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

[Burnaby49]

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?

I'm not going to get into a long discussion on this because your question is so vague that it invites long arguments with moving goalposts;

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?

Them? Are we talking about all treaties or just Two Row Wampum? If you mean all, no I don't reject all of them, many are clearly valid and legally binding on both sides. But Two Row Wampum is not supported by Canadian caselaw (more on that below) and I am not aware of any other treaty that says "we are separate". Apart from general comments you made at the hearing about the Two Row Wampum Treaty you cited nothing indicating a law that supports your argument that you are immune to Canadian law. Even with treaties that are clearly binding you can't extend them to a writ of independence from Canadian laws. Since the Two Row Wampum Treaty has been rejected by Canadian courts you get no support there.

I'll give you my opinion of what is going to happen on Thursday. I think you are going to lose because the judge will place no weight on any of your arguments. I'm not entirely negative, you might win but if you do it will not be because of the Two Row Wampum arguments or any other treaty nor will it be because of your dual person arguments. It will be because the judge does not accept the validity of the documents in the Society's affidavit. He seemed concerned about proof that you (and I mean all the various you's, he's not going to acquit because Hajistahenhway notarised things and the "you" at court was Chief Sino General) signed them. This is a technical error relating to evidence which is unrelated to treaties or split personalities.

So why do I say that the Two Row Wampum Treaty has been rejected by our courts? Because you are not the first person to bring it up as a defence. I have some cases that I found covering this issue. The courts rejected the claimed treaty defence in all of them. If you have any cases that show the treaty was accepted by a Canadian court please give me the citation.

I'll go to the Supreme Court of Canada first. Mitchell v. M.N.R., [2001] 1 SCR 911, 2001 SCC 33 provides an answer. Two Row Wampum was clearly addressed - Binnie references it at paras 127-131 of his minority opinion. It isn't even mentioned by the majority who reject the alleged Mohawk international trade right, but it was clearly advanced. I'd say the SCC has implicitly indicated the Two Row Wampum is irrelevant, or at least not the Magical Bullet that you want it to be.

127 In the constitutional framework envisaged by the respondent, the claimed aboriginal right is simply a manifestation of the more fundamental relationship between the aboriginal and non-aboriginal people. In the Mohawk tradition this relationship is memorialized by the “two-row” wampum, referred to by the respondent in Exhibit D-13, at pp. 109-110, and in his trial evidence (trans., vol. 2, at pp. 191-92), and described in the Haudenosaunee presentation to the Parliamentary Special Committee on Indian Self-Government in 1983 as follows:

When the Haudenosaunee first came into contact with the European nations, treaties of peace and friendship were made. Each was symbolized by the Gus-Wen-Tah or Two Row Wampum. There is a bed of white wampum which symbolizes the purity of the agreement. There are two rows of purple, and those two rows have the spirit of your ancestors and mine. There are three beads of wampum separating the two rows and they symbolize peace, friendship and respect.

These two rows will symbolize two paths or two vessels, travelling down the same river together. One, a birch bark canoe, will be for the Indian people, their laws, their customs and their ways. The other, a ship, will be for the white people and their laws, their customs and their ways. We shall each travel the river together, side by side, but in our own boat. Neither of us will try to steer the other's vessel.

(Indian Self-Government in Canada: Report of the Special Committee (1983), back cover)

128 Thus, in the “two-row” wampum there are two parallel paths. In one path travels the aboriginal canoe. In the other path travels the European ship. The two vessels co-exist but they never touch. Each is the sovereign of its own destiny.

129 The modern embodiment of the “two-row” wampum concept, modified to reflect some of the realities of a modern state, is the idea of a “merged” or “shared” sovereignty. “Merged sovereignty” asserts that First Nations were not wholly subordinated to non-aboriginal sovereignty but over time became merger partners. The final Report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, vol. 2 (Restructuring the Relationship (1996)), at p. 214, says that “Aboriginal governments give the constitution [of Canada] its deepest and most resilient roots in the Canadian soil.” This updated concept of Crown sovereignty is of importance. Whereas historically the Crown may have been portrayed as an entity across the seas with which aboriginal people could scarcely be expected to identify, this was no longer the case in 1982 when the s. 35(1) reconciliation process was established. The Constitution was patriated and all aspects of our sovereignty became firmly located within our borders. If the principle of “merged sovereignty” articulated by the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples is to have any true meaning, it must include at least the idea that aboriginal and non-aboriginal Canadians together form a sovereign entity with a measure of common purpose and united effort. It is this new entity, as inheritor of the historical attributes of sovereignty, with which existing aboriginal and treaty rights must be reconciled.

130 The final Report of the Royal Commission on Aboriginal Peoples, vol. 2, goes on to describe “shared” sovereignty at pp. 240-41 as follows:

Shared sovereignty, in our view, is a hallmark of the Canadian federation and a central feature of the three-cornered relations that link Aboriginal governments, provincial governments and the federal government. These governments are sovereign within their respective spheres and hold their powers by virtue of their constitutional status rather than by delegation. Nevertheless, many of their powers are shared in practice and may be exercised by more than one order of government.

On this view, to return to the nautical metaphor of the “two-row” wampum, “merged” sovereignty is envisaged as a single vessel (or ship of state) composed of the historic elements of wood, iron and canvas. The vessel's components pull together as a harmonious whole, but the wood remains wood, the iron remains iron and the canvas remains canvas. Non-aboriginal leaders, including Sir Wilfrid Laurier, have used similar metaphors. It represents, in a phrase, partnership without assimilation.

131 The s. 35(1) issue arising out of all this is signalled in the style of cause. The respondent sued as “GRAND CHIEF MICHAEL MITCHELL also known as KANENTAKERON”. He lives with a foot simultaneously in two cultural communities, each with its own framework of legal rights and responsibilities. As Kanentakeron he describes learning from his grandfather the spiritual practices of the People of the Longhouse, whose roots in North America go back perhaps 10,000 years. Yet the name Michael Mitchell announces that he is also part of modern Canada who watches television from time to time and went to high school in Cornwall. As much as anyone else in this country, he is a part of our collective sovereignty. He writes in Exhibit D-13, at p. 135:

If anyone thinks that Mohawks are anti-Canadian or American, then we kindly remind you that First Nations in North America, in ratio to other nationalities, sent more soldiers to the First and Second World Wars. Since we usually wound up on the front lines, many of our people didn't make it home.

A recent case is M.M. (Re), 2013 ABPC 59 which specifically rejected the Two Row Wampum Treaty in paragraphs 90 and 91;

[90] The final difficulty is whether a "state to state" or "nation to nation" claim is realistically available in this case, and whether a sec. 35(1) of Constitutional Act, 1982, is also available or applicable. The Attorney General of Alberta has submitted that there is no authority for any proposition that the Two Row Wampum, the Silver Covenant Chain or the Jay Treaty confer rights to immunity from provincial laws. The Attorney General has argued that the courts have uniformly rejected the proposition that aboriginal persons are immune, in a general sense, from the laws of Canada and the Provinces. The Attorney General has relied on the following cases:

a) R. v. Day Chief, 2007 ABCA 22 (CanLII), 2007 CarswellAlta 44

b) R. v. Janvier, 2000 ABQB 187 (CanLII), 2000, Carswell Alta 295

c) R. v. Yellowhorn, 2006 ABQB 307 (CanLII)

d) R. v. David, 2000, CarswellOnt 540, [2000] O.J. No. 561 (S.C.J.)

[91] In R. v. David, 2000, CarswellOnt 540, [2000] O.J. No. 561 the accused had argued that as a member of the Mohawk Nation, a member of the “Haundensosaunee” Band, that he was immune from prosecution and that the court had no jurisdiction over him. The accused relied on the “Two Row Wampum” and the “Silver Covenant Chain”. Justice Rutherford of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice rejected these arguments stating:


Mr. David's claim, essentially a claim for full aboriginal Mohawk sovereignty, is not a novel one. It is a proposition that has been considered by Canadian courts on numerous occasions. It has never been accepted and I am certainly bound to reject it as well. Canada sovereignty is a legal reality recognized by the “law of nations”. Claims such as has been advanced in this case by Mr. David do not make that reality less real.

Another recent case is R. v. Jamieson, 2013 ONCJ 662. In this the defendant was found criminally liable although she advanced the Two Row position and claimed, because of it, she was immune from the application of Canadian laws. I understand this to be your position also. From Jamieson;

DEFENCES

[33] Ms. Jamieson did not call evidence. During her submissions, she tendered a number of newspaper articles about CANACE and the activities of its members. I entered these as exhibits. They are not evidence however. In any event, the information contained in them was pretty much common knowledge to everyone in the criminal courts in Haldimand County.

[34] Ms. Jamieson never clearly articulated any formal defence.

[35] She did however ask certain questions of the Crown witnesses and make certain comments to me that made me believe that she might be advancing certain arguments in her defence. In light of the fact that she is not represented by counsel, I intend to address those issues as if she had advanced them as arguments in her defence.

JURISDICTION

[36] The first issue is whether this court has the jurisdiction to try Ms. Jamieson.

[37] She repeatedly told me during the trial that “I do not recognize your laws”.

[38] She asked Crown witnesses if they knew anything about the “Two Row Wampum” or the “Nanfan Treaty”.

[39] I was able, with the assistance of several textbooks,[6] to refresh my memory with respect to the following information.

[40] In 1664, the Haudenosaunee entered into an agreement with the British King’s agents called the Treaty of Albany or the Two Row Wampum or the Kaswehntha (the River of Life). In its simplest form, the resulting relationship was symbolized by a ship and a canoe which were moving separately but in the same direction.[7]

[41] This relationship of two separate nations agreeing to work together was reaffirmed in subsequent agreements, especially the Royal Proclamation of October 7, 1763[8] and the Treaty of Niagara in 1764[9].

[42] The Nanfan Treaty[10] ceded title to certain lands to the Crown in return for perpetual hunting rights being retained by the Haudenosaunee.

[43] All of these agreements have previously been cited in support of arguments raised by various accused persons to the effect that the Crown in Right of Canada has no criminal law jurisdiction over aboriginal persons, especially members of the Haudenosaunee. These arguments have consistently been rejected by courts whose decisions are binding on me.

[44] In R. v. Sparrow, the Supreme Court of Canada stated that:

It is worth recalling that while British policy towards the native population was based on respect for their right to occupy their traditional lands a proposition to which the Royal Proclamation of 1763 bears witness, there was from the outset never any doubt that the sovereignty and legislative power, and indeed the underlying title to such lands vested in the Crown.[11]

[45] In R. v. Pamajewon, the Ontario Court of Appeal stated that Sparrow “plainly established that sovereignty and legislative power are vested in the Crown”.[12]

[46] The Court of Appeal reached a similar conclusion in Ro: Ri: Wi: Io v. Canada (Attorney General).[13]

[47] In R. v. David[14], R. v. Francis[15] and R. v. Gibson[16], three separate Justices of the Ontario Superior Court of Justice all rejected the argument that members of the Haudenosaunee were exempt from the application of Canadian criminal law.

[48] Accordingly, I also reject any argument that Ms. Jamieson is exempt from prosecution here as a result of her status as a Haudenosaunee woman.

I suggest we just wait until Thursday to continue the discussion about treaties. You said a number of times in court that if it decided against you all of Canada's treaties would be invalidated because the Queen, as represented by the court, will have broken her oath to the natives by rejecting the Two Wampum Treaty. So, if you lose, there will be no longer be any legally binding relationships of any kind between the government of Canada and the native population. So let's watch the chaos that ensues. Let's see which native groups and communities support you and declare independence.

[Burnaby49]

The Chief isn't entirely alone. Microsoft seems to be on his side. At least they are warning us, indirectly but clearly, about British Columbia notaries and their proclivity for extreme violence when crossed. The Chief said in his Face Book;

So today went well, showed into court with my full regalia, as did the lawyers but judge did not wear a black robe as per norm. The lawyer went on and on about how ppl were coming as freeman on the land, opca litigant, and I was vexatious litigant. Brought nothing but copies of the documents and I requested originals be brought forth into the court as copies can be manipulated ie: photoshop. I made my presentation and informed the court the lack of jurisdiction, lack of au...thority to tell any of my people what they can and cannot do. Their authority stops at Canadians. Their authority cant be spread to places like China or Australia so why does it cross over on to our ppl of our nation? Your a nation on our nation. Your on unceded territory, not sold not conquered. If they are under obligation to Her Majesty even bringing someone like myself to court is a breach /contempt of court/oath and international law. The judge seemed a bit distant but totally critical of lawyers presentation docs. Notary lawyer seemed a bit unprepared but I also brought up the fact that he has no experience or knowledge of native law or treaties. Didn't believe him to be qualified to be making his statements. Squirmed alot while I was up giving my version and questions to the court. Also room was pretty empty besides the big group of people who stood on my side. I also pointed this out. No one from public was on notary publics side to stand With them. They also disempowered the public by saying their not intelligent nor have the ability to create lawful documents that have any force or effect of any kind ... the general public are powerless .... only lawyers and courts can make notices that truly are legally affective ..... There is more but I will type it later. Resumes this Thursday at 9am downtown Supreme Court. Floor 5 I would assume.

I do my posting in Microsoft Word then cut and past them to Quatloos. When I ran the above comment through the Microsoft Office Spellcheck it changed;

"No one from public was on notary publics side to stand With them. They also disempowered the public by saying their not intelligent nor have the ability to create lawful documents that have any force or effect of any kind ..."

to;

"No one from public was on notary publics side to stand With them. They also disemboweled the public by saying their not intelligent nor have the ability to create lawful documents that have any force or effect of any kind ..."

Obviously a message from Microsoft about what we can expect from the notaries! I asked Ron Usher to notify me about what happens on Thursday but I told him to do it by email. I'm not going near any of the Society's members!

[Burnaby49]

Two Row Times has responded;

http://www.tworowtimes.com/news/nationa ... ermission/

[LightinDarkness]

Burnaby, thanks for reporting on the crazies as always. I am not so sure this is a slam dunk though - it should be, but for reasons that boggle the mind Canada has continued to show incredible lenience to OCPAs. Just like with the Dean Clifford case where he gets exonerated on a technicality, if there is one to be found here the judge will find it and let the Chief off. It will have nothing to do with the Chief's arguments, of course, but he will still present it as a sovcit victory and proof that his brand of crazy actually works.

I think the Society's lawyer was on the right path. The court should care about people exhibiting OCPA patterns of behavior. When they do that, as the Chief does, you can know what to expect from them and its good to establish this in the court record. That the judge didn't seem to care is a bit concerning.

Given how Canada seems to give OCPAs endless chances no matter what they do, I would not be surprised if the Chief only gets a very minor slap on the hand for this. Which will simply backfire on the court system as it will embolden other crazies.

[Chief2k13]

I am not sure of the outcome, I am, of course siding with the known facts. Fact, there is a treaty, it's posted here. Regardless of court points of view or past decisions. I see it as a breach of agreement under international law. International courts would have to bring the Queen and Canada to the courts to hear their case, as to why it is allowed and what will be done to remedy the issues. The many years of breach and violence against their allies Is coming to a head.

This is but one of many to come, inspiring many and waking up their spirits with such a matter. It will be but a matter of time before more and more will come forward. The use of Canadian id shows the participaton in Canadian society but merely by force of harassment and violence by a military ramped up police state. Same as I mentioned from the attack by Rcmp in 1924 against our traditional govt and stealing our treaty Belts which were original.

A time is here and many nation's are working to create their own courts, peace keepers and notary Societies. This question on whether our agreements are even valid in the eyes of a group of men who are in a full on conflict of interest, bias points of view by allegedly owning land that has never been sold. Unceded territory. How can a court legally operate in lands never given up or sold? Anyways hate typing thru my cell phone. I'm rambling now and I will stop lol. I will get back on point when in front of a cpu.

[wserra]

I am not sure of the outcome, I am, of course siding with the known facts.

Good.

Fact, there is a treaty, it's posted here. Regardless of court points of view or past decisions. I see it as a breach of agreement under international law.

Bad.

The United Nations Treaty Collection is an exhaustive collection of literally thousands of treaties. The UN claims that every treaty in force under international law is there. Canada is in fact a participant in hundreds of them. If has a very sophisticated search engine. Please link to the one you're talking about. If it's not there, "international law" - which is not what you and Ms. Monchalin think it is in any event - does not recognize it.

International courts would have to bring the Queen and Canada to the courts to hear their case

Which "international courts" are those? The International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea? The International Criminal Tribunal for the former Yugoslavia? Which? The closest is the International Court of Justice, and that's not close at all. For example, only member states of the UN (and a very few others, such as Switzerland before it joined) can be parties, and the Court can only decide disputes between states. Much as you'd like to be, you're not a state. You don't get to stroll into the Hague as though it were small claims court.

So all of this stuff is either wishful thinking or simply gibberish. "Known facts"? You don't cite any.

[Bill Lumbergh]

The "unceded territory" argument has also been tried and rejected many times. For example, see Cook, 2010 ONSC 675: http://canlii.ca/t/27sk9

The applicants were seeking various orders, including a declaration that provincial courts in Ontario have no jurisdiction in unceded, unsurrendered indigenous territory. The grounds for their arguments were (emphasis added):

[5] The grounds for their application are stated as follows:

(a) The respondents are Indigenous Persons and are protected by Section 35(1) of the Constitution Acts 1867 to 1982;

(b) The respondents are facing identical fundamental issues, properly qualified as quasi in rem pertaining to the Crown/Indigenous relationship, inherently implying that the public has an interest beyond the purely private interests of the parties;

(c) The respondents state that the Province’s adjudicative framework must accord with the division of powers under the Constitution Act, 1867, particularly in the presence of a charge pursuant to a statute that is explicitly federal in source and nature;

(d) The respondents state that the Provincial Court has no jurisdiction in unceded, unsurrendered Indigenous Territory, voiding its assumption of jurisdiction ab initio, based on how title and jurisdiction were acquired by the Royal Charter of the Hudson’s Bay 1670, through the Treaty of Paris of 1763, the Royal Proclamation of 1763, the British North America Act of 1867 and the Rupert’s Land and North-Western Territory Royal Order, June 23, 1879;

(e) The respondents state that institutional bias exists in the prosecution and the court system as it applied to Indigenous Peoples in the Province of Ontario, considering the ecclesiastical court of the Royal Order of the Garter inform the judicial system as against Indigenous Peoples, expressed in the motto “honi soit qui mal y pense – Dieu et mon droit” (Evil to him who thinks evil of me – God and my law);

(f) The respondents state that the Superior Court must investigate an allegation of institutional bias, especially in light of the sensitive Crown/Indigenous relationship since the 1600s to the present. The fundamental principles enunciated in Gladue are at work in their identification of systemic issues facing Indigenous Peoples, requiring a more in-depth analysis of the relationship than can be provided by the nature of the powers granted to a Provincial Court;

(g) The respondents state that the Provincial Court cannot grant injunctive and declaratory relief, a resulting bar to a Provincial Court deciding these questions.

The court didn't buy it:

[16] With the exception of R. v. Fournier, supra, the courts have consistently held that Canadian courts have jurisdiction to hear or determine criminal prosecutions of aboriginal offenders. Just as clearly, the courts have held that an Ontario Provincial Court has jurisdiction over an aboriginal offender regardless of the fact that the offence occurred on unceded territory. (R. v. Pamajewon, 1994 CanLII 2716 (ON CA), [1994] O.J. No 3028, at para. 59 (ONCA); R. v. Snake, [1996] O.J. No 2151 (ONCA)). The decision in R. v. Fournier supra was not followed by Langston J. in R. v. Yellowhorn, [2006] A.J. No 491 at para. 50, who in a detailed review of a number of authorities concerning constitutional and jurisdictional issues rejected O’Neill J.’s finding that the argument was novel and complex. She noted that her detailed review of the relevant authorities suggested otherwise. The Court of Appeal agreed. (R v. Fournier 2006 CanLII 20526 (ON CA), [2006] O.J. No 2434 at para. 10)

[17] Hackland J. in a carefully written analysis in R. v. Francis, [2007] O.J. 966 rejected virtually the same arguments as those advanced in this application and held they were without merit, and frivolous and vexatious. R. v. Sarazin, [2009] O.J. No 4145 (S.C.J., appeal pending) also fits into this category.

[Burnaby49]

I'll be watching the unceded land defense in action on Thursday. Rory Hawes is up on charges of driving without a license and has tried to argue in two prior hearings that British Columbia has no jurisdiction over him because the province is really unceded Salish land.

Then Rory went on how the government was trying to bind him to a contract and since he was too sharp to fall for that one the Crown had no authority over him. Judge asked Crown counsel if the case involved a contract. No your honour. Rory said that since the Crown had admitted there was no contract the case was over and he could walk. Judge brought up the awkward point that Rory was charged under statutory law of British Columbia not contract law and he would have to deal with the charge as legislated. Rory had the answer to that! He said he was going to argue at trial that the province of British Columbia did not exist and the laws of British Columbia were therefore invalid. He based this position on the argument that the government had not successfully managed to finalize valid treaties with the original natives and this meant they still owned and controlled it, not some fictitious provincial entity. Judge said that argument had zero merit and a complete waste of time. There was going to be a trial regardless of Rory's opinions on whether the laws existed or attached to him and he should focus his energies on defending his case on its merits.

Judge asked how long parties expected trial to last. Crown said a few hours at most. They only had one witness, a police officer, he would take five minutes on direct. Not Rory! He hoped to dispose of the matter through his jurisdictional argument that British Columbia was unceded tribal land still belonging to the Coast Salish aboriginal band so the government of British Columbia had no jurisdiction over him. Additionally he planned to argue that his prosecution was illegal because it violated his human rights as stipulated in The Universal Declaration of Human Rights, a declaration adopted by the United Nations in 1948. Since he planned to enter evidence about aboriginal treaties, or the lack of them, and whatever he had in respect to the Declaration he planned for the full day and possibly the next.

Judge asked if a plea had been entered. Rory said he had not pleaded anything because there was no proof that he was under the court's jurisdiction and that issue, and his complaint about his human rights violations, had to be addressed before the trial. The judge immediately cut him off at the knees. To quote "I'm one of those judges who will not allow you to argue jurisdictional issues. Jurisdiction is well established in this court, and others, and is discussed in Meads v. Meads."

Rory seemed elated when I talked to him in the lobby. "Did you see how she (judge) tried to shut things off when British Columbia came up? She didn't want to talk about it." He said he thought that jurisdiction was now an issue that he could argue. I gave him my opinion that the judge was only going to allow him a very short leash on that topic and only during his cross-examination of the officer so he should focus on the cross. Note that this victory, small as it will eventually turn out to be, was not based on something Rory noticed or brought up. It resulted from a disclosure that Crown counsel made that othrwise would not have been even noticed.

At the end of the second hearing he was allowed to make some submission about British Columbia so I assume Rory will try again.

viewtopic.php?f=48&t=10338

On a different topic the Chief has posted my comments about the validity of the Two Row Wampum Treaty on his Face Book page. It has triggered a very lively debate.

[The Observer]

Much as you'd like to be, you're not a state. You don't get to stroll into the Hague as though it were small claims court.

And this is indicative of how the Chief is just grabbing desperately at straws by trying to convince anyone listening that he has the right to drag sovereign nations into andy court and try to indict them by innuendo and implication. He doesn't know how to do it, but he believes it is up to the courts to do the right thing, once he has brought it to their attention. This alone should convince any person that Sino has bought into and adopted the OPCA/Freemen way of thinking, his belated efforts to distance himself from them should be ignored as self-serving.

[Jeffrey]

Interesting to see how detached from the actual jurisprudence these guys are. It's a good example of the dangers of cultural/social isolation and living in an echo chamber. The fact that the Two Row Times is named after a "treaty" that the courts have repeatedly stated has no validity is striking.

Seems like you have a bunch of natives telling one another that they're immune from Canadian laws then running up against a harsh reality when they actually test it.

How common is the belief that aboriginals are immune?

And hey while Chief is here, I asked a few months back before you lost forum access whether you had ever notarized any of Dean Clifford's documents based on some interviews you had given which indicated you had acted as a notary for someone who was in a situation very similar to Dean, combined with some interviews with Dean and Darren which mentioned that they had used a "native" as a notary. So what's the story there?

Heck, while we're at it, what's up with you and Winston Shrout? Did he drag you into the fake notary game? The whole thing strikes me as ironic, Shrout and Clifford's theories having racist / white supremacist origins yet you as an aboriginal collaborate with them and play their game?

[Hyrion]

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-.

Sometimes the meaning of words is not so easy to break down. Here's the common definition of the term "aboriginal" as I understand it, having learned this definition in school as well as understanding it from various authored works including works by "natives of the land".

inhabiting or existing in a land from the earliest times or from before the arrival of colonists

That - in my humble opinion and understanding - has nothing to do with "away, from, from off, down" etc.

On that note: every person has a right (not one encoded in Law/Constitution but one encoded in basic ethics/morals in my humble opinion) to be known as they choose. As a result, any reference to your race that I make will be one that honors your choice of being referred to as Native.

A clear example that confirms Burnaby49s opinion of:

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.

abIe:

• able: having the power, skill, means, or opportunity to do something

Such as being used in the question:

• Are you - Chief2k13 - able to represent yourself in a Court Of Law, whether that be Canadian, International or your own cultures Court?

Meanwhile, able could (if one really wanted to try and mangle the understanding such as for purposes of trying to confuse things rather than clarify) be broken down into "ab":

• away; from.

and "le":

• forming names of appliances or instruments. ex bridle

• forming names of animals and plants. ex beetle

So.... in that reading, "able" really means:

• away from the name of an appliance/instrument/animal/plan

which makes no sense in the context:

• are you able to represent yourself?

[Burnaby49]

I am not sure of the outcome, I am, of course siding with the known facts. Fact, there is a treaty, it's posted here. Regardless of court points of view or past decisions. I see it as a breach of agreement under international law. International courts would have to bring the Queen and Canada to the courts to hear their case, as to why it is allowed and what will be done to remedy the issues. The many years of breach and violence against their allies Is coming to a head.

Whether you think you know something to be a fact is irrelevant in respect to the decision of the court. You have to convince them of the facts. What you submitted to the court was arguments unsupported by facts. As I said in an earlier posting;

However, regardless of the strength of his arguments, there was a serious evidential weakness in the Chief's defence. 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 defence. 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 defence without any backup. Maybe there is at least a possibility of an arguable defence 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.

You consider the Two Row Wampum Treaty to be a fact and you argued that the treaty protected your right to ignore Canada's laws. I disagree but my opinion has no bearing on the outcome of the case. That will be determined by the judge when he considers the arguments and reviews the facts submitted to support them. And you did not submit any facts to support your position on the treaty, you just gave him oral comments. You did not file a copy of the treaty, if such a copy even exists, there are doubts. You did not cite specific parts of the treaty that you relied on unless the impossibly vague comments about canoes and ships sailing together is your defense of your position. So you gave the judge nothing to consider. At a minimum you should have filed something about the treaty itself so the judge would know what you were talking about. Even the Wikipedia history would have been something. In addition you needed to cite caselaw showing that prior decisions had considered the treaty and deemed it to be relevant. We're talking about a purported treaty that is claimed to have been in effect for almost four hundred years and which you argued has immense implications for the relationship between Canada and it's native population but you filed nothing to show it even existed outside of fantasy. The only caselaw I can find in respect to it rejected it as a defense.

While the Society had arguments these were really of little weight, they are relying on the documents they submitted through the affidavit. They submitted facts backed by arguments. You submitted arguments without facts. If the judge decides for you he will do so because he rejects the Society's documents for technical reasons to do with proof. If he decides against you he will do so because he accepts the documents. Nothing you said in court will affect that because you gave him no facts to consider. I'm not questioning that you sincerely believe that the Two Wampum Treaty is a known fact but it is not known to the judge without evidence and you did nothing to provide the evidence he needed to consider your arguments.

[Burnaby49]

The Chief isn't the only one having problems with facts. The discussion on the Chief's Face Book page about my posting in respect to the courts rejecting the Two Row Wampum treaty has generated very lively debate. Scott Duncan had this (amongst many, many other things) to say;

Scott Duncan - There is a reason this whole case went this far. Somebody is going to have to pay the bill for this (*cough* Law Society), so it had better be worth it!

They are trying to get rid of it, and make you accept such ridiculous concepts as "no longer relevant", so you don't see what is being stolen from you.

In this particular treaty, ALL NATIVES can act in commerce WITH PRIVILEGE ("Extra Rights" ...yes I see the irony ). Notarization is one of MANY in this particular treaty.

It's the first step to kicking you off your land and jailing you.

...ignore that at your own peril.

Please try and be more accurate regarding easily verified facts Scott, the Law Society of British Columbia has no dog in this fight. The action was filed by the Society of Notaries Public of British Columbia, an entirely different organization. As for the "somebody" that has to pay the bill that would be the members of the Society of Notaries Public of British Columbia. However feel free to look for secret conspiracies funding them from the shadows. I'd bet that the society's members, when they pay their annual dues, wish that were true.

[The Observer]

They are trying to get rid of it, and make you accept such ridiculous concepts as "no longer relevant", so you don't see what is being stolen from you.

And as another indicator of sovrun/freeman thought patterns, Scott falls back on the "magic words" belief that the government will rely on to win their case. But remember, the Chief has been studying the "magic use" of words (remember his claim that "spelling", related to the work "spell" is indicative that something magical is involved when words are used - someday Sino might learn that just because words can have more than one meaning it is not proof that something sinister is happening). I would have fully expected the Chief to have used some examples of that kind of magic in court when presenting his case. But apparently he forgot his incantations and let the Society get a marginal leg up on him when they "outspelled" him.

I agree with Burnaby that if the judge rules against the Society, then it was their attorney's fault for not getting his ducks in a row. None of that means that the Chief is correct - he will have just gotten lucky that the judge is holding the plaintiff to a correct standard of providing evidence in a case. But we know it won't be presented in that way by the Chief and his cohorts. This will become one of those miscited and mislabled cases where the sovruns will claim an overwhelming victory, that the judge's ruling means anyone can be a notarty, that the Two Wampum Treaty is recognised by the court as binding international law and that the Chief has destroyed the Canadian government.

We have seen this kind of stuff before.

[Burnaby49]

I agree with Burnaby that if the judge rules against the Society, then it was their attorney's fault for not getting his ducks in a row. None of that means that the Chief is correct - he will have just gotten lucky that the judge is holding the plaintiff to a correct standard of providing evidence in a case. But we know it won't be presented in that way by the Chief and his cohorts. This will become one of those miscited and mislabled cases where the sovruns will claim an overwhelming victory, that the judge's ruling means anyone can be a notarty, that the Two Wampum Treaty is recognised by the court as binding international law and that the Chief has destroyed the Canadian government.

I hope that last part isn't true. The Canadian government pays my pension. You know, I can see a conspiracy angle there. If I didn't have a pension I couldn't spare the time to go out to trials like the Chief's and report on them. So I suppose the Chief has an argument that I'm a paid minion of the federal government tasked with the mission of discrediting the Two Row Wampum Treaty so the government can continue oppressing the native population. If so they are not paying me enough.

[Chief2k13]

hey while Chief is here, I asked a few months back before you lost forum access whether you had ever notarized any of Dean Clifford's documents based on some interviews you had given which indicated you had acted as a notary for someone who was in a situation very similar to Dean, combined with some interviews with Dean and Darren which mentioned that they had used a "native" as a notary. So what's the story there?

Heck, while we're at it, what's up with you and Winston Shrout? Did he drag you into the fake notary game? The whole thing strikes me as ironic, Shrout and Clifford's theories having racist / white supremacist origins yet you as an aboriginal collaborate with them and play their game?

No, nothing was done for Dean, we met a few times but nothing came of it, met Robert as well but nothing came of it, we of 2 worlds, different, although what would look like the same position. It is not. We are not Canadian for one, we are not settlers like most freeman, we are original to these UNSOLD, unceded lands.

There is no game, its as i say over and over history, its in the damn history books in school, its a part of how this damn situation came to be in the first place. I wonder, if our ppl just said f#$K it and killed everyone who arrived here because we didnt trust them. To this day, none of them are trustworthy. Courts never had the authority in the first place to make any case law dealing with any members of our confederacy, regardless of what any judge may say, its not his position, he would be overstepping his duties by even making a decision. As i pointed out in court, any treaty member in their courts should be in a federal court not a provincial court, at the very least. I also thank the notary society for even taking on this case because you bring such a highlight to this on going issue that will never go away.

What should i care about case law? That applies to Canadians or subjects of Her Majesty. As i said, i do not know what he will say, i know, the treaties are there, why should i bring any paperwork into their courts to prove it, if they are to ignorant to know it or pretend it doesnt exist. I would say, they are criminally minded, they fall under treason would it not, for not following the Royal families prior arrangements ? Anyways, we can talk all we want, it goes to a head Thursday, either way it goes, the press will twist it up stupid like how they twisted up the story in the first place. Such focus on the freeman crap, its sickening that is their only play. Seems like of shallow, that is all they could throw around. Again, if i was a settlers sure, i am not, so its moot as the legal minds might say.

[Jeffrey]

Such focus on the freeman crap, its sickening that is their only play

I guess it does get annoying after a while but in my defense, your YouTube channel contains 2 separate interviews with Winston Shrout, one 90 minutes and the other one 2 hours long, in which you discussed the very things that got you in trouble.

What it looks like here is that either via watching his material on YouTube or during his seminars in Canada or through conversations with him, Shrout put the idea in your head to act as a fake notary to "legitimize" freeman documents and foisted unilateral contracts etc.

And hey you just reminded me, whatever happened to your attempt at eradicating Jane Millers student loan debt?

[LordEd]

You forget the great oral tradition of the freeman to not repeat things once the results are in.

Crossed with the chief's traditions, it will be non-spoken for generations.

[PeanutGallery]

My thoughts, which go along with some other posters in this thread, is that the two row wampum treaty (hereafter the treaty) was between the five nations of the Iroquois (Haudenosaunee) and the Dutch. It effectively set out that both people could live peacefully on the land and would maintain entirely separate governments and forms of government. This would allow each to maintain their own laws and traditions.

I do not recall their having been a tradition among the Native population of North America for Notaries. While my knowledge of Native affairs is, admittedly limited, I cannot say that I have heard of a tradition for Notaries in any Native American forms of government before European settlers arrived and brought with them their scriveners.

As such the Chief can only be acting as a Notary if he has proverbially gotten into the canoe of the Canadian government, and for that purpose is no different to any other Canadian citizen. I would have to agree with earlier posters that the Chiefs own actions have made any reliance on the treaty seem somewhat hypocritical as it seems to only apply in a selective basis.

[Burnaby49]

My thoughts, which go along with some other posters in this thread, is that the two row wampum treaty (hereafter the treaty) was between the five nations of the Iroquois (Haudenosaunee) and the Dutch. It effectively set out that both people could live peacefully on the land and would maintain entirely separate governments and forms of government. This would allow each to maintain their own laws and traditions.

I do not recall their having been a tradition among the Native population of North America for Notaries. While my knowledge of Native affairs is, admittedly limited, I cannot say that I have heard of a tradition for Notaries in any Native American forms of government before European settlers arrived and brought with them their scriveners.

As such the Chief can only be acting as a Notary if he has proverbially gotten into the canoe of the Canadian government, and for that purpose is no different to any other Canadian citizen. I would have to agree with earlier posters that the Chiefs own actions have made any reliance on the treaty seem somewhat hypocritical as it seems to only apply in a selective basis.

A notary at the hearing made a similar comment to me. He said that they have no record of notarial practices utilized by the natives in the 1600s.