The "Official Offer" Letter To Banks

Livingrobot · 29-10-2014 10:18pm

The Mustard wrote: »

Mod:

Livingrobot,

Posting pseudolegal nonsense is against the forum charter and it is not welcome here.

Please read the forum charter before posting again.

I was asked for references and provided same, are you perhaps seeking something ?

Livingrobot · 29-10-2014 10:24pm

Perhaps I should reiterate that the only reason I came to this forum was to correct an error/deception which was it seems allowed, ie the notion being put forward by the O.P. that the official offer process was to facilitate the performance on a contract via 'a miniscule amount' as that is a fundamental and significant error/deceptive statement, I decided in the interest of all to accept the right of reply as provided by Boards to correct the matter. The official offer process has at it's very core the performance on contracts to be the absolute maximum possible, it is a pilliar of the process.

Thank you for your concern though.

Kind regards

Pat Mustard · 29-10-2014 10:30pm

Livingrobot,

Please don't post in this thread again. Also, please don't open any new threads with this nonsense.

johnnyskeleton · 29-10-2014 10:48pm

MarkAnthony wrote: »

How do you overcome Foakes v Beer?

I dont give a Foake and then I go home (debt free) and drink a Beer

MarkAnthony · 29-10-2014 11:28pm

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

I dont give a Foake and then I go home (debt free) and drink a Beer

LOL

30-10-2014 10:33am

Livingrobot wrote: »

As for your opinion on the official offer process unles you are legally trained I wouldn't expect you to have a decent conceptual grasp of it.

This is gold. Not a hint of irony here at all.

Livingrobot · 30-10-2014 1:01pm

As the participants of this forum seem to have no ability to engage in a meaningful conversation and have had to take the desperate step to access their 'Immunity' as a shield/mommy's Apron (Quite Ironic indeed Kayroo don't you think) I'll waste no more time here. After all I accomplished all that I intended which was to point out an error/Deception.

Kindest and most gracious regards

Boneheads ;-)

FORUM RULE (Losing an argument to someone more erudite than you) Fail safe device provided.

There is one exception to this general rule: users who espouse and or endorse the views of freemen on the land/sovereign citizen movement or any other unlawful pseudo-legal group will not be entitled to avail of the benefit of the rule against flaming and other users will have immunity from this rule for posting against the proponents of this ill-founded unlawful nonsense.

Oh yes before I go or before you delete this thread etc. All has been screen captured and is on display for the entertainment of all over on Peoples Internet Radio facebook etc. and I have to say so many have been laughing at you guys it's almost not funny ... ;-)

Beano · 30-10-2014 1:06pm

There is one exception to this general rule: users who espouse and or endorse the views of freemen on the land/sovereign citizen movement or any other unlawful pseudo-legal group will not be entitled to avail of the benefit of the rule against flaming and other users will have immunity from this rule for posting against the proponents of this ill-founded unlawful nonsense.

I never knew this rule existed. I must read the charter one day.

so LivingRobot claims not to be a freeman but is a member of Peoples Internet Radio. what

whippet · 30-10-2014 1:07pm

I know you are reading !! .. just had a look at ... facemuck page and it is quite entertaining alright, right up there with the other freeman loon sites !! ... to be fair, you should post in the freemen megamerge thread on here which offer some great comedy.

just to give some insight to Livingrobot's mentality here is the aforementioned facepalm page

https://www.facebook.com/groups/pirface/?fref=ts

Livingrobot · 30-10-2014 1:10pm

Too little too late guys .... be seeing you ...lol

EPIC FORUM FAIL.... lol

Beano · 30-10-2014 1:12pm

whippet wrote: »

I know you are reading !! .. just had a look at ... facemuck page and it is quite entertaining alright, right up there with the other freeman loon sites !! ... to be fair, you should post in the freemen megamerge thread on here which offer some great comedy.

just to give some insight to Livingrobot's mentality here is the aforementioned facepalm page

https://www.facebook.com/groups/pirface/?fref=ts

Its comedy gold.

http://peoplesparliamentscotland.wordpress.com/2014/10/27/british-parliament-the-crown-cease-november/

doubter · 30-10-2014 1:17pm

Beano wrote: »

Hogwash. Since when are contract offers accepted by inaction?

ehm. Irish Water seems to think they are.:rolleyes:

whippet · 30-10-2014 1:17pm

Livingrobot wrote: »

Too little too late guys .... be seeing you ...lol

EPIC FORUM FAIL.... lol

Classic freeman deduction. Usually follows the same timeline.

1- makeup nonsense
2- peddle nonsense
3- have nonsense rebutted and discredited
4- call conspiracy (insert as required - Rothschild / fluoride / chemtrails/ birth certificate scam or other nonsense)
5- look for like minded loons to whoop and howler in support
6- regardless of outcome .. Claim victory

Rinse and repeat

hullaballoo · 30-10-2014 1:18pm

Livingrobot, you revealed your own identity by posting that publicly on Facebook.

I'll tell you what, I'm sick of getting a reported post ever few minutes from you and you've already been told not to post in this thread again so I can't see this account lasting long.

Livingrobot · 30-10-2014 1:19pm

I came, I saw, I demolished. You guys have nothing ....lol I mean NOTHING ...

(Quick use the super special immunity ...lol).... Saddest thing I have ever seen.

hullaballoo · 30-10-2014 1:21pm

Livingrobot wrote: »

Oh yes before I go or before you delete this thread etc. All has been screen captured and is on display for the entertainment of all over on Peoples Internet Radio facebook etc. and I have to say so many have been laughing at you guys it's almost not funny ... ;-)

You got 7 likes. My photos of what I had for dinner get more likes than that.

Livingrobot · 30-10-2014 1:22pm

hullaballoo wrote: »

Livingrobot, you revealed your own identity by posting that publicly on Facebook.

I'll tell you what, I'm sick of getting a reported post ever few minutes from you and you've already been told not to post in this thread again so I can't see this account lasting long.

Well I suppose we'll let someone more qualified than you decide that shall we.

Pat Mustard · 30-10-2014 1:25pm

Livingrobot banned.

hullaballoo · 30-10-2014 1:28pm

The Mustard wrote: »

Livingrobot banned.

Aw.

Beano · 30-10-2014 2:00pm

hullaballoo wrote: »

Aw.

Is the aw because you wanted to ban him yourself and The Mustard beat you to it?

whippet · 30-10-2014 2:21pm

I have just had a quick google of our robot friend ... for someone who says he isn't a freeman he crops up a lot on freemen sites.

Interestingly there is a thread on TirNaSaor (full on upfront freeman stuff) which refers to a bitter row between TNS and the Robot with a lot of and accusations etc.

hullaballoo · 30-10-2014 2:43pm

Beano wrote: »

Is the aw because you wanted to ban him yourself and The Mustard beat you to it?

Not at all, it was just starting to get really funny.

MarkAnthony · 30-10-2014 2:45pm

Livingrobot wrote: »

Substantial performance Cheshire, Fifoot and Furmston's Law of Contract page 531 Twelfth edition. as mentioned in Gill & Macmillan annotated Constitution of Ireland page 11.

It's a shame you're banned, but I'm sure you'll be back.

What are you on about? The last version I can find of that version of the annotated Constitution is 1995 - not an issue in of itself - if the section refers to something pre 1995 but you've cited a source which is going to be very difficult to check. If there is an argument to be made why are you obfuscating it?

FreudianSlippers · 30-10-2014 3:07pm

Like most of the Freeman/Conspiracy stuff, they just selectively misquote random parts of law and mash them together in a way that suits them. Then when someone au fait with the law comes along and corrects them, they are obviously in on it and members of the B.A.R..

The thing that he obviously didn't understand about substantial performance is that there has to be a level of performance which fills the essential purpose of the agreement.

Grolschevik · 30-10-2014 3:16pm

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

The thing that he obviously didn't understand about substantial performance is that there has to be a level of performance which fills the essential purpose of the agreement.

Didn't he even quote something that actually stated that?

FreudianSlippers · 30-10-2014 3:19pm

Grolschevik wrote: »

Didn't he even quote something that actually stated that?

Yep.

His thought was that if you try hard enough it is somehow substantial performance.

Grolschevik · 30-10-2014 3:20pm

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Like most of the Freeman/Conspiracy stuff, they just selectively misquote random parts of law and mash them together in a way that suits them. .

Let's add in "and don't even bother to properly read the stuff they quote".

FreudianSlippers · 30-10-2014 3:31pm

The funny part is even at the link he posted, he so selective read it that he missed a key part. Here is the full text of the quote he lifted:

http://unilex.info/instrument.cfm?pid=2&do=comment&pos=99

Illustration

1. A owes USD 1,000,000 to a bank and it has been agreed that A will pay back USD 100,000 on the first day of each month, starting in January. On 1 April A offers to reimburse only USD 50,000, and the balance two weeks later. In principle, the bank is entitled to refuse A’s proposal.

2. Obligee entitled in principle to reject partial performance

When performance is due at maturity (be it the whole performance or an instalment), that which is due must be performed completely. In principle, the obligee may reject an offer of partial performance, whether or not it is coupled with an assurance as to the balance of the performance, since it is entitled to receive the whole of what was stipulated. Subject to what will be said below, partial performance normally constitutes a breach of contract. A party who does not obtain full performance at maturity may resort to the available remedies. As a rule, the obligee has a legitimate interest in requiring full performance of what was promised at the time that performance is due.
The obligee may of course also refrain from rejecting the offer to perform in part, while reserving its rights as to the breach, or may accept it without any reservation, in which case partial performance can no longer be treated as a non-performance.

So the bank can:

A. Refuse part performance resulting in breach of contract;

B. Accept part performance and additional expenses arising therefrom are to be borne by the obligor (but that part performance can no longer be considered breach of contract);

C. Refrain from refusing but still be in a position to sue for breach of contract if the rest of the money is not forthcoming.

Nothing there means you don't owe the money back.

whippet · 30-10-2014 5:04pm

our freeman friend seems to be a little upset about his humiliation earlier, his facemuck page has a make-up video about his spat with the Boards.ie moderators !! .. its quite funny as he even admits he came in here and dumped a load of bull crap (sums up his contribution really)

there is an open invite on to Peoples Internet Radio for the mods to discuss!! . .considering all these freemen sites block you and delete any communications that doesn't agree sheep like with there nonsense I don't imagine the editing on the radio would be very objective.

Beano · 30-10-2014 5:15pm

Just reading one of the posts on the Peoples Internet Radio page (am i allowed to post a link?) and the poster must have gone to a hedge school to learn grammar and punctuation.

The "Official Offer" Letter To Banks

Comments