An Urgent Three-Day Deadline: Stakes Higher Than Ever
The notice issued by the claimants includes a three-day response deadline for the named defendants. According to the document, the defendants must respond in writing by 5:00 p.m. on the third day after receipt of the notice. Failure to provide a legally sufficient response—defined as verified and sworn statements addressing each claim point-by-point—will result in severe legal and financial consequences.
Critically, failure to respond will result in a tacit admission of liability by the defendants. This principle, known as tacit procuration, effectively establishes acceptance of all claims and stipulations made in the notice. This legal strategy, supported by case law such as Sieb’s Hatcheries, Inc. v. Lindley and Beasley v. U.S., highlights the importance of timely and complete responses in legal disputes.
The Claim: $100 Million Restitution and a $1 Billion Default Judgment
The stakes are extraordinary. The claimants have demanded the following:
- Immediate Remedy and Restitution:
Within the three-day response period, the defendants are required to cease all unlawful activities, including fraud, conspiracy, and deprivation of rights. They must also apply a credit of $10,000 USD to the affected account as part of the preliminary remedy. - Restitution Settlement Payment:
If no sufficient response is received, the defendants agree to issue a $100 million USD restitution settlement payment within nine days. - Default Judgment and Commercial Lien Authorization:
Failure to respond entirely or perform the stipulated remedies will result in an enforceable $1 billion USD judgment. This judgment will serve as the basis for liens against the defendants and other legal enforcement actions, including notifications to the U.S. Treasury, Internal Revenue Service (IRS), and other federal entities.
Self-Executing Contract and Security Agreement
At the heart of this notice lies a powerful legal construct: the self-executing contract and security agreement. This agreement operates under Article 9 of the Uniform Commercial Code (UCC), specifically sections 9-509 and 9-102, which govern secured transactions. According to the document, acceptance of the contract is deemed automatic under the mailbox rule once the notice is properly mailed.
The self-executing nature of the contract eliminates the need for additional formalities, creating immediate obligations for the defendants. By failing to respond or perform, the defendants authorize the claimants to file liens, summary judgments, and other legal actions to enforce the judgment.
Precedent-Backed Strategy
The notice meticulously references established legal principles and precedents to bolster its claims. For example:
- Sieb’s Hatcheries, Inc. v. Lindley (1952):
Demonstrates the legal sufficiency of admissions through non-response. - Beasley v. U.S. (1948):
Supports the principle that unanswered requests for admissions are deemed accepted as true. - Winsett v. Donaldson (1976):
Affirms that unrebutted affidavits can be accepted as truth by trial courts.
All Allegations Against the Defendants are deemed Admitted by Defendants
The notice accuses the defendants of a sweeping list of legal violations, including but not limited to:
- Fraud and Identity Theft: Using fraudulent means to deprive the claimant of rights and property.
- Extortion and Coercion: Illegally demanding payments or concessions under duress.
- Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law: Violating constitutionally protected rights through abuse of authority.
- Conspiracy and Racketeering: Engaging in organized schemes to defraud and harm the claimant.
These affirmed violations and crimes by Defendants, represent violations of federal statutes, including 18 U.S.C. § 241 (Conspiracy Against Rights) and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 (Civil Action for Deprivation of Rights).
Estoppel by Acquiescence
The notice warns that failure to respond will trigger estoppel by acquiescence, rendering all claims undisputed and final. Under this doctrine, the defendants would lose the right to contest the claims in any future proceedings, whether administrative or judicial. This powerful legal mechanism underscores the importance of timely and substantive responses.
What’s Next?
With the defendants facing a rapidly approaching deadline, the pressure is mounting. If the Defendants fail to perform and/or respond, the claimants are prepared to escalate the matter through legal channels, including filing a federal lawsuit, demanding summary judgment as a matter of lawLawsuit Imminent: A Bold Legal Claim Seeks Accountability and Justice, commercial lien filings, and federal reporting.
The lawsuit promises to be a landmark case, not only for its financial implications but also for its innovative use of self-executing contracts and administrative remedies. As the deadline looms, all eyes will be on the defendants to see if they rise to the challenge or risk the profound consequences of inaction
