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

[JamesVincent]

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.

I have him on ignore so I don't read them. Works well.

[grixit]

Yeah, only so many times you can watch the Rockem Sockem Robot smash itself in the jaw.

[Hilfskreuzer Möwe]

Hmm. A lot of stuff here. Sadly I don’t have a lot of time but I’ll try to touch on the last bit of correspondence from Chief Rock Sino General, particularly since it is
obvious he spent much time carefully composing his ideas on Canadian constitutional issues in his last posted message.

... 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 ?

You are aware that there exists a mechanism to amend the Canadian Constitution? It’s found in Part V of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. If the public is dissatisfied with the current Canadian Constitution all it has to do is elect politicians who will amend the Constitution following this mechanism.

Did you know this procedure has already been used? It’s true! And I would hope you would be as equally excited as myself that the first amendment to the Constitution Act was to enhance the aboriginal rights recognized and protected by Canada! It happened in 1983 – here is the text of the proclamation of that amendment (http://www.solon.org/Constitutions/Cana ... _1983.html). Very exciting – and a further example of how Canadians, politicians and people alike, are very interested in respecting and advancing the rights of aboriginal persons.

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

Are you quoting someone? I am not certain what this is about.

... 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). ...

This seems like a strange thing to say, given the 1982 constitutional reform added the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, s. 35 which gives constitutional status to the aboriginal and treaty rights of Canada.

35. (1) The existing aboriginal and treaty rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada are hereby recognized and affirmed. Definition of "aboriginal peoples of Canada"

(2) In this Act, "aboriginal peoples of Canada" includes the Indian, Inuit and Métis peoples of Canada.

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. ..."

I believe you have misunderstand the function of Canadian courts. Canadian courts interpret and identify what is or is not law. Lawyers of the Justice Department can only guess.

You know, that can have some interesting results – for example it does not matter what people who draft laws think a law means, it’s up to the court to make the final call. This is sometimes described as a ‘dialogue’ between the courts and Parliament. In Sauvé v. Canada (Chief Electoral Officer), 2002 SCC 68 at para. 14, [2002] 3 SCR 519 (http://canlii.ca/t/50cw) the interaction was described this way:

This Court has stressed the importance of “dialogue” in Vriend v. Alberta, 1998 CanLII 816 (SCC), [1998] 1 S.C.R. 493, at paras. 138-39, and in Mills, supra, at paras. 20, 57 and 125. (See also P. W. Hogg and A. A. Bushell, “The Charter Dialogue Between Courts and Legislatures” (1997), 35 Osgoode Hall L.J. 75.) I am of the view that since this case is about evaluating choices regarding social or political philosophies and about shaping, giving expression, and giving practical application to values, especially values that may lie outside the Charter but are of fundamental importance to Canadians, “dialogue” is of particular importance. In my view, especially in the context of the case at bar, the heart of the dialogue metaphor is that neither the courts nor Parliament hold a monopoly on the determination of values. Importantly, the dialogue metaphor does not signal a lowering of the s. 1 justification standard. It simply suggests that when, after a full and rigorous s. 1 analysis, Parliament has satisfied the court that it has established a reasonable limit to a right that is demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society, the dialogue ends; the court lets Parliament have the last word and does not substitute Parliament’s reasonable choices with its own.

So you see, neither the Courts nor Parliament is actually 'the boss'. Both operate and cooperate in a constitutional framework.

The question of whether a court should or should not hear a matter is called "standing". If you read Minister of Justice (Can.) v. Borowski, [1981] 2 SCR 575 (http://canlii.ca/t/1mjm0) you will learn that a person who is not directly involved in a legal question can still, in certain circumstances, go to a court and have that court address a legal issue. That authority does not flow from a statutory reference question authority, but the inherent jurisdiction of the courts. A more recent example of this process is found here: Canada (Attorney General) v. Downtown Eastside Sex Workers United Against Violence Society, 2012 SCC 45, [2012] 2 SCR 524 (http://canlii.ca/t/fss7s).

I have previously commented on the nature of court inherent jurisdiction. You may wish to review those messages, which again I hope will be helpful.

... 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? …

Do you know what “coup d’etat" means? And are you aware that the Canadian Constitution Act is still British legislation? Please see http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1982/11. That’s why the proper name for the Constitution Act is “The Constitution Act, 1982, Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (UK), 1982, c 11”. Did Pierre Trudeau seize military control of the British Parliament? If so, that event escaped my attention. I hope you are not making reference to David Icke's claims of a conspiracy of shape-shifting subterranean reptiles, including the ever-sinister Queen Mother? Otherwise I am at a loss to explain your statement.

... 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. …

I generally agree with this, thought technically the Queen still holds a residual authority that trumps that of Parliament. To be fair the scope and nature of that authority is debatable. I do have one observation, though, and that is that since Parliament (and the legislatures) has such authority it also has the authority to bind itself and restrict its actions – power extends to the authority to restrict and limit power. That’s what the Charter of Rights and Freedoms represents – Parliament exercising its authority to restrict itself.

...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.

But that's not "illegal" as the validity of Canadian laws are evaluated on a range of criteria set by Parliament and the legislatures via constitutional amendment. So we’re back to the legislative branch of government setting limits on itself, via mechanisms such as the Charter.

...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. …

You are aware that courts have been interpreting the validity of law on a constitutional basis prior to 1982? And that in certain instances that it is not even Canadian courts that have exercised that function? You may wish to read Edwards v. A.G. of Canada [1930] A.C. 124. That’s a decision of the U.K. Privy Counsel, which was for quite a time the high court of Canada, though it is located in London, England. Edwards v. A.G. of Canada sets the general manner in which constitutional authority is interpreted, the "living tree" model.

... 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. …”

You are aware that in Canada persons who hold legislative authority are selected by public election? And I am hard pressed to believe that these “wealthy autocrats” are somehow selecting who is elected, either directly or by some secretive method. You see, Canadians have a habit of regularly displacing their elected governments, which strongly suggests that if there is a ‘masterful cabal’, then that cabal really needs to work on its techniques. I note as examples the 1984 election where the Liberal party was reduced from 147 to 40 seats out of 282, and the 1993 election where the Progressive Conservative party went from 169 to 2 seats out of 295. And these are the “autocratic” executives whose rule is guaranteed by “banks and big business”? Not to be impolite, but the cabal seems singularly ineffectual.

And this is immediately after the Canadian constitutional reform of 1982 renders Canada a dictatorship? I think you are being quite silly.

... 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).

You may want to read the message thread here (viewtopic.php?f=47&t=9476) that comments on the R. v. JAH case – it’s a wee bit dubious. Also, JAH is quite the racist! But I suppose that’s neither here nor there. On that general point, the conceptual basis that a coronation oath defect may effect Canadian institutions was rejected by the British Columbia Court of Appeal in R. v. Lindsay, 2011 BCCA 99 at paras. 28-32:

[31] Mr. Lindsay submits Verhoeven J. erred in relying on Kennedy, Bruno, and Jarvis because his arguments were not considered in those cases. He contends the oath sworn in 1953 by Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II bound her constitutionally and contractually to uphold and enforce the laws of God as they are set out in the King James Version of the Holy Bible, which are the supreme source of law as opposed to Parliament, the Crown, and the rule of law itself. He submits, as well, that by virtue of the judges’ oath of allegiance to the Queen, the judges too are bound to enforce Biblical principles. He says further that Verhoeven J. erred in finding the issues arising out of her Coronation Oath to be non-justiciable. In his submission, the Coronation Oath is a contract and Verhoeven J. erred in failing to recognize and act on his private right to rely on the Queen’s promises. As an adjunct of this submission, he argues that the Crown is estopped from prosecuting him for offences that are contrary to the contract. Further, he argues compulsory taxation amounts to theft of his property contrary to his constitutional right to property and as such is “a breach of contract and of no force and effect”. As well, he contends, taxation amounts to “extortion, slavery, trespass and other violations of God’s laws” and that he has chosen not to be bound by secular legislation, as is his right as “a free will full liability, flesh and blood living man created by God”. This summary, I think, captures the gist of Mr. Lindsay’s position.

[32] Mr. Lindsay’s points are so numerous and perplexing that to attempt to answer every point he makes would be to descend into judicial quicksand. Suffice it to say on a broader level that I think there is no possibility that Mr. Lindsay could persuade this Court that the laws of God as he understands them supersede the laws enacted by Parliament to govern the citizens of this country. Similarly, there is no chance he could succeed in his argument that the issues he identifies as arising out of the Coronation Oath are justiciable. In my view, the Court would conclude the resolution of these questions is political and is beyond the proper constitutional role of the courts in our system of government. …

That’s our friend David-Kevin: Lindsay who advanced the argument. I am uncertain if it exactly aligns with R. v. JAH, but if not, the two arguments are very similar.

As always, I hope these comments were interesting and useful. And before I forget I’d like to wish you a very happy and prosperous Meads Day (viewtopic.php?f=47&t=8805)! I am quite certain that over this last year that judgment has proven as useful a reference to you as it has for me.

One last and minor inquiry. I noticed that sometime in the last several weeks you have ‘closed’ your Facebook “CONTRACT LAW Studies and research” message forum so that it no longer may be viewed by the public. I was a little saddened by that as I had found the discussion there interesting. Would you mind if I ask why you took that step and now only permit certain persons to read that forum and your instructions on contract law and other subjects?

Again, best of luck with your musical endeavors.

SMS Möwe

[Chief2k13]

Hey guys, i will get back to you in a little bit. Im in Hawaii representing my people and our culture, doing presentations of our songs and dances with my troupe. So, i will be back in a week or so. Hope your all doing well out there. Thanks for your reply again Mowe.

[LordEd]

Does that mean you hold a Canadian passport?

[Dai Kiwi]

"But that's different..."
Yeah right, whatever.

[Chief2k13]

Naw, i dont have a passport, i dont need one

[Pottapaug1938]

Naw, i dont have a passport, i dont need one

So just how do you cross international borders -- do you teleport yourself? If you are going to claim that a passport issued by "your people", or some other similar group, I would have to see images from a passport, containing visas, before I will buy the premise that they are anything other than an ego boost for the holder.

[rumpelstilzchen]

Naw, i dont have a passport, i dont need one

You don't need one because you never leave your country?

[Arthur Rubin]

Naw, i dont have a passport, i dont need one

You don't need one because you never leave your country?

He probably never leaves Canada. Whether he leaves "his country" is a matter of definition, eh?

[LordEd]

Or perhaps "Chief Rock" doesn't have a passport, but one of his other personalities does.

[Burnaby49]

If he flew to Hawaii from Canada he would need a legitimate Canadian passport. As someone who flies fairly frequently to the states I can tell you the US custom guys in Vancouver (we get pre-clearance here) are non-negotiable on the issue. No way they'd accepts some cooked up phantom first-nation passport even if notarized by the Chief himself.

[Chief2k13]

I just had to post on here to bump myself to the TOP where i belong boys !!!!!

So, no passports needed, i fly around alot to. I travel quite a bit, love flying. I swear, no passports were used in my travel, its not mine anyways, it belongs to Canada, doesnt it ? Have a safe weekend gents ta ta for now !

[ArthurWankspittle]

I just had to post on here to bump myself to the TOP where i belong boys !!!!!

So, no passports needed, i fly around alot to. I travel quite a bit, love flying. I swear, no passports were used in my travel, its not mine anyways, it belongs to Canada, doesnt it ? Have a safe weekend gents ta ta for now !

Translation: I pretend not to have a passport but most normal people would consider I have a Canadian passport.

[notorial dissent]

Further addendum to the translation, "And you lie a lot, well really about everything really, all the time."

[LordEd]

The problem with talking with freemen is they redefine the word "I".

[Pottapaug1938]

I just had to post on here to bump myself to the TOP where i belong boys !!!!!

So, no passports needed, i fly around alot to. I travel quite a bit, love flying. I swear, no passports were used in my travel, its not mine anyways, it belongs to Canada, doesnt it ? Have a safe weekend gents ta ta for now !

"Chief", you must be a glutton for punishment. It's bad enough that you feel the need to try to push horse-droppings like this on people; but to try to push it on a site where people know that you're full of it is truly amazing.

I don't believe, for one second, that you are able to enter the United States without a passport -- by which I mean one belonging to you and issued by Canada, not a make-your-own passport.

[Hilfskreuzer Möwe]

I don't believe, for one second, that you are able to enter the United States without a passport -- by which I mean one belonging to you and issued by Canada, not a make-your-own passport.

For clarity I am repeating my reply in the Nanaimo Three thread to this issue. Canadians can enter into the United States without a passport. This unusual (unique?) situation is governed by the Western Hemisphere Travel Initiative ["WHTI"], which is described on this rather awkwardly structured webpage: http://www.getyouhome.gov/html/lang_can/index.html

In brief, Canadians can enter into the United States if they have as identification either:

• a passport,
  
  a driver's licence or provincial identification card that uses approved RFID 'smart' technology,
  
  certain other specific traveller's identification cards, or
  
  in the case of aboriginal persons certain approved aboriginal identification cards.

My quick survey of online resources leave me unclear on whether these aboriginal identification cards have been issued, though it is clear that initiative had been planned over five years ago.

SMS Möwe

[Fmotlgroupie]

My quick survey of online resources leave me unclear on whether these aboriginal identification cards have been issued, though it is clear that initiative had been planned over five years ago.

SMS Möwe

AANDC (aka Inac aka DIAND aka the Indian Agent) seems to suggest that, as of April 2013, the US is still accepting good old-fashioned status cards:

AANDC has been advised that, in the near term, U.S. border officials will accept both the SCIS and older Certificates of Indian Status as valid identity documents.

(http://www.aadnc-aandc.gc.ca/eng/110010 ... 0100032381)

This would be in line with the Americans' very generous interpretation of the Jay Treaty (giving "Native Americans" automatic entry), which has been very helpful to young First Nations software developers in Silicon Valley, and (unintentionally) unhelpful to young disadvantaged First Nations women trafficked onto the streets of LA.

[Kestrel]

In brief, Canadians can enter into the United States if they have as identification either:

• a passport,
  
  a driver's licence or provincial identification card that uses approved RFID 'smart' technology,
  
  certain other specific traveller's identification cards, or
  
  in the case of aboriginal persons certain approved aboriginal identification cards.

My quick survey of online resources leave me unclear on whether these aboriginal identification cards have been issued, though it is clear that initiative had been planned over five years ago.

SMS Möwe

I don't know much about crossing the border, but I did find out what the TSA considered a valid photo ID for getting through an airport security checkpoint. The list includes an Indian and Northern Affairs Canada (INAC) Card or a Native American Tribal Photo ID Card.
http://www.airsafe.com/issues/security/ ... ble-id.pdf

So if he gets across the border by riding a dirt bike down a deer trail, it's conceivable that he could reach Hawaii without a passport.