It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
DishonourMary Croft - Summary of HOW I CLOBBERED EVERY BUREAUCRATIC CASH-CONFISCATORY AGENCY KNOWN TO MAN
Wed, 06/18/2008 - 22:27 — Arthur Cristian
Summary of HOW I CLOBBERED EVERY BUREAUCRATIC CASH-CONFISCATORY AGENCY KNOWN TO MAN
By Mary Elizabeth Croft
On page 8, Noticing banks demanding they verify the existence of a valid debt:
“If it makes you feel any better, you’re not alone - the credit card banks think I owe them $40,000.
I know that I don’t really owe them, I just don’t know how to prove it.”
Lo and behold, she said, “You just send the letters.” I leapt from my chair - my prayer had indeed been answered - ask and ye shall receive. She then produced a series of letters, the drift of which was to request the bank to provide me with three things:
1. validation of the debt (the actual accounting);
2. verification of their claim against me (a sworn affidavit or even just a signed invoice); and,
3. a copy of the contract binding both parties.
I was to write that, as soon as I received these three documents, I would be happy to pay any financial obligation I might lawfully owe. The banks can’t validate the debt because they never sustained a loss; they can’t verify any claim against me because I am not the NAME they are billing - more on this later. They can’t produce a copy of the contract because one doesn’t exist. What exists is an unenforceable unilateral contract. What the banks refer to as ‘your contract with us’ is not a valid bilateral agreement since the four requirements of a lawful, binding contract were not met on the credit card ‘application’, namely:
1. Full Disclosure (we are not told that we are creating the credit with our signature);
2. Equal Consideration (they bring nothing to the table, hence they have nothing to lose);
3. Lawful Terms and Conditions (they are based upon fraud); and
4. Signatures of the Parties (corporations can’t sign because they can’t contract - they are legal
My writing the letters worked for all but one account. [The bank sued and I went to court.] The District Court ‘Judge’ asked me my name. I responded, “If I tell you, will I have entered into a contract with you?” He became irate. I knew I was onto something. He furiously said, “I’m going to ask you again; what is your name?” I said the same thing again and was literally, bodily tossed from court. On my way out I told the bailiff, “I believe I hit a nerve.” I was ecstatic.
Originally posted by endisnighe
reply to post by MMPI2
Well in that scenario, a 225 grain to the head would be a deterrent.
So, what you are saying is that because a sovereign, that would still pay certain taxes, should not benefit from those taxes?
Tell me, what taxes pay for the police or better yet a sheriff? Since police have no real authority over sovereigns, they only apply to 14th amendment citizens.
Tell me, was there no sheriffs prior to the income tax? Prior to the property tax?
Or did we as a nation just completely fend for ourselves?
Of course to me, I can fend for myself. Now, as a pusher of these ideals, I would say the sovereign could hire me to do the defending. And in a society of law, whereby a court system would be necessary to enforce only those transgressions of what you speak, would be much cheaper in all regards.
There is one law, to not harm another or infringe on another rights of Life, Liberty or Property.
I think you bring to the table a strawman argument in a thread on the strawman discussion. Kind of funny, kind of.
Originally posted by Discotech
Nice story although I feel sorry for your kids being home schooled and missing out on a real education and the whole school "experience" unless of course you do intend to allow them a proper education at some point ?