Why be Negative?

In a previous post here, a position was briefly discussed that one cannot prove anything – the facts are on the moon. A working example of how this can be used in practice is below in the form of an Affidavit. This example is from a public side template posted here with instructions.

You cannot prove anything, you simply want the opposite party prove their case by responding to your affidavit under penalty of perjury (in the Public) or penalty of private international commercial law under their full commercial liability if on the private side. In this example there are no arguments being made, simply a position on whether the evidence actually exists. If an opposite party takes the affiant through to a court hearing, the affiant simply needs to conditionally accept their offer on proof of claim there is a verified record in opposition to the record that is before the court. Stay on point, the affiant requires a response to the record:

 

AFFIDAVIT OF SPECIFIC NEGATIVE AVERMENT

The undersigned Affiant, Bob Jones, hereinafter “Affiant”, in care of 51 Main Street, Orange, NSW, does solemnly swear, declare and state as follows:

1. Affiant is competent to state the matters set forth herein; and

2. Affiant has knowledge of the facts stated herein; and

3. All the facts herein are true, correct and complete, admissible as evidence and if called upon as a witness, Affiant will testify to their veracity; and

Plain Statement of Facts

4. Affiant sees no verifiable evidence of any infringement/fine, affidavit, or citation signed and sworn by an officer of the STATE of New South Wales, hereinafter “THE STATE”, Police Department or any other Law Enforcement Officer whose duty it is to enforce traffic laws in THE STATE and Affiant believes that no such evidence exists; and

5. Affiant sees no verifiable evidence that the accused driver, Bob Jones, was operating the motor vehicle at the time, date and location of the alleged offence and Affiant believes that no such evidence exists; and

6. Affiant sees no verifiable evidence that the speed camera measurement device(s) and/or speed estimation method(s) and associated equipment, hereinafter “MEASUREMENT EQUIPMENT”, has been calibrated for accuracy and Affiant sees no verifiable evidence that a Certificate issued by a constitutionally authorised body exists; and

7. Affiant sees no verifiable evidence that the MEASUREMENT EQUIPMENT does not contravene the Commonwealth National Measurement Act 1960 and Affiant sees no verifiable evidence that the MEASUREMENT EQUIPMENT is exempt from the Commonwealth National Measurement Act 1960 and Affiant believes that no such evidence exists; and

8. Affiant sees no verifiable evidence that a chain of title of the custody of access to the programming, controlling, and possession of the MEASUREMENT EQUIPMENT, has not been intercepted by any party committing foul-play, a fraudulent or illegal scheme to issue false-positive tickets to law-abiding drivers, or to otherwise defraud the people of THE STATE and Affiant believes that no such evidence exists; and

9. Affiant sees no verifiable evidence that the MEASUREMENT EQUIPMENT was not operated in a manner that breaches the manufacturer’s operating and maintenance manuals of said equipment and Affiant believes that no such evidence exists; and

10. Affiant sees no verifiable evidence that respondent’s MEASUREMENT EQUIPMENT is not fraudulently issuing tickets to the people of THE STATE and Affiant believes that no such evidence exists; and

11. Affiant sees no verifiable evidence that the MEASUREMENT EQUIPMENT was not being misused and was not registering false readings at the time, date and location of the measurement reading and Affiant believes that no such evidence exists; and

12. Affiant sees no verifiable evidence that Orange City Council, hereinafter “THE COMPANY” is a department of THE STATE and has the authority by the Constitutions of THE STATE and Commonwealth to issue said fine(s)/infringement(s); and

13. Affiant sees no verifiable evidence that THE COMPANY‘s claim is not contravening the New South Wales, IMPERIAL ACTS APPLICATION ACT 1969, SCHEDULE 2, Part 1 – Constitutional enactments, 1 William and Mary sess 2 c 2 (The Bill of Rights), which states:

– “That all grants and promises of fines and forfeitures of particular persons before conviction are illegal and void”; and

14. Affiant sees no verifiable evidence that THE COMPANY‘s claim is not illegal and void and Affiant believes that no such evidence exists; and

15. Affiant sees no verifiable evidence that THE COMPANY is not violating due process by issuing fines/infringements before conviction and Affiant believes that no such evidence exists; and

16. Affiant sees no verifiable evidence that THE COMPANY is not attempting/committing extortion and/or fraud and Affiant believes that no such evidence exists; and

17. Affiant sees no verifiable evidence that THE COMPANY has not breached Constitutional law(s) and laws of THE STATE and The Commonwealth and Affiant believes that no such evidence exists; and

18. Affiant sees no verifiable evidence that THE COMPANY is not liable for three (3) times costs in commercial damages and reasonable administrative costs and Affiant believes that no such evidence exists.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF I hereunto set my hand on this _____<st/nd/rd/th> day of ____________ <year> and hereby certify all the statements made above are true, correct and complete.

Signed: _______________________________

Bob Jones

before me

______________________________

Signature of Authorised Witness

Advertisements