HA HA! More evidence

[Ice]

The Hold Harmless and Indemnity Agreement is just as valid as any Indemnity clause contained within the body of a Security Agreement... maybe even more so because it is a "separate" agreement. The content of the agreement is most important.



But then... I really don't care about all that stuff. I'd like for them to OFFER PROOF that I am not a Sovereign Man.

That quote by ice is very important because if they offered proof that you were not sovereign, their house of cards would crumble becaue then they would be saying they tricked you into slavery, so, thats a good point ice.

Originally Posted by Ice

The Hold Harmless and Indemnity Agreement is just as valid as any Indemnity clause contained within the body of a Security Agreement... maybe even more so because it is a "separate" agreement. The content of the agreement is most important.

I seriously doubt the Griswold UCC-1/Security Agreement would work if the Indenmity Clause were a separate agreement. Government agencies are not going to bother to write and ask you for it. If you don't have it in your agreement they could use that as excuse to get out of doing something. Why take the chance?

But then... I really don't care about all that stuff. I'd like for them to OFFER PROOF that I am not a Sovereign Man.

How can they OFFER PROOF of something that does not exist? You cannot prove a negative.



What documents do you have that PROVE you ARE a Sovereign Man?

[rushpat]

Originally Posted by nralien

rushpat



Are to talking about Banking Regulation Z, 72 Hour period regulation guideline governing retail agreements, as codified at: 15 U.S.C. §§ 1601?



nralien

I think it is part of that regulation that is where it was first codified. I do know that it is not only relating to loan agreements though. I used the 72 hour rule to get out of a lease agreement with an apartment that I had signed. I did it within 24 hours and they were obliged to destroy the contract. Had I waited more than 72 hours, I would have been stuck.

[nralien]

rushpat



I noticed after 3 days it goes to 7. If the presentment goes through the mail would that account for Sunday (or a holiday)?



One thing for sure is they are "banking" on getting your money.

[rushpat]

Where did you see it go from 3 to 7?



I think they said on the phone automated message that it was 3 business days. I've always treated it like a literal 72 hours when dealing with the FTB, just to make sure.



According to the Rice McLeod audios I've been listening to, he says that the tickets are to pay for city bonds, under duress by the banks, hence the need for more and more tickets every month. "Quota" is definitely in place. I'm calling on Monday to see what excuse they give me on why they can't help me before 3 days.



I would think a postmark on the letter showing 72 hours from the time of citation to mailing would be sufficient. It never hurts to put in an affidavit (notarized) stating that you responded within 72 hours. Remember, an unrebutted affidavit stands as truth.

[nralien]

Please ignore my comments on this post.



I was unable to find reference material for “not counting day of service” (versus Sunday or a holiday).



It was not my intent to confuse or introduce controversy.

[Ice]

Tora,



They must prove that I am "subject" to them... and that would be proving that I "am not" Sovereign and nothing more than a "slave" or "indentured servant". The fact that I am a living, breathing, flesh and blood man is proof of my Sovereignty until someone can demonstrate otherwise.



The HHIA can always be attached to the SA. It really isn't a big deal. Personally, I don't make use of the SA or other "redemption" type docs... I've not had a need to do so. I did use 'em once... chased away a debt collector trying to extort $26.00 from me. He went away. But I wouldn't use them for any court matter whatsoever.

Originally Posted by Ice

[color=blue][b] They must prove that I am "subject" to them... and that would be proving that I "am not" Sovereign and nothing more than a "slave" or "indentured servant". The fact that I am a living, breathing, flesh and blood man is proof of my Sovereignty until someone can demonstrate otherwise.

I still say they cannot "prove" you are "not" a sovereign. They can, however, show no proof of authority. If they can show no proof of authority, then they have none.

[Ice]

And if they show no proof of authority then it is clear that I am Sovereign. I would not be Sovereign if they could prove authority over me.