$37,000 "debt" is gone.

[Gannon White]

Thanks for the elaboration.

So it's clear in my mind.....

Presentment rec'd.
Conditionally agree with condition of proof of claim within specific timeline.
If no response, notorial protest.

??

(This is without court appearance.)

[idknow]

Originally Posted by Bulletproof Monk

Let me elaborate a bit...

Judge: "Is there a JOHN DOE here?

You: "I'm here about that matter your honour"

Judge: "State your name please"

You: "I shall give you my name your honour upon proof of claim you have juristiction over the matter pending.."

Judge" What's this Verificiation of debt notice all about?"

You: "I accept your offer your honour to get me to explain anything to the court upon proof of claim there's a controversy here.."

Judge"stand up please"

You: "I shall stand your honour, however I do not waive any common law rights, nor do I grant in-personam juristiction"

Judge: "Look is your name JOHN DOE or not?"

You: "If I tell you my name is JOHN DOE your honour, will you assume it's the same JOHN DOE on the presentment?"

and so on....

The court is like an electrical device. A circuit court. It needs your commercial energy to "move". Charge, discharge, etc.

Same with traffic tickets. It's all about negotiable instruments and banking rules. The cop is the maker of the ticket (cheque), and he's writing it out and giving it to you (the bank) to pay the recipient (the govt.).

If you went to a bank with a cheque, and tried to get them to pay, they will first ask for proof of claim, or basically, check the account to see if there are enough funds.

A bank can't dishonour a cheque by not paying (unless there's no money) and you can't dishonour the policeman or negotiable instrument by not paying (unless there's no proof of claim).

By asking for proof of claim, (which of course there is none....(by the way you're not asking for evidence here, like a speed camera photo) you're simply rebutting the presumption that there's a controversy.

If a cop say's you weren't wearing your seatbelt, what proof is there? It's all heresay, which is not admissable unless you get into court and he signs a declaration.

If you never argue, you stay in honour, and hopefully, out of that fictitious court matrix.

Remember there's only 4 choices in honour/dishonour:

1. Argue: Dishonour
2. Silence: Dishonour
3. Acceptance: Honour
4. Conditional Acceptance: Honour

Number 4. is the magic number, where you get to stay in honour, not in contempt, and there's no entry.

BULLETPROOF

this reminds me of abatement.

good job bulletproof. he he he! (man, i didnt notice that charles does that until henry bowman got on to him. good job. ha ha ha.

Originally Posted by charlesa6

Good job, bulletproof. Your point is noted.

[charlesa6]

O yea, ain't that the truth?

[u2scsi]

Would returning the papers served back to the clerk allow for a default judgment? You have not returned an answer, but they have on record that you were properly served.

[Friendsplacect]

Pardon me, I am new with this process and I Have already engaged the Liars in Court. But if you were to bring something to the Clerk, you mean the Clerk of the Court? Whenever I go there to file a Motion they make sure there is a Case Number on the Motion. Please elaborate on the process of filing with the clerk.

[Bulletproof Monk]

Originally Posted by u2scsi

Would returning the papers served back to the clerk allow for a default judgment? You have not returned an answer, but they have on record that you were properly served.

I believe any kind of reply/response/arguement/evidence etc would be joining.

By taking the presentment back to the court, you're not making a plea of guilty or not, you're just saying I'll accept it upon proof of claim.

In a way it hasn't been served, as it hasn't been established that you are the person on the presentment, and there's no commercial energy/dishonour to move on.

My previous experience has been that once I take it to the register of the court (that's what it's called here in Australia) and ask for a copy stamped, I never hear about it again. One time a company tried to get a friend into E-court and I did that, which cancelled it, then when they tried again (obviously because they couldn't get a judgement on the first round), we got another letter saying second attempt. That should say it all.

After we did the same with that, we never heard from them again.

So my answer would have to be, no entry into controversy = misjoinder = No case.

If you did nothing, then there's cause for dishonour/default judgement as in the case of a negative averment, or affitavit.

An unrebutted Affidavit stands as truth.

BULLETPROOF

[u2scsi]

Originally Posted by Bulletproof Monk

I believe any kind of reply/response/arguement/evidence etc would be joining.

By taking the presentment back to the court, you're not making a plea of guilty or not, you're just saying I'll accept it upon proof of claim.

In a way it hasn't been served, as it hasn't been established that you are the person on the presentment, and there's no commercial energy/dishonour to move on.

BULLETPROOF

So if one is served papers, you bring that back to the clerk, and have them time/date stamp it and get a copy back for your records. You write nothing on it other than the date it was received? I'll have to try that if I'm served again.

[powder]

Originally Posted by u2scsi

So if one is served papers, you bring that back to the clerk, and have them time/date stamp it and get a copy back for your records. You write nothing on it other than the date it was received? I'll have to try that if I'm served again.

Is that effectively a "timely refusal for cause with the clerk as the witness?"

[Fed-Up]

Nice moves!!! I got ticked in west Virginia but have been on the road

for 21 days so i guess my time has expired to challange their presentments..... couldn't get back through there in time to
default them.

Nice though........very nice ...

look forward to other victories....
stay well.