Reply – Re: no proof of claim = no jurisdiction to exercise
Your Name
or Cancel
In Reply To
Re: no proof of claim = no jurisdiction to exercise
— by iamsomedude iamsomedude

Do you comprehend what "Claim" means?

Claim is the right to compel performance

That is it. Nothing else, nothing more, nothing mystical.

Raises another question, doesn't the claimant/respondent have the right to reject a new/novation without being in dishonor or be accused of refusing a tender?

First, the AFV/RFV is consideration tendered for settlement and closure is not an offer, it is an ACCEPTANCE of such. The other side has already made its offer and you accepted, thus now you have a contract. Now, had you changed the TERMS of the contract, then you would be making a whole NEW offer. The RETURN consideration on THIS contract is PROOF OF CLAIM that the tender (AFV/RFV) was insufficient.

Second, the one dollar money order is offered upon ANY outstanding debt obligation and either A) proof of claim is forthcoming as return consideration OR B) the refusal / rejection of the MO is testimony that there exists no outstanding debt obligation for payment tendered and received then rejected means no debt to apply payment towards.

Together, both parts form the whole of the new contract and the ONLY return consideration is PROOF OF CLAIM and without that element, there is none. They can attempt to novate all they wish, but no one can novate proof of claim because that gives rise to the jurisdiction the court will operating and either there is a RIGHT or everything is WRONG; an enemy of peace.

~ Boris

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.