The Tender For Law

Volume 6

Jun 17, 2014 12:43 AM

Mathew Wolfe

OK so I sent the notice of mistake and never went to court. As suspected they issued a warrant. So what now? Chris Evan Jesse Alexander

Read Comments

Mathew Wolfe

OK please pardon my next question if it seems stupid, I'm still trying to grasp this stuff. Would it be a bad idea to send another notice of mistake, along with a Co ditto nap acceptance, agreeing to pay the fine if they can provide evidence or proof that I am surety for the person? And how should I address the warrant?

Wakeup Itsalie

Who were the letters for, and why did you open them? I might apologize for that with the NOM and return what they sent, envelope and all. Or just open it, read it, tape it back up and put Return to Sender on the envelope. Saves postage. Why do you care if it's discharged if it's not you? Sounds like a general appearance to me if you ask them to do something about it.

Chris Evan

Mathew, I have tried to help you...I have shown you to the water, I cannot make you drink. I see you spending all your time philosophizing with folks of a slave mindset. I am not sure if you are trying to gauge where you are or gauge where they are. ALL the answers to your questions are here and by the way you are phrasing them, I can see that you haven't spent as much time READING as you have philosophizing with slaves. This group has REAL LIFE solutions! Not some cum dickus assus which I can assure that you didn't get from here.

This also goes out to the newbies. A few of us have worked VERY hard in here. I specifically have asked a lot of dumb questions and done a lot of dumb things, but it wasn't due to laziness....it was due to my programming. Scott Duncan has told us from the beginning that he can only answer the questions asked...he cannot hold responsibility on your comprehension of the answer. I understand that now....

Mackximus has posted ALL of the stuff that has happened in here. It would be wise to read it. A few of us have been here since the beginning and could possibly refer you to the correct threads if needed, or possibly show you the right direction. But, I am not sure there is too much anyone can do if you don't take the time to actually LEARN what is going on. As Scott says "Your ignorance is not equal to knowledge"

Mathew Wolfe

Chris, you will have to excuse my ignorance. I've learned much from you and others in this group, and it is greatly appreciated. Please understand my position. This is still new to me, and while I think I'm comprehending what I've read and what we have discussed in the past, it still doesn't alleviate my concerns. Perhaps this is more of my indoctrination. I've sent the notice of mistake that we discussed, and I followed the instructions to a T. Now I have a warrant. I'm not worried about spending a few days in jail, it wouldn't be the first time, but I'm trying to ensure I comprehend every detail in this process. It appears that I have two options. Pay the fine or file another Notice of Mistake. It seems either options leads to a loss in my persons CDL. So please forgive me if I ask dumb questions.

Wakeup Itsalie

There are times when it's beneficial to represent the person.. such as if you're a Plaintiff in a court case collecting on a contract, if you want to apply for essential utilities or other things you might want or need - say you order a package online and the delivery guy wants a signature. To never represent the person is to unnecessarily suffer. It's there for you to use to get what you want. Do you really think it matters if the average ignoramus thinks you're the person or not? It only really matters with judges and cops, when you're on defence.

Wakeup Itsalie

Yeah, the person is subject to the rules... The person is required to get a Driver's Licence, and if a Driver's Licence exists it's because someone acted as the person to sign as the person. If you think a Driver's Licence existing makes you surety, you're still confused and think you're the person.

Wakeup Itsalie

Does this crap really pass as substantive debate around here? Way to avoid the points completely.

Edit: Oh yeah, sorry, I did delete a comment but I replaced it with the same thing plus another sentence. I did that because I thought it would make it show up for you without a page refresh and didn't want to create unnecessary clutter with a bunch of one-liners.

Wakeup Itsalie

Why are you afraid to represent the person to get what you want or need? Representing something doesn't mean it's you... "to speak or act for (someone or something)" http://merriam-webster.com/dictionary/represent

Pete Daoust

Represent

To exhibit or expose; to appear in the character of.

When an item is represented, it is produced publicly. To represent an individual means to stand in his or her place, acting as his or her substitute or attorney.

Wakeup Itsalie

Yeah.. so when you order something online and sign for a package you say "yes, that's me", so what? Do you really think there's value in arguing with the postman that it's not you? It's excessive and fearful to "never" represent the person, in my opinion.

Pete Daoust

Me, the MAN, I am the SOLE AUTHORIZED ADMINISTRATOR for PIERRE DAOUST.....I ANNOUCED it at large, I did NOT claimed that, no need to claim, it's what it is......

So how in the fuck they will "DEAL" with this ? :D

Wakeup Itsalie

"An offeror may not arbitrarily impose contractual liability upon an offeree merely by proclaiming that silence shall be deemed consent.

(M. P. Furmston, Cheshire, Fifoot and Furmston�s Law of Contract, 15th ed. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2007) at p. 61)

� ... the silence of the offeree, his failure to reject an offer, cannot amount to acceptance without more. ... Although the offeror can dictate the time, place, and manner of acceptance ... it seems clear that this will not cover the situation where the offeror says that silence will be enough ... Indeed the Supreme Court of Canada has said that something more than a failure to reject an offer is required to constitute a binding contract.

(G.H.L. Fridman, The Law of Contract in Canada, 5th ed. (Toronto: Thomson Carswell, 2006) at p. 54.)

� ... As a general rule, it is not enough for one to whom an offer is made to assent inwardly; the offeree must communicate acceptance to the offeror ...

Ordinarily, therefore silence will not operate as an acceptance even though the offeree should prove an intention to accept. This is not a technicality but part of the requirement of a bargain. No reasonable person, on receiving a proposal that looks for a reply, considers the bargain concluded until the manifestation of assent. Nor will a reasonable offeror ordinarily consider that silence on the part of the offeree manifests the latter�s acceptance. It would plainly be an imposition for an offeror to write to a stranger offering to sell an encyclopedia and adding that the latter�s silence will be considered an acceptance. ...

(S. M. Waddams, The Law of Contracts, 6th ed. (Toronto: Canada Law Book, 2010) at p. 67-68)

� The requirement that there has to be an acceptance cannot be avoided or waived by the offeror�s saying that the offeree will be assumed to have accepted the offer if no rejection is received by the offeror. This rule is a reflection of the very general principal that people are not to have obligations thrust upon them without their consent and that, in general, people have to indicate their consent by some positive action. The principle is expressed in the statement that �silence cannot be consent�.

(Angela Swan, Canadian Contract Law, 2nd ed. (Markham: LexisNexis, 2009) at p. 234.)

[468] This principle continues to be uniformly applied by Canadian courts. For example: Schiller v. Fisher; Nu Towne Dev. Inc. V. Kingsmont Properties Ltd., 1981 CanLII 49 (SCC), [1981] 1 S.C.R. 593 at 598-599, 124 D.L.R. (3d) 577; Pumphrey v. Carson, 2002 NSSC 170 (CanLII), 2002 NSSC 170 at paras. 19-20, 206 N.S.R. (2d) 338; Gellen v. Public Guardian and Trustee of British Columbia et al, 2005 BCSC 1615 (CanLII), 2005 BCSC 1615 at para. 17, 21 E.T.R. (3d) 146; Vollmer v. Jones 2007 CanLII 7999 (ON SC), (2007), 36 R.F.L. (6th) 340 at para. 46, 155 A.C.W.S. (3d) 1079 (Ont. Sup. Ct. J. (Fam. Ct.))."

Pete Daoust

Wakeup Itsalie I've seen courts say that acceptance of a registered letter does not imply acceptance of the document inside, just of the envelope.

Ok, so if the document inside the envelop, has not been accepted, I guess the one that opened the envelop told the one that sent the envelop about it ? :/

Wakeup Itsalie

Perhaps the envelope was never opened... or perhaps it was empty. Can you prove it was opened, or wasn't empty? Was there an obligation to accept or respond once proven received and viewed? In the case of court-recognized contract law, it would seem generally not. But some types of documents and instruments might fall under certain Acts or common law...

Chris Evan

Mathew....

"you will have to excuse my ignorance."

Its not ignorance that concerns me...its that you are looking for someone to give you the answers without doing any work.

"it still doesn't alleviate my concerns."

Then you didn't do your homework

"I've sent the notice of mistake that we discussed, and I followed the instructions to a T. Now I have a warrant. I'm not worried about spending a few days in jail, it wouldn't be the first time, but I'm trying to ensure I comprehend every detail in this process."

How are you going to do that? The answers are all here....you MUST read!!

"So please forgive me if I ask dumb questions."

You aren't asking dumb questions....I am upset that you have used a lot of my time and not followed through on your part of the agreement. You said you would read, yet now you require someone else to find the answer for you....its not fair to my VALUE!

Anibal Jose Baez

The funny part is that you will see Wakeup change his mind if ANYONE, other incompetent crooks, uses those sneaky techniques. "That shit will not apply to the common folk, because contract law says so" . Hahaha!

Wakeup Itsalie

Here's the case, if you're interested:

" Furthermore, signing for the registered mail that contained the documents does not amount to an �acceptance� of any legitimate bill of exchange that might be in the envelope. �Acceptance� in the Bills of Exchange Act is a technical term, and is not the same as acknowledging physical receipt of the envelope. The law does not recognize the ability of one person to foist liability on another if they do not reply to a unilateral communication within an arbitrarily set time limit." http://canlii.ca/t/23nxk

Pete Daoust

HAHAHAHA!!!....who the fuck would have this crazy idea of sending a completed bill of exchange, without ANNOUNCING its coming before ?

COVERING all angles to AVOID these kind of stupid things to happen, exist ! ....you must know that, Wakeup Itsalie ? :D

Wakeup Itsalie

You were talking about sending a notice, not asking... Courts hold the judicial power, so any legal notice would need to be supported there to be effective... Of course if it's just a 'courtesy' notice that won't be enforced then it won't matter.