Straight up fucking dumb, and if you actually pay attention to what he says, he's basically saying, cancel your credit cards. But don't forget, you're still obligated to pay the debt you owe, at the rate you agreed to when you signed up, or you'll find a default on your credit report asking with a lower credit score.
Yes but there's more and it's not dumb. You have to really pay attention to what he's telling you to see the trick.
While you're correct that you agree to terms when you sign up, credit banks are required to send out a notice when they update their terms. If you've ever read such a notice, really read it, you'll find that there is an escape clause where you can tell them that you don't agree to their terms. Usually you are given a phone number or an address where you can respond. What he's telling you is that you respond to it via mail, make your own terms instead of apathetically agreeing by silence.
This is where it gets tricky. No employee of any company at all is empowered to enter into an agreement on behalf of a company without some exec-level permission, usually in writing. However, a mailed piece of paper has a stamp and is therefore given certain powers by the very fact that it has a stamp because then all kinds of laws apply to it. For example, the "poor man's copyright" is mailing your work to yourself with the stamp on it, leaving it sealed until someone violates that copyright. That stamp is an official seal and when the PO processes it, it puts its own seal on it include place and time. While this doesn't get you the legal ground to sue for damages, you absolutely can use it to force the other party to stop violating your copyright. You just bring it to court still sealed, present it to the court as evidence and, bam, you win your case. Again, it doesn't get you money because those are considered punitive damages (punishment fine) and must have weight of law behind it.
But on the subject, if you mail in your new terms, it now has a government seal on it. What they do with it after they receive it is their problem. You sent in the terms and gave them a chance to respond. They'll either close your account, ignore it, or send you correspondence for renegotiation.
There is actually a lawsuit about this very thing where a dude revised the terms of agreement, signed it, and the company accepted it. IIRC, it was a credit card and his new terms was 0% interest and basically forever to pay it off. When the bank took legal action, he presented the terms they failed to reject and he won his case.
The point is that you can use and abuse this to your advantage and that you should since every company will abuse you if given the chance as you are no more than a walking wallet to them.
This same thing holds true for any terms of agreement especially when they're updated. All you have to do is reject the terms and you're out of the agreement (in the simplest of circumstances). If the company tries/continues to bill you, you have a solid court case. If they continue to attempt to contact you, you have a solid court case.
That paper is the agreed upon representation of the gun that society agreed to instead of lethal enforcement. This is why companies have legal teams and are ruthless.
No. It is dumb. Listen to what he said. When you sign up for a credit card, you agree to certain, specific, terms. He said that if you send in an "affidavit" (which is nothing more than a sworn statement), that you can change the terms, and that they have a certain amount of time to respond. If they fail to respond then those certain demanded terms become the new terms of the contract, which is retarded and not true at all. If they refuse to abide by these new terms, you can cancel the contract. Well, newsflash, you can cancel the contract at any time, already. No affidavit needed. You can cancel your credit card right now if you want. There is nothing obligation for you to keep using your credit card. However, you did agree to repay your debts at the terms of the contract when you created the debt by using the card. If you don't repay the debts, the credit card company will send the account to collections and your credit will get a ding and your credit score will go down. Simple as.
He also mentioned the obligation to give legal notice but casually left out how that is done. Legal notice is sent to the registered agent of the company. Just like a minion of a Corp can't enter into an agreement, they also cannot be served with legal notice. Only the registered agent of the Corp can receive legal notice, and that legal notice must be sent so that proof of service can be provided. If you send the registered agent proper legal notice, they will respond, every time, and it will likely be a big fuck you, you agreed to the terms when you used the card, and having given a proper response, you're still obligated to the terms, and may cancel if you want, but still owe the debt.
A stamp is not a government seal. And while it may be the "poor man's copywrite" for establishing when a document was created, it confers no proof of service which is required when related to a legal notice. Without proof of service, the alleged recipient of the legal notice can just claim notice was never received and you'll have the burden to show that it was, which you won't be able to do.
Copywrite has nothing to do with the terms of a legal contract.
Cite the case where someone wrote in and said the new terms of a credit card was zero interest and no payment requirements and those terms were accepted. I doubt that's true.
And no. You can't simply reject the terms of a contract and be out of the contract. That's the whole point of a contract. If you violate the terms of the contract, you can be made liable for damages for breach of contract and/or acting in bad faith. A contract is a specific agreement between two parties where both parties must agree to the contract and any changes made to the contract, and only of there is an agreed, "silence is consent," clause within the contract, all changes must be agreed to and signed off on.
He is giving bad advice, and while technically what he said was true, you can cancel your credit card if you don't like the terms, you'll never pull off getting those terms changes without the specific agreement by the Corp to do so.
I have completely underestimated just how fucking retarded you are and how you are completely incapable of complex thought no matter how it's explained either in spoken or written words. You're sitting there saying I said shit I never did and then going off on it and exposing your retardation to the entire site.
Do the world a favor and get some shock therapy until you're fuckin' dead. JFC.
Listen nigger, a contract is a binding agreement between two or more parties and the terms of the contract cannot be changed unless all parties of the contract agree, usually in writing. All legal correspondence regarding contracts must be legally served to the parties registered agent, which is the individual if that individual is a party to the contract or the registered agent of the corporation, assigned at the incorporation. The service must include a proof of service which does not occur with a simple fucking stamp.
I asked you to Cite the bullshit case that you claimed a person was getting zero interest with "forever" to pay it off. You left that out of your response, likely cause it's total horseshit.
An "affidavit" is nothing but a sworn statement.
The idea that you can send a letter, put a stamp on it, and expect that you can change the terms of a contract just because they don't respond is fucking dumb.
No amount of "complex thought" is going to change the fundamental principals of contract law and its binding.
If you don't like the terms of your credit card, don't use it. If you use it, the terms apply. Simple as. And if you don't pay according to the terms, you'll simply suffer a credit hit and lowered credit.
If you think that you can send a credit card company a letter and you'll have zero interest rates and forever to pay, then you're a fucking idiot. Simple as.
Offers aren't automatic if someone doesn't respond. This person knows close to nothing about civil law.
When someone sends you new terms the new terms are valid because when you initially signed up you agreed to a system whereby new terms can be added in consideration of continued use of their product. That's not how civil law works generally, but you agreed to a modification of standard civil law on those first forms you signed.
The bank did not agree to allow you to update term so no, your affidavit is not equal to their new terms pamphlet.
If you're using a credit card and not paying it off they've already won. It takes a LOT less effort to just not be greedy than write up entire legal documents.
Or you could not be a jew and just not blow through money on hotels trying to save a shekel.
That's woman logic. Oh it's on sale and you saved 20? But you spent 100 you didn't need to. You're literally down 100 on things you didn't want because you thought you were getting a good deal.
You're in charge of a company but you can't read. At all.
Where did I say credit cards were bad? All I said is paying the card off before you pay interest is less effort than arguing with them about lower rates.
You even said you pay it off every month.
Entire replies are you trying to show much you have.
He's actually wrong. The reason people submit to the paper is because they believe it's the right thing to do.
A driver's license shows you're capable and knowlegable enough to safely operate a car. Whether or not you do is another matter but you've proven you can. Having a driver's license is often taken by young people to be a sign of maturity and responsibility. And no,if there was no gun involved,people would still do it because they believe it's the right thing to do. And in a lot of ways,it is. Everyone who operates a car should know the rules of the road and how to be safe while driving.
Likewise,people get hunting and fishing licenses because they want to be responsible about how hunting grounds and fishing is handled. They want there to be future animals to catch and conservation of wildlife is important to that end.
So the gun is completely unneeded if you can convince people that following the law is the right thing to do.
No. A license is government issued permission to do something that would otherwise be illegal.
People get drivers licenses because they are told that they will be fined or jailed for driving or operating a motor vehicle in this state without it. And, because people don't understand the words used, they get the license to avoid the gun.
Same with hunting and fishing licenses. They don't understand the words used when it's related to the applicability of the license, so they do it to avoid a fine by the game warden.
No one is getting a license to show they know how to drive or because they want to be responsible.
Hey, fuckwit. Obedience to a government that is conning you into getting a license you don't need isn't "the right thing to do." It aiding and abetting multiple felonies, fraud and tyranny
Amazing. Morality is simply not part of your thought process.
I don't murder people, but it is not because I am afraid of jail. I don't murder people because murder is bad. When I hunt I stop when I tag out and it is not because I am afraid of the game warden or because I am capitulating. I stop when I tag out because I want there to be deer to hunt when my son is my age and an organized wildlife management system is the best way to ensure that.
You don't need a license to stop hunting after you hit the limit. Nothing about getting a license is "responsible" or the "right thing to do" if you aren't engaged in a commercial activity.
"the law" is not necessarily the right thing to do. Plenty of retarded laws...written on pieces of paper, supported by politicians who are protected by people with guns. I don't know a single person who would choose to go to a dmv if it wasn't the law. And sure animal and nature conservation is great, but a license doesn't provide that...decent people do. If deer had ivory there would be poachers all over, regardless of how many licenses there were
[ - ] Merlynn 1 point 2.1 yearsMay 13, 2023 01:20:37 ago (+1/-0)
I know that,you know that,but the plebs don't. Which is why they follow the law because they don't know about the crazy laws that were written to be enforced as needed. Basically,the crazy laws are only applied if they want to get rid of you,you're too high profile to simply disappear,and they don't have anything else to throw at you. Or just sicing the cops on you is the fastest way out of the spotlight.
I do agree there should be liabilities for driving like a jackass, but should it be through government required insurance? Perhaps crappy drivers getting their ass kicked a few times would help that out? Or what about insurance optional and only covering the people that wanted insurance? I don't know the solution, just doesn't seem like insurance is it.
[ - ] FreeinTX 1 point 2.1 yearsMay 12, 2023 14:58:01 ago (+1/-0)
There are liabilities when you cause harm. That's what civil and criminal courts are for. You cannot be required to get insurance to use your property on a road you pay for unless you're doing it for commercial, for profit, reasons.
Cause it's the law and you're forced to pay whatever the hell the insurance companies decide. They lose money on the stock market so you have to pay more.
You aren't allowed to drive without insurance, but I'm betting that you don't know what the legal definition of "drive" or "operate" even is under the Transportation Code of your state.
Yes. There is an argument that the government should not force people to buy worthless shit from companies that they don't like, who are clearly ripping people off, to use their own private property on the roads that they pay for.
The only reason I want a license is to fuck retards that cant pass a test because they're not safe. I do think anything that is forced upon you, like licenses, should be majority funded through taxes, or a flat rate though.
I wrote an affidavit for my ex (she is woman and could not have wherewithal to compose such documents). I wish I could have attended the hearing to watch the faces of everyone as it was read aloud because it is fucking hilarious.
Affidavit of FAGNIGGER
State of California
County of Diversity
The undersigned, NIGGERFAGGOT1, do hereby swear, certify, and affirm that:
1. I am over the age of 18 and am a resident of the State of California. I have a personal knowledge of the facts herein, and, if called as a witness, could testify and provide supporting evidence completely thereto.
2. I suffer no legal disabilities and have personal knowledge of the facts set forth below.
3. NIGGERFAGGOT2 is my uncle.
4. On MONTH DATE YEAR I began receiving rambling texts from phone number of 415-555-5555. I responded to those texts using a popular meme referencing a preposterous story of a navy seal sniper that wields a secret network of spies across the USA and is capable of tracing people’s location. See Exhibit __________
5. On MONTH DATE YEAR I received a text from 415-555-5555, the text asserted that my phone number of 555-555-555 belonged to NIGGERFAGGOT1 and that I was responsible for sending the meme and requested for us to meet in person on May 13. See Exhibit _________
6. On MONTH DATE, after acknowledging that I, NIGGERFAGGOT1, had sent the meme referencing the preposterous story of a navy seal sniper with a secret network of spies across the USA a restraining order was filed against NIGGERFAGGOT2 claiming that he had claimed to be a navy seal sniper with a secret network of spies across the USA. This was blatantly and demonstrability false. Not only is it not his phone number, the receiving party had acknowledged in writing that it was me that sent it and was so unthreatened by it that she requested to meet with me in person the very next day! See Exhibit _________
In conclusion: this restraining order is based on false information. I implore the most honorable presiding judge with the utmost respect to ascertain whether the girl NIGGERFAGGOT2 is dating had put her name on the restraining order of if her mother had falsified that information.
Information of memes in general can be found by typing in to Google: What is a meme?
Information on the navy seal meme can be found by typing in Google: Navy seal copy pasta
I’ve provided one source of documentation detailing the origins and history of the Navy Seal Copy Pasta meme for your perusing pleasure.
I declare under the penalty of perjury that the forgoing is true and correct.
Executed this ________ day of __________________ , 2019.
Holy fuck overload of text and words in the first few seconds.
Question, If we pass... Four Corner Rule of Law TikTok MATRIX NEWS NETWORK JERRY DAY MATRIX NEWS NETWORK SEGMENT PRODUCER I'm going to show you "I'm going to show you"
[ - ] FreeinTX 1 point 2.1 yearsMay 12, 2023 06:55:41 ago (+3/-2)
Jaywalking is a city code violation. You are not obligated to obey city code unless you're an employee of the city, a contractor for the city, or a subcontractor for the city, and only then if you're on the clock doing work for the city or under the permit issued by the city.
This is why the city could never implement a mask mandate for private individuals during COVID.
Yes. City ordinances are implemented to avoid workman's comp claims. They are not laws.
Laws are passed by the house and senate, signed by the governor, or put into effect after a veto over ride. They include all sorts of notice and process before they are implemented, which is why "ignorance of the law" is no excuse for breaking a law.
City ordinances are passed by the city council and have no notice requirements. They are enforced through permit.
Like I said, mask mandates were implemented by forcing business owners, working under city permit, to mandate customers wear masks in their business. No City, town, county or state in country could force a private citizen to wear a mask because the mask mandates were not law.
And, as an aside. There is no such thing as a sovereign citizen. These are mutually exclusive terms. You're either a sovereign or a citizen, not both.
[ + ] FreeinTX
[ - ] FreeinTX 5 points 2.1 yearsMay 12, 2023 06:47:15 ago (+6/-1)
[ + ] totes_magotes
[ - ] totes_magotes 3 points 2.1 yearsMay 12, 2023 07:43:17 ago (+4/-1)
While you're correct that you agree to terms when you sign up, credit banks are required to send out a notice when they update their terms. If you've ever read such a notice, really read it, you'll find that there is an escape clause where you can tell them that you don't agree to their terms. Usually you are given a phone number or an address where you can respond. What he's telling you is that you respond to it via mail, make your own terms instead of apathetically agreeing by silence.
This is where it gets tricky. No employee of any company at all is empowered to enter into an agreement on behalf of a company without some exec-level permission, usually in writing. However, a mailed piece of paper has a stamp and is therefore given certain powers by the very fact that it has a stamp because then all kinds of laws apply to it. For example, the "poor man's copyright" is mailing your work to yourself with the stamp on it, leaving it sealed until someone violates that copyright. That stamp is an official seal and when the PO processes it, it puts its own seal on it include place and time. While this doesn't get you the legal ground to sue for damages, you absolutely can use it to force the other party to stop violating your copyright. You just bring it to court still sealed, present it to the court as evidence and, bam, you win your case. Again, it doesn't get you money because those are considered punitive damages (punishment fine) and must have weight of law behind it.
But on the subject, if you mail in your new terms, it now has a government seal on it. What they do with it after they receive it is their problem. You sent in the terms and gave them a chance to respond. They'll either close your account, ignore it, or send you correspondence for renegotiation.
There is actually a lawsuit about this very thing where a dude revised the terms of agreement, signed it, and the company accepted it. IIRC, it was a credit card and his new terms was 0% interest and basically forever to pay it off. When the bank took legal action, he presented the terms they failed to reject and he won his case.
The point is that you can use and abuse this to your advantage and that you should since every company will abuse you if given the chance as you are no more than a walking wallet to them.
This same thing holds true for any terms of agreement especially when they're updated. All you have to do is reject the terms and you're out of the agreement (in the simplest of circumstances). If the company tries/continues to bill you, you have a solid court case. If they continue to attempt to contact you, you have a solid court case.
That paper is the agreed upon representation of the gun that society agreed to instead of lethal enforcement. This is why companies have legal teams and are ruthless.
[ + ] Deleted
[ - ] deleted 1 point 2.1 yearsMay 12, 2023 11:35:01 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] FreeinTX
[ - ] FreeinTX 0 points 2.1 yearsMay 12, 2023 08:19:20 ago (+2/-2)
He also mentioned the obligation to give legal notice but casually left out how that is done. Legal notice is sent to the registered agent of the company. Just like a minion of a Corp can't enter into an agreement, they also cannot be served with legal notice. Only the registered agent of the Corp can receive legal notice, and that legal notice must be sent so that proof of service can be provided. If you send the registered agent proper legal notice, they will respond, every time, and it will likely be a big fuck you, you agreed to the terms when you used the card, and having given a proper response, you're still obligated to the terms, and may cancel if you want, but still owe the debt.
A stamp is not a government seal. And while it may be the "poor man's copywrite" for establishing when a document was created, it confers no proof of service which is required when related to a legal notice. Without proof of service, the alleged recipient of the legal notice can just claim notice was never received and you'll have the burden to show that it was, which you won't be able to do.
Copywrite has nothing to do with the terms of a legal contract.
Cite the case where someone wrote in and said the new terms of a credit card was zero interest and no payment requirements and those terms were accepted. I doubt that's true.
And no. You can't simply reject the terms of a contract and be out of the contract. That's the whole point of a contract. If you violate the terms of the contract, you can be made liable for damages for breach of contract and/or acting in bad faith. A contract is a specific agreement between two parties where both parties must agree to the contract and any changes made to the contract, and only of there is an agreed, "silence is consent," clause within the contract, all changes must be agreed to and signed off on.
He is giving bad advice, and while technically what he said was true, you can cancel your credit card if you don't like the terms, you'll never pull off getting those terms changes without the specific agreement by the Corp to do so.
[ + ] totes_magotes
[ - ] totes_magotes 1 point 2.1 yearsMay 12, 2023 11:46:12 ago (+1/-0)
Do the world a favor and get some shock therapy until you're fuckin' dead. JFC.
[ + ] FreeinTX
[ - ] FreeinTX 0 points 2.1 yearsMay 12, 2023 12:14:46 ago (+1/-1)
I asked you to Cite the bullshit case that you claimed a person was getting zero interest with "forever" to pay it off. You left that out of your response, likely cause it's total horseshit.
An "affidavit" is nothing but a sworn statement.
The idea that you can send a letter, put a stamp on it, and expect that you can change the terms of a contract just because they don't respond is fucking dumb.
No amount of "complex thought" is going to change the fundamental principals of contract law and its binding.
If you don't like the terms of your credit card, don't use it. If you use it, the terms apply. Simple as. And if you don't pay according to the terms, you'll simply suffer a credit hit and lowered credit.
[ + ] totes_magotes
[ - ] totes_magotes 1 point 2.1 yearsMay 12, 2023 13:57:35 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] FreeinTX
[ - ] FreeinTX 0 points 2.1 yearsMay 12, 2023 14:37:04 ago (+0/-0)*
[ + ] observation1
[ - ] observation1 0 points 2 yearsMay 15, 2023 04:03:02 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] FreeinTX
[ - ] FreeinTX 0 points 2 yearsMay 15, 2023 06:34:11 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] x0x7
[ - ] x0x7 4 points 2.1 yearsMay 12, 2023 09:18:02 ago (+4/-0)
When someone sends you new terms the new terms are valid because when you initially signed up you agreed to a system whereby new terms can be added in consideration of continued use of their product. That's not how civil law works generally, but you agreed to a modification of standard civil law on those first forms you signed.
The bank did not agree to allow you to update term so no, your affidavit is not equal to their new terms pamphlet.
[ + ] Deleted
[ - ] deleted 0 points 2.1 yearsMay 12, 2023 11:38:16 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] NigNinja
[ - ] NigNinja 0 points 2.1 yearsMay 12, 2023 14:20:24 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] Deleted
[ - ] deleted 0 points 2.1 yearsMay 12, 2023 16:10:14 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] NigNinja
[ - ] NigNinja 0 points 2.1 yearsMay 13, 2023 04:47:05 ago (+0/-0)
That's woman logic. Oh it's on sale and you saved 20? But you spent 100 you didn't need to. You're literally down 100 on things you didn't want because you thought you were getting a good deal.
[ + ] Deleted
[ - ] deleted 0 points 2.1 yearsMay 13, 2023 12:34:09 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] NigNinja
[ - ] NigNinja 0 points 2.1 yearsMay 14, 2023 04:56:03 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] Deleted
[ - ] deleted 0 points 2.1 yearsMay 14, 2023 12:34:04 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] NigNinja
[ - ] NigNinja 0 points 2 yearsMay 15, 2023 02:44:03 ago (+0/-0)
Where did I say credit cards were bad? All I said is paying the card off before you pay interest is less effort than arguing with them about lower rates.
You even said you pay it off every month.
Entire replies are you trying to show much you have.
I don't care.
[ + ] Deleted
[ - ] deleted 0 points 2.1 yearsMay 14, 2023 12:38:28 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] FreeinTX
[ - ] FreeinTX -1 points 2.1 yearsMay 12, 2023 14:49:08 ago (+0/-1)
That's not true. It wasn't shit like this. This is total fucking bullshit.
[ + ] Merlynn
[ - ] Merlynn 3 points 2.1 yearsMay 12, 2023 05:39:03 ago (+3/-0)
A driver's license shows you're capable and knowlegable enough to safely operate a car. Whether or not you do is another matter but you've proven you can. Having a driver's license is often taken by young people to be a sign of maturity and responsibility. And no,if there was no gun involved,people would still do it because they believe it's the right thing to do. And in a lot of ways,it is. Everyone who operates a car should know the rules of the road and how to be safe while driving.
Likewise,people get hunting and fishing licenses because they want to be responsible about how hunting grounds and fishing is handled. They want there to be future animals to catch and conservation of wildlife is important to that end.
So the gun is completely unneeded if you can convince people that following the law is the right thing to do.
[ + ] FreeinTX
[ - ] FreeinTX 5 points 2.1 yearsMay 12, 2023 06:52:55 ago (+6/-1)
People get drivers licenses because they are told that they will be fined or jailed for driving or operating a motor vehicle in this state without it. And, because people don't understand the words used, they get the license to avoid the gun.
Same with hunting and fishing licenses. They don't understand the words used when it's related to the applicability of the license, so they do it to avoid a fine by the game warden.
No one is getting a license to show they know how to drive or because they want to be responsible.
[ + ] Merlynn
[ - ] Merlynn 2 points 2.1 yearsMay 12, 2023 07:43:09 ago (+2/-0)
[ + ] FreeinTX
[ - ] FreeinTX 2 points 2.1 yearsMay 12, 2023 08:19:43 ago (+2/-0)
[ + ] Merlynn
[ - ] Merlynn 0 points 2.1 yearsMay 13, 2023 01:15:43 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] FreeinTX
[ - ] FreeinTX 0 points 2.1 yearsMay 13, 2023 07:36:03 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] Merlynn
[ - ] Merlynn 0 points 2.1 yearsMay 13, 2023 09:12:55 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] prototype
[ - ] prototype 0 points 2.1 yearsMay 12, 2023 12:39:11 ago (+0/-0)
Hes smart in some ways, but hes both of those things you mentioned.
This is true, but
this is also true.
[ + ] Glowbright
[ - ] Glowbright 0 points 2.1 yearsMay 12, 2023 13:09:43 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] FreeinTX
[ - ] FreeinTX 0 points 2.1 yearsMay 12, 2023 13:41:12 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] Glowbright
[ - ] Glowbright 0 points 2.1 yearsMay 12, 2023 13:49:30 ago (+0/-0)
I don't murder people, but it is not because I am afraid of jail. I don't murder people because murder is bad. When I hunt I stop when I tag out and it is not because I am afraid of the game warden or because I am capitulating. I stop when I tag out because I want there to be deer to hunt when my son is my age and an organized wildlife management system is the best way to ensure that.
[ + ] FreeinTX
[ - ] FreeinTX 0 points 2.1 yearsMay 12, 2023 14:54:41 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] Flabbergaslit
[ - ] Flabbergaslit 1 point 2.1 yearsMay 12, 2023 10:04:22 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] Merlynn
[ - ] Merlynn 1 point 2.1 yearsMay 13, 2023 01:20:37 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] Flabbergaslit
[ - ] Flabbergaslit 0 points 2.1 yearsMay 13, 2023 09:47:15 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] Merlynn
[ - ] Merlynn 0 points 2 yearsMay 14, 2023 21:18:25 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] Prairie
[ - ] Prairie 0 points 2.1 yearsMay 12, 2023 09:22:40 ago (+0/-0)
Yeah, fucking tyrants. Drivers should be free to drive around with no liability at all. Let the other people pay if they get hit. /s
[ + ] TheNoticing
[ - ] TheNoticing 1 point 2.1 yearsMay 12, 2023 12:03:46 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] FreeinTX
[ - ] FreeinTX 0 points 2.1 yearsMay 12, 2023 14:11:00 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] Flabbergaslit
[ - ] Flabbergaslit 0 points 2.1 yearsMay 12, 2023 10:18:58 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] FreeinTX
[ - ] FreeinTX 1 point 2.1 yearsMay 12, 2023 14:58:01 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] Deleted
[ - ] deleted 0 points 2.1 yearsMay 12, 2023 11:42:56 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] FreeinTX
[ - ] FreeinTX 0 points 2.1 yearsMay 12, 2023 13:52:04 ago (+0/-0)
Cause it's the law and you're forced to pay whatever the hell the insurance companies decide. They lose money on the stock market so you have to pay more.
[ + ] FreeinTX
[ - ] FreeinTX 0 points 2.1 yearsMay 12, 2023 13:50:51 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] Prairie
[ - ] Prairie 0 points 2.1 yearsMay 12, 2023 23:36:15 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] FreeinTX
[ - ] FreeinTX 0 points 2.1 yearsMay 13, 2023 07:38:03 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] Prairie
[ - ] Prairie 0 points 2.1 yearsMay 13, 2023 07:43:07 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] FreeinTX
[ - ] FreeinTX 1 point 2.1 yearsMay 13, 2023 07:44:37 ago (+1/-0)
[ + ] NigNinja
[ - ] NigNinja 0 points 2.1 yearsMay 12, 2023 09:43:29 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] FreeinTX
[ - ] FreeinTX 0 points 2.1 yearsMay 12, 2023 13:53:33 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] Belfuro
[ - ] Belfuro 0 points 2.1 yearsMay 12, 2023 16:30:18 ago (+0/-0)
Anyone who think government regulations via kings permission slips, have done a proper job as you described is fucking deluded
[ + ] Merlynn
[ - ] Merlynn 0 points 2.1 yearsMay 13, 2023 01:24:00 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] Kozel
[ - ] Kozel 2 points 2.1 yearsMay 12, 2023 05:27:21 ago (+2/-0)
Affidavit of FAGNIGGER
State of California
County of Diversity
The undersigned, NIGGERFAGGOT1, do hereby swear, certify, and affirm that:
1. I am over the age of 18 and am a resident of the State of California. I have a personal knowledge of the facts herein, and, if called as a witness, could testify and provide supporting evidence completely thereto.
2. I suffer no legal disabilities and have personal knowledge of the facts set forth below.
3. NIGGERFAGGOT2 is my uncle.
4. On MONTH DATE YEAR I began receiving rambling texts from phone number of 415-555-5555. I responded to those texts using a popular meme referencing a preposterous story of a navy seal sniper that wields a secret network of spies across the USA and is capable of tracing people’s location. See Exhibit __________
5. On MONTH DATE YEAR I received a text from 415-555-5555, the text asserted that my phone number of 555-555-555 belonged to NIGGERFAGGOT1 and that I was responsible for sending the meme and requested for us to meet in person on May 13. See Exhibit _________
6. On MONTH DATE, after acknowledging that I, NIGGERFAGGOT1, had sent the meme referencing the preposterous story of a navy seal sniper with a secret network of spies across the USA a restraining order was filed against NIGGERFAGGOT2 claiming that he had claimed to be a navy seal sniper with a secret network of spies across the USA. This was blatantly and demonstrability false. Not only is it not his phone number, the receiving party had acknowledged in writing that it was me that sent it and was so unthreatened by it that she requested to meet with me in person the very next day! See Exhibit _________
In conclusion: this restraining order is based on false information. I implore the most honorable presiding judge with the utmost respect to ascertain whether the girl NIGGERFAGGOT2 is dating had put her name on the restraining order of if her mother had falsified that information.
Information of memes in general can be found by typing in to Google: What is a meme?
Information on the navy seal meme can be found by typing in Google: Navy seal copy pasta
I’ve provided one source of documentation detailing the origins and history of the Navy Seal Copy Pasta meme for your perusing pleasure.
I declare under the penalty of perjury that the forgoing is true and correct.
Executed this ________ day of __________________ , 2019.
[ + ] TheNoticing
[ - ] TheNoticing 0 points 2.1 yearsMay 12, 2023 12:06:44 ago (+0/-0)
Sounds like submitting to nobility to me.
[ + ] FreeinTX
[ - ] FreeinTX 0 points 2.1 yearsMay 12, 2023 13:54:31 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] Prairie
[ - ] Prairie 0 points 2.1 yearsMay 12, 2023 09:19:17 ago (+0/-0)
Four Corner Rule of Law
TikTok
MATRIX NEWS NETWORK
JERRY DAY MATRIX NEWS NETWORK SEGMENT PRODUCER
I'm going to show you
"I'm going to show you"
[ + ] Deleted
[ - ] deleted 0 points 2.1 yearsMay 12, 2023 11:43:59 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] iThinkiShitYourself
[ - ] iThinkiShitYourself -1 points 2.1 yearsMay 13, 2023 09:25:59 ago (+0/-1)
[ + ] Deleted
[ - ] deleted 0 points 2.1 yearsMay 12, 2023 04:08:57 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] FreeinTX
[ - ] FreeinTX 1 point 2.1 yearsMay 12, 2023 06:55:41 ago (+3/-2)
This is why the city could never implement a mask mandate for private individuals during COVID.
[ + ] Deleted
[ - ] deleted 0 points 2.1 yearsMay 12, 2023 11:45:19 ago (+0/-0)
[ + ] FreeinTX
[ - ] FreeinTX 0 points 2.1 yearsMay 12, 2023 12:21:02 ago (+0/-0)
Laws are passed by the house and senate, signed by the governor, or put into effect after a veto over ride. They include all sorts of notice and process before they are implemented, which is why "ignorance of the law" is no excuse for breaking a law.
City ordinances are passed by the city council and have no notice requirements. They are enforced through permit.
Like I said, mask mandates were implemented by forcing business owners, working under city permit, to mandate customers wear masks in their business. No City, town, county or state in country could force a private citizen to wear a mask because the mask mandates were not law.
And, as an aside. There is no such thing as a sovereign citizen. These are mutually exclusive terms. You're either a sovereign or a citizen, not both.
[ + ] TheNoticing
[ - ] TheNoticing 0 points 2.1 yearsMay 12, 2023 12:08:09 ago (+0/-0)