Home Forums Court Sue For Breach Of Contract.

last updated by gman3 1 month, 3 weeks ago
2 voices
1 reply
  • Author
    Posts
    • #100011831
      Temujin
      Participant

      Ok, so most of the content on here seems backfoot, defense, reclaiming rights, enforcing bodily autonomy etc etc etc.

      It seems the majority is concerned with defending against false contracts, non consent and the sort.

      What is most evident however, is that there is a known accepted contract, even if it is predetermined. Under the guise of democracy, “we voted them into that job” or however it needs to be portrayed.

      There is an expected contract for those “elected” to positions in government, that they have certain expectations. Without claiming any knowledge in this area, it is my belief the purpose (extremely important in statutory interpretation to by default override all other interpretations) of government is to protect the rights of those they claim to govern.

      So rather than be on the back foot against constant attacks, coerced contracts without a meeting of the mind, disingenuous use of language of trickery, etc etc etc,

      is there any reason why the appropriate plan of action would not be for everybody to sue those purporting to act on our behalf of breach of contract?

      Defending charges on the premise that “Acts” and “Statutes” are made unlawfully pledging allegiance to a foreign power,
      OR
      sueing for breach of contract for those reasons.

      I can’t see any planet where judgements will be made overriding 50 years of unlawful legislation to override any of it, especially when case law has been setting precedents based off this legislation submitting it to common law.
      But simple breach of contracts, by the dozens, hundreds, thousands, tens of thousands, all being filed may find small decisions of benefit to show the state of the system and create a more equitable, just and fair system where people are accountable for the positions they purport to fulfill?

      Why should we resign ourselves to defending false contracts, trying to trap them into making false claims, when all the false claims and obvious contracts have already been made?

    • #100011896
      gman3
      Participant

      because there is no avenue for enforcement (in polite conversation) except equity.

      enforcement might be discontinuance of an action. that maybe the best you will get. battle is won by the last man/wombman standing. everyone who leaves the field/arena before victory loses.

      peace is only the lull between battles. there is no other state of existance in “society” regardless of what anyone thinks or imagines.

      those who claim and act on their claims are the legitimate ones. by defact or by dejure. this stands at law and in reality. battle in word or deed. this is why it never ends. Kings become Kings by quashing all foes and facing no other challengers.

      Social contracts are not a thing unless you believe they are. All you have to do is believe. Then you can be plundered in peace.

      how can you avoid being plundered? I think there are 2 ways. which equate to the same thing. Be an unrewarding plundee/target.

You must be logged in to reply to this topic.