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

[PeanutGallery]

I would think it more, what use is a Notary to a Native, living as part of the First Nations and not doing, or intending to do, any business with the wider society of Canada, how are Notaries used within Native communities? I don't know the answer to this and would like to find out.

I do know that Notaries are used in Canadian society and the Canadian legal system. The question that is then developed is who did the Chief provide notarial services too and how was it used?

If it was used exclusively within the Native community, then I would understand why the Chief has this belief (and in fact would be minded to permit it - with the provision that he understand and makes it clear that his seals would not be recognised in Canada and only had any validity within the Native community). However this does not seem to be the case, the documents authenticated by the Chief were in several cases done on the behalf of Canadian citizens for use in Canada and the Chief knew this or reasonably should have known this to be the case.

[Jeffrey]

The question that is then developed is who did the Chief provide notarial services too and how was it used?

We already know the answer to that. Chief was notarizing documents as an aboriginal for the purposes of defrauding non-aboriginal Canadians.

To use the two canoe metaphor. Chief wanted to sit in his native canoe, but steal from the Canadian canoe. Even if the treaty was valid and legit, he violated it, not "Canada".

[Burnaby49]

I would think it more, what use is a Notary to a Native, living as part of the First Nations and not doing, or intending to do, any business with the wider society of Canada, how are Notaries used within Native communities? I don't know the answer to this and would like to find out.

I do know that Notaries are used in Canadian society and the Canadian legal system. The question that is then developed is who did the Chief provide notarial services too and how was it used?

If it was used exclusively within the Native community, then I would understand why the Chief has this belief (and in fact would be minded to permit it - with the provision that he understand and makes it clear that his seals would not be recognised in Canada and only had any validity within the Native community). However this does not seem to be the case, the documents authenticated by the Chief were in several cases done on the behalf of Canadian citizens for use in Canada and the Chief knew this or reasonably should have known this to be the case.

You're not familiar with the Chief but this discussion covers his notary work in some detail. His "notarizing" did not begin to approach what you would consider the normal duties of a notary. Essentially he signed documents that no legitimate notary would touch for fear of being throw out of the Society of Notaries Public of British Columbia.

I have seen a large number of them and have been in court when others are discussed and all the ones I'm aware of all dealt with aiding Freeman schemes and involved non-natives. Unilateral contracts against third parties, documents giving immunity from laws, unilateral contracts attempting to quash legal charges, things like that. He notarized the Nanaimo three's (actually five) documents authorizing them to be peace officers. These were a key factor in the defendants criminal convictions. None of the Chief's documents that I've dealt with involved fellow natives. The only ones I'm aware of that involved natives were the notarization of documents for Haimus Wakas. I discussed that here;

viewtopic.php?f=48&t=9377&start=380#p179035

As I said in that posting;

Note in the last one the Chief is now an Adjudicator in the Private Court of C'Imotza Ogwuls and, ajudicating big money squabbles, isssued a $100,000,000 default against the Haisla Nation Counsel in favour of Haimus Wakas. Haimus claims to be a big name in the world of aboriginal chiefs and, with the Chief's help, was busy issuing unilateral agreements against all and sundry.

The National Post had an article on the Chief that covered his Haimus Wakas documents;

One of the documents purportedly notarized by General appears to be a court order made “before Adjudicator Hajistahénhway” and signed by Hajistahénhway, ordering the defendant, the Haisla Nation Council, to pay the plaintiff “$100,000,000 in fine one ounce silver bullion 99.9 per cent and/or the equivalent in the lawful currency of the day.”

Roger D. McConchie, lawyer for the Haisla Nation, said he received a series of documents seemingly notarized, stamped and signed by Hajistahénhway.

“I got some incoherent, bizarre gibberish delivered to my office several times,” McConchie said. “It’s obviously, to someone who knows the legal system anyway, less authentic than Monopoly money.”

"Incoherent, bizarre gibberish" pretty much covers my experience with the Chief's career as a notary. The article also said;

General said he witnessed documents for British Columbians, including adherents of the anti-government Freeman-on-the-Land movement, who found they were unable to get their documents notarized by licensed B.C. notaries.

“That created what I’m doing, because people were getting turned away (by notaries), a lot of people who were just doing paperwork, affidavits, to claim their freedom and claim different rights. People who want to be sovereign or people who were labelled Freemen,” General said. “They said they prefer working with Native people than they would working with the Notaries Society, because they’ve been refused so many times.”

http://news.nationalpost.com/2015/02/27 ... ue-notary/

They were refused because the documents were clearly not for any legitimate purpose. The Society has been having a lot of problems with very agressive Freeman types demanding that its members sign gibberish documents. The Chief seems to have been the go-to guy for a lot of them.

[notorial dissent]

I think it is a pretty safe bet that the majority of the documents he's been issuing are of the fantasy OCPA variety that have no legal validity. So what it boils down to is he is scamming, and scamming is exactly what he's doing, the FOTL and flakeoid community, as well as trying to do it back to the native groups as well based on some of what he's been involved with.

Not being familiar with the native gov't structure as it is practiced in Canada, it comes to mind that I don't know if they have any concept of a notary with in their gov't structure.

[grixit]

Among the people that Sino claims to be a member of, what is the traditional penalty for making a false oath?

[Burnaby49]

Well, just a few hours until the moment of truth. The Chief's latest, from Facebook;

Sino General
7 hrs ·
Court tmrw .. 9am supreme Court downtown vancouver 5th most likely. I shall be there 840 ish. .. changing the perspective and telling them No... no more ... idle no more werd.

A lot more sombre with less defiance than his postings on the eve of last week's hearing. He gets some support and some less than helpful advice like this,

Amy E Smart - The occult crown has no case. They can't cast there evil spell on you. Your a warrior. Spell out your name when asked lower case "a", lower case "b" etc, that takes care of meads vs meads arguments and the crowns standing.

Uh, Amy, the Crown isn't involved in this. The application was made by the Society of Notaries Public of British Columbia, a private organization. Ron Usher plays the ukulele which clearly makes him the villain of this story but that does not make him an agent of the Crown.

Then there is this less than cheerful encouragement from Rob in the Page family;

Rob Inthe Pagefamily - Meads v Meads also said that he would let somebody else deal with his spirit he will deal with his person. Your spirit is of a higher authority and within the Kingdom of God. A higher and more powerful jurisdiction than their courts. Spirit is in possession of the body. You are Spirit. You leave Canadian jurisdiction when you reject the fiction and stand in Spirit. If they take possession of the body they enslave the spirit which they have no authority or jurisdiction to do. I AM that I AM. I will pray for you. May the Creator, the great Spirit guide and protect you.

Can't recall that part of Meads myself but it was a big decision. Meads was in the Book of Authority so no doubt the judge will be familiar with this precedence and apply it accordingly.

At least Mel Clifton promises to show up. Well I can do no less so I'll be there too. I'd been wavering between the Chief and Rory Hawes in New Westminster but then I remembered that there is precedence applicable to this situation. Way back at the time of the Charles Norman Holmes hearing I had a three day court marathon of Charles on a Wednesday, the Chief on the Thursday in a family court matter, and the Chief yet again on Friday for his application session hearing that resulted in the court order against playing notary. Three separate hearings in three days. Unfortunately the Holmes hearing, slated for one day, went overtime into Thursday and I had to decide between him and the Chief. I chose Holmes on the basis that I wanted to finish what I'd started and I've concluded that the same principle applies here.

So at 9AM I'll be there, notepad in hand, to record the historic decision regardless of how it goes. Bring a pen and pad Mel, the Chief needs an alternate narrator. I don't think I can spin this one into a win for the Chief so he needs someone less neurotically fixated on what the judge actually says and more in tune with principles embodied in the Two Wampum Belt treaty.

[LordEd]

If the notaries lose because they didn't prove their case, please give them a smack on the head.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8QXkTFKrW5U

[LordEd]

The chief reported on facebook:

On my way home to change and finish my music ... wrote a new song last night and finished recording it for original album Enter-Tribal. Court is done but not over. I am not their guest but treaties are gong to be front and centre time to tell them no more. Thanks for everyone's support — feeling blessed.

[Burnaby49]

Just back. I'll give the Reader's Digest Condensed version now with details to follow. I skipped breakfast so lunch and coffee first on agenda. A lot of notes to try and decipher for a very short hearing and I have to dig up some documents the judge referred to. So it will take some time but should get it done today.

In a nutshell the Chief lost badly. Very badly. Judge accepted all of the Society's documents and said Chief clearly in contempt of the 2013 injunction. So he was found guilty of civil contempt.

Judge imposed a 30 day jail sentence suspended subject to the following conditions;

1 - No more playing notary effective immediately.

2 - The Chief has to surrender all of the paraphernalia he used as a notary, seals, documents, whatever, to the office of the Society of Notaries Public of British Columbia within four days.

3 - Keep the peace.

4 - Notify the Society of any change of address.

No fine. Judge expressed some doubt as to the Chief's ability to pay one. Costs were a different matter. He was ordered to pay the Society's costs and Special Costs. I'll have to check what Special Costs entails. He was also ordered to pay something entirely new in my experience, the Society's reasonable "Investigative Costs", I assume the costs of check out that he wasn't complying and to package it all together.

[LordEd]

So a suspended sentence means if he breaks one of the conditions, he goes straight to jail, do not pass go, do not collect $200 from your notary client?

[Burnaby49]

So a suspended sentence means if he breaks one of the conditions, he goes straight to jail, do not pass go, do not collect $200 from your notary client?

Yes. I told the Chief after the hearing that, regardless of whatever he planned to do in respect to the decision, he had to satisfy condition two within the four day limit if he wanted to stay out of jail. I told him that if he didn't surrender the materials to the Society his jail sentence would be automatically triggered. The judge didn't seem like a guy who was willing to cut the Chief any slack on meeting the terms and I think he deliberately imposed a very short time limit on surendering the materials to show this.

[Fmotlgroupie]

So a suspended sentence means if he breaks one of the conditions, he goes straight to jail, do not pass go, do not collect $200 from your notary client?

In this instance I think yes (in a criminal context in Canada it means a term of probation with the (empty) threat that if you breach the probation term you can be resentenced on the original charge).

I think the Chief won't abide by the order and so the society will be back in court after the 4-day deadlin is up.

[Hyrion]

I am not their guest but treaties are gong to be front and centre time to tell them no more.

From what Burnaby reported, I'm going to conclude the Chief has already decided not to comply. Of course, it's up to the Chief to prove me wrong and the first deadline is 4 days unless he openly notarizes something in the meantime.

I think the punctuation on Chief's response is a bit misleading. I first read that taking it as-is in context and then read Burnaby's report.

It dawned on me, Chief might have actually meant:

• I am not their guest but treaties are going to be front and centre, time to tell them: no more.

Which has a very different context relative to it's original structure.

[Pottapaug1938]

In other words: "my magical Two Wampum Treaty trumps any of your laws which claim to affect the way I choose to conduct myself. You're not the boss of me."

[Hyrion]

Granted: he does have the potential to do the sensible thing:

• Comply fully with the Court Order and file an appeal covering the aspect of the treaties

But given the historical choices he's made, I'd put the odds of that at very very low.

[bmxninja357]

Costs were a different matter. He was ordered to pay the Society's costs and Special Costs. I'll have to check what Special Costs entails. He was also ordered to pay something entirely new in my experience, the Society's reasonable "Investigative Costs", I assume the costs of check out that he wasn't complying and to package it all together.

Special Costs Legal Definition:
A scale of costs generally equivalent to solicitor and client costs and also approaching complete indemnity to the successful litigant.

Related Terms: Solicitor and Client Costs , Increased Costs

Terminology in use in some common law jurisdictions to distinguish an enhanced or increased costs award, similar to solicitor and client costs.

However, to ward against the confusion between solicitor and client costs as an award of costs by a trial judge, a term also used to refer, in law, to a solicitor's bill to his or her client, some jurisdictions prefer the term special costs.

For example, in British Columbia, in Conduct of Civil Litigation in British Columbia, the authors write:

"Special costs may be awarded where there has been misconduct by or on behalf of the unsuccessful party deserving of rebuke.

The purpose of such an award is not to indemnify the successful party against his entire expenses of litigation but to penalize the offending party."

In Fullerton, Justice Cumming of the Court of Appeal wrote:

"The judiciary and academic commentators have also recognized that an award of costs may serve additional functions beyond that of indemnification. Whereas party-and-party costs are designed to indemnify, special costs or costs awarded on a solicitor-and-client basis may be awarded on a higher scale as a penalty or deterrent for certain conduct....

"Special costs or solicitor-and-client costs are ... awarded when a court seeks to dissociate itself from some misconduct. Because the court is expressing its disapproval, the award must go beyond mere indemnity and enters the realm of punishment."

In Foundation, Justice Brenner wrote:

"Because special costs must ultimately be taxed on an objective basis and they are not necessarily the same as the actual solicitor-client fees paid, the court takes 80-90% of the actual fee bills as a rough estimate of the amount that would ultimately be awarded as special costs."

REFERENCES:

Duhaime, Lloyd, The Law of Costs: Justice's Boogeyman
Foundation Co. of Canada Ltd. v. United Grain Growers Ltd., 8 C.P.C. (4th) 354 (1996, BCSC)
Fraser, P. and others, The Conduct of Civil Litigation in British Columbia, 2d. Ed. (Toronto: LexisNexis, 2009), Chapter 33, Volume 2.
Fullerton v. Matsqui, 74 B.C.L.R. (2d) 311, 12 C.P.C. (3d) 319, 19 B.C.A.C. 284, 34 W.A.C. 284

source: http://www.duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/ ... Costs.aspx

still searching investigative costs.
peace,
ninj

[Jeffrey]

still searching investigative costs.

I'm guessing it's exactly what it says on the label, i.e. the costs of the investigation to find documents Chief had notarized.

Looking forward to seeing the reaction.

[Burnaby49]

Thanks ninja, saves me looking it up.

[bmxninja357]

still searching investigative costs.

I'm guessing it's exactly what it says on the label, i.e. the costs of the investigation to find documents Chief had notarized.

Looking forward to seeing the reaction.

i think your correct however im still curious as to how far those costs can legally extend and where exactly they apply. assumption is not as good as what the law on a thing actually says.

peace,
ninj

[bmxninja357]

yeah, looks like investigative costs mean as the words imply.

https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/#search/jI ... origJId=bc

there does not seem to be a matching case but it is what it is.

peace,
ninj