Acquiescence and Giving 21 Days to Dispute
Vengeancia Real flesh and blood men and women (not fictional U.S. Persons) must step up and sue the real flesh and blood people who run these corporations that are taking our rights, our homes, our cash, our children, our lives…without our consent.
U.S. Citizens=PERSONS=corporate franchises have mere privileges (legal jurisdiction), but We, the People, have ALL RIGHTS (lawful jurisdiction). Are you the mere salvageable property of the state? Read Why You are Entitled to Remedy Using a Fee Schedule. Here are some sample documents useful in a Suit at Common Law.
Citizens have privileges, but People have Unalienable Rights
We know that men and women have authority over this system, because banksters and corporations ask for OUR signature. We are the power. We are the energy. We have to stop giving it up in exchange for being exploited!
Research the difference between private, contractual law between PEOPLE; and public, statutory law between PERSONS. Also, research the difference between an agreement and a contract. Just about every agreement you have entered into, if you don’t have a wet ink signature from the other party, i.e., a real flesh and blood man or woman, you can cancel by simply letting the party know that you no longer agree.
Further, using the doctrine of acquiescence and giving 21 days to dispute, you can challenge jurisdiction and send your COUNTERCLAIM with MONETARY DAMAGES attached.
Acquiescence is a term used to describe an act where a man or woman knowingly stands by without raising any objection to the infringement of their rights, while someone else unknowingly and without malice aforethought makes a claim on their rights. Consequently, the man or woman whose rights are infringed loses the ability to make a claim against the infringer, or succeed in an injunction suit due to the infringer’s conduct. The term is most generally, “permission” given by silence or passiveness. Acceptance or agreement by keeping quiet or by not making objections.
Estoppel by laches is an equitable doctrine by which some courts deny relief to a claimant who has unreasonably delayed or been negligent in asserting a claim. A person invoking laches should assert that an opposing party has slept on his/her rights and that the party is no longer entitled to his/her original claim. Laches is a form of estoppel for delay.
“He who consents cannot receive an injury.” Maxims of Law
Consent makes the law. A contract is a law between the parties, which can acquire force only by consent. Bouvier’s Maxims of Law, 1856
The common law doctrine of estoppel by acquiescence is applied when one party gives legal notice to a second party of a fact or claim, and the second party fails to challenge or refute that claim within a reasonable time. The second party is said to have acquiesced to the claim, and is estopped from later challenging it, or making a counterclaim. The doctrine is similar to, and often applied with, estoppel by laches.
More from Wikipedia: “This occurred in the second Georgia v. South Carolina case before the U.S. Supreme Court in 1992, when it was ruled that Georgia could no longer make any claim to an island in the Savannah River, despite the 1787 Treaty of Beaufort’s assignment to the contrary. The court said that the state had knowingly allowed South Carolina to join the island as a peninsula to its own coast by dumping sand from dredging, and to then levy property taxes on it for decades. Georgia thereby lost the island-turned-peninsula by its own acquiescence, even though the treaty had given it all of the islands in the river (see adverse possession).
The doctrine of acquiescence although typically not found in law, is found a lot in precedent…the doctrine of acquiescence has been mentioned about a thousand times.
Silence is acquiescence, aka, silent acquiescence and acquiescence by silence. It is a doctrine that can mean, and have the legal effect, that when confronted with a wrong or an act that can be considered a tortious act, one’s silence may mean that one accepts or permits such acts without protest or claim and thereby loses rights to a claim of any loss or damage.”
Here is the part Burt often includes in his papers:
“Affected parties wishing to dispute the truth made herein or make their own sovereign claims upon me or my family must respond within Twenty-one (21) days of service of notice of this action and request a common law court to empanel a common law jury of 12 sovereign people to hear their case against me. All Responses must be signed and witnessed no later than Twenty-one days from the date of original service as attested to by way of certificate of service. Failure to notify me and register a dispute against this claim, made herein will always result in an automatic default judgment and permanent and irrevocable estoppel by acquiescence barring the bringing of charges under any statute, regulation, Act, or Legal action against My Self, my Family, my guests or another sovereign people.”
