Acquiescence and Giving 21 Days to Dispute

Vengeancia  Are the American people the mere salvageable property of the State? Human resources? A workforce for the Elite owners of the corporation dba the federal govt?

“A court of record is a “superior court.” A court not of record is an “inferior court.” “Inferior courts” are those whose jurisdiction is limited and special and whose proceedings are not according to the course of the common law.” Ex Parte Kearny, 55 Cal. 212; Smith v. Andrews, 6 Cal. 652″ Read more.

“An undisputed affidavit of claim becomes final judgment. When one fails to answer or refute an affidavit of claim made against him, the affidavit first presented is considered absolute in truth. By not rebutting what has been claimed against him, one becomes guilty by his silence. Idem non esse et non apparet– It is the same thing not to exist and not to appear. Qui tacet consentire videtur– He who is silent appears to consent.” Read more. Read Stating Your Claim.

Check this out. And this. Watch all the videos for this guy. Great stuff:

“United States” is the “District of Columbia” incorporated. “The United States government is a foreign corporation with respect to a State” Volume 20: Corpus Juris Sec. § 1785, Also: NY re: Merriam 36 N.E. 505 1441 S. 0.1973, 14 L. Ed. 287 Read more.

Are people mere salvageable property?

Are people mere salvageable property?

Read about The Law of Salvage.Prize is a term used in admiralty law to refer to equipment, vehicles, vessels, and cargo captured during armed conflict. The most common use of prize in this sense is the capture of an enemy ship and its cargo as a prize of war. ” Research a Prize Court and Prize Law.

“In the days of fighting sail, a Letter of Marque and Reprisal was a government license authorizing a person (known as a privateer) to attack and capture enemy vessels and bring them before admiralty courts for condemnation and sale….” more.

The Trading with the Enemy Act

An Act To define, regulate, and punish trading with the enemy, and for other purposes.

 Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, That this Act shall be known as the “Trading with the enemy Act.”

SEC. 2. That the word “enemy,” as used herein, shall be deemed to mean, for the purposes of such trading and of this Act–

  1. Any individual, partnership, or other body of individuals, of any nationality, resident within the territory (including that occupied by the military and naval forces) of any nation with which the United States is at war, or resident outside the United States and doing business within such territory, and any corporation incorporated within such territory of any nation with which the United States is at war or incorporated within any country other than the United States and doing business within such territory.
  2. The government of my nation with which the United States is at war, or any political or municipal subdivision thereof, or any officer, official, agent, or agency thereof.
  3. Such other individuals, or body or class of individuals, as may be natives, citizens, or subjects of any nation with which the United States is at war, other than citizens of the United States, wherever resident or wherever doing business, as the President, if he shall find the safety of the United States or the successful prosecution of the war shall so require, may, by proclamation, include within the term “enemy.” read more.
A U.S. Person is an entity not a real man or woman

A U.S. Person is an entity not a real man or woman

Are real flesh and blood men and women RESIDENT WITHIN a “territory?” Aren’t We, the very same flesh and blood People, who ORDAIN the Constitution? Shouldn’t we step up and restore our Right to sue the real flesh and blood people who run these corporations, including the Federal Corporation, that are defining us as non-living entities and taking our rights, our homes, our cash, our children, our lives…without our consent?

U.S. Citizens=PERSONS=corporate franchises have mere govt.-granted privileges (legal), but We, the People, have ALL RIGHTS (lawful). There’s plenty of American case law to justify the right of the common people on the land as the sovereign in America. Research the Freeman on the Land (FOTL).

According to Wikipedia, “in law, acquiescence occurs when a person 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 person 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 a kind of “permission” given by silence or passiveness.” Read Why You are Entitled to Remedy Using a Fee Schedule.

Citizens have privileges, but People have Unalienable Rights

Citizens have privileges, but People have Unalienable Rights

“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.

This occurred in the second Georgia v. South Carolina[1] case before the U.S. Supreme Court in 1990, 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. As seen by this search of US Supreme Court rulings, the doctrine of acquiescence has been mentioned over a thousand times.”

Silence is acquiescence (aka. silent acquiescence and acquiescence by silence) is a related 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, where one’s silence may mean that one accepts or permits such acts without protest or claim thereby loses rights to a claim of any loss or damage.”

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 in 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 our man, Burt Aranguren, 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.”

Common-law trademark: “One appropriated under common-law rules, regardless of statutes.” Blacks 4th ed. Records search in Colorado for a business entity, the “principal.” Corporate Legal Services, an “agent.” They do business licensing services for the principal.