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

[Burnaby49]

A short video of the Chief taken, I believe, just before the hearing. Not a direct link but the video is right there on the front page. It shows his new shirt! He did not wear sunglasses at the hearing.

http://www.theprovince.com/index.html

[LordEd]

Your link went to the front page of the province. I think this one takes you to a video, but this one includes a video of after with statements from the Chief and Ron. He says he will comply 'for now' as he wants to continue to fight for the treaty rights.

http://www.theprovince.com/0_57f2paw2/video.html

[Burnaby49]

Your link went to the front page of the province. I think this one takes you to a video, but this one includes a video of after with statements from the Chief and Ron. He says he will comply 'for now' as he wants to continue to fight for the treaty rights.

http://www.theprovince.com/0_57f2paw2/video.html

My version of IE is so old that it can't run a lot of videos. This was one. I can't update IE because my version of XP is too ancient to go past IE8. I work from an antique! I finally watched it on Firefox.

That is why I said I thought it was taken before the hearing when it turned out it was was taken just after. I hadn't seem the video and I think the Chief was interview before the hearing also. Chief is incorrect in one of his statements. He was not fined. As I said he only had costs decided against him however these may well exceed any fine the court might have imposed.

The video was done by Dan Fumano, a Province reporter who introduced himself to me just before the hearing.

[bmxninja357]

im curious as to the fate of all the documents the chief 'notarized'. will the writers/recipients be receiving some notification of the validity or lack there of of the items they have taken to the chief?

peace,
ninj

[Burnaby49]

im curious as to the fate of all the documents the chief 'notarized'. will the writers/recipients be receiving some notification of the validity or lack there of of the items they have taken to the chief?

peace,
ninj

I'm busy writing this baby up but I'll answer your question. I was inaccurate in my reporting of the suspension conditions imposed on the Chief. I'd done them off the top of my head without reviewing the notes. Your question forced me to check. I'd said in my prior post;

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.

What I actually wrote in my notes as point 1 was;

1 - You will observe all of the provisions of Justice Bowden's court order of November 29, 2013.

The court order, while ordering the Chief to stop being a notary, also included these provision;

4. Sino General shall advise all of his clients, past and present, and members of the public with whom he comes into contact in relation to legal matters of any kind of his lack of status as a member with the Society of Notaries Public of British Columbia.

5. Sino General shall advise all of his clients, past and present, and members of the public with whom he comes into contact in relation to legal matters of any kind of his lack of status as a commissioner for taking affidavits.

So the Chief is going to have to notify his prior clients that everything he did is invalid if he is to meet the terms of the suspension of sentence.

[bmxninja357]

Rogue notary Sino General given suspended sentence for unlicenced work
By DAN FUMANO, The Province March 5, 2015 5:05 PM

http://www.theprovince.com/Rogue+notary ... story.html

peace,
ninj

[Burnaby49]

From the Chief's Facebook page;

Derek Moran ...cant wait to read the Quatloos comments
49 mins · Like

Well here they are. I arrived early but only Ron Usher and the Society's lawyer were on the scene prior to the 9AM starting time. This time courtroom 55 instead of 54. The courtroom was huge, easily seated over 100 people. We didn't need it. A bit of concern that the Chief wouldn't show up, including from the court clerk, when he still wasn't there at 9:10. Clerk decided to proceed without him. However, as is his custom, the Chief entered the court with his supporters after order had been called and the judge seated.

The Chief had fewer supporters than before, I think four. There were two from the prior hearing. One was Lisa Monchalin and another was a young woman I seemed to remember from one of his performance videos. After the hearing he introduced her as a singer in the group Enter Tribal and I told her I remembered from a video taken at the Calabash club in Vancouver. Overall, including myself, lawyers, Chief's supporters, maybe a dozen spectators. Another spectator, who had been at the prior hearing introduced himself to me. He was Dan Fumano, the Province reporter who did the video that LordEd posted. He hadn't known who I was at the prior hearing but he'd read my Quatloos report and figured out I was Burnaby49. Given the few spectators at the hearing it wasn't a difficult conclusion to make. So I was wrong about being the only recorder of events there.

The judge was Justice Sewell. Just as precise and business-like as he was at last week's hearing. Chief initially sat in the spectator area and the judge asked the chief to sit up front at counsel table. Chief gave his mantra about being here in honour as a private person reserving all his rights and under treaty. Judge said ""I don't know what that meant but I ask you to sit at the counsel table in any event." So he did. While the Chief identified himself as Hajistahenhway the judge said he would refer to him as Sino General, the name on his birth certificate.

Until the Chief spoke at the end of the hearing the judge restricted his comments to reading from a prepared document. All of my comments up until the Chief's questions at the end are based on my efforts to record what the judge was reading. He was brisk and did not stop and it was all meat, no filler so I may well have missed some relevant points or misunderstood. It doesn't matter because the judge had obviously spent time and care preparing what he read out and the document really spoke for itself. It contained everything needed to be published unchanged as a written judgement so I'm guessing that is what is going to happen. When it is released I'll link to it here so that you can analyse it yourselves. This posting can be considered just an interim review of events.

The judge briefly ran through the history of the Society's attempt to stop the Chief up to the November 2013 applications Hearing. Then he said;

"As a result of Judge Bowden's order of November 29, 2013 (judge Sewell then read out parts of the order) I am satisfied that Mr. General was properly served and chose not to attend the hearing. I am also satisfied that he received a copy of the injunction."

The next is more or less verbatim but I can't guarantee. Judge said that he was satisfied from reading the Society's material that Mr. General did not comply with the injunction. In his submission to the society which is before me he said that the provincial court did not have jurisdiction over him but after the injunction he hedged his bet and called himself the private notary Hajistahenhway. I am satisfied that he continued to act as a notary.

The judge noted a couple of documents that he found particularly compelling in coming to that conclusion. One was A Notice Of Default In Dishonour - Consent To Judgment dated April 19, 2014. Kurt Johnson is identified as the Principal and The Chief is identified as Hajistahenhway, Private Notary. The Chief also signed it as the Adjudicator of the Court of Gayogoho:no Haundenosaunee Confederacy. The document was effectively a court order, authorized by the Chief, ordering the Bank of Nova Scotia to pay Kurt $100,000. It also included an invoice from Kurt to the bank (invoice number KJD017A) billing the bank for the money. Judge didn't seem to like the Chief signing orders from fake courts.

The judge had a lot of difficulty trying to pronounce the " Court of Gayogoho:no Haundenosaunee Confederacy " so the Chief assisted him. I can sympathize, it totally befuddled my spellchecker.

The other document was a May 14, 2014 Constructive Notice where the Chief described himself as the notary Hajistahenhway. I don't have details as to why the judge pulled this one from the pile. I assume it is somewhere in Ron Usher's 318 page affidavit but I didn't find it on a quick run-through. The judge noted that the Chief had identified himself as the signer of this, and the other documents, at the Examination in Aid of Execution but then attempted to "resile" his admitted identification at the hearing. Judge said "I am satisfied that he continued to act as a notary".

The judge said three things are necessary to find on civil contempt;

1 - Court order exists
2 - Defendant knew the court order existed
3 - Defendant disobeyed order.

Judge said that these applied to this case and he was satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that the Chief had acted in violation of the injunction. "He had clearly violated the terms of Justice Bowden's order and I have no hesitation in finding him in contempt of Court." However he said that he did not agree with two (I think it was two) parts of the Society's submission. I didn't catch what they were. I'll check it out when the decision is released.

Judge said that the Chief's principal argument was that he was acting under the authority of the six nations who authorized him to notarise documents. Even assuming that were true this argument should have been brought before the 2013 hearing, not this one.

Judge said the Chief's Charter arguments also failed. The Charter does note exempt natives from the rule of law. "Mr. General is doing nothing more than claiming the untrammelled right to do as he pleases because he is First Nations."

Judge said that Mr. General made no effort to make any submission to him which complicated determining a sentence.

I'll paraphrase at this point, the judge was losing me. He said the notaries wanted a jail term. Their main concern is individual and general deterrence. Punishment must be severe enough to deter. The judge said that no serious harm had been caused by the Chief's activities although his actions caused inconvenience. The judge noted, as the Chief has posted on his Facebook page, that the Chief had treated the court with reasonable respect and he had no evidence of any misconduct by the Chief apart from the notary issue.

He said the Chief is not gainfully employed apart from intermittent employment as a performer. He seems qualified as a welder but left his last position to attend here.

So he imposed a sentence of imprisonment but because this was his first offence, and considering his relatively respectful attitude at court and any lack of any real harm caused, he was suspending sentence. Because the Chief was a man of relatively limited means there would be no punishment in addition to imprisonment. Terms of suspension were;

1 - You will observe all terms of Justice Bowden's order.

2 - Within four days from today you will deliver to the notaries all documents and other things that you used as a notary.

note - This is somewhat redundant since the requirement to surrender notary material was in Justice Bowden's order. It said;

7. Sino General shall deliver up to the Society of Notaries Public any stamps, seals, stationery, or other materials in his possession or under his care and control which describe, depict, or otherwise suggest that Sino General is a Notary Public.

I'm assuming Justice Sewell specifically made this order to impose the time limit.

3 - Keep the peace and be on good behaviour.

4 - Notify the Society of any change of address and something I missed about the Notice of Application. I have no clue what I meant by that. By this point I was seriously behind.

Judge felt that the Chief's reprehensible (my word, paraphrasing here) actions should be reflected in costs. So he ordered costs, Special Costs, and reasonable Investigative Costs. I won't go into an explanation of the terminology, ninja has kindly done the work for me.

Then the Chief wanted to speak.

"My whole purpose was to bring light to the situation of our treaties." Something about the British people, government and courts haven't respected the Two Row Wampum Treaty. "I don't care about the notary thing." He wanted the judge to answer "Are the treaties we made with the King and Queen valid? Yes or no." Judge said "That issue is not before me today. I'm not prepared to answer your question." He told the Chief "It is not for you to decide how to interpret the treaties, that is a function of the court." He then close proceedings.

A disgruntled supporter of the Chief left complaining loudly that "People have to learn history! That's disgraceful! Unceded territory!" Can't please everyone.

I chatted with the Chief afterwards. The Province reporter was there asking the Chief what he planned to do.

"My work is done. I'm still pursuing other (something I can't read; options?" Reporter asked if he planned to comply with order "I plan to comply for now. I'm putting Canada on notice that we're tired of it breaking treaties". Something about taking this to an International court, he had an International lawyer who wanted to pursue it, apparently pro bono. He wanted to see if Canada would honour its treaties.

Chief asked if I noticed how the judge had avoided the most important issue, whether or not the terms of the Two Row Wampum Treaty had been broken. I told him that the judge hadn't mentioned it in the decision because, while a big issue to the Chief, it was irrelevant to the issue at the hearing and the decision. I told the Chief that the judge had decided on the only issue before him, whether or not the Chief was in contempt of Judge Bowden's 2013 injunction by violating its terms. The judge had been clear at the hearing (and I believe in the decision) that the issue of breach of treaty, if it was relevant, should have been brought up at the 2013 hearing.

I chatted for a few minutes then left. I have to say the Chief was far friendlier and reasonable with me than I think I'd have been with him had the situation been reversed.

I said in a prior posting that;

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 surrendering the materials to show this.

On reflection I seem a little, shall we say, official, in the way I phrased my comments. I didn't mean it that way. I had concerns that the Chief may not have picked up on the importance of meeting the four day limit. I told him that while I was not a party to proceedings, just an onlooker, I thought I should advise him to be aware of the implications of the limit. Even if he planned to appeal the decision he needed to surrender the notary material if he wished to avoid breaching the suspension terms. I told him if he wished to apply to get the materials back, fine, but deliver them to the notaries. I said he could ask the notaries not to destroy anything pending further court action, they seem like a reasonable group to me, but I had no idea whether they were required to preserve them or not. In other words I was giving unsolicited legal advice. Ball's in your court Law Society of British Columbia!

[Hyrion]

General also said he would comply with the court order and stop acting as a notary.

I stand corrected.

[LightinDarkness]

Sadly, I have a feeling yet another OPCA loss will still be categorized as a win by the Chief and his supporters because of stuff like this:

So he imposed a sentence of imprisonment but because this was his first offence, and considering his relatively respectful attitude at court and any lack of any real harm caused, he was suspending sentence. Because the Chief was a man of relatively limited means there would be no punishment in addition to imprisonment. Terms of suspension were;

Canadian courts for whatever reason continue to lightly slap OPCAs on the hand. If the goal is actual deterrence to stop this insanity, this kind of sentencing doesn't work. What Chief has learned here is that he can basically ignore a court order and get no jail time, and no fine (hopefully the costs will be enough to impose a significant financial burden).

I would also dispute the "real harm" here - acting as fake notary and abetting OPCAs in filing sovcit gibberish is quite a real harm. It costs time and money to deal with that stuff, and that is a real harm to Canadian citizens.

In the long-term, this is only going to backfire. By sending the message that you can defy a court order and essentially get a light slap for it, you only embolden the crazies. The Chief met all three parts of what it takes to be held in contempt. There were no mitigating factors (he didn't apologize, he offered no real defense for his actions, shows no remorse) - it should get the standard sentence. Suspending it only helps these crazies think that they somehow "won."

Also, is this a Canadian thing - that you don't fine people because they are of "limited means"? Isn't the entire purpose of a fine to be a punishment and deterrent for the action? Who cares what the Chief's income is? He should have been fined - maybe he could only pay $20 a month on it over 5 years, but its better than nothing.

[wserra]

Sorry to say, I agree with LiD. That sentence amounts to ". . . and this time we really mean it."

[notorial dissent]

And in my opinion, FWIW, is that that is exactly what will happen.

[The Observer]

Sorry to say, I agree with LiD. That sentence amounts to ". . . and this time we really mean it."

The other side of the coin, is that the judge probably sees the Chief as not being an outright flaming OPCA litigant, and that he didn't try to turn the courtroom into a three-ring circus. So he gives the Chief a little room on the leash. I think what is promising in this case was that the Chief had to make tacit, if not verbal, admissions that he does recognize that the court does have jurisdiction over him and it does have the authority to jail him if he decides to step with both feet back into the koolade barrel.

I know that we all have seen the gamut of this sovrun/freeman schemes and their resulting tantrums when things don't go their way. So it is easier for us to stand up and demand the traditional pound of flesh. But maybe that is a good reason for us not being the ruling judge in this case; the fact that someone can issue a ruling or a verdict and be reasonable in their flexibility means we don't have to worry about courtrooms becoming havens of judicial terrorism. I don't think the judge at this point has demonstrated anything to indicate that he will tolerate the Chief's behavior if he decides to go off the reservation (pun intendeted).

[LightinDarkness]

The other side of the coin, is that the judge probably sees the Chief as not being an outright flaming OPCA litigant, and that he didn't try to turn the courtroom into a three-ring circus. So he gives the Chief a little room on the leash. I think what is promising in this case was that the Chief had to make tacit, if not verbal, admissions that he does recognize that the court does have jurisdiction over him and it does have the authority to jail him if he decides to step with both feet back into the koolade barrel.

I get what your saying but...I'm not sure that showing proper decorum and respect to the court is a reason to basically give a slight slap on the wrist here. I realize were dealing with sovcits and so not acting like a total nutter in the court is actually unusual for them, but the court should not lower itself to their level where a simple failure to act insane is something to be rewarded. The Chief still engaged in select OCPA insanity, for example refusing to enter until the judge did and citing the magical incantation about treaties at the door. It may not be as insane as some of the other OCPAs, but not acting insane in court should be expected.

In any other type of case where your not dealing with sovcits, the the court simply expects a modicum of respect and people who act like idiots tend to get punished for it. The fact that the Chief did not go full-flaming sovcit on the court is not a reason to let him off lightly, it would be a reason to not impose a harsher sentence. But we didn't get that - we didn't even get the normal sentence/fine for contempt. And in the absence of any actual mitigating factors...I can't see why the judge would do this.

Treat OCPAs like this and you will get paid back 10 fold - and not in a positive manner. OCPAs don't recognize this sort of mercy for what it is - they will take rulings like this and run around claiming their incantations worked.

[wserra]

the fact that someone can issue a ruling or a verdict and be reasonable in their flexibility means we don't have to worry about courtrooms becoming havens of judicial terrorism

There is a fairly broad line between (1) the idea that there should be consequences for openly defying a court order above and beyond simply reiterating the order and (2) judicial terrorism.

[Hyrion]

Being near the end of day on day 4 of the Court Order I wonder if the Chief has turned over his notary materials such as his stamp.

This - of course - assumes "4 days" is defined as 4 consecutive days, not 4 business days.

[Burnaby49]

Being near the end of day on day 4 of the Court Order I wonder if the Chief has turned over his notary materials such as his stamp.

This - of course - assumes "4 days" is defined as 4 consecutive days, not 4 business days.

I'm assuming four business days which gives him until closing time Thursday.

[Hyrion]

I'm assuming four business days which gives him until closing time Thursday.

Hmm... wasn't the Order given on Thr? Or did the Judge give the verbal order on Thr and write it up dated on Fri?

Four business days from Thr would be Fri, Mon - Wed - so I'd expect best case to be Wed close.

However - with possible jail time in the offering, I think I'd err on the side of caution and have handed over the appropriate material today myself....

... but then... I wouldn't have breached the original court order in the first place

[Burnaby49]

I'm assuming four business days which gives him until closing time Thursday.

Hmm... wasn't the Order given on Thr? Or did the Judge give the verbal order on Thr and write it up dated on Fri?

Four business days from Thr would be Fri, Mon - Wed - so I'd expect best case to be Wed close.

However - with possible jail time in the offering, I think I'd err on the side of caution and have handed over the appropriate material today myself....

... but then... I wouldn't have breached the original court order in the first place

My mistake. I'm old, I get confused about dates. My wife told me that her relatives who live in a small village in India subscribed to newspapers because otherwise they wouldn't have known what day of the week it was. My position entirely.

[GC_SDNPBC]

Here is the text of the Order made March 5, 2015:

No. S-134883
Vancouver Registry

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF BRITISH COLUMBIA
BETWEEN:
THE SOCIETY OF NOTARIES PUBLIC OF BRITISH COLUMBIA
PETITIONER
AND:
SINO GENERAL also known as SINO CAMERON GENERAL also known as CHIEF ROCK also known as HAJISTAHENHWAY, NOTARY PUBLIC
RESPONDENT
ORDER MADE AFTER APPLICATION

BEFORE THE HONOURABLE
MR. JUSTICE SEWELL )
)
) THURSDAY, THE 5th
DAY OF MARCH, 2015

ON THE APPLICATION of the petitioner coming on for hearing at The Law Courts at 800 Smithe Street, Vancouver, British Columbia, on February 27, 2015 and on hearing David K. Georgetti, appearing on behalf of the petitioner, and the respondent appearing on his own behalf, and upon judgment being reserved to March 5, 2015;

THIS COURT DECLARES that:
1. SINO GENERAL also known as SINO CAMERON GENERAL also known as CHIEF ROCK also known as HAJISTAHENHWAY, NOTARY PUBLIC (hereafter, the “Respondent”) breached the terms of the order of Mr. Justice Bowden granted on November 29, 2013 (the “Injunction”), after having notice of its terms, by:
(a) holding himself out as a notary public and engaging in the practice of a notary public contrary to paragraph 1 of the Injunction;
(b) administering oaths and taking affidavits, declarations or affirmations contrary to paragraph 2 of the Injunction;
(c) failing to notify the petitioner, Society of Notaries Public of British Columbia (hereafter, the “Society”) of all matters in which he has purported to act as a notary public contrary to paragraph 6 of the Injunction; and
(d) failing to deliver up to the Society all stamps, seals, stationery, or other materials in his possession or under his care and control which describe, depict, or otherwise suggest that the Respondent is a notary public contrary to paragraph 7 of the Injunction;
2. the Respondent is guilty of contempt of Court respecting his breaches of the Injunction;

THIS COURT ORDERS that:

3. the Respondent is hereby sentenced to a term of imprisonment for thirty (30) days;
4. the foregoing sentence is suspended on the following conditions:

(a) the Respondent shall immediately comply with all of the terms of the Injunction;

(b) within four (4) days the Respondent shall to deliver to the Society all the material in his possession or control that describe, depict or otherwise suggest he is a notary of any kind or that he has any right to certify or notarize documents of any kind;

(c) the Respondent shall keep the peace and be of good behaviour;

(d) the Respondent shall appear before the Court when and where ordered to do so; and

(e) the Respondent shall notify the Society of his place of residence and his place of business and any change(s) thereof;

5. until such time as he becomes a member in good standing of the Society, the Respondent shall be enjoined and prohibited from representing himself as a notary public, a “private” notary public, an “international” notary public or any other tile containing the word “notary” regardless of whether or not the Respondent disclaims any affiliation with the Society;
6. if the Respondent is unrepresented by counsel of record in these proceedings, then the Society shall be at liberty to serve him substitutionally by emailing a copy of any document to chiefrockmusic@gmail.com and cameronups@gmail.com and that such substitutional service shall be deemed good and effective personal service upon the Respondent of any document, including but not limited to, orders of the Court and any further application seeking to have the Respondent found in contempt of Court;
7. the Society shall be entitled to apply to the Court for further relief respecting any future or ongoing breaches of the Injunction or the order herein;
8. if the Respondent does not comply with the terms of this order, the Society shall be at liberty to renew its application to seek a declaration that the Respondent is a "Organized Pseudo-legal Commercial Argument" (OPCA) litigant as that term is defined in Meads v Meads, 2012 ABQB 571;
9. the Respondent shall pay the Society’s special costs of this application as well as the Society’s reasonable investigation costs in amounts to be determined before a Registrar of the Court; and
10. the requirement that the Respondent endorse the form of this order is hereby dispensed with.

THE FOLLOWING PARTIES APPROVE THE FORM OF THIS ORDER AND CONSENT TO EACH OF THE ORDERS, IF ANY, THAT ARE INDICATED ABOVE AS BEING BY CONSENT.

David K. Georgetti,
Counsel for the petitioner

BY THE COURT
Registrar

[Burnaby49]

I'd bet paragraph 8 is painful. Just rubbing it in.