Comments on Presumptive Clauses

 

These clauses, along with Edwards’ statements, charges, or averments, and questions usually attracted a lot of attention from Edwards’ opponents and alerted them that she was aware of their practices, serious and fully capable of lawfully and legally dealing with them. This is usually not what major corporations and their attorneys receive from ordinary Citizens in response to corporate fraud and extortion. Depending upon what the corporations and their attorneys think they have against the Citizen and what “arrangements” they may have made with the “court” and “judge”, their process could stop upon receipt of such lawful notification. If they “know” or feel that their evidence, although it may be fraudulent, will be receptively received in court, they may continue. However, they realize that they will not be facing an ordinary Citizen who has no knowledge of their practices, the law, of his/her Rights, and who will most likely expose their fraud before the court and Public. Under these circumstances, it may not be worth it for the bank or corporation to continue.

Exposure could be very damaging, and if enough People took similar actions, government “investigations” might occur. Frauds do not like light shined upon them. It is dangerous to their types of business and government condoned fraud. How this fraudulent system operates is explained in the Afterward and in the paper by Pastor Sheldon Emery. For those unfamiliar with creation of our money system, how and why it works and whom it benefits, these sections will explain. The truth will eventually prevail, and Edwards told only and remained with the truth throughout this case. Truth expressed in letters and affidavits and not denied by the recipients of those communications is extremely damaging to them. Lawful notification requires a response to the subject matter of that communication if that subject matter is of importance to the recipient. Further, Edwards pleadings contained the truth which Metris failed to deny, therefore, by law, admitted to her charges made in her pleadings. 

Still further, when Edwards served the Requests For Admissions, Metris was required, by law, to admit or deny them, and if denied, factual evidence and fact and law were required to support the denial. They could not deny Edwards charges, so did not, and admitted to them. These and other methods exhibited in this report won Edwards’ case. 

The six letters and affidavit follow on the next pages: 

(Exhibits. 1 – 7)