Common Law Abatement Form – Fill Out and Use This PDF

COMMENTS FROM THE PROFESSOR ON TRAFFIC CITATIONS AND

INTRODUCTION TO ABATEMENT

There are many that believe that special appearances (by paper work, motions, etc.) nullify a court jurisdiction. Under emergency powers, this is false doctrine. There is no remedy in challenging a court jurisdiction, except by abating its process, first. Abatements are not a challenge to a court jurisdiction, merely a good faith attempt to correct errors in process, "clear up the errors, judge, and I'll appear." Special appearances fail when a judge knows what he is doing. Under martial rule, judges do whatever they want, whenever they want so long as he/she does not alarm the public or disturb the peace. Jurisdiction is always granted to try jurisdictional questions, even if one goes to higher courts. Defendants grant jurisdiction without knowing it, because they never challenge the process that creates the jurisdiction in the first place (see: FRCP §2.4 (2)(4)). Process is perfected by appearance, special or otherwise. Also remember the court is not the building the judge or anyone else, it is the paperwork. If the court paperwork is defective, there is no court and it ceases to exist. The only

way to overcome the War Powers court process is by Abatement.

Traffic tickets are a pain for all of us. When using this Abatement Strategy, first send in the Notice of Abatement, Memorandum of Law and Denial of Corporate Existence to the Clerk of Court. That generally takes care of the annoying ticket. If you do not hear from him within 15 days, send in the Default Notice of the Notary to the Clerk. If you receive a summons, which has the proper signature of the judge and the court seal, send in the Subpoena and Discovery Interrogatories to the Prosecuting Attorney and the court. Your challenging jurisdiction and the opposing party must traverse your challenge or the court cannot proceed. In most cases they will never give you the documents you have requested or answer your questions, if they do, you won. The people granted authority to the state legislature to adjudicate only a few matters: Actions at law, actions in equity, and actions under the rule of necessity (military). Admiralty was remanded to the federal government and the states (are supposed to) have no authority to legislate in this jurisdiction. There was a time when someone aggrieved of harm would file a tort at law. Moreover, the nature of the action governed the rules of the procedure. If there was a breach of contract, then this was an equity matter. If the aggrieved party could allege a tortious breach of contract, this matter was moved from the equity side of the court into the law side.

This is because the people must have access to a remedy at law if this type of action could give relief. If one were in the military, or if one were under territory under martial law, the court was a military court. If there was a breach of an International Contract, the Matter was federal and heard under Admiralty.

The state Legislature cannot vest a "court" with authority that has not been delegated to it by the People via the constitution of the State. They cannot create a new "nature of action" out of thin air. Later on, when the constitutions of the several States were amended to recognize and administrate corporations, a separate court was established, and the action was in the nature

of administrative.

Page 2 of 88

Live people could not be brought into administrative courts, as the only matter at issue was a breach of corporate charter by an artificial person. Somewhere along the line, the announcement in the Complaint of the nature of the action was lost.

The attorneys all got together and decided that it would be much "simpler" (for them) if there were only one form of action. So today, there is no disclosure of the nature of the action, unless one demands to know the nature and cause of the accusation by using a demand for a bill of particulars.

I have been quite successful with this procedure, even in states that have decided that a demand for bill of particulars is a discretionary motion before the court. For example, in Pennsylvania, the demand for bill of particulars used to be before arraignment so that one had an opportunity to raise a meaningful defense against the elements of personal jurisdiction and "venue" (to include territorial jurisdiction as well as the "nature of the action" that used to be a part of subject matter jurisdiction).

Within the past couple decades, they moved it into "discovery", which is after arraignment, so

the ability of one to challenge the jurisdiction and venue of the court was lost.

This is because entering a plea ACCEPTS the jurisdiction. In this way, only subject matter jurisdiction was challengeable. If they say this is a matter at law, my defense against this jurisdiction is whether there is a live damaged Party. I do not ask if this is an equity jurisdiction because equity is not a criminal type of action.

If they say this is a matter in hustings (which is the true nature of action of all administrative law), my defense against this jurisdiction is that I am not an artificial person (unless I am a federal citizen - but that is quite another matter entirely), unless they can show from the records in the Secretary of State's office that I have charted as such.

If they say this is an admiralty matter, my defense against this jurisdiction is whether the offense was committed on federal territory, over which the state has retained concurrent jurisdiction (although I still have-not found how the state exercises an admiralty jurisdiction in light of 28 USC §1333).

If they say this is a military matter, my defense against this jurisdiction is that: 1) I am not a member of their military (I am, however, a member of the Militia of one of the several states - but they do not operate as such anymore), 2) the nation is not under martial law (or is it?).

Given the fact that there are currently 14 Notices from the President’s of a Declaration of National Emergency published in the Federal Register, we may very well be in a state of martial law. The one from March 6, A.D. 1933 is still in effect today.

However, they are not going to admit the nature of the action, as this will admit their want of jurisdiction on the record for all to see, so THEY move to dismiss the charges. Every time.

Page 3 of 88

While I will never succeed in bringing down the current regime in this Manner, at least other folks see what I am doing and some decide along the way that they want to learn this procedure.

I contend that if only 10% of the people enforced their right to know the "Nature and Cause" of the accusation, that we could most certainly shut down the incessant stream of revenue being fleeced from the people by these "administrative" courts. As far as the "compelling government interest" doctrine, this is clearly matter founded in law martial rule - the military authority is in the process of returning control to the civil authorities, but has not yet completed the process

I simply do not understand the Nature and Cause of the Accusation with regard to the elements of personal jurisdiction, venue, and the nature of the action until the prosecution properly alleges them. I am therefore unable to enter a plea to the charge, until I have had an opportunity to raise a meaningful defense against these elements. I cannot rebut an unstated presumption.

The courts operate on silent judicial notice of presumption all the time. It is time for this to

end.

Generally, when you appear the Police Officer is not there because he has been instructed to stay home that day. You simply move for a dismissal for lack of prosecution, as the Prosecutor cannot testify to facts, which he has no first hand knowledge of. Be especially careful of the judge’s conduct, he is required by his Oath of Office to be an impartial trier of fact, not the assistant prosecutor.

Have fun but please do not abuse this procedure or it may become ineffective because of the abuse.

Professor of Law

Don Quixote, J.D.

Page 4 of 88

EXAMPLE OF AN ACTUAL PROCEEDING

WHERE ABATEMENT OCCURRED

LOS ANGELES, CALIFORNIA; MONDAY, MARCH 21, 1994; 1:30 P.M.

THE CLERK: Item number 6, case number CV-94xxxxx, United States of America versus Randy L. Oxxxxxxxxxr.

MR. ROTH: Good afternoon, your Honor, Assistant U.S. Attorney Gregory Roth appearing on behalf of the United States, and its agency the Internal Revenue Service.

THE COURT: Is there any opposition?

MR. OxxxxxxxxxR: For the record.

THE COURT: Yes.

Mr. OxxxxxxxxxR: My Christian name is Randy Lee and my family name is Oxxxxxxxxxr.

THE COURT: All right.

MR. OxxxxxxxxxR: That is spelled capital R, lower case, a-n-d-y, capital L, lower case e-e, capital O, lower case x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-x-r.

I have responded to this petition, because it was found on the door of the place where I take up housekeeping and attempts to create a colorable persona under colorable law by the name of capital R-A-N-D-Y L period, OXXXXXXR. The artifice being used here to deceive this Honorable Court must be abated as a Public Nuisance.

For the record Randy Lee and Jesus the Christ Advocate and Wonderful Counselor are using the Right of Visitation to exercise the Ministerial Powers to be heard on this matter.

I, Randy Lee am a native Californian and a Man on the Land in Los Angeles County, not a resident in the Federal Judicial District in the Central District of California.

My Colors and Authority is the California Bear Flag with the Gold star. My Law is My Family Bible, which I have in hand. In addition, the Seal of the People shows my Status.

I am who I say I am, not whom the U.S. Attorney says I am. Further, I sayeth not and I stand mute.

THE COURT: All right. Please take your things off the podium and sit down at your table. Mr. Roth, do you have any response to this alleged case of mistaken identity.

Page 5 of 88

MR. ROTH: Well, your Honor, Mr. Oxxxxxxxxxr seems to think that if you spell your name in upper and lower case, it relieves him of compliance.

THE COURT: Thank you, Mr. Roth. Please call the next case clerk.

(Proceedings concluded.)

C E R T I F I C A T E

I hereby certify that the foregoing matter entitled UNITED STATES OF AMERICA versus RANDY L. OxxxxxxxxxR No. CV-94 xxxx -JGD is transcribed from the stenographic notes taken by me and is a true and accurate description of the same.

_____(Signed)____________________. ____3/25/94________________.

BEVERLY A. CASARES CSR# 8630, Official Court Reporter

1 Corpus Juris on Abatement.

Definition, Nature, and Effect of Abatement

[1]A. DEFINITION. The abatement of an action at law is the overthrowing of the action caused by defendant's pleading some matter of fact tending to impeach the correctness of the writ or declaration. The abatement of a suit in equity is a mere suspension of all the proceedings therein for a want of proper parties before the court.

A plea in abatement is defined to be a plea that, without disputing the justice of the plaintiff's claim, objects to the place, mode, or time of asserting it, and requires that therefore, and pro hac vice, judgment be given for the defendant, leaving it open to renew the suit in another place or form, or at another time.

[2]B. EFFECT OF ABATEMENT - 1. At Law-a. Effect on Principal Suit. At law the abatement of a suit is a complete termination of that particular suit, so that it cannot be revived; but it does not determine or defeat plaintiff's cause of action or bar the issuance of a new suit.

[7]C. PLEAS IN ABATEMENT NOT FAVORED. Pleas in abatement, being dilatory pleas, are not favored either at common law, or under the codes and practices acts.

FOR THIS REASON, as will be shown in another place, pleas or answers in abatement must allege with the greatest certainty in every particular every fact necessary to their sufficiency. No presumptions of law or fact are allowed in their favor, but on the contrary every intendment must be taken against them. Furthermore matter in abatement must be pleaded at the earliest opportunity, and, if the facts are known, before a plea or answer in bar is interposed, and before a general imparlance or continuance.

Therefore, this is why the Judge did what he did. The guy did not win per se, as the IRS could have corrected the defect in the "writ" and brought a new suit.

Page 6 of 88

Again, from 1 Corpus Juris:

II Objections to Jurisdiction

[17] A. Nature of Pleas to the Jurisdiction.

At common law pleas by which objection is taken to the jurisdiction of the court are not strictly pleas in abatement, but are in a class by themselves and are designated as pleas to the jurisdiction. They differ at common law from pleas in abatement in several respects, as, for example, in that they must be pleaded in person and not by attorney, and in that they must conclude, not with a prayer for judgment of the writ or declaration, or of the writ and declaration, and that the same be quashed, but whether the court will or ought to take further cognizance of the action or suit. They are, however, dilatory pleas, as distinguished from pleas to the merits, in that their effect is to defeat the present suit and not to deny or bar the cause of action, and therefore they are in modern practice treated for most purposes like other dilatory pleas as pleas in abatement, and are subject to most of the rules governing such pleas.

The following is an excerpt from an article by James Hazel titled The Abatement Process (See also James' article: Notes About Deceptive All Capitals Names):

In written form, the following example, to be delivered to the court clerk or judge, conforms with Randy Lee's successful petition, and to the requirements for abatements as enumerated in Corpus Juris Secundum and many, many cases, which have treated the subject of abatement for misnomer.

[This is useful for instances where you have the opportunity, as in most cases, to reply in writing to a written demand/summons -- as it's much simpler than appearing in person, and most people prefer this option.]

First Amendment Petition for Abatement

To: THE (FICTITIOUS NAME OF COURT, EXPRESSED IN ALL UPPERCASE LETTERS);

ADDRESS OF COURT, INCLUDING ZIP CODE.

From: Petitioner John Doe (properly capitalized); Mail received: c/o (USPS address, including ZIP Code).

Regarding: (Complaint, demand or accusation, [No.____]), attached hereto and thereby

incorporated as an integral part of this Petition for Abatement.

COMES NOW, John Allan Doe, the live Man, by authority of the First Article of amendment (A.D. 1791) to the constitution of the United States, to petition this court to abate the above- referenced (Accusation, Complaint) on the following grounds:

1.The (accusation--complaint) against JOHN DOE, a fictitious name, was delivered into my hand on (date). As a prudent Man who fears that his ignoring of the Instrument might

Page 7 of 88

well result in coercive procedures being used against him, I have chosen to approach this court with this petition that the court abate the Instrument so it cannot in its present form, further restrain my liberties.

2.That the Instrument was served on or delivered to me is evidence that this is a case of misnomer or mistaken identity. The instrument is against a fictitious name, "JOHN DOE." My given, Christian name is "John," with the initial letter capitalized as required by Rules of English Grammar for the writing of the names of natural persons. My patronymic, family name or surname is "Doe," with the initial letter capitalized. The (accusation, complaint) does not name me as a Party.

3.If the complainant or accuser has any claim or argument against me, it can bring a complaint or accusation against my real name. My objections herein will make it possible for the complainant or accuser to issue a corrected writ, which is the primary purpose of matters in abatement.

4.This is by content, grounds, intent and definition is a petition in abatement, and not a plea in bar; and may not be construed as a motion for dismissal or for mere amendment of the instrument. It may be justly resolved, only by abatement by the court.

When a Petition for Abatement is before a court, that court is charged with according to the defendant (petitioner) the benefit of the doubt. In addition, courts should take cognizance of the law that provides: Where conditions for its issuance exist, abatement is a matter of right, not of discretion; The misnomer or mis-description of a party defendant is ground for abatement; and, Grounds for abatements are the same for equity and law cases.

FURTHER I SAYETH NOT, except to advise the court that in the absence of abatement of the instrument as a restraint against my liberty, I shall henceforth remain mute.

Dated this ____ day of the (First - Twelfth) month of the Nineteenth Hundred and Ninety Sixth

year Anno Domini, in _____________ County, State of __________ (capitalize lawful name of

State):

__________________________________

John Allan Doe

[When a DEMAND is abated, it can theoretically be re-filed; properly naming the Accused Man or Woman]

Most DEMANDS prosecuted in courts contain other fatal errors besides mistaken identify of the accused. By use of all uppercase letters in their entitlements or captions, and by erroneously capitalizing the terms "plaintiff' and "defendant," they fail to identify the Parties, the Venue, including the NAMES of lawful states and counties, and the NAME of a lawful court. It is advisable to avoid the shotgun technique of trying to "cure" all defects with one abatement petition, but is preferable to focus the first (and usually the last needed abatement petition, on the failure to accuse the coerced Man or Woman by his/her proper name. The present

Page 8 of 88

de facto courts have no lawful power to name natural-born people, or otherwise exercise jurisdiction over them, except with their tacit (ignorant) Consent. To date, I have heard of no abated accusation being re-filed, properly naming the natural Man or Woman who objected to be held to answer to a demand against a fictitious person. However, in the unlikely event that an accusation or demand is re-filed using a proper name for the accused, a second petition for abatement would lie against failure to name the venue. Then if necessary a third, for failure to name the court. If still necessary, a fourth petition failure to identify the "nature" of the parties (plaintiff and defendant).

Another method used successfully is the following. Send them in proper order.

Page 9 of 88

First Amendment Petition for Abatement

To: THE (FICTITIOUS NAME OF COURT, EXPRESSED IN ALL UPPERCASE LETTERS); ADDRESS OF COURT, INCLUDING ZIP CODE.

From: Petitioner John Doe (properly capitalized); Mail received: c/o (USPS address, including ZIP Code).

Regarding: (Complaint, demand or accusation, [NO.____]), attached hereto and thereby

incorporated as an integral part of this petition for abatement.

Comes Now, John Allan: Doe (hereinafter “Petitioner”), to petition this court to abate the above-referenced (accusation, complaint) on the following grounds:

Petitioner is respectfully requires that you Abate the above referenced (State Name) Uniform Traffic Citation and Complaint # ????.

Petitioner is a natural Man, living upon the Soil of (your state’s Name). Petitioner is not exercising Petitioner’s right to travel freely within this state to engage in commercial activity. As Petitioner’s travel is not a commercial activity, Petitioner is not subject to being detained or summoned to this court by Officer/Trooper (Name & number of officer) exercising the Police Power of the State to enforce its private commercial statutes in Commerce. Below are some of Petitioner’s reasons as to why Petitioner will not appear unless defects in the service of process are corrected.

Notice of Abatement for Improper Service

Petitioner was presented with a paper styled in capital letters as (“NAME OF STATE”) UNIFORM CITATION AND COMPLAINT dated [date here]. Petitioner has received but have not accepted the Uniform Traffic Citation and Complaint and is hereby rejecting said document for Cause without Dishonor. Petitioner is returning said document marked "Without Prejudice" thereby retaining all of [his/her] Rights in Law and Equity as Petitioner challenges the subject matter and in personam jurisdiction of the court for the following causes:

Courts enforcing mere statutes do not act judicially merely ministerial, having thus no judicial immunity, and unlike courts of law do not obtain jurisdiction by service of process nor even arrest and compelled appearance. Boswell vs. Otis, 9 Howard 336, 348.

Service of a traffic ticket on a motorist does not give the court jurisdiction over his person...

Service of a traffic ticket imposes no compulsion on him, and no penalty attached for failure to heed it... Purpose of traffic ticket is to secure the motorist's voluntary appearance. Colville vs. Bennett, 293 NYS 2d 685.

If the (NAME OF STATE) UNIFORM TRAFFIC CITATION AND COMPLAINT is a Summons requiring Petitioner’s appearance, the following defects must be corrected before I will submit to the courts’ jurisdiction.

Page 10 of 88