Conditional letters at mikiverse

Conditional Acceptance is the key to not being in dispute.

The Admiralty courts are adversarial and therefore depend on dispute.

But the burden is not on you to disprove a case against you. The burden is always on the party asserting a fact or law to prove what they assert. ONUS PROBANDI, evidence. It is a general rule, that the party who alleges the affirmative of any proposition shall prove it.

Please adapt the following letters (see links below) to suit your needs and make them your own. The blue text indicates where to enter your specific details. Good record-keeping is essential. Simply create a dedicated file/folder for each set of letters. Keep copies of your letters. Mail your letters by “Registered Post” (NZ$9.60 in 2013, – you have to ask for this service), and also copy online receipts to verify their arrival (you will need the dates for your follow-up letters).

It is important to address ALL letters to the same employee in their “private capacity” (no fictional titles), because they are “fully commercially liable” if they are called into the open and “dishonoured” (i.e. they are not “acting” as a public “legal personality” with limited liability). Besides, you cannot deal with an “artificial person” anyway, unless you consent to to “act” as an “accommodation party” to the NAME. You also need their physical address for registered post.

There are many variations of conditional acceptance letters for different situations. They can be used when dealing with any agency that is making a demand.

Bank Credit Cards, Mortgages, and all “Loans”:
The following letters can be used to lawfully remove alleged bank debt arising from credit cards and mortgages, or any alleged bank “loan” in the central bank debt-money system.

When you conditionally accept to pay upon verification of debt, you expose the fraud, because:

a) There is no lawful contract instrument.

Commercial instruments, such as credit card applications, loans and mortgages, are Bilateral Contracts which must be validated by the wet signatures of BOTH parties, confirming a meeting of the minds ‘consensus ad idem’.

Banks never sign because if any bank representative signed on behalf of the bank, they would be made liable for the fraud thereby enacted.

b) Moreover, in most cases, the fraudulent contract has been securitized (sold), relinquishing any alleged legal or lawful claim held by the bank, which nevertheless often receives insurance on the “debt”, having been fully paid whilst still sending out presentments.

c) There was not full disclosure. Banks do not really loan customer deposits, but instead create “money of account” credit from the promissory note “loan” instrument. They fail to provide full disclosure because they do not inform the “borrower” that the credit is created by the signature of the “borrower”. They fail to inform the “borrower” that the instrument of alleged indebtedness is actually recorded as an “asset” and an “account payable” in their hidden “liability” ledger, nor do they inform you when it is securitized (traded away), relinquishing any alleged claim they have over it.

d) There was no valuable consideration. Banks fail to provide valuable consideration because they bring nothing to the table and have nothing to lose. Each party to a contract must be both a promisor and a promisee. They must each receive a benefit and each suffer a detriment. The consideration provided by both parties must be something of value brought to the contract table, and therefore a one-sided consideration is unequal and unlawful.

e) The Terms and Conditions are not lawful. Contract Law requires full disclosure, valuable consideration, and fixed terms (i.e. not variable interest). Banks fail in all respects.

Conditional acceptance letters appear to be more effective for credit cards (i.e. under about $10.000) than for mortgages. It is important to attach liability to one individual ‘agent’ throughout the process, while not being side-tracked or intimidated by their letters or phone-calls. Keep records of all communication, especially after serving your estoppel, when you can invoice them for each breach of your lawfully binding agreement.

Method: Send 3 verification of debt letters, followed by a Notice of Irrevocable Estoppel by Acquiescence, constructing a lawful agreement.

1st-letter.doc

1st-letter.odt

1st-letter.pdf

2nd-letter-after-10-days.doc

2nd-letter-after-10-days.odt

2nd-letter-after-10-days.pdf

3rd-letter-after-10-days.doc

3rd-letter-after-10-days.odt

3rd-letter-after-10-days.pdf

notice-of-estoppel-after-30-50-days.doc

notice-of-estoppel-after-30-50-days.odt

notice-of-estoppel-after-30-50-days.pdf

invoice-for-breaches-after-estoppel.doc

invoice-for-breaches-after-estoppel.odt

invoice-for-breaches-after-estoppel.pdf

More:
https://spoonfedtruth.ucoz.com/index/debt_and_discharge/0-174

Next Article»«Previous Article

Name

Email¹

State

Country

Notify²

Comments³

Add 2 numbers

 3+5= 

(Note: If wrong - comments will not be posted)

 

To further have your say, head to our forum Click Here

To contribute a news article Click Here

To view or contribute a Quote Click Here

[ 2015 Index ]