This is from an external source but should be very helpful to anyone writing documents.
Watch on BitChute: https://www.bitchute.com/video/LBRt6NbxGwc4/
https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Maxim
JurisDictionary, online course $249US from by Dr. Frederick Graves
Quick transcript (check any references you use):
0:00
Good day observation deck viewers in this episode I’m going to cover the critical importance of including maxims in your counter claims or conditional acceptances in dealing with those who make claims against you and of course this will include your final affidavits. And the thing is i cannot stress enough, the underlying reasons for including maxims in your notices and documents since maxims are the bedrock of any and all laws which a judge must adhere to.
0:32
Which of course we want them to in our favor for a summary judgment. I must also stress that if you get really good at doing this and make it part of your pre-court correspondence with those who make claims against you, it will go a long way towards shutting them down before the final option of a court hearing is even considered. In other words you should have won your case before the
0:56
hearing and save yourself a lot of time effort and stress in doing so, which in most cases will result in an out of court settlement. As usual I am not giving you any legal advice, I am simply discussing the use and importance of maxims of law, and should you require any professional advice then please seek it specific to your case and location.
1:19
okay enough of this I’ll see you on the other side.
1:59
Hi and welcome to my latest contribution to your lawful welfare and liberty the reason I’ve decided to cover maxims is because I have had so many requests to attempt to cover local laws which can be different in the multitude of areas, not just in the specific nations or international interpretations of those laws, but in local laws and sections and sub-laws.
2:25
In other words, it would be impossible for any individual to cite the laws pertaining to you and your case locally, because simply it’s a job far too large for any single man or woman. However the maxims of law tend to bridge most, if not all, local national and international borders, allowing us to step back and reveal the foundations of those laws by citing maxims upon which they are built, and as you will see from the judge’s point of view they have to follow that irrespective of the jurisdiction. So I guess the first thing to do is find a basic introduction and let you have a look at the definition of what a maxim is and then you will understand the importance of using it, and for that I’m just going to pop over to this website which is legal dictionary at the freedictionary.com about maxims. I’ll see you there, so we’ve arrived at the free dictionary the legal
3:24
dictionary or the freedictionary.com on maxims and I’m going to take you through this because it will come up, I hope you use them in your notices and your correspondence because as I said earlier it will strengthen it will literally bullet proof your notice or affidavits if they’re used correctly in the right context. But let’s just take a look at a broad statement the citation of a maxim . A maxim, a broad statement of principle the truth and reasonableness of which are self-evident, a rule of equity
4:04
The system of justice that complements the common law. Now it doesn’t just complement the common law but it also complements law itself. It underpins law. But let me just go and break this down for you so you can see just how important it is. So it’s a broad statement of principle, now this broad statement of principle could cause problems for you because it’s broad, and obviously you’re making a legal maxim statement, you have to absolutely make sure that the maxim
4:41
that you use within your notices or affidavits or whatever documentation you’re using is specific to the case in hand, because it’s a broad statement, so don’t just chuck any maxim in there thinking oh yeah that sounds good. Does it apply to your specific case? In
4:59
other words, is the case itself very very similar to other cases that use that maxims. It says here the truth and reasonableness of which are self-evident. Now the self-evident part here and the truth obviously is so important for you to understand, because normally in court obviously you would have to back up what you’re saying with evidence. So say for instance, you sent them via special delivery or green card a notice to cure or an opportunity to cure and you logged the special delivery number and it was signed for, so you can evidence the fact that the statement that you just made that i sent x this notice on this date, and here’s the proof. Okay or y said this to me here’s the letter
5:52
there’s the evidence, so everything must be backed up as evidence in court otherwise it’s hearsay and it will get thrown out anyway, but the use of maxims is self-evident it is taken as the truth
6:07
and self evident. So if you’re using a maxim in the correct manner in the specific case it is self-evident, it needs no further evidence to back up what you’re saying, and that my friends is very very powerful.
6:26
So it goes on to say that the maxims were originally quoted in latin and many of the latin phrases continue to be familiar to lawyers in the early 2000s. The maxims were not written down in an organized code or enacted by legislators, they but they have been handed down through generations of judges. As a result the wording of a maxing may vary from case to case for example it is a general rule that equity does not aid a party at fault. This maxim has been variously expressed so no one
6:57
is entitled to the aid of a court of equity when the aid has become necessary through his or her own fault. All right, equity does not relieve a person of the consequences of his or own carelessness, or a court of equity will not assist a person in extraditing himself or herself from the circumstances that he or she has created. In other words I mean an
7:22
example with that sorry let me finish this, Equity will not grant relief for a self-created hardship, so one of the most common ones would be say for instance, you ignored previous notices from someone making a claim against you, and then all of a sudden you decide towards the end that oh no no I’m going to fight this claim. Well you ignored previous notices and don’t get me wrong we can use the same well many people use the same tool against those making the claim because if they ignore your affidavit it’s unrebutted then
7:52
they cannot ,you know equity will not grant relief for them, because they created their own hardship.
7:59
And the same applies to us if you ignore claims against you you are already in dishonor and any one of these variations on that theme will apply to us as well okay. Equity does not aid a party at fault so always remain in honour. But going back to the self-evident i can’t stress the importance enough you do not have to add anything else if the maxim is being used correctly. So I’m not going to go through the foundations of equity you can read this I will leave a link in the description below but it would be prudent for me just to cover off a few of them so you get a real flavour for what for the importance
8:41
of using maxims in any specific case that you’re using. Two maxims from the primary foundations of equity. Equity will not suffer an injustice and equity acts in persona. The first of these explains the whole purpose of equity, and the second highlights the personal nature of equity.
9:02
So let me just break that down as well, so equity itself when you’re talking about equity rather than these administrative courts which are totally illegal here in the united kingdom anyway but it acts in persona, in other words, once you’ve got a case that is equitable or it falls under equity
9:23
the person that you have been noticing has to stand before you, so the plaintiff yourself is making the claim or the counter claim, and the defendant cannot send in a second or a representative it acts in personum. This is why we use affidavits because you know say for instance you were in a dispute or a counter claim with a bank or a big organization or something, they can’t just rock up there with their corporate lawyer or whoever it may be and think they’re going to act in personam for the person that you have been writing to because they have no first-hand knowledge and as it says Equity will not suffer an injustice and equity acts in personam. so unfortunately for them unless that lawyer is willing to take an oath and stand on the stand and be cross-questioned by you
10:22
then sorry that’s not going to happen. The person that you’ve been writing to with your notices or your affidavit is the one that has to appear. So he who seeks equity must do equity. Very important one here because a maxim is not a moral persuasion but enforceable
10:41
rule of law. In other words, it does not require every plaintiff to have an unblemished background in order to prevail. In other words if someone tried to character assassinate you because you’ve got a bit of a shady past, or you’ve done time before, or you’ve got a couple of speeding tickets or whatever, it is it’s irrelevant, because i know that lots of lawyers try and attempt character assassinations. It is irrelevant
11:06
if you have clean hands within the case that you’re specifically dealing with at that time. So no matter how unfairly a person’s adversary has treated him or her the maxim is the basis of the clean hands doctrine. Its purpose is to protect the integrity of the court, it does not disapprove only of illegal acts but will deny relief for bad conduct that as a matter of public policy ought to be discouraged.
11:32
So bad conduct let’s do an area that I’m familiar with, debt collectors
11:37
okay they’ve decided to completely ignore you on your first three notices and said we don’t have to give you these documents to validate their claim which we all know they do so it’s basically bad conduct. They haven’t followed pre-action protocol they’ve acted in dishonor which is why so many of these agencies will take it to the wire whether it be agents or a bank they’ll take it to the wire and then they’ll settle out of court because you already got them with they didn’t come with clean hands and you did, it’s going to be backed by laws. I’m not going
12:08
to read all the rest of it I’m just going to flick through these very quickly, but you need to understand that the importance if you can’t find a case law or something and I’ll come on to that later when you’re writing your notices or your affidavits, then fall back on a maxing but make sure it’s a specific.Equity aids the vigilant, not those who slumber in their rights. I mean i think that’s pretty self-evident but this principle recognizes that an adversary can lose evidence witnesses and
12:37
a fair chance to defend himself or herself after the passage of time the date that the wrong was committed, if the defendant can show disadvantages for a long time, he or she relied on the fact that no lawsuit would be started then the case should be dismissed in the interests of justice. The law recognizes a speedy resolution sorry for every dispute it does not favor the cause of someone
13:02
who suddenly wakes up to enforce his or her rights long after discovering that they actually exist. A long unreasonable delay like this is called latches and it is the defense to various forms of equitable release. All right so and this applies to debt agencies as well who are coming after you for years, later on saying oh by the way you owe us this money well sorry latches, equity does not aid the vigilant those who slumber on their rights.
13:31
So equity follows the law now i now although that’s a maxim given what we already know I would say was the opposite way round. The law follows equity but that’s just me personally. Equity does not replace or violate the law, but it backs it up and supplements it. Equity follows appropriate rules of law such as the rules of evidence and
13:55
pre-trial discovery. Now the pre-trial discovery is quite an important one because all of these debt agencies are running after you or the banks or whatever, telling you oh we don’t have to give you the documents. Well in the united kingdom just for a heads up for you guys, and you’ll find your local laws in the States or Canada or Australia or wherever it is but in the United Kingdom you might want to have a look at the Civil Procedure Rules which forces these reprobates to produce the validation of the claim and the documents that you’ve been previously asking for in your notices that they haven’t sent you. They have to follow the rules of law such as evidence and pre-trial discovery. So you are going to go for pre-trial discovery and compel these people making claims against you to prove it without all of the bs that they’ve been giving you all the way through the notices that you’ve sent them so equity follows the law. Now this one i
15:00
particularly think is important for you to remember. Equity will not suffer a wrong to be without a remedy. It is the traditional purpose of equity to find solutions in lawsuits or claims where money will not pay for the injury
15:14
Equity has the authority to find another remedy. This maxim is a restatement of the broad legal principle
15:25
Ubi jus, ibi remedium,Where there is a right, there is a remedy. Now I cannot stress this particular one if you can read between the lines folks of what I’m telling you. Now where there is a right there is a remedy okay just think about it for a second. If you can’t find anything in law or you’re trying to make a counter claim or even just a
15:49
claim against anybody that could be a corporation government whatever it is it does an individual where there is a right there is a remedy. So what rights do you think you have once you’ve established your status and the equity will not suffer a wrong without a remedy. So if a remedy isn’t readily available to you, you can create one in your own terms and conditions to settle the matter whatever that matter might be.
16:18
I hope you read between the lines on that one the maxim is applied in equity in an orderly way it does not mean that anything goes it calls forth recognized remedies for well-established wrongs wrongs that are invasions of property rights or personal or civil rights and that the law considers actionable. A court will not listen to complaints about every petty annoyance or immoral act. Let me just read this particular one again and then you can see where there
16:47
is a right there is a remedy it cause force recognized remedies for well-established wrongs. Wrongs that are invasions of property rights or personal or civil rights and the law considers actionable just please take very close note of that equity
17:07
regards substance rather than form equity will not permit justice to be withheld just because of a technicality
17:13
formalities that frustrate justice will be disregarded and better and a better approach found for each case equity enforces the spirit rather than the letter of the law alone now this would apply for all of you who are worried about
17:31
did I do that noticed correctly did i make every effort to make that affidavit correctly? Did i make grammatical errors, did i format the affidavit incorrectly oh my god what was wrong?
17:42
Don’t worry. Equity regards substance rather than form. If you’ve made a mistake in your affidavit or you’ve made a slight error in something it doesn’t matter.
17:53
The equity enforces the spirit rather than the letter of the law alone, so don’t sweat the small stuff folks, really just show you right at the bottom and then we’ll get back to the episode but it says quite clearly here maxim an
18:09
established principle or proposition a principle of law universally admitted as being just and consonant with reason. In other words it cannot be argued with so as it said right at the
18:22
top it’s self evident and under the laws of evidence and pre-trial discovery and all
18:29
this kind of stuff you can use a maxim provided it’s specific to a very similar case that you’re currently in number two maxims in law are somewhat like axioms in geometry.
18:40
They are principals and authorities and part of the general customs or common law of the land and are of the same strengths. Please take note folks and are of the same strength as acts of parliament when the judges have determined what the maxim is which belongs to the judges and not the jury. All right so and that’s a very important point
19:04
because maxims of the law are holding for the law and all other cases that may be applied to them shall be taken for granted you don’t need to prove your case if your maxim fits it but remember it’s going to be the judge and not the jury that decides whether the maxim you’ve quoted is specific to that case which is why i said you’ve got to be very very careful.
19:30
Number 3, the application of a maxim to the case before the court is generally the only difficulty. See there you go this is what I’m saying okay so in other words the application of it is quite difficult the true method of
19:43
making the application using the maxim is to ascertain that’s supposed to be how i think to ascertain how the maxim arose itself where did the maxim come from and to consider whether the case your
19:57
specific case to which it applies is of the same character or whether it is an exception to an apparently general rule. So the important thing to remember is that if the judge here is going to decide whether that maxim fits or not you may better make damn sure in your pre-trial documents that whether the case to which it is supplied is of the same character. In other words, it’s a very similar case it could be anything I’m not going to go into specific cases but does your case match match or mirror a very similar case in which they
20:37
also used the maxim and if so then your chances are you might find a supreme court or appellate court case to back that up as well. So just be very very careful which maxim you use.
20:49
All right the alterations of any of the maxims of the common law are dangerous so don’t paraphrase and don’t change them. They’ve already been worded and reworded over eons of time to be what they are now, and it would be very dangerous in which case you would weaken the point that you’re trying to make because it belongs to the judge and not the jury so just be very careful you stick to the script and does it apply or is it applied is of the same character the case that you’re going through so there you go that is the importance of maxims and at the end of the day if you
21:29
can find the maxim that’s being used it’s normally an easier route than finding a specific supreme court or repellent court case um i usually find it easier to find the maxim first and then do the case search if possible, but if you can’t find the case search and that’s already been in the pellencorp that’s fine use the maxim but make sure it’s supplied to the same character of your case okay i hope that has made max seems and the importance of it and the definition of what a maxim is now very clear to you and we will continue back at the episode. So now we know what a maxim is and the power it has let’s take a deeper dive into why we should seek to use them wherever possible.
Now whether you are sending a conditional acceptance, notice of default, estoppel or an affidavit or any other correspondence using maxims should be a fundamental addition to back what you are saying or counter claiming in any and all of your correspondence
22:33
you don’t know it not only adds weight to your case but um it lets the other side know that they’re on shaky ground if they push you too far and the judge will be compelled if cited correctly to follow the self evident maxim you quoted. So let me break down what that definition is really saying first and foremost.
Maximes can control what the court does if used correctly. It has to since it is without question a self-evident truth it needs nothing else to back it and a truth does not have to be verified nor certified.It is what it is and no one can argue that point. It is universally accepted to be exactly what it purports to bethere, can be no objection by any opposition to a maxim, period. Given the lawful and legal clarity of a maxim the judge has to obey the maxim since
23:36
all laws are built upon them. It is the foundation of acts, statutes and legislation and therefore cannot be questioned, but only followed which is why you notice that I question that equity follows the law well uh sorry maxim follows the law in fact the law follows a maxim. One thing to remember is citing case law is a powerful tool when dealing with claims that case law is built upon maxims. So if you cannot find a specific case law supreme court or repellent law then you may find it easier to find the maxim which fits perfectly your case thus bypassing the need to dig through endless case files. Now I know I’ve covered maxims previously but that
24:21
was a kind of surface look at some of the maxims of equity and not in the context of your notices or how important they become in dealing with claims against you in order to help you fully overstand the use and power of maxims I’ll use a series of notices that went between a bank and an individual dealing with them in the pdf document that I’m going to show you. Now this document is admittedly a few years old but then maxims are even older so nonetheless shows a good overstanding of the types of maxims and when to use them now before i get to that pdf document and show you where the maxims have used and why they’ve been used I just wanted to interject and mention because I’ve had a lot of feedback from the interview i did with Dr Graves.
25:11
It would seem a few viewers tended to throw the baby out with the bath water and refused to take note of what he was saying because he is a member or was a member of the bar association. Now while I understand that point of view and it is important to fully comprehend the idea in my opinion of knowing thine enemy and how they will work against you.
25:36
I have spoken at length with Dr Graves over emails prior and after the episode and i will continue to support Dr Graves efforts to educate us on procedural matters but i do not support the ethos nor societies such as the Bar which may come as no surprise to any of you but if we could separate the idea of the bar from the educational services being offered it would go a long way in helping you overstand the tools which you can use against your opposition. These are the things they will not tell you and for good reason because obviously they want to win so i hope many of you will take that particular episode on the juris dictionary and becoming your own paralegal by doing the paralegal course and I’ll leave a link in the description below in the spirit it was intended put your views to one side in favor of intelligent education which as Dr Graves has said should have been taught in schools. Anyway so for those of you who missed the interview that I’m
26:42
now talking about I’ll leave a link in the description below and suggest you avail yourself of an education that is needed more so now than ever before so please don’t throw the baby out with the bath water because he’s an ex-bar member. I think it’s fantastic that someone has had the balls to come onto the observation deck and say guys I’ve created this for your education so you know what the opposition’s doing the old axiom guys i can’t say any plane of that no thine enemy so i hope that clarifies most vision position on the map and now let’s get back to the pdf i was going to show you so here it is.
27:21
So just to give you a little bit of background knowledge to this pdf it was written back in 2010 2011 and it was a counter claim against the bank of ireland as regards a particular mortgage now so that’s the very quick background but obviously this episode is talking about maxims so here’s a prime example of what i’ve been saying on the sparing use of the correct maxim in certain cases and obviously they need to be specific to yours. This one is quite a common one beneficium invito non deteur
Now please don’t beat me up about the pronunciation you can see in front of you but a privilege or benefit is not granted against a person’s will so they break it down here in the pdf saying you have to agree to everything of your own free will nobody can coerce or force you to do anything against your will now they cite this person here now iva fitzpatrick in this particular pdf was the solicitor who interlocked on the correspondence between the writer and the author of this and the bank of ireland themselves so the solicitors were trying to get me to contract with them against my will and against the law now this comes up on occasion or may very often even whether you’re dealing with banks or any type of debts all of a sudden you get a letter from the solicitor representing the bank even though you’ve been writing to the person within the bank. so this is a great one to you to to use when you get an interloping solicitor in your private commercial affairs.
29:07
Basically you can tell the piss off. The point being is that i i use this particular one in my own example when i was dealing with a debt agency quite recently, for somebody and the debt agency wrote a letter. This is how crazy these people get. They wrote a letter saying: we’ve now got all the documents you’ve asked for, which i think is highly unlikely, and you will email us and we will then email you the documents.
Well no, emails are not classed as served in the UK judiciary anyway, so that’s not going to happen, but you see how these scumbag and codes try and maneuver you because we’ve been writing letters and sending and i’ve been obviously sending special delivery, so that that comes under i mean there is a law that they actually break which i can’t remember off the top of my head but it’s a procedural law, but i have to agree uh the procedural law even states i have to agree to the use of emails in my correspondence. They can’t just give me instructions to say you will send an email to this, put this in the subject matter heading which is the instructions that i got and i basically told them to do one um and i quoted the appropriate law to say you need my permission to do this and you don’t you don’t have my consent. So again, if you get solicitors or unreasonable instructions, never taken instructions remember you’re sovereign, you’re the one that gives the instructions then um i would have a look at that particular maxim.
30.44
Now if we move on a little bit further and I’m just picking these at random so you understand what I’m talking about in terms of using maxims. So i like this one, Causa patet.The reason is obvious. and in this case the BANK OF IRELAND or the building society have not provided documentary evidence to support their allegations, so the reason is obvious none exists. There’s a nice simple one for you, for the documents or the lack thereof, and again these are just examples random examples. chirographum non-extans praesumitur solutum all right don’t beat me up When the evidence of a debt is not in existence, it is presumed to have been discharged.
With no evidence thus, it is discharged as a nice one for banks and debt collectors, because they’ve got to validate their claim. And so on and so forth, so you you can see that there’s plenty to choose from there really is, i would take a very close look and get yourself a book on maxims and have a sort of wander through them and pick out cherry pick the ones that are specific as i said earlier to the point that you are making in your notice your affidavit your estoppel or whatever it might be and make damn sure that that is specific because as i said earlier, it underpins the law. A contract founded on a wrongful consideration or against good morals is null and void. Right there was never any lawful or legal consideration provided by the bank and building society, this they have proven to be unable to demonstrate as per our legal and lawful notices and requests. Again you see we’re talking about the debt here, so it’s it’s a perfect example. Now I cannot put a link to this pdf in the description below for the simple reason is that it does in part contain very personal private information and that would be wrong of me so I’m I’m basically not going to do it, but i will put a link for you to maxims a huge book on maxims that you can pick out for yourself and then you can download it for yourself um and uh go through it so as you can see this
oh sorry let me just finish on this this is favorite one because as i say we’re going back to like solicitors or lawyers
33:10
or whatever you know the people that you’re dealing with direct, the individual private person in their private capacity within an organization, and i always get letters from solicitors
33:22
and we can back them out the ballpark very very quickly
culpa est immiscere se rei ad se non pertinenti. it is a fault for anyone to meddle in a matter not pertaining to him.
33.30
I love this one when you’re dealing with solicitors. And this is where the author says this is where iva fitzpatrick and company solicitors are at fault with the law, they are trying to meddle in matters not pertaining to them I recently had cause to get a letter sorted out between myself and a friend of mine on behalf of somebody else where the solicitors had sent a letter, and we will basically told them to butt out because they saying we were solicitors for such and such a bank well that’s not a problem here is it because we’re going after the person just because they work for the bank, you have no standing in this matter, butt out effectively, and it got rid of them straight away. So there you go don’t meddle in matters not pertaining to them, very quick way of getting rid of the
34:20
interlopers on your private and confidential information, plus the fact that the fact that the people that you’re writing to, on a confidential and private matter, in commerce and they’re sending that stuff off to the solicitors, I’m sure there’s also data protection rules that they’re completely ignoring in order to give a third party that you’ve given no permission for to give them your private data information. Anyway let’s get back to the episode.
34:51
So now you’ve got an idea of how and when to use a maxim. Let me turn to, how to write what I think would be a bullet-roof notice or affidavit using the power of maxims along with other citations to shut down both the one who’s making the claim, and if a court appearance is to be had, forces or directs the judge to follow the law contained within your document citation of the point that you made, so be under no illusion folks this is a big one, so pay attention take notes right so let me assume you are writing an
35:31
affidavit to be rebutted for argument’s sake. There are some basic elements to an affidavit but I’m going to assume constructing an affidavit is not the issue, remember it’s the spirit of the statement of truth, so don’t get bogged down with thinking that you have to write stuff like the heavens will fall and all the rest of it in latin, so within your statement of truth, you will of course have written a brief cause of action as close to the top as possible trying to keep it as brief as possible as a leading paragraph. So to help you out a little bit more, an example might be if you’re dealing with a debt agency or a bank it doesn’t really matter but here’s just an example verbally for you
So this is the top of
36:14
my affidavit which is one paragraph. Scumbag and co have made several claims against me stating i owe them 2 seventy 576 dollars or pounds. I conditionally accepted the claim upon production of evidence validating the alleged debt having sent several requests for production of validation of claim, scumbag and co have not produced any documents to evidence their claim in contravention of the law of properties act 1925; and supreme court ruling case law Van Lynn Developments versus Pelias Construction co limited 1968. Where Lord Denning said “the debtor is entitled to view the sale agreement to ensure that the assignee can give him good discharge under the contract”.
Now you can see why and that’s the complete intro
37:09
you can see why a short precise and lawfully deadly opening statement is so important as to why you are bringing the counter claim or the claim itself. Instantly the judge has to follow the law, especially if it’s a supreme court ruling and all of this is done in one simple but powerful paragraph right at the top. The debt collector is effectively shut down before they even
37:35
get out of the starting gate, because not only if you quoted the law, in my case it was the Properties Act 1925, but I also threw in there a supreme court ruling which leaves the judge absolutely no alternative but to follow the law and the supreme court ruling. Now let’s jump to the points within that document that you’re writing and the use of maxims to help your case. Let’s say a fictional dead entity corporation is saying to demands for validation of the claim they don’t have to send you the documents you requested on previous occasions, which as many of you know if you’ve ever read my book on diffusing the debt bomb, see it on the screen there and if you haven’t bought it please do so that’s the one they usually spout. We
38:25
don’t have to send you those documents. So you may write as one of your points, or let me just explain, if you make a specific point or statement then as you’ve seen in that opening statement keep it simple, one verb one pronoun per sentence move on and back it up before moving to the next one with either one case law, and only cite cases from higher courts specific to the point that you have made, and my tip would be the higher and more recent the case, the more weight it will have and compel the judge towards a summary
39:06
judgment in your favor. So that’s one thing so if you write a point you could cite a case law like I’ve done on the supreme court, the second one is the law itself. Okay
39:16
again if there’s been a clear breach of the law then cite it. The judge will have to follow the law. The other one that you could use and you don’t use all of these you can cherry pick each one for each of your points if you like, or do a combination of two like a maxim and a case a law, or a law itself but again the other point if you make a point then you put as evidence. Okay so you can say for instance: I sent you
39:45
a notice of Default on the 25th of the seventh 1921 as evidence as post, and then you quote the special delivery number and date, so now you’ve evidenced that point, so that’s solid or as we have seen and I’ve already explained you can use a maxim of law on the particular point. Now additionally a cited medical peer review paper, in fact any peer review paper that backs your statement can also be accepted as evidence to back your specific point, so try and get at least one of those things to back up the point that you’re making so that’s either going to be case law, the law itself, evidence i.e special delivery and you’ve logged it and got it signed for or a maxim of law or a peer-reviewed journal, or paper from a respected publication, and then move on. If you can fit any one of those into each of those points you’ve basically got a bullet proof notice or affidavit, because it will make each and every point you make legally as I say legally bullet proof
41:04
and compel the judge to follow the law. So you don’t just write something without backing it up in any of those ways because if you can find the law, the case law, and then cite it and the appropriate sentence from that case before moving on you’re pretty well on rock solid ground. The point being is here, if you cannot back your points up with what I’ve just mentioned then remove it since it will be classed as hearsay and it simply will be rejected.
Okay so let me just flip back to the
41:34
scumbag who thinks they don’t have to prove their claim and give you evidence. So your first point might read as follows: I sent you a demand for validating the documents on such and such as a via special delivery number blah blah blah sign for it is true that you you know, is it true you did not send them as requested? And now you can use you know you’ve turned it into a question as one of your points and now you could add the maxim and again forgive me for my pronunciation here but it reads
42:04
Actore non probante, reus absolvitur.
If the plaintiff does not prove his case, the defendant is acquitted. So obviously if you’re bringing the case you’re the plaintiff but if basically the debt agency or the bank can’t prove their case with the documents, then you as the defendant is acquitted, or you could have written something like Actori incumbit onus probandi. the burden of proof rests on he who makes the claim, or in this case it actually means the burden of proof rest on the plaintiff. Or even a Affirmanti, non neganti, incumbit probation.The proof is incumbent on the one who affirms, not the one who denies. So you’re asking again for the validation of the documents.
Now of course there are lots and lots of maxims to choose from, and here is another example as in many cases the private individual has passed your private notice onto a third party either a solicitor or someone within a large organization, then you could write that you pass private and confidential correspondence to a third party without giving permission. The maxim here would be
43:18
actus me and veto factors non s menos actus, in other words in english an act done by me against my will is not my act. In other words we did not appoint anyone other than the private individual to deal with this matter especially if it’s an affidavit and it was against their will not to mention in many cases as i previously mentioned when we were looking at the pdf the the data protection acts or laws here in the united kingdom.
Now as I’ve stated this is in addition to case laws, laws themselves and other citations but if you can include a maxim when you cannot find the case law your affidavit now becomes even more powerful and if done correctly directs the judge to follow the law since it is you who is showing evidence by use of maxims or the law, that truth need not be proven since it has already been established via a maxim. Obviously you can use them in any and all correspondence and I’ve seen affidavits, I mean what I’ve seen before and please don’t make this mistake, I’ve seen affidavits citing loads and loads of maxims and in fact as many as three pages prior before getting to the meat of the affidavit. Now my suggestion would be, please don’t waste your time doing this as it annoys the hell out of a judge and they find it difficult to know what the hell your cause of action is before you even get started, so don’t be going slapping cut copy and pasting a whole bunch load of maxims if you’re gonna use them, use them to back up a point you’ve just made but don’t fill the pages or the document up prior to that. The liberal use of maxims must be tempered with specific relevance if they are to be used and not simply copied and pasted into the document at random. Evidence the point you are making with
45:17
case appeal evidence or maxim, and then move on. Stick to that principle and you will be well on the way to creating bullet proof affidavits or notices or whatever your correspondence is. Do not be pushed into the defensive position. You are always on the offense and never let them off the hook. Never let them distract you from the claim at hand, and never let them get under your emotions because your own emotions will be the very enemy of your own success.
I want to wrap up this episode with know your enemy, and that is a saying derived from sun tzu’s art of war, and that the full prose of that quote is an actual fact and i quote
46:04
“If you know the enemy and you know yourself, you need not fear the results of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.”
You see this is why we must all walk the path of redemption through due diligence and experience. We may win battles, but in those times of defeats we should learn valuable lessons to better equip ourselves for the next battle. Because in all honesty folks the greatest tool you have is your mind, and for those not wishing to study the paralegal course or anything else well that is your prerogative if you wish to throw the baby out with the bath water because of some negative brick wall that you can’t get past because dr graves used to be a member of the bar. Again that’s your decision but if you don’t know your enemy well
47:12
then expect them to defeat you, not because they are better than you but because you lack the knowledge to win. Study experience and practice at your own art of war, and i believe together we will all prevail. So until next time question everything believe nothing and stay curious and I’ll see you on deck very soon.