pleasuredome
13-11-2009, 04:57 PM
a waiver, or what is now known as "The McAttack" due to the famous irish man who used it in court, is a counter offer to contract.
a counter offer terminates the original offer offered to you. but as a waiver is a contract, consideration needs to be given.
in McAttack's situation, he offered to waive all the benefit privileges of the court. the consideration he also offered was that he relieves the judge of his duty to perform.
such performance by a judge is supposedly for your benefit, and no man is obligated or can be forced to accept a benefit. if such performances were being done for your benefit, and the judge has a duty to perform those benefits for you, then it is you who has the right to relieve the judge of his duty.
the courts, government depts. police, councils, banks etc, are all service providers. such benefits of services can only be served to you by your consent. they all have a duty to perform these services for you. however, on assumption, the logic is that no man would decline a benefit if offered to him, and so the onus is on you to rebut such an assumption.
all such service providers are third parties. this is why they cannot give you a bill for any of their services, because any such debt they claim is owed by the person is not owed to them, but they are only providing a service for its collection from the person for someone else.
this is why in my situation, leicestershire constabulary refused to provide me with a bill for any charges in relation to their "removal" and "storage" of my car. remember that with such statutory corps, that their services have already been paid for by the people. such a bill would be evidence of double charging and so they cannot present one.
the "someone else" that i mention, the 2nd party, is none other than yourself. such monies they have collected from your person have been left unclaimed by you and have been seen to be "abandoned", and so the service provider has claimed the funds and has profited.
however, as some will know, claiming these funds has been a nightmare (unless you have been lucky enough to use the US 1099OID process), as the service providers refuse to recognise you as anything other than the person. imo, such refusal is treason and fraud against the people.
imo, a remedy to claiming back those funds would be through a lien process. there are enough people now who know how to do liens to get the ball rolling.
Not enough knowledge to be able to do a lien?
if you cant do a lien, then for the time being you need to deflect their offers to contract, such offers are credit card statements, penalty charge notices, notices of intended prosecution, notices of fines, court orders.
simple methods of deflections are:
1, Not Recognised. Return to Sender
2, Consent denied
3, Waiver
such methods can be advanced by use of notices.
"Know ye not that ye are gods?"
a counter offer terminates the original offer offered to you. but as a waiver is a contract, consideration needs to be given.
in McAttack's situation, he offered to waive all the benefit privileges of the court. the consideration he also offered was that he relieves the judge of his duty to perform.
such performance by a judge is supposedly for your benefit, and no man is obligated or can be forced to accept a benefit. if such performances were being done for your benefit, and the judge has a duty to perform those benefits for you, then it is you who has the right to relieve the judge of his duty.
the courts, government depts. police, councils, banks etc, are all service providers. such benefits of services can only be served to you by your consent. they all have a duty to perform these services for you. however, on assumption, the logic is that no man would decline a benefit if offered to him, and so the onus is on you to rebut such an assumption.
all such service providers are third parties. this is why they cannot give you a bill for any of their services, because any such debt they claim is owed by the person is not owed to them, but they are only providing a service for its collection from the person for someone else.
this is why in my situation, leicestershire constabulary refused to provide me with a bill for any charges in relation to their "removal" and "storage" of my car. remember that with such statutory corps, that their services have already been paid for by the people. such a bill would be evidence of double charging and so they cannot present one.
the "someone else" that i mention, the 2nd party, is none other than yourself. such monies they have collected from your person have been left unclaimed by you and have been seen to be "abandoned", and so the service provider has claimed the funds and has profited.
however, as some will know, claiming these funds has been a nightmare (unless you have been lucky enough to use the US 1099OID process), as the service providers refuse to recognise you as anything other than the person. imo, such refusal is treason and fraud against the people.
imo, a remedy to claiming back those funds would be through a lien process. there are enough people now who know how to do liens to get the ball rolling.
Not enough knowledge to be able to do a lien?
if you cant do a lien, then for the time being you need to deflect their offers to contract, such offers are credit card statements, penalty charge notices, notices of intended prosecution, notices of fines, court orders.
simple methods of deflections are:
1, Not Recognised. Return to Sender
2, Consent denied
3, Waiver
such methods can be advanced by use of notices.
"Know ye not that ye are gods?"