This is not a Democracy This is a Republic Education site derived from the Constitution
No Religious Affidavit allowed
"THE POWER BEHIND AN AFFIDAVIT OF TRUTH"
Whereas; Affidavits must contain the following: 1) A matter must be expressed to be resolved. 2) In Commerce Truth is Sovereignty 3) Truth is express in the form of an Affidavit 4) An un-rebutted Affidavit stands as truth in Commerce 5) an un-rebutted affidavit becomes the judgment in commerce
An Affidavit unrebutted stands as Truth.
affidavit uncontested unrebutted unanswered [United States v. Kis, 658 F.2d 526, 536 (7th Cir. 1981); Cert. Denied, 50 U.S. L. W. 2169; S. Ct. March 22, 1982 1982]
“Allegations in affidavit in support of motion must be considered as true in absence of counter-affidavit.” [Group v Finletter, 108 F. Supp. 327 Federal case of Group v Finletter, 108 F. Supp. 327]
“Indeed, no more than affidavits is necessary to make the prima facie case.” [United States v. Kis, 658 F.2d 526, 536 (7th Cir. 1981); Cert. Denied, 50 U.S. L. W. 2169; S. Ct. March 22, 1982]
AFFIDAVIT. A written or printed declaration or statement of facts, made voluntarily, and confirmed by the oath or affirmation of the party making it, taken before an officer having authority to administer such oath. Cox v. Stern, 170 Ill. 442, 48 N.E. 906, 62 Am.St.Rep. 385; Hays v. Loomis, 84 Ill. 18. A statement or declaration reduced to writing, and sworn to or affirmed before some officer who has authority to administer an oath or affirmation. Shelton v. Berry, 19 Tex. 154, 70 Am.Dec. 326, and In re Breidt, 84 N.J.Eq. 222, 94 A. 214, 216.affidavit uncontested unrebutted unanswered - [United States v. Kis, 658 F.2d 526, 536 (7th Cir. 1981); Cert. Denied, 50 U.S. L. W. 2169; S. Ct. March 22, 1982 1982] “Indeed, no more than affidavits is necessary to make the prima facie case.” [United States v. Kis, 658 F.2d 526, 536 (7th Cir. 1981); Cert. Denied, 50 U.S. L. W. 2169; S. Ct. March 22, 1982]
An affidavit uncontested unrebutted unanswered Morris v National Cash Register, 44 S.W. 2d 433 Morris v National Cash Register, 44 S.W. 2d 433, clearly states at point #4 that “uncontested allegations in affidavit must be accepted as true.”
An affidavit uncontested unrebutted unanswered Morris vs. NCR, 44 SW2d 433 Morris v National Cash Register, 44 SW2d 433: “An Affidavit if not contested in a timely manner is considered undisputed facts as a matter of law.”
Non Rebutted Affidavits are "Prima Facie Evidence in the Case,-- "United States vs. Kis, 658 F.2d, 526, 536-337 (7th Cir. 1981);
"Indeed, no more than (Affidavits) is necessary to make the Prima Facie Case." -- Cert Denied, 50 U.S. L.W. 2169; S.Ct. March 22, 1982.
"Uncontested Affidavit taken as true in support of Summary Judgment." -- Seitzer v. Seitzer, 80 Cal. Rptr. 688
"Uncontested Affidavit taken as true in Opposition of Summary Judgment." -- Melorich Builders v. The SUPERIOR COURT of San Bernardino County (Serbia) 207 Cal.Rptr. 47 (Cal.App.4 Dist. 1984)
"Silence can only be equated with fraud where there is a legal or moral duty to speak, or where an inquiry left unanswered would be intentionally misleading. . . We cannot condone this shocking behavior... This sort of deception will not be tolerated and if this is routine it should be corrected immediately." -- U.S. v. Tweel, 550 F.2d 297, 299. (5th Cir. 1977) See also U.S. v. Prudden, 424 F.2d 1021, 1032, 1033 (5th Cir. 1977); Carmine v. Bowen, 64 A. 932 (1906)
The legislative branch of government does NOT have the Constitutional Power to issue Court Orders or any other kind of Orders to people, as a fiction court or a court/corporation for profit and gain cannot reach parity with a lawful man. ONLY presidents and governors have the Constitutional Power to grant PARDONS, but lawyers and lawyer-judges are unconstitutionally granting PARDONS with "immunity from prosecution." Citizens are not permitted to act like people in the courts. The Citizen (2nd class) is told that he does not know how to fill out fancy lawyer forms; that he is not trained in the law; that he does not know court rules and procedures; etc. This is unconstitutional "lawyer system" only HEARSAY SUBSTITUTES (lawyers) NOT under oath, have access to the fiction/for profit and gain courts, even though ONLY sworn testimony and evidence can be presented in court. Anything else is Bill of Attainder, NOT permitted under the U.S. Constitution Article 1, Sections 9 and 10. The U.S. Constitution does NOT give anyone the right to a lawyer or the right to counsel, or the right to any other HEARSAY SUBSTITUTE. The 6th Amendment is very SPECIFIC, that the accused ONLY has the right to the ASSISTANCE of counsel and this ASSISTANCE of counsel CAN BE ANYONE THE ACCUSED CHOOSES WITHOUT LIMITATION.