kia ora, nz freeman forum, i hope the following proves of some assistance to the members. know the truth and the truth shall set you free., he who helps others helps himself. contract makes the law. the law requires that the parties to a contract should have the intention express or implied, to enter into a relationship with legal consequences, recognised by the courts. a public contract (actual, supposed or feinted) binds the parties (including the court as a precedent) to the court of record. the law rests on presumption, where the law supposes a contract or otherwise unless the contrary is proved. unless the record or some proof shows otherwise you will be treated as if contractually bound. generally the question of the creation of legal relations does not arise unless pleaded by way of defence. as the DEFENDENT in any case you may question the right of any partys claim to even bring you there. any contract to answer for the debt, default, or liability of a third party most commonly refers to a contract of guarantee, through the words debt or default. PERSON/DEFENDENT/DEBTOR there are always three contracting parties to a guarantee, with two separate contracts being made. DEBTOR and CREDITOR; and GUARANTOR/DONOR/Beneficiary. contract one is between the PERSON/DEBTOR (who agrees to pay) and the CREDITOR/NZ.GOVT (who supplies goods and services on credit using currency). contract two the CREDITOR (agrees to contract with DEBTOR), and the GUARANTOR/Beneficiary/fleshandbloodself (agrees to pay if DEBTOR doesnt). this second contract does not exist in fact (hence the feint) and the court will attempt to hold out their authority for as long as they have you engaged. they simply cannot enforce their supposed contract of guarantee because the second contract is fictitious. sun tsu 250 bce exhorts, model your enemies strategy and tactic and use their strengths and weaknesses to your advantage. they cannot enforce the inchoate contract, we can use that same approach to also enforce that the contract is non-compliant with the contracts enforcement act 1956. only the party who is being sued needs to sign the contract,....no contract is enforceable until signed by the party to be charged, i.e. the DEFENDENT in any court action. the contract is unenforceable at common law. as we know, no one can be convicted of any crime under the common law...., crimes act 1961, s9. it is not void, voidable or illegal. unenforceable means that the contract cannot be enforced by a PLAINTIFF (see also INFORMANT, PROCECUTION COUNCIL) in court. the DEFENDENT simply has to plead non-compliance to the charge and that is the end of the PLAINTIFFS claim. we do not plead guilty or not guilty (PERSON/DEFENDENT/DEBTOR) as these options do not apply to (common law folk) sovereigns, only the fact that we are not bound by any legal relationship is the core of our rebuttal. this then goes on the record and the precedent/s frustrate further encroachments as long as we remain in honour of equity, in the truth and averred to contempt. quotes from law text, gerbic and Lawrence, understanding commercial law, 1988, butterworths. make it work people, sincerely, johnru, mvr.
Posted on: Thu, 14 Aug 2014 23:42:07 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015