Conditional Acceptance and Remain in Honour, Counterclaim...but when?

Hi goodf/all

Wondering if a counterclaim can be made, in the event that one has requested (think this should be "requirement" when writing SAR) documents from DCA via SAR, has not received them and the judge continues the case?

Also if validation of a liability order has been requested (should formally be required?) from a court and not materialised...can a counterclaim be submitted? How would this work (to the issuing party (who create their own!) i assume? but it's come from the court so they have approved it...?!?

cheers all

together we are formidable / divided, we shall fall

if this below is true, they should not be getting any victories!

Contractual Obligation
For ANY contract to be lawful, INCLUDING A CONTRACT BETWEEN YOURSELF AS PLAINTIFF OR DEFENDANT IN A COURT DE FACTO, it must comprise the following:

FULL DISCLOSURE by both parties. Neither party can later claim 'you should have known' if it was not specifically declared at the time of making the contract.
A CONSIDERATION offered by both parties, this being the subject of the exchange. It must be a sum of money, or an item of value. Both parties agree that their CONSIDERATION is worth (to them) the other party's CONSIDERATION.
LAWFUL TERMS & CONDITIONS for the contract, to which both parties agree.
'Wet' SIGNATURES of both parties. This means hand-written SIGNATURES, as made by two human beings.
Even though businesses and officials act as though there is a lawful contract in place, 99 times out of 100 these rules have not been followed (Maybe it is 999 times out of 1,000 - or even more!).

Standing on these 4 rules, requesting proofs, is the simplest way of stalemating just about every action that may be taken against you.

Copied verbatim from FMOTL.comOpens in a new window with thanks to Veronica: of the family Chapman. FMOTL.com is a great resource for those embarking on the road to freedom; freedom from mental slavery and freedom from what Veronica calls 'The Grand Deception.'

itheman wrote:Hi goodf/all

Wondering if a counterclaim can be made, in the event that one has requested (think this should be "requirement" when writing SAR) documents from DCA via SAR, has not received them and the judge continues the case?

Also if validation of a liability order has been requested (should formally be required?) from a court and not materialised...can a counterclaim be submitted? How would this work (to the issuing party (who create their own!) i assume? but it's come from the court so they have approved it...?!?

cheers all

together we are formidable / divided, we shall fall

"I accept your offer on the condition that ..................."

At the start of the process you have four options to consider:
1. Remain silent. The number one Fatal mistake!
2. Reject the offer
3. Accept accept the offer
4. Conditionally Accept - by far the most common response.

A counteroffer has the legal effect of rejecting the offer.

A contract is in motion, offer and counteroffer is taking place until an agreement is made. An agreement made, that is either expressed or implied such as through silence/ non-response, also called tacit acquiescence.

In order that we do not acquiesce and depose our selves, we conditionally accept the claim, upon proof of claim.

In essence you are saying, ‘I honor your position all I’m asking for is proof, bring some verified evidence, prove your claim.’ This puts the burden of proof upon the one making the claims. If this party does not bring any substance to what they are saying, any proof to back up their claim then all we are dealing with is allegations…meaningless statements, unsubstantiated declarations that do not qualify as verified statements.

When we ask for a verified statement we are asking the claimant to substantiate their claim by oath or affidavit.

A corporation cannot make sworn statements for it is a fictional entity, it is not a living thinking being, it is a fiction and has no substance to it. (so require the sworn statement of claim to be made in the personal capacity under full personal liability.)

Without a sworn statement the unverified declarations of a claimant do not stand as evidence anywhere.

itheman wrote:if this below is true, they should not be getting any victories!

Contractual Obligation
For ANY contract to be lawful, INCLUDING A CONTRACT BETWEEN YOURSELF AS PLAINTIFF OR DEFENDANT IN A COURT DE FACTO, it must comprise the following:

FULL DISCLOSURE by both parties. Neither party can later claim 'you should have known' if it was not specifically declared at the time of making the contract.
A CONSIDERATION offered by both parties, this being the subject of the exchange. It must be a sum of money, or an item of value. Both parties agree that their CONSIDERATION is worth (to them) the other party's CONSIDERATION.
LAWFUL TERMS & CONDITIONS for the contract, to which both parties agree.
'Wet' SIGNATURES of both parties. This means hand-written SIGNATURES, as made by two human beings.
Even though businesses and officials act as though there is a lawful contract in place, 99 times out of 100 these rules have not been followed (Maybe it is 999 times out of 1,000 - or even more!).

Standing on these 4 rules, requesting proofs, is the simplest way of stalemating just about every action that may be taken against you.

Copied verbatim from FMOTL.comOpens in a new window with thanks to Veronica: of the family Chapman. FMOTL.com is a great resource for those embarking on the road to freedom; freedom from mental slavery and freedom from what Veronica calls 'The Grand Deception.'

This is now out of date and contract law actually stipulates that all the MAIN contractual obligations are to be disclosed and anything which is not specifically disclosed must be "reasonably accessible" to the party requiring them, and is backed by precedent.

What does this actually mean? in reality it means that if a company has a website containing their terms and conditions, or other such site which lists their undisclosed (in the main contract) terms and conditions, and you can reasonable access them then YOU should have done your due diligence before entering the contract and refused to sign it. Where this falls down is with organisations such as the DWP who spread a huge amount of information across several sites and you would have to access several sites to find all the information, so would this be termed as "reasonably accessible" when even DWP staff cannot give you the full contract to read.
Put this in court and things change, DWP legal teams will spend weeks trawling the information and print the appropriate sections out and claim "well, we found it easily enough" so it is on our website, challenge them and ask which sections of the website they are on and under which section and the waters become muddied and it comes down to the judge to determine what is reasonably accessible.

DWP cannot operate under lawful, they can only operate under legal.

Wet signatures are a thing of the past and any court would recognise acceptance as by "any means" as under law any unrebutted claim stands in law, law stands as truth, and truth stands as judgement; the only thing a court would accept is a documented rebuttal such as a written rebuttal, and many organisations are now privvy to this and write their contracts accordingly.

By dealing with us you agree to the following:

There will be a list of things documented and one of them will be dealing electronically and this involves and includes a digital signature or no signature at all.

For example, as a part of their T&Cs - contract entering jargon

assassin wrote:
By dealing with us you agree to the following:

There will be a list of things documented and one of them will be dealing electronically and this involves and includes a digital signature or no signature at all.

Do they not have to prove this as been accepted and, mutually agreed for "the contract" to be in place?

Yes and by accepting their contract you are entering into, and accepting their terms and conditions.

hi assassin

at what points in communication with them (courts, DCA etc...) is it deemed we are accepting their T&Cs?

knowing the specifics could avoid us entering in to contract and us entering into contract is what they therefore must prove.

Never enter a contract at all is the simple answer.

Hi assassin, that's the key my friend (i also think), so...how do we avoid entering their contract...
How to avoid their court and remain in honour as wo/man with conditional acceptance?
If they no longer need to supply a wet signature (as an example) and we accept/adjust to this and that, aren't we playing their game?...should we not ignore the this and that, as it is another part of their legislation. And continue to insist on them acting "right" by us requiring etc../using law?