TWO things POP-out at me in this, the first one is: 1. Liabilities are NOT TO BE FORCED UPON PEOPLE BEHIND THEIR BACKS...

"If a persons conduct , though SILENT leads the offeror to BELIEVE(?) that offeree has accepted the offer, especially where the person recieves some BENEFIT from the offeror, and knows the offeror expects to be compensated for the services or goods supplied, the COURTS MAY find that a contract has been formed." This stood out to me Since we all know what PUBLIC BENEFITS are and the fact we know they expect a debt to be paid. I guess one would lean once again to DURESS.

..and TWO: 2. ...taking the BENEFIT of it when done, he will be taken IMPLIEDLY to have REQUESTED ITS BEING DONE: and that will IMPORT, a PROMISE TO PAY for it. THIS NOTE IS LEGAL TENDER > BENEFIT > use of this BENEFIT > IMPLIED to have REQUESTED IT BE DONE = IMPORTS a PROMISE TO PAY for this BENEFIT > CONSIDERATION is being RENDERED for this BENEFIT > MY CONSIDERATION i RENDER for this BENEFIT, to the BANK OF CANADA = MY VALUABLE CONSIDERATION > section 57.1 of the BILLS OF EXCHANGE ACT = my PAYMENT/CONSIDERATION, in EXCHANGE for the BENEFIT, of the use of the BANK OF CANADA's SERVICE/PRODUCT > giving-up my ability to create CREDIT to THEM, in EXCHANGE, for a fucking BENEFIT, based on DEBT

..fuck

So Derek Moran today my probation officer tells me that the papers i signed with him are non-negotiable. But not anywhere in the documents does it say non-negotiable. Funny you posted this because he also leaned to the opinion that i had concidered and accepted the terms, even though i didn't want to, i remained SILENT, and signed the documents, so therefore its non-negotiable. Does that make any sense? Which brings me back to DURESS i concidered an AGREEMENT under THREAT of INCARCERATION. Obviously duress.

Im going to get something to eat now, but i assume you're on PROBATION, as a result of a PROBATION-ORDER?

Arrrgghhhhhhh !!!! :(

For an excellent explanation of contracts search Ron Engineering and also search MJB Enterprises. They are both Supreme Court Rulings.

What ive learned about contracting- is that you have to not only make your Terms-and-Conditions EXPRESSLY known, you have to make them known up-front from-the-get-go to make them solid, as opposed to relying on an 'IMPLIED CONSENT'-agreement that could later on be judicially interpreted the WRONG way against you... "If within 30 calendar days i have not heard back from you, then I SHALL take your SILENCE as YOUR IMPLIED CONSENT that YOU have, through TACIT-AGREEMENT-BY-YOUR ACQUIESCENCE, conceded to the FACTS-IN-LAW that I have made through your NON-CONTENTION of the 3 (THREE) NOTICES I have sent to YOU previously, that YOU have CHOSEN NOT to REBUT, that in-fact, this is the proper way of marking a bill-of-exchange as the proper method for the discharge and/or set-off of a debt to a biller, in this case YOU, as i have described it as i understand it, in my 3 (THREE) NOTICES i have previously sent."

Exactly right Derek Moran - from the get go, I would even add - include an affidavit of negative averment. Then no judge will have any ground for subject matter jurisdiction to adjudicate unless you voluntarily step off the solid rock of your claim:-)

it look good to me to Blake. knowing how to hold your contract is just as important how to make your contract to hold it

Definitely Jeff Roggers - because most times they will end up in court, at least mine do over here in dk. Then you gotta know how to file and hold your claim (foreign summary judgment) in the public in honor under verbal trickery and intimidation all designed to push you off your claim and voluntarily incriminate yourself. Plus - adding some penalty clauses for fraud and the like if they persist, then turns the whole process into a potential commercial lien after 90 days...securitized.

Blake can you show some example of a negative averment please thank you

one thing that I like is asking for the original back if they don't accept it with all my red stamps Ect why can't they produce that document? this will leave them in dishonor

Here's something i put in an affidavit that i think would be a good example of a negative averment: 23. The City of Toronto have NO By-Laws that actually apply and/or are applicable to PEOPLE. :D

Negative Averment A negative averment is a type of legal jargon that refers to the burden of proof. This means, according to The Free Dictionary, that the party who is claiming that something is wrong must provide some evidence of wrongdoing. For example, if Mary believes that Steve is stealing from the company, she needs some proof of the theft before any type of investigation can proceed.

show me point for point why my red stamps are not what they mean

Negative Averment Affidavit When the terms are combined, a negative averment affidavit refers to a statement made under oath or in front of a court or court official in regards to an accusation made by an opposing party whose job it is to provide evidence to support the accusation. Related Articles & Videos How to Sign an Affidavit What Is a Scrivener's Affidavit? Types of Affidavits What Happens When One Files a Complaint Affidavit? How to Write an Affidavit Sample Show More� References Negative Averment: The Free Dictionary Affidavit: Dictionary.com Photo Credit gavel image by Cora Reed from 24 Lawyers Are Online. Questions Answered Every 9 Seconds Legal Practice Software

http://www.ehow.com/how_5108247_write-affidavite.html

also I want to see the old remittances when I paid my bill where are they why don't they produce those? they can't because they sold them

1 of 2 AFFIDAVIT OF SPECIFIC NEGATIVE AVERMENT The undersigned Affiant, Blah blah, hereinafter �Affiant�, does solemnly affirm, declare and state as follows: A.Affiant is competent to state the matters set forth herein. B.Affiant has knowledge of the facts stated herein. C.All the facts herein are true, correct and complete, admissible as evidence and if called upon as a witness, Affiant will testify to their veracity. Plain Statement of Facts 1.There is no evidence that Blah blah has any remaining obligation to EKSPRES BANK A/S � Respondent, and the Affiant believes that no such evidence exists. 2.There is no evidence that EKSPRES BANK A/S � Respondent, have not received full satisfaction and payment of account � 123 by blah blah, and the Affiant believes that no such evidence exists. 3. There is no evidence that EKSPRES BANK A/S � Respondent, has returned the original negotiable instrument (g�ldsbrevet) or the equal value sum of Kr.15,846 back to the principal, Blah blah, and the Affiant believes that no such evidence exists. 4. There is as yet no evidence that EKSPRES BANK A/S � Respondent, have any intention of returning the original negotiable instrument (g�ldsbrevet) to Blah blah, and the Affiant believes that no such evidence exists. 5. There is no evidence that EKSPRES BANK A/S � Respondent, now has any right to withhold the collateral/property/surety of the original negotiable instrument (g�ldsbrevet), and the Affiant believes that no such evidence exists. 6. There is no evidence that EKSPRES BANK A/S � Respondent, is not damaging and/or causing Blah blah to suffer loss in withholding the collateral/property/surety of the original negotiable instrument (g�ldsbrevet) and/or the equal value sum of kr.15,846, and the Affiant believes that no such evidence exists. 7.There is no evidence that damages of Kr.2,000,000 paid by EKSPRES BANK A/S � Respondent, to Blah blah, would not be a reasonable compensation for fraud and all loss and inconvenience should the original negotiable instrument (g�ldsbrevet) not be promptly returned as requested or the value thereof, Kr.15,846, and the Affiant believes that no such evidence exists.

Thank you Blake Gardner, you have posted this at just the right time for me. I am just finishing up an affidavit for a very similar process and this has filled in a few of the gaps, Thanks again :D

Kirsten, Blake left some absolute gold here for us! Thanks Blake!

Your very welcome. It is from an actual process. I use this (affidavit) as part of my first notice.

Is Step 2 a Default of Discovery Questions?

Step 2 is either a straight default/foreign summary judgement to my additional terms or a notice of fault offer to cure, deep denting in the sitch.

Depending on the given situation.

Blake watch out their heads will pop

http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/_/dict.aspx?rd=1&word=Summary+Judgment

Blake's negative averment-example...