they just desperately closed things up to stop him from destroying the credit system in Canada. I'l rate that one as unlikely.
2 - Remember points 1 and 4 of the Chief's affadavit?
1 No notice of application was ever mailed to the address as referenced above and i do not believe any evidence exists to the contrary.
4 Defendant was not at the Supreme Court in chamber proceedings on December 15th 2011, as no notice was given for defendant(s) presence to be at proceeding.
The court touched on this in the transcript;
MR. LIDA: It's strike the Response, grant judgment, or just judgment. And I think , since Mr. General has not appeared, he has not filed an affidavit , I'm just bringing this on as an --
28 THE COURT: Yeah.
. . . . . . . .
THE COURT: All right. Well, Mr. Lida , this Response is a difficult document to decipher, as I think you appreciate. There are some general denials in there that really take this beyond a summary judgment application, to a summary trial application and I think it's - appropriate to conceive of your application as such.
MR. LIDA: All right.
THE COURT: Having said that, it is also clear that the plaintiff's claim is well founded for this rather small amount of money owing on the overdraft and you should have judgment for that.
It's possible that the Chief raised enough of a doubt on whether he had been properly served notice for the Dec. 15, 2011 application that the court decided to do it again with a the Chief properly served and the CIBC decided to let the matter drop, rather than go through a second hearing. That's a little odd given that they'd been so relentless about getting a court decision on record. They'd done all the work necessary, all that was left would have been a short hearing.
3. Maybe the Chief folded when the CIBC threatened to contact the Notaries/Law Society, following the March 29 2012 affidavit.
4 - The Chief quietly paid up making the order moot. There was nothing for the bank to pursue since they had received the money stated in the order. I favour this possibility.
Join the Blue Ribbon Online Free Speech Campaign!