19191Job discrimination: state citizen; Fee Schedule Activation Notice
- Feb 21, 2013
The next critical step in my discrimination conflict is to make an
additional demand for payment and clarification of a few points, and to
offer a fee schedule for 1) continued monthly delays for their refusal to
honor their debt, and 2) continued unlawful demands for an SS Number
presuming I must volunteer into the program by duress.
I'm thinking $1,000 per month late penalty and $50,000 for additional
attempt at compulsion triggering the 2 Title 42 Felonies.
Perhaps this isn’t the best place to look for this answer, as my first attempt went unanswered.
But any comments might get me going in a productive direction.
The fee schedule activation tends to be one that is perceived as audacious. A reason to not go with the idea is that I am potentially suing a group that I myself am a member of. I would rather they negotiate or mediate. But perhaps I’m being too tender with them. They are abusing/damaging my contract rights, and committing Felonies against the SS Administration by doing so. I’m not sure how to approach them. Maybe a notice and demand for estoppels, or outright threat to file criminal complaints.
In real terms, I’m counting on the ‘default process’ as I learned it from Clyde Hyde. Notice, Demand, and Claims of Right, communicated in such a way as that they cannot refute or rebut. When I have given them that courtesy and they are unable to respond, then either file the paperwork as my own default judgment, or utilize the correspondence as evidence that I tried giving them due process, and so therefore now have a claim on which relief can be filed.
I need to get them an updated invoice, as they have refused payment now for six months. Should I include an estoppel demand with the invoice, or implement it with a more extensive/exhaustive Notice and Demand~?
I also need to challenge some slander and libel, which I’d like them to retract at their next quarterly meeting. The three area of actionable causes are felonious destruction of vendor’s contract rights, defamation of group brand by hypocrisy and criminal policy, and personal defamation through character assassination, libel and slander. They dismiss my claims and codes research, apparently based on me being considered a tax protester and scofflaw, even though they are breaking the law, and I’m showing them Administrative Remedy.
Mark Gailey [Liberty Felix]
Berea, Kentucky 40403-0578