Credit Card Conditional Acceptance with Affidavit

[libertypatriot]

Hi Friends

I have tweaked this letter containing a conditional acceptance, with an attached affidavit accepting the 'debt' upon proof of claim of the following items:-

-verification
-validation
-lawful contract
-that the caps name is not a strawman fiction, that it is me
-that the flesh and blood man owes the amount

Before you proceed please know this letter is based on Australian consumer protection and commercial laws, so you do not want to use it as is or it wont work. My thanks go to Jersee and others who have contributed good info which has helped

I would welcome input on it , especially for the numbered points in the affidavit which is something new I am trying


I am giving the bank 21 days to rebut the presumptions

2 Januray 2007

ANZ BANK OF AUSTRALIA
PO Box

Facsimile

CONDITIONAL ACCEPTANCE

Notice To Principal Is Notice To Agent. Notice To Agent Is Notice To Principal

I, Joe: Smith, secured party creditor, do hereby conditionally accept the instrument ascribed as statement for ‘MR JOE SMITH’ credit card statement ending 1 December 2006, account number ending in XXXX. The purported statement, appears not to state a claim through insufficient procedural methods which denied the purported ‘debtor’ to conditionally accept the disseminated information held by ANZ BANK OF AUSTRALIA

This letter is in accordance with the Privacy Act, The ASIC Commissions Act, The Trade Practises Act, the Criminal Code Act, relevant State and Federal Consumer Protection Laws, and in accordance with other such applicable Acts and international laws whether herein mentioned or not.

This alleged account is NOT BEING DISPUTED. I must have certified verification and relevant proof of claim and legitimacy before a dispute process can occur. This demand for verification is in accordance with the Privacy Act and the ASIC Commissions Act


The conditions that require satisfaction, prior to full acceptance are:

1. Proof of claim that $1000 and any additional fees as listed on the credit card statement account ending in XXXX is due and owing by the entity cited thereon.

2. Proof of claim via the validation of the debt ( actual accounting ); including the source of the funds

3. Proof of claim via verification of your alleged claim against me ( in the format of a sworn affidavit )

4. Proof of claim via a copy of a lawful contract binding both parties, including proof of claim in regard to the following points:-

A) Full Disclosure

B) Equal Consideration

C) Lawful Terms and Conditions

D) Signatures of the parties/ Meeting of the minds

5. Proof of claim that ‘MR JOE SMITH’ is the individual, flesh and blood Joe: Smith, and not some corporate or artificial entity as described in the Acts Interpretation Act

6. Proof of claim that Joe: Smith, the flesh and blood man and individual owes the claim cited thereon



Finally, the alleged account needs to be verified and validated for legitimacy and accuracy if they are being reported to the public or other entities, by your organization. This is in accordance with the need for accurate, up-to-date and not misleading information referred to in the Privacy Act and the ASIC Commissions Act. This alleged account is NOT BEING DISPUTED. I cannot sure-footedly dispute an alleged debt without verification; therefore, I must have certified verification/ validation before a dispute process can occur. I do not and will not waive my due process by disputing something that may or may not be valid.

NOTICE AND OPPORTUNITY TO CURE

NOTICE TO AGENT IS NOTICE TO PRINCIPAL. NOTICE TO PRINCIPAL IS NOTICE TO AGENT. Failure of responding or rebutting shall be deemed as agreement with the facts stated in this letter and the affidavit of support attached. If you fail to do so within 21 days and in writing, in manner specifically stipulated herein, such failure shall be taken to be your admission, agreement and stipulation to everything contained herein and fully binding upon you in any court without your protest or objection, or those who represent you, meaning your lawyers/attorneys, or any agents of ANZ BANK OF AUSTRALIA.

The affidavit of support, hereto attached, mandating the immediate carrying out of the request to correct the record, and, in the absence of a certificate of claim, adjusting the balance of the account to zero ( $0 ). Your response must be in affidavit form, under your full commercial liability, rebutting each of my points, on a point-by-point basis, that the facts contained therein, are true, correct, complete and not misleading. Declarations are insufficient, as declarations permit lying by omission, which no honourable draft may contain.

Very truly yours, With Honour, Without Dishonour




Joe: Smith
Secured Party, Creditor
All Rights Reserved



Cc Privacy Commissioner
Office of The Privacy Commissioner
GPO Box 5218
SYDNEY NSW 2001



FIAT JUSTITIA, RUAT COELUM

I, Joe: Smith, in correct public capacity as beneficiary to the Original Jurisdiction, being of majority in age, competent to testify, a self realised entity, a free man upon the land, my yes be yes and my no be no, do state that the truths and facts herein are of first hand personal knowledge, true, correct, complete, certain, not misleading, so help me God.

AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF LETTER REGOTATORY



Affiant has not seen or been presented with any proof of claim that $1,000 from credit card account ending in XXXX, and any additional fees, is due and owing to the ANZ bank, and believes that none exists.

Affiant has not seen or been presented with validation of the debt (including actual accounting and source of funds) from credit card account ending in XXXX, and believes that none exists.

Affiant has not seen or been presented with verification of the alleged claim against him ( in the format of a sworn affidavit ) from credit card account ending in XXXX, and believes that none exists.

Affiant has not seen or been presented with a copy or original of a lawful contract binding both parties, including proof of claim in regards to A) Full Disclosure B) Equal Consideration C) Lawful Terms and Conditions D) Signatures of the parties/ Meeting of the minds, and believes that none exists.

Affiant has not seen or been presented with proof of claim that ‘MR JOE SMITH’ is the individual, flesh and blood being Joe: Smith, and not some corporate or artificial entity as described in the Acts Interpretation Act, and believes that none exists.

Affiant has not seen or been presented with Proof of claim that Joe:Smith, the flesh and blood man owes the claim cited thereon, and believes that none exists

Affiant states that failure of responding or rebutting shall be deemed as agreement with the facts stated in this letter and the Conditional Acceptance letter attached. If you fail to do so within 21 days and in writing, in manner specifically stipulated herein, such failure shall be taken to be your admission, agreement and stipulation to everything contained herein and below (numbered), and fully binding upon you in any court without your protest or objection, or those who represent you, meaning your lawyers/attorneys, or any agents of ANZ BANK OF AUSTRALIA. This would be without any recourse, or commercial or other harm to Affiant in any way.

1. Affiant states that at the date of statement end the ANZ Bank agrees to zero the balance of the credit card account, without dishonour, recourse or commercial harm to affiant, with records reflected in the public. Affiant gives permission for the ANZ to access prepaid/setoff fund EIN # to do so and discharge/setoff the alleged debt/balance with instructions attached herein as schedule 3

2. Affiant states that the ANZ Bank agrees to give access to and full disclosure and information relating to the credit created by Affiant’s signature, the conversion of funds via affiant’s signature, and any monies owed to the Affiant by his signature

3. Affiant states that the ANZ Bank agrees to act honourably, lawfully, fairly and with full disclosure and accuracy to affiant at all times


DATED: the second day of the first month, in the year of our Lord, two thousand and seven, [10 April, Anno Domini 2007] near Perth, Western Australia.


______________________________________________SEAL

JURAT

Sworn to and subscribed before me, by the above-named party,
as true, correct, complete, and not misleading, on this 2nd Day
of the first month, AD 2007.
NOTARY SEAL:

[libertypatriot]

Here is attachment in Word doc format

PLEASE CONSTRUCTIVE CRITICISM ONLY I CANT STAND PEOPLE BEING NEGATIVE WHILST IGNORING SOLUTIONS

[Notorial dissent]

Well, after they get through laughing at you the following things will happen and in roughly this order. They will give you a copy of your statement showing the current charges and amounts due, your available credit will be zeroed out, the account cancelled, and the account sent to collections. I think that about sums it up.

[libertypatriot]

Watch what people are cynical about, and one can often discover what they lack. George S Patton

Cynicism is the intellectual cripple's substitute for intelligence. Russell Lynes

Well, after they get through laughing at you the following things will happen and in roughly this order.

Is this from experience, or some firsthand personal knowledge, or are you guessing because you are some kind of law genius?

They will give you a copy of your statement showing the current charges and amounts due

Ah that must mean its proven already, wow! it was that simply

your available credit will be zeroed out, the account cancelled, and the account sent to collections. I think that about sums it up

This shows you dont know what you are talking about, because according to the privacy act, all information given to the public must be accurate, up to date and not misleading. This is also in line with our ASIC commissions act. Now how is it that they could collect on it if they cant rebut a request for proof and validation?

Not only does your statement not reflect the laws that I quoted in that document, but it is depressing, sad and it helps no one. An unrebutted affidavit stands as truth in commerce

Why couldnt you spend some energy on a solution then, instead of complaining about my letter.

This sort of attitude not only hinders people from testing new methods and approaches, but it stops them from discussing ideas because people like you are going to make fun of their work.

I don't think anyone on this board wants to see self-defeating cynical comments on their efforts

[Notorial dissent]

I’m sorry, I thought you wanted and honest response not adulation for your work of fiction.

Aside from being poorly written bordering on gibberish your first three paragraphs put you in a hole of contradiction.

From what little sense I can make of this, you opened a credit card account with ANZ Bank, got a statement, and are now trying to get out of paying the bill you received. You opened the account, you signed the agreement, you made the purchases, you are responsible for paying for them.

The second paragraph is meaningless since there is nothing in the document referring to those laws.

The third paragraph is an out and out lie, you are in fact disputing the charges, and saying you aren’t doesn’t change that to anyone reading the document.

You have no standing to force them to do more than provide you with a copy of the current or any past statements in question. The rest is meaningless gibberish and pointless through item 6 and the next paragraph. The statement meets the requirements. If there is an item you can legitimately dispute then do so otherwise you have no standing.

You have no standing to demand anything, let alone put a time limit on it. Whatever the law is concerning verification will be met within the bounds of your Trade Practices Act or the Consumer Protection Act, those control not your silly conditions.

I further suspect your affidavit will probably be used as an intent to commit fraud if they decide to prosecute.

In answer to the rest of your questions, I do consulting work that gives me access to these specific arenas, one of the things I do is proof procedure manuals, and I can tell you from personal experience that this “document” comes under a specific heading, and the procedures are exactly as I lined out for you previously. They will not fool around with you or play games, the account will be closed and on its way to collections upon receipt of that document.

The presumption is that you opened the account, that you used the card, and that the charges are yours, and the statement is sufficient proof of it. If necessary they can get copies of the charge slips with your signature on them, but we already know that it is there. They do not have to validate something that is not in dispute.

An unrebutted affidavit is a piece of paper suitable for lining bird cages. The “unrebutted affidavit in commerce” crap is just that. An affidavit is only of value in a court setting, and rebutting it will consist of them presenting the statements and your lack of dispute on the items attached. If they are really cranky, they will get copies of the signed receipts as well. In either case you are wasting your and their time, and you come out the loser on oh so many fronts.

I’m sorry if I hurt ooh pwecious widdle feewings, but again, I thought you wanted an honest answer. The solution, is that if there are charges that aren’t yours dispute them, otherwise, shut up and pay your bill unless you are claiming you didn’t make them at all, at which point why haven’t you filed a fraud report with the police-the answer to which we both know.

This has nothing to do with attitude, it is the plain and simple truth, and as to new methods, don’t kid yourself, this turkey is ancient and has been tried and failed so many times as to be beyond belief.

No, you just want someone to tell you how clever and brilliant you are for dredging up something that was old and tired when Methuselah was a pup and to encourage you to run stark naked into a door knob. Sorry, not on my list of pointless things to do this millennium. Now, if you want to know how to deal with a fraudulent charge or a charge in error, I will be happy to help you, but I am not going to help you get out of paying something you actually owe.

[karipori]

the banks cant prove the debt they create the money out of thin air
go libertypatriot i have friend going threw this at the moment and it looks good for them not the bank

[Notorial dissent]

What makes you think that is even part of the equation? That particular theory has been shot down repeatedly and the ones who have tried it have not been happy with the ver predictable outcome.

[Judge Roy Bean]

Originally Posted by karipori

the banks cant prove the debt they create the money out of thin air
go libertypatriot i have friend going threw this at the moment and it looks good for them not the bank

They don't have to prove anything related to that. There's plenty of case law that dooms perpetrators of these kinds of debt elmination scams.

You can add their attorney fees and court costs to whatever they "think" you owe unless you drop the BS mythology and make them follow the rules. If you try this crap they will steamroll you because it's been tried over and over again and doesn't work in the real world.

I've seen far too many cases where people who could have put up legitimate defenses and won were led into the wood-chipper by falling for these specious arguments.

Hint - if it's been ruled as "frivolous" or "incomprehensible" or "nonsense" by superior courts, you're not going to win with it, and this "no money lent" crap has cost a lot of people more than what they legitimately might have owed. It's also cost some people more than they ever should have had to pay because they went off into the weeds instead of concentrating on affirmative defenses.

You can't assume the creditor's rights attorneys (collectors) operate in some kind of blind vacuum and don't know what goes on in their industry in courts. They're specialists. Some of them do hundreds of lawsuits in a year. A lot of them are only borderline competent to practice law but they know how to share information among themselves and these arguments are so old they're laughable.

[Notorial dissent]

What I have been trying to get across here is that that particular document is going to be a red flag at any credit card processing operation. Their procedures are as I have lined out, and they will now often also forward them to their legal depart, so it is not a wise move.

[mrg]

Yesterday, 03:27 PM
Notorial dissent
Unplugged

Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 111
I’m sorry, I thought you wanted and honest response not adulation for your work of fiction.

Aside from being poorly written bordering on gibberish your first three paragraphs put you in a hole of contradiction.

From what little sense I can make of this, you opened a credit card account with ANZ Bank, got a statement, and are now trying to get out of paying the bill you received. You opened the account, you signed the agreement, you made the purchases, you are responsible for paying for them.

The second paragraph is meaningless since there is nothing in the document referring to those laws.

The third paragraph is an out and out lie, you are in fact disputing the charges, and saying you aren’t doesn’t change that to anyone reading the document.

You have no standing to force them to do more than provide you with a copy of the current or any past statements in question. The rest is meaningless gibberish and pointless through item 6 and the next paragraph. The statement meets the requirements. If there is an item you can legitimately dispute then do so otherwise you have no standing.

You have no standing to demand anything, let alone put a time limit on it. Whatever the law is concerning verification will be met within the bounds of your Trade Practices Act or the Consumer Protection Act, those control not your silly conditions.

I further suspect your affidavit will probably be used as an intent to commit fraud if they decide to prosecute.

In answer to the rest of your questions, I do consulting work that gives me access to these specific arenas, one of the things I do is proof procedure manuals, and I can tell you from personal experience that this “document” comes under a specific heading, and the procedures are exactly as I lined out for you previously. They will not fool around with you or play games, the account will be closed and on its way to collections upon receipt of that document.

The presumption is that you opened the account, that you used the card, and that the charges are yours, and the statement is sufficient proof of it. If necessary they can get copies of the charge slips with your signature on them, but we already know that it is there. They do not have to validate something that is not in dispute.

An unrebutted affidavit is a piece of paper suitable for lining bird cages. The “unrebutted affidavit in commerce” crap is just that. An affidavit is only of value in a court setting, and rebutting it will consist of them presenting the statements and your lack of dispute on the items attached. If they are really cranky, they will get copies of the signed receipts as well. In either case you are wasting your and their time, and you come out the loser on oh so many fronts.

I’m sorry if I hurt ooh pwecious widdle feewings, but again, I thought you wanted an honest answer. The solution, is that if there are charges that aren’t yours dispute them, otherwise, shut up and pay your bill unless you are claiming you didn’t make them at all, at which point why haven’t you filed a fraud report with the police-the answer to which we both know.

This has nothing to do with attitude, it is the plain and simple truth, and as to new methods, don’t kid yourself, this turkey is ancient and has been tried and failed so many times as to be beyond belief.

No, you just want someone to tell you how clever and brilliant you are for dredging up something that was old and tired when Methuselah was a pup and to encourage you to run stark naked into a door knob. Sorry, not on my list of pointless things to do this millennium. Now, if you want to know how to deal with a fraudulent charge or a charge in error, I will be happy to help you, but I am not going to help you get out of paying something you