I would like to thank you for contacting TAMMIE BOWSER, TAMMIE JOYNER, MOSAIC QUILT STUDIO and/or HowToSewArt.com. We have received your communication and we accept your offer under the following terms and conditions. Due to an abundance of caution we are extending the time for response to your communication, from one (1) to six hundred eighty-five (685) days from the date of receipt. This shall apply to any and all corporate fictions and/or parties who wish to re-contract. We do hereby introduce the following arbitration clause: The value of any and all claims with respects to TAMMIE BOWSER, TAMMIE JOYNER, MOSAIC QUILT STUDIO and/or HowToSewArt.com, it affiliates, and/or associates shall begin at One Thousand U.S. Dollars ($ 1,000.00) per incident, per issue, and/or per instance. We reserve any and all rights without waiver, with the exception of the Fourteenth Amendment Section 1 which I/we disavow.
I disaffirm any and all prior agreements respecting a corporate offer to contract that we did not personally initiate and/or include an arbitration agreement whereby we personally accepted terms and conditions similar to those stated here via autographed wet seal. The arbitrator shall have exclusive jurisdiction to determine, render a decision, and/or order compliance with respects to the good faith nature of this agreement.
I, TAMMIE BOWSER and/or, am asserting my right to acquire documentary evidence in accordance with 15 U.S.C. § 44 for the books of account as defined in IRS Publication 583, to explain and address such subject matter contained in said billing statements. I’d like to access both the journal and credits of the account, as well as the ledger and debits of the account, in order to verify the current accounting and taxes related to this account. You are to supply proof of claim for any and all alleged claims, and/or alleged statements, and/or alleged obligations, and/or alleged debts, and/or alleged duties, and you are to supply those within the next seven (7) business days, without exception.
The arbitrator shall be chosen by the non-defaulting party without exception. There shall be no extension of time, as your failure to comply with this mandate shall constitute conduct/Performance i.e.: assent, as you’re communicating with this body documents a prior relationship, thereby establishing a duty upon your person and/or organization to respond. Failure to respond as agreed shall equate as assent to the terms and conditions stated herein, amounting to your willful default. The value of this agreement shall be Four Million U.S. Dollars ($ 4,000,000.00) and the arbitrator may issue an award equaling the total of each and every claimed offense, plus whatever the arbitrator deems reasonable up to and until Four Million U.S. Dollars ($ 4,000,000.00) .
This contract shall be Irrevocable, it cannot be invalidated, superseded, revoked, ignored, outdated, subjected, subjugated, removed, displaced, replaced, obstructed, supplanted, placed in jeopardy, and servitude, disregarded, construed other than contextually, re-contracted, re-written, as “the grantors intentions is Law of the trust”, and the grantors intentions are clearly expressed throughout and shall never be deemed and/or held and or viewed as ambiguous with reference thereto.
You have THREE (3) calendar days to opt-out of this agreement to arbitrate, however; if you fail to provide the requested information stated above, you will have elected to opt-in to the arbitration agreement by such irrevocable conduct and therefore be bound by the terms and conditions of this agreement to its full affect. Any monies to be paid shall be in a coin or currency deemed to be legal tender in the United States that has actual value and not simply market value at the highest rate and/or value from 1981-2006. This agreement shall be construed contextually and at common-law. This agreement conforms to 9 U.S.C. and shall remain binding upon all parties and their directly related and involved associates and shall expire 2069 AD.
That any determination by the arbitrator is binding upon all parties, and that all parties agree to abide by the decision of the arbitrator, that the arbitrator is to render a decision based upon the facts and conclusions as presented within the terms and conditions of the contract. Any default by any party must be supported by proof and evidence of said default, that default shall serve as tacit acquiescence on behalf of the party who defaulted as having agreed to the terms and conditions associated with the self-executing binding irrevocable contract coupled with interests. That the arbitrator is prohibited from considering and/or relying on statutory law, as it has been held that any time any party relies on or enforces a statute, they possess no judicial power.
Further, Respondent(s) agrees the Undersigned can secure damages via financial lien on assets, properties held by them or on their behalf for ALL injuries sustained and inflicted upon the Undersigned for the moral wrongs committed against the Undersigned as set, established, agreed and consented to herein by the parties hereto, to include but not limited to: constitutional impermissible misapplication of statute(s)/law(s) in the above referenced alleged Commercial/Civil/Cause; fraud, conspiracy (two or more involved); trespass of title, property, and the like; and, ALL other known and unknown trespasses and moral wrongs committed through ultra vires act(s) of ALL involved herein; whether by commission or omission.
The Nine Elements of Common Law Fraud
In the United States, the statutes generally identifies nine elements needed to establish fraud: (1) a representation of fact; (2) its falsity; (3) its materiality; (4) the representer’s knowledge of its falsity or ignorance of its truth; (5) the representer’s intent that it should be acted upon by the person in the manner reasonably contemplated; (6) the injured party’s ignorance of its falsity; (7) the injured party’s reliance on its truth; (8) the injured party’s right to rely thereon; and (9) the injured party’s consequent and proximate injury. See, e.g., Strategic Diversity, Inc. v. Alchemix Corp., 666 F.3d 1197, 1210 n.3, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 1175, at *25 n.3 (9th Cir. 2012) (quoting Staheli v. Kauffman, 122 Ariz. 380, 383, 595 P.2d 172, 175 (1979)); Rice v. McAlister, 268 Ore. 125, 128, 519 P.2d 1263, 1265 (1975); Heitman v. Brown Grp., Inc., 638 S.W.2d 316, 319, 1982 Mo. App. LEXIS 3159, at *4 (Mo. Ct. App. 1982); Prince v. Bear River Mut. Ins. Co., 2002 UT 68, ¶ 41, 56 P.3d 524, 536-37 (Utah 2002).
To successfully allege a claim for fraud, a plaintiff must plead each element with specificity and particularity. See, e.g., Baron v. Pfizer, Inc., 820 N.Y.S.2d 841, 12 Misc. 3d 1169(A) (N.Y. App. Div. 2006) (holding that New York law requires a cause of action for fraud be pled with greater specificity than other causes of action (citing Small v. Lorillard Tobacco Co., 94 N.Y.2d 43, 57, 720 N.E.2d 892, 898 (N.Y. 1999))); Enyart v. Transamerica Ins. Co., 195 Ariz. 71, 77, 985 P.2d 556, 562 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1998) (“Each element [of fraud] must be supported by sufficient evidence. ‘Fraud may never be established by doubtful, vague, speculative, or inconclusive evidence.’” (quoting Echols v. Beauty Built Homes, Inc., 132 Ariz. 498, 500, 647 P.2d 629, 631 (1982))); Liniger v. Sonenblick, 532 P.2d 538, 539-40, 23 Ariz. App. 266, 267-68 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1975) (“Actionable fraud cannot exist without a concurrence of all essential elements.” (citing Nielson v. Flashberg, 101 Ariz. 335, 339, 419 P.2d 514, 518 (1966))); but see Zimmerman v. Loose, 162 Colo. 80, 87-88, 425 P.2d 803, 807 (1967) (concluding that “fraud may be inferred from circumstantial evidence” and that direct proof of reliance is unnecessary to prevail on a common law fraud claim); but see Denbo v. Badger, 503 P.2d 384, 386, 18 Ariz. App. 426, 428 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1972) (reasoning that a party need not allege with particularity whether the party “had a right to rely on representations,” because this element is “determined from the very facts alleged” (citing Jamison v. S. States Life Ins. Co., 412 P.2d 306, 3 Ariz. App. 131 (1966))). Notably, “conclusory language” will not satisfy the specificity requirement of a common law fraud claim. Small v. Fritz Cos., Inc., 30 Cal. 4th 167, 184, 65 P.3d 1255, 1265 (Cal. 2003); see Armed Forces Ins. Exch. v. Harrison, 2003 UT 14, 16, 70 P.3d 35, 40 (Utah 2003) (stressing that “mere conclusory allegations in a pleading, unsupported by a recitation of relevant surrounding facts, are insufficient to preclude summary judgment”).
The federal rules of civil procedure at rule number 37 highlights the need of a party to respond when required and necessary information is sought, and this being of necessity without court order respecting a legal process.: Rule 37. Failure to Make Disclosures or to Cooperate in Discovery; Sanctions
(B) To Compel a Discovery Response. A party seeking discovery may move for an order compelling an answer, designation, production, or inspection. This motion may be made if:
(i) a deponent fails to answer a question asked under Rule 30 or 31;
(ii) a corporation or other entity fails to make a designation under Rule 30(b)(6) or 31(a)(4);
(iii) a party fails to answer an interrogatory submitted under Rule 33; or
(iv) a party fails to produce documents or fails to respond that inspection will be permitted—or fails to permit inspection—as requested under Rule 34.
(C) Related to a Deposition. When taking an oral deposition, the party asking a question may complete or adjourn the examination before moving for an order.
(4) Evasive or Incomplete Disclosure, Answer, or Response. For purposes of this subdivision (a), an evasive or incomplete disclosure, answer, or response must be treated as a failure to disclose, answer, or respond.
As has been noted, THE FEDERAL ARBITRATION ACT includes an arbitration process, should the arbitrator determine that you and your organization and I the undersigned had a prior relationship, and that that relationship involved a debt, you may be required by said arbitrator to show cause for your lack of response. Under the United States code service, and the FEDERAL FAIR DEBT COLLECTIONS ACT, codified in part at 15 U.S. Code § 1692g – Validation of debts
Notice of debt; contents
Within five days after the initial communication with a consumer in connection with the collection of any debt, a debt collector shall, unless the following information is contained in the initial communication or the consumer has paid the debt, send the consumer a written notice containing—
(1) the amount of the debt;
(2) the name of the creditor to whom the debt is owed;
(3) a statement that unless the consumer, within thirty days after receipt of the notice, disputes the validity of the debt, or any portion thereof, the debt will be assumed to be valid by the debt collector;
(4) a statement that if the consumer notifies the debt collector in writing within the thirty-day period that the debt, or any portion thereof, is disputed, the debt collector will obtain verification of the debt or a copy of a judgment against the consumer and a copy of such verification or judgment will be mailed to the consumer by the debt collector; and…
… (a) that the debt, or any portion thereof, is disputed, or that the consumer requests the name and address of the original creditor, the debt collector shall cease collection of the debt, or any disputed portion thereof, until the debt collector obtains verification of the debt or a copy of a judgment, or the name and address of the original creditor, and a copy of such verification or judgment, or name and address of the original creditor, is mailed to the consumer by the debt collector… (a) unless the consumer has notified the debt collector in writing that the debt, or any portion of the debt, is disputed or that the consumer requests the name and address of the original creditor…
(Pub. L. 90–321, title VIII, § 809, as added Pub. L. 95–109, Sept. 20, 1977, 91 Stat. 879; amended Pub. L. 109–351, title VIII, § 802, Oct. 13, 2006, 120 Stat. 2006.)
Initial communication is defined as follows: The lack of a statutory definition for “initial communication” means that courts are free to interpret what will qualify, leaving debt collection firms to make their own determinations as to what will sufficiently protect them from later lawsuits. We are all in agreement of the following: If a contract requires extensive changes, it’s generally wiser to create an entirely new agreement or, alternatively, to create an “amendment and restatement,” an agreement in which the prior contract is reproduced with the changes included.
You and/or members of your organization have changed the terms and conditions of our original agreement. By your changing the terms of our agreement in recent days I have under the law the right to conditionally accept your agreement on their specific terms and conditions, and such does not necessitate the need for signatures. For instance, every citizen of the United States and every citizen of each of the separate states of the United States, have a contractual relationship with the other. In reference to the United States and or the states, they have the obligation to redress (to correct the wrongs) the greed level complaints of their constituents, thus establishing not only a prior relationship but also the doer’s duty to respond and or perform.
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that the right to contract is absolute, and to notify all parties that the ignoring of one party and or their communication when there is a duty to respond is a violation of this agreement with respect to the parties and their communications in dealing with each other.
The Undersigned and/or their associates and/or their errors and/or their assigns extends to the Respondent(s) the Undersigned’s appreciations and thanks for Respondent’s(s) prompt attention, response, production of above Proof(s) of Claim and assistance in this/these matter(s). This presentment is not to be construed as an acceptance and/or application and/or subscription and/or request for license, admittance to any jurisdiction quasi-or otherwise, but shall remain as a direct objection to any and all claims to the contrary.
Truly honored to be in agreement!!!
August 14, 2023 s/: TAMMIE BOWSER, TAMMIE JOYNER, MOSAIC QUILT STUDIO and/or HowToSewArt.com
(THE REMAINDER OF THIS AGREEMENT IS INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK)