The Tender For Law

Jan 09, 2014

Kirsten Carlstrom

Jan 09, 2014

A thought I had in regard to Chris Evan's case, and a Nihil Dicit Judgement. 1.) Chris has submitted a NoM along with an affidavit and several questions, all submissions to the court have been IGNORED. 2.) What if Chris submits a demand, (not sure if demand would be the correct word) for the prosecutor to produce a "VERIFIED" complaint against him within 72 hours, wherein he would be happy, willing and able to compensate the injured party for their loss. I chose the word "verified" obligates him to perform under the code in which he is being accused of violating. 3.) The prosecutor will not be able to produce either of those demands. 4.) Chris has already submitted a summary judgement...I think, correct me if I'm wrong. 5.) Should he then submit a NOTICE OF FINAL DETERMINATION AND JUDGEMENT IN NIHIL DICIT, along with a notice of his wishes concerning his drivers license, and the charges against him? — Printed copy from The Tender For Law Anthology, Volume 6, page 953 (printed 13 June 2014). Added by this site; not part of the Facebook export.

Read Comments 9

Chris Evan

Jan 10, 2014 1:58 AM

Chris Evan 1. Yes 2. They will probably just make something up. 3. The Prosecuter hasn't said a peep in either case. NOT a peep. Its like someone brought charges and is DEPENDING on th JUSTICE to prosecute me. 4. In one case, we have an agreement of the parties. In the other, they fucked up and didn't serve me a Complaint....EVER. But they won't admit it and continue proceeding. 5. I have no idea what a Nilil Dicit is. What is it? — Recovered from The Tender For Law Anthology, Volume 6, page 954 (printed 13 June 2014). Not in the Facebook export; added by this site.

Jeremy Richard

Jan 10, 2014 6:18 AM

Jeremy Richard NIHIL DICIT. He says nothing. It is the failing of the defendant to put in a plea or answer to the plaintiff's declaration by the day assigned; and in this case judgment is given against the defendant of course, as he says nothing why it should not. Vide 15 Vin. Ab. 556; Dane's Ab. Index, h.t. — Recovered from The Tender For Law Anthology, Volume 6, page 954 (printed 13 June 2014). Not in the Facebook export; added by this site.

Jeremy Richard

Jan 10, 2014 7:32 AM

Jeremy Richard Nihil dicit Definition - Noun [Latin, he says nothing] 1 : refusal or neglect by a defendant to plead or answer 2 : a judgment rendered against a defendant who refuses or neglects to plead or answer Pronunciation'nI-&l-'dE-sit, 'nI-hil-, 'nE-hil-, -'dI- — Recovered from The Tender For Law Anthology, Volume 6, page 954 (printed 13 June 2014). Not in the Facebook export; added by this site.

Kirsten Carlstrom

Jan 10, 2014 12:19 PM

Kirsten Carlstrom Chris Evan, since you've entered a summary judgement against them, is it possible for you now to take on the role as prosecutor, and make them the defendant? Since they have refused & neglected to answered any of your questions can you now enter a Nihil Dicit Judgement against them? Or do you have to enter something that would be akin to a counter claim, and then enter a Nihil Dicit Judgement. Nihil Dicit Judgement are superior to a Summary Judgement. — Recovered from The Tender For Law Anthology, Volume 6, page 955 (printed 13 June 2014). Not in the Facebook export; added by this site.

Chris Evan

Jan 10, 2014 12:23 PM

Chris Evan Kirsten, sounds like clubhouse rules....the agreement of the parties that I have is that no evidence exists that I am CHRISTOPHER EVAN SCHULTE....hold on, I will cut and paste... — Recovered from The Tender For Law Anthology, Volume 6, page 955 (printed 13 June 2014). Not in the Facebook export; added by this site.

Kirsten Carlstrom

Jan 10, 2014 12:24 PM

Kirsten Carlstrom Give them 72 hrs to produce an injured party or contact that you have broken. If they can't produce that then...http://www.scribd.com /.../4-Notice-of-Final-Determination... (4) Notice of Final Determination and Judgement in Nihil Decit www.scribd.com Scribd is the world's largest social reading and publishing site. — Recovered from The Tender For Law Anthology, Volume 6, page 955 (printed 13 June 2014). Not in the Facebook export; added by this site.

Chris Evan

Jan 10, 2014 12:25 PM

Chris Evan As of December 13, 2013, not one question has been answered. There is a Maxim of Law that states: “qui tacet consentire videtur, "he who is silent is taken to agree".” Since NOT a single question has been answered to give the accused ANY understanding of the charges against this person OR these processes and procedures, therefore, pursuant to the Certificate of Non-Response sent and received (see last page of this binder), the answers are as follows: (1) there is no evidence that I, the MAN, am a corporation, society, association, or partnership (MGL ch 4 section 7 “definitions of statutory terms; statutory construction”); (2) there is no evidence that the ACCUSED is a corporation, society, association, or partnership (MGL ch 4 section 7 “definitions of statutory terms; removal of consent of the accused from the Recognizance document); (4) that I, the MAN, am NOT a trustee with respect to ANY NAME; (5) that the elements of a contract have NOT been met. Pursuant to the Certificate of Non-Response, you AGREE that the matter is to be DISCHARGED. Lastly, since you will not disclose where you got the Power of Attorney to use the name CHRISTOPHER EVAN SCHULTE, I will presume that you don’t have the authority to use the name and are acting as an unauthorized administrator. Therefore, consider this document ALSO a Notice of Lien of the Account you set up called “Docket Number 1340CR000301”. — Recovered from The Tender For Law Anthology, Volume 6, page 955 (printed 13 June 2014). Not in the Facebook export; added by this site.

Chris Evan

Jan 10, 2014 12:26 PM

Chris Evan I know what you are saying Kirsten, but CHRISTOPHER EVAN SCHULTE certainly broke a contract. This is about NOT being CHRISTOPHER EVAN SCHULTE. — Recovered from The Tender For Law Anthology, Volume 6, page 956 (printed 13 June 2014). Not in the Facebook export; added by this site.

Kirsten Carlstrom

Jan 10, 2014 1:12 PM

Kirsten Carlstrom Of course you're not CHRISTOPHER EVAN SCHULTE, that "person" you submitted to the court a long time ago. I don't see any evidence that the "person" CHRISTOPHER EVAN SCHULTE, or you/ a man broke a "valid" contract. They're saying you committed a crime, then produce the injured party. Or they're saying your "person" broke a contract. What contract are they saying you placed your wet ink signature onto along with the legal person CHRISTOPHER EVAN SCHULTE that obligates you to perform, or to take on surety? Did you at the time enter that contract willing, knowingly, with FULL UNDERSTANDING and full disclosure? No crime, no injured party, no loss to anyone, no valid contract, not surety anyways.... — Recovered from The Tender For Law Anthology, Volume 6, page 956 (printed 13 June 2014). Not in the Facebook export; added by this site.