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

[Chief2k13]

Thanks again for your replies that are not of an immature nature. It is always good to see someone who is able to be of good form and not attack folks merely due to certain beliefs.

So, if anyone tries anything other than getting a lawyer, they are now considered for the most part a freeman on the land now. I saw a gent in court, who did a self representation, said a few things and this lawyer right away goes, he is a freeman blah blah, the judge didnt even give this guy any kind of consideration and ruled in favor of the other lawyers client.

Again, another lady who merely made requests from the attorney for any original or verified copies of any contracts that obligates her performance in regards to a debt. This is with a collection agency who went in and got a judgement without giving her due process or notice. This same tactic happened to me with CIBC but i was quick to go back in and point this out. I will layout the details of that later.
So, the attorney before she goes in, asks her what is all this paperwork requesting proof of obligation ??? She goes, lets talk this over in front of judge. So, right off the bat, lawyer goes, defendant appears to be using a freeman on the land approach and blah blah blah. Again, she states i didnt get this claim and just found out about it when they tried to garnish my wage. So, i made requests for any proof of obligation in regards to this matter. The judge goes, we dont need to provide you anything, you just have to pay this debt you owe. She goes, if i owe it, please show me the documentation that shows i agreed to be obligated to plaintiffs ?? Judge goes again, we dont have to give you anything, you know you owe it, so just pay. This is for a collection agency keep in mind, how is she obligated to a collection agency, they factored or paid the debt didnt they ?

The lawyer asks her to be sworn in and puts her on the stand and start questioning her. She said the lawyer and the judge appeared to be ganging up on her and being very aggressive with her. I will get transcripts of this and post it once i got them. All and all , this lawyer got an order against her for 300 a month and none of her questions or requests were acknowledged and it all seemed to stem from the moment she was labelled a freeman.

Another gent whom i witnessed in court get dragged out cause he asked some questions. Mainly from what i can gather, this guy was screwed over by a farmer for 25,000 and farmer sold crop that this guy paid for and now is coming after him for not getting the full worth of the crop. When the crop was to go to this guy who paid for it. The guy was self represented and mainly just asked for a few things but off the kick he was labeled a freeman and this master just ignored everything and only listen to lawyers presentment, it was like he had already made us mind up before the other guy spoke, rolling his eyes and not even looking at him. ruled and granted the order requested without any merit to the guys case. Merely, freeman was called and it was like an automatic win. I couldnt believe it, this guy merely was there to affirm the breach of contract and questioned the courts intentions due to the lack of interest in the fact that he was ripped off. Asked if the court is extorting him and colluding with the attorney, why wasnt he offered due process and equality under the law ?

It is starting to swing into this direction that anyone who is off a little from the status quo is now a freeman, from what i am hearing and gathering.

Oh btw, what was interesting, is this lady with the collection agency, tendered a cheq to them for xxx dollars (i dunno the amount) with a memo : Payment in full for settlement and closure of account #23423424, accompanied with a letter that stipulated that retention of the chq or cashing will be the parties agreement that the account is settled and closed. If cheq isnt suffice for settlement please return the cheq forthwith. signed and sent. The agency kept the cheq and even brought it up in court saying they tried to settle with a much smaller amount. Now i know collection agencies do this all the time, they say you owe 1000 but pay us 400 now and we will clear the rest, or something to that affect. Anyways, in court they still didnt offer the cheq back, wtf is that ?Im thinking that her offer to settle may have triggered the Freeman label but i really dont see how making an offer to settle is a freeman idea at all, if anything its an offer period.Anyways, is that not an agreement by their act of keeping, retaining the tendered cheq for settlement ??? Now, in contract law books it is pretty clear

1.When all that is required of the offeree is performance, a unilateral contract is formed upon performance. The mode of acceptance is the conduct of actions of the offeree. No exchange of responses is necessary to indicate assent to the offer; rather, performance indicates the acceptance
2.Acceptance –Unspoken consent to concurrence in a transaction by virtue of failure to reject it, the receipt of retention of that which is offered.

Now, maybe Brian Blum or the other contract law authors are wrong, is that what i am to understand in all this ??? So, to get this straight, there is no civil code in Canada, only Quebec ?

[The Observer]

u are correct, doesnt matter what amazing documents are made or signed or brought before any Appointed Judge in the Queens name, no judge will ever acknowledge anything having to do with title or rights or laws, or self government when it comes to so called Aboriginals.

Yet Mowe has listed a number of Canadian court rulings that were in favor of protecting aboriginal rights. So your claim cannot be correct.

You say Ab is one thing, yet when i look it shows...

You need to take a class in Latin in order to understand how to properly read and understand the construction of Latin grammar. Otherwise you are going to continue to misinterpret what you are reading. The other fallacy is thinking that somehow Latin words have the magical power of conferring a status on people, legal or otherwise. The only purpose of using Latin is to create words that don't exist in the common tongue today or in legal settings is to provide a universal term for situations that would be awkward to describe. Whether the court describes you as "ab origine", Amerind, Native American, or some other term, the important part is if the law recognizes you as a particular class of person that is entitled to rights or protections under the law. It is the court ruling that confers that status, not the words used to describe you.

And despite your protests that you are not a "Freeman", you are engaging in the same faulty logic by thinking that a word has magical power: the government uses these magic words to enslave and you can limit the law by using them in an another way to free you.

Why do i need to prove such status or background, i say i am, that is all that is needed, if you hadnt looked at your seen any photos or songs i sing which come from our nations, what else would you need a dna scan lol.

I don't know how it works with the Cayuga Nation, but I know with many of the Native American tribes here in the US, one cannot just claim to be a Native American and be accepted. The various tribes have rules requiring some amount of verification that one is a descendant of their tribe, even if it is to a point of being 1/64th Native American. And there has to be some evidence that they are of that tribe, not just stating that they are a Native American. I would not be surprised if the tribal governments have incorporated DNA testing to eliminate pretenders and interlopers who are sucking up the tribe's entitlements and income at the expense of true Native Americans.

[Chief2k13]

So as for Cayuga Nation, we call within the Five Nations or Six Nations now as it is in English.
So, sure the European Courts, a Supreme Court has ruled we have rights. Our nations have laws and Govt way before ya'll came here, now please tell me different ? SO, we dont need White European bias law to tell us we have rights. Now sure years and years ago and few natives were under the impression they needed to come before their white masters in court and make application for rights or rights to be determined. We dont need to, our treaties that were made show our nations the exact law that governs the relationship.

From what i read and spoke with elders and other law minded folk, it is agreed, alot of my people broke the treaty in a way by being incorporated into Canada, or accepting their Birth Certificate. Their status card and accepting a benefit from them. So, we stepped out of our canoe and into their Ship, citizenship. The two row speaks of it and says, you keep your laws and religion in your boat and we will do the same. We will not attempt to steer each others vessel. I dunno about you but it is pretty clear, Canadian, American, British etc...any law doesnt apply to original nations, no damn statue or anything can reverse this agreement, its is much older than the actual creation of Canada itself. So nothing Canada brings or makes can overstep its bounds seeing the treaty wasnt even made with Canada or its laws. It was made with Kings Reps/Queen now.

So again, please tell me how we need the courts to acknowledge us, sure they can help protect but i think its up to our nations citizens to protect themselves by knowing what agreements are in place and learning to stand on them by asking by what authority do you feel you can supersede a treaty that was establish before your Govt creation ? Are you a Queens representative, isnt the GG supposed to rep the Queen ? Hmmm....anyways...

ou need to take a class in Latin in order to understand how to properly read and understand the construction of Latin grammar. Otherwise you are going to continue to misinterpret what you are reading. The other fallacy is thinking that somehow Latin words have the magical power of conferring a status on people, legal or otherwise.

Please if you will, give me a link that shows exactly what it is you speak of, cause yes i did quote an online Etymology definition, i think i might have to email them and tell them their definitions are absolutely incorrect and direct them to this forum for advice. Link please and post up all the references, i think i asked for this already in a previous post. As to magical words, are you kidding me. Again, this site might be absolutely wrong, as well as the books that are in libraries, but Grammars history in Etymology shows

grammar (n.) early 14c., gramarye (late 12c. in surnames), from Old French gramaire "learning," especially Latin and philology, "grammar, (magic) incantation, spells, mumbo-jumbo," "irregular semi-popular adoption" [OED] of Latin grammatica, from Greek grammatike tekhne "art of letters," with a sense of both philology and literature in the broadest sense, fem. adjective from gramma "letter," from stem of graphein "to draw or write" (see -graphy). An Old English word for it was stæfcræft.

In the beginning it shows, incantations, spells ? Dont we write words out and call int Spell-ing ? Why is the writing of words using the word spell in it ? Mumbo-jumbo is a funny word, judges use this alot in court cases, saying your mumbo-jumbo wont work. Alot of references to magic here, i dunno about you but to me,occam's razor- The simplest available theory need not be most accurate.

Also, we do have family trees done and they follow our bloodlines back as far as when whiteman first stepped on our lands. I am, 100%, my father and mother are full and doesnt matter what you think, i will no longer address these issues as its not an issue for me, my community and the others acknowledge me and know whom i am and that is all i need.

[Hilfskreuzer Möwe]

Once more, I will not be responding to many elements of Chief Rock Sino General’s last several messages as I do not wish to annoy anyone by being a broken record.

... So, if anyone tries anything other than getting a lawyer, they are now considered for the most part a freeman on the land now. ...

I don't think so.

Persons are labelled as "Freemen-on-the-Land" when they advance OPCA arguments, not due to their representing themselves without a lawyer in court. In Canada those persons are usually called "self-represented litigants", or "SRL's". A few months ago the largest horizontal survey of SRL's and their court experiences was published by Professor Julie McFarlane, that is a study entitled "The National Self-­Represented Litigants Project: Identifying and Meeting the Needs of Self-Represented Litigants". In that report the SRL’s surveyed identify many issues, including the cost and complexity of court, difficulty with forms, the indeterminate nature of family litigation, and so on. Not one complains of being called a “Freeman” or a “Freeman-on-the-Land."

Now, as I mentioned before the functional legal definition is to refer to these persons as Organized Pseudolegal Commercial Argument litigants (Meads v. Meads, 2012 ABQB 571), or “OPCA litigants”. Anyone who advances an OPCA type scheme, argument, or documents is an OPCA litigant. Freemen-on-the-Land stereotypically advance OPCA-type arguments. Let’s look at what are typical Freeman OPCA arguments (paras. 174-175)

[174] Stated simply, Freemen-on-the-Land believe they can ‘opt out’ of societal obligations and do as they like … A common theme in Freeman arguments is that state and court action requires the target’s consent …

[175] … the Freemen-on-the-Land parallel the American Sovereign Man community. Both engage in a broad range of OPCA activities directed towards almost any government or social obligation. Both habitually use ‘fee schedules’, and advance claims and liens against state, police, and court actors. Many apply the ‘everything is a contract’ approach and so are extremely uncooperative, in and out of court.

You mention two examples of self-represented persons you have observed in court who you might perhaps call ‘honest litigants’? I understand you think they were treated unfairly? I will try to understand what they did, from your description.

... Again, another lady who merely made requests from the attorney for any original or verified copies of any contracts that obligates her performance in regards to a debt. This is with a collection agency who went in and got a judgement without giving her due process or notice. … So, the attorney before she goes in, asks her what is all this paperwork requesting proof of obligation ??? She goes, lets talk this over in front of judge. So, right off the bat, lawyer goes, defendant appears to be using a freeman on the land approach and blah blah blah. Again, she states i didnt get this claim and just found out about it when they tried to garnish my wage. So, i made requests for any proof of obligation in regards to this matter. The judge goes, we dont need to provide you anything, you just have to pay this debt you owe. She goes, if i owe it, please show me the documentation that shows i agreed to be obligated to plaintiffs ?? Judge goes again, we dont have to give you anything, you know you owe it, so just pay. …

The lawyer asks her to be sworn in and puts her on the stand and start questioning her. She said the lawyer and the judge appeared to be ganging up on her and being very aggressive with her. I will get transcripts of this and post it once i got them. All and all , this lawyer got an order against her for 300 a month and none of her questions or requests were acknowledged and it all seemed to stem from the moment she was labelled a freeman.

This unnamed woman is attempting to nullify a debt using a foisted unilateral agreement. This is a very well recognized OPCA strategy, and flows from a misinterpretation of contract law. I have previously directed you to the Barry Skrapec cases which explain why this particular scheme is ineffective and illegal. In Royal Bank of Canada v. Skrapec, 2011 BCSC 1827 (http://canlii.ca/t/fq9sc) Justice Powers said:

[50] The primary defence that is raised is that somehow, by sending the correspondence that I have referred to off to the bank or its agents by registered mail, that somehow some new contract has been created or in some fashion the bank is prevented from pursuing its claims. There, what is referred to as law are merely definitions and cites from Black's Law Dictionary. Black's Law Dictionary is just that; it is not law itself. It may refer to maxims that are sometimes referred to, but it is not the law.

[51] The fact that a letter is sent to the bank, registered or otherwise, demanding that the bank prove its claim in a specific way, does not oblige them to do that. He might just as well have asked the bank officers to dress in some specific costume and march down the street, if in fact the debts were owed. It does not mean they are required to do it.

[52] It refers to a demand that a contract with seals on it be produced, a contract that was witnessed by other people. That is not necessary. …

[54] There is no obligation on the bank to produce a true certified copy of the actual accounting whereby the bank, say what has incurred certifying the alleged debt in accordance with the general accepted accounting principles. They have to prove that they advanced money and that there is money outstanding, and how they calculate the interest. …

As for your second example, where a male person was involved with a farmer, you have not described the legal dispute in manner I am able to understand. However, if the male person advanced OPCA arguments, I would be unsurprised if those were ignored and viewed as irrelevant. That is precisely what is considered the appropriate approach to OPCA litigation. It is rejected at the first possible opportunity: Meads v. Meads, para. 631. These are no more than an abuse of courts and other innocent litigants: Meads v. Meads, paras. 598,-599, 631.

However, what you will probably find is that many judges refer to OPCA litigants by other names, such as a “Freeman-on-the-Land”. That label is commonly used today as those movement members appear to be the most commonly encountered OPCA litigants. Ten years ago, those persons would have been labeled by judges as “detaxers” – that was the common movement then.

Perhaps in the future it will be something else. It does not matter. An OPCA litigant is an OPCA litigant is an OPCA litigant.

What is instead important is whether a legal action is or is not valid. What matters is the substance of the argument. If a person advances an OPCA concept, scheme or strategy, all Canadian case law of which I am aware says they will fail. Their arguments will be disposed of as quickly as possible to avoid waste. The OPCA litigant will probably be charged (elevated) court costs: Meads v. Meads, paras. 594-600. There are decisions that report that outcome including Dillon v. The Queen, 2013 TCC 242, Dalle Rive v. The Queen, 2013 TCC 243, and A.N.B. v. Hancock, 2013 ABQB 97.

Oh btw, what was interesting, is this lady with the collection agency, tendered a cheq to them for xxx dollars (i dunno the amount) with a memo : Payment in full for settlement and closure of account #23423424, accompanied with a letter that stipulated that retention of the chq or cashing will be the parties agreement that the account is settled and closed. If cheq isnt suffice for settlement please return the cheq forthwith. signed and sent. The agency kept the cheq and even brought it up in court saying they tried to settle with a much smaller amount. Now i know collection agencies do this all the time, they say you owe 1000 but pay us 400 now and we will clear the rest, or something to that affect. Anyways, in court they still didnt offer the cheq back, wtf is that ?Im thinking that her offer to settle may have triggered the Freeman label but i really dont see how making an offer to settle is a freeman idea at all, if anything its an offer period.Anyways, is that not an agreement by their act of keeping, retaining the tendered cheq for settlement ???

I’m a little surprised you were confused by this given I know you are interested in contract law. The woman had a debt which was owed to a second party. That meant that there was pre-existing contract where the second party provided money or goods, and the woman promised in turn to pay. She had not completed her obligations to repay to date.

We will call the memo an offer. It does not matter if that is an offer to settle the debt as a separate contract, or as an amendment to the terms of the current contract. In either case, in Canada an offer is only accepted when acceptance is communicated. This is discussed in Meads v. Meads at paras. 458-472. There are many quotes from Canadian contract texts in that excerpt. You might find it interesting - I know you like law texts.

So what about the cheque? The woman was legally obliged to pay her debt, I think we agree on that. The contract also has, at a minimum, an implied term that the second party should accept a reasonable partial payment to minimize potential additional interest charges against the woman. The second party had no obligation to look at the memo. It is immaterial as it is outside the current debt contract. The second party received what appeared to be partial consideration for the outstanding debt, and then followed its own contractual obligation to accept that payment and reduced the outstanding debt.

If the woman is now trying to say “no no, that memo was binding”, then she is trying to foist a unilateral contract as her contract offer was not accepted. Please refer to Meads v. Meads.

I will offer a suggestion to you when this scheme might have worked. Let’s imagine the contract between a lender and debtor which has this term:

• Anytime a debt is owed at the end of a month the debtor will mail the lender a cheque for the entire debt in a single payment within one week.

The debtor mails a cheque for half the debt and a letter saying “I want to change this contract. I will only pay half, rather than the full amount. If you agree, accept half the payment.” If the lender cashes that cheque, the lender themselves has breached the contract’s terms by accepting payment that is not a single payment for the entire debt. That means that the payment acceptance must be under a new contract, and presumably that would be the contract suggested by the debtor in his letter.

I note that might work. I have never seen that scenario reported in a legal case, but there you go. In that example cashing the cheque clearly means the lender is acting in a manner inconsistent with the previous contract. It may be evidence that a contract offer has been accepted, and a new contract exists.

Now, in contract law books it is pretty clear

1.When all that is required of the offeree is performance, a unilateral contract is formed upon performance. The mode of acceptance is the conduct of actions of the offeree. No exchange of responses is necessary to indicate assent to the offer; rather, performance indicates the acceptance
2.Acceptance –Unspoken consent to concurrence in a transaction by virtue of failure to reject it, the receipt of retention of that which is offered.

Now, maybe Brian Blum or the other contract law authors are wrong, is that what i am to understand in all this ???

I was not familiar with Mr. Blum. I am guessing this is a reference to Contracts Examples and Explanations, by Brian A. Blum, published by Aspen Publishers? It appears to me that this is an American law textbook. Brian Blum seems to be a law professor from the Lewis and Clark University in Portland. I am confused. Do you think that Canadian and American law is the same? I have previously suggested you refer to Canadian law sources. Not to go on and on, Canadian courts do not have to follow what is written in Canadian law texts – the law is legislation and case law. American textbooks may be interesting, but the law in them is not necessarily the law in Canada.

I know I am probably being annoying by saying this so many times but you really should start reading Canadian case law and legislation rather than foreign law textbooks. I think you would find that very helpful. If you insist on reading non-Canadian law text books, can I suggest you read textbooks from other Commonwealth countries, such as the U.K., or Australia? Their law is 'closer' to Canadian law as it comes from the same 'parents'.

Beyond that, if we are referring back to your example of the woman making a partial payment, accepting the cheque was not an action under a ‘new’ contract, rather it was the second party performing its obligation under the first contract to accept payment when tendered. Performance does not indicate an intention to create a new contract, but instead is part of the old, ongoing contract to repay the debt.

So, to get this straight, there is no civil code in Canada, only Quebec ?

Canada’s law is a little funny in that it has two sources. In Quebec the courts inherited a kind of law from France called “civil law”. In the rest of Canada courts use the “common law” which comes from the U.K. Civil law is all written down in a single source, what is called a “civil code”. Common law is built incrementally in bits, by judges developing rules. While it’s a little complicated my understanding is that a good way to think of this is that with civil law it was all designed, at once, by a master architect. Napoleon created a civil code, for example. Common law grows bit by bit and has no master designer.

If you are interested in the difference between civil law and common law schemes I suggest you read these Wikipedia articles as an introduction:

• http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_law_(legal_system)
  
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law

These note the biggest difference is how these two systems are ‘built’. Both provide rules, but the manner in which those rules have developed are very different.

Again, I hope these observations are helpful.

SMS Möwe

[The Observer]

Our nations have laws and Govt way before ya'll came here, now please tell me different ?

But those laws no longer have the force of government behind them, because the government that enforced those laws no longer exists.

SO, we dont need White European bias law to tell us we have rights. Now sure years and years ago and few natives were under the impression they needed to come before their white masters in court and make application for rights or rights to be determined. We dont need to, our treaties that were made show our nations the exact law that governs the relationship.

Apparently you do, since someone initiated a lawsuit in a Canadian court to establish or protect those rights. And those courts ruled in favor of aboriginal rights. If that had not happened, the aborigines of Canada would be without those rights. You would not have them by merely insisting that old treaties should be honored.

From what i read and spoke with elders and other law minded folk, it is agreed, alot of my people broke the treaty in a way by being incorporated into Canada, or accepting their Birth Certificate.

And that sounds very similar to the Freemen philosophy. They argue that by accepting a state- issued ID, birth certificate, etc., they were forced or tricked into being enslaved by the state.

I dunno about you but it is pretty clear, Canadian, American, British etc...any law doesnt apply to original nations, no damn statue or anything can reverse this agreement, its is much older than the actual creation of Canada itself.

The fact that Canada legislates and enforces laws that directly affect aborigines shows that you are wrong. You might want to think different, but the end result is that if the government finds you on the wrong side of the law, they can prosecute you, regardless of your aboriginal status and regardless of what old treaties say. That was then, this is now.

Please if you will, give me a link that shows exactly what it is you speak of...

You didn't pay attention to the first sentence that I wrote. You don't learn about Latin or etymology from a mere Internet link. I said you should take a class in Latin in order to learn how to properly interpret what you are reading. If I told you I learned about medical surgery from an Internet link, would you let me operate on you?

Dont we write words out and call int Spell-ing ?

And this shows right away the fallacy of trying to learn from Internet links and not researching properly. The word "spell" comes from the old German word "spellon" meaning "to tell". Only after the origin of this word did the related meaning of magic "spell" derive from it. What all of this shows is that you are either not understanding what you are reading, or you are deliberately ignoring the entire history of a word and only choosing to see what you want to see. In either case, it is clear to see that like the Freemen, you believe that somehow words have magic powers and are going to allow you not have to follow the law.

Good luck. You are going to need it.

[Chief2k13]

Ok, well thanks Mowe for the responses again, but one thing you forgot or maybe it was an oversight on your part i am unsure. You addressed the payment part of them accepting in part for the first contract but the one thing you failed to mention was the accompanying letter that went along with the cheque that stated,

accompanied with a letter that stipulated that retention of the chq or cashing will be the parties agreement that the account is settled and closed. If cheq isnt suffice for settlement please return the cheq forthwith

Now, the other part is, they would be waiving any/all claims by their act of cashing the cheque. So, the options were there to send it back if the offer was not suffice for full settlement of the alleged debt. Do keep in mind, this is an alleged debt as this "Collection Agency" has no original contracts she signed to prove without a doubt she owes this company. She did not get any monies from them, this account was either factored or transferred. Either way, unless she signed documents with their name on it, i dont see how they could or can enforce a contract upon her, seems like a practice of extortion on a daily basis which the courts have appeared to have up held this practice but as i said i maybe wrong. Yes, i spoke with this lady, i didnt offer anything to her just asked her what was going on and was interested in the outcome. Yes, i go to court and sit and listen to them once in a while, they cases for most part are boring but you do get gems like these.

One last thing,

[50] The primary defence that is raised is that somehow, by sending the correspondence that I have referred to off to the bank or its agents by registered mail, that somehow some new contract has been created or in some fashion the bank is prevented from pursuing its claims. There, what is referred to as law are merely definitions and cites from Black's Law Dictionary. Black's Law Dictionary is just that; it is not law itself. It may refer to maxims that are sometimes referred to, but it is not the law.

[51] The fact that a letter is sent to the bank, registered or otherwise, demanding that the bank prove its claim in a specific way, does not oblige them to do that. He might just as well have asked the bank officers to dress in some specific costume and march down the street, if in fact the debts were owed. It does not mean they are required to do it.

If in fact this is true, why bother having a Notice to admit ? This is a supreme court document that is used. I saw quite a few that had cases where the facts were admitted by their non response to this notice. However, once back in court the other party says we dont agree blah blah, the judge goes ok, he suspends or dismisses their own document ? this was well over their rules of 14days or what not. So, why have this

Acquiescence is not the same as Laches, a failure to do what the law requires to protect one's rights, under circumstances misleading or prejudicing the person being sued. Acquiescence relates to inaction during the performance of an act. In the example given above, the failure of the competitor's general counsel to object to the use of the label and to the registration of the label as a trademark in the Patent and Trademark Office is acquiescence. Failure to sue the company until after several years had elapsed from the first time the label had been used is laches.
Implied, inferred, understood without being expressly stated.
Tacit refers to something done or made in silence, as in a tacit agreement. A tacit understanding is manifested by the fact that no contradiction or objection is made and is thus inferred from the situation and the circumstances.

I can only assume this only applies when the judge or justice feels it will help his fellow brothers in law ? I only seem to notice they only accept certain rules when it is in their own interest, such a the use of maxiums of law in court. The lawyers use them in arguments and its received well by the courts but it not acknowledged so well with non-lawyers whom bring maxiums to court. So im sure you got like 3-6 case to show me otherwise but i pretty sure alot of courts seem to rely on their own discretion of which law they will allow in and it would appear they seem to side with lawyers for the most part not always, i did see lawyers get trashed in the court for being so careless.

I do have books on Canadian Case law and The Law and Business Administration in Canada. Some im not fully done this book might be a few days before i am, was quite a good find, i have a few others but so far so good. It does speak about, binding and agreements with the law, that if the general public doesnt agree, there can be no law. It says - a constitution habitually (1. ( usually prenominal ) done or experienced regularly and repeatedly: the habitual Sunday walk 2.( usually prenominal ) by habit: a habitual drinker 3. customary; usual: his habitual comment ) obeyed by the citizens of a country. This basic law, enjoys a minimum level of acceptance by the general population just as long as they regard the constitution as legitimate and binding.

So, with that, makes me wonder if the constitution is rejected fully by the general public, there wouldnt be any level of acceptance. Therefore, how could any constitution be binding upon anyone if they do not see it as legitimate ?

Observer, you say

But those laws no longer have the force of government behind them, because the government that enforced those laws no longer exists.

Are you sure ? I can tell you they exist because they meet at least once a month. Its alive and kicking just not as powerful as they once were with their warriors. Keep in mind, No British or American ever won a war against my people of the Six Nations, only thing that kept us from killing each other were the peace treaties. We are still alive and kicking and they are coming up with ways to deal with this de-facto Govt.

And that sounds very similar to the Freemen philosophy. They argue that by accepting a state- issued ID, birth certificate, etc., they were forced or tricked into being enslaved by the state.

yes this may sound familiar but our nations are not Canadian, i am not sure how many way i need to say that. Canada would have had to have existed prior to White Europeans showing up here with their British Crown laws.

The fact that Canada legislates and enforces laws that directly affect aborigines shows that you are wrong. You might want to think different, but the end result is that if the government finds you on the wrong side of the law, they can prosecute you, regardless of your aboriginal status and regardless of what old treaties say.

Again, i told you, i dont recognize or accept the term aborigines or aboriginal at all. Its not how my people speak of whom we are, only white folks seem to wanna press this illegitimate label upon us, speaking of course of Six nations, Cayuga Nation. I am unsure if your history research or if you know anyone who is native, i get a feeling you only watch tv and movies for all your info, cause i can admit there are alot of ignorant natives out there but the ones whom speak their language and know whom they are, do not speak of themselves in those terms.

You didn't pay attention to the first sentence that I wrote. You don't learn about Latin or etymology from a mere Internet link. I said you should take a class in Latin in order to learn how to properly interpret what you are reading. If I told you I learned about medical surgery from an Internet link, would you let me operate on you?

You might be right, if i didnt already speak with a much older gent who is ex-retired military intelligence from the UK, who he, himself was very fluent in latin, and many other languages. He agreed with the first statement of Ab meaning away, like abnormal. Also this magic thing with spell, sure i see other things that say, to speak or to tell etc..etc.. also see magic and incantations. English is one of the most ambiguous languages out there, for each word there are to many different definitions, how is one ever able to know what anyone truly means when they say things anything in English. Take this lawyer for example who is questioned, its really funny to watch how he does this
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=pl ... IYad3TvY6Q

I am glad to have been able to converse with you guys on here.

[Clovenhoof]

Chief,

So what went wrong? If it's your people's land, why are Canadians living on it, buying and selling it? If you are the true government, then why isn't it one of your people in 22 Sussex Drive ruling the country instead of Stephen Harper? If your people are above our laws, why are so many of you in our prisons? If you don't recognize our authority, why is it Canadian money you use to buy things?

Surely you realize that all of this is a philosophical debate about what should be, rather than a legal debate about what is? Don't you?

[wserra]

the one thing you failed to mention was the accompanying letter that went along with the cheque that stated,

accompanied with a letter that stipulated that retention of the chq or cashing will be the parties agreement that the account is settled and closed. If cheq isnt suffice for settlement please return the cheq forthwith

Now, the other part is, they would be waiving any/all claims by their act of cashing the cheque.

No, they wouldn't, at least by U.S. law. And Möwe didn't "fail to mention" anything. That was you. We dealt with this silly claim in the first two pages of this very thread. 'Course, that was three months ago, and ChiefDate really, really doesn't want to understand the law, so his forgetting this inconvenient fact is not surprising.

As I posted earlier, it's pointless to go 'round and 'round with these guys. They're not gonna hear you. There is a point in doing it once. This thread is hit number three in a google of "Chief Rock Sino General", after two of his own sites. Anyone who wants to check him out will thus find it easily. Past that, though, you're not accomplishing anything. They'll sooner or later - as here - come back to claims already refuted as though they were never discussed. Still, anyone who wishes should carry on.

"If you read Quatloos long enough, the claims of all frickentards will float by."
- Quatloosian Proverb

[The Observer]

Still, anyone who wishes should carry on.

As long as they do it in decency. Mowe has provided a very excellent example of courtesy even while showing why the persistent Chief is wrong.

[JamesVincent]

Still, anyone who wishes should carry on.

As long as they do it in decency. Mowe has provided a very excellent example of courtesy even while showing why the persistent Chief is wrong.

Hey, I've got him on ignore. No more rants for me

[The Dog]

Oh btw, what was interesting, is this lady with the collection agency, tendered a cheq to them for xxx dollars (i dunno the amount) with a memo : Payment in full for settlement and closure of account #23423424, accompanied with a letter that stipulated that retention of the chq or cashing will be the parties agreement that the account is settled and closed. If cheq isnt suffice for settlement please return the cheq forthwith. signed and sent. The agency kept the cheq and even brought it up in court saying they tried to settle with a much smaller amount. Now i know collection agencies do this all the time, they say you owe 1000 but pay us 400 now and we will clear the rest, or something to that affect. Anyways, in court they still didnt offer the cheq back, wtf is that ?Im thinking that her offer to settle may have triggered the Freeman label but i really dont see how making an offer to settle is a freeman idea at all, if anything its an offer period.Anyways, is that not an agreement by their act of keeping, retaining the tendered cheq for settlement ???

I’m a little surprised you were confused by this given I know you are interested in contract law. The woman had a debt which was owed to a second party. That meant that there was pre-existing contract where the second party provided money or goods, and the woman promised in turn to pay. She had not completed her obligations to repay to date.

We will call the memo an offer. It does not matter if that is an offer to settle the debt as a separate contract, or as an amendment to the terms of the current contract. In either case, in Canada an offer is only accepted when acceptance is communicated. This is discussed in Meads v. Meads at paras. 458-472. There are many quotes from Canadian contract texts in that excerpt. You might find it interesting - I know you like law texts.

So what about the cheque? The woman was legally obliged to pay her debt, I think we agree on that. The contract also has, at a minimum, an implied term that the second party should accept a reasonable partial payment to minimize potential additional interest charges against the woman. The second party had no obligation to look at the memo. It is immaterial as it is outside the current debt contract. The second party received what appeared to be partial consideration for the outstanding debt, and then followed its own contractual obligation to accept that payment and reduced the outstanding debt.

If the woman is now trying to say “no no, that memo was binding”, then she is trying to foist a unilateral contract as her contract offer was not accepted. Please refer to Meads v. Meads.

I will offer a suggestion to you when this scheme might have worked. Let’s imagine the contract between a lender and debtor which has this term:

• Anytime a debt is owed at the end of a month the debtor will mail the lender a cheque for the entire debt in a single payment within one week.

The debtor mails a cheque for half the debt and a letter saying “I want to change this contract. I will only pay half, rather than the full amount. If you agree, accept half the payment.” If the lender cashes that cheque, the lender themselves has breached the contract’s terms by accepting payment that is not a single payment for the entire debt. That means that the payment acceptance must be under a new contract, and presumably that would be the contract suggested by the debtor in his letter.

I note that might work. I have never seen that scenario reported in a legal case, but there you go. In that example cashing the cheque clearly means the lender is acting in a manner inconsistent with the previous contract. It may be evidence that a contract offer has been accepted, and a new contract exists.

This English case may be relevant:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D_%26_C_Bu ... Ltd_v_Rees

[JamesVincent]

This English case may be relevant:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D_%26_C_Bu ... Ltd_v_Rees

Would seem to be very relevant. Very to the point and explanatory also.

[Clovenhoof]

The English case contemplates a very different, and unique situation.

It is normal for negotiations over outstanding debts to involve offers for less -- it's a new contract where the consideration from the debtor is the certainty of payment of some money now, and from the creditor it's abandonment of the balance.

The builder's case is unique in the finding of duress by the debtor. Fairly typical of Lord Denning, and I like how he gives himself a little pat on the back for his earlier, now (but not so much then) famous decision in Central London Trust v. High Trees House.

But Mowe's analysis is bang on. Gotta make the offer, and get it accepted before partial payment will discharge the debt.

[Chief2k13]

This posting was from a member of my group on Fb, Contract law research and studies in case you didnt know.

Just got off the phone with Bell. Told them that Rogers offering a better deal and I will no longer need their services. Told me you still have a contract with us and it doesn't expire for another 2 years and if I wanted to get out of the contract it would cost $635. Told them I never signed a contract or gave them authority to autorenew the contract. Agent said that they sent the renewal attached to an invoice and that I never responded to it, so I was in agreement to the auto renew. I said I wouldn't be paying the bill, they said collection will be calling you everyday and we will ruin your credit rating. Filed a complaint with https://www.ccts-cprst.ca/complaints/complaint-form and am waiting to hear from them.
Anyone have any info on the autorenew aspect of this contract?
Thanks
So, for the many here that say, silence isnt agreement blah blah blah, so now please tell me, she has no recourse ? There isnt anything that can be done, its a done deal, they sent a document in the mail and no response was given, so auto renew happens right away. So, with all this knowledge here on this page, let me know, wtf is this ? Oh, unless its only the larger Corporations who have the rights around here and merely the poor pricks who pay their monthly bills have no say at all in law, no rights ?

So, as for that case that was posted, no comments on that either ? So mowe is bang on ? Well sure,

get it accepted

but please define how one can tell or know when there is acceptance ? I find this

Acceptance- An express act or implication by conduct that manifests assent to the terms of an offer in a manner invited or required by the offer so that a binding contract is formed. The exercise of power conferred by an offer by performance of some act. The act of a person to whom something is offered or tendered by another, whereby the offeree demonstrates through an act invited by the offer an intention of retaining the subject of the offer.

So, if the offeree tenders and cheq for a smaller amount is that not acceptance ?

There is a duty to read, even thoe im sure most here would say otherwise. Meaning, sure there is writing on the cheq in the memo section, that memo gave stipulations and it is the duty of the acceptor to read that stipulation is it not ?

Chavarria v. Antoniuk, 1998 CanLII 6828 (BC SC)
[85] The adjuster in my view, before concluding a settlement had a duty to read, digest and to give credence to the medical opinion of Dr. Wagar in the absence of medical opinion to the contrary.

Another one where they make mention of the failure to read
Liverpool and London and Globe Ins. Co. v. Wyld and Darling, 1 SCR 604

If the policy was not such as they expected, they should have returned it to the agent in Montreal, and requested an amendment of it, and their failure to do so, occasioned by their failure to read it, if such were the fact, or from some other cause, has produced the whole trouble. In the event of their so returning

Are you suggesting that all parking tickets are in fact not legitimate ? You saying its not my duty to read the sign ? If i dont see the sign, do i not still get a ticket? Do they really care that i failed to see it ?

Also, update, a bank did return a Check but without a Notice of Dishonour, what are your thoughts on this ? Bill of exchange act stipulates

Notice of Dishonour
Marginal note:Notice of dishonour
95. (1) Subject to this Act, when a bill has been dishonoured by non-acceptance or by non-payment, notice of dishonour must be given to the drawer and each endorser, and any drawer or endorser to whom the notice is not given is discharged.

“bill”« lettre » “bill” means bill of exchange;

is a check not a bill of exchange ?

Would the offeror not be discharged if there is no Notice of Dishonour ?

Rogers v. Calgary Brewing & Malting Co., 56 SCR 165
I prefer to rest my judgment, however, upon the effect of the negligence of the respondent through its agents in regard either to presentment or to notice of dishonour.

[Arthur Rubin]

... Agent said that they sent the renewal attached to an invoice and that I never responded to it, so I was in agreement to the auto renew.

I'm sure the notification of "auto renew" was in the original contract.

Two asides, now.

There's one of the "product" ads on late-night television (in the US) which says the product is free (with agreement for an auto-order agreement which is cancellable at any time.

And, if you're interested in free porn, many of the sites have a free option. (For three days, with automatic monthly renewal at a slightly higher rate than the regular monthly option.) (I'm a ODP editor. It's my (unpaid) job to check out websites.)

[Chief2k13]

Seeing no one really wants to comment on my previous post here is one about Canada that should being about some in-depth discussion.

"Canada had a chance to become sovereign through the westminster however they dropped the ball" -- Canada did not "drop the ball" in 1931.

The Statute of Westminster, 1931 applies automatically to Canada and it legally emancipated Canada as a sovereign nation with full INTERNATIONAL PERSONALITY. That is the meaning of "sovereign": full international personality.

The so-called "patriation" of 1982 was in fact an unlawful assault upon the lawful Constitution of Canada by Trudeau and his pals who were abusing power with intent to convert Canada into an EU-style multicultural "region", eradicating the Founding Peoples of Canada to whom the Constitution belongs (i.e., planned and deliberate genocide).

There is no legal decision (judicial determination) as to the alleged legality of the 1982 "patriation" because Trudeau abused a statutory function of the courts to formulate and impose IRRELEVANT questions upon them, such as whether "conventions" of the constitution would be violated by a "unilateral" "patriation" with a Charter and amending formula. By this, I mean that the so-called "reference jurisdiction" of the courts, to give "opinions" to the Executives, is NOT JUDICIAL, it is extra-judicial, it is not a function or a role of a duly constituted "court". In essence, it is the use -- outside of court -- of the men and women who sit on the courts, as LAWYERS to advise the Executive. But they already have lawyers to do that, it's called the Justice Department. This illegal "reference" or "advisory" jurisdiction was known to be unconstitutional in 1875, at the time it was added to the first Supreme Court Act. However, the Justice Minister of that era, Justice Minister FOURNIER, said that if the Provinces "consented" to a particular reference, then on a question-by-queston basis, consented to one at a time, the jurisdiction could be lawful. This is questionable, but that is the basis on which they went.

As to the "questions" asked of these NON-JUDICIAL advisory benches by various executives, including the Trudeau Executive in 1981, these questions were deliberately irrelevant, as they were calculated by Trudeau & pals to duck the real questions of LEGALITY. Therefore, when the advisory benches "pronounced" their OPINIONS on these questions, and these opinions were loudly announced to the public, the people were DECEIVED into thinking these were opinions of judges; but they were not. They were non-binding "VIEWS" in answer to questions formulated by those most interested in pulling off illegality, and having it rubber-stamped. Therefore, the LEGAL question of whether 1982 was valid or not, has never been placed before a true court of law, and has therefore never been judicially DETERMINED. And it needs to be determkined.

In constitutional law, the FIRST question is always the POWER question. Not any other question. Every other question is irrelevant until this FIRST one is settled legally, i.e., judicially determined with finality by the highest available, duly constituted COURT, and not a mere "opinion" board.

That means, IS THERE A POWER IN THE LAWFUL CONSTITUTION TO DO WHAT YOU PROPOSE OR PLAN TO DO? If there is NO POWER to do what you plan to do, then NO AMOUNT of "consent", either unanimous or substantial, is of any LEGAL effect. If there is no POWER to do something, you cannot "consent" to do it.

That question was not asked in 1981 on the way to the 1982 "patriation". It was the only relevant question. Because there was NO LAWFUL POWER to do it. There was no POWER conferred by the lawful Constitution of 1867 to permit a sitting federal Executive, or any number of sitting Provincial Executives to replace the lawful Constitution with a "new" one.

This is indeed what was done in 1982, which is NOT LAWFUL, but a COUP D'ETAT. How do we know that the lawful Constitution was thrown over by a COUP in 1982?

We know because of "LEGAL EFFECT". Parliament was established in 1867 as a PERMANENT entity with permanent supreme powers, modeled on the Supreme Parliament at Westminster in UK.

The distinction exists, however, that Canada's Parliament is supreme within its Constitutionally defined powers; and ditto the Legislatures.

The fundamental characteristic of a Westminster-model Parliament is that it is SUPREME, which means that NO other branch of government can tell Parliament what to do, what law to make, or declare a law of UK Parliament "void" on any ground. In fact, NOBODY can tell Parliament what to do, including the UN.

In this Westminster-model system, the PEOPLE are presumed to control Parliament by lawful periodic elections to throw them out and replace them with others who will do the will of the people, and "make or unmake" laws, as the people WISH. This presupposes an intelligent and informed ELECTORATE, acting FREELY to govern themselves by their own institutions.

In Canada, in 1982, that Westminster-model FREE system was illegally replaced by a new system of a subordinate parliament and subordinate legislatures, no longer supreme in their spheres, and SUBJECTED to judicial review as to the "legality" of their laws.

Thus, in 1982, an unconstitutional situation arose by which another branch of government -- the judicial branch -- meddles in the law to DICTATE to the new subordinate parliament and legislatures what their laws could and should be.

Some judicial benches have even had the temerity to make law themselves, announcing that laws made by these subordinate parliament and legislatures SHOULD have included certain things that were not included, and the new de facto courts have declared these things to be "included" in the law.

Clearly, this is not a UK parliamentary system any more. It does not conform in any respect to what Canada ESTABLISHED "for all time" in 1867.

It is therefore not a parliamentary democracy any more; because even if the people are convened to elections, their FREE WILL cannot be done, these so-called 1982 parliament and legislatures are RULED OVER by unelected judges appointed to their tasks by the new Executives -- and these judges thus are in a position to implement executive will and impose it on the de facto parliament and legislatures, and thus on the people.

We thus now have a totalitarian, autocratic dictatorship of the executive controlling all the legislatures through their hand-picked judges; and we have the further problem that these executives themselves have been put in place by wealthy autocrats - banks and big business - who are in fact dictating our laws through them. This problem needs to be fixed, i.e., by a constitutional challenge to restore the lawful Constitution, and the lawful Confederation, which have nothing to do with multiculturalism (an ILLEGAL "policy" which conflicts with Confederation) and world government.

Also,the Coronation was a fraud because the stone of david had been lost to the kingdom now resides in scotland, See (JAH VS THE QUEEN). All law that is brought to these lands are made void by the TWO ROW WAMPUM LAW. Since the wampum law was never replaced, it remains the only valid law form here, that is why the USA had to have the Six Nations of Indians to advise on their constitution, its in accordance with wampum law.

In 1215 the King of england ceded the kingdom to the pope, whether the kings of the past will dispute it they continue to pay tribute, that made the kings subjects and voids their sovereignty, so it is a farce the british and dutch realms use the papal bulls "docrine of discovery" to claim DEFACTO laws here, but all are void Vis avis The Two Row Wampum (the first law of these lands).

[Pottapaug1938]

Chief, perhaps the reason why no one wants to comment on your posts is that we do not want to imply that there is any merit in them worthy of a response.

[The Observer]

Chief, perhaps the reason why no one wants to comment on your posts is that we do not want to imply that there is any merit in them worthy of a response.

Also, we do not want to spend time having to go back over old ground that proved the Chief was incorrect, since it appears he tends to forget that proof and re-raises the issue again.

[rogfulton]

Chief, perhaps the reason why no one wants to comment on your posts is that we do not want to imply that there is any merit in them worthy of a response.

Also, we do not want to spend time having to go back over old ground that proved the Chief was incorrect, since it appears he tends to forget that proof and re-raises the issue again.

How many times will we, as a group, refer Chief to previous posts before moderating his posts?

Tolerance of child-like innocence is one thing, but this dead horse is starting to resemble a belt.

[notorial dissent]

It is not a matter of forgetting, it is a matter of intentionally ignoring anything that has proven him wrong, which is pretty much covers everything he has claimed.

He has, however, proven repeatedly that he DOES NOT know what he is going on about, has no understanding whatsoever of court or legal procedure, and even less of constitutional law or process. In simple terms, he verbal spewings are a wastage of electrons to which there is no point or reason for reply, since there is nothing right about any of them. As witness his latest incoherent maunderings of no validity or point.