Please download MP3 Audio Broadcast of this Blog > here (62 min 24 Mb)
Last week we discussed in Session 11, on the series of “The Law Explained”, the critically important concepts around Jurisdiction and Inquisition within their system: The concepts around Police Arrest and Interview; and the concepts around Jurisdiction and Appearance. So I hope you have had the opportunity to read and listen to Session 11 and in particular to review the slides and key concepts discussed, given they are so fundamental to matters relating to the present court system.
If you have not had the chance to read and listen to Session 11 on Jurisdiction and Inquisition yet, then I urge you to go and read and listen to this Session first before starting on the discussion tonight on Fraud and Debt. In fact, if you have not yet had the opportunity to read and listen to the entire 11 parts of “The Law Explained” series so far, then please take the time to go back to the beginning and read and listen carefully.
Every part contains crucially important information and is explained in such a way to hopefully help you comprehend subjects that you may not fully have comprehended in the past. Remember also, just because this information is given to you freely and without charge, does not make it less valuable than the information that hundreds of claimed remedy gurus continue to try and sell people, sometimes for thousands of dollars, each and every day.
In fact, the time for remedy gurus charging other people for information concerning the law needs to come to an end, now that such truth is readily available and easy to comprehend with this Ucadia series. What utter madness drives people to spend sometimes tens of thousands of dollars with fakes, and liars and sometimes deeply mentally ill people who claim to have some special “inside knowledge” of the law when in truth they know nothing at all; and in most cases, make matters manifestly worse for you and for others?
If you do not trust what I am saying is true, then I challenge you to carefully read and listen to the 11 part series on “The Law Explained” that is provided here, free of charge. Then, when you have gone through these first 11 parts, before the discussion tonight, I want you to ask yourself some simple questions – have any of these con-artists, disinformation agents, liars and maniacs that claim to have legal remedies ever explained clearly any of the key concepts properly as this series does? Have any of them been able to cite the context and origin of concepts, what they mean and why? Have any of them been able to show you hundreds of practical opportunities to improve your legal position that actually mean something? Or is this information the kind of information they don’t ever want to speak about; and thus, they never offer you this foundation of law?
The noise coming from these professional liars, con-artists and snake oil sales people over the past few months in the face of “The Law Explained” series has been deafening silence. Complete denial that this information exists. Complete silence that one can truly become competent in law and in their own affairs merely by reading and listening to this information without paying thousands of dollars to some impostor. Not a word, not even the re-posting of this information. Just silence as if they pretend it does not exist.
Yet this information now does exist; and it is real; and it works; and it is not fake. And to those people who previously used to tell lies and sell fake remedies that acknowledge they need to stop what they are doing and start teaching people the truth about the law explained, I say thank you and I extend my deepest respect to those of you willing to change and help people, rather than cause more people to be thrown into prison or lose everything because of following ludicrous and fake information.
If you feel the information on “the Law Explained” series has helped you, then of course you can do what a number of you have already done and show your appreciation by making some kind of donation to Ucadia. But it is your free will and choice. Just as you have the free will and choice to ignore the years of research and tireless work to bring this information to you; and to simply take it and use it without charge – that is entirely your choice. Or you can show the kind of moral decency and good conscience that is so often lacking and actually make a contribution of some kind to Ucadia to help this material and research continue. It is entirely your choice.
In any event, tonight, we are going to focus on the key concepts around the notion of Fraud as well as the concept of Debt, particularly the function of Fraud Trusts and why the present legal system cannot avoid the truth of both of these concepts in what they are doing. I will also be providing some additional information about Appearance, specifically the idea of Notices of Appearance that can be provided via mail to a court ahead of time; and the importance of this process in having all your “ducks in a row” before you come to court.
Now, after last week and Session 11 on Jurisdiction and Inquisition, I was all set to speak with you about addressing Foreclosures and Evictions and how to overcome such traumatic experiences and what you can do – until I realized in reflection on the past 11 sessions of “The Law Explained” series that we had not properly discussed in detail the nature of the concept of Fraud and indeed the notions around Debt. Given the notion of Fraud and the notion of Debt are so interconnected to any matter before a court such as a Foreclosure or Credit Card case or Loan or even Tax matter, I realized that I can’t really start to speak about Foreclosures and Evictions until you have a better grasp on the true meanings of Debt and concept of counter-debt or “Set-Offs” as well as the construct of Fraud Trusts and cases.
In many respects, people have been battling to defend themselves in court with both hands tied behind their backs, and with a thousand pounds of weight tied around their ankles, because not only have they not known the basic nature of such essential concepts as person; or the structure of cases; or the knowledge of jurisdiction and appearance; or evidence and affidavits; or argument and logic; and of course the concepts of fraud and debt, but they have also frequently misdirected their focus against the wrong party, such as the one that provides the goods, rather than the one holding the role of trustee that failed to perform his or her duties by providing you proper account information.
If you have listened to and read any of “The Law Explained” series so far, then I hope by now it is abundantly clear you are not dealing with a fair or honest or just system through modern commercial and “for profit” courts. Such corporations have become so corrupt and so automated that people have very little chance of seeing any kind of positive result, even if they know exactly what is going on and why. So how on earth can anyone expect a positive result when you do not even know the essential concepts you are discussing in the first place? This is precisely the paradox of the discussion about debt. There have always been two traditional meanings of the word debt and one of them implies you are a delinquent and are in dishonor. Now the two definitions are fused together, yet they remain distinct concepts, despite the deliberate confusion and obfuscation of legal dictionaries. If you allow yourself to be tricked into a position of being delinquent and in dishonor, then your chance of any kind of positive result is minimized further. So it is vital that we truly comprehend what debt actually means? Its origin of meaning in law; and what it still means today?
Similarly, since the 18th Century, there has been the legitimate remedy, even in the face of being accused as a debtor, to Set-Off such alleged debts against valid debts owed to us. This is not the concept of Accepted-for-Value (A4V), being a deliberately false and insane and wrong concept invented years ago to confuse people. There are occasions when debts can be discharged through endorsement back to the agent – but these are extremely limited and are connected to comprehending the relations of persons – and have nothing to do with the fake and stupid and dangerously insane disinformation called Accepted-for-Value (A4V). In fact the promoters of such false concepts of A4V have caused terrible damage around the world, by deliberately confusing and mixing up concepts, misrepresenting maxims and precedents of law and basically lying to people. So tonight, we need to clear up this mess and explain once and for all what Set-Off means and how it may assist us in difficult matters.
Before we start, let us have a look at a brief summary of what we discussed in Session 11 on Jurisdiction and Inquisition.
Part #1 – Notices of Appearance
Page 3 – Review of Key Points from Session 11
Session 11 on Jurisdiction and Inquisition presented some crucial knowledge on how to handle the extremely stressful experience of police arrest, police raids and police interviews, while still respecting that the vast majority of police are themselves decent people. We also discussed some rarely comprehended procedural issues concerning court and the nature of Jurisdiction and Appearance; and why, when people forget or ignore these procedures, they effectively “hand over” control to the opposing side by effectively admitting they are incompetent, and idiots and therefore subject to the jurisdiction of the court. So without going through everything again, let us have a look at some highlights as per slide 3:
Police have three primary goals being (1) obtain confession; and (2) form a contract and (3) discredit any alternate testimony; and that when faced even with the most intimidatory circumstances of raids and arrest, there is a way to handle ones self;
No one can properly force you to make testimony or enter a contract if they refuse to divulge the facts;
Jurisdiction is two things (1) authority of a forum to administer justice; and (2) authority of jurist to sit and hear and interpret the law of such a forum;
Appearance is two things (1) physical presence; and (2) formal capacity & character of defendant coming to a valid forum of law to resolve a legal argument;
A defendant must submit some memorandum of appearance on the day to identify their capacity and character of defense (i.e. attorney-in-fact, or advocate-of-law, or self representation PRO SE);
There are two types of Appearance (1) Special challenges the jurisdiction of court; and (2) General as acceptance and submission to jurisdiction of court.
Page 4 – Notice of Special Appearance – Registered Post
Now, before we get into some important revision of concepts to address the topic of Session 12 tonight being Fraud and Debt, I want to address a follow on to the discussions of last week concerning the concept of Appearance, as outlined on slide 4.
As I just mentioned in the quick and brief summary of Session 11, Appearance is not only the physical presence at the court on the day of the hearing or trial or mention, but also the procedural memorandum and notification of the court by the defense as to the claimed standing and character of the defense. It is now time to discuss an extension of that knowledge in matters where a summons is issued by the mail or has been served by another party ahead of a proposed court date. It is called Notice of Appearance, or in this case Notice of Special Appearance.
As I mentioned last week, if there is no possibility of receiving a logical or fair hearing and that overwhelmingly there is evidence the court has no jurisdiction, then you may seek to respond with a Notice of Special Appearance, supported by a properly formed Affidavit in the manner described in Session 10 on the Law Explained Series; and finally a series of questions called Interrogatories that go to the heart of the challenge of jurisdiction.
However, be warned. Unless you are 100% competent and knowledgeable back-to-front and front-to-back on the knowledge presented in this series, and are capable of being calm and collected under fire, you are effectively “poking a bear in the eye with a stick” when challenging as special appearance, and do not expect an easy process.
On the other hand, if you have clear evidence of existing dishonor by the other side and clear omissions within their claim, plus evidence of counter claim, then you may choose to use the Notice of Appearance as the delivery mechanism of your intentions up front to the court, so there can be no automatic default or white-washing of your evidence. In the end, it is your choice. However, I urge you to consider very carefully what you do, because there is the possibility of having matters dismissed and discharged while still accepting General Appearance if done properly.
So the key points I will mention about the Notice of Appearance or Notice of Special Appearance is that it is your opportunity to get the surety and details of any Attorney-In-Fact or Advocate-Of-Law into their system, plus the fact that your Affidavit is your response and challenge.
Page 5 – Notice of Appearance - Affidavit
As to your Affidavit as per slide 5, remember the purpose of an Affidavit is to provide testimony given under oath in a form acceptable to their system, providing facts and proof (or annexures) based on first hand evidence and knowledge that is NOT hearsay, or opinion, or conspiracy or conjecture.
I showed the key elements of this in Session 10 as well as referring to the section on Affidavits under Fiduciary Law on the website One-Heaven.Org. You might like to also review Session 7 on Logic and Argument.
What I didn’t include in Session 10 was the necessity to include a clause at the end of your affidavit and before any listing of annexures as the last numbered paragraph of the main body that effectively disarms any claim of an error rendering the entire affidavit void. I actually discussed this logical fallacy in Session 7 and it is an old trick of private bar guild members to eliminate affidavits they do not like – to pick on one error to claim the whole affidavit is false. So please consider words similar to the ones below:
All the facts and circumstances deposed herein are within my own first-hand knowledge and expertise except such as are deposed herein from information only in accord with my reasonable knowledge and sources of information as appear within the present Affidavit. In the event that any provision or wording of the present Affidavit is held to be invalid or unenforceable at law, such provision or wording shall hereby be severed from the present Affidavit to the extent that such provision or wording is void, or invalid or unenforceable. Furthermore, any such ruling shall not affect the validity or enforceability of the remainder of the present Affidavit.
The point I want to emphasize clearly before we move ahead is the continuing madness and stupidity as people ignore what has been expressed in the likes of Session 10 on testimony and evidence, and still copy and paste templates on the internet full of rubbish, misconstrued allegations, opinions, conspiracies and the kitchen sink, and think that this is somehow a valid affidavit. So I will say it again so that there can be no misunderstanding by those who seem incapable of self-restraint and common-sense – if you ignore Ucadia and continue to follow false remedy gurus and continue to file rubbish as affidavits, then not only will you lose, but you will probably lose everything and also probably go to jail. You have been warned now repeatedly and so if a court throws the book at you, it will be completely your fault and no one else for being so stupid – Because if you listened to this series and followed what is outlined, then you would know exactly how to formulate a proper affidavit.
Page 6 – Notice of Appearance - Interrogatories
This brings me to slide 6 and the last points on Notice of Appearance and the question of Interrogatories. Whenever you receive a summons to appear or attend, Interrogatories are a very powerful and important element to consider.
Interrogatories are formal questions given to a party in a matter accompanied by an Affidavit that must be answered under oath and truthfully; or the implication of the question will stand as fact if unanswered or not disputed.
In most western jurisdictions, there is the requirement of the plaintiff issuing the summons to provide disclosure to the opposing parties as part of their claim. Of course, this is not always the case; and courts increasingly have modified their own procedures to add more and more examples where such disclosure is deemed unnecessary.
So what this means in practice is that if you do choose to appear under general appearance and submit to the jurisdiction of the court, then you are faced with being judged on incomplete evidence; against a plaintiff that may very well have not disclosed all the facts. What do you do? This is where properly formed interrogatories are essential.
Virtually every jurisdiction of court permits interrogatories in civil matters. If you are sending a Notice of Special Appearance, your Interrogatories will be directed at the court, so you need to be even more competent and careful in your wording.
Interrogatories are not an opportunity to score points, or make further unsubstantiated allegations, or unproven presumptions. Remembering, in most jurisdictions the limit of questions – including all sub parts is 25 or less – unless the court grants follow up questions. So please do not be tricked by many of the false and fake and poorly designed examples of interrogatories on the internet.
Instead, consider the following key elements:
Interrogatories begin with making clear the source of authority within the statutes or codes or procedures of the court that permit you to issue such a document.
Secondly, interrogatories must include essential definitions – not exhaustive – but at least those terms defining the parties, the issues and the terms most commonly used in the interrogatories.
Thirdly, interrogatories must include instructions – based on the actual procedures and rules of the court – on how to answer them, the deadline to answer, and what a non-answer constitutes. Usually, the deadline date is 30 days from service. If you are responding to a summons within 28 days or 14 days, do not worry, because if you have the interrogatories properly served – then you have the grounds for an immediate continuance, via motion, to be granted on the day stated on the summons, if you are accepting general appearance. The court must grant you protection from any further interaction with the plaintiff until the plaintiff has answered the interrogatories.
If you are issuing interrogatories as part of a special appearance, then either the matter should be re-scheduled or continued. But be careful. A Notice of Special Appearance still follows procedures of court to the extent of courtesy to the court until the question of jurisdiction is proven or disproven. Therefore, do not be tricked by fake remedy gurus that suggest you can make it up as you go along. You cannot.
Finally, when framing questions, keep in mind the implications if not answered. As I mentioned, do not destroy such an important element of response by including questions based on unproven or unsubstantiated claims, conspiracies or scandal, as it will hurt you, not help you. Instead, use this element of procedural remedy to obtain the disclosure that is needed to be able to adequately defend your matter; or respectfully and properly challenge the jurisdiction of the court, whatever the case may be.
Part #2 – Quick Review on Key Concepts
Now that we have outlined the second part of new information concerning Appearance, I want to review a number of Key Concepts we have previously discussed – some at length – in this series on the law Explained, that are essential to our ability to comprehend the notions surrounding the concept of Fraud as well as Debt.
Page 8 – Law always involves the tribunal of persons
I will begin with slide 8 as the same slide I mentioned last week in Session 11 on Jurisdiction and Inquisition, and the fact that the Law always involves the tribunal of persons.
As we have now discussed repeatedly, if we did not have three personal perspectives within language, then it would be impossible to describe objective relation between “I, me, my” and “you, yours and yourself” and “he, she, they or them”. This is not intrinsically “evil” or “bad” or “unfair”, it is actually logical and common sense.
The very notion of objective thought requires the presence in session of a mental forum of consciousness of at least three persons – the one asking the question, or “accuser”; then the one that is the subject or answerer, or “accused”; and finally the witness to the mental argument being sufficiently independent to conclude a rational thought.
This notion of the tribunal of persons is at the very heart of the modern legal system in the pseudo form of the “sacrament of penance” as a “court of conscience”, whereby a man or woman is at once the accuser, the accused and the witness – with all other parties then merely evidentiary witnesses to such an admission.
Page 9 – Law always involves one or more Estates
Given that law always involves persons, it means that law always involves one or more Estates as shown on slide 9, being records in a roll, creating persons associated with rights.
In almost all cases, the courts that you will be dealing with only have jurisdiction over personal property of things, and not the real property of agents, much less official property of the government. Those powers are reserved for much higher courts such as the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia, or the Court of Chancery in Delaware, or the Privy Council in Great Britain.
Page 10 – The law is necessarily fictional
It is also important to remind ourselves yet again that the Law is necessarily fictional, as per slide 10. That is not a bad thing – it is a fact of nature. Indeed, any form of attempt of accurate memorialization of past events, for whatever reason requires some level of “re-creation” of past events, in order to comprehend their chronology, their relation and their conclusion.
Page 11 – Law always involves Argument
Similarly, it is also important to remind ourselves as per slide 11, that Law always involved some Argument being the process of establishing and validating the proof of one or more claimed facts.
As we have discussed previously in this series, the word argument itself, comes from the Latin term arguo meaning “I show, prove, assert, declare, make clear; or I reprove, accuse, charge with; or I blame, censure; or I denounce as false”. In other words, the ancient Latin concept of argument remains very similar to its use today.
As slide 11 shows, all formal Arguments have three essential components: Matter, Issue and Facts. The foundational reasoning used to establish Argument is LOGIC either by Deductive or Inductive Logic. An Argument always involves a minimum of 2 persons. A Legal Argument always involves a minimum of 3 persons – as we just said a moment ago about the “tribunal of persons”.
Page 12 – Law depends upon Logic and Reason
So, given Argument is always part of Law, slide 12 reminds us that the Law always depends upon Logic and Reason to prove Matter, Issue and Facts. The law may make a distinction between the question of fairness as a matter of equity; and now something specialized in certain types of courts being courts of equity or courts of chancery; and courts of procedural law – yet all courts depend upon logic and reason to function.
Page 13 – Law always involves process of form, cause and action
Thus, as slide 13 reminds us, yet again, law always involves process and procedure of form, cause and action. There must always be the written testimony in some form by the accuser and unless the accuser is making a confession and accepting the debt, liability and surety for themselves, the accuser cannot also be the role of accused or prime witness.
Furthermore, there must be some formal outline of alleged misdeed and essential facts – being the facts needed to be proven. Finally, there is the action in law reflecting the rights of the accuser to remedy or relief.
If a person possesses a right of action, then the standard process initiated by a plaintiff must include an affidavit of the accuser, the affidavit of at least one witness, an indictment and a citation. Such a right pre-supposes some form of agreement, or charter, or warrant or patent granting such a right in the first place.
If a person only possesses a right of exception, then the standard process must include a statement of the claimant, the claim, the affidavit of at least one witness; or admission by the accused of a debt, and then the formal complaint – usually as a bill of rights.
If a person possesses neither a right of action nor right of exception, then the standard process must include a memorandum of facts and arguments, a prayer for relief in “equity” and some formal petition.
Page 14 – Law always involves one or more Rights
As we have mentioned, slide 14 reminds us that Law always involves one or more Rights, with a Right being an Ecclesiastical, Moral or Legal Capacity, Privilege, Liberty, Faculty or Power, and associated obligations, remedy, relief and exceptions held in Trust.
Page 15 – Types of Rights
Slide 15 then reminds us of the types of Rights that may or may not be involved in an argument of law.
Page 16 – Law always involves one or more Trusts
Slide 16 emphasizes what is a Trust. As we have spoken previously, law always involves rights that are always held in trust; and that law always involves estates being persons of various statuses holding certain rights in trust. Thus, a trust is the formation of an office of trust or “trustee” formed by a promise to the terms of trust to take possession of certain Rights, and perform certain Obligations for the Benefit of Another.
Page 17 – The 2 different states of Beneficiary
Slide 17 then shows us again the two different states of Beneficiary in relation to Trusts, being either named or unnamed.
When the Beneficiary is named, a Principal-Agent relation is established and the agent effectively provides a service.
But when the Beneficiary is unnamed, the Benefit goes to the Creditor; and the liability remains with the Trustee as Debtor, while the unnamed beneficiary is given a “Good”.
Page 18 – Procedural Law always involves Property
When it comes to Procedural Law concerning the Right of Action, or the Right of Exception, then Slide 18 reminds us that such administrative law always involves some form of property. Here in this slide, we see the circle of comprehension return by our knowledge now of exactly what an Estate is; as well as what Property is – being a negotiable right attached to a person.
Page 19 – Five conditions that end a Trust
Finally, slide 19, reminds us of the five main conditions that cause the end of a Trust, namely Dissolution, Satisfaction, Termination, Falsification (Cessation) or Annulment. Tonight, we will be speaking more about the conditions associated with Falsification, or more commonly known as Fraud; and how the presumptions and conditions of such an end of a trust work; and how courts then address outstanding rights, issues, penalties and punishments in the context of Fraud.
Part #3 – Goods and Chattels
Now, I realize that there is a lot to absorb and remember concerning past concepts around law, procedure of law, estates, persons, trusts, property and so on, before we even speak about fraud and debt. Yet I hope you see why it has been so important to recall these concepts in the order we have. Because, if we didn’t remind ourselves what we know as the foundations of law, then we might remain deeply confused or misinformed about subjects that are vital in comprehending debt. Take the notion of Goods and Chattels for example.
Before we can speak about Debt and even Fraud, we need to first speak about the notion of Goods and Chattels; and what are Goods and what are Chattels? This is because the concept of Debt is directly associated from its very origin with the notions of Goods and Chattels of a Personal Estate, not Real Estate. As Debts are and have always been associated with the notion of Goods.
Let me explain quickly: Land under the Western-Roman Systems is the only real asset there is; because land means people as something that can be owned. It is the source of the creation of all financial instruments and money. Its existence is essential in such a system for any subsequent derivative like an Annuity attached to a Cestui Que Vie Trust to exist.
So logically, as debt is a derivative of a contract and a contract is a derivative of a person and a person is a derivative of the physical man or woman as Land; and therefore debts can only be associated with personal estates and NOT real estates or official estates.
Page 21 – What are Goods?
Let us have a look at slide 21. The notion of Goods has two essential meanings: the first is a gift; and the second is a promise associated with a beneficial Right of Use for Sale or Bargain. Thus, an exchange of Goods can mean:
(a) An Exchange of gifts between a buyer and a seller; or
(b) An Exchange of a gift of a seller with a promise of a buyer; or
(c) An Exchange of promises between a buyer and a seller.
The original Latin word for Promise was bona meaning “promise”. Hence, Bona Fide in respect of trusts also translates literally as a “promise in trust” or an enforceable promise. By the 17th Century, the word bona was replaced by the word goods meaning a “promise or gift to or from God”.
As the diagram shows, this is somewhat of a different concept to what we are used to thinking. As consumers, we are trained to think of goods in terms of the actual house, or car, or groceries – not the rights in trust that are attached behind them. Yet that is what precisely it is.
Page 22 – What are Chattels?
Another word that is traditionally associated with Goods is the word Chattels. The meaning of Chattels is frequently formed as a circular reference with Goods, so when you try to find the meaning of Goods, you get “chattels” and when you look at the definition of Chattels you get “goods”.
Let me end this circular madness once and for all and define what the legal dictionaries can’t tell you. Chattels means literally “Animals and Slaves as Goods as well as the Goods of Slaves for Sale and Bargain”.
The true original Latin word for Chattel is Catal/Catalla (the same origin for Cattle) meaning “beasts of burden”. So there is no hiding what it means, despite some artful attempts by some dictionaries.
Chattels are then defined into two broad categories, Real Chattels and Personal Chattels.
Real Chattels are the Interests of Animals, Insolvent Debtors, Criminals and Slaves leased for years as property to corporations for profit. Typically, the criminal banking landlord retains “Chattel Interest” – in other words no effectual title passes from the creditor to debtor, but the creditor retains the right to the slaves that the debtor never had.
Personal Chattels are the personal property of Insolvent Debtors, Criminals and Slaves that may be seized as bounty, prize or profit.
I am not going to spend too much more time on Chattels as “The Law Explained” series has done enough in outlining the basis of the Western Model and its deep traditional and negative roots that are in need of reform.
Page 23 – What is a Sale?
Now, I mentioned that there are two methods for transferring Goods being either by Sale or Bargain. This should immediately spark what appears to be an anomaly for people when you consider that simple barter seems like an obvious method of exchange. The reason why Goods cannot be bartered will become obvious again in a moment. But for now, let us look at slide 23 and the notion of what is a Sale?
A Sale is essentially when the title to a thing is given in Trust to another in exchange for a price of lawful money, also given in trust. A Sale always involves two distinct trusts having two distinct trust corpus – one where the buyer is trustee and one where the seller is trustee. It is only when the sale is completed do the two separate trusts dissolve, providing the conditions of sale make that possible. In other words, there are ALWAYS at least two trusts associated with a sale.
The terms and nature of a sale therefore can be defined by three primary variables, namely: whether the sale is conditional or absolute; or public or private; or voluntary or judicial. The concept of an involuntary sale is an absurdity that should not be permitted to even be entertained in law; and has only arisen out of the sheer incompetence of certain jurists to even the most basic notions of law.
Page 24 – What is a Bargain?
The second form of exchange associated with Goods is the concept of Bargain as per slide 24. A Bargain is a Contract of Mutual Bindings (Promises) as Security whereby one party promises to assign a right as property for some consideration; and the other party promises to receive the property and take good care of it and pay the consideration.
Similar to a Sale, with a Bargain there MUST be two Trusts for a Bargain to exist: The one for the Buyer and one for the Seller. However, a Bargain is NOT a transfer of title, but a Bailment of Goods for some financial consideration. The Seller never gifts the property like a Sale and the terms of Consideration may also involve some return of a Bailment of Money. Hence, the key operating element of a Bargain is the Mutual Binding Promises that are also called Debts.
That is right. There are two debts associated with any valid Bargain: The debt of the buyer and the debt of the seller. Just as there are two valid trusts and two valid trustees (Buyer and Seller) and two debtor-creditor relations with the two trusts.
Unfortunately, when arguments over Bargains end up going to court, such language as Obligor and Obligee are used; and the notion that there must be two trusts for a valid Bargain (as well as Sale) is completely ignored.
How is this possible? Because courts are granted the power to transform the nature of reality into a world of things – where white can be legally turned black, and good can be turned bad – within limits of logic, reason and the ignorance of the parties and the public generally. Thus unilateral adhesion contracts exist only within the world of courts and the minds of gullible people. All other valid contracts must be mutual agreements.
Page 24 – What are Inchoate Instruments?
Inchoate Instruments are those begun but unfinished or not completed – such as a contract not executed with all necessary provisions by all parties.
Inchoate Instruments are only good between the parties to the extent that both choose to perform. I will be discussing the importance of the knowledge of Inchoate Instruments in the coming additions to the series on the Law Explained.
Part #4 – Fraud
Page 27 – What is Fraud?
It is now time to look at slide 27 and a summary of what exactly is Fraud? Fraud may be defined simply as "financial advantage gained by unfair means". There are three broad categories: Personal, Constructive and Statutory.
Also known as Actual and Moral = when one person Causes pecuniary injury to Another by intentionally. Misrepresenting or concealing a material fact that they were bound to explain or disclose. Examples include misrepresentation, concealment and by matters subsequent.
Also known as Legal = where no wrongful intention is proved but that fraud is presumed from circumstances and the court seizes the right/rights in question to determine the outcome. ALL COURT CASES ARE BASED ON CONSTRUCTIVE FRAUD.
Where certain acts are made fraud by statute and prohibited. In most court cases, Statutory Fraud as a means to prevent an action or highlight and action is fraudulent requires knowledge of the statute and its proper inclusion in evidence.
As to Constructive Fraud as Fraud Trusts, please have a look at Article 84 under Positive Law and Canon 1914 and the context of Fraud Trusts.
Part #5 – Debt
Page 29 – What is Debt?
So now that we have defined the context of Fraud, what is the true meaning of Debt?
Looking at slide 29, debt may be defined as two elements: (1) A Binding Promise; and (2) A Right of Action (in Court) upon delinquency
(1) Binding Promise
From Latin Debeo = “to owe; to be bound”
A solemn obligation under contract. A binding promise under Bargain.
(2) Right of Action
From Latin Debito = “a writ (right of action) upon default”:
(a) payment of sum of money due for Goods sold (under Bargain) or
(b) Payment of penalty/compensation on failure to perform
Under a Bargain, strictly speaking there are two Debts. The one owed by the Buyer and the one owed by the Seller.
The absence of two sets of paperwork of binding promises either implies an INCHOATE agreement and thus, can be withdrawn; or a FRAUD and therefore the basis of pursuing penalty for failure to perform.
Hopefully now you see the power and logic of Set-Off - not because the present system is being nice, but the fact that it cannot ignore the real possibility of an opposing and equally valid debt to the one being pursued by the bank or other institution.
We will have a lot more to say about this as we move through the series on the "Law Explained" and financial contracts and the fact that almost 90%+ of major financial institution contracts are inchoate, or deliberately incomplete.
The only viable solution for restoring Golden Rule of Law is Ucadia
The only viable solution for restoring Justice and True Rule of Law is Ucadia. As I said last week, I know that some people the may find these statements confronting. However, I urge you to re-listen to the complete series on the law explained, to read the complete canons of law and codes of law of Ucadia and read what is already in place such as Article 6 of the constitutional charter of the Americas Union http://americas-union.org/covenant/article/6.html and all the Ucadia Unions.
There is no other model. There is none. Only a few fakes and fake claims – many that owe their existence to stealing and robbing information, like typical pirates, from Ucadia in the first place. That is why, those few of you, who have shown the courage and fortitude to donate and contribute to help Ucadia continue are such heroes. Because you know this is making a difference; and because you know the time is now.
So to all of you who continue to read, to listen, to support and donate to, and assist Ucadia – Thank You.
Until we speak in the next few weeks, please be safe and well.