– no proof of claim = no jurisdiction to exercise
In Reply To
I am led to believe that this constitutes "SIN" by the attorney for how does the action brought protect the court?
NOW, the matter before the court is simple JURISDICTION ... proof of claim would have solved it, but since proof of claim is lacking, how can any court possibly have jurisdiction if there is no controversy?
Who is the court to stand in the way of a contractual obligation, especially when that obligation is VITAL for the court to proceed?
We are called to be architects of the future, not its victims;
Resistance is futile.
If you think you can, you are correct.
If you think you can't, you are correct.
When the CR™ “process” is done, the one making claim will have no jurisdiction to grant (authority for action) for there is no controversy, thus any action brought before any court constitutes intentional breach of the peace and I do believe it is written that none can profit from their own wrong and without proof of claim there can exist no right, thus only wrong: one of the enemies of Peace, and the fact the matter is before the court to COMPEL performance seeks to transmute the court into the other enemy of Peace: force, and complete the court's journey toward the dark side …