Conditional Acceptance for Value

First I would like to say to the people out there that are reading this stuff without asking questions.& Since I started asking my questions, and followed the answers up with research, my knowledge on these subjects have increased ten fold.& The reason that I mention that is because I learned something new today, that I really knew all along. (I know that doesn't really make sense.)


I have been using a letter with credit card companies that tells them I am not refusing to pay, if they can prove to me that there is not fraud involved in the contract.


Well, today I realized (with a little help from somebody telling me, well it was actually a lot of help) that this same process can be used in reverse.& For example,& lets say that somebody committed a wrong against you.& Lets even say that it was an intentional act, like a guy that installs medical gas lines in hospitals, intentionally blocks the flow&of the oxygen,&so when somebody is having an emergency precious seconds are waisted and the person ends up in the hospital for a month, and they are off work for a year, and they are financially ruined and so forth.


This person can try to go through the legal channels as they are set up for us to buy into, and fight for years without getting any compensation.


Or,&they can do&what I learned today.


The person can send out a conditional acceptance.& They could say, "I will leave you alone and you will never hear from me again, if, you can provide me with proof that this was not done intentionally, and/or your actions did not directly create these terrible consequences in my life.& If you cannot provide me with that proof, I will have no choice to continue with this matter."& Then when they cannot provide you with proof, you get a judgement against them and you collect what you are owed.


Now, isn't that great?& It works just like the credit card thing except, instead of not paying a debt that you alledgedly owe, you are being compensated for a terrible&thing&that happened to you.


I am sure that you seasoned redemptors are just shaking your heads right now at both my&inadequate description and it taking me so long to realize this.& But guess what, at least I got it.&


Which leads me back to my opening sentence.& Ask your questions and do your homework.& The results are fabulous.


Also, since I like to hear myself type, I would like to say that I have never been a sue happy kind of person.& My opinion has mostly been that you are responsible for you actions so deal with them.& However, I do think that there are times when&a person has&been wronged and&that person is due compensation.& As a matter of fact, the actions against us is probably what brought the majority of us to study redemption.


Montana

[Jerseee]

Fellas,

She's growing like a weed, right before our eyes! I am so proud and please as punch!

[Ice]

Yeah, it's cool when you see it "click" for someone.


&

Montana states:

Then when they cannot provide you with proof, you get a judgement against them and you collect what you are owed.

Maybe I'm missing something here guys, but is the point to state your injury(ies) in the conditional acceptance?

And if so, how does this help with obtaining a judgment as opposed to just sending them a conditional acceptance asking for proof without the injury claim?

In the end, the only way to make them go away is sue them or wait until they sue you and then bring up the fraud.

What am I missing here?

(Hi Montana, how's everything with you these days?)

[seeker]

Come on, B -- you know how to write an A4V!! What is it that you want to hae the other party 'prove'? I conditionally accept for value .... The conditions which require satisfaction by you, ..." ###

Think of the A4V as a preliminary Discovery. What do you want them to provide proof of?

Make sense?

Seeker

Seeker,

Maybe I made my point too subtly.

The point of my queston is this: Shoud specific dollar amounts be stated in the A4V letter as a means of giving the letter more weight? And if so, I'd like for someone to tell me why that would be so. (I already have my theories.)

Yes, you are correct, I've been writing A4Vs before I knew they were called A4Vs.

My point about enterring them into the record, however, stands. A4V letters have very little influence over a judge unless your opponent does not show up and you prevail by default. Otherwise, a judge will treat them as just another piece of evidence. Arbitrators also treat them that way. Be prepared to fully present and argue your case. This means do the research, anticipate your opponent's moves (they are usually predictable, particularly when dealing with attorneys), and have your responses ready to fire back.

[freemyggle]

I am very new to redemption or whatever "the process" is called. But I did purchase the CAFV cd from TAB and I'm glad to see that it works. My question is this: If I acquire a credit card and produce a CAFV in regards to my bill, will the CC company terminate doing business with me and my debtor?

[David Merrill]

Originally Posted by Montana

...& Then when they cannot provide you with proof, you get a judgement against them and you collect what you are owed.




Montana

That bill is called waiver of tort. I perfected my waiver of tort and people who base their inheritance upon an overall redemption of debt see amazing results. Hundreds of Americans are courts of competent jurisdiction by simply basing their household adjudications upon lawful money and in substance, instead of credit and debt. Their properly published true judgement in the ancient customs of common law (at the county clerk and recorder) stands upon wealth, not debt.

I saw this developing with a waiver of tort perfected about a notice, just a little doorknob notice from Regional Code Enforcement on a freeman's doorknob. Since he built his home without the City's utilities they wanted him to arrange for an inspection, which he would pay for, and let them decide if he could continue living there. He did not Accept it - he Refused it for Cause.

During discussion he became a little confused about the bond required - this monopoly on the Inspection Marketplace was in violation of RICO law. His land had a fence but that really made no difference between his land and the land next door...

The land is land. So the bond was the chattel mortgage on the People. The national debt. And twice the chattel mortgage was to be bonded.* When the bond came due, to avoid arrest and seizure/forfeiture of the US government for overlooking the crime committed in the little orange doorknob notice, March 14, 2000 $11t vanished from the stock market. The bond was paid and the US was released - at least until trial. So the US - through its agent Regional Code Enforcement abandoned claim and jurisdiction was lost.

I think the only thing about your epiphany that may be hobbled is that you might keep trying to integrate the Redemption theories you have been taught into waiver of tort.



Regards,

David Merrill.


* ...but the principal sum shall in no event exceed (i) twice the amount of the plaintiff’s claim or (ii) the value of the property on due appraisement, whichever is smaller.