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

[Fmotlgroupie]

I assumed Mowe may have lost forum access due to the email issues.

I've preferred to believe that Mowe, having wrestled David Kevin Lindsay off of Reichenbach Falls, has gone underground to safely take on DKL's minions.

[Burnaby49]

Ok gang, part 2, the Chief! We left part 1 just as we were heading out to lunch so I'll pick up there;

My go-to lunch spot downtown is Harvey's burgers on Granville, love their burgers, so I had lunch there. Granville is Vancouver's main downtown street so lots of foot traffic going by. I was sitting staring out the window finishing off my lunch when the Chief walked past still in his court attire! Certainly brightened up a drab part of Granville.

Back at court there were a few final words from the Society's lawyer, He'd managed to get a bunch of cases on people breaching court orders and being found in contempt. Judge seemed to find them less than compelling. He wanted something close to our situation where the defendant ended up in jail. Some examples but nothing exactly to point. Again mention of Chief's purported OPCA adherence.

I really can't see the relevance of whether or not the Chief follows OPCA practices to the contempt charges. The Society will win or lose on the basis of the documents in the affidavit and they speak for themselves. If the judge accepts them as proof the society wins without considering his motives. However I think the lawyer was pushing hard on the OPCA issue for sentencing. Lawyer tried to differentiate between single breaches and a conduct of numerous breaches as the Chief is alleged to have done. Mentioned OPCA in this context to show that OPCA beliefs include deliberately ignoring court orders. I think this is why the pre and post injunction documents are included. Take the Kurt Johnson mortgage scheme as an example. This was started before the court order for the Chief to stop. However, if the documents are accepted, the Chief totally ignored the order and continued as if it didn't exist. An immediate and flagrant breach of the order, a series actually, might carry weight in sentencing.

A last note on the Society's case before we move on to the Chief. I've reviewed my notes on the Society's submission and there was no mention of a claim by the Society that the Chief is a vexatious litigant. Had the claim been made I would have noticed because it would have made no sense. I'm not aware that the Chief has ever initiated any court actions, vexatious or otherwise.

Now to the Chief. A few comments before I start. I have almost six pages of notes of his arguments, very repetitious but not, as opposed to Yankson or Holmes, totally crazy. I could make no sense whatever about what Yankson was talking about but I could follow the Chief's arguments. What he said actually related to the issue at trial. I feel that his arguments are irrelevant to refuting the contempt charges but at least he addressed the charges and my opinion carries no weight anyhow, I'm not the judge.

However, regardless of the strength of his arguments, there was a serious evidential weakness in the Chief's defense. He submitted no documents to support his oral arguments, either at the hearing or pre-trial. So, even if he had any relevant rebuttals to the charges, the only evidence he entered in support of them was oral hearsay. He made numerous reference to treaties, events in the past, promised by the Queen, but there were no documents entered as proof that the Chief was correctly interpreting these treaties or events. Even his oral arguments lacked any specific references. When he said a treaty supported his position he didn't cite the part of the treaty or the actual wording, just the comment that this treaty or that treaty exempted him from Canada's laws. Same with his split personality defense. While the Society backed up their submission on this issue with numerous citing from Meads the Chief just stated his split personality beliefs as a defense without any backup. Maybe there is at least a possibility of an arguable defense that some treaty provision exempts the Chief from at least some of Canada's laws but he had to prove it, not just say it.

And a point about my presentation of the Chief's defense. I tried to make a verbatim copy of what he said but that was not always possible. I just couldn't keep up so sometimes I had to just essentially do bullet point type entries. My writing hand was actually cramping up and I was about to stop making notes when the afternoon break saved me. So I'll largely just reproduce what are in my notes. Keep in mind I had no time to try and interpret what he was saying or rephrase it so what you are getting is straight-up Chief as he presented it. If I missed anything or mis-recorded it the Chief can admonish me at such time as he gets on Quatloos. The paragraph breaks are essentially arbitrary just to break it up a little.

The Chief started by acknowledging something, at least I heard the word "acknowledge" before he said something in an aboriginal language. Apparently a prayer to the creator. Then he started on how the court had no authority over him. This was not belief it was fact, based on history and the two row wampum treaty in the 1600s agreed to by officers of the Crown and Queen.

A note here. This is what Wikipedia says in it's introduction to the two row wampum treaty article;

The Two Row Wampum Treaty, also known as Guswhenta or Kaswhenta and as the Tawagonshi Agreement of 1613 or the Tawagonshi Treaty, is an agreement said to have been made between representatives of the Five Nations of the Iroquois (Haudenosaunee) and representatives of the Dutch government in 1613 in what is now upstate New York.[1] The agreement is considered by the Haudenosaunee to be the basis of all of their subsequent treaties with European and North American governments, including the Covenant Chain treaty with the British in 1677 and the Treaty of Canandaigua with the United States in 1794.
The pact's existence is a source of debate with some scholarly sources maintaining that a treaty between the Dutch and Kanienkeh (Mohawk Nation) did not take place or took place at a later date.[2][3][4][5][6][7][8][9] In August 2013, the Journal of Early American History published a special issue dedicated to exploring the Two Row Tradition.[10] Evidence of an agreement consists of the wampum and oral tradition. The authenticity of a written agreement is questionable.[1]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two_Row_Wampum_Treaty

We, our government, is more official than the Canadian government. We fought for the Queen when United States invaded Canada. Then he said something about 1794 and William Johnson. He talked about the two row wampum agreement and showed that he'd brought wampum to court. I couldn't see what it was. He talked about the Canadian ship and the Indian canoe and how they should harmoniously sail together but if the wampum treaty is breached they will pull our (Canada's) ship from under us. No clue what that meant but Wikipedia says this;

The 1613 agreement was recorded by the Haudenosaunee in a wampum belt known as the Two Row Wampum.[1] This wampum records the meaning of the agreement, which declared peaceful coexistence between the Haudenosaunee and Dutch settlers in the area.[1] The pattern of the belt consists of two rows of purple wampum beads against a background of white beads.[1] The purple beads signify the courses of two vessels — a Haudenosaunee canoe and a European ship — traveling down the river of life together, parallel but never touching.[1] The three white stripes denote peace and friendship.

Haudenosaunee tradition also records the specific meaning of the belt as follows, in the form of a Haudenosaunee reply to the initial Dutch treaty proposal: "You say that you are our Father and I am your Son. We say 'We will not be like Father and Son, but like Brothers.' This wampum belt confirms our words. [...] Neither of us will make compulsory laws or interfere in the internal affairs of the other. Neither of us will try to steer the other's vessel."[12]

This treaty places us separate from Canadian law. We are not Canadian. Chief said he does not understand what the court thinks the definition of "person" is but he is here out of consideration as a Special Appearance. He didn't go to the injunction hearing because Sino General (hed saud this is his Canadian name) was on the court application but Sino General did not sign any of the documents. They were signed by Hajistahenhway. He denied that he had ever been served for the injunction hearing (I'm guessing because it was made out to Sino General and he is Hajistahenhway but actually both names were on all the documents). No understanding because "person" is a legal fiction to navigate in commerce. His people use a different word.

Then something about a mass RCMP arrest in 1924. He said that this was a breach of the two row agreement, they shouldn't try to steer each other's vessel. If Canadian law in this court trumped the Queen's two row agreement then all treaties are invalid. The court was mistaken in identifying him as Sino General. Judge - "I'm making no mistake. I'm dealing with the individual standing in front of me. We both know who will be punished if I find against you". Chief said "You'll be breaking the Queens agreement!" Judge - "That should have been brought up at judge Bowden's hearing. It is too late now. You had the opportunity to argue it in court and you did not come. That was your choice and you live with the consequences." But since I'm not Canadian the court is breaking International law and the 1600 treaty by deciding against me. This court lacks authority.

Chief wanted an adjournment to have the Society dig up proof that the treaties have been broken. Chief then revoked the verification he made at the Examination that the documents in the affidavit had been signed by him. He said that they were possibly faked photocopies. He wanted to do the Examination again have the Society produce the originals. He's never agreed to follow Canadian laws or statutes because he's a foreigner. He tried to disassociate himself from the OPCA types who's documents he notarized on the basis he didn't know who the people were or what they planned to do with the documents.

Section 85 of the Constitution says the treaties are valid so the treaties are paramount over Canadian law and the Constitution acknowledges this. The notaries are disempowering the public because nobody but lawyers can draft documents. Then he said something about how this court, the lawyers, and Vancouver itself were OPCA litigants. I had no idea, at the time or now, what he meant by that statement. Then he asked if the notaries realized that they could also be imprisoned because of breaching treaties and the Queen's laws by bringing an Act of the Queen to court. If our nation decided to have our own notaries, courts, armies, police force, would Canada say we are a fantasy and stop us? Since this is unceded land I don't know that this court is even in Canada. There is no bill of sale to show that we sold the land to Canada. For all we know this court is in China. The debt we are owed for this land is in trillions. If he (the Chief) is such a threat to the public why is the public let into court (pointing at me)? The notaries aren't doing their jobs because they aren't signing whatever is given to them.

Chief discussed new Westminster CIBC case. (note that I discussed it here);

viewtopic.php?f=48&t=9377&start=400#p183067

He said he won that case because he was not notified of the hearing. He's never had a Supreme Court judge say his seals are invalid and some Supreme Court judges have accepted his seals. He denied being a vexatious litigant (as I've said this was not brought up by Society). He said he would obey notaries if they produced authority. They have not done so. Nobody has told him that there are actual complaints about his notarized documents. Vague comment about how other Chiefs had documents accepted in Supreme Court. All you need to become an International Notary is an embossed seal. If a United States document with a notary seal is accepted here doesn't that mean that International Notaries exist? If natives held a court would the BC notaries attack that court too. This trial and all the resources spent on it were wasteful with nobody complaining. The notaries are the vexatious litigants by bringing this to court. Hundreds of people support him. If we adjourned he could come back with hundreds of people's signatures supporting him. He is acting for all of them. Idle No More shows that power is emerging, newspapers, news, other bloggers (pointed at me, I waved back) covering case.

Opposing lawyer not qualified to bring his arguments because he knows nothing about treaties. Chief is here by special appearance to inform court. Under International law he doesn't have to appear in this court. He said the whole world recognizes aboriginal passports. I had to quit my job in Alberta to come back and answer court. Now I have no position, no income, no money, the damage is to me. I had a good welding job.

If his people insist that he keep doing what he is doing he has to continue because their laws supercede Canadian laws. I'm not Canadian, would you expect someone from Mexico to come up and fight this? He didn't respond to the original injunction because he doesn't own the name "Sino General" although he uses it. If I acknowledged Canadian law I would be thrown out by my own people. Under our laws I'm forbidden to follow Canadian law. I'm not allowed to be here, I don't belong here. My Chiefs have forbidden me coming here. He pointed at me and said "I'm cordial and friendly, he acknowledged this. We can bring him up to testify to that." I have a third party interest in Sino but I'm Hajistahenhway not Sino General. Creator gave me Hajistahenhway and that is higher than this court. Do we honour treaty and the Queen or do we disrespect history? I'm under threat of being banished from our nation for being here. I was ordered not to come. He offered the judge a piece of wampum to show friendship but judge told him that would not be appropriate.

My final submission is that thee is no evidence that we are under Canadian law. We welcomed you with open arms because we have a two nation agreement. They can't tell me not to be a musician, welder in health care. They can't tell me not to be a fire-fighter.

Then, mercifully, a break. My left hand was just about crippled.

After break the Chief said he had to regroup. Judge commented "I think you were starting to repeat yourself a little bit." I'm not nervous, I perform on stage, but I'm trying not to forget anything. Jurisdiction has not yet been established. Since this is unceded territory there is a bias against the Chief by everybody in the court, including judge, because of a conflict of interest. We all own land on unceded native territory. He seemed to be saying if he won we would lose our land so the court would decide against him to avoid that. Then he brought up the fact that the Society's affidavit only had copies not originals. So this meant if he was fined he could photocopy Canadian paper currency and use that to pay it. Judge said - "Mr. Georgetti (Society's lawyer) took me through the Examination. Do you agree when you were under the Examination that you admitted to signing the documents?" I was under duress and threat so my admission nullified. Judge - "Were you telling the truth?" I made statements under threat. I didn't consider that I needed to see the originals. I'm not saying they are not my signature but I'm not saying that they are until I see the originals.

Somewhere in here the Chief said that he was from an oral tradition and this is why he didn't bring any documents to court but I failed to note exactly where he said this. Then he said that natives had always been brought into Federal Court on treaty matters and this is a B. C. Court so court had no jurisdiction. He brought up the United Nations UNIDROIT organization and said it gave them the right to build their own economy. We are a separate nation and we need a nation to nation court or the Federal court, not this court. Since we are not in a federal court you have no jurisdiction over a treaty issue. We have a So lo Nations woman here who says you have no jurisdiction. I assumed he was referring to Lisa Monchalin. He started reading out something from a document that the Governor General of Canada had issued. Judge said - "Sir, you are getting away from the issues at court" Chief said that this was important so judge told him "If you have a copy file it" and he did. So I was wrong in saying that the Chief filed no written evidence. Apparently it showed that the court had no jurisdiction. Chief said that he knew facts and Ron usher put beliefs in affidavit, not facts.

Chief said he wanted compensation for financial duress for being brought back. He wanted a court order compensating him for loss of position and benefits. Then back to "The Attorney General of Canada is in full agreement that this is the wrong court." He wanted judge to dismiss or set aside action. His position was quite clear "I'm here in honour and respect to help you remedy matter."

Then lawyer for Society had last say. Either he was confused on an issue or I was. When the Chief had said that he had not been served about his hearing I took him to mean the November 12th, 2013 hearing where he was ordered to stop being a notary. He was arguing that this was why he didn't show up. That triggered the exchange with the judge where the judge said "That should have been brought up at judge Bowden's hearing. It is too late now. You had the opportunity to argue it in court and you did not come. That was your choice and you live with the consequences." However the Notaries' lawyer seemed to think that the Chief meant he had not been given proper notice of this hearing. He said that the Chief must have been properly notified of this hearing because he brought the material he had been served with to the Examination. While the hearing date had been changed the Chief had consented to the change. Chief said "But he threatened to put me in jail".

Lawyer gave a further statement about how everything the Chief did was pure OPCA, right out of Meads v. Meads, then he was finished. Judge said decision deferred until next Thursday 9AM. He told the Chief to note that was an hour earlier than this hearing. Then we were done.

There was one other significant point that I missed in my notes because I couldn't keep up. I forget where it occurred but it must have been in the portion before lunch because it was a statement by the Society's lawyer. He said that while they could prove that the Chief had continued acting as a notary after the injunction they had no evidence that he took money for it. Not that they were saying that he didn't but they had no evidence either way on the matter. The Chief had said in the Thursday interview that he was not paid for his notary services. The lawyer said nothing hinged on it because the order was for the Chief to stop acting as a Notary and they could prove he had breached it even if he wasn't paid.

Note - I've just done a minor amount editing. I've not added or deleted anything or changed meaning of text but just tidying up transcription errors from my notes. For example I originally write;

"Opposing lawyer not qualified to bring his arguments because nothing about treaties." Which makes no sense.

I changed this to what the Chief actually said "Opposing lawyer not qualified to bring his arguments because he knows nothing about treaties. "

[Jeffrey]

Anyhow judge asked counsel "Do you have any authority on appropriate rates of sentencing?" Judge wanted some guidance on how to evaluate the Society's request for a jail sentence for the Chief based on similar decisions.

Seems to me like this is the key nugget. The judge wouldn't have asked for sentencing guidelines if he wasn't already mostly convinced Chief violated the injunction.

[LordEd]

I take it as interesting that 'notary' chief is unable to recall moralizing without seeing originals.

What good is a notary that can't recall doing it? Not much of a witness is he.

[notorial dissent]

I take it as interesting that 'notary' chief is unable to recall moralizing without seeing originals.

What good is a notary that can't recall doing it? Not much of a witness is he.

Well, I'd certainly call it convenient of nothing else.

I am a bit amazed, well shocked really, at the actual lack of preparation by the Society. If they were convinced he was flouting the court order I don't understand why they didn't have either the original documents, or at least certified copies of them to hand to the judge, as they had certainly seen them since they did in fact have copies, and if they were at all done properly, they should have/would have been dated at the time of signing to give them even the pretense at legality, and that alone should have been sufficient to prove that he had violated the order. I also wonder if any of them had actually been recorded. So I'm a bit mystified by the lack of actual preparation. I'm also a little bit concerned that the judge hadn't bothered to check the actual legislation that this hearing was referring to as it sounds very much like he really didn't have a clue about what he was supposed to be hearing, as in the case, or listening for as in the testimony.

That being said, I don't think Chiefy put on anything resembling an adequate defense, but then he really doesn't have one. He is pretending to be a notary, regardless of what he calls it or himself, and his word and name games shouldn't really make any difference to the infractions, and he has violated the court order. The fact that he thinks the law doesn't apply to him is irrelevant to the reality of the situation.

The real and actual harm may come to the idiots he notarized the documents for on the chance that they actually were real valid documents needing to be legally notarized and weren't. If they have to go in to court or need them for some purpose, that lack of legal notarization could really come back and bite them in the ass. That is the real public harm here.

[The Observer]

Judge wouldn't have asked for sentencing guidelines if he wasn't already mostly convinced Chief violated the injunction

I agree. And the fact that the Chief did not contest the Society's claims that he continued to notarize after the injunction was imposed doesn't help one bit. Oh, I know Sino is arguing that the courts have no right to tell him what he can't do, but that is not the type of argument that is going to convince a judge that rule in his favor.

The fact that the Chief came into court without evidence and no organization for his case, as Burnaby related, is another indicator of the sincerity of Sino's beliefs. He knew that this was going to be an important day, that he needed to be prepared to make his arguments count. And that requires securing evidence, lining up witnesses, and doing some first-class legal research. Yet he comes into court and relies on just mentioning treaties and pointing out potential witnesses in the crowd. This was nothing more than climbing on a soap box and ranting. The Chief knows how this is going to turn out and it is not surprising that he is now trying to get the court to award him money for having to appear. Nothing like a little chutzpah just before they haul you out in handcuffs.

The lawyer said nothing hinged on it because the order was for the Chief to stop acting as a Notary and they could prove he had breached it even if he wasn't paid.

A good point and I am glad that the Society didn't try to avoid addressing this issue merely because there was no evidence. It is just another indicator that they are only asking the Court to treat them and Sino fairly in this matter. Their argument is correct - regardless of whether he received payment for the notarizing, the fact is that the injunction was violated. Not that I believe the Chief's claims that he did this for free - I think he did get paid by all of those freemen that got notarized documents from him. I have a hard time accepting that he would provide free notary services to a bunch of white guys who he believes are living illegally on native lands. After all, if the Dutch gave a bunch of worthless trinkets to get Manhattan, it might be an easy rationalization for Sino think that there is noting wrong in giving a bunch of worthless documents to Freemen in exchange for cash.

[PeanutGallery]

I am a bit amazed, well shocked really, at the actual lack of preparation by the Society. If they were convinced he was flouting the court order I don't understand why they didn't have either the original documents, or at least certified copies of them to hand to the judge,

I take it that by certified copies you'd mean ones that had been seen by a notary and authenticated as genuine. Well they did ask the Chief if they were genuine, maybe it was part of a larger plan to trick him into acting as a notary right in front of the Judge.

I'd also say that it seems from Burnaby's excellent account that most of the preparation and argument from the society seemed to be based around disputing the Chiefs beliefs and bringing Meads v Meads to the courts attention while making the actual charge seem like a minor part of the proceedings. This may have been part of a wider tactic, get the Chief to defend the beliefs and there is a chance that he might, as he seems to have done, forget to defend the actual charge and instead argue against a question the court isn't asking, in which case it would be a clever tactic when dealing with Sovrun litigants, admittedly at the cost of a lot of court time while they defend their 'beliefs'.

[Burnaby49]

I'd also say that it seems from Burnaby's excellent account that most of the preparation and argument from the society seemed to be based around disputing the Chiefs beliefs and bringing Meads v Meads to the courts attention while making the actual charge seem like a minor part of the proceedings. This may have been part of a wider tactic, get the Chief to defend the beliefs and there is a chance that he might, as he seems to have done, forget to defend the actual charge and instead argue against a question the court isn't asking, in which case it would be a clever tactic when dealing with Sovrun litigants, admittedly at the cost of a lot of court time while they defend their 'beliefs'.

There were actually a lot more Mead references than I noted. I had to stop writing from time to time, I have issues with my hand if I write for extended periods so I'd pick short breaks when there was a lot of repetition or when the lawyer started getting detailed about Meads references. The lawyer related the type of documents that the Chief notarised to specific parts of Meads, saying things like "this document claiming that there was a binding contract because of no response from recipient is considered in detail in paragraph XX to YY of Meads". There was a fair amount of that, attaching the Chief's documents and claims to references in Meads. The Chief seemed to have pushed the issue of split personalities in his Examination so the lawyer did a pre-emptive strike on that, citing Meads on the strawman, natural, man, person, arguments. I assumed he did this to show, before the Chief had his turn, that these arguments had already been invalidated by Canadian courts.

The Chief was more difficult because he didn't have any reference breaks where things stopped while the lawyer and judge rummaged through exhibits. He just kept rolling. So I'd stop momentarily when he really started repeating himself, mainly where he was reiterating that Canada's laws didn't apply to him. Another example was at the beginning of the Chief's arguments where he said considerably more than I wrote about paddling our canoes in unison but separately and talked about the Queen's ship. I didn't take it all down because I thought he was just being rhetorical. It was only when I got home and checked out the two row treaty that I realized that the Chief was making, from his perspective, a legal point. Sorry Chief! Just my ignorance.

I may have missed some unique points the Chief made because I'd get so far behind at times that I lost track of what he was currently saying. If the notaries get a transcript they might be in a position to correct me.

Another admission of ignorance from the Society's lawyer related to the Chief's non-notorial income. I think this was in the discussion of penalties if the Chief was fined and the lawyer was commenting on the Chief's ability to pay a fine. Lawyer said he had no idea about the Chief's income or assets.

The Chief's comments that he left a good job welding in Alberta because of the hearing is quite possible. He was up in Edmonton until a few weeks before the hearing and I can see no reason to be there in winter except work. Edmonton has very hard winters.

The Chief has put this up in his Face Book;

Sino General - feeling determined
8 hrs · New Westminster ·
A Blogger who was sitting there in court has written his account of what happened in court. Burnaby49 Thanks and greet seeing you again, although we is critical i find it to be as honest as he could have drafted it. So the follow is his post, Borrowed from Quatloos website, if you wish to read it on the site, there are links and such there to follow. This is part 1, i will post part 2, in a bit to allow everyone to read this part first, you can go to the site to read b4 i post if you wish.

Thanks Chief! Feel free to link anything I write, I'm liberal in quoting from your Face Book page. Although I have my opinions and biases I try to be as accurate as possible in my court reports. If I deliberately left things out or misrepresented comments and arguments to support my own opinions my reports would be worthless. However, as I said, I had problems just keeping up with you so I may have made mistakes about some of your arguments. If so feel free to chastise me.

Scott Duncan posted this comment

Scott Duncan - Somebody needs to explain to him what "aboriginal" means, and to stop using the fucking word to describe Natives.

Fair comment. I've tried to use names that are used within the native communities. I know some don't like "Indian" because that was a white man's name used in ignorance when the early explorers thought they had found India. So I don't use that. The Chief uses "native" so that's OK. I'm not aware that "aboriginal" has negative connotations but if the Chief (not Duncan, I don't consider him authoritative on anything) confirms that I'll stop using it. While we're on the topic is "first nations" OK or not Chief? I've kept clear of that one because I have no clue. I get into enough squabbles about what I post without getting into pointless arguments because of how I name groups or peoples.

About your problems getting on to Quatloos Chief. The email address you gave me at the hearing is the one we have on file for you. An email has been sent to that address with information that should enable you to get back on to Quatloos.

Scott Duncan seems to be implying that he's a bigger computer expert than Webhick;

Scott Duncan
I can fix their phpbb mail problem in 2 minutes grin emoticon

But then Scott says a lot of things. Sort of reminds me of Erasmus of America in that respect;

viewtopic.php?f=6&t=9237

[notorial dissent]

My quibble, if you want to call it that, is that if the Society wanted to prove he was violating the court order, then that is what they should have done. What he was notarizing, other than the possible harm to the individual stupid enough to use him, is irrelevant as was whether he was charging for it or making any money from it. The burning question was, was he violating the court order, and that is what and all they should have focused on. We know he's playing legal word games, and it really isn't germane, the only legal point they had was that he was violating the court order.

I think you did a very good job getting the whole thing down, and I think it is quite clear what did go on. It just sounds to me that the Society did not put on a very good case, as opposed to the Chief who didn't put one on at all.

[Burnaby49]

As I noted I thought the emphasis on Meads excessive given that the Society's case succeeded or failed on the documents in the affidavit. The only purpose I can see to linking the Chief to Meads and the inclusion of the pre-injunction documents in the affidavit was in respect to sentencing. That might be valid, to point out that the Chief continued the same schemes he started pre-injunction in willful disobedience of the court order and did so in support of offensive schemes that had already been addressed and rejected in Canadian cases. This would counter the Chief's arguments, stated in the interview the day before the hearing, that he was just witnessing documents, and his comment in the hearing that he did not know some of the people he signed for or the purpose of the documents. Linking him to Meads and the continuation of schemes like Kurt Johnson's attempt to default on his mortgage without consequences could give grounds for a more severe sentence if the Chief loses. We'll see next Thursday. As I've said I won't be there but I'll be emailed the results as soon as the decision is out.

[LaVidaRoja]

I would love it if the judge were to point out the the Chief that ANY document that he notarized for anyone who was NOT a member of the tribes covered under the treaty and was for any purpose NOT directly connected with tribal matters was a violation of the treaty by the chief!

[Chief2k13]

Finally, im back, been a while. It was so long i totally forgot you need to have a symbol in your password, thats a horrible idea. Anyways, i will post my points later. I am busy at the moment but just wanted you all to know, i have access to the board again. Thanks again Burnaby49, hope to see you again. Just a quick question, does anyone reject our treaty, consider them invalid? i brought it up in the case, Burnaby49 had pasted it to the post above, the Two Row Wampum. Does it apply here yes or no ? IF the law says we are separate, should it not be so?

[Burnaby49]

Welcome back Chief! I can't post more myself at the moment, I have two sons and a daughter-in-law here for Sunday dinner and I've got to get back in the kitchen.

One question; Peter Daoust has posted this on your Face Book in addition to Scott Duncan's comment;

Pete Daoust
No, it's just very frustrating for a WHITE dude like me, to see Sino General fighting hard to free "your people" from the slavery mindset of being a fucking ABORIGINAL, and you guys keeps coming in Sino's thread calling yourself fucking ABORIGINAL....

I wish I could be an ORIGINAL, so I could kick your IGNORANT asses....

And if someone is straight up with his thought in here, it got to be me.....

Some of you idiots even post in Sino's thread some CHRISTIANITY bullshit, it really amaze me, it really does.....I have no idea how Sino can keep his temper over that shit.....

So what is your position on my use of "aboriginal"? OK, offensive? I wasn't aware it might be an issue and if it is I'd be happy to drop using it.

[Jeffrey]

They believe aboriginal breaks down into ab- (as in the prefix meaning not) and original, therefore not original.

Popular piece of pseudo-etymology in the Freeman spheres.

[Chief2k13]

Ok, so Jeffery,

Popular piece of pseudo-etymology in the Freeman spheres

So i assume you do not spend much time reading Etymology of words?

ab- word-forming element meaning "away, from, from off, down;" from Latin ab-, ab "off, away from," cognate with Greek apo "away from, from," Sanskrit apa "away from," Gothic af, Old English of, from PIE root *apo- (see apo-). Reduced to a- before -m-, -p-, or -v-; sometimes abs- before -c- or -t-.

This looks to me to show the what "Ab" is , its right in there, do you deny it? Love how once you attach freeman to something, it becomes discredited, so all etymology is freeman now because they use it, or just when regular people use it, only accredited folk can use it ? im confused here.

[Burnaby49]

The use of AB as "away from" might have that meaning in some english words but many words cannot be split apart because they are derived from non-english sources that did not have this breakdown of parts. Not every english word starting with Ab can be construed as meaning "away from" so they cannot be parsed down using that meaning. But some people think all English words have hidden meanings that enslave us or give power to the goverment just by innocent useage. I remember at that seminar Capri was doing that with everything anyone said. Every word had a secret meaning that could only be revealed through her analysis of breaking the word into component parts. You walked through a minefield saying anything to her.

The Oxford English Dictionary, the definitive reference for the origin of English words, says "aboriginal" derives from latin and meant, at least when first the first known example was used in 1667;

"Dwelling in any country before the arrival of later (European) colonists."

"first or earliest use as far history or science gives record; primitive; strictly native, indigenous. Used both of the races and natural features of various lands"

At least that is what it meant in 1888 when the first folio of the dictionary, covering A and B came out. The definition above is from that folio and the meaning may have evolved since then.

[Chief2k13]

Many people dont like the use of it anymore, many still use it mainly because alot of the organizations are called Aboriginal. There are many words that can be broken apart, the latin comes to mind with this. To be on the safe side, i think the use of aboriginal should not be used, native is fine, indigenous is still up in the air, again most are good with it. I just prefer native or originals or the actual name for the tribe one is from which would be the proper way. Like not everyone who is white is from British background, Irish, Scottish etc..etc..

[Chief2k13]

Here is from the online etymology,


aborigine (n.) Look up aborigine at Dictionary.com
1858, mistaken singular of aborigines (1540s; the correct singular is aboriginal), from Latin Aborigines "the first ancestors of the Romans; the first inhabitants" (especially of Latium), possibly a tribal name, or from or made to conform to ab origine, literally "from the beginning." Extended 1789 to natives of other countries which Europeans have colonized. Australian slang shortening Abo attested from 1922.

There is the ab again, in the ab origine, from the beginning, but that is a bit confusing, because above also shows ab meaning away and such.

[LordEd]

If the treaty exists and is valid, I'd like to know if your actions to 'notarize' documents for canadians to be used in canadian courts constitutes interference. If so, what penalties will be imposed up on you for this violation?

[Burnaby49]

Many people dont like the use of it anymore, many still use it mainly because alot of the organizations are called Aboriginal. There are many words that can be broken apart, the latin comes to mind with this. To be on the safe side, i think the use of aboriginal should not be used, native is fine, indigenous is still up in the air, again most are good with it. I just prefer native or originals or the actual name for the tribe one is from which would be the proper way. Like not everyone who is white is from British background, Irish, Scottish etc..etc..

Native it is. Works for me.