POWEROFABATEMENT

How To Establish Your Status and Stop Most Court Actions Before Hand
NOT Legal Advice

#1 Key is to reserve your rights continuously, even in court if needed – using All Right Reserved,
Without Recourse, or UCC 1-308.
If possible, provide them a copy of your previously recorded Affidavit of Truth (at least) and /
or possibly Affidavit of Corporate Denial Documents. First have them recorded in public of
you can, and send recorded copies along with your reply. This is powerful. It establishes your
free common law status on the record. Be prepared to stand on those documents and not engage
in ANY of their proceedings.
If you get sued, or receive a Summons, Ticket, or Government Notice – do NOT ignore it,
respond right away (not an “answer” though). Provide a copy of your status documents above
PLUS sign UCC 1-308 or without prejudice above your signature on top of their instrument as
notice of how you are responding. If you have some effective Notice and Demand documents,
it is also a powerful option to incorporate here. You essentially let them know about Criminal
Complaints and how to file against them.
For ongoing contracts and instruments – for example - licenses, registrations, school
admittance papers, bank accounts, postal address cards, etc. First create a General Revocation of
Signature letter and wherever possible, you might cancel or RE-sign those applications and
documents with All Right Reserved, Without Recourse, or UCC 1-308 above the signature.
This reserves your God Given (and Article III) rights and makes these instruments non-
negotiable, and reserves your status on the record. The court cannot proceed with their presumed
contracts and in their lower Article 1 court jurisdiction.
You can also add to your All Right Reserved, Without Recourse, or UCC 1-308 above
signature on your driver’s license or existing passport (and on the new application if replacing
it). Carry a mini color copy of the passport as everyday ID, clearly indicating your reservation of
rights on it. That is called NOTICE to anyone you hand it to.
You can print one of those without recourse based phrases on a small piece of paper, and stick it
to your existing driver’s license or passport card on the BACK, not covering anything
important. Then use some wide clear packing tape, wrapped once around the card to hold it in
place. You can barely tell it’s there, it protects the document, and clearly put anyone you hand it
to anyone as notice.
If you “happen to” lose one of these documents and need to replace it, simply sign the
signature application and /or electronic screen where the signature is taken, clearly with the same
format above the signature. Use this limited liability/qualified signature on EVERYTHING you
sign, even a giving document at church, or a boy scout authorization form. Everything you sign
WIHOTU a qualification like this, can create a Federal Liability.
Review some of the resources on how to handle traffic pull over’s or court appearances
ahead of time. Keep reserving your right and take no orders, but notice them of your reservation
of right, your documents, and you right to not speak (anything else). Just try to get the document
from them peacefully (accept the presentment instrument and never make a point or argue with a
guy with a gun), and use that paper instrument and your status documents as a reply. Sign their
presentment instrument document as indicated above, plus a cover letter or notice and demand,
and copy of status documents. Maybe even a copy of the license with limited liability signature
showing. Expect that you may need to follow through a couple of time until they stop bothering
you.
When presented with a “presentment (summons, ticket, letter, bill etc) send this to them
DO NOT ADD-TO THIS COUNTER DEMAND/ ABATEMNT.
Foundation:
Use: UCC 3-505.4 which Counter Demands by party to whom presentment is made.
The party to whom presentment is made may, without dishonor, require:
[a] Exhibition of the instrument (creating the liability).
[b] Reasonable identification of the person making presentment and evidence of his authority to
make it if made for another; and
[c] That the instrument be produced for acceptance or payment at a place specified in it, or if
there be none, at any place reasonable in the circumstances;
and
[d] A signed receipt of the instrument for any partial or full payment and its surrender on full
payment.
Failure to comply with any such requirement invalidates the presentment, but the person
presenting has a reasonable time in which to comply and the time for acceptance or payment runs
from the time of compliance.
The Response (NOT legal advice):
NOTICE: UCC 1-201(26)
From: Jane-Henry, house of Doe
Domicile: c/o 123 Anywhere street #123
city: Sacramento California republic, uSA
near but not in [83454] Non-Domestic
CERTIFIED MAIL post# _________________________________
Government Activity Agent: Restatement, Second, Agency {9}
At address: Address you are sending it back to
I AM, an Article III, Preamble Citizen of the California Republic. Your "implied powers"
instrument "note," is not "assignable" or "negotiable" under UCC 3-104.
I find this document Unconscionable UCC 2-302. I do not and will not accept, the liability
associated with a "compelled" agreement of any unrevealed commercial benefit, or "Penumbra
Doctrine" "engraft."
My "conditional" "representation" is "without prejudice" UCC1-308 and is affirmed to the
instrument herein as Exhibit "A". Article III, at UCC 1-103.6, The Statute, being enforced as a
commercial obligation of a commercial agreement, must now be construed in HARMONY with
the COMMON LAW. No statute precludes this Citizen from seeking redress at the united States
Supreme Court.
In order to recover in federal court through [1983], plaintiff must show that a federal
constitutional right was violated and the individual violating that constitutional right did so
"under color of law." 42 U.S.C.A 1983.
You have 30 days to answer the above-described Notice. UCC 1-201(10). If you have a right to
assert, it is your duty to speak. Your "silence" is, "estoppel" in pais.
"without prejudice" UCC 1-308
_________________________ ________2017
Private American – Non Domestic
As Beneficiary /Executor for ALL CAPS NAME
(Not legal advice - do your own due diligence and verify UCC codes have not changed)
TRAFFIC CITATIONS AND ABATEMENT
There are many that believe that special appearances (by paper work, motions, etc.) nullify a
court jurisdiction within a municipality. 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.
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.
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.
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.
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.)
CERTIFICATE
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.
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 Smith 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
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 Smith 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
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.
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 Smith: 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.
The mandate contained within the Fifth Article of amendment to the Constitution of the United
States require as “due process” i.e., meaning initiatives through judicial courts with proper
jurisdiction, precedes the imposition of administratively issued summonses, except where
licensing agreement obligate assets. Petitioner has no knowledge of (Your full Name) having any
licensing agreement(s) with the County of (Name), State of (Name), or the United States, which
obligates assets and Petitioner demands decisive Proof to the Contrary.
The Police Officer/State Trooper (Name), (State Name) Uniform Traffic Citation and Complaint,
in issue does not meet the legal definition of a judicial “summons” as follows:
“Summons. Instrument used to commence a civil action or special proceeding and is a means of
acquiring jurisdiction over a party. Writ or process directed to the sheriff or other proper officer,
requiring him to notify the person named that an action has been commenced against him in the
court from where the process issues, and that he is required to appear, on a day named, and
answer the complaint in such action. Upon the filing of the complaint the clerk is required to issue
a summons and deliver it for service to the marshal or to a person specially appointed to serve it.
Fed. R. Civil P. 4(a).” Black’s Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, pg. 1436.
Note: There are no definitions for the terms “administrative summons” in Black’s Law
Dictionary, Sixth Edition.
The (State Name) Uniform Traffic Citation and Complaint in issue neither indicates on its face
that a lawsuit is pending, nor does it comply with the rules for “form and content” of civil
summonses and is defective in the following ways:
(a) The (State Name) Uniform Traffic Citation and Complaint does not bear the signature of the
clerk of the court.
(b) The (State Name) Uniform Traffic Citation and Complaint does not have the seal of the court
placed upon it.
(c) The (State Name) Uniform Traffic Citation and Complaint does not contain the name of the
court upon it.
(d) The (State Name) Uniform Traffic Citation and Complaint does not contain the names of the
parties to the cause of action with their respective designations as plaintiff and defendant.
(e) The (State Name) Uniform Traffic Citation and Complaint does not contain the name and
address of the plaintiff’s attorney or plaintiff’s address per se.
(f) The (State Name) Uniform Traffic Citation and Complaint does not contain the mandatory
notice to the defendant of the time and place in which the defendant is to appear and defend.
(g) The (State Name) Uniform Traffic Citation and Complaint does not contain the proper
default warning language to defendant.
(h) The (State Name) Uniform Traffic Citation and Complaint does not have a copy of the
plaintiff’s Complaint and Probable Cause affidavit attached.
4. Without an attached Complaint and Probable Cause Affidavit, Petitioner has no way of
knowing what the nature and cause of the underlying Complaint is about and what relief
demanded by the alleged plaintiff.
5. Officer (Name) himself “served” said (State Name) Uniform Traffic Citation and Complaint
and is the Party who has an “adversarial interest” in the instant Matter.
Note: “A ‘Summons may be served by any person who is at least 18 years of age and not a party to the
action.” Caldwell vs. Coppola, 219 Cal.App.3rd, 859.
The prohibition of personal service of process by parties is to discourage “fraudulent service by persons
with an adversarial interest in a legal action.”
It appears from the returned document, that your organization is requesting my voluntary
appearance, but threatening me with conviction and judgment for an undisclosed amount
exceeding the base fine if I do not voluntarily comply.
In light of the case law cited above and that by voluntarily subjecting myself to your
organization's jurisdiction I would put my personal property at a substantial risk of loss.
Your organization's coercive threats of retaliation for the exercise of stewardship over my
personal property seem inappropriate and unconstitutional in denying me due process of law.
Especially inappropriate, in light of the fact that I am advised by a decision of the United States
Supreme court to pause, reflect and accurately ascertain your organization's official capacity and
authority.
It is well-established by the Supreme Court of the United States that whatever the form in which the
government functions, anyone entering into an arrangement with the government takes the risk of having
accurately ascertained that he who purports to act for the government stays within the bounds of his
authority [see: Federal Crop Insurance Corp. vs. Merrill, 332 U.S. 380 at 384 (1947)].
I have included within this communication a Memorandum of Law on the Subject of Petitioner’s
unalienable Right to travel upon the public highway. Petitioner thinks that it will enlighten this
court as to Petitioner’s lawful position and will give this court ample evidence and reason to
abate the Traffic Citation.
Petitioner expects your response to Petitioner’s Abatement and correction of the errors, by the
issuance of a proper summons or an Affidavit in rebuttal to the above lawful position. Signed by
the appropriate judicial officer in blue ink with the court seal of your organization and service of
the summons by the County Sheriff. In addition a clarification of any error you claim Petitioner
has made in this Abatement along with all the documents you offer in support of your position,
within the reasonable time period of 15 days of your receipt of this NOTICE OF ABATEMENT.
If you need additional time please make your request in writing and it will be granted.
If Petitioner does not hear from you in 15 days, your lack of response will establish the
presumption that the returned document was improperly served, that there exist no un-resolved
material facts in issue or that a controversy between the Parties exist. A Notice of Default will be
issued to you. By your acquiescence in the Matter your organization will have accepted
Petitioner’s lawful position as being applicable in the instance, thus closing and settling the
Matter. Time is of the Essence.
Of this sealed Instrument take proper Notice, give due Heed and Govern your Self accordingly.
Respectfully presented,
(Your Full Name), in sui juris Capacity
c/o Street Address or P.O. Box
city, state [ZIP Code]
Enclosed and attached:

Registered Mail Number
Affidavit of (Your Full Name) - Page One of Two
Affidavit of Denial of Corporation Existence of (Your Name)
One, (Your Name), the live Man and (state of birth) Exempt (hereinafter “Affiant”), declares and
states that the following facts are true to the best of my knowledge and belief and of which One
has first hand knowledge of the matters stated herein. One, (Your Name), is of the age of
majority and competent to testify on the matters stated herein. If any man or woman desires to
answer this Affidavit, please do so in the manner of this instrument. By Notarized Affidavit,
using your Christian or family name for signature and mail to the below named Notary, address
provided, within five (5) days or default will be obtained. Your hand-written signature only, do
not type it out.
1. Affiant hereby denies that the following corporations exist and their capacity to sue or be
sued, is challenged by negative averment pursuant to F.R.C.P. 9(a):
THE UNITED STATES, a.k.a. THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

THE STATE OF (NAME)
THE COUNTY OF (NAME),
(NAME) CITY,
ALL BAR ASSOCIATIONS,
THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT,
(YOUR NAME ALL CAPS) of (Address, CITY (NAME), (STATE NAME) and
All other Corporate Members who are, or may be associated with any Complaints against my
natural Body.
2. One (Your Name) has no Contract with the State or Federal governments, which give Equity
Jurisdiction to the Courts. One has no bank account, no credit cards.
3. One has rescinded the governments Social Security Number and any present or future
benefits, of that socialist system for religious conviction.
4. One (Your Name), has signed no International Maritime Agreement with the State of (Name)
or Federal governments, either intentionally, willingly or knowingly, which would give
Admiralty or Vice Admiralty jurisdiction to the Courts of either the state or federal
governments and does not voluntarily submit to any of those jurisdictions.
5. One (Your Name) is subject only to the common law of the republic state of (Name) and
United States of America and is not subject to any Corporation or its system of
Administrative Law.
6. One (Your Name), is not a Corporation or Member of a Corporation, a Trustee or

Beneficiary of any Trust created by government, is not a legal fiction or a juristic personality
and refutes any unknown nexus which might attach him to any such entity or jurisdiction.
7. One (Your Name) cannot be held in involuntary Servitude or Peonage pursuant to Thirteenth
Amendment to the United States Constitution.
8. One cannot be held as surety or collateral for any Bankruptcy of the corporate Federal or
State governments without my permission, which has never been given.
9. One (Your Name) has never applied for Bankruptcy and never given his permission to the
State of Federal governments for his participation in any bankruptcy scheme of the Federal or
State governments or the Federal Reserve Bank, Inc.
10. One (Your Name) is a live natural Man, living upon the Soil of the sovereign Republic of
(Name).
11. One (Your Name) is not subject to federal law legislated by Congress under its authority of
Article IV of the Constitution for the United States or state or federal Admiralty/Equity
judicial jurisdiction.
12. One (Your Name) is subject only to law legislated by Congress under its authority of Article
I of the Constitution for the United States, if the law has complied with the Paperwork
Reduction Act, the Administrative Procedures Act and the Federal Register Act, which
would specifically identify the law as being applicable to the general population of the fifty
union States of America.
13. One (Your Name) is subject only to a republican Form of Government, pursuant to the
national Constitution and the Constitution of (your state’s Name) under the equal footing
doctrine of the Constitution for the United States of America, not under a corporate
Municipal form or quasi-Military form of government known as either a Democracy or
Martial Rule.
Further Affiant says not.
(Your full Name), in sui juris Capacity
Notarial Certification
On this day of , A.D. 2003, a live Man who identified his Self as (Your
Full Name) appeared before me, a Notary Public for the STATE OF (NAME OF CORPORATE STATE),
and attested to the truth of this affidavit with his private Seal and Signature.
Name of Notary and his Address

Information Only ~ DO NOT INCLUDE ON YOUR AFFIDFAVIT:
Don’t replace the One with I, as I, is not you it is merely a signifier of a Number or entity.
Use the Notary address for their response to you not your own. If within five days or their
receiving the Affidavit they do not answer, type up a Notice of Default and send it to them, the
Notary is the one who signs the default notice.
 Three copies of this affidavit should be (preferably) handwritten; one copy forwarded to the
U.S. Attorney in time to give them five days to respond and send it Registered Mail so that
she has to sign for it.
 One copy should be kept on you when you go to court and thirty minutes before you enter
the court, file one in their court record
 Have the clerk stamp the other and keep with you in court in case the prosecutor and judge
have not received their copies.
In Rem: Notice of Default
Address
City, State
(Your Name)
Petitioner,
Against
(Corporate Entity Name) Petition for Order and Judgment of Default

Address
City, State, zip
Respondent.
Notice of Default
One, (John: Doe) petitions for entry of default by the Notary against respondent (Example:
Dewey Cheatem and Howe, District Attorney). For respondents failure to rebut petitioners
“Notice of Abatement”, filed on (Date of Filing) wherein petitioner demanded a rebuttal by
Affidavit, within 15 days of receipt of the “Notice of Abatement”. The respondent has
instituted no rebuttal by Affidavit therefore the respondent has acquiesced and is in statutory
default. This Default Notice shall evidence that (Your Name) is correct in his analysis of the
law and other inquiries contained within therein. By this Default Notice, the respondent is
estopped from any further action against the Natural Human Person of the Petitioner and is
without judicial standing, as no controversy in law or material fact between the two Parties
exist.
Petitioner
ORDER OF DEFAULT
Default is entered in this action against the Respondent named in the foregoing Petition for failure
to serve or file any paper as required by law.
Notary Public
Dated on Seal:
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
One, (Your Name) hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the Petition for default and Default
was served by Registered Mail, by the United States Postal Service on (Date) to (Corporate Entity
name) at (Address, City and State).

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE (NUMBER) JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
(CITY) DIVISION
IN THE “STATE OF (NAME)”
STATE OF (NAME), INC., ) Case No:

CITY, COUNTY OF (NAME), )
) NOTICE AND DEMAND FOR
And All Other Persons Known and Unknown; ) ABATEMENT
And All whom may be Concerned, )
)
Accuser(s) )
vs. )
)
Spell your name Uc and lc, Sui Juris )
)
Accused. )
)
NOTICE AND DEMAND FOR ABATEMENT AND MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN

SUPPORT
Now, comes the Accused (Your Name) by his own Authority, appearing specially and not
generally or voluntarily, so as not to confuse the court, and challenges the jurisdiction of this
court. But being under the Threat of Arrest if he failed to appear, at no time does the Accused
submit to the Jurisdiction and Venue of the above-entitled court and at no time waving any
Rights whatsoever knowingly or unknowingly.
The Accused gives Notice that this Action be abated or dismissed immediately or show cause
why the Accused should not take all lawful recourse against the Accuser(s).
1. Determination of Material Facts via Tacit Procuration
1. Can the state legislature with the power to make all laws and needful rules, abrogate by
that power the Citizens constitutional guarantees?
Accused (Name) believes that they may not.
2. The Accused is possessed of all rights pursuant to the Constitution for the United States
of America, the Constitution of the (Name of State) State, common law and the rules
applicable to criminal procedure.
3. The Accused makes this special appearance in order to determine what rights will be
afforded him by this court and which rights will be denied.
4. Due process requirements of the federal and state constitutions require among other
procedures that the Accused be furnished by the plaintiff with a verified complaint of
injury, so that the Accused may consider a plea other than guilty.
5. By the Plaintiff not being afforded this fundamental right, he cannot determine the nature
of the offense he is being charged with that has caused damage to the plaintiff; or what
plea other than guilty is available to him.
6. By denying the Accused the accusatory instrument, the court is denied subject matter
jurisdiction, as there is no valid charging document before the criminal court at the time
of the arraignment.
7. Absence of a verified complaint or information denies the court of subject matter
jurisdiction and even if the accused appears in court the judge cannot arraign him unless
the accusatory instrument has been filed.
8. In order for the court to have subject matter jurisdiction, the police officer who has
issued and served the appearance/traffic ticket must, at or before the return date, file with
the criminal court a misdemeanor complaint, a simplified information or an information
charging the person named in the appearance ticket with the offence specified therein.
9. It may be that the court has a misunderstanding of what the law requires and that the
signed appearance ticket is a sufficient document upon which to arraign (Your Name)
10. The “appearance/traffic ticket” utterly fails to meet the requirements of an accusatory
pleading in that it fails to state the title of the action, the name of the plaintiff, or contain
a statement of the public offense which it allegedly charges; it fails to constitute a
accusatory pleading since it is not sworn to before some officer entitled to administer
oaths.
11. In addition the appearance/traffic ticket is not subscribed by any prosecutor, it is signed
by the police officer, but he is only a witness and is not identified as one who is
authorized by law who may be a prosecuting attorney representing the people.
12. As the prosecuting attorney does not subscribe the “appearance/traffic ticket” the people,
of this great state of (Name of State), have not charged the accused with any crime
whatsoever.
13. Without an accusatory instrument subscribed by the prosecuting attorney, charging the
accused with a crime, there is no charge for (Your Name) to plea to or to defend against.
14. The Accused (Your Name) has met the plaintiff (whoever that may be) step by step, by
this special appearance as he agreed too and promised in the “appearance/traffic ticket”;
it would be the plaintiff who has chosen not to prosecute by not filing a verified
complaint, therefore depriving this court of any jurisdiction.
Therefore, (Your Full Name) notices this honorable court to abate the “appearance/traffic ticket”
numbered (Number of the ticket) for lack of jurisdiction.

c/o postal service address: (street or P.O. Box)
city, state, [postal code: 97xxx]
DECLARATION
I declare under penalty of perjury, under the laws of the United States of America, that the above
is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief.
Executed on this day of , in the Year of our Lord, 2004.
NOTORIAL
COUNTY OF (NAME)
STATE OF (NAME)
On this day of , 2004, (Your Full Name) did personally appear

before me, identified by (form of identification) and did take and Oath and stated that the above
Notice to Abate is true and correct to the best of his knowledge and belief. Subscribed by me the
below identified Notary Public in and for the State of (Name), on the date first above written.
{Seal}
(Name of Notary)
My Commission expires:
I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the above Notice to Abate and Memorandum of
Law was mailed to the (State Name) State Attorney, by U.S. Mail on the day of (Month) ,
2000 to the following address.
Name of Agent or Counsel:

Address:
City
State of (Name)
(Your Full Name), Accused

To: (Name of Judge)
(Circuit Court)
(Address)
City, STATE, ZIP
Certified Mail No.
From: (Your Full Name)
c/o (Street Address)
(City, State), in America
[postal code: xxxxx]
Dated:
The Honorable (Name of Judge),
When I specially visit your court on a forced response on (Date of Hearing) to a Bill of Pains and
Penalties issued by the (Officer Name) employed by the (Police Agency), employed by the corporate
(YOUR STATE), I move this court and you, (Judge Name), to take judicial notice that my special
visitation was forced, that my visitation is special, and not general, since this notice is my timely and
specific objection to the presumptions upon which a false conclusion of law has been made
administratively with regard to my status before this court.
The plaintiff in this case is an administrative officer representing the corporate and de facto (YOUR
STATE), which has legislative power to compel performance upon the letter of its statutes upon all
persons subject to its jurisdiction. The only due process that its legislative courts recognize is the right to
be heard on the facts of the case.
The corporate plaintiff in this criminal action before this court has made an unproven conclusion of law
that (Your Name) is among those persons who have lost, or otherwise abandoned, their status in the
guaranteed "republican Form" of Government and who must perform under legislative power upon the
exact letter of every legislative statute with no due process of law protection other than that outlined in
paragraph two of this letter.
It is from this false Conclusion of Law that administrative officer (Officer Name) issued the contested
Bill of Pains and Penalties upon (Your Name).
This court must take judicial Notice that (Your Name) an un-enfranchised Individual has made a
contrary conclusion of law to that of plaintiff. (Your Name) claims his guaranteed, fundamental and
unalienable rights stemming from both the National and State constitutions to full due process of law in
all criminal actions against him, means he is subject only to judicial power, not legislative power. Said
judicial power when exercised over him requires a corpus delicti or a damaged party who has sworn out a
verified complaint against him. This is lacking in the criminal complaint against (Your Name) brought on
by plaintiff.
So, the unlawfully charged (Your Name) declares that his un-enfranchised status as a preamble
American Citizen of the guaranteed "Republican form" of government known as The United States of
America and inhabitant of (Your State), that without a corpus delicti, no court judicial or legislative
tribunal has a criminal jurisdiction over his person or property.
Therefore, the accused specially visits before the law side of this court seeking its protection from the
excess zeal of corporate government, trusting that this court will assume a neutral stance at law and
require the corporate plaintiff in this criminal action to prove its in rem and, or, in personam criminal
jurisdiction over the accused to be a fact of law before this court will take on the role of judging the facts
of this legislative charge brought before you. Your solemn Oath of Office compels nothing less from you.
Cordially presented,

Attn: Clerk of Court
(Number) Judicial District (Date)
(Address)
CITY, ST ZIP Certified Mail #
RE: Case No. (Ticket Number)
Honorable Clerk of Court,
Please issue a Subpoena Deuces Tecum, for (Name of Officer), as a Witness and to produce the
following legal papers, documents, records under his control, for the Trial (Date of Trial) as these
documents are absolutely essential for the Accused’s Defense.
1) Any legal papers, documents or records under his control, other than documents obtained by fraud
without full disclosure, that create the presumption that (Your Name spelled i.e. John Don; Jones is a
resident of (Name of State) (i.e. STATE OF NEW YORK).
without full disclosure, that establish that (Your Name spelled i.e. John Don: Jones,) is engaged in a
revenue taxable activity and trafficking in commerce.
without full disclosure that establish this case as an Adversary Proceeding, pursuant to Bankruptcy
Rules Section VII, or is an in rem proceeding.
4) Any legal papers, documents or records under his control, signed by me other than documents
obtained by fraud without full disclosure, that establish that (Your Name spelled i.e. John Don: Jones
is an artificial, fictitious person, juristic personality, or entity, referred to by the state as (Your Name
in all Caps. i.e. JOHN DON JONES).
without full disclosure, that establish that (Your Name spelled i.e. John Don: Jones is a vassal.
without full disclosure, that establish that (Your Name spelled i.e. John Don: Jones is co-Bankrupt
Debtor with the (State name in all Caps.)

without full disclosure, that establish this case and (Your Name spelled i.e. John Don: Jones) as in
rem and in personam has liability.
without full disclosure, that establish that (Your Name spelled i.e. John Don; Jones is a co-obligator
with the (Name of State and County) (i.e. STATE OF NEW YORK and ALBANY COUNTY).
DISCOVERY / INTERROGATORIES TO (Name of Policeman and County Prosecutor)
1) Under what Trust(s) are the CORPORATIONS chartered as the (NAME OF STATE and COUNTY
in all caps), operating under?
2) Does the Constitution for the United States of America guarantee a Republican Form of government?
3) Where in the Constitution for the United States of America is the authority been granted to the State
or Federal Government to incorporate and establish a democratic Corporation form of government?
4) Does this/these Trust(s) issue Permits and Licenses?
5) Does this Trust(s) Articles place the REGISTERED OWNER or LICENSED AGENT in a
FIDUCIARY position? Or Both?
6) If so, is the LICENSEE or PERMITTEE an employee under CONTRACT?
7) What are the limitations imposed upon the licensed employee as stated in the CONTRACT issued
under the authority of the Trust(s)?
8) Is either Mr. (Name of Prosecutor) or (Name of Prosecutor in charge of the case) a licensed Foreign
Agent under the Articles of the Trust(s)?
9) If so, is this license for administrative enforcement of the (Name of State) Revised Statutes of the
state of (Name of State)?
10) What is the Public Community?
11) Is this Contract a Commercial Contract?
12) Is (Name of Prosecutor and Prosecutor in charge) of the Municipal Corporation known as the
Prosecuting Attorney’s Office a Fiduciary and/or Trustee under the Trust?

13) Are the aforementioned individuals under contract to the Municipal corporation known as (NAME
OF COUNTY IN CAPS).
14) Are the aforementioned individuals under contract within a Trust chartered as a service corporation
on behalf of a fictitious entity called the State of (Name)?
15) Is the name of this fictitious entity called the (State of NAME)? Yes No
16) What other name does this entity function under? List all names of fictitious entity and trust.
17) Where is this fictitious entity chartered?
18) Is this fictitious entity a municipal corporation?
19) What is the geographical location of this chartered fictitious entity?
20) Is said fictitious entity an alter ego of some other entity?
21) Is this fictitious entity a fictitious plaintiff?
22) Can a fiduciary bring a legal action on behalf of an alter ego?
23) Can an attorney at law litigate as an agent on behalf of a fictitious plaintiff, or an alter ego?
24) Are the aforementioned individuals registered as a Foreign Agent on behalf of their alter ego principle
with the Attorney General of the United States?
25) Is the aforementioned individuals registered as an agent on behalf of their alter ego principle with the
Secretary of State of the (Name of State)?
26) Is it contempt of court to litigate as an attorney at law for the fictitious plaintiff?
27) If the aforementioned individuals are licensed under contract, what agency is the contract program
administered under?
28) Is the agency a trust for the State of (Name of State)?
29) Who is the beneficiary of above mentioned and referenced Trust(s)?
30) If so, what is the name of this trust?
31) Who are the trustee and co-trustee?
32) What is the Prosecuting Attorney’s Office?

33) What agency of the State of (Name) issued the Contract, which is serviced by the aforementioned
office?
34) Is there a contractual relationship between (Name of County) and the Prosecuting Attorney’s Office?
35) What are the contractual relationships between the municipal corporations known as the State of
(Name), the county of (Name), and the corporation known as the United States?
36) Were the above-mentioned contractual relationships formed as a result of any type of bankruptcy
action?
37) If so, where was this action litigated, and by whom?
If additional time is required to produce the requested documents, records, legal papers and
interrogatories, please consider this a request for postponement of the trial to a latter date. This is to
assure that all requested material and questions are fully complied with and with sufficient lead-time that
will allow my assistance of counsel and me to inspect the material in preparation of my defense.
(Your Full Name) in sui juris Capacity

(CITY) DIVISION

)
Accuser(s) ) Notice and Demand for Abatement
)
vs. )
)
Spell your name Uc and lc, Sui Juris )
)
Accused. )
)
Notice and Demand for Abatement
Now, comes the Accused (Your Name) by his own authority, appearing specially and not
generally or voluntarily so as not to confuse the court and challenges the jurisdiction of this
court. Being under the Threat of Arrest if he failed to appear, at no time does the Accused submit
to the Jurisdiction and Venue of the above-entitled court and at no time waving any Rights
whatsoever knowingly or unknowingly. Accused asks the Court to take judicial notice of the fact
that he is without counsel, is not schooled in the law and legal procedures, and is not licensed to
practice law. Therefore his pleadings must be read and construed liberally. See Haines v. Kerner,
404 US at 520 (1980); Birl v. Estelle, 660 F.2d 592 (1981). Further accused believes that this
court has a responsibility and legal duty to protect any and all of the Accused’s constitutional and
statutory rights. See United States v. Lee, 106 US 196,220 [1882]
The Accused gives notice that this proceeding be abated or dismissed immediately.
I. ARGUMENT
1. Can the state legislature with the power to make all laws and needful rules, abrogate by
that power the Citizens constitutional guarantees?
Accused (Name) believes that they may not.
2. The Accused is possessed of all rights pursuant to the Constitution for the United States
of America, the Constitution of the (Name of State) State, common law and the rules
applicable to criminal procedure.
3. The Accused makes this special appearance in order to determine what rights will be
afforded him by this court and which rights will be denied.
4. Due process requirements of the federal and state constitutions require among other
procedures that the Accused be furnished by the plaintiff with a verified complaint of
injury, so that the Accused may consider a plea other than guilty.
5. By the plaintiff not being afforded this fundamental right, he cannot determine the nature
of the offense he is being charged with that has caused damage to the plaintiff; or what
plea other than guilty is available to him.
6. By plaintiff denying the Accused the accusatory instrument, the court is denied subject
matter jurisdiction, as there is no valid charging document before the criminal court at the
time of the arraignment.
7. Absence of a verified complaint or information denies the court of subject matter
jurisdiction and even if the accused appears in court the judge cannot arraign him unless
the accusatory instrument has been filed.
8. In order for the court to have subject matter jurisdiction, the police officer who has
issued and served the appearance/traffic ticket must, at or before the return date, file with
the criminal court a misdemeanor complaint, a simplified information or an information
charging the person named in the appearance ticket with the offence specified therein.
9. It may be that the court has a misunderstanding of what the law requires and that the
signed appearance ticket is a sufficient document upon which to arraign (Your Name)
10. The “appearance/traffic ticket” utterly fails to meet the requirements of an accusatory
pleading in that it fails to state the title of the action, the name of the plaintiff, or contain
a statement of the public offense which it allegedly charges; it fails to constitute a
accusatory pleading since it is not sworn to before some officer entitled to administer
oaths.
11. In addition the appearance/traffic ticket is not subscribed by any prosecutor, it is signed
by the police officer, but he is only a witness and is not identified as one who is
authorized by law who may be a prosecuting attorney representing the people.
12. As the prosecuting attorney does not subscribe the “appearance/traffic ticket” the people,
of this great state of (Name of State), have not charged the accused with any crime
whatsoever.
13. Without an accusatory instrument subscribed by the prosecuting attorney, charging the
accused with a crime, there is no charge for (Your Name) to plea to or to defend against.
14. The Accused (Your Name) has met the plaintiff (whoever that may be) step by step, by
this special appearance as he agreed to and promised in the “appearance/traffic ticket”; it
would be the plaintiff who has chosen not to prosecute, by not filing a verified complaint,
therefore depriving this court of any jurisdiction.
Therefore, (Your Name) notices this honorable court to abate the “appearance/traffic ticket”
numbered (Number of the ticket) for lack of jurisdiction.
(Your Full Name)

Address
City, State, zip
Phone Number
(CITY) DIVISION

)
)
Accuser(s) )
vs. )
) PETITIONER’S MEMORANDUM OF LAW
)
Spell your name Up and Lc, sui juris ) IN SUPPORT OF NOTICE TO ABATE
)
)
Accused. )
)
This Memorandum will be construed to comply with provisions necessary to establish

presumed fact, pursuant to Rule 301, Federal Rules of Evidence, and attending State rules.
Should interested Parties fail to rebut any given Allegation of Fact or Matter of Law addressed
herein with specificity, the position will be construed as adequate to meet requirements of
Judicial Notice, thus preserving fundamental Law. Matters addressed herein, if not rebutted, will
be construed to have general application. This Memorandum addresses the Issue of state statutes,
regulation and licensing of a constitutional Right to free travel upon the public roads of an
Oregon Citizen.
I. Overview of American People’s Right to Travel
If ever a judge understood the American People’s right to use the public roads, it was Justice
Tolman of the Supreme Court of the State of Washington. Justice Tolman stated:
“Complete freedom of the highways is so old and well established a blessing that we have
forgotten the days of the Robber Barons and toll roads, and yet, under an act like this,
arbitrarily administered, the highways may be completely monopolized, if, through lack of
interest, the people submit, then they may look to see the most sacred of their liberties taken
from them one by one, by more or less rapid encroachment.” Robertson vs. Department of
Public Works, 180 Wash 133, 147.
The words of Justice Tolman ring most prophetically in the ears of American Citizens
throughout the country today as the use of the public roads has been monopolized by the very
entity which has been empowered to stand guard over our freedoms, that of state government.
II. RIGHTS
The “most sacred of liberties” of which, Justice Tolman spoke was personal liberty which
have been placed in conflict by the plaintiff. The definition of personal liberty is:
“Personal liberty, or the Right to enjoyment of life and liberty, is one of the fundamental
or natural Rights, which has been protected by its inclusion as a guarantee in the various
constitutions, which is not derived from, or dependent on, the U.S. Constitution, which
may not be submitted to a vote and may not depend on the outcome of an election. It is
one of the most sacred and valuable Rights, as sacred as the Right to private
property...and is regarded as inalienable” 16 C.J.S., Constitutional Law, Sect. 202, p.987.
This concept is further amplified by the definition of personal liberty:

“Personal liberty largely consists of the Right of locomotion --to go where and when one
pleases-- only so far restrained as the Rights of others may make it necessary for the
welfare of all other citizens. The Right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways
and to transport his property thereon, by horse drawn carriage, wagon, or automobile, is
not a mere privilege which maybe permitted or prohibited at will, but the common Right
which he has under his Right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Under this
Constitutional guarantee one may, therefore, under normal conditions, travel at his
inclination along the public highways or in public places, and while conducting himself
in an orderly and decent manner, neither interfering with nor disturbing another's Rights,
he will be protected, not only in his person, but in his safe conduct.” [Emphasis added] II
Am. Jur. (1st) Constitutional Law, Sect. 329. p.ll35.
and further...
“Personal liberty--consists of the power of locomotion, of changing situations, of
removing one's person to whatever place one’s inclination may direct, without
imprisonment or restraint unless by due process of law.” 1 Blackstone’s Commentary
134; Hare, Constitution .777; Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, 1914 ed., Black’s Law
Dictionary, 5th ed.
Justice Tolman was concerned about the State prohibiting the Citizen from the “most sacred
of his liberties,” the Right of movement, the Right of moving one’s self from place to place
without threat of imprisonment; the Right to use the public roads in the ordinary course of life.
When the State allows the formation of a corporation it may control its creation by
establishing guidelines (statutes) for its operation (charters). Corporations who use the roads in
the course of business, do not use the roads in the ordinary course of life. There is a difference
between a corporation and a live Individual. The United States Supreme Court has stated:
“...We are of the opinion that there is a clear distinction in this particular between an
individual and a corporation, and that the latter has no right to refuse to submit its books
and papers for examination on the suit of the State. The individual may stand upon his
Constitutional Rights as a Citizen. He is entitled to carry on his private business in his
own way. His power to contract is unlimited. He owes no duty to the State or to his
neighbors to divulge his business, or to open his doors to investigation, so far as it may
tend to incriminate him. He owes no such duty to the State since he receives nothing there
from, beyond the protection of his life, liberty, and property. His Rights are such as the
law of the land long antecedent to the organization of the state, and can only be taken
from him by due process of law, and in accordance with the Constitution. Among his
Rights are the refusals to incriminate himself, and the immunity of himself and his
property from arrest or seizure except under warrant of law. He owes nothing to the
public so long as he does not trespass upon their rights.”
“Upon the other hand, the corporation is a creature of the state. It is presumed to be
incorporated for the benefit of the public. It receives certain special privileges and
franchises, and holds them subject to the laws of the state and the limitations of its
charter. Its rights to act as a corporation are only preserved to it so long as it obeys the
laws of its creation. There is a reserved right in the legislature to investigate its contracts
and find out whether it has exceeded its powers. It would be a strange anomaly to hold
that the State, having chartered a corporation to make use of certain franchises, could not
in exercise of its sovereignty inquire how those franchises had been employed, and
whether they had been abused, and demand the production of corporate books and papers
for that purpose.” [Emphasis added] Hale vs. Hinkel, 201 U.S. 43, 74-75, (1906).
Corporations engaged in mercantile equity fall under the purview of the State’s admiralty
jurisdiction, and the public at large must be protected from their activities, as they (the
corporations) are engaged in business for profit.
“...Based upon the fundamental ground that the sovereign state has the plenary control of
the streets and highways in the exercise of its police power (see police power, infra.),
may absolutely prohibit the use of the streets as a place for the prosecution of a private
business for gain. They all recognize the fundamental distinction between the ordinary
Right of the Citizen to use the streets in the usual way and the use of the streets as a place
of business or a main instrumentality of business for private gain. The former is a
common Right; the latter is an extraordinary use. As to the former the legislative power is
confined to regulation, as to the tatter it is plenary and extends even to absolute
prohibition. Since the use of the streets by a common carrier in the prosecution of its
business as such is not a right but a mere license of privilege.” Hadfield vs. Lundin, 98
Wash. 6571, 168, p. 516.
It will be necessary to review early cases and legal authority in order to reach a lawfully correct
theory dealing with this Right or “privilege”. Defendant will attempt to reach a sound conclusion
as to what is a “Right to use the road” and what is a “privilege to use the road”. Once reaching
this determination, we shall then apply those positions to modern case decision.
“Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or
legislation which would abrogate them.” Miranda vs. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 491, (1966).
and...
“The claim and exercise of a constitutional Right cannot be converted into a crime.”
Miller vs. United States, 230 V. 486,489, (1956).
and...
“There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this exercise of
constitutional Rights.” Sherar vs. Cullen, 481 F. 2d 946, (1973).
Streets and highways are established and maintained for the purpose of travel and transportation
by the public. Such travel may be for business or pleasure.
“The use of the highways for the purpose of travel and transportation is not a mere
privilege, but a common and fundamental Right of which the public and the individual
cannot be rightfully deprived.’ [Emphasis added] Chicago Motor Coach vs. Chicago, 169
N. E. 22 (1929); Ligare vs. Chicago, 28 N. E. 934 (1891); Boon vs. Clark, 214 S. W. 607
(1919); 25 Am. Jur. (1st) Highways Sect. 163.
and...
“The Right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property
thereon, either by horse drawn carriage or by automobile, is not a mere privilege which a
city can prohibit or permit at will, but a common Right which he has under the right to
life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.” [Emphasis added] Thompson vs. Smith, 154
S.E. 579 (1930).
A Citizen has a Right to travel upon the public highways by automobile and the Citizen cannot
be rightfully deprived of his Liberty. So where does the misconception that the use of the public
road is always and only a privilege come from?
“...For while a Citizen has the Right to travel upon the public highways and to transport
his property thereon, that Right does not extend to the use of the highways, either in
whole or in part, as a place for private gain. For the latter purpose no person has a vested
right to use the highways of the state, but is a privilege or a license which the legislature
may grant or withhold at its discretion.” State vs. Johnson, 243 P. 1073 (1926); Hadfield,
supra; Cummins vs. Homes, 155 P. 171; Packard vs. Banton, 44 S. Ct. 256 (1924);
Here the courts held that a Citizen has the Right to travel upon the public highways, but that he
did not have the right to conduct business upon the highways. On this point of law all authorities
are unanimous.
“Heretofore the court has held, and we think correctly, that while a Citizen has the Right
to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, that Right does
not extend to the use of the highways, either in whole or in part, as a place of business for
private gain.” Barney vs. Board of Railroad Commissioners, 17 P.2d 82 (1932); Willis vs.
Buck, 263 P. 982 (1928).
and...
“The right of the citizen to travel upon the highway and to transport his property thereon,
in the ordinary course of life and business, differs radically and obviously from that of
one who makes the highway his place of business for private gain in the running of a
stagecoach or omnibus.” State vs. City of Spokane, 186 P. 864 (1920).
What is this Right of the Citizen which differs so “radically and obviously” from one who uses
the highway as a place of business? Who better to enlighten us than Justice Tolman of the
Supreme Court of Washington? In State vs. City of Spokane, supra, the Court also noted a very
“radical and obvious” difference, but went on to explain just what the difference is:
“The former is the usual and ordinary right of the Citizen, a common right to all, while
the latter is special, unusual, and extraordinary.” “This distinction, elementary and
fundamental in character, is recognized by all the authorities.” State vs. City of Spokane,
supra.
This position does not hang precariously upon only a few cases, but has been proclaimed by an
impressive array of cases ranging from the state courts to the federal courts.
“…the right of the Citizen to travel upon the highway and to transport his property
thereon in the ordinary course of life and business, differs radically and obviously from
that of one who makes the highway his place of business and uses it for private gain in
the running of a stagecoach or omnibus. The former is the usual and ordinary right of the
Citizen, a right common to all, while the latter is special, unusual, and extraordinary.” Ex
Parte Dickey, (Dickey vs. Davis), 85 So. 782 (1915).
and...
“The right of the Citizen to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property
thereon, in the ordinary course of life and business, is a common right which he has under
the right to enjoy life and liberty, to acquire and possess property, and to pursue
happiness and safety. It includes the right, in so doing, to use the ordinary and usual
conveyances of the day, and under the existing modes of travel, includes the right to drive
a horse drawn carriage or wagon thereon or to operate an automobile thereon, for the
usual and ordinary purpose of life and business.” Teche Lines vs. Danforth., 12 So. 2d
784 (1943); Thompson vs. Smith, supra.
There is no dissent among various authorities as to this position. (See Am. Jur. [1st] Const. Law,
329 and corresponding Am. Jur. [2nd].)
“Personal liberty -- or the right to enjoyment of life and liberty -- is one of the
fundamental or natural rights, which has been protected by its inclusion as a guarantee in
the various constitutions, which is not derived from nor dependent on the U.S.
Constitution... It is one of the most sacred and valuable rights [remember the words of
Justice Tolman, supra.] as sacred as the right to Private property...and is regarded as
inalienable.” 16 C.J.S. Const. Law, Sect. 202, p.987.
As we can see, the distinction between a “Right” to use the public roads and a “privilege” to use
the public roads is drawn upon the line of “using the road as a place of business” and the various
state courts have held so. But what have the U.S. courts held on this point?
“First, it is well established law that the highways of the state are public property, and
their primary and preferred use is for private purposes, and that their use for purposes of
gain is special and extraordinary which, generally at least, the legislature may prohibit or
condition as it sees fit.” Stephenson vs. Binford, 287 U. S. 251 (1932); Packard vs.
Banton, 264 U. S. 140 (1924), and cases cited; Frost Trucking Co. vs. Railroad
Commission, 271 U. S. 582 (1926); Railroad commission vs. Jater-City Forwarding Co.,
57 S.W.2d 290; Parlett Cooperative vs. Tidewater Lines, 164 A. 313.
So what is a privilege to use the roads? By now it should be apparent even to the “learned” that
an attempt to use the road use as a place of business is a privilege. The distinction must be drawn
between...
Traveling upon and transporting one's property upon the public roads, which is our Right; Using
the public roads as a place of business or a main instrumentality of business, which is a privilege.
“[The roads]...are constructed and maintained at public expense, and no person therefore,
can insist that he has, or may acquire, a vested right to their use in carrying on a
commercial business.” Ex Parte Sterling, 53 S.W. 2d 294; Barney vs. Railroad
Commissioners, 17 P. 2d 82 (1932); Stephenson vs. Binford, supra.
“When the public highways are made the place of business the state has a right to
regulate their use in the interest of safety and convenience of the public as well as the
preservation of the highways.” Barney vs. Railroad Commissioners, supra.
“[The state’s] right to regulate such use is based upon the nature of the business and the
use of the highways in connection therewith.” Ibid.
“We know of no inherent right in one to use the highways for commercial purposes. The
highways are primarily for the use of the public, and in the interest of the public, the state
may prohibit or regulate the use of the highways for gain.” Robertson vs. Dept. of Public
Works, supra.
There should be considerable authority on a subject considering the importance of this

deprivation on the liberty of the individual “using the roads in the ordinary course of life and
business.” However, it should be noted that extensive research has not turned up one case or
authority acknowledging the state’s power to convert the individual’s right to travel upon the
public roads into a “privilege”.
Therefore, it must be concluded that the Citizen does have a “Right” to travel and transport his
property upon the public highways and roads and the exercise of this Right and it is not a
“privilege”.
III. DEFINITIONS
In order to understand the correct application of the statute in question, we must first define the
terms used in connection with this point of law. As will be shown, many terms used today do
not, in their legal context, mean what we assume they mean, thus resulting in the misapplication
of statutes in the instant case.
AUTOMOBILE AND MOTOR VEHICLE
There is a clear distinction between an automobile and a motor vehicle. An automobile has been
defined as:
“The word ‘automobile’ connotes a pleasure vehicle designed for the transportation of
persons on highways.” American Mutual Liability Ins. Co., vs. Chaput, 60 A. 2d 118,
120; 95 NH 200.
While the distinction is made clear between the two as the courts have stated:
“A motor vehicle or automobile for hire is a motor vehicle, other than an automobile
stage, used for the transportation of persons for which remuneration is received.”
International Motor Transit Co. vs. Seattle' 251 P. 120.
The term ‘motor vehicle’ is different and broader than the word ‘automobile’.” City of
Dayton vs. DeBrosse, 23 N.E. 2d 647, 650; 62 Ohio App. 232.
The distinction is made very clear in United State Code, Title 18, §31:
“Motor vehicle” means every description or other contrivance propelled or drawn by
mechanical power and used for commercial purposes on the highways in the
transportation of passengers, or passengers and property.
“Used for commercial purposes” means the carriage of persons or property for any fare,
fee, rate, charge or other considerations, or directly or indirectly in connection with any
business, or other undertaking intended for profit.
Clearly, an automobile is private property in use for private purposes, while a motor vehicle is a
machine, which may be used upon the highways for trade, commerce, or hire.
TRAVEL
The term “travel” is a significant term and is defined as:

“The term ‘travel’ and ‘traveler’ are usually construed in their broad and general
sense...so as to include all those who rightfully use the highways viatically (when being
reimbursed for expenses) and who have occasion to pass over them for the purpose of
business, convenience, or pleasure.” [Emphasis added] 25 Am. Jur. (1st) Highways, Sect.
427, p.717.
“Traveler-- One who passes from place to place, whether for pleasure, instruction,
business, or health.” Locket vs. State, 47 Ala. 45; Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, 1914 ed., p.
3309.
“Travel -- To journey or to pass through or over; as a country district, road, etc. To go

from one place to another, whether on foot, or horseback, or in any conveyance as a train,
an automobile, carriage, ship, or aircraft; make a journey.” Century Dictionary, p. 2034.
Therefore, the term “travel” or “traveler” refers to one who uses a conveyance to go from one
place to another and included all those who use the highways as a matter of Right. Notice that in
all these definitions the phrase “for hire” never occurs. This term “travel” or “traveler” implies
by definition one who uses the road as a means to move from one place to another.
Therefore, one who uses the road in the ordinary course of life and business for the purpose of
travel and transportation is a traveler.
DRIVER
The term “driver” in contradistinction to “traveler” is defined as:

“Driver -- One employed in conducting a coach, carriage, wagon, or other vehicle...”
Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, 1914 ed., p. 940.
Notice that this definition includes one who is “employed” in conducting a vehicle. It should be
self-evident that this person could not be “traveling” on a journey, but is using the road as a place
in the conduct of business.
OPERATOR
Today we assume that a “traveler” is a “driver,” and a “driver” is an “operator.” However, this is
not the case.
“It will be observed from the language of the ordinance that a distinction is to be drawn
between the terms ‘operator’ and ‘driver’; the ‘operator’ of the service car being the
person who is licensed to have the car on the streets in the business of carrying
passengers for hire; while the 'driver' is the one who actually drives the car. However, in
the actual prosecution of business, it was possible for the same person to be both
‘operator’ and ‘driver’.” Newbill vs. Union Indemnity Co., 60 S.E. 2d 658.
To further clarify the definition of an “operator” the court observed that this was a vehicle “for
hire” and that it was in the business of carrying passengers. This definition would seem to
describe a person who is using the road as a place of business, or in other words, a person
engaged in the “privilege” of using the road for gain.
This definition then is a further clarification of the distinction mentioned earlier and therefore:
1. Traveling upon and transporting one's property upon the public roads as a matter of Right
meets the definition of a traveler.
2. Using the road as a place of business as a matter of privilege meets the definition of a
driver or an operator or both.
TRAFFIC
Having defined the terms “automobile,” “motor vehicle,” “traveler,” “driver,” and “operator,”
the next term to define is “traffic”:
“...traffic thereon is to some extent destructive, therefore, the prevention of unnecessary

duplication of auto transportation service will lengthen the life of the highways or reduce
the cost of maintenance, the revenue derived by the state...will also tend toward the
public welfare by producing at the expense of those operating for private gain, some
small part of the cost of repairing the wear Northern Pacific R.R. Co. vs. Schoenfeldt, 213
P. 26.
Note: In the above, Justice Tolman expounded upon the key of raising revenue by taxing the
“privilege” to use the public roads “at the expense of those operating for gain.”
In this case, the word “traffic” is used in conjunction with the unnecessary Auto Transportation
Service, or in other words, “vehicles for hire.” The word “traffic” is another word, which is to be
strictly construed to the conducting of business.
“Traffic-- Commerce, trade, sale or exchange of merchandise, bills, money, or the like.
The passing of goods and commodities from one person to another for an equivalent in
goods or money...” Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, 1914 ed., p. 3307.
Here again, notice that this definition refers to one “conducting business.” No mention is made
of one who is traveling in his automobile. This definition is of one who is engaged in the passing
of a commodity or goods in exchange for money, i.e. vehicles for hire. Furthermore, the word
“traffic” and “travel” must have different meanings, which the counts recognize. The difference
is recognized in Ex Parte Dickey, supra:
“...In addition to this, cabs, hackney coaches, omnibuses, taxicabs, and hacks, when
unnecessarily numerous, interfere with the ordinary traffic and travel and obstruct them.”
The court, by using both terms, signified its recognition of a distinction between the two. But,
what was the distinction? We have already defined both terms, now to nail the matter down:
“The word ‘traffic’ is manifestly used here in secondary sense, and has reference to the
business of transportation rather than to its primary meaning of interchange of
commodities.” Allen vs. City of Bellingham, 163 P. 18 (1917).
Here the Supreme Court of the State of Washington has defined the word “traffic” (in either its
primary or secondary sense) in reference to business, and not to mere travel! So it is clear that
the term “traffic” is business related and therefore, it is a “privilege.” The net result being that
“traffic” is brought under the (police) power of the legislature. The term has no application to
one who is not using the roads as source of income or a place of business.
LICENSE
It seems only proper to define the word license,” as the definition of this word will be extremely
important in understanding the statutes as they are properly applied:
“The permission, by competent authority to do an act which without permission, would

be illegal, a trespass, or a tort.” People vs. Henderson, 2l8 N.W. 2d 2, 4.
“Leave to do a thing which licensor could prevent.” Western Electric Co. vs. Pacent
Reproducer Corp., 42 F. 2d 116,118.
In order for these two definitions to apply in this case, the state would have to prove the position
that the exercise of a Constitutional Right to use the public roads in the ordinary course of life
and business is illegal, a trespass, or a tort, which the state could then regulate or prevent. This
position, however, would raise constitutional questions, as this position would be diametrically
opposed to fundamental constitutional law. (See “Conversion of a Right to a Crime,” infra.)
In the instant case, the proper definition of a “license” is:

“a permit, granted by an appropriate governmental body, generally for consideration, to a
person, firm, or corporation, to pursue some occupation or to carry on some business
which is subject to regulation under the police power.” [emphasis added] Rosenblatt vs.
California State Board of Pharmacy, 158 P. 2d 199, 203.
This definition would fall more in line with the “privilege” of carrying on business on the streets.
Most people tend to think that “licensing” is imposed by the state for the purpose of raising
revenue, yet there may well be more subtle reasons contemplated; for when one seeks permission
from someone to do something he invokes the jurisdiction of the “licensor” which, in this case, is
the state. In essence, the licensee may well be seeking to be regulated by the “licensor.”
“A license fee is a charge made primarily for regulation, with the fee to cover costs and
expenses of supervision or regulation.” State vs. Jackson, 60 Wisc. 2d 700; 211 N.W. 2d
480, 487.
The fee is the price; the regulation or control of the licensee, which is the real aim of the
legislation.
Are these licenses really used to fund legitimate government or are they nothing more than a
subtle introduction of police power into every facet of our lives? Have our “enforcement
agencies” been diverted from crime prevention, perhaps through no fault of their own, now
busying themselves as they “check” our papers to see that all are properly endorsed by the state?
At which Legislative Session will it be before we are forced to get a license for Lawnmowers,
Generators, Tillers, and Air Conditioners or before Women are required to have a license for
their “blender” or “mixer?” All have motors on them and the state can always use the revenue.
At what point does the steady encroachment into our Liberty cease?
POLICE POWER
The confusion of the police power with the power of taxation usually arises in cases where the
police power has affixed a penalty to a certain act or omission to act, or where it requires licenses
to be obtained and a certain sum be paid for certain occupations. The power used in the instant
case cannot however, be the power of taxation since an attempt to levy a tax upon a Right would
be open to constitutional objection. (See “taxing power,” infra.)
Each law relating to the legitimate use of police power must ask three questions:
1. Is there threatened danger?
2. Does a regulation involve a constitutional Right?
3. Is the regulation reasonable?
People vs. Smith, 108 Am. St. Rep. 715; Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, 1914 ed., under
“Police Power.”
When applying these three questions to the statute in question, some very important issues are
clarified.
1. First, “is there a threatened danger” in the individual using his automobile on the public
highways, in the ordinary course of life and business? The answer is No!
There is nothing inherently dangerous in the use of an automobile when it is carefully

managed. Their guidance, speed, and noise are subject to a quick and easy control, under
a competent and considerate manager, it is as harmless on the road as a horse and buggy,
possibly more so. It is the manner of managing the automobile and that alone, which
threatens the safety of the public. The ability to stop quickly and to respond quickly to
guidance would seem to make the automobile one of the least dangerous conveyances.
(See Yale Law Journal, December, 1905.)
“The automobile is not inherently dangerous.” Cohens vs. Meadow, 89 SE 876; Blair vs.
Broadwater, 93 SE 632 (1917).
To deprive all persons of the Right to use the road in the ordinary course of life and
business, because one might in the future, become dangerous, would be a deprivation not
only of the Right to travel, but also the Right to due process. (See “Due Process,” infra.)
2. Next, does the regulation involve a constitutional Right?
This question has already been addressed and answered in this brief, and need not be
reinforced other than to remind this Court that this Citizen does have the Right to travel
upon the public highway by automobile in the ordinary course of life and business. It can
therefore be concluded that this regulation does involve a constitutional Right.
3. The third question is the most important in this case. “Is this regulation reasonable?”
The answer is No! It will be shown later in “Regulation,” infra, that this licensing statute
is oppressive and could be effectively administered by less oppressive means.
Although the Fourteenth Amendment does not interfere with the proper exercise of the
police power in accordance with the general principle that the power must be exercised so
as not to invade unreasonably the rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution, it
is established beyond question that every state power, including the police power, is
limited by the Fourteenth Amendment (and others) and by the inhibitions there imposed.
Moreover, the ultimate test of the propriety of police power regulations must be found in the
Ninth Amendment, since it operates as a bulwark to limit the field of the police power to the
extent of preventing the enforcement of statutes in denial of Rights that the Constitution protects.
(See Parks vs. State, 64 N.E. 682 (1902)).
“With regard particularly to the U.S. Constitution, it is elementary that a Right secured or
protected by that document cannot be overthrown or impaired by any state police
authority.” Connolly vs. Union Sewer Pipe Co., 184 U. S. 540 (1902); Lafarier vs. Grand
Trunk R.y. Co., 24 A. 848 (1892); O’Neil vs. Providence Amusement Co., 103 A. 887.
“The police power of the state must be exercised in subordination to the provisions of the
U.S. Constitution.” [emphasis added] Panhandle Eastern Pipeline Co. vs. State Highway
Commission, 294 U. S. 613 (1935); Buchanan vs. Warley, 245 U.S. 60 (1917).
“It is well settled that the Constitutional Rights protected from invasion by the police
power, include Rights safeguarded both by express and implied prohibitions in the
Constitutions.” Tighe vs. Osborne, 131 A. 60 (1925).
“As a rule, fundamental limitations of regulations under the police power are found in the
spirit of the Constitutions, not in the letter, although they are just as efficient as if
expressed in the clearest language.” Mehlos vs. City of Milwaukee, 146 N. W. 882 (1914).
As it applies in the instant case, the language of the Fifth Amendment is clear:
No person shall be deprived of Life, Liberty, or Property without due process of law.
As has been demonstrated the courts at all levels have firmly established an absolute
Right to travel. In the instant case, the state, by applying commercial statutes to all
entities, natural and artificial persons alike, the legislature has deprived this free and
natural person of the Right of Liberty, without cause and without due process of law.
DUE PROCESS
“The essential elements of due process of law are.. Notice and the Opportunity to
defend.” Simon vs. Craft, 182 U. S. 427 (1901).
Yet, not one individual has ever been given notice of the loss of his/her Right, before signing the
license (contract). Nor was the Citizen given any opportunity to defend against the loss of his/her
right to travel by automobile on the highways, in the ordinary course of life and business. This
amounts to an arbitrary government deprivation on Liberty.
“There should be no arbitrary deprivation of Life or Liberty...” Barbier vs. Connolly, 113
U.S. 27, 31 (1885); Yick Wo vs. Hopkins, 1l8 U.S. 356 (1886).
and...
“The right to travel is part of the Liberty of which a Citizen cannot deprived without due
process of law under the Fifth Amendment. This Right was emerging as early as the
Magna Carta.” Kent vs. Dulles, 357 U.S. 116 (1958).
The focal point of this question of police power and due process must balance upon the point of
making the public highways a safe place for the public to travel. If a man travels in a manner that
creates actual damage, an action in law would be the appropriate remedy (civilly) for recovery of
damages. The state could then also proceed against the Individual to deprive him of his Right to
use the public highways, for Cause. This process would fulfill the due process requirements of
the Fifth Amendment while at the same time insuring that Rights guaranteed by the Constitution
for the United States of America and the respective state constitutions would be protected for all.
But unless or until harm or damage (a Crime) is committed, there is no cause for interference in
the private affairs or actions of a sovereign Citizen.
One of the most famous and perhaps the most quoted definitions of due process of law is that of
Daniel Webster in his Dartmouth College Case, 4 Wheat 518 (1819), in which he declared that
due process means “a law which hears before it condemns, which proceeds upon inquiry, and
renders judgment only after trial.” (See also State vs. Strasburg, 110 P. 1020 (1910); Dennis vs.
Moses, 52 P. 333.)
Somewhat similar is the statement that is a rule as old as the law that “no one shall be personally
bound (restricted) until he has had his day in court,” until he has been duly summoned to appear
and has been afforded an opportunity to be heard. Judgment without such summons and
opportunity lacks all the attributes of a judicial determination; it is judicial usurpation, and it
is
oppressive and can never be upheld where it is unfairly administered. (12 Am. Jur. [1st] Const.
Law, Sect. 573, p.269.)
Note: This sounds like the process used to deprive one of the “privilege” of operating a motor
vehicle “for hire.” It should be kept in mind, however, that we are discussing the arbitrary
deprivation of the Right to use the road that all citizens have “in common.”
The futility of the state’s position can be most easily observed in the A.D. 1959 Washington
Attorney General's opinion on a similar issue:
“The distinction between the Right of the Citizen to use the public highways for private,
rather than commercial purposes is recognized...”
and...
“Under its power to regulate private uses of our highways, our legislature has required
that motor vehicle operators be licensed (I.C. 49-307). Undoubtedly, the primary purpose
of this requirement is to insure, as far as possible, that all motor vehicle operators will be
competent and qualified, thereby reducing the potential hazard or risk of harm, to which
other users of the highways might otherwise be subject. But once having complied with
this regulatory provision, by obtaining the required license, a motorist enjoys the
privilege of traveling freely upon the highways...” Washington A.G.O. 59-60 No. 88, p.
11.
This alarming opinion appears to be saying that every person using an automobile as a matter of
right, must give up the Right and convert the Right into a “privilege”. This is accomplished
under the guise of regulation. This statement is indicative of the insensitivity, even the pretended
ignorance of the government to the restrictions placed upon government by and through the
several constitutions.
That legal proposition may have been able to stand in 1959; however, as of 1966, in the United
States Supreme Court decision in Miranda, clearly demonstrated that even this weak defense of
the state’s actions must fail.
legislation which would abrogate them.” Miranda vs. State of Arizona, 384 U.S. 436,491
(1966).
Thus the legislature does not have the power to abrogate the Citizen’s Right to travel upon the
public roads, by passing legislation forcing the citizen to waive his Right and convert that Right
into a privilege. Furthermore, we have previously established that this “privilege” has been
defined as applying only to those who are “conducting business in the streets” or “operating for-
hire vehicles.”
The legislature has attempted, by legislative fiat, to deprive the Citizen of his Right to use the
roads in the ordinary course of life and business, without affording the Citizen the safeguard of
“due process of law.” This has been accomplished under supposed powers of regulation.
REGULATION
“In addition to the requirement that regulations governing the use of the highways must not
be violative of constitutional guarantees, the prime essentials of such regulation are
reasonableness, impartiality, and definiteness or certainty.” 25 Am. Jur. (1st) Highways, Sect.
260.
and...
“Moreover, a distinction must he observed between the regulation of an activity which may
be engaged in as a matter of right and one carried on by government sufferance of
permission.” Davis vs. Massachusetts, 167 U.S. 43; Pachard vs. Banton, supra.
One can say for certain that these regulations are impartial since they are being applied to all,
even though they are clearly beyond the limits of the legislative power. However, we must
consider whether such regulations are reasonable and non-violative of constitutional guarantees.
First, let us consider the reasonableness of this statute requiring all persons to be licensed
(presuming that we are applying this statute to all persons using the public roads). In determining
the reasonableness of the statute we need only ask two questions:
Does the statute accomplish its stated goal?

The answer is No!
The attempted explanation for this regulation “to insure the safety of the public by insuring, as
much as possible, that all are competent and qualified.”
However, one can keep his license without resetting, from the time he/she is first licensed until
the day he/she dies, without regard to the competency of the Person, by merely renewing said
license before it expires. It is therefore possible to completely skirt the goal of this attempted
regulation, thus proving that this regulation does not accomplish its goal. If an analysis were
compiled of all accidents between those individuals having license and those who do not, it
would reveal that the highest percentage of accidents were had by those who had licenses. A
license does not in and of its self guarantee the safety of the general public. Much like the
License to Practice Law or Medicine assure that only competent Lawyers and Doctors ply their
trade. A review of the annual Malpractice lawsuits is the only proof necessary to establish that it
does not.
Furthermore, by testing and licensing, the state gives the appearance of underwriting the
competence of the licensees, and could therefore be held liable for failures, accidents, etc. caused
by licensees as the state has certified through the issuance of the license that the individual is
competent.
Is the statute reasonable?

The answer is No!
This statute cannot be determined to be reasonable since it requires to the Citizen to give up his
or her natural Right to travel unrestricted in order to accept the privilege. The purported goal of
this statute could be met by much less oppressive regulations, i.e., competency tests and
certificates of competency before using an automobile upon the public roads. (This is exactly the
situation in the aviation sector.)
But isn't this what we have now?
The answer is No!
The real purpose of this license is much more insidious. When one signs the license, he/she gives
up his/her Constitutional Right to travel in order to accept and exercise a privilege under
Contract. After signing the license, a quasi-contract, the Citizen has given the state his/her
consent to be prosecuted for constructive crimes and quasi-criminal actions where there is no
harm done and no damaged property.
These prosecutions take place without affording the Citizen their constitutional Rights and
guarantees such a the Right to a trial by jury of twelve persons and the Right to counsel, as well
as the normal safeguards such as proof of intent, a corpus dilecti and a grand jury indictment.
These unconstitutional prosecutions take place because the Citizen is exercising a privilege and
has given his/her “implied consent” to legislative enactments designed to control interstate
commerce, a regulated enterprise under the police power of the state.
We must now conclude that the Citizen is forced to give up constitutional guarantees of “Right”
in order to exercise his state “privilege” to travel upon the public highways in the ordinary course
of life and business.
SURRENDER OF RIGHTS
A Citizen cannot be forced to give up his/her Rights in the name of regulation.
“...The only limitations found restricting the right of the state to condition the use of the
public highways as a means of vehicular transportation for compensation are (1) that the
state must not exact of those it permits to use the highways for hauling for gain that they
surrender any of their inherent U.S. Constitutional Rights as a condition precedent to
obtaining permission for such use...” [emphasis added] Riley vs. Lawson, 143 So. 619
(1932); Stephenson vs. Binford, supra.
If one cannot be placed in a position of being forced to surrender Rights in order to exercise a
privilege, how much more must this maxim of law, then, apply when one is simply exercising
(putting into use) a Right?
“To be that statute which would deprive a Citizen of the rights of person or property,
without a regular trial, according to the course and usage of the common law, would not
be the law of the land.” Hoke vs. Henderson, 15 NC 15.
and...
“We find it intolerable that one Constitutional Right should have to be surrendered in
order to assert another.” Simons vs. United States, 390 U.S. 389.
Since the state requires that one give up Rights in order to exercise the privilege of driving, the
regulation cannot stand under the police power, due process, or regulation, but must be exposed
as a statute which is oppressive and one which has been misapplied to deprive the Citizen of
Rights guaranteed by the United States Constitution and the state constitution.
TAXING POWER
“Any claim that this statute is a taxing statute would be immediately open to severe
Constitutional objections. If it could be said that the state had the power to tax a Right,
this would enable the state to destroy Rights guaranteed by the constitution through the
use of oppressive taxation. The question herein, is one of the state taxing the Right to
travel by the ordinary modes of the day, and whether this is a legislative object of the
state taxation.
The views advanced herein are neither novel nor supported by authority. The
Supreme Court has repeatedly considered the question of taxing power of the states. The
Right of the state to impede or embarrass the Constitutional operation of the U.S.
Government or the Rights which the Citizen holds under it, has been uniformly denied.”
McCulloch vs. Maryland, 17 U. S. (4 Wheat) 316 (1819).
The power to tax is the power to destroy, and if the state is given the power to destroy Rights
through taxation, the framers of the Constitution wrote that document in vain.
“...It maybe said that a tax of one dollar for passing through the state cannot sensibly
affect any function of government or deprive a Citizen of any valuable Right. But if a
state can tax...a passenger of one dollar, it can tax him a thousand dollars.” Crandall vs.
Nevada, 75 U. S. (6 Wall) 35, 46, (1867).
and...
“If the Right of passing through a state by a Citizen of the United States is one
guaranteed by the Constitution, it must be sacred from state taxation.” Ibid., p.47.
Therefore, the Right of travel must be kept sacred from all forms of state taxation and if this
argument is used by the state as a defense of the enforcement of this statute, then this argument
also must fail.
CONVERSION OF A RIGHT TO A CRIME
As previously demonstrated, the Citizen has the Right to travel and to transport his property upon
the public highways in the ordinary course of life and business. However, if one exercises this
Right to travel (without first giving up the Right and converting that Right into a privilege) the
Citizen is by statute, guilty of a crime. This amounts to converting the exercise of a
Constitutional Right into a crime.
Recall the Miller vs. United States and Sherar vs. Cullen quotes from p.5, and,
“The state cannot diminish Rights of the people.” Hurtado vs. California, 110 U. S. 516
(1883).
and...
legislation which would abrogate them.” Miranda, supra.
Indeed, the very purpose for creating the state under the limitations of the constitution was to
protect the rights of the people from intrusion, particularly by the forces of government. So we
can see that any attempt by the legislature to make the act of using the public highways as a
matter of Right into a crime, is void upon its face.
Any person who claims his Right to travel upon the highways, and so exercises that Right,
cannot be tried for a crime of doing so. And yet this Sui juris stands before this court today to
answer charges for the “crime” of exercising his Right to Liberty.
As we have already shown, the term “drive” can only apply to those who are employed in the
business of transportation for hire. It has been shown that freedom includes the Citizen’s Right to
use the public highways in the ordinary course of life and business without license or regulation
by the police powers of the state.
TITLE OF NOBILITY
The Constitution for the United States of America at Article I, Section 10, Clause 1 prohibits the
granting of a Title of Nobility. “No state shall grant a Title of Nobility.” Since the granting of a
title of nobility is absolutely prohibited this court lacks subject matter jurisdiction to enforce a
title of nobility and its attendant rules and regulations.
The Utah Supreme Court has stated that the “Ability to drive a motor vehicle on a public roadway is
not a fundamental right, but a revocable privilege.” City of Salina vs. Wisden, 737 P. 2d 981 - The
distinctive appellation, designation or title “driver” is a title of privilege, a title of “Noble
Privilege” a “Title of Nobility”.
In the words of Thomas L. Willmore, City Attorney for the City of Tremonton, Utah (case no.
94-0336, Tremonton City Justice Court)
“A Title of Nobility is defined as to nominate to an order of persons to whom privileges are granted...
objection to a Title of Nobility arises from the special privileges that attach to the title rather than to the
title itself. Words and Phrases, volume 8A, page 40. A Driver License is... a privilege which is granted ...
by the State (a municipal corporation).”
In other words to obtain a drivers license is to be nominated to an order of persons known as

drivers and be granted the special privileges that attach to the Title. The United States
Constitution at Article 1 Section 10 Prohibits the States from granting a “Title of Nobility” (i.e. a
drivers license and its attendant rules and regulations).
Pursuant to City of Salina vs. Wisden, the Driver License and its attendant rules and regulations
are by legal definition a Title of Nobility. Article 1 Section 10 of the United States Constitution
prohibits the States from granting “Title of Nobility”. The Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction
to enforce upon the defendant a “Title of Nobility”. What is prohibited to the States is forbidden
to the Court to enforce. California Motor Transport Co. vs. Trucking Unlimited, 404 U.S. 908
(1972).
Therefore, the Accused requests the Court to make a legal determination as to what is a Title of
Nobility.
The following case law will define a title of nobility for the court to use to make its
determination.
The following quotes give the answer:
“NOBILITY. An order of man, in several countries, to whom special privileges are

granted at the expense of the rest of the people.” Bouvier's Law Dictionary (l870)
and
“To confer a title of nobility, is to nominate to an order of persons to whom privileges are
granted at the expense of the rest of the people. It is not necessarily hereditary, and the
objection to it arises more from the privileges supposed to be attached, than to the
otherwise empty title or order.” HORST vs. MOSES (1872), 48 Ala. 129, 142; 46
Corpus Juris 598, Nobility, note 4; (1874)
Bouvier's Law Dictionary, Nobility
“These component... terms ‘privilege’, ‘honor’, and ‘emolument... are collectively in the
term 'title of nobility’.” HORST vs. MOSES (1872), 48 Ala. 129, at 142
and
Government granted: entitlement-privileges, such as a Drivers License and its privileges, are
obviously Noble entitlements and franchises as pointed out by Richard B. Stewart, left-wing
politician, Rhodes Scholar and Harvard Law Professor:
“The third great innovation in American administrative law, which has largely occurred
during the past 20 years, extended the procedural controls and principles of judicial
review developed in the context of regulatory decision-making to the operations of the
welfare state, including programs of government insurance and assistance, government
employment decisions, and the administration of government grants and contracts. Under
traditional private law principles, these benefits were “privileges” and not “rights”
because their withholding did not constitute the commission of a tort or other natural law
wrong against a disappointed applicant or terminated recipient. With the growth of the
post-World War II welfare state, the distinction between rights and privileges gradually
eroded. Statutes conveying these various benefits and advantages were held by courts to
create entitlements...” The Limits of Administrative Law, in the Courts: Separation of
Powers, Final Report on the 1983 Chief Justice Earl Warren Conference on Advocacy;
page 77 Library of Congress #83-061923.
and
The Constitution for the united States of America at Article I, Section 10, Clause 1, mandates:
“No State shall ... grant any Title of Nobility”
and
“The establishment of... the prohibition of... TITLES OF NOBILITY... are perhaps greater
securities to liberty and republicanism than any it [the national Constitution] contains.
“Nothing need be said to illustrate the importance of the prohibition of titles of nobility.
This may truly be denominated the cornerstone of republican government; for so long as
they are excluded there can never be serious danger that the government will be any other
than that of the people.” [danger = nobility government, that of the police state] The
Federalist Papers: 484: S&6 -Alexander Hamilton
A title of nobility is privilege of license and license of privilege otherwise such title of nobility
ceases to exist without such privilege of license and license of privilege. A license to drive is a
title of nobility, in that it is a special grant of privilege to use vehicles upon the public highways
and roads. So says the Utah Supreme Court cited in Salina vs. Wisden, supra.
The State of (Name) (falsely acting as a King) grants “title of nobility” when it takes away a
natural existing public or private right, forbidding a natural activity or occupation to all, then
turns around and specially grants it back to a few, or many, the special privilege to engage in that
activity or occupation and requiring the obtaining of a title of noble privilege (drivers
license/license plate) to drive vehicles, and obeying attending nobility rules, as applied to the
Accused is Contrary to the Constitution for the united States of America mandate at Article I,
Section 10, Clause 1:
“No State shall ... grant any Title of Nobility.” Hence, (State Name) Revised Statutes, Title
(Number) et. seq., all attendant nobility traffic rules, regulations and penalties, made pursuant to
such, is to the Contrary of the (res judicata) mandate of the Constitution for the United States of
America (lest we be corporate slaves) and is notwithstanding and void, by mere operation of law
upon this record, as applied to the Accused. Hence the Count lacks subject matter jurisdiction
because of the prohibition of titles of nobility, attendant rules, regulations and penalties.
CONCLUSION
It is the duty of the courts to recognize the substance of Things and not the mere Form.
“The courts are not bound by mere form, nor are they to be misled by mere pretenses.
They are at liberty --indeed they are under a solemn duty--to look at the substance of
things, whenever they enter upon the inquiry whether the legislature has transcended the
limits of its authority. If, therefore, a statute purported to have been enacted to
protect...the public safety, has no real or substantial relation to those objects or is a
palpable invasion of Rights secured by the fundamental law, it is the duty of the courts to
so adjudge, and thereby give effect to the Constitution.” Mulger vs. Kansas, 123 U.S.
623, 661.
and...
“It is the duty of the courts to be watchful for the Constitutional rights of the citizen and
against any stealthy encroachments thereon.” Boyd vs. United States, 116 U.S. 616
(1889).
No higher duty of this court exists than to recognize and stop the “stealthy encroachments”,
which have been made upon the Citizen’s Right to travel and to use the roads to transport his
property in the “ordinary course of life and business.” (Hadfleld, supra.)
Further, the court must recognize that the Right to travel is part of the Liberty of which a Citizen
cannot be deprived without specific cause and without the “due process of law” guaranteed in the
Fifth Amendment. (Kent, supra.)
The history of this “invasion” of the Citizen’s Right to use the public highways shows clearly
that the legislature simply found a heretofore untapped source of revenue, became greedy and
attempted to enforce a statute in an unconstitutional manner upon those free and natural Men and
Women who have a Right to travel upon the highways. This was not attempted in an outright
action, but in a slow, meticulous, calculated encroachment upon the Citizen’s Right to travel.
This position most be accepted unless the Prosecutor can show his authority for the position that
the “use of the road in the ordinary course of life and business” is a privilege.
To rule in any other manner, without clear authority for an adverse ruling, will infringe upon
fundamental and basic concepts of constitutional Law. This position, that a Right cannot be
regulated under any guise, must be accepted without concern for the monetary loss of the State.
“Disobedience or evasion of a Constitutional Mandate cannot be tolerated, even though

such disobedience may, at least temporarily, promote in some respects the best interests
of the public.” Slote vs. Examination, 112 ALR 660.
and...
“Economic necessity cannot justify a disregard of Constitutional guarantee.” Riley vs.
Carter, 79 ALR 1018; 16 Am. Jur. (2nd), Const. Law, Sect. 81.
and...
“Constitutional Rights cannot be denied simply because of hostility to their assertions and
exercise; vindication of conceded Constitutional Rights cannot be made dependent upon
any theory that it is less expensive to deny them than to afford them.” Watson vs.
Memphis, 375 U.S. 526.
Therefore, the Court’s decision in the instant case must be made without the issue of cost to the
state being taken into consideration, as that Issue is irrelevant. The State cannot lose money that
it never had a right to demand from the “Sovereign People.”
Finally, we come to the issue of “Public Policy.” It could be argued that the “licensing scheme”
of all persons is a matter of Public Policy. However, if this argument is used, it too must fail, as:
“No public policy of a state can be allowed to override the positive guarantees of the
Constitution of the United States.” 16 Am. Jur. (2nd), Const. Law, Sect. 70.
So even Public Policy cannot abrogate this Citizen’s Right to travel and to use the public
highways in the ordinary course of life and business. Therefore, it must be concluded that:
“We have repeatedly held that the legislature may regulate the use of the highways for
carrying on business for private gain and that such regulation is a valid exercise of the
police power.” Northern Pacific R.R. Co. supra.
and...
“The act in question is a valid regulation, and as such is binding upon all who use the
highway for the purpose of private gain.” Ibid.
Any other construction of this statute would render it unconstitutional as applied to this Citizen
or any Citizen. The Accused therefore moves this court to Abate this Action or in the alternative
to dismiss the charge against him, with prejudice.
Pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 301 and attending state rules, the burden now rests with the
Plaintiff to bring forward evidence in rebuttal of any facts stated herein by the defendant, with law and
great specificity, not merely verbiage and personal convictions and beliefs of the agency’s biased legal
counsel. Defendant believes that he has made a compelling case in support of his petition for
Abatement with sound law and legal theory and requests that if the court rules adverse to that legal
theory, that the Judge, submit a written opinion and conclusion of law, defining errors in the
defendants legal reasoning and theory so that a clear and defined legal obligation of the defendant to
comply with existing state statutes relative to his constitutional Right to travel is understood and
established as a matter of law for the accused and the public at large.
Respectfully submitted,

Address
City, State
Phone
DECLARATION
I declare under penalty of perjury, under the laws of the United States of America, that the
foregoing is true and correct, to the best of my knowledge and belief.
Executed on this day of , in the Year of our Lord, 2002.

(Your full Name),
NOTORIAL
COUNTY OF (NAME)
STATE OF (NAME)
On this day of , 2002, (Your Name) did personally appear before me, identified by (form of
identification) and did take and Oath and stated that the above Motion to Abate is true and
correct to the best of his knowledge and belief. Subscribed by me the below identified Notary
Public in and for the State of (Name), on the date first above written.
(Name of Notary) Seal
My Commission expires:
I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the above Memorandum of Law was mailed to the
(State Name) State Attorney, by U.S. Mail on the day of (Month) , 2000 to the following
address.
Name of Agent or Counsel:

Address:
City
State of (Name)
(Your Full Name), Defendant

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT OF THE
(NUMBER) JUDICIAL CIRCUIT
FOR THE (REGION) DISTRICT OF (STATE)
IN RE:
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
plaintiff,
CASE NO.
vs.
(Your Name) and (Wife) NOTICE OF ABATEMENT

United States nationals,
defendants.
/
DEFENDANT NOTICE TO ABATE

AND MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT
Defendant, (Your Name), files this Notice to abate plaintiff’s suit for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction, as authorized by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1). Defendant asks the Court
to take judicial notice of the fact that he appears without Assistance of Counsel, is not schooled
in the law and legal procedures, and is not licensed to practice law. Therefore his pleadings must
be read and construed liberally. See Haines vs. Kerner, 404 U.S. at 520 (1980); Birl vs. Estelle,
660 F.2d 592 (1981). Further defendant believes that this court has a responsibility and legal
duty to protect any and all of the accused constitutional and statutory rights [see: United States
vs. Lee, 106 U.S. 196, 220 (1882) and Yick Wo vs. Hopkins, 118 U.S. 356, 370 (1887)].
A. INTRODUCTION
1. The UNITED STATES OF AMERICA is the plaintiff. (Your Full Name) is the defendant.
2. Plaintiff sued defendant for (state basis for suit).
3. The court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the plaintiff’s suit; therefore, the suit should be abated.
B. ARGUMENT
4. This courts jurisdiction is restricted to cases wherein there has been no deprivation of constitutional
rights of the parties. The plaintiff has deprived the defendant of his due process rights; the
administrative agency has proceeded without statutory and regulatory authority, and the administrative
agency has deprived the defendant of substantive due process rights; the court is deprived of subject
matter jurisdiction.
Due Process Requirements relating to Grand Jury arrays and Indictment
5. Defendant now summarizes indispensable or "substantive" elements of Federal criminal
prosecution, which constitutes applicable due process rights in the instant matter, which were not
afforded the defendant.
(a) The criminal prosecution process may commence if and only if there is an affidavit of criminal
complaint submitted under oath in a probable cause hearing. (Rule 3, F.R.Crim.P.)
(b) A committing magistrate judge must issue a warrant or summons after finding probable cause.
(Rule 4, F.R. Crim. P.)
(c) The defendant may be arrested and "returned" by the appropriate Federal authority. (Rule 4, F.R.
Crim. P.)
(d) The defendant then has an initial appearance at which he is asked to enter a plea, and bond, if any,
is set. If the offense is a felony offense, a United States Magistrate Judge may not ask for or enter a
plea. The defendant is entitled to a preliminary hearing unless an indictment or information (against a
corporation) is returned prior to a preliminary hearing. In the event that the defendant is "joined" by a
grand jury under Rule 8 and has not previously been arrested, the Federal criminal prosecution process
begins here, and the defendant is entitled to a preliminary hearing. (Rule 5, F.R.Crim.P.)
(e) If the defendant exercises his right to a preliminary hearing, he has the opportunity to cross-
examine adverse witnesses and he may introduce his own evidence, whether the evidence is via a
witness or is documentary evidence. (Rule 5.1, F.R.Crim.P.) The preliminary examination may be
bypassed only in the event that the defendant waives the right, or indictment issues subsequent to the
initial appearance. In the Federal system, corporations may be prosecuted by information.
(f) The defendant, or his counsel, has the right to challenge array of the grand jury pool and voir dire
individual grand jury candidates prior to the grand jury being sworn in. (Rule 6(b), F.R.Crim.P. and 28
U.S.C. §1867).
(g) In the course of its investigation, based on an affidavit of complaint and the finding of probable
cause, a grand jury may by "presentment" issue additional indictments and/or join additional
defendants in compliance with provisions of Rule 8, F.R.Crim.P.
(h) The grand jury must return indictments in open court, and the grand jury foreman must file a letter
or certificate of concurrence with the clerk of the court. (Rule 6(f), F.R.Crim.P.)
(i) A warrant or summons may issue against additional parties joined to an original cause of action
subsequent to grand jury deliberation and return of indictment in accordance with Rule 6. (Rule 9,
F.R.Crim.P.)
(j) After all previous conditions are met, as applicable, a defendant may be arraigned and called on to
plead. (Rules 10 and 11, F.R.Crim.P.)
C. Conclusion
6. Defendant now makes this timely notice to abate under authority of 28 U.S.C. § 1867(e).
7. Pursuant to Rule 6(b) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, defendant must be notified of a
grand jury investigation. In the instant Matter defendant was not notified of any grand jury being
seated in which he was the target of the investigation. Therefore, defendant did not have the
opportunity to challenge the jury pool and individual jurors seated on the grand jury as required by
FRCP 6(b)(1) and (2); the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction and should abate the plaintiff’s
claims.
(Your Full Name), Defendant in Error

IN RE:
plaintiff,
CASE NO.
vs.
(Your Name) and (Wife) MEMORANDUM OF LAW

American nationals,
defendants.
/
DEFENDANTS MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF NOTICE TO ABATE FOR

LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION
1. The only legitimate procedure for the government to get around proper process as prescribed in
Rules 3 through 11 is if someone is joined to an existing investigation in accordance with Rule 8.
In other words, there must first be an affidavit of complaint against someone, as required by Rule
3, then the process followed through Rule 5, and usually Rule 5.1, prior to a grand jury being
selected and seated for that particular case. Thereafter, related offenses can be added, and new
defendants named, in accordance with Rule 8. Then and only then does the Rule 9 warrant apply.
2. Defendant understands that at 28 USC § 2072(b) Federal Rules of Procedure may not deprive any
one of substantive rights. Poetically speaking rights secured by the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and
Ninth Amendments are carved in stone and defendant further suggests that they are cumulative.
3. Rights are not independent or elective unless someone knowingly chooses to forfeit one of the
specified rights. If one of the constitutionally secured rights is bypassed, administrative offices
including the Department of Justice, U.S. Attorney and courts of the United States lack or lose
subject matter jurisdiction. This is the Essence of the Fifth Amendment guarantee that no person
shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without "due process of law."
4. Not only does there have to be law, which compels or prohibits any given activity, that law is usually
complex, involving more than one statute, but procedure or process must conform to that
prescribed by the "Constitution and laws of the United States." The Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and
Ninth Amendments secure mandatory minimum requirements of due process.
5. The Fourth Amendment requirement for probable cause, "supported by Oath or affirmation," is the
demarcation point: "… no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or
affirmation…"
6. There must be 1) oath or affirmation, 3) complaint, that sets out the key elements of a crime and 3)
committing magistrate must issue a warrant based on the complaint. Unless or until these three
threshold requirements are met, there can be no Federal prosecution.
7. Defendant for illustration will use Federal tax law as an example. At 18 USC § 3045 we find
authorization for who may set the criminal prosecution process in motion via an affidavit of
complaint:
"Warrants of arrest for violations of internal revenue laws may be issued by United States
magistrates upon the complaint of a United States attorney, assistant United States
attorney, collector, or deputy collector of internal revenue or revenue agent, or private
citizen; but no such warrant of arrest shall be issued upon the complaint of a private
citizen unless first approved in writing by a United States attorney."
8. This Code section needs an amount of qualification: Whoever makes the affidavit of complaint must
have personal knowledge of the facts. In other words, the U.S. Attorney cannot make the
affidavit of complaint unless he has personally been involved with the investigation process and
has had hands-on involvement with securing and examination of evidence.

9. Defendant’s question, then, is whether or not the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure preserve this
constitutionally secured right. We find that they do. Rule 3 of the F.R. Crim. P., is specific:
"Rule 3. The Complaint
"The Complaint is a written statement of the essential facts constituting the offense charged. It shall
be made upon oath before a magistrate judge."
Rules 3 through 9 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure preserve the proper procedural
sequence of the Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Amendments. If any portion of any of these rules, i.e.,
of any of the three amendments, is defective, Courts of the United States lose subject matter
jurisdiction.
10. In our present environment the first most people know of a Federal investigation is when they
receive a "summons" in the mail, with something akin to an "indictment" attached, or they are
arrested on a warrant with an indictment attached. Occasionally a U.S. Attorney, the Criminal
Division of the Internal Revenue Service, the FBI or another Federal agency will notify the
Target of an investigation, and sometimes the Target will be offered the opportunity to testify to
a grand jury that may be considering an indictment. Defendant was never notified.
11. Whether arrested or summoned, the target's first court appearance is at the alleged arraignment
after the grand jury has supposedly issued an indictment. At the hearing, the defendant is asked
to enter a plea. If the defendant refuses to enter a plea, the presiding magistrate, usually a United
States Magistrate Judge, enters a plea for him. After that ritual, the U.S. Magistrate Judge will
either set or deny bond.
12. Where is the affidavit of complaint, probable cause hearing, et cetera?
13. Has the defendant had the opportunity to examine witnesses and evidence against him, call his
own witnesses and present contravening documentary or other evidence?
14. As we will see, current Federal prosecution practice for all practical purposes trashes Fourth,
Fifth, Sixth Amendment, and Ninth due process rights and it employs the services of quasi-
judicial officers who don't have lawful authority to do what they're doing. In sum, current
Federal prosecution practice amounts to a criminal conspiracy among administrative and judicial
officers.
15. Federal criminal prosecution must begin with the affidavit of criminal complaint required by the
Fourth Amendment and Rule 3 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. Without the affidavit
of complaint, courts of the United States do not have subject matter jurisdiction, so whatever
ensuing verdict, judgment and/or sentence there might be, is a nullity, it is void, and for this
reason alone this action should be vacated.
16. We then go to Rule 4, the probable cause hearing. Warrants for seizure and/or arrest must issue
following a probable cause hearing.
17. The Federal courts are presently relying on Rule 9(a), "Warrant or Summons Upon Indictment or
Information". Rule 9(a), in relative part, stipulates that;
"Upon the request of the attorney for the government the court shall issue a warrant
for each defendant named in an information supported by a showing of probable
cause under oath as is required by Rule 4(a), or in an indictment … More than one
warrant or summons may issue for the same defendant … When a defendant is
arrested with a warrant or given a summons appears initially before a magistrate
judge, the magistrate judge shall proceed in accordance with the applicable divisions
of Rule 5."
18. The government then jumps to Rule 10, the arraignment, rather than dropping back to Rule 5, as
Rule 9 specifies. Rule 5 is "Initial Appearance Before the Magistrate Judge."
19. Grand juries have certain investigative powers. If in the course of investigating a case that is
lawfully before them, the grand jury members may find evidence sufficient to recommend
additional charges, or name additional defendants, by way of Presentment.
20. But if the original complaint against the primary defendant for a specific offense is not before it,
the grand jury has no basis for initiating any investigation. There must be original probable cause
determined by a committing magistrate, with the finding of probable cause being predicated on
the complaint and affidavit.
Rule 6(b)(1) to demonstrates this:
"(1) Challenges. The attorney for the government or a defendant who has been held to answer
in the district court may challenge the array of jurors on the ground that the grand jury
was not selected, drawn or summoned in accordance with law, and may challenge an
individual juror on the ground that the juror is not legally qualified. Challenges shall be
made before the administration of the oath to the jurors and shall be tried by the court."
21. The right to challenge grand jury array (composition) and individual jurors is antecedent to
individual jurors being administered the oath required prior to a grand jury being formally
seated.
22. The government attorney and the defendant, or the defendant's Counsel both has the right to
challenge the array and disqualify grand jury candidates prior to the grand jury being seated. If
this right has been denied, there is a simple solution at Rule 6(b)(2):
"(2) Motion to Dismiss. A motion to dismiss the indictment may be based on

objections to array or on the lack of legal qualification of an individual juror, if not
previously determined upon challenge. It shall be made in the manner prescribed in
28 USC § 1867(e) and shall be granted under the conditions prescribed in that statute.
An indictment shall not be dismissed on the ground that one or more members of the
grand jury were not legally qualified if it appears from the record kept pursuant to
subdivision (c) of this rule that 12 or more jurors, after deducting the number not
legally qualified, concurred in finding the indictment."
23. Rule 6(c) requires the grand jury foreman to record the vote then file a letter or certificate of
concurrence with the clerk of the court.
24. If the original defendant or his counsel did not have the opportunity to challenge the grand jury
array (composition selection process) and individual grand jurors prior to the grand jury being
seated, they're all disqualified as the qualification process is among the defendant's
constitutionally secured due process rights.

25. By consulting Chapter 121 of Title 28 generally, and 28 USC §1867 specifically, we find that
there is no distinction in the voir dire examination and other jury qualification process for grand
juries or petit trial juries:
"(a) In criminal cases, before the voir dire examination begins, or within seven days
after the defendant discovered or could have discovered, by the exercise of diligence,
the grounds therefore, whichever is earlier, the defendant may move to dismiss the
indictment or stay the proceedings against him on the ground of substantial failure to
comply with the provisions of this title in selecting the grand or petit jury."
26. If a defendant doesn't know a grand jury is investigating him, he doesn't have the opportunity to
challenge the grand jury array, or individual grand jurors. Consequently, he has been deprived of
substantive due process, which is expressly prohibited by 28 U.S.C. §2072(b).
27. We have an adversarial judicial system in this country. All parties to any given action, the
government included, stand on equal ground. The system isn't set up for the convenience of
government. In fact, government always has the burden of proof, whether in civil or criminal
matters.
28. The defendant has the right to challenge the qualifications and competency of everyone involved
in the prosecution process, inclusive of grand and petit jurors selected from "peers" who
ultimately have responsibility for determining indictable offenses and/or final liability. If and
when government personnel deprive the Citizen of any of these rights, constitutionally secured
due process of law is abridged and the courts lose subject matter jurisdiction.
Now consider Rule 6(f), F.R. Crim. P.
"(f) Finding and Return of Indictment. An indictment may be found only upon
concurrence of 12 or more jurors. The indictment shall be returned by the grand jury
to a federal magistrate judge in open court. If a complaint or information is pending
against the defendant and 12 jurors do not concur in finding an indictment, the
foreperson shall so report to a federal magistrate judge in writing forthwith."
29. This section of Rule 6 specifies foundational necessities: Federal government may prosecute
felony crimes only on a valid affidavit of complaint that has been presented in a probable cause
hearing (Rules 3 and 4).
30. Only corporations can be prosecuted via "information".
31. In the context of Rule 6(f), we see the antecedent affidavit of complaint and probable cause
hearing preserved in the second sentence: The grand jury may proceed only on "complaint" or
"information" that has previously been formally processed.
32. If the grand jury issues an indictment, the return must be made in open court to a magistrate
judge.
33. The return should appear on the case docket, and a transcript of the hearing should be available.
A return of an indictment is the same as the petit trial jury return of a verdict.
34. In practice, any given grand jury returns several indictments at once. However, when defendant
understood the Indictment Process, it is clear that the grand jury pool may be held over for
several months, but that any given grand jury is empanelled to consider only one charge or set of
charges in related cases.
35. To date, defendants haven't found where an indictment on any single case or set of related cases
has been returned in open court and a transcript of the proceeding is available.
36. Rule 8 governs limits of the reach of any given grand jury, Rule 8 being "Joinder of Offenses and
of Defendants."
37. During any court or jury session, any given juror might sit on one or more grand or petit juries,
but each jury has limited subject matter jurisdiction.

38. Where the Grand Jury is concerned, it may proceed only from an original Complaint where
probable cause has been found to issue additional indictments and/or name additional defendants
where the Crimes;
"…are of the same or similar character or are based on the same act or transaction or
on two or more acts or transactions connected together or constituting parts of a
common scheme or plan." (Rule 8(a)) Rule 8(b) specifies criteria for naming
additional defendants.
Here is where defendants’ reservation of rights in Rule 9(a) comes in:
"When a defendant arrested with a warrant or given a summons appears initially

before a magistrate judge, the magistrate judge shall proceed in accordance with the
applicable subdivisions of Rule 5."
We will first consider Rule 5(b) and the first portion of Rule 5(c):
"(b) Misdemeanors and Other Petty Offenses. If the charge against the defendant is a
misdemeanor or other petty offense triable by a United States magistrate judge under 18
U.S.C. §3401, the magistrate judge shall proceed in accordance with Rule 58.
"(c) Offenses not triable by the United States Magistrate Judge. If the charge against the
defendant is not triable by the United States magistrate judge, the defendant shall not be
called upon to plead…
39. What is now known as the United States Magistrate Judge was originally a National Park
Commissioner. The name of the office has changed, but the nature of the office hasn't. This
is an administrative, not a judicial office. It's equivalent to what used to be the police court
magistrate.
40. Today the only offenses triable by a United States Magistrate Judge are traffic violations and
other petty offenses committed on military reservations, in national parks and forests, etc., under
regulations promulgated by the Department of Defense and the Department of the Interior.
41. United States Magistrate Judges in the several States have "venue" jurisdiction solely over
offenses committed on Federal enclaves where United States Government has exclusive or
concurrent jurisdiction ceded by one of the several States.

42. As Rule 5(c) specifies, they cannot even ask for, much less make a plea for a defendant charged
with a felony crime. This prohibition is effective under Rules 5, 9, 10 and 11.
43. When and if a United States Magistrate Judge asks for, or makes, a plea for a defendant in a
felony case, he has usurped power vested in Article III judicial officer of the United States.
44. Where this quasi-judicial officer exceeds authority Congress vested in him by law, the United
States loses subject matter jurisdiction and there are grounds to pursue lawful remedies, both
civil and criminal.
45. Government officials, regardless of capacity, enjoy the cloak of immunity only to the outer
reaches of their lawful authority. The notion of blanket judicial or any other absolute immunity is
nothing more than a convenient fiction.
Rule 5(c), second paragraph, also specifies that;
"A defendant is entitled to a preliminary examination, unless waived, when charged

with any offense, other than a petty offense, which is to be tried by a judge of the
district court."
46. It is useful to understand the term "magistrate judge" as opposed to "United States Magistrate
Judge" or "United States magistrate judge."
47. The President of the United States is the nation's highest "magistrate."
48. In other words, the "magistrate" is a ministerial, not a judicial office.
49. All lawful judges function in a magistrate capacity when they preside at probable cause hearings,
initial appearances and the like. In a sense, this is an "extra-judicial" capacity that within proper
context can be vested in or exercised by administrative or judicial officers.
50. The United States Magistrate Judge is an administrative office with quasi-judicial capacity
limited to specific subject matter, where the "district judge" of the United States is vested with
the full range of United States judicial authority, i.e., his extra-judicial capacity as magistrate
judge extends to Federal offenses of all stripes.
51. Essentials of the preliminary hearing or examination are prescribed at Rule 5.1(a) of the Federal
Rules of Criminal Procedure:
"(a) Probable Cause Finding. If from the evidence it appears that there is probable
cause to believe that an offense has been committed and that the defendant committed
it, the federal magistrate judge shall forthwith hold the defendant to answer in district
court. The finding of probable cause may be based upon hearsay evidence in whole or
in part. The defendant may cross-examine adverse witnesses and may introduce
evidence…"
Now we go back to Rule 5(c) second paragraph:
"A defendant is entitled to a preliminary examination, unless waived, when charged

with any offense, other than a petty offense, which is to be tried by a judge of the
district court. If the defendant waives preliminary examination, the magistrate judge
shall forthwith hold the defendant to answer in the district court. If the defendant does
not waive the preliminary examination, the magistrate judge shall schedule a
preliminary examination. Such examination shall be held within a reasonable time but
in any event not later than 10 days following the initial appearance if the defendant is
in custody and no later than 20 days if the defendant is not in custody, provided,
however, that the preliminary examination shall not be held if the defendant is
indicted or if an information against the defendant is filed in district court before the
date set for the preliminary examination…"
52. If a defendant is joined to an indictment under Rule 8, he has the right to a preliminary hearing
under Rule 5.1. This assures his opportunity to challenge witnesses and present evidence before
being subjected to the trial process. The right is particularly important where government
prosecutors routinely play "let's make a deal" to secure incriminating testimony from
questionable witnesses.
53. It appears that the Department of Justice and United States Attorneys are convening grand juries
under auspices of the "special grand jury" provisions in Chapter 216 (§§ 331-334) of Title 18.
54. However, this is misapplication of law as special grand jury investigation authority extends only
to criminal activity involving government personnel and the grand jury is limited to issuing
reports. Defendants and prospective defendants are afforded the opportunity to rebut or correct
the reports prior to public release.
55. Although Evidence unearthed by the Special Grand Jury may be used as the basis of criminal
prosecution, the Special Grand Jury does not have indictment authority.
56. It appears that the first steps toward securing secret indictments were taken during prohibition
days to shield grand jury members from organized crime reprisal. Although secret indictments
were, and are, patently unconstitutional, the extreme remedy in the midst of highly volatile and
dangerous circumstances was rationalized in the midst of what amounted to domestic war with
organized crime. Unfortunately, as other such rationalizations, those who found the extraordinary
process convenient incorporated it as routine practice.
57. Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure preserves causes to challenge judgments.
They are as follow:
 Mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect;
 Newly discovered evidence which by due diligence could not have been discovered in time to move for a new
trial under Rule 59(b);
 Fraud whether heretofore denominated intrinsic or extrinsic, misrepresentation, or other misconduct of an
adverse party;
 The judgment is void;
 The judgment has been satisfied, released, or discharged, or a prior judgment upon which it is based has been
reversed or otherwise vacated, or it is no longer equitable that the judgment should have prospective
application; or
 Any other reason justifying relief from the operation of the judgment.
The rule then specifies;

"The motion that shall be made within a reasonable time, and for reasons (1), (2), and (3) not
more than one year after the judgment, order, or proceeding was entered or taken. A motion
under this subdivision (b) does not affect the finality of a judgment or suspend its operation.
This rule does not limit the power of the court to entertain an independent action or relieve a
party from a judgment, order, or proceeding, or to grant relief to a defendant not actually
personally notified as provided in Title 28, USC § 1655 or to set aside a judgment, for fraud
upon the court. Writs of coram nobis, bills in the nature of a bill of review, are abolished, and
the procedure for obtaining any relief from a judgment shall be by motion as prescribed in
these rules or by an independent action."
58. There are two keys in Rule 60(b). First, Rule 60(b)(4), where the "judgment is void," opens the
door to vacating a judgment at any time, and second, the void judgment may be attacked "by
motion as prescribed in these rules or by an independent action."
59. A judgment is void where the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction.
60. The court lacks subject matter jurisdiction when and if the administrative agency has proceeded
without statutory and regulatory authority, or the administrative agency has deprived the
defendant of substantive due process rights.
61. Where the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction, the judgment is void; it has no lawful effect.
62. The defendant may proceed by motion at any time, without the encumbrance of time limitation,
or may initiate collateral attack via the extraordinary writs, i.e., an independent action.
Respectfully Submitted,
(Your Name), Defendant in Error
I , sent via the U.S. Postal service, by 1st class mail, the foregoing Notice of Abatement and
Memorandum of Law in Support, to (Name), Assistant United States Attorney for the Plaintiff
United States, at (Address, City, State, zip), on the day of (Month) 2002.
(Your Name)

IN RE:
plaintiff,
CASE NO.
vs.
(Your Name) and (Wife) NOTICE OF ABATEMENT

American nationals,
defendants.
/
DEFENDANT NOTICE TO ABATE

AND MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT
Defendant, (Your Name), files this Notice to abate plaintiff’s suit for lack of subject matter
jurisdiction, as authorized by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1). Defendant asks the Court
to take judicial notice of the fact that he appears without counsel, is not schooled in the law and
legal procedures, and is not licensed to practice law. Therefore his pleadings must be read and
construed liberally. See Haines v. Kerner, 404 US at 520 (1980); Birl v. Estelle, 660 F.2d 592
(1981). Further defendant believes that this court has a responsibility and legal duty to protect
any and all of the accused constitutional and statutory rights. See United States v. Lee, 106 US
196,220 [1882]
A. INTRODUCTION
1.The UNITED STATES OF AMERICA is the plaintiff. (Your Name) is the defendant.
2.Plaintiff sued defendant for (state basis for suit).
3.The court lacks subject matter jurisdiction over the plaintiff’s suit; therefore, the suit should be abated.
B. ARGUMENT
1. This courts jurisdiction is restricted to cases wherein there has been no deprivation of constitutional rights
of the parties. The plaintiff has deprived the defendant of his due process rights; the administrative
agency has proceeded without statutory and regulatory authority, and the administrative agency has
deprived the defendant of substantive due process rights; the court is deprived of subject matter
jurisdiction.
Due process requirements relating to grand jury arrays and indictment
2. Defendant now summarizes indispensable or "substantive" elements of Federal criminal prosecution,
which constitutes applicable due process rights in the instant matter, which were not afforded the
defendant.
(a) The criminal prosecution process may commence if and only if there is an affidavit of criminal
complaint submitted under oath in a probable cause hearing. (Rule 3, F.R.Crim.P.)
(b) A committing magistrate judge must issue a warrant or summons after finding probable cause. (Rule 4,
F.R.Crim.P.)
(c) The defendant may be arrested and "returned" by the appropriate Federal authority. (Rule 4,
F.R.Crim.P.)
(d) The defendant then has an initial appearance at which he is asked to enter a plea, and bond, if any, is
set. If the offense is a felony offense, a United States Magistrate Judge may not ask for or enter a plea.
The defendant is entitled to a preliminary hearing unless an indictment or information (against a
corporation) is returned prior to a preliminary hearing. In the event that the defendant is "joined" by a
grand jury under Rule 8 and has not previously been arrested, the Federal criminal prosecution process
begins here, and the defendant is entitled to a preliminary hearing. (Rule 5, F.R.Crim.P.)
(e) If the defendant exercises his right to a preliminary hearing, he has the opportunity to cross-examine
adverse witnesses and he may introduce his own evidence, whether the evidence is via a witness or is
documentary evidence. (Rule 5.1, F.R.Crim.P.) The preliminary examination may be bypassed only in
the event that the defendant waives the right, or indictment issues subsequent to the initial appearance.
In the Federal system, corporations may be prosecuted by information.
(f) The defendant, or his counsel, has the right to challenge array of the grand jury pool and voir dire
individual grand jury candidates prior to the grand jury being sworn in. (Rule 6(b), F.R.Crim.P. and 28
U.S.C. § 1867).
(g) In the course of its investigation, based on an affidavit of complaint and the finding of probable cause,
a grand jury may by "presentment" issue additional indictments and/or join additional defendants in
compliance with provisions of Rule 8, F.R.Crim.P.
(h) The grand jury must return indictments in open court, and the grand jury foreman must file a letter or
certificate of concurrence with the clerk of the court. (Rule 6(f), F.R.Crim.P.)
(i) A warrant or summons may issue against additional parties joined to an original cause of action
subsequent to grand jury deliberation and return of indictment in accordance with Rule 6. (Rule 9,
F.R.Crim.P.)
(j) After all previous conditions are met, as applicable, a defendant may be arraigned and called on to
plead. (Rules 10 and 11, F.R.Crim.P.)
C. Conclusion
6. Defendant now makes this timely notice to abate under authority of 28 U.S.C. § 1867(e).
7. Pursuant to Rule 6(b) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, defendant must be notified of a grand
jury investigation. In the instant matter defendant was not notified of any grand jury being seated in
which he was the target of the investigation. Therefore, defendant did not have the opportunity to
challenge the jury pool and individual jurors seated on the grand jury as required by FRCP 6(b)(1) and
(2); the court lacks subject matter jurisdiction and should abate the plaintiff’s claims.
(Your Name), Defendant in Error
DEFENDANT’S in Error MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF NOTICE TO ABATE FOR

LACK OF SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION
63. The only legitimate procedure for the government to get around proper process as prescribed in
Rules 3 through 11 is if someone is joined to an existing investigation in accordance with Rule 8.
In other words, there must first be an affidavit of complaint against someone, as required by Rule
3, then the process followed through Rule 5, and usually Rule 5.1, prior to a grand jury being
selected and seated for that particular case. Thereafter, related offenses can be added, and new
defendants named, in accordance with Rule 8. Then and only then does the Rule 9 warrant apply.
64. Defendant understands that at 28 USC § 2072(b) Federal rules of procedure may not deprive
anyone of substantive rights. Poetically speaking rights secured by the Fourth, Fifth, Sixth, and
Ninth Amendments are carved in stone and defendant further suggests that they are cumulative.
65. Rights are not independent or elective unless someone knowingly chooses to forfeit one of the
specified rights. If one of the constitutionally secured rights is bypassed, administrative offices
including the Department of Justice, U.S. Attorney and courts of the United States lack or lose
subject matter jurisdiction. This is the essence of the Fifth Amendment guarantee that no person
shall be deprived of life, liberty or property without "due process of law."
66. Not only does there have to be law, which compels or prohibits any given activity, that law is
usually complex, involving more than one statute, but procedure or process must conform to that
prescribed by the "Constitution and laws of the United States." The Fourth, Fifth and Sixth
Amendments secure mandatory minimum requirements of due process.
67. The Fourth Amendment requirement for probable cause, "supported by Oath or affirmation," is
the demarcation point: "… no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath
or affirmation…"
68. There must be 1) oath or affirmation, 3) complaint, that sets out the key elements of a crime and
3) committing magistrate must issue a warrant based on the complaint. Unless or until these three
threshold requirements are met, there can be no Federal prosecution.
69. Defendant for illustration will use Federal tax law as an example. At 18 USC § 3045 we find
authorization for who may set the criminal prosecution process in motion via an affidavit of
complaint:
"Warrants of arrest for violations of internal revenue laws may be issued by United States
magistrates upon the complaint of a United States attorney, assistant United States
attorney, collector, or deputy collector of internal revenue or revenue agent, or private
citizen; but no such warrant of arrest shall be issued upon the complaint of a private
citizen unless first approved in writing by a United States attorney."
70. This Code section needs an amount of qualification: Whoever makes the affidavit of complaint
must have personal knowledge of the facts. In other words, the U.S. Attorney cannot make the
affidavit of complaint unless he has personally been involved with the investigation process and
has had hands-on involvement with securing and examination of evidence.

71. Defendant’s question, then, is whether or not the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure preserve
this constitutionally secured right. We find that they do. Rule 3 of the FR Crim. P., is specific:
"Rule 3. The Complaint
"The Complaint is a written statement of the essential facts constituting the offense charged. It shall
be made upon oath before a magistrate judge."
Rules 3 through 9 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure preserve the proper procedural
sequence of the Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Amendments. If any portion of any of these rules, i.e.,
of any of the three amendments, is defective, Courts of the United States lose subject matter
jurisdiction.
72. In our present environment the first most people know of a Federal Investigation is when they
receive a "summons" in the mail, with something akin to an "indictment" attached, or they are
arrested on a warrant with an indictment attached. Occasionally a U.S. Attorney, the Criminal
Division of the Internal Revenue Service, the FBI or another Federal agency will notify the target
of an investigation, and sometimes the target will be offered the opportunity to testify to a grand
jury that may be considering an indictment. Defendant was never notified.
73. Whether arrested or summoned, the target's first court appearance is at the alleged arraignment
after the grand jury has supposedly issued an indictment. At the hearing, the defendant is asked
to enter a plea. If the defendant refuses to enter a plea, the presiding magistrate, usually a United
States Magistrate Judge, enters a plea for him. After that ritual, the U.S. Magistrate Judge will
either set or deny bond.
74. Where is the affidavit of complaint, probable cause hearing, et al?
75. Has the defendant had the opportunity to examine witnesses and evidence against him, call his
own witnesses and present contravening documentary or other evidence?
76. As we will see, current Federal prosecution practice for all practical purposes trashes Fourth,
Fifth, Sixth, and Ninth Amendment due process rights and it employs the services of quasi-
judicial officers who don't have lawful authority to do what they're doing. In sum, current
Federal prosecution practice amounts to a criminal conspiracy among administrative and judicial
officers.
77. Federal criminal prosecution must begin with the affidavit of criminal complaint required by the
Fourth Amendment and Rule 3 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. Without the affidavit
of complaint, courts of the United States do not have subject matter jurisdiction, so whatever
ensuing verdict, judgment and/or sentence there might be, is a nullity, it is void, and for this
reason alone this action should be vacated.
78. We then go to Rule 4, the probable cause hearing. Warrants for seizure and/or arrest must issue
following a probable cause hearing.
79. The Federal courts are presently relying on Rule 9(a), "Warrant or Summons Upon Indictment or
Information". Rule 9(a), in relative part, stipulates that;
"Upon the request of the attorney for the government the court shall issue a warrant for each
defendant named in an information supported by a showing of probable cause under oath
as is required by Rule 4(a), or in an indictment … More than one warrant or summons
may issue for the same defendant … When a defendant is arrested with a warrant or
given a summons appears initially before a magistrate judge, the magistrate judge shall
proceed in accordance with the applicable divisions of Rule 5."
80. The government then jumps to Rule 10, the arraignment, rather than dropping back to Rule 5, as
Rule 9 specifies. Rule 5 is "Initial Appearance Before the Magistrate Judge."
81. Grand juries have certain investigative powers. If in the course of investigating a case that is
lawfully before them, the grand jury members may find evidence sufficient to recommend
additional charges, or name additional defendants, by way of presentment.
82. But if the original complaint against the primary defendant for a specific offense is not before it,
the grand jury has no basis for initiating any investigation. There must be original probable cause
determined by a committing magistrate, with the finding of probable cause being predicated on
the complaint and affidavit.

Rule 6(b)(1) to demonstrates this:
"(1) Challenges. The attorney for the government or a defendant who has been held to answer
in the district court may challenge the array of jurors on the ground that the grand jury
was not selected, drawn or summoned in accordance with law, and may challenge an
individual juror on the ground that the juror is not legally qualified. Challenges shall be
made before the administration of the oath to the jurors and shall be tried by the court."
83. The right to challenge grand jury array (composition) and individual jurors is antecedent to
individual jurors being administered the oath required prior to a grand jury being formally
seated.
84. The government attorney and the defendant, or the defendant's Counsel both has the right to
challenge the array and disqualify grand jury candidates prior to the grand jury being seated. If
this right has been denied, there is a simple solution at Rule 6(b)(2):
"(2) Motion to Dismiss. A motion to dismiss the indictment may be based on objections to
array or on the lack of legal qualification of an individual juror, if not previously
determined upon challenge. It shall be made in the manner prescribed in 28 USC §
1867(e) and shall be granted under the conditions prescribed in that statute. An
indictment shall not be dismissed on the ground that one or more members of the grand
jury were not legally qualified if it appears from the record kept pursuant to subdivision
(c) of this rule that 12 or more jurors, after deducting the number not legally qualified,
concurred in finding the indictment."
85. Rule 6(c) requires the grand jury foreman to record the vote then file a letter or certificate of
concurrence with the clerk of the court.
86. If the original defendant or his counsel did not have the Opportunity to challenge the Grand Jury
array (composition selection process) and individual grand jurors prior to the grand jury being
seated, they're all disqualified as the qualification process is among the defendant's
constitutionally secured due process rights.
87. By consulting Chapter 121 of Title 28 generally, and 28 USC § 1867 specifically, we find that
there is no distinction in the voir dire examination and other jury qualification process for grand
juries or petit trial juries:

"(a) In criminal cases, before the voir dire examination begins, or within seven days after the
defendant discovered or could have discovered, by the exercise of diligence, the grounds
therefore, whichever is earlier, the defendant may move to dismiss the indictment or stay
the proceedings against him on the ground of substantial failure to comply with the
provisions of this title in selecting the grand or petit jury."
88. If a defendant doesn't know a grand jury is investigating him, he doesn't have the opportunity to
challenge the grand jury array, or individual grand jurors. Consequently, he has been deprived of
substantive due process, which is expressly prohibited by 28 U.S.C. § 2072(b).
89. We have an adversarial judicial system in this country. All Parties to any given action, the
government included, stand on equal ground. The system isn't set up for the convenience of
government. In fact, government always has the burden of proof, whether in civil or criminal
matters.
90. The defendant has the right to challenge the qualifications and competency of everyone involved
in the prosecution process, inclusive of grand and petit jurors selected from "peers" who
ultimately have responsibility for determining indictable offenses and/or final liability. If and
when government personnel deprive the Citizen of any of these rights, constitutionally secured
due process of law is abridged and the courts lose subject matter jurisdiction.
Now consider Rule 6(f), F.R. Crim. P.
"(f) Finding and Return of Indictment. An indictment may be found only upon concurrence of
12 or more jurors. The indictment shall be returned by the grand jury to a federal
magistrate judge in open court. If a complaint or information is pending against the
defendant and 12 jurors do not concur in finding an indictment, the foreperson shall so
report to a federal magistrate judge in writing forthwith."
91. This section of Rule 6 specifies foundational necessities: Federal government may prosecute
felony crimes only on a valid affidavit of complaint that has been presented in a probable cause
hearing (Rules 3 and 4).
92. Only corporations can be prosecuted via "information".

93. In the context of Rule 6(f), we see the antecedent affidavit of complaint and probable cause
hearing preserved in the second sentence: The grand jury may proceed only on "complaint" or
"information" that has previously been formally processed.
94. If the grand jury issues an indictment, the return must be made in open court to a magistrate
judge.
95. The return should appear on the case docket, and a transcript of the hearing should be available.
A return of an indictment is the same as the petit trial jury return of a verdict.
96. In practice, any given grand jury returns several indictments at once. However, when defendant
understood the indictment process, it is clear that the grand jury pool may be held over for
several months, but that any given grand jury is empanelled to consider only one charge or set of
charges in related cases.
97. To date, defendants haven't found where an indictment on any single case or set of related cases
has been returned in open court and a transcript of the proceeding is available.
98. Rule 8 governs limits of the reach of any given grand jury, Rule 8 being "Joinder of Offenses and
of Defendants."
99. During any court or jury session, any given juror might sit on one or more grand or petit juries,
but each jury has limited subject matter jurisdiction.
100. Where the grand jury is concerned, it may proceed only from an original complaint where
probable cause has been found to issue additional indictments and/or name additional defendants
where the crimes;
"…are of the same or similar character or are based on the same act or transaction or on two or
more acts or transactions connected together or constituting parts of a common scheme or
plan." (Rule 8(a)) Rule 8(b) specifies criteria for naming additional defendants.
Here is where defendants’ reservation of rights in Rule 9(a) comes in:

"When a defendant arrested with a warrant or given a summons appears initially before a
magistrate judge, the magistrate judge shall proceed in accordance with the applicable
subdivisions of Rule 5."
We will first consider Rule 5(b) and the first portion of Rule 5(c):
"(b) Misdemeanors and Other Petty Offenses. If the charge against the defendant is a misdemeanor or
other petty offense triable by a United States magistrate judge under 18 USC § 3401, the
magistrate judge shall proceed in accordance with Rule 58.
"(c) Offenses not triable by the United States Magistrate Judge. If the charge against the defendant is
not triable by the United States magistrate judge, the defendant shall not be called upon to
plead…
101. What is now known as the United States Magistrate Judge was originally a National Park
Commissioner. The name of the office has changed, but the nature of the office hasn't. This is an
administrative, not a judicial office. It's equivalent to what used to be the police court magistrate.
102. Today the only offenses triable by a United States Magistrate Judge are traffic violations and
other petty offenses committed on military reservations, in national parks and forests, etc., under
regulations promulgated by the Department of Defense and the Department of the Interior.
103. United States Magistrate Judges in the several States have "venue" jurisdiction solely over
offenses committed on Federal enclaves where United States Government has exclusive or
concurrent jurisdiction ceded by one of the several States.
104. As Rule 5(c) specifies, they cannot even ask for, much less make a plea for a defendant charged
with a felony crime. This prohibition is effective under Rules 5, 9, 10 and 11.
105. When and if a United States Magistrate Judge asks for, or makes, a plea for a defendant in a
felony case, he has usurped power vested in Article III judicial officer of the United States.
106. Where this quasi-judicial officer exceeds authority Congress vested in him by law, the United
States loses subject matter jurisdiction and there are grounds to pursue lawful remedies, both
civil and criminal.

107. Government officials, regardless of capacity, enjoy the cloak of immunity only to the outer
reaches of their lawful authority. The notion of blanket judicial or any other absolute immunity is
nothing more than a convenient fiction.
Rule 5(c), second paragraph, also specifies that;
"A defendant is entitled to a preliminary examination, unless waived, when charged with any
offense, other than a petty offense, which is to be tried by a judge of the district court."
108. It is useful to understand the term "magistrate judge" as opposed to "United States Magistrate
Judge" or "United States magistrate judge."
109. The President of the United States is the nation's highest "magistrate."
110. In other words, the "magistrate" is a ministerial, not a judicial office.
111. All lawful judges function in a magistrate capacity when they preside at probable cause hearings,
initial appearances and the like. In a sense, this is an "extra-judicial" capacity that within proper
context can be vested in or exercised by administrative or judicial officers.
112. The United States Magistrate Judge is an administrative office with quasi-judicial capacity
limited to specific subject matter, where the "district judge" of the United States is vested with
the full range of United States judicial authority, i.e., his extra-judicial capacity as magistrate
judge extends to Federal offenses of all stripes.
113. Essentials of the preliminary hearing or examination are prescribed at Rule 5.1(a) of the Federal
Rules of Criminal Procedure:
"(a) Probable Cause Finding. If from the evidence it appears that there is probable cause to
believe that an offense has been committed and that the defendant committed it, the
federal magistrate judge shall forthwith hold the defendant to answer in district court. The
finding of probable cause may be based upon hearsay evidence in whole or in part. The
defendant may cross-examine adverse witnesses and may introduce evidence…"
Now we go back to Rule 5(c) second paragraph:

"A defendant is entitled to a preliminary examination, unless waived, when charged with any
offense, other than a petty offense, which is to be tried by a judge of the district court. If
the defendant waives preliminary examination, the magistrate judge shall forthwith hold
the defendant to answer in the district court. If the defendant does not waive the
preliminary examination, the magistrate judge shall schedule a preliminary examination.
Such examination shall be held within a reasonable time but in any event not later than 10
days following the initial appearance if the defendant is in custody and no later than 20
days if the defendant is not in custody, provided, however, that the preliminary
examination shall not be held if the defendant is indicted or if an information against the
defendant is filed in district court before the date set for the preliminary examination…"
114. If a defendant is joined to an indictment under Rule 8, he has the right to a preliminary hearing
under Rule 5.1. This assures his opportunity to challenge witnesses and present evidence before
being subjected to the trial process. The right is particularly important where government
prosecutors routinely play "let's make a deal" to secure incriminating testimony from
questionable witnesses.
115. It appears that the Department of Justice and United States Attorneys are convening grand juries
under auspices of the "special grand jury" provisions in Chapter 216 (§§ 331-334) of Title 18.
116. However, this is misapplication of law as special grand jury investigation authority extends only
to criminal activity involving government personnel and the grand jury is limited to issuing
reports. Defendants and prospective defendants are afforded the opportunity to rebut or correct
the reports prior to public release.
117. Although evidence unearthed by the special grand jury may be used as the basis of criminal
prosecution, the special grand jury does not have indictment authority.
118. It appears that the first steps toward securing secret indictments were taken during prohibition
days to shield grand jury members from organized crime reprisal. Although secret indictments
were and are patently unconstitutional, the extreme remedy in the midst of highly volatile and
dangerous circumstances was rationalized in the midst of what amounted to domestic war with
organized crime. Unfortunately, as other such rationalizations, those who found the extraordinary
process convenient incorporated it as routine practice.
119. Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure preserves causes to challenge judgments.
They are as follow:
 Mistake, inadvertence, surprise, or excusable neglect;
 Newly discovered evidence which by due diligence could not have been discovered in time to move for a new
trial under Rule 59(b);
 Fraud whether heretofore denominated intrinsic or extrinsic, misrepresentation, or other misconduct of an
adverse party;
 The judgment is void;
 The judgment has been satisfied, released, or discharged, or a prior judgment upon which it is based has been
reversed or otherwise vacated, or it is no longer equitable that the judgment should have prospective
application; or
 Any other reason justifying relief from the operation of the judgment.
The rule then specifies;
"The motion that shall be made within a reasonable time, and for reasons (1), (2), and (3) not more than
one year after the judgment, order, or proceeding was entered or taken. A motion under this
subdivision (b) does not affect the finality of a judgment or suspend its operation. This rule does
not limit the power of the court to entertain an independent action or relieve a party from a
judgment, order, or proceeding, or to grant relief to a defendant not actually personally notified as
provided in Title 28, USC § 1655 or to set aside a judgment, for fraud upon the court. Writs of
coram nobis, bills in the nature of a bill of review, are abolished, and the procedure for obtaining
any relief from a judgment shall be by motion as prescribed in these rules or by an independent
action."
120. There are two keys in Rule 60(b). First, Rule 60(b)(4), where the "judgment is void," opens the
door to vacating a judgment at any time, and second, the void judgment may be attacked "by
motion as prescribed in these rules or by an independent action."
121. A judgment is void where the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction.
122. The court lacks subject matter jurisdiction when and if the administrative agency has proceeded
without statutory and regulatory authority, or the administrative agency has deprived the
defendant of substantive due process rights.
123. Where the court lacked subject matter jurisdiction, the judgment is void; it has no lawful effect.
124. The defendant may proceed by motion at any time, without the encumbrance of time limitation,
or may initiate collateral attack via the extraordinary writs, i.e., an independent action.
(Your Full Name), Defendant in Error
I , sent via the U.S. Postal service, by 1st class mail, the foregoing Notice of Abatement
and Memorandum of Law in Support, to (Name), Assistant United States Attorney for the
Plaintiff United States, at (Address, City, State, zip), on the day of (Month) 2002.
(Your Full Name)

The persona has no power to answer defective imperial process. It has no hands to write a
response and no voice, because, as the creation of an imperial power it is an absolute fiction, created
ex nihilo, out of nothing. And, there is nothing that can qualify as a contract to tell you when and
how the persona is created, it is always assumed.
The maxim of law is: “Fictions arise from the law, and not law from fictions.” {20} But, if the
Living man or woman fails to ‘appear’ or answer the process, the courts will issue default
judgment againstthe persona, anyway. Thus, if a Living man or woman wants to stay out
of jail and keep his liberty and property, he had better respond to the process and inform the
court of the errors that arealways there.
With abatements, one responds without ‘appearing’ and process is not perfected on a persona
until the court issues a Warrant. The Living man or woman Man, however, is severed from the
persona by the abatement, which is the only response that answers imperial process and stops
default judgment against the Living man or woman Man, provided he has not traversed his case
by writing something stupid in the abatement (UCC codes, filing it in the court or removing
Christ). This is the reason why, technically, Non-Living man or woman cannot use pleas in
abatements.
This may be difficult for some to swallow, but in more than two hundred yearsof
Supreme Court decisions from the Runkle case (1799) to the present, which state, the laws ofthe
nation pre-suppose Living man or woman ity – upon which they depend. Pleas in abatements are
therefore,a specifically Living man or woman remedy.
When a Non-Living man or woman asks whether they may use Living man or woman
premises in an abatement,the Maxim of Law rules, “No man warring for God should be troubled
by secular business.”{21}
To continue, once an abatement is served, one must not appear until plaintiff answers
the abatement - lawfully, which has never happened to an abator to date. Such an appearance
will set aside the abatement and grant jurisdiction to the court over the persona
It’s nerve racking when one serves an abatement against imperial powers and one’s court date
passes without his making an appearance. But, trust in God, the abatement will not be answered
properly and will go to default. Then, one serves default against plaintiff and the matter becomes
Res Judicata, i.e., final judgment has been made. Imperial process goes to default for the same
reasons that the imperial court will grant default judgment if one fails to appear and answer an
imperial plaintiff s process. (See, “Response Tactics,” below).
The truth is, no real man, Living man or woman or otherwise, belongs in imperial
powers courts.
These courts may distinguish, but we must not.
As the Scripture says; “One law shall be to him that home born, and unto the stranger,
that sojourneth among you.”{22}
The Rule is: “The presence of the body cures the error in the name.”
The Rules of English.
A major problem created by imperial schools, posing as ‘public schools,’ that directlyimpacts
on one’s understanding of law is, the failure to teach 'The Rules of English Grammar.'For
example, what words are capitalized and when. This difference alone has major significance in law.
But, imperial schools are only half the problem.
The American people abuse the English language as if it were a right. In law, this is deadly,
because it can put a defendant or plaintiff in jail without ever knowing why. We strongly
recommend to Readers that they buy and study a handbook on 'The Rules of English Grammar,'
and make it part of their life’s work to put these Rules into effect - daily. We recommend the older
works on Grammar, for obvious reasons.
'Nouns' name persons, places, or things. General nouns denoting a class of persons, places, or
things, are never capitalized. If we mean a specific person, place, or thing, only the first
letter is capitalized. Thus, the noun ‘state’{23} and ‘State’{24} are different words denoting two
entirely different things. The former (state) is general and used at law, while the latter (State) is
specific and denotes a created entity, i.e., a fictional res, i.e., a thing.
In today’s courts; persons, places, things, and entire court processes, are often written in all
capital letters, a clear violation of 'The Rules of English,' which must violate the common law
as well. But, this is done to fully inform defendants and plaintiffs of the type of court that will hear
a case. It says, clearly, that a court is sitting to hear matters in controversy - between
persona, or, a res and persona, and thereby full disclosure is given to all.
Today’s courts cannot deal with real people, places, and things, i.e., substance, because, being
bound by imperial law, such courts can only deal with fictional persona. Thus, all parties agree to
be named, and do appear by, fictitious names, spelled in all capital letters,i.e., a nom de
pierre (war name).
An example of a war name is, JOHN DAVID SMITH or John D. Smith. In common law,
the Living man or woman name is spelled John David Smith. Because all corporations are also
fictions of law, their names are spelled in all capitals or initialized or both. Thus, if I.B.M. is a party
to an action, its name is written; INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES, INC. on the
court’s Docket and in all process.
Initials or abbreviations of a name, are “no name at all,” and their use creates another fiction.
Government documents commonly make no provision in their forms for one to write out his middle
name. This is a deliberate form of entrapment. This is the practice on all I.R.S. forms that only allow
space for a middle initial. Under the Law of War, they can only ask for the fiction. The maxim is:
“An alien enemy cannot maintain an action during the war in his own name.” Wharton Pa. Digest
§20.94. (1853)
One styles any plaintiff on process from an emergency powers court in all capitals, or initials,
such as THE INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, or the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
Spell out all numerals or numbers in abatements, i.e., 'The Year of Our Lord , Or What Ever
Your Spiritual Beliefs May Be Nineteen hundred and Ninety-six.' Numbers are fictions in
numerical form and haveno substance. In common law it is best to spell all numbers in their word
equivalents.
Next - is the use of parenthesis, brackets, curly braces, and boxes. All information contained
therein is classed as; “extraneous, explanatory, and interpolated matter, with no force and effect
in law.”{25} As a side note, if you must use a ZIP Code, put brackets around it to deflect its force and
effect in law.
The point of this discussion is, any name not correctly and fully spelled out is a misnomer,
literally, misnamed, and is a solid plea in abatement. In all pleas in abatements there is some
reference to the misnomer.
When raising misnomer, however, state only the facts that lead a court to concludea
misnomer has been used. Let the court come to its own conclusion.
Do not specifically allege ‘misnomer’ in the abatement.
If your name is a single letter and not a full name, make sure you DO NOT PUT A PERIOD
after the single letter name, because it says that one of your names is abbreviated and is thus a
fictitious persona. To save yourself the pains of being mis-interpreted, one might want to adopta
fully spelled name to replace a single letter name.
You may use periods after each line of your postal location (avoid using the commercial
word 'address,' 'General Delivery' being a ‘location’ and not an address). Then, each line of one’s
postal location is a self contained entity. Do not use commas to string together namesand
addresses.
English is important to understand because it speaks directly to ‘mis-joinder’ and ‘non-joinder’

issues. One cannot be mis-joined and is thus not joined in the action. No joinder, no case.
The above is only a summary of the relationship of English usage and the law.
The Rule is; Know the English language and use it like a weapon in law.
What’s in a Word?
If one makes a careful study of the way in which imperial powers word their paperwork, letters,
and process, one will find a very deceitful use of certain words and phrases, all of whichare
designed to compel one to make a ‘voluntary appearance.’ And, since all appearancesare
voluntary, the words must carry the maximum impact, yet not cross over the line so asto
violate the Rules of Imperial Process. Thus, one may see phrases such as “You must appearat
... blah, blah, blah, ... at such a date and time, ... blah, blah, blah.”
Has this sentence violated the Imperial Rules of Process?
Answer: No.
The reason: In Law, ‘must’ means ‘may.’ What’s really being said is, “We invite youto
appear ...,” because your appearance must be voluntary. Such phrases are designed to strike fear
into the heart of a defendant and provoke a knee jerk reaction that means the defendant loses!
Other words and phrases using the same kind of deceit are: “Notice of ...,” “Notice
to Appear,” “Notice of Lien/Levy,” “Notice to Remove,” “Notice of Warrant,” “Notice of
Trespass,” “Order to Show Cause,” “Order and Demand,” and “IT ISSO ORDERED.”
From what we have all learned from above, we now know that the phrase “IT IS SO
ORDERED,” because written in all caps, is unintelligible in English, and thus carries no Law and
is abatable.
When in doubt, get an old dictionary of law.
Letters from the Government.
It is common for all branches of government to send letters to people they are setting up
for persecution. The purpose of letters is not to inform you, but to inform them as to how much you
know Law.
People normally respond to letters with more letters. But, letters, as such, have no force and
effect in law. Thus, when you respond to a letter with another letter, this tells whoever sent you the
letter, that you know nothing about law and that you can probably be pressured to roll over and pay
without any further trouble on the government’s part. The letter is, therefore, merely a device used
by governments to collect revenues, without the bother of issuing process and going to court. Any
response other than an abatement will create a joinder and acquiescence on your part, and will
submit you to their jurisdiction.
The problem is, a response letter joins you to an action without you knowing it.
The I.R.S. uses this tactic, very effectively. Threatening letters making outrageous demands for
taxes you probably don’t owe, are typical. Your knee jerk reaction is, respond with a letter asking
all kinds of questions that the I.R.S. could not care less about. The point of the outrageous letter and
demands is, to provoke a response from you, get you to appear, or make a call tothe I.R.S.,
in which they will apply more heat to force one to roll over. The I.R.S. doesn’t care whether you’ve
properly paid “your fair share,” they want more. The object is, compel you to submit to an increase
in your voluntary assessments, rather than fight them. The letters are thus, a tactic using fear and
intimidation, and they exploit your ignorance of Law.
Remember, also, most I.R.S. agents are sub-contractors and work on commissions from
property they seize.
Often, the news media blasts you with stories of how the very wealthy are put in jail by
the I.R.S. or have to pay huge fines and penalties for not filing, or filing in error. These stories are
numerous just before April 15th.
But, it doesn’t matter who sends you a letter: do not respond with another letter!!! Respond
with lawful process, i.e., an abatement. Their letter may have no force and effect in law, but the
abatement will. Usually, they just go away and you will hear no more. On the other hand, a
persistent agent may continue to harass you to see if you are studied in the Law or just using someone
elses ‘silver bullet.’ If this is the case, continue to abate all letters or a summons. You will
probably not receive any mail at General Delivery from them, but if you don’t remove your mail
box and/or cancel your P.O. Box, they will try to access you there.
The Rule is, respond to all letters from any government agency with lawful process.
Response Tactics of Imperial Powers.
Since, under International/Municipal Law, “deceit” is legal,{26} one must expect that all
federal, state, county, city, and local imperial government officers and agents will use it to get what
they want, which is, to compel the Good and Lawful Living man or woman Man or Woman to
answer for the persona and “voluntarily comply.”
Tactics used by imperial powers to get ‘voluntary compliance,’ would be a joke if the end result
was not so vicious. They will lie, cheat, destroy evidence, and create evidence where it never
existed. Thus, there is a wide variety of tactics of response, used by all government officers and
agents to try to get someone who has served a plea in abatement, to respond in such a way as to
nullify or circumvent the effect of the abatement. The idea is, they cannot set aside the
abatement. They must deceive you, the abator, to do something that will, by your response, have the
same effect. Then, they will re-issue a demand, bench warrant, or whatever, and proceed as if the
abatement never existed, in the first place.
In the examples of Response Tactics that follow, we assume that some branch of government
sends you something. It could be a letter from the I.R.S., a Notice to Appear on a traffic ticket, a
demand from the local Fire Department to cut your grass, a building code violation, or almost
anything else.
And, we assume you have properly responded to such forms of communication by serving
an abatement and when the government agent did not respond, you served, after the lapse
of ten days (not counting Sundays and Holy days) a Default against them.
Example One. {27}
A Sheriff Deputy shows up at your house with a warrant in his hand. Of course, the warrant
will not be a genuine warrant with affidavit attached, court seal, or a judge’s signature in real ink.
The Deputy will call you to the door and after a few remarks, will say something like
the following. “Hi, I’m here to talk to John Smith.” John Smith comes to the door and the
Deputy says: “In regard to the abatement you served, the judge will agree to drop the Warrant, if
you drop the abatement, and you won’t hear from us, again.”
There is only one possible response to this - No!
One may frame their words more diplomatically, but the general idea is, refuse.
This is the mildest and least confrontational type of compelling “voluntary appearance.”
Most officers walk rather softly after they have been served an abatement.
Example Two.
Same scenario, same situation, same Deputy. This time says, “Uh, the judge wants to put outa
warrant on you for not appearing on your court date, but he won’t, if you’ll come down tothe
court house to talk about the abatement you served him.”
In this approach, you are expected to meet the judge half way and go along. Don’t!
The bench warrant has already been issued on the Docket, and the Deputy may not even
know it! But then again, they may know perfectly well that a warrant waiting for you. A warrant
on the docket is only good inside the court. It does not go out on ‘wants and warrants’.
Again, the polite refusal will handle the situation.
Example Three.
In another case, the scenario is the same, except, John Smith is not home whenthe
Deputy comes. John’s wife answers the door and when she found out what the Deputy wanted, she
handed him a “Public Servant’s Questionnaire,” and he left.
Nothing more was heard on the matter.
Example Four.
In another case, after three abatements and three defaults on the same case involving
an 'Order to Show Cause' in Federal District Court, the Sheriff’s in a county different fromthe
county where the court sat, sent three Sheriff s cars to the Smith’s house.
In broad daylight and in front of the neighbors, the Deputies made a great show of force and
when they found out that Mr. Smith was not home, asked the Smith’s son where his father was.
The son said he didn’t know, the Deputies left, and no more was heard.
The point of this example is, the local Sheriff’s Office co-operated with the I.R.S. and used a
half dozen Sheriff's Deputies to put fear into the Abator and get him to come to court, partly by
turning his neighbors against him.
Example Five.
In one bizarre case, the local Sheriff put pressure on Mr. Smith’s neighbor to talkto
Mr. Smith and get him to go down and talk to the judge.
This is nothing more than pitting neighbor against neighbor. But, what this example does is
point out very clearly, that imperial powers have no real power to compel performance when true
law has been brought squarely before them. The bottom line is, if they had real law to back
them up, imperial powers would not need to use fear, threats, and intimidation.
Another tactic of the imperial powers is an attempt to compromise an abatement by mail.
This works as follows: the imperial powers personae, after they have been properly abated and
defaulted, send some letter or process to the abator by mail, in the name of the abator’s
persona,
Remember earlier, how we pointed out that the abatement has the effect of severing the
connection between the Good and Lawful Living man or woman Man and the persona (the nom
de guerre).
What happens if, a Living man or woman receives another piece of mail from the imperial
power – in the name of a former persona, and he accepts the mail in the name of the persona?
Answer: the Living man or woman and the persona are rejoined and the former abated
process thatwas dead, is now alive and well, again. The reason is, the Living man or woman has,
by his own act, contradicted his abatement and default, and has proved, by accepting mail for the
persona, that he is not who he claimed to be in the abatement, and that he is volunteering to be
a surety onceagain, for the persona.
The solution is; write on the mail, “No such person at this location.” Do not write
“Refused!!!”.
Response Tactics of the Good and Lawful Living man or woman Man.
How does a Living man or woman Man respond to the tactics of imperial powers in the above
examples?
First, avoid idle conversation with those who try to talk you into removing your abatement.
This is thin ice and you may be trapped by your own words into the “benefit of discussion.”
Never answer your door unless you are expecting a friend or you know the caller. There is no law
that says you have to answer your door for any one. When you receive phone calls from
the entity, do not engage in any conversation with them. Remember that when they ask if this is ‘so
and so,’ they are looking at paperwork with your nom de guerre on it. If you say, ‘yes, this is so
and so,’ you are answering for that fiction.
Second, the officer wants to speak to the persona, who cannot speak, except by the mouth
of Ba’al. It is better to send another abatement to refuse all discussion with an officer. They will use
every word that comes out of your mouth, against you.
Third, if any further process comes into the presence of the Living man or woman , whether
by personal service of process, or by any other means, there is only one possible response for
the Living man or woman to take: Abate it.
Misnomer.
Misnomer means, literally, “mis-named.” More importantly, any process, bearing any name
other than a man’s full and properly spelled Living man or woman name is an error subject to
abatement.
“The name of men, at this day, are only sounds for distinction’s sake, though perhaps they
originally imported something more, as some natural qualities, features, or relation; but now there
is no other use of them but to mark out the families or individuals we speak of, and to difference
them from all others; since, therefore, they are the only marks and indicia of things which human
kind can understand each other by, we must see what certainty the law requires herein, and
what the effects and consequences are of the omission of the name, or false specification ofthe
party ...” {28}
And from a work compiled in 1670, “Misnomer, (compounded of the French Mes., which in
composition always signifies amisse, and nomer, Latin, nominare,) the using [of] one name for
another, a mis-terming, or mis-naming.” {29}
A misnomer is, any spelling of a name not consistent with the Rules of English Grammar
and the way in which one customarily uses his name, such as the recordation in your
Family Bible. Thus, a nom de guerre, a name spelled in all capital letters, such as JOHN
DAVID SMITH or initialized as John D. Smith does not conform to the Rules of English and is
thus, a misnomer.
Where a name appears in upper and lower case letters according to the Rules of English,
and one of the names has been abbreviated or, initialized, it is also a misnomer. Thus, “We are of
opinion that the word ‘misnomer,’ which means a naming amiss, is wide enough to cover the
faulty indication of a Living man or woman name by means of the initial: Vide, Bacon’s
Abridgment, under “misnomer,” {30} and “initials were no name at all.” {31}
Thus, “Misnomer is a good plea in abatement, for since names are the only marks and indicia
which human kind can understand each other by, if the name be omitted or mistaken, there is
a complaint against nobody.” And, “... if the defendant has been arrested by a wrong name,
the court will set aside the proceedings ... and discharge him if in custody.” {32}
“But, though a defendant may, by pleading in abatement, take advantage of a misnomer when
there is a mistake in the writ or declaration, as to the name of baptism or surname; yet in such
a plea he must set forth his right name, so as to give the plaintiff a better writ.” {33}
Now, even though a misnomer appears on imperial court process, a plaintiff may produce
witnesses who will state that, the respondent never spells his name the way it is spelled in
his abatement.
Therefore, if one spells out his first name, initializes his second name, and spells his last
(surname) name, and process is issued in that name (a defendants normal spelling, even
though incorrect by the Rules of English), an abatement that pleads misnomer, may not lie.
It is good practice to put a colon (:) between your Living man or woman name, given at
baptism, and your family name. The Living man or woman name includes only ones first and
second names. Get in the habit of writing out the full name, or one may use only the Living man or
woman name as a rule.
But, if one was given at birth, a name with only a single letter in it, do not put a period after
the single letter name, which converts the name to a nom de guerre.
The Rule is: Always spell ones Living man or woman or full name, according to the Rules of
English.
Note: IRS agents, deliberately use misnomers for themselves. They call it an
“officially registered pseudonym,” i.e., false name, to make it more difficult for one
to find an agent’s personal property and seize it in a suit at Law.
Question: If what the I.R.S. does is lawful, why do they need an ‘officially
registered pseudonym.?’ The Law of War maxim gives the answer.
Kitchen Sinkers.
It is a universal maxim that “less is more.” No where is this more applicable than in law and
lawful process.
Yet, we’ve all heard of, and probably know, many amateur lawyer types in the law reform
movement who have never heard of this maxim, and would reject it in a heart beat, because they are
“The Kitchen Sinkers.”
When Kitchen Sinkers write process or a brief, they throw in everything they can think of,
including the kitchen sink. And for this reason, such people seldom win any cases, not even against
the dog catcher, precisely because of the unrelenting need to throw in the kitchen sink.
These guys can take simple process like a plea in abatement, that takes at most five or
six pages, to say what needs to be said, and blow it up, into ten, fifteen, twenty, or thirty pages.
They can write paragraphs of one sentence that are five pages long!!! And, in the vast majority
of cases, such paragraphs have no substance in law – at all. Instead, they are nothing but an exercise
in how to vent one’s spleen in ten thousand words or more, without saying anything ofreal value.
They will sit at a typewriter or computer for hours, banging away in a rage and congratulating
themselves on how ‘powerful’ their writing is. They build up an enormous raging sweat during this
marathon of spleen venting and by the time they finish (assuming the process can be completed
before the court deadline sixty days down the road) they are a bundle of knotted emotion and
profanity. But, if they really do finish the job, they always qualify the end result by saying,
“There’s some things I’d like to add, but, I don’t have time now.”
And at the end of it, the Kitchen Sinker sits back with great pride, looks at his stack of papers
and says, “There, ah, show’d ‘em!”
In truth, courts pay no attention to such trash, especially since at least half the words, are
devoted to slandering or libeling the judges’ bloodline back to his ninth great grand-parents on both
sides of the family tree.
The Rule is; Avoid such people like the plague, because they are one.
On the Uniform Commercial Code.
There is the tendency in the law reform movement to use the Uniform Commercial Code on
everything from signatures on checks, on mail, on applications, and on anything that even appears
to be paperwork or process from any government agency, bureau, department, or other
imperial res.
Now, if those in the movement are so interested in restoring the common law and everything
else that goes with it, why do they feel the need to use statutes??? And, the Uniform Commercial
Codes, whether State or Federal, are statutes, none of which is law, or bears any resemblance to it.
“Individuals [private Living man or woman s] rely for protection of their rights on law, and not
upon regulations and proclamations of departments of government, or officers who have been
designated to carry ‘laws’ into effect.”
Common law and statutes do not mix. They are like oil and water. Yet, every time one hears
a presentation on the common law, they invariably bring up the so-called sure fire silver bullets of
the Uniform Commercial Code. So prevalent is this practice that in one recent newspaper article on
the militia, the newspaper reporter said that the courts call these people “The UCC’ers.”
Would any right thinking UCC fan, use the I.R.S. Code to try and create a plea in abatement.
I think not. Then, why do they use the UCC, that uses the same “words and phrases” definitions
found in Title 26, The Internal Revenue Code??? Could it be that all the Titles and Codes, and,
specifically, the Uniform Commercial Code are really just an imperial mine field???
Now, since people are so enamored of common law and still use UCC statutes, go ahead,
use the UCC all you want, BUT, DO NOT USE ANY UCC CITATIONS IN PLEAS IN
ABATEMENTS – IF YOU WANT THE ABATEMENT TO WORK!!!
Conflict of Laws.
Having spoken above on the Uniform Commercial Code, which is a statute, raises the question
of the use of statutes in a plea in abatement.
After nearly three years of experience with pleas in abatements, we have concluded that it is
not wise to use any statute, including codification's of the common law, that may, under some
circumstances, compromise the abatement. As a result, we no longer recommend use of the 1872
Code of California, in any common law process.
Recognizing Defective Process.
For you to maintain your standing in Law, you must be able to distinguish between lawful
process and defective process. This is especially important when you realize your perception of
lawful process has been warped and is dysfunctional. It is your perception of process, and acting
on that perception, that is fatal to maintaining your lawful standing – not the process itself. The
key indicia in lawful process are: One, a seal from a court known andrecognized in the state,
and not the State; Two, signed in black ink by a constitutionally elected Judge in the Judicial
Department in the state; Three, must describe with particularitythe Living man or woman Man
or thing to be arrested or seized. Do not look to the federal constitution forthe requirements.
Your state constitution requirements are the standard and establish the conflict of laws necessary to
abate the defective process.
Address vs. Location.
At Law, you are your own “Secretary of State.” You have established Living man
or woman self government in your House which communicates with outside imperial
and lawless governments, which are foreign to your venue. It is your duty to maintain the
integrityof your Living man or woman self government and to that end you must understand certain
terms which are misleading when first encountered.
There are several key terms concerning transmission of any communication betweena
private Living man or woman man and imperial governments when the Post Office is involved.
These terms apply whether we receive process from governments or, send process to governments.
Post Office functions have been converted under imperial law to a commercial venue under
a separate entity now known as the 'Postal Service.' The constitutional or common law venues are
not abolished; hidden, perhaps, but not abolished. Key terms below, clarify these differences if we
note that Post Office terms used by imperial Postal Service, are given new names and redefined.
The old ones still exist, but the new codes do not mention them.
The idea is, use constitutional and common law venues to avoid using any benefit, privilege, or
opportunity.
Official terms that define the duties and powers of the Postal Service assume the
District of Columbia is the ‘home’ point of origin.
The term ‘domestic’ commonly means; about the home, home grown, etc., but,
in Postal Codes, the home point to determine the meaning of domestic, is the
District of Columbia, and domestic mail moves between D.C., possessions and territoriesof the
United States, Guam, Puerto Rico, Northern Marianas Islands, Virgin Islands, American Samoa,
and the parts of states that are ceded, rented, leased, or under management ofthe Federal power.
Mail moving within and between points outside of the above areas is ‘non-domestic mail.’
'Zip Codes,' are created fictions that number specific commercial geographic areas but are not
part of the land itself. They are used to scan mail to determine if it is domestic or non-domestic.
However, since words and numbers within brackets, etc., re-define enclosed ZIP Codesas
“extraneous, explanatory, and interpolated matter,” {34} the ZIP code itself, has no force and effect
in law when brackets are used.
Jurisdiction of the Postal Service extends as well to ‘addresses,’ which are convertedto
commercial benefits, technically governed by lex mercatoria and commercia belli.{35} Those
who use addresses are converted as well, to a persona.
Thus, the only Post Office service not using a benefit, privilege, or opportunityis
'General Delivery,' which is a traditionally vested right that existed before the Constitution. It isalso
a custom and usage of long duration.
Postmasters, who are given discretion in the matter, may not permit General Delivery.
See the section on 'General Delivery' for a more detailed explanation.

Serve It, Don’t File It!!!
We have stated over and over again, that the current legal system is one of foreign law (Martial,
International/Municipal, Law of War, etc.) and such courts we styled as Imperial Courts.
Constitutional or common law process, cannot be heard in imperial courts.
This has not prevented people from filing abatements in such courts, anyway. Because such
courts cannot hear common law actions there is but one result – reiection!!!
The problem is, when the abatement is rejected, people call or write to complain. After much
discussion we learn the abator filed his process in the court. When reminded that Version 1.0 of the
work tells him not to do this, Alzheimer’s sets in and he doesn’t remember this.
Once again, Serve it, Don’t File It!!!
There are many reasons, of course, why we do not file an abatement in a court.
One, there is no court today that has authority to hear it.
Two, the court only hears a case – after all parties are joined in an action.
Three, abatements are served on one who becomes a plaintiff thereby, who is given an
opportunity to respond with a better suit, if he can. But, fiduciaries of today’s imperial
governments cannot respond to pleas in abatements - only lawful entities can.
Four, if process comes from a court, abatements are still served on a person, i.e., a judge.
Five, all pleas in abatements in this Handbook are served on people in their private
capacity, not as officers in their official capacity or, under their official title.
Six, the abator, creates his own court when the abatement is served. He cannot file it
anywhere, in any court, because no court can hear any matter still under another court’s
jurisdiction.
Thus, for the last time; The Rule is; Serve the abatement – don’t file it!!!
Serving Plea In Abatement Processes.
There are four ways to have your process served; by the Sheriff’s Office, by Registered Mail,
by State Marshall’s, or by Elisors.
For service of process by the Sheriff’s Office, take one copy each of the abatement, plus,
one copy for your own records to the Sheriff s Office, Civil Division, and go to the
Clerk’s window.
Ask the Clerk for the Service of Process Instruction Sheet. This form is used to provide the
necessary information to the Deputy who will serve the process. It contains a place for the location
of the demandant (the one filing the abatement) and the defendant (the person against whom the
abatement is being served, personally). The form also has spaces for the locations of allparties and
the hours during which the process may be served. It is primarily self-explanatory.
When the Clerk asks for the case number, tell them you haven’t got one yet and the Clerk will
assign a Sheriff’s case number to the abatement. Copy the Sheriff's case number to the appropriate
place on each copy of the abatement, including your own copy.
Make sure all copies are time and date stamped by the Clerk.
When this process is finished, pay the Service of Process Fee, usually $25.00 to $50.00,
and give the Clerk, or whoever is working the desk, all copies of the abatement that are to
be served.
In a few days, you will receive at General Delivery, correspondence from the Sheriffs Office
that contains the Sheriff's 'Proof of Service' forms which may be one to two pages or more,
depending on how many defendants you have had abatements served on.
Attach the copies of the proof of service to your copy of the abatement.
From the actual date the Deputy served the defendant named in your abatement, go to the
next day afterwards, and begin to count forward on your calendar until ten days have elapsed,
not counting Sundays and Holy days. This date is the Rule day.
Mark on your calendar the Due Date to Receive Response or Rule day.
If no response to the abatement arrives at your General Delivery by the Due Dateto
Receive Response, serve the Default, Default Judgment, and Writ of Praecipe, immediatelyby
Registered Mail.
Service of process by State Marshall’s, takes place basically the same way it does with
a Sheriff s Office.
For service of process by Registered Mail, use the Registered Mail Number for the
Sheriffs case number.
Have the Postal clerk time and date stamp your process just like the Sheriff did above.
Pay the clerk 50 cents and have her place the glue strip that comes out of the postage machine, onto
the upper right hand corner of page one of the abatement and date stamp across this.
If the clerk will not put a time and date stamp on all copies of your paperwork, then fill out
a Certificate of Mailing, one for each copy of your abatement, and staple one copy to each
abatement, before you put them in the envelopes. Put each copy of the abatement, withits
time/date stamped sticker or Certificate of Mailing, in the appropriate envelope, and post them as
you would normally. By the way, a 'Certificate of Mailing' is time and date stamped
- automatically - by the Postal Clerk.
Service of process by Elisor is the easiest way of all to get process served, if you have
a jural society from which the Elisor can be selected.
First, you will have help filling out your process, which, with this book, means that all you’ll
need is someone with a computer and laser or ink jet printer.
Second, you have no problem getting the proper time and date stamp on your process,
and, one can also put the jural society seal on the paperwork, if the society has a lawfully
formed Court of Common Law.
Third, if the jural society has a lawfully formed court, then the process will call the person
abated to the jural society court, who can, by its presence, put some teeth into your process.
The only tricky thing about jural societies, is, they must be lawfully formed. This means that
the jural society must be formed and must have held open elections for electors only,within
the county. This is a prerequisite for forming a court of any kind.
There are those who argue that ‘common law courts’ do not need a jural society to sanction
its rulings. The truth is, if courts do not sit under a lawfully formed jural society, the people have no
control over what courts do, and they are, by common law, nothing more than lawless, self
serving mobs, considered in the Law as a ‘shotgun court.’
Most of the so-called ‘Our One Supreme Court’, allegedly do ‘quiet title’ actions. But, under
Martial Law, the imperial power is not interested in whether one has quiet title, but in possessory
rights. ‘Quiet titles’ issued by such ‘courts’ will not stop an imperial power who is only interested
in possession – not questions of who has the title.
Actions Against Women.
Actions filed against women by imperial courts are a special case and must be handled
according to the common law doctrine of Coverture, which requires that a Man, being thecovering
for the Woman, must write and serve the abatement process in his name.
When Bouvier speaks of “Coverture,” he says that: “The being of the wife is civilly merged
with that of her husband,” which in the Scripture is phrased as: “becoming one flesh.”
But, whether a woman is married, lives with her parents, is single and lives alone, or is married
at common law, one man is always her cover as far as the Scripture is concerned.
And, for purposes of serving process on her behalf, such process is written and served in
his name, and she is designated as "et uxor," not "alieni juris."
"Et uxor" means, “and Lawful Wife.” “Alieni juris” means, ‘under control of another,’which
can mean, under control of a lawless person.
If a woman has no husband, process is issued by the father, or a brother. If a woman’s family
is dead and she is single, a man friend must still stand as her covering.
In lawful systems, many civil actions cannot even be brought against a woman without
the permission of her covering. This also applies to children under twenty-one years of age.
If a woman is single without anyone who can act for her, she may, by letter of attorney that
specifically references coverture for purposes of civil actions, etc., have a friend act on her behalf,
or, if a lawful jural society exists in her county, she may appoint the society as her covering. If the
case is that she has no one that will act for her, she does it in her name, followed by a comma
and suae potestate esse.
A word is needed here on what a true, common law marriage is. At the outset, it must be clear
that a common law marriage is not mere co-habitation.
True common law marriage was the only form of marriage prior to the 'War of Secession.' After
the War, when men and women of different races were married (miscegenation), it could only be
done under license from the state, because of all the legal and familial problems such marriages
created. The State thus became, through licensure, a third party to the marriage.
At any rate, in a common law marriage, a Man and Woman still have a marriage ceremony in
an unincorporated (non-501C3) church, and the Guest Register (modern term), is a Witness Roll.
The pastor issues a 'Certificate of Matrimony,' but there is no license issued by the State.
********
FOOTNOTES
{1} Black’s Law Dictionary, by Henry Campbell Black M.A., Third Edition,
by The Publisher’s Editorial Staff. West Publishing Company, St. Paul, Minnesota, 1923,
page 8, “Abatement and Revival.”
{2} Ibid., page 8, under “Chancery Practice.”
{3} Hoke v. Henderson. 4 Dev. 33, 1833.
{4} Jack T. Cole Co. v. MacFarland.
{5} Lansing v. Smith, 4 Wendell 9, 24, (1829).
{6} Selection of Legal Maxims: Classified and Illustrated by Herbert Broom. Esq., of the
Inner Temple. Barrister-At-Law, T.& J.W. Johnson. Law Booksellers, Philadelphia, 1845,
page 143.
{7} See, Words and Phrases for Title 26, The Internal Revenue Service Code.
{8} Matthew 22:21.
{9} “Handbook of Common Law Pleading, by Benjamin J. Shipman, Third Editionby

Henry Winthrop Ballantine, West Publishing Co. St. Paul, 1923, page 23.
{10} Ibid., Shipman.
{11} See “Discussion,” in Black’s Dictionary of Law, 3rd edition, West Publishing Company.
St. Paul, Minnesota.
{12} See, “Pledge,” in “Handbook of Roman Law,” by Max Radin. West Publishing Company, St.
Paul, Minnesota (1927).
{13} See, “Maxim.” in Bouvier’s Dictionary of Law, by John Bouvier, (1856).
{14} Ibid. Bouvier’s, “Maxim”
{15} “Select Documents of English Constitutional History, ” Edited by George Burton Adams and
H. Morse Stephens, The MacMillan Company, New York. 1906. page 339-342.
{16} Romans 8:16,17.
{17} See various dictionaries, including Melinkoff’s Dictionary of Law, Oxford

English Dictionary, etc..
{18} Acts 10:34.

{19} Literally, “name of war.” For the Rule governing its use, see The California Style Manual,
by Robert E. Formichi, published by The California Supreme Court, 1986, Section 196, page
13, “Style of Main Title.”.
{20} See “Maxim,” in Bouvier’s Dictionary of Law (1914), page 2142.
{21} Ibid., Bouvier’s, page 2147.
{22} Exodus 12:49.
{23} ‘state,” Living man or woman people having Dominion over all geographical territory –
res publica –
lords of the soil.
{24} ‘State,” the name of the ministerial government, occupying a feud, established by
constitutional compact among the Living man or woman people holding and occupying a
fixed geographical territory.
{25} California Style Manual, supra., Section 150, page 106.
{26} This is an axiom of International and Municipal Law, under The Laws of War, wherein the
practice of deception is legal between belligerents.
{27} All the examples cited here are summaries of actual situations that have happened in the
past to those who have used the abatement process successfully.
{28} A New Abridgment of the Law, by Matthew Bacon, with Large Additions and
Corrections, by Sir Henry Gwyllim, and Charles Edward Dodd, Esq., and with Notes and
References made to the Edition Published in 1809, by Bird Wilson, Esq., to whichare
added Notes and References to American and English Law and Decisions. By John
Bouvier, Volume VII., Published by Thomas Davis, No. 171 Market Street, Philadelphia
(1846), page 5.
{29} Nomo-Lexicon, A Law Dictionary, by Thomas Blount, Facsimile of the Edition of 1670,
Sherwin & Freutel, Publishers, Los Angeles (1970).
{30} The Queen v. Plenty, Court of Queen’s Bench, 4 C.Q.B. 46.
{31} Ibid. Queen v. Plenty.
{32} 4 Bacon’s Abridgment, (D) Of Misnomer, and want of Addition, (1832), page 7.
{33} Ibid., 4 Bacon’s Abridgment.
{34} “The Style Manual,” for the California Supreme Courts, 1984.
{35} "commercia belli” means, “commercial agreement in war,” or, “war contract.”
General Delivery
It is essential, for the success of your abatement, that you first locate at General Delivery, thereby
eliminating ‘free delivery’ and the associated ‘benefits’ that you receive when having mail delivered
to you at a P.O. Box, at home or at an office, etc.. The amount of postage you pay for delivery of a
letter or package, only covers transportation along ‘post roads,’ i.e., post office to post office. The
delivery by the postman to your home, etc., is done on a commercial ‘post route,’and is called in the
postal laws, ‘free delivery.’
The common law side of General Delivery is a traditionally vested right that cannot be denied
to any Living man or woman operating outside of a commercial venue. The evidence of this is in
the fact that General Delivery has never been attached to any legislation by the de facto government.
Therefore, it is part of the ‘lex non scripta’, which is the ‘unwritten law’ or ‘common law’.
Further evidence of this is in the fact that all Postal Laws since Lincoln’s War have not changed
one iota concerning General Delivery service to ‘transients’. The non-commercial side remains as
unrestricted today as it was when this country was founded, including two centsper ounce for
postage from General Delivery to General Delivery.
On July 1st, 1863, ‘free city delivery service’ was instituted. Until this date, all postal matter
was picked up by the ‘patron’ at the post office. Before this date, ‘customers’ did not exist in
Postal Laws. Those today who receive mail at a P.O. Box at home or at an office, etc., are
referred to as ‘customers,’ which is, of course, a purely commercial term, and means that anyone
receiving ‘free delivery’ is considered to be in a commercial venue.
On the other hand, ‘patron’ is defined in the law as, ‘a protector or guardian’.
In 1893, Marshall Cushing wrote a book titled ‘The Story of Our Post Office.’ On page 186,
he stated that “the general delivery clerk had to deal with the leading banker,the
leading politician, the smart clergyman of the town and the family that will never allowtheir
mail to be delivered by carrier.” Thus, in Chicago, 30 years after free delivery was born, some people
still knew the implications of free delivery.
In 1931, Clyde Kelly, a Member of the Post Once and Post Roads Committee in Congress, wrote
a book titled, ‘United States Postal Policy’. On ‘free delivery’ he said [it] “brings benefit to every
citizen of the United States, whether he lives in city or country.” The key word here is
‘benefit’. Receiving a ‘benefit’ from the government will jeopardize your abatement.
“When it is said that a valuable consideration for a promise may consist of a benefit tothe
promisor, ‘benefit’ means that the promisor has, in return for his promise, acquired some legal
right to which he would not otherwise have been entitled,” (Woolum v. Sizemore, 102 S.W.
323, 324).
In short, 'free delivery' is a benefit, the use of which, places one into a commercial venue,
and thus surrenders a legal right to the government, which it would not otherwise be entitled to, i.e.,
unalienable rights.
Remember, one aspect of ‘unalienable’ is, “not transferable,” and “things which are not in
commerce as, public roads, are, in their nature unalienable.” (Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, 1914). But,
this does not mean that one cannot lose them. One can voluntarily opt for something else,
i.e., a free benefit from the government – on a ‘post route,’ thereby changing one’s status from
unalienable to alienable – in commerce.
Kelly added, referring to the “benefits of the postal highway” that “it is more essential for
the protection of the nation than the Army and the Navy; it is the democratic instrument of
a democracy.” The newly formed de facto government desperately needed commercial residents
receiving free delivery, to give them the ‘lienable human resources’ to bolster their assets.
Further evidence of the commercial aspect of free delivery, is seen in “The Postal Laws
and Regulations of 1932”, wherein ‘letters’, delivered ‘free’ on ‘post routes’, are defined as
“gas, electric, water, and tax bills or other statements of accounts, orders for merchandise, etc.”
(which are all commercial terms).
In the same laws, concerning transient patrons, it states, “the use of the general delivery should
be discouraged if it is possible to receive mail otherwise, but if a patron insists on receiving his or
her mail through the general delivery, the request must be complied with.” In the currentPostal
Manual, transients are still totally unrestricted at General Delivery, to wit:
The Post Office Domestic Mail Manual at D930,!.!, states as follows: “General Delivery is
intended for use primarily at: c. Any post office to serve transients and customers not permanently
located.” At 1.2, it states: “Postmasters may restrict the use of general delivery by customers.”
At 1.3, it states, “General delivery customers can be required to present suitable identification before
mail is given to them.” At 1.4, it states: “General delivery mail is held for no morethan 30
days, unless a shorter period is requested by the sender. Subject to 1.2, general delivery mail may
be held for longer periods if requested by the sender or addressee.”
1.2 and 1.3 only restrict “customers,” and make no mention of “transients” from 1.1.
Therefore “transients” are not restricted.
When the post office attempts to deny you general delivery, they use 1.4 as the reason.
They arbitrarily interpret this rule as saying that you can only receive general delivery for no more
than 30 days. What 1.4 says, in truth, is: if you do not pick up your mail within 30 days after it is
received by them, they will return it to sender.
How do ‘residents’ fit into all this? Again, the 1932 laws only restrict ‘residents’ and
‘persons’ at General Delivery, the restrictions being identical to the restrictions for
‘customers’ today.
In Latin ‘residere’ (resident) means ‘sitting or sinking firmly’ and ‘brevis’ (transient) is
‘transitory, for a short time’.
As Living man or woman s, We must always look to Scripture and the Word of God as the
final authority.
As Scripture repeatedly points out, that, as Living man or woman s, We are ‘sojourners’.
‘Sojourner’ is defined in the Latin as ‘hospes’, meaning “the ‘stranger’ as guest, and the host
who receives him; which is, an “antique custom” (Dictionary of Latin Synonymes, Little,
Brown & Co., 1854).
In this sense, ‘transient’ and ‘sojourner’ are synonymous. To this day, the customs and usages
of Living man or woman s, as sojourners, have remained in tact at General Delivery.
The problem of Postmasters trying to deny General Delivery for more than 30 days, has been
an uphill battle for some. One must be prepared when confronting this problem.
First, cancel your P.O. Box and/or remove the mailbox from your house or driveway.
Second, never agree to resolve problems with anyone but the Postmaster himself. Meetings
with a supervisor or Postal legal counsel can be fatal, because they can do andsay anything.
The Postmasters words and acts, however, must comply with law.
Third, bring your Family Bible with you, place it on the Postmasters desk and begin by
informing him that you are a Good and Lawful Living man or woman , thereby importing
your Law into the meeting. Always put forth a benevolent attitude, carrying a demeanor of
full knowledge of Postal Matters and of General Delivery. This will take diligent study.
Fourth, and most important of all, keep in mind at the meeting that you are not there
to ask permission for General Delivery, but to retain a traditionally vested right that can
not be denied to you, as a Living man or woman .
The ‘mails’ are a subject of vital interest for us all, because Lincoln’s War began under
the guise of keeping the ‘post roads’ open, but thereafter, free delivery and a host ofother
‘benefits’ became the means to convert every American who used them, from patronsto
residents, not of their state, but of the Federal power, which opened the door tothe
Income Tax.. This is the hidden meaning in Kelly’s words that free delivery is, ‘... more
essential ... than the Army and Navy.’
The General Terms
When using the abatement process, one must always apply common sense in all of its facets.
The following is a synopsis of a step by step procedure for the completion of this process.
1. There will be one Main Post Office in your town that receives General Delivery. Find this Post
Office, acquire and fill out the General Delivery Service Application, PS Form 1527, Nov.
1987 or July 1995, as follows: Question… (I am applying for General Delivery Service for the
following reasons) Answer... Transient, not permanently located. Question... (Address,
City, State, ZIP+4 Code) Answer... None. Do not fill out a ‘change of address form.’ You
are not changing addresses when you receive your postal matter at general delivery. You are
going from an ‘address’ to a ‘mailing location.’ An ‘address’ isa ‘commercial fiction.’ If
you fill out a ‘change of address’, you will be considered to be in
a commercial venue and they will be able to limit you to 30 days.
You then remove your mail box from your house and/or P.O. Box and inform your postman
that you only receive your postal matter at General Delivery. For those who live in an
apartment, etc., where you can not remove your mail box, block the opening off and placea
note on it that states that ‘so and so’ no longer receives mail at this address or is no longera
‘resident’ here. Note: At some post offices, it is not required to fill out Form 1527.
Inquire first, to find out if it is required by your post office.
2. Apply an abatement to your particular situation by changing the names, addresses, opposing
party, and other pertinent items. An example I.R.S. abatement can be applied toa State tax
agency by changing the pertinent titles. A traffic ticket abatement can be changed in the same
manner to apply to a Federal court ‘Order to show cause’ or any other type of court summons.
The basic wording need not be changed from the examples. If you do, do soat your own risk.
The Default can be used with all abatements in the same manner.
Always use 'General Delivery' as your response location for the reason: 'General Delivery'
is where your court is located, i.e., everywhere in General and nowhere in specific. The court
is where the Living man or woman sojourns, where ever that may be – and a lord of the soil
is everywhere.
3. After the response location, always put small 's' superior and small 'c' court as the heading,
along with your county name first, followed by a small 'c' county, and name of your state
fully spelled out. The superior court is your court, which is a court, superior at Law,to
all others. Never use 'State of,' because this refers to the internal administration of the
de facto government.
4. Always style yourself the 'Demandant' and the opposition 'Defendant.' All other titles besides
‘Demandant’ are ‘in equity’, therefore, use of any other will sham your abatement, by
creating a conflict of law within your own court.
5. Married women should always have their husband do the abatement in his name, with the
husband's name followed by, 'et uxor.' This is because a married Living man or woman
Woman has become 'one flesh' with her Living man or woman Husband, and the law does
not see or recognize her. For the foregoing reason the Wife's Living man or woman name
never appears in the abatement.The entity you are abating will know who the abatement is
from, by the name on theabandoned papers you return with the abatement. Unmarried women
with no coveringshould add to their name, 'suae potestate esse.' This is because an unmarried
woman has not become 'one flesh' with a Living man or woman Man. It’s best for an unmarried
woman to have a male friend do the abatement in his name as a covering. This can be
done by giving hima ‘letter of attorney.’ For children under twenty-one years of age, the
father has to dothe abatement. His title of 'suae potestate esse' is followed by a comma and
then: (for a son) 'filius familias,' and (for a daughter) 'filia familias.'
6. Always print the Defendant's personal name and their office exactly as it is on the process
you are abating, i.e., STATE OF CALIFORNIA, BANK OF NEVADA, Bank of Nevada,
GRANT COUNTY MUNICIPAL COURT, etc.
7. No matter how many pieces of paper you abate, always refer to them as abandoned paper in
the singular. Abandoned paper refers to their resigning the paperwork to you, due to their lack
of ability to produce lawful process in your venue. Abandonment makes it null and
void. Attach all original papers to your abatement when service is done, and always mark
across each piece, 'Refused for cause without dishonor and without recourse to Me.'(in
upper and lower case letters).
8. In the text of the abatement, always capitalize Man, Woman, Me, My, Myself, Our, Right,
and any other words relating to a Living man or woman . Study the capitalization of words
from a good book on English Grammar.
9. Always spell out numbers you use for yourself, such as dates, page numbers etc.. The page
numbers are to be spelled out and made part of the others, as 'Page one of six', 'Page three
of five' etc., thereby creating a complete document.
10. Never, never, ever use or cite any codes such as the Uniform Commercial Code, Penal Code,
Code of Civil Procedure, Civil Code, I.R.S. Code, ad nauseum, all of which are private
commercial law and only have force and effect if you’re playing their sand box. The use of
codes turns a plea in abatement into a statutory abatement, which makes you appear "non
compos mentis" to the opposing party and will sham your court because you are importing
foreign law, which has no standing in your court. The only Law you can useis Scripture,
i.e. custom and usages common to all Living man or woman s, because it is the foundation
of your ‘state,’ which is Christendom – but not the "State of" which is the commercial venue
of all the codes.
11. The abatement has no force and effect in law, without the 'Ordering Clause.' Therefore,
never fail to include this. Give the Defendant ten days to respond after the abatement has been
served and always include the opportunity for the Defendant to ask for more time to respond.
The ten days does not include Sundays and other Holy days. For example, if it is served
on Monday and their are no Holy days, such as Easter, the Rule day would be Friday of
the following week.
12. Post a 'Notice of Default' as soon as you have hand delivered the abatement tothe
defendants (or received a return receipt of Delivery by the Post Office or
Sheriff's Office) in three places in your county and run the 'Public Notice' inyour
newspaper, to announce the date of default. The three places in your county, can be the court
house, Post Office, Library or any other public place. Look for a locked glass case in any
public buildings for this purpose. Post the notice in three places in your county fora
period of eight weeks, one having to be at the county seat. If you can afford it, place a 'Public
Notice' in a newspaper in your county one day a week for three weeks, cut out the first printing
and attach a copy of it to the served default.
13. Always include a 'Verification by Asseveration' on the last page of your abatement and have
two friends witness your sign manual on it, but this is not necessary on your default.
14. The two most common ways to have your abatement served, is by the Sheriff's Department
and by the Post Office. If the service is done by Registered Mail, have the clerk hand date
stamp the first page before you put it in the envelope. Always take an extra copy when doing
this, and have the copy date stamped also. From this copy, make additional copies to be sent
'Registered Mail' to other defendants and to have a friend hand serve the defendant or
defendants. This is done so you have two witnesses as evidence that they were served. The
default occurs sooner and also insures that the defendant receives a copy before the hearing or
court date. Write in the original Registered Mail or Sheriff s number from the first mailing
or Sheriff’s service on all other copies of the abatements and continue to usethat first
number on the defaults. Note: Do not use a different case number (other thanthe one from
the abatement) on the default. If you do, your default will be of no effect. Note: Never use
Certified Mail - it is for Commercial purposes.
15. The number you receive from the Sheriff is written in the place you provide for it,
as Sheriffs case number .... , and the Registered Mail number, when using the Post Office for
service, is to be written as Case number .....
16. If you receive any reply at General Delivery between the time the abatement is served and
the 10 day default time, you must open it and reply (if it’s addressed correctly.). If
it’s incorrect, you have a traditionally vested right to refuse foreign mailat
General delivery. You do not have this right in a commercial venue, (i.e., at home or ata
P.O. Box.). If the letter is addressed correctly on the outside, but is misnomered, etc.,on
the inside, simply continue to abate it in the same manner as your first one. You must use your
Living man or woman Discernment when confronting these situations. This self government
through Jesus Christ is all important.
It is suggested that before one uses the abatement process, take the time to study the meaning
of words unfamiliar to you, for in this way, you will become more comfortable doing the process
(see 'Glossary'). If we are to become self governing Living man or woman Men and Women,
We needto begin acquiring the knowledge so necessary to accomplish that purpose. The amount of
contact you have with the current de facto government, will be a determining factor on the
success or failure of your abatement, as these contacts give that government a way to encroach
uponyour life, liberty and property. An abatement will not be successful in cases where you have
givenup jurisdiction, by entering a court, posting bail, appeared at an administrative hearing,
entered into signed agreements with the entity, heavy engagement in commercial activity (Corporate
employment), answered to the nom de guerre at time of service of process (when you are asked if
you are ‘so and so’, always answer ‘no,’), committed an injury where there isa damaged
victim, etc.. When in contact with these entities and agencies, the less said and done is the less they
will use against you to plunder your substance. The sooner we begin to break these contacts and
disengage in the lex mercatoria, the sooner we will understand what self government really means.
We were never meant to be ruled by men, but ruled by God and His Word. Man is concerned with
the present and past (the dead), while God looks to the present and future(the living). Living
by God's Law preserves a people; while living by Man's laws destroys a people.
Maxims of Law in Abatements
From Broom's Maxims (1845)
These maxim’s were selected for use in abatements and must be fully understood when
used elsewhere. 'Maxims of Law' are truths of law immemorial, and can not be refuted. One
should study and memorize them for a better understanding of how the law sees things.
At the end of Discussion: Nimia Subtilitas in Jure reprobatur, et talis Certitudo

Certitudinem confundit.
The law does not allow of a captious and strained intendment, for such nice
pretense of certainty confounds true and legal certainty.
At the end of Chapter one: Ex Dolo malo non oritur Actio.

A right of action cannot arise out of fraud.
Commentary: Dolus malus is defined to be craft, guile, or machination,
employed for the purpose of deception or circumvention.
At the end of Chapter two, Firstly: Ex nudo Pacto non oritur Actio.
No cause of action arises from a bare agreement.
Commentary: A consideration of some sort or other is so absolutely necessary
to the forming of a contract, that a nudum pactum, or agreement to do or pay
any thing on one side, without any compensation on the other, is totally void
in law, and a man cannot be compelled to perform it.
At end of Chapter two, Secondly: Quod ab Initio non valet in Tractu Temporisnon
convalescit.
That which was originally void does not by lapse of time become valid.
Commentary: When the proceeding adopted is altogether unwarranted, and
different from that which, if any, ought to have been taken, then the proceeding
is a nullity, and cannot be waived by any act of the party against it has been taken.
At the end of Chapter two, Thirdly: Lex non cogit ad Impossibilia.

Law does not seek to compel a man to do that which he cannot possibly
perform.
In the Ordering Clause: Nemo debet his vexari pro una et eadem Causa.
It is a rule of law, that a man shall not be twice vexed for one and the
same cause.
At the end of the Ordering Clause: Omnia praesumuntur contra Spoliatorem.

Every presumption is made against a wrong doer.
Commentary: Where the party has the Means in his power of rebutting and
explaining the evidence adduced against him, if it does not tend to the truth,
the omission to do so furnishes a strong inference against him.
At the end of Chapter three, Third: Summa Ratio est quae pro Religione facit.
If ever the laws of God and man are at variance, the former are to be
obeyed in derogation of the latter.
Final Maxim of Law: Vigilantibus, non dormientibus, Jura subveniunt.

The laws assist those who are vigilant, not those who sleep over
their rights.
******
Respond to: Joseph Edward: Xxxx
General Delivery
Madison Post Office
Madison, Wisconsin
superior court, Dane county, Wisconsin
Joseph Edward, Xxxx ) Case No.

suae potestate esse )
Demandant ) Part One.
) Plea In Abatement
Against, )
) Notice of Default; Default Judgment;
O. Short, ) And Praecipe.
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY )
INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE ) Dated: The first day of the seventh month
) in the year of Our Lord , Jesus,
Defendant ) the Christ, Nineteen hundred and ninety-six.
By Joseph Edward: Xxxx, suae potestate esse:
In the matter of: Unlawful and invalid persona designata, JOSEPH E. XXXX,
nom de guerre:
Be it Known and Remembered by All to Whom These Presents Come and May Concern:
INTRODUCTION
This is a Plea In Abatement issued by common right pursuant to common law rules applicable to
such cases, against the DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY, INTERNAL REVENUE
SERVICE, an acting Alien Enemy agency of a statutorily created, foreign de facto corporation
known as the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA and O. Short. Said agency is imposing asuretyship,
by attaching an illegally presumed persona designata, nom de guerre, created by them as JOSEPH
E. XXXX, upon This Good and Lawful Living man or woman Man, Joseph Edward: Xxxx, suae
potestate esse. This imposition is without authority, is counter to public morals, being in the Nature
of a Praemunire which is outlawed by the General custom in this state and, thus, is in violation of
the Wisconsin Constitution, the !ex non scripta,which is the jus publicum in this state:
Part One of this matter shall be known as Plea In Abatement and contains the following
documents titled: I. Plea In Abatement; and, II. Verification by Asseveration.
Page one of seven

I. Plea In Abatement;
Discussion:
Whereas, ‘Congress,’ in the Preamble of Congressional Report No, 93-549, issued

November 19, 1973, stated “A majority of the people of the United States have lived all their lives
under emergency rule And, in the United States, actions taken by the Government in
time of great crisis have - from at least, the Civil War - in important ways, shaped the present
phenomenon of a permanent state of national emergency”:
And whereas, according to The Supreme Court, ‘Congress’ has made little or no distinction
between a “state of national emergency,” and “a state of war”:
And whereas, according to the Law of Nations, “the most immediate eftect of a state of war is
that it activates the Law of War itself.”:
And whereas, according to the Law of War, “martial law is obtained during a state of war and
in truth and reality, is no law at all”:
And whereas, King Charles the First, in The Petition of Right of June 7, 1628, acknowledged
that martial law is repugnant to common law, and is revoked and annulled forever in accordance
with law of the land in The Great Charter of the Liberties of England and America:
Now therefore, any proceeding to the contrary violates the established customs and usages,
threatens the peace and safety of the people in their Dominions, is an invasion upon the people and
their Law and is a trespass against This Good and Lawful Living man or woman Man.
* Nimia Subtilitas in Jure reprobatur, et talis Certitudo Certitudinem confundit *.
Chapter one:
Invalidation and expurgation of records; and Averments
Your records are invalid for cause without dishonor and without recourse to Me,and
are herewith, expurgated because they are irregular and unauthorized, based upon the
following, to wit:
Comes Now, This Good and Lawful Living man or woman Man, grateful to Almighty God
for My Liberty, to humbly Extend Greetings and Salutations to you from Jesus, the Christ,
and Myself by Visitation, to exercise Ministerial Powers in this Matter, to invalidate and
expurgate your records:
Page two of seven

Your records contain the following Marks of Fraud:
First:
Mark: Your records do not have upon their face, My full Living man or woman Appellation in
upper and lower case letters and in addition, thereto, suae potestate esse, nor do your
records, herewith invalidated and expurgated, apply to Me; and,
Second:
Mark: Your records are foreign to My Venue, which, no Oath, Promise, or Law attaches Me
thereto; and,
Third:
Mark: Your agency and its agents are not established in the Wisconsin Constitution, are not
recognized in this state, and are, therefore, persona non grata; and,
Fourth:
Mark: Your records have no foundation in Law; for the reason, they are not from an office
recognized by the People or General Laws in this state; and,
Fifth:
Mark: Your records lack jurisdictional facts necessary to place or bring Me within
your venue; and,
Sixth:
Mark: Your records are unintelligible and unrecognizable to Me; based upon the following: They
are not written in Proper English; being such, they cannot be recognized lawfullyin this
state, for the reason; they violate Our general customs and usages; and have no effect,
force or operation outside the venue from which they originate; and,
Seventh:
Mark: Your records fail to affirmatively show, upon their face, lawful authority for your
presence in My Venue; and,
Eighth:
Mark: Your records fail to affirmatively show, upon their face, the lawful authority or necessity
for your invasion of My Privacy and My Dominions; and,
Ninth:
Mark: Your records fail to affirmitively show, upon their face, your authority to violate,
disparage, or trespass upon Me in any way; and,
Tenth:
Mark: Your records have no Warrant in Law and are not Judicial in Nature; and,
Page three of seven

Eleventh:
Mark: Your records are not sealed with authority known and recognized in Wisconsin and is,
therefore, a trespass into My Dominions; and,
Twelfth:
Mark: Your records fail to disclose any legal connection between Myself and your agency; and,
Thirteenth
Mark: Your records are defective and nugatory, upon their face, due to insufficient Law.
* Ex Dolo malo non oritur Actio *.
Chapter two:
Firstly:
Whereas, pursuant to constitutional due process requirements and The General Lawsof
Wisconsin, said Alien Enemy agency is not a State Judicial Office having power to issue
orders or judgments of any kind:
And whereas, according to the custom in this state, The General Laws of Wisconsin, The
Law of Nations and The Law of War, said Alien Enemy agency cannot invade or usurpMy
Dominions with contempt for the General custom in this state:
And whereas, your records are usurping My Authority in and over My Dominions: And
whereas, My Immunity from invasion is a recognized General custom in this state:
Now therefore, your records which are usurping My Authority, are a disturbance of thepublic
peace, a public nuisance, and a trespass upon Me and My Dominions:
* Ex nudo Pacto non oritur Actio *.
Secondly:
Whereas, said Alien Enemy agency imposes a form of money inimical to the common good
of the public according to the standard set by the Law of God and the Wisconsin Constitution:
Whereas, said Alien Enemy agency is attempting to extort a performance of suretyship from
Me contrary to the Law of God, the General custom, and morals in this state:
Page four of seven

Now therefore, your records and their purpose are contra bonos mores.
* Quod ab Initio non valet in Tractu Temporis non convalescit *.
Thirdly:
Whereas, your records contain the extraneous symbols, such as 05-22-96 and PERIOD
ENDING 12-31-94, which symbology appears to denote time, but is unfamiliar to Me; for the
reason, I Measure time in years of Our Lord , Jesus, the Christ, in accordance with the customs
and usages in this state:
And whereas, provisions of the peoples customs and moral Law forbids Me use of said
unrecognized way of measuring time:
And whereas, your records contain scandalous and libelous matter all to My harm, in
particular, and to this state in general:
* Lex non cogit ad Impossibilia *.
Now, therefore:
I am invalidating and expurgating your records, and shall, henceforth, exercise My Right
of Avoidance; for the reason: your records are irregular, unauthorized misnomered, defective
upon their face and invalid, and are, herewith, abated for being a public nuisance. There
appear to be no factors which would warrant adjustment of the Abatement, due to a Conflict
of Law.
Chapter three:
Ordering Clause;
" Even direction of a court or judge, made or entered in writing,
and not included in a judgment, is denominated an order."
Said Defendants shall abate the matter of imposing suretyship upon Me, through unlawful
attachment to Me, of a persona designata, JOSEPH E. XXXX, nom de guerre, withinten
(10) days of the ordering of this Plea In Abatement, or show cause why the Abatement
should not lie. Any and all written response must include a detailed factual statement and
supporting documentation, having standing in Law. If more time than ten (10) days is needed to
respond, it may be granted on written request of the Defendants. Failure to obey this court order
or failure to respond in the time prescribed, herein, will result in Default and a Default Judgment,
Nemo debet bis vexari pro una et eadem Causa, and may subject Defendants to Civil liabilities
or Criminal punishment pursuant to 'The Law of Nations,' 'The Law of War,' and the
'Wisconsin Constitution' and the lex non scripta in this state:
* Omnia praesumuntur contra Spoliatorem *.
Page five of seven

All response to this instant matter should be marked with the superior court case number, and
directed to the following location:
Joseph Edward: Xxxx, suae potestate esse

General Delivery
Madison Post Office
Madison, Wisconsin
This Good and Lawful Living man or woman Man will henceforth, exercise My Right
of Avoidanceand maintain My Dominions, My Immunities, and Our customs and usages, and
stand uponthe grounds set out above:
* Summa Ratio est quae pro Religione facit *.
Public notice of this Plea In Abatement and the Default Rule day of same is postedat
in Dane county, Wisconsin for all the world to Witness,
for the next eight weeks, and in the public notice section of the Newspaper for
the next three weeks.
Sealed by the voluntary act of My Own Hand on this first day of the seventh month in the year
of Our Lord and Savior Jesus, the Christ, nineteen-hundred ninety-six, in the Two-hundred and
twentieth year of the Independence of America.
* Vigilantibus, non dormientibus, Jura subveniunt *.

L.S.
I have the Honor of Being Private Living man or woman
(thumb print) , suae potestate esse
Sign Manual
II. Verification by Asseveration
In Witness, Knowing the Punishment for bearing false witness before Almighty God and Men.
I solemnly aver, that I have read the annexed Plea In Abatement and know the contents thereof; that
the same is true of My own knowledge, except to the matters which are therein stated on My
information and belief, and as to those matters, I believe them to be true.
Page six of seven

Sealed by the voluntary act of Our Own Hand on this first day of the seventh month in the year
of Our Lord , Jesus, the Christ, nineteen-hundred ninety-six, in the two-hundred and twentieth year
of the Independence of America.
* Vigilantibus, non dormientibus, Jura suhveniunt *.
I have the Honor of being Private Living man or woman
Sign Manual
On this first day of the seventh Month, in the year of Our Lord and Savior Jesus, the Christ,
nineteen hundred ninety-six, We, the undersigned Good and Lawful Living man or woman Men
in this state, having ascertained that our Brother Joseph Edward: Xxxx has read and knows the
contents of this Abatement, witnessed his execution and sealing of the same, and do herewith testify
to theforegoing by voluntarily setting Our Hand and Sealing this Abatement.
Sign Manual
Sign Manual
Page seven of seven

General Delivery
Madison Post Office
Madison, Wisconsin
Joseph Edward, Xxxx, ) Case No.

Demandant ) Part Two.
) Plea In Abatement
Against, )
) Notice of Default; Default Judgment;
O. Short, ) And Praecipe.
INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE ) Dated: The fifteenth day of the seventh month
Plea In Abatement
In the matter of: Unlawful and invalid persona designata, JOSEPH E. XXXX, nom de guerre:
Introduction
This is Part two, of a plea in abatement issued by common right pursuant to common law
rules applicable to such cases against O. Short and the DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY,
and INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, an acting Enemy Alien agency of a statutorily created,
foreign de facto corporation, known as the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. Said agency is
imposing a suretyship, by attaching an illegally presumed persona designata, nom de guerre, created
by them as JOSEPH E. XXXX, upon This Good and Lawful Living man or woman Man, Joseph
Edward: Xxxx, suae potestate esse. This imposition is without authority, is counter to public morals,
being in the Nature of a Praemunire which is outlawed by the General custom in this state and, thus,
is in violation of the Wisconsin Constitution, the lex non scripta, which is the juspublicum in this
state:
Page one of three

Part Two of this matter contains the following, titled: One, Notice of Default; Two,
Default Judgment; and Three, Praecipe.
One. Default:
To: The INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, and all above named Defendants
Take notice that demand was herein lawfully made upon you to answer or otherwise plead to
the plaint on file herein, a copy of which has heretofore been served on you, and of which you had
and have knowledge of the matter therein.
Take further notice that your failure to answer or otherwise plead in response to the foregoing
notice, within the time stated, the Demandant will forthwith cause your default be entered and move
for judgment against you personally and officially for the relief demanded on the plaint.
Two. Order for Entry of Default and Default Judgment:
The Plea In Abatement in this action having been personally served upon O. Short, and the
INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, the aforesaid Defendants, on the first day ofthe
seventh month, in the Year of of Our Lord , Jesus, the Christ, nineteen hundred ninety-six, in the
two hundred twentieth year of the Independence of America, a true copyof Proof of Service
is annexed hereto, incorporated fully herein, and marked "EXHIBIT A," for your edification,
and no answer, demurrer, motion, or other pleading to the plaint having in any manner been made
by said Defendants;
Now, on motion of the Demandant:
It is ordered that the clerk of this court shall be, and is hereby, directed to enter the default of
the aforesaid Defendants, and default judgment in favor of Demandant and against Defendants for
the relief demanded in the plaint, and as follows:
That all records containing the persona designata, JOSEPH E. XXXX, nom de guerre, and all
information they contain, be expurgated from all systems for the lawful reasons given in the
plaint; and,
Let judgment enter accordingly.
Page two of three

Three, Praecipe:
The clerk of said court will please enter a default against the aforesaid Defendants in the
above entitled cause because of Defendants' failure to respond on the rule day of the twelfth day of
the seventh month, in the year of Our Lord , Jesus, the Christ, nineteen-hundred ninety-six, and in
the two-hundred twenty-first year of the Independence of America.
Sealed by the voluntary act of my own hand on the fifteenth day of the seventh month in the
year of Our Lord , Jesus, the Christ nineteen-hundred ninety-six, and in the two-hundred twenty-
first year of the Independence of America.
I have the Honor of Being, Private Living man or woman . L.S.
Sign Manual
Page three of three

General Delivery
Madison Post Office
Madison, Wisconsin
Joseph Edward, Xxxx, ) Case No.

suae potestate esse, )
Demandant, )
) Part One.
Against, ) Plea In Abatement
)
O. Short, )
INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, ) Dated: The eighth day of the seventh month
Be it Known and Remembered by All to Whom These Presents Come, and May Concern:
INTRODUCTlON
This is a Plea In Abatement issued pursuant to common law rules applicable to such cases, against
O. Short, an acting Alien Enemy agent of a statutorily created, foreign de facto corporation, known
as the INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE. Said agent is attemptingto plunder, in the Nature
of a Praemunire, which is outlawed by the General custom in this state and, thus, is in
violation of The Law of Nations, The Law of War, The Wisconsin Constitution, and
the lex non scripta, which is the jus publicum in this state:
Page one of eight

Discussion;
Whereas, 'Congress', in the Preamble of Congressional Report No. 93-549, issued November
19, 1973, stated "A majority of the people of the United States have lived all of their lives under
emergency rule ... And, in the United States, actions taken by the Government in time of great crisis
have from, at least, the Civil War in important ways, shaped the present phenomenon of a permanent
state of national emergency":
And whereas, according to The Supreme Court, 'Congress' has made little or no distinction
between a "state of national emergency," and "a state of war":
And whereas, according to the Law of Nations, "the most immediate effect of a state of war is
that it activates the Law of War itself."
And whereas, according to the Law of War, "martial law is obtained during a state of war and
in truth and reality, is no law at all":
And whereas, King Charles the First, in The Petition of Right of June 7, 1628, acknowledged
with law of the land in The Great Charter of the Liberties of England and America:
Now therefore, any proceeding to the contrary violates the established customs and usage's,
breaches the peace and safety of the people in their Dominions, is an invasion against the people
and their Law and is a trespass on This private Living man or woman :
Chapter one:
Return of Abandoned Paper; and Averments
Please find attached the following abandoned paper: AUTOMATED LETTER 2050
( REV. 9-94 )
Your abandoned paper is refused for cause without dishonor and without recourse to Me,
and is returned, herewith, because it is irregular and unauthorized, based upon the following,
to wit:
Comes Now, This Good and Lawful Living man or woman Man, grateful to Almighty God for
my Liberty, and humbly Extend Greetings and Salutations to you from Jesus, the Christ,
and Myself by Visitation, to exercise Ministerial Powers in this Matter, to return your paper, which
paper was abandoned by Defendant, but is not accepted.
Page two of eight

Your abandoned paper contains the following Marks of Fraud:
First:
Mark: Your abandoned paper does not apply to Me, but to a persona designata, for the reason;
it does not have upon it's face My full Living man or woman Appellation in upper and
lower case letters and in addition, thereto, suae potestate esse; and,
Second:
Mark: Your abandoned paper alleges violations of a law, foreign to My Venue, which, no Oath,
Promise, or Law attaches Me thereto; and,
Third:
Mark: Your agency, its fiduciaries, and the nom de guerre O. Short, are not established in the
Wisconsin Constitution and are, therefore, persona non grata; and.
Fourth:
Mark: Your abandoned paper has no foundation in Law; for the reason, it is not from an office
recognized by the people or General laws in this state; and.
Fifth:
Mark: Your abandoned paper lacks jurisdictional facts necessary to place or bring Me within
your venue; and,
Sixth:
Mark: Your abandoned paper is unintelligible and unfamiliar to Me; based upon the following:
It is not written in Proper English; being such, it fails to apprise Me of the Nature of any
matter alleged, and cannot be recognized lawfully in this state, for the reason; it violates
Our general customs and usages; and has no force, effect, or operation outside the venue
from which it originates; and,
Seventh:
Mark: Your abandoned paper fails to affirmatively show, upon it's face, lawful authority for
your presence in My Venue; and,
Eighth:
Mark: Your abandoned paper fails to affirmatively show, upon it's face, the necessity for your
invasion of My Privacy and Dominions; and,
Ninth:
Mark: Your abandoned paper fails to affirmatively show, upon it's face, your authority to
violate or disparage Me in any way; and,
Tenth:
Mark: Your abandoned paper has no Warrant in Law and is not Judicial in Nature; and,
Page three of eight

Eleventh:
Mark: Your abandoned paper is not sealed with authority recognized in Wisconsin and is,
therefore, a trespass into My Dominions and a breach of the peace; and,
Twelfth:
Mark: Your abandoned paper fails to disclose any legal connection between Myself and
your agency; and,
Thirteenth:
Mark: Your abandoned paper is defective and nugatory, due to insufficient Law:
* Ex Dolo malo non oritur Actio *
Chapter two:
Firstly:
Wisconsin, said Alien Enemy agent is not a State Judicial Officer having power to issue orders or
judgments of any kind:
And whereas, according to the General custom in this state, The General laws of Wisconsin,
''The Law of Nations' and 'The Law of War,' said Alien Enemy belligerent cannot invade My
Dominions with defective and nugatory paper:
And whereas, your abandoned paper containing threats of plunder, invades My Dominions:
And whereas, My Immunity from invasion is a recognized General custom in this state:
Now therefore, your abandoned paper containing threats of plunder and invasion are a
disturbance of the public peace, a public nuisance, and a trespass upon Me:
* Ex nudo Pacto non oritur Actio *
Secondly:
Whereas, said Alien Enemy agent is attempting to impose a form of money inimical to public
welfare according to the standard set by the Wisconsin Constitution:
Now therefore, your abandoned paper and it's purpose is contra bonos mores:
* Quod ab Initio non valet in Tractu Temporis non convalescit *
Page four of eight

Thirdly:
Whereas, your abandoned paper contains the extraneous symbols, 05-22-96and

PERIOD ENDING 12-31-93, which symbology appears to denote time, but is unfamiliar to
Me; for the reason, I measure time in years of Our Lord , Jesus, the Christ. In accordance
with the customs and usages in this state:
unfamiliar way of measuring time:
And whereas, your abandoned paper contains scandalous and libelous matter all to My harm,
in particular, and to this state in general:
Now, therefore:
I am returning your abandoned paper, and shall, henceforth, exercise My Right of Avoidance;
for the reason: your abandoned paper is irregular, unauthorized, misnomered, defective upon
it's face and invalid. and is, herewith. abated for being a public nuisance. There appear to be no
factors which would warrant adjustment of the Abatement, due to a Conflict of Law.
Chapter three:
Ordering Clause;
"Every direction of a court or judge, made or entered in writing, and not included ina
judgment, is denominated an order."
Said Defendants shall abate the matter of FINAL NOTICE (NOTICE OF INTENTTO
LEVY), within ten (10) days of the ordering of this Plea In Abatement, or show cause why the
abatement should not lie. Any and all written response must include a detailed factual statement and
supporting documentation, having standing in Law, If more than ten (10) days are neededto
respond, it may be granted on written request of Defendant. Failure to obey this court order or failure
to respond in the time prescribed, herein, will result in a Default and Default Judgment, Nemo debet
bis vexari pro una et eadem Causa, and may subject Defendant to Civil liabilitiesor Criminal
punishment pursuant to The Law of Nations, The Law of War, the Wisconsin
Constitution, and the lex non scripta in this state:
* Omnia praesumuntur contra Spoliatorem *
Page five of eight

Your response to this instant matter shall be marked with the superior court case number,
and directed to the following location:
Joseph Edward: Xxxx, suae potestate esse

General Delivery
Madison Post Office
Madison, Wisconsin
Wherefore: Until this Conflict of Law is resolved, I wish you to do the following, to wit:
First:
Obtain process issued, under seal, from a court appertaining to a Wisconsin Judicial
Department; and,
Second:
That said process be based on sworn Oath or Affirmation from a competent Witnessor
Damaged Victim; and,
Third:
That said process bear My full Living man or woman Appellation in upper and lower
case letters, and in addition, thereto, suae potestate esse, and must be handled and personally served
upon Me by the Dane county Sheriff.
There is no need for Me to communicate until, in due course of Law, lawful process is served.
This private Living man or woman , will henceforth, exercise My Right of Avoidance
and maintain
My Dominion, My Immunities, and Our customs and usages, and stand upon the grounds set
out above:
Sealed by the voluntary act of My Own Hand on this eighth day of the seventh month in the year
of Our Lord and Savior Jesus, the Christ, nineteen hundred ninety-six, in the two hundred and
twenty-first year of the Independence of America:

L.S.
Page six of eight

Sign Manual
Attachment: Abandoned paper of:
INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE

AUTOMATED LETTER 2050 (REV. 9-94)
FINAL NOTICE (NOTICE OF INTENT TO LEVY)
Page seven of eight

In Witness, Knowing the punishment for bearing false witness before Almighty God and Men,
I solemnly aver, that I have read the foregoing Plea In Abatement and know the contents thereof;
that the same is true of My Own Knowledge, except to the matters which are therein stated on My
Sealed by the voluntary act of My Own Hand on this eighth day of the seventh month,
in the year of Our Lord and Savior Jesus, the Christ, nineteen-hundred ninety-six, in
the two-hundred and twenty-first year of the Independence of America.
Sign Manual
On this eighth day of the seventh Month, in the year of Our Lord , Jesus, the Christ, nineteen-
hundred ninety-six, we, the undersigned, Good and Lawful Living man or woman Men in this state,
having ascertained that Our Brother, John William, has read and Knows the contents of this Plea
In Abatement, witnessed his execution and sealing of the same, and do hereby testify to the
foregoing, by voluntarily setting Our Hand and Sealing this Abatement.
Sign Manual
Sign Manual
Page eight of eight

Respond to: Robert James: Xxxx
General Delivery
Van Nuys Post Office
Van Nuys, California
superior court, Los Angeles, California
Robert James, Xxxx ) Case No.

) Plea In Abatement
Against, )
) Dated: The sixth day of the second month
Jack B. Talon, ) in the year of Our Lord , Jesus,
INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE ) the Christ, Nineteen-hundred and ninety-six.
Defendant )
By Robert James: Xxxx, suae potestate esse:
In the matter of: NOTICE OF FEDERAL TAX LIEN 93-1001
INTRODUCTION
Jack B. Talon, an acting Alien Enemy agent of a statutorily created, foreignde facto
corporation, known as the INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE. Said agent is attempting to plunder,
in the Nature of a Praemunire, which is outlawed by the General customin this state
and, thus, is in violation of 'The Law of Nations,' 'The Law of War,' 'The 1849
California Constitution,' and the lex non scripta, which is the jus publicum in this state:
Page one of seven

Discussion;
19, 1973, stated: "A majority of the people of the United States have lived all of their lives under
have - from, at least, the Civil War - in important ways, shaped the present phenomenon of a
permanent state of national emergency":
that it activates the Law of War itself.":
And whereas, King Charles the First, in 'The Petition of Right' of June 7, 1628, acknowledged
with law of the land in 'The Great Charter of the Liberties of England and America':
breaches the peace and safety of the people in their Dominions, is an invasion upon the people and
their Law and is a trespass on This Good and Lawful Living man or woman Man:
* Nimia Subtilitas in Jure reprobatur, et talis Certitudo Certitudinem confundit *
Chapter one:
Return of Abandoned NOTICE; and Averments
Please find attached the following abandoned "NOTICE:" and "NOTICE OF FEDERAL TAX
LIEN 93-1001."
Your abandoned NOTICE is invalid for cause without dishonor and without recourse to Me,
and is, herewith, expurgated because it is irregular and unauthorized, based upon the following, to
wit:
for My Liberty, and humbly Extend Greetings and Salutations to you from Jesus, the Christ,
and Myself by Visitation, to exercise Ministerial Powers in this Matter, to expurgate your
NOTICE, which NOTICE was abandoned by Defendant, but is not accepted.
Page two of seven

Your abandoned NOTICE contains the following Marks of Fraud:
First:
Mark: Your abandoned NOTICE does not apply to Me, but to a persona designata, for
the reason; it does not have upon it's face My full Living man or woman Appellation in
upper and lower case letters and in addition, thereto, suae potestate esse; and,
Second:
Mark: Your abandoned NOTICE alleges authority of a law, foreign to My Venue,
which, no Oath, Promise, or Law attaches Me thereto; and,
Third:
Mark: Your agency, its fiduciaries, and the nom de guerre Jack B. Talon, are not recognized by
the 1849 California Constitution and are, therefore, persona non grata; and,
Fourth:
Mark: Your abandoned NOTICE has no foundation in Law; for the reason, it is not from or
once recognized by the people or General laws in this state; and,
Fifth:
Mark: Your abandoned NOTICE lacks jurisdictional facts necessary to place or bring Me
within your venue; and,
Sixth:
Mark: Your abandoned NOTICE is unintelligible and unfamiliar to Me; based uponthe
following: It is not written in Proper English; being such, it fails to apprise Me ofthe
Nature of any matter alleged, and cannot be recognized lawfully in this state, for the
reason; it violates Our general customs and usages; and has no force, effect,or
operation outside the venue from which it originates; and,
Seventh:
Mark: Your abandoned NOTICE fails to affirmatively show, upon it's face, lawful authority for
Eighth:
Mark: Your abandoned NOTICE fails to affirmatively show, upon it's face, the necessity for
your invasion of My Privacy and Dominions; and,
Ninth:
Mark: Your abandoned NOTICE fails to affirmitively show, upon its face, your authority
to violate, disparage or trespass upon Me in any way; and,
Tenth:
Mark: Your abandoned NOTICE has no Warrant in Law and is not Judicial in Nature; and,
Page three of seven

Eleventh:
Mark: Your abandoned NOTICE is not sealed with authority recognized in California and is,
therefore, a pass into My Dominions and a breach of the peace; and,
Twelfth:
Mark: Your abandoned NOTICE fails to disclose any legal connection between Myself and
your agency; and,
Thirteenth:
Mark: Your abandoned NOTICE is defective and nugatory, due to insufficient Law:
* Ex Dolo malo non oritur Actio *.
Chapter two:
Firstly:
Whereas, pursuant to constitutional due process requirements and 'The General Laws of
California,' said Alien Enemy agent is not a State Judicial Officer having power to issue orders or
And whereas, according to the General custom in this state, The General laws of California, The
Law of Nations, and The Law of War, said Alien Enemy belligerent cannot invade My
Dominions with a defective and nugatory NOTICE:
And whereas, your abandoned NOTICE containing threats of plunder, invades My Dominions:
Now therefore, your abandoned NOTICE containing threats of plunder and invasion area
disturbance of the public peace, a public nuisance, and a trespass upon Me.
Secondly:
Whereas, said Alien Enemy agent is attempting to impose a form of money inimical to
public welfare according to the standard set by the California Constitution:
Now therefore, your abandoned NOTICE and it's purpose is contra bonos mores:
Page four of seven

Thirdly:
Whereas, your abandoned NOTICE contains the extraneous symbols, 01-9-96 and
TAX YEAR ENDING 12-31-94, which symbology appears to denote time, but is unfamiliar to
Me; for the reason, I measure time in years of Our Lord , Jesus, the Christ, in accordance
And whereas, your abandoned NOTICE contains scandalous and libelous matter allto
My harm, in particular, and to this state in general:
* Lex non cogit ad Impossibilia *
Now, therefore:
I am expurgating your abandoned NOTICE, and shall, henceforth, exercise My Right

of Avoidance; for the reason your abandoned NOTICE is irregular, unauthorized, misnomered,
defective upon it's face, and invalid, and is herewith abated for being a public nuisance. There
of Law.
Chapter three:
Ordering Clause;
" Every direction of a court or judge, made or entered in writing,

Said Defendant is hereby ordered to abate the matter of NOTICE OF FEDERAL TAX
LIEN 93-0445, issue a release to the of Los Angeles County Recorder, for the removal of said
NOTICE within ten (10) days of the ordering of this Plea In Abatement, or show cause why the
Abatement should not lie. Any and all written response must include a detailed factual statement
and supporting documentation having standing in Law. If more time thanten (10) days
is needed to respond, it may be granted on written request of the Defendant. Failure to obey
this court order or failure to respond in the time prescribed, herein, will result ina Default and
Default Judgment, Nemo debet bis vexari pro una et eadem Causa, and may subject Defendant to
Civil liabilities or Criminal punishment pursuant to 'The Law of Nations,' 'The Law of War,' the
'1849 California Constitution,' and the lex non scripta in this state:
Page five of seven

Robert James: Xxxx, suae potestate esse'

General Delivery
Van Nuys Post Office
Van Nuys, California
I, Good and Lawful Living man or woman Man, will henceforth, exercise My Right
of Avoidanceand maintain My Dominion, My Immunities, and Our customs and usages, and
stand uponthe grounds set out above:
A public notice of this Plea In Abatement is posted at , and ,

in Los Angeles county, California for all the world to Witness, for the next eight weeks, and in
the public notice section of the Newspaper for the next three weeks.
Sealed by the voluntary act of My Own Hand on this sixth day of the second month in the year
of Our Lord and Savior Jesus, the Christ, nineteen-hundred ninety-six, in the two-hundred and
twentieth-year of the Independence of America:

L.S.
I have the Honor of being Good and Lawful Living man or woman Man
(thumb print) ,suae potestate esse
Sign Manual
Attachment: Abandoned NOTICE of:

INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE
NOTICE OF FEDERAL TAX L1EN 93-1001
Page six of seven

In Witness, Knowing the punishment for bearing false witness before Almighty God and Men.
Sealed by the voluntary act of My Own Hand on this sixth day of the second month, in the year
of Our Lord , Jesus, the Christ, nineteen-hundred ninety-six, in the two hundred and twentieth year
Sign Manual
On this sixth day of the second Month, in the year of Our Lord , Jesus, the Christ, nineteen
hundred ninety-six, We, the undersigned, Good and Lawful Living man or woman Men in this
state, having ascertained that Our Brother, Robert James, has read and Knows the contents of this
Plea In Abatement, witnessed his execution and sealing of the same, and do hereby testify to the
foregoing, by voluntarily setting Our Hand and Sealing this Abatement.
I have the Honor of being Good and Lawful Living man or

woman Man
(thumb print) , Suae potestate esse
Sign Manual
I have the Honor of being Good and Lawful Living man or

woman Man
Sign Manual
Page seven of seven

Respond to: Richard Matthew: Xxxx
General Delivery
Galveston Post Office
Galveston, California
superior court, Galveston county, Texas
Richard Matthew: Xxxx, ) Case No.

) Plea In Abatement
Against, )
) Dated: The sixteenth day of the forth month
R. Mandell, ) in the year of Our Lord , Jesus,
Texas State Bank, ) the Christ, Nineteen-hundred and ninety-six.
Judge Harold S. Golden, )
Defendants. )
By Richard Matthew: Xxxx, suae potestate esse:
In the matter of: SUMMONS; case No. 96-3990CV; FORCLOSURE OF

MORTGAGE, 6 DAY OF MAY, 1996.
INTRODUCTION
R. Mandell and Harold S. Golden, acting Alien Enemy agents of a statutorily created, foreign de
facto corporation known as the Texas State Bank. Said agents are attempting to plunder, in
the Nature of a Praemunire, which is outlawed by the General custom in this state and thus, is in
violation of 'The Law of Nations,' 'The Law of War,' 'The Texas Constitution,'and the lex non
scripta, which is the jus publicum in this state:
Page one of nine

Discussion;
19, 1973, stated "A majority of the people of the United States have lived all of their lives under
have - from, at least, the Civil War - in important ways, shaped the present phenomenon of a
permanent state of national emergency":
that it activates the 'Law of War' itself.":
And whereas, King Charles the First, in 'The Petition of Right' of June 7, 1628, acknowledged
with law of the land in 'The Great Charter of the Liberties of England and America':
and their Law, and is a trespass on this Good and Lawful Living man or woman Man:
Chapter one:
Please find attached the following abandoned paper: SUMMONS; case No. 95-5683CV:
and is returned, herewith, because it is irregular and unauthorized, based upon the following,
to wit:
for My Liberty, and humbly Extend Greetings and Salutations to you from Jesus, the Christ,
and Myself by Visitation, to exercise Ministerial Powers in this Matter, to return your paper,
which paperwas abandoned by Defendants, but is not accepted.
Page two of nine

Your abandoned paper contains the following Marks of Fraud:
First:
Mark: Your abandoned paper does not apply to Me, but to a persona designata, for the reason;
it does not have upon it's face My full Living man or woman Appellation in upper and
lower case letters and in addition, thereto, suae potestate esse; and,
Second:
Mark: Your abandoned paper alleges violations of a law, foreign to My Venue, which, no Oath,
Promise, Or Law attaches Me thereto; and,
Third:
Mark: Your agency, and the nom de guerres R. Mandell and Harold S. Golden, are not allowed
in the Texas Constitution and are, therefore, persona non grata; and,
Fourth.
Mark: Your abandoned paper has no foundation in Law; for the reason, it is not from an office
recognized by the people or General laws in this state; and,
Fifth:
Mark: Your abandoned paper lacks jurisdictional facts necessary to place or bring Me within
your venue; and,
Sixth:
Mark: Your abandoned paper is unintelligible and unfamiliar to Me; based upon the following:
It is not written in Proper English; being such, it fails to apprise Me of the Nature of any
matter alleged, and cannot be recognized lawfully in this state, for the reason; it violates
Our general customs and usages; and has no force, effect, or operation outside the venue
from which it originates; and,
Seventh:
Mark: Your abandoned paper fails to affirmatively show, upon it's face, lawful authority for
Eighth:
Mark: Your abandoned paper fails to affirmatively show, upon it's face, the necessity for your
invasion of My Privacy and Dominions; and
Ninth:
Mark: Your abandoned paper fails to affirmitively show, upon it's face, your authority to violate
or disparage Me in any way; and,
Tenth:
Mark: Your abandoned paper has no Warrant in Law and is not Judicial in Nature; and,
Page three of nine

Eleventh:
Mark: Your abandoned paper is not sealed with authority recognized in Texas and is, therefore,
a trespass into My Dominions and a breach of the peace; and,
Twelfth:
Mark: Your abandoned paper fails to disclose any legal connection between Myself and
your agency; and,
Thirteenth:
Mark: Your abandoned paper is defective and nugatory, due to insufficient Law:
Chapter two:
Firstly:
Whereas, pursuant to constitutional due process requirements and The General Laws of
Texas, said Alien Enemy agents are not State Judicial Officers having power to issue ordersor
And whereas, according to the General custom in this state, The General laws of Texas,
The Law of Nations and The Law of War, said Alien Enemy belligerents cannot invade My
Dominions with defective and nugatory paper:
And whereas, your abandoned paper containing threats of plunder, invades My Dominions:
Now therefore, your abandoned paper containing threats of plunder and invasion area
disturbance of the public peace, a public nuisance, and a trespass upon Me:
Secondly:
Whereas, said Alien Enemy agents are using a form of money inimical to public welfare
according to the customs and usages of the people in this state and the standard set by the
Texas Constitution; and,
Whereas, no Lawful Money of the united States of America is loaned by Texas State Bank
- only created debt credit is extended; and,
Page four of nine

Whereas, Texas State Bank creates extended debt credit by mere bookkeeping entries without
any Lawful dollars exchanged, as evidenced by the token which describes nothing because nomen
non sufficit si res non sit de iure aut de facto; and,
Whereas, Texas State Bank in its transactions, does not utilize or state Lawful money
recognized in the state of Texas, and which conforms to the Mint and Coinage Act of 1792; and,
Whereas, Texas State Bank is engaged in the lawless practice of deceit, which constitutes
outlawry in this state, dolus et fraus nemini patrocinentur (patrocinari debent); and,
Whereas, according to the Holy Scripture, which is the Public Policy in this state, only
substance invokes and moves Law, les fictions naissent de la loi, et non la loi des fictions; and,
Whereas, Texas State Bank, having never loaned any substance to Demandant, does
not have, and therefore cannot Lawfully claim Title to property Owned or Possessed by
Demandant; and,
Whereas, all actions of assumpsit are enforced ex contractu; and,
Whereas, all actions ex contractu are actions in personam, the persona designata, against
RICHARD M. XXXX, a nom de guerre, from the rejected Roman process of novation, which
describes nobody, nomen non sufficitsi res non sit de iure aut de facto, and quod contra legem fit,
pro infecto habetur, and quando aliquid prohibetur ex directo, prohibetur et per obliquum, and
quando aliquid prohibetur, prohibetur omne per quod devenitur ad llud; and,
Whereas, actions against nobody are odious in Law; and,
Whereas, contracts commercia belli are contracts contra bonos mores because they are
destructive to this Good and Lawful Living man or woman Man, and this state in general, interest
reipublicae quod homines conserventur; and,
Whereas, notes, bills, checks, drafts, letters, deeds of trust, and other negotiable instruments
have no substantive standing in Law, because they are symbol and tokens, being in their nature
inimical to, and destructive of, the customs and usages constituting the Public Policy of the Good
and Lawful Living man or woman s in this state, and destructive of the state itself; and,
Whereas, a contract in violation of the Public Policy in this state is void, rei turpis nullum
mandatum est; and,
Whereas, the lex mercatoria, or mercantile law, is the comprehensive body of privately
administered rules and customs enforced as law, being like or similar to Law, but are not and never
were Law having any operation in this state of Christendom; and,
Now therefore, your abandoned paper and it's purpose is contra bonos mores:
Page five of nine

Thirdly:
Whereas, your abandoned paper contains the extraneous symbols, 06-2-95 and
2 DAY OF JUNE, 1995, which symbology appears to denote time, but is unfamiliar to Me;
for the reason, I measure time in years of Our Lord , Jesus, the Christ, in accordance with the
customs and usages in this state:
And whereas, your abandoned paper contains scandalous and libelous matter all to My harm,
in particular, and to this state in general:
Now, therefore:
I am returning your abandoned paper, and shall, henceforth, exercise My Right

of Avoidance; for the reason: your abandoned paper is irregular, unauthorized, misnomered,
defective upon it's face and invalid, and is, herewith, abated for being a public nuisance. There
appear to be no factors which would warrant adjustment of the Abatement, due toa Conflict
of Law.
Chapter three:
Ordering Clause;
"Every direction of a court or judge, made or entered in writing,

Said Defendants shall abate the matter of SUMMONS; case No. 96-3990CV;
FORECLOSURE OF MORTGAGE, within ten (10) days of the ordering of this PleaIn
Abatement, or show cause why the Abatement should not lie. Any and all written response must
include a detailed factual statement and supporting documentation, having standing in Law. If more
time than ten (10) days is needed to respond, it may be granted on written request of the
Defendants. Failure to obey this court order or failure to respond in the time prescribed, herein,
will result in a Default and Default Judgment, Nemo debet bis vexari pro una et eadem Causa, and
may subject Defendants to Civil liabilities or Criminal punishment pursuant to The Law of
Nations, The Law of War, the Texas Constitution, and the lex non scripta in this state:
Page six of nine

Your response to this instant matter shall be marked with the superior court case number, and
directed to the following location:
Richard Matthew: Xxxx, suae potestate esse

General Delivery
Galveston Post Office
Galveston, Texas
Wherefore: Until this Conflict of Law is resolved, I wish you to do the following, to wit:
First:
Obtain process issued, under seal, from a court appertaining to a Texas Judicial Department;
and,
Second:
That said process be based on sworn Oath or Affirmation from a competent Witnessor
Damaged Victim: and,
Third:
That said process bear My full Living man or woman Appellation in upper and lower
case letters, and in addition, thereto, suae potestate esse, and must be handled and personally served
upon Me by the Galveston county Sheriff.
There is no need for Me to communicate until, in due course of Law, lawful process is served.
This Good and Lawful Living man or woman Man, will henceforth, exercise My Right of
Avoidance maintain My Dominions, My Immunities, and Our customs and usages, and stand
uponthe grounds set out above:
* Summa Ratio est quae pro Religione facit *
Page seven of nine

Sealed by the voluntary act of My Own Hand on this sixteenth day of the fourth month
in the year of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus, the Christ, nineteen-hundred ninety-five, in
the two-hundred and sixteenth year of the Independence of America:
* Vigilantibus, non dormientibus, Jura subveniunt *

L.S.
Sign Manual
Attachment: Abandoned paper of: Texas State Bank

SUMMONS; case No.96-3990CV;
FORECLOSURE OF MORTGAGE, 6 DAY OF MAY, 1996
Page eight of nine

Sealed by the voluntary act of My Own Hand on this sixteenth day of the fourth month, in the
year of Our Lord , Jesus, the Christ, nineteen-hundred ninety-six, in the two hundred twentieth year
Sign Manual
On this sixteenth day of the fourth Month, in the year of Our Lord , Jesus, the Christ,
nineteen-hundred ninety-six, we, the undersigned, Good and Lawful Living man or woman Men
in this state, having ascertained that Our Brother, John William, has read and Knows the contents
of this Plea In Abatement, witnessed his execution and sealing of the same, and do hereby testify to
the foregoing, by voluntarily setting Our Hand and Sealing this Abatement.
Sign Manual
Sign Manual
Page nine of nine

Respond to: James Edwin: Xxxx
General Delivery
Rockmart Post Office
Rockmart, Georgia
superior court, Polk county, Georgia
James Edwin: Xxxx, ) Case No.

suae potestate esse, et uxor, )
) Part One.
Demandant, )
) Plea In Abatement
Against, )
)
R. Conroy, )
DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY, ) Dated: The eighth day of the third month
INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, ) in the year of Our Lord , Jesus,
) the Christ, Nineteen-hundred and ninety-six.
Defendant. )
By James Edwin: Xxxx, suae potestate esse, et uxor,
In the matter of: Unlwful and invalid persona designata, ROBERTA XXXX,
ROBERTA T. XXXX and Roberta T. Xxxx, nons de guerre:
INTRODUCTION
This is a Plea In Abatement issued pursuant to common law rules applicable to such cases,
against DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY, INTERNAL REVENUE SERVICE, acting Alien
Enemy agency of a statutorily created, foreign de facto corporation known as the
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. Said agency is imposing a suretyship, by attaching an illegally
presumed persona designata, noms de guerre, created by them as ROBERTA XXXX, ROBERTA
T. XXXX and Roberta T. Xxxx, upon The Lawful Wife of This Good and Lawful
Chritian Man, James Edwin: Xxxx, suae potestate esse. This imposition is without authority,
is counter to public morals, being in the Nature of a Praemunire which is outlawed by the General
custom in this state and, thus, is in violation of the Georgia Constitution and the lex non scripta,
which is the jus publicum in this state:
Page one of seven

Discussion;
Any proceeding to the contrary violates the established customs and usages, threatens the peace
and safety of the people in their Dominions, is an invasion upon the people and their Law and is a
trespass against This Good and Lawful Living man or woman Man, his Dominions, and his House.
Chapter one:
Invalidation and expurgation of records; and Averments
Your records are invalid for cause without dishonor and without recourse to Me, and are,
herewith, expurgated for they are irregular and unauthorized, based upon the following, to wit:
Comes Now, This Good and Lawful Living man or woman Man, grateful to Almighty God for
My Liberty, to humbly Extend Greetings and Salutations to you from Jesus, the Christ,
and Myself by Visitation, to exercise Ministerial Powers in this Matter, to invalidate and
expurgate your records:
Your records contains the following Marks of Fraud:
First:
Mark: Your records do not have upon their face My full Living man or woman Appellation in
upper and lower case letters and in addition, thereto, suae potestate esse, et uxor, nor do
your records, herewith invalidated and expurgated, apply to Me and My House; and,
Second:
Mark: Your records are foreign to My Venue, which, no Oath, Promise, Or Law attaches Me,
My Family or My House thereto; and,
Third:
Mark: Your agency, and its agents are not established in the Georgia Constitution, and are,
therefore, persona non grata; and,
Fourth.
Mark: Your records have no foundation in Law; for the reason, they are not from an office
recognized by the people or General laws in this state; and,
Page two of seven

Fifth:
Mark: Your records lack jurisdictional facts necessary to place Me, My Wife, My Family or My
House, within your venue; and,
Sixth:
Mark: Your records are unintelligible and unfamiliar to Me; based upon the following: They are
not written in Proper English; being such, they cannot be recognized lawfully in this
state, for the reason; they violate Our general customs and usages; and have no existence,
effect, force or operation outside the venue from which they originate; and,
Seventh:
Mark: Your records fail to affirmatively show, upn their face, lawful authority for your presence
in My Venue; and by established custom of Coverture in this state, My Wife cannot
contract, be noticed in any capacity, recorded as chattel property in any systemof
records, sent or given any process without My Consent; and,
Eighth:
Mark: Your records fail to affirmatively show, upon their face, the lawful authority or necessity
for your invasion of My Privacy, My Family, and Dominions; and,
Ninth:
Mark: Your records fail to affirmitively show, upon their face, your authority to novate, violate,
disparage, or trespass upon Me, or My Family, in any way; and,
Tenth:
Mark: Your records have no Warrant in Law and is not Judicial in Nature; and,
Eleventh:
Mark: Your abandoned paper is not sealed with authority recognized in Georgia and are,
therefore, a trespass into My Authority, My Dominions and My Family; and,
Twelfth:
Mark: Your records fail to disclose any legal connection between Myself and your agency; and,
Thirteenth:
Mark: Your records are defective and nugatory, upon their face, due to insufficient Law:
Page three of seven

Chapter two:
Firstly:
Georgia, said Alien Enemy agency is not a State Judicial Office having power to issue ordersor
And whereas, according to the custom in this state, The General laws of Georgia, The Law
of Nations, and The Law of War, said Alien Enemy agency cannot invade or usurp My Authority,
patria potestas, or Dominions with contempt for the General custom in this state:
And whereas, your records are usurping My Authority, patria potestas, in and overMy
Dominions:
And whereas, your invasion of My Wife violates the General custom in this state of Coverture,
by which She has Immunity from such lawless acts against her:
And whereas, no authority exists, or can be delegated, which allows a person to commit
lawless acts against the General Laws in this state with impunity:
Now therefore, your records which are usurping My Authority, patra potestas, are a
disturbance of the public peace, a public nuisance, and a trespass upon Me and My Dominions:
Secondly:
And whereas, said Alien Enemy agency is attempting to destroy the foundations of free
Civil government enjoyed by a Free and Lawful People through their Obedience to the Laws
of God, the jus ex non scripto, which is the General custom, and basis of the Covenant and
General Laws in this state:
And whereas, said Alien Enemy agency is attempting to bring or impose an Imperial system
of law which destroys our General custom, Covenant, and General Laws in this state, which are
the only governing Law in this state:
And whereas, said Alien Enemy agency imposes servitude upon Me by destroyingthe
General custom of Coverture in this state; through acts of novation, attachment of
persona designata, and making of nom de guerre, to a member of My Family; and thereby attempts
to steal by stratagem of war, My Authority, patria potestas, in My Houseand My
Dominions; all these acts violating My House under God, the Laws of God,and generally
most destructive of the common good of the public in this state:
Page four of seven

And whereas, said Alien Enemy agency is attempting to extort a performance of suretyship
from Me, which is servitude sans authority or Warrant in Law, contrary to the Law of God,
the General custom, and morals in this state:
Now therefore, your records and their purpose are contra bonos mores.
Thirdly:
Whereas, your abandoned paper contains the extraneous symbols, such as 04-2-96 and
PERIOUD ENDING 12-31-93, which symbology appears to denote time, but is unfamiliar
to Me; for the reason, I measure time in years of Our Lord , Jesus, the Christ, in accordance
And whereas, your records contain scandalous and libelous matter all to My harm, in
particular, and to this state in general:
Now, therefore:
I am invalidating and exurgating your records, and shall, henceforth, exercise My Right
of Avoidance for the reason: your records are irregular, unauthorized, misnomered, defective
upon their face and invalid, and are, herewith, abated for being a public nuisance. There
of Law.
Chapter three:
Ordering Clause;

Said Defendants shall abate the matter of imposing suretyship upon Me and My House, through
unlawful attachment to Me and My House, of a persona designata, ROBERTA T.
XXXX, ROBERTA XXXX, or Roberta T. Xxxx, all noms de guerre, withinten (10) days
of the ordering of this Plea In Abatement, or show cause why the Abatement should not lie.
Any and all written response must include a detailed factual
Page five of seven

statement and supporting documentation, having standing in Law. If more time than ten
(10) days is needed to respond, it may be granted on written request of the Defendants. Failure to
obey this court order or failure to respond in the time prescribed, herein, will result ina Default
and Default Judgment, Nemo debet bis vexari pro una et eadem Causa, and may subject
Defendants to Civil liabilities or Criminal punishment pursuant to The Law of Nations, The Law
of War, the Georgia Constitution, and the lex non scripta in this state:
All responses to this instant matter shall be marked with the superior court case number,
James Edwin: Xxxx, suae potestate esse, et uxor

General Delivery
Rockmart Post Office
Rockmart, Texas
This Good and Lawful Man and His House, will henceforth, exercise Our Right of Avoidance
and maintain Our Dominions, Our Immunities, and Our Living man or woman customs and usages,
and stand upon the grounds set out above:
* Omnia praesumutur contra Spoliatorem *
A public notice of this Plea In Abatement of the persona designata, ROBERTA T. XXXX,
ROBERTA XXXX or Roberta T. Xxxx, noms de guerre, is posted at ,
, and in Polk county, Georgia for all the world to Witness,
for the next eight weeks, and in the public notice section of the Newspaper for the
next three weeks.
Sealed by the voluntary act of My Own Hand on this day of the third month in the year
of Our Lord , Jesus, the Christ, nineteen-hundred ninety-six, in the two hundred and twentieth
year of the Independence of America.
I have the Honor of Being Good and Lawful Living man or woman Man
(thumb print) , suae potestate esse, etuxor
Page six of seven

Sealed by the voluntary act of My Own Hand on this eighth day of the third month, in the year
of Our Lord , Jesus, the Christ, nineteen-hundred ninety-six, in the two hundredtwentieth year
(thumb print) , suae potestate esse, et uxor
Sign Manual
On this thirteenth day of the third Month, in the year of Our Lord , Jesus, the Christ,
nineteen-hundred ninety-six, we, the undersigned, Good and Lawful Living man or woman Men
in this state, having ascertained that Our Brother, James Edwin, has read and Knows the contents of
this Abatement, witnessed his execution and sealing of the same, and do herewith testify to
the foregoing by voluntarily setting Our Hand and Sealing this Abatement.
Sign Manual
Sign Manual
Page seven of seven

Plea In Abatement for Attempted Denial of General Delivery
The following pages is an abatement for a situation where the Postmaster has informed
you in writing that your traditionally vested right in General Delivery will be terminated.
It can be processed in the usual manner as other abatements, but it is suggested that you use
the county Sheriff for service. If the Sheriff refuses to do the service, you should then use
Registered mail in the usual manner, the only exception being that it should be sent from
a Post Office other than the one where the Postmaster is located.
The reference to being an Alien Enemy agent and the Marks of Fraud have been
eliminated from this particular abatement, for the reason; to reduce any creation of hostility
between yourself and the Postmaster. It is essential that this hostility be kept at a minimum
when dealing with the Postmaster, as you will be in contact with these people on a daily
basis, as opposed to most 'government' officers. It’s best to appear benevolent with these
officers, along with a full understanding of Post Office history and your rights under that de
jure office and the limitations of the Postal Service.
********
Respond to: Bobby Jean: Xxxx, suae potestate esse, uxor
General Delivery
Hay Springs Post Office
Hay Springs, Nebraska
superior court, Sheridan county, Nebraska
Bobby Jean: Xxxx, ) Case No.

suae potestate esse, et uxor, )
) Part One.
Demandant, )
) Plea In Abatement
Against, )
)
Camy Letcher; Postmaster, )
HAY SPRINGS POST OFFICE ) Dated: The eighth day of the eighth month
Defendant. ) the Christ, Nineteen-hundred and ninety-six.
By Bobbi Jean: Xxxx, suae potestate esse, et uxor,
In the matter of: LETTER OF TERMINATION OF GENERAL DELIVERY

SERVICE, signed by Camy Letcher.
INTRODUCTION
This is a Plea In Abatement issued by common right pursuant to common law rules applicable to
such cases, against Postmaster Camy Letcher, an agent of a statutorily created, foreign de facto
corporation, known as THE UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE. Said agent is attempting to
deny General Delivery, a traditionally vested right held in common, to Bobby Jean: Xxxx, suae
potestate esse, et uxor, counter to public morals, in the Nature of a Praemunire, thereby obstructing
the mails, which is outlawed by the General custom in this state and, thus, is in violation of The Law
of Nations, The Law of War, the Nebraska Constitution, and the ex non scripta, which is the jus
publicum in this state:
* Nimia Subtilitas in Jure reprobatur, et talis Certitudo Certitudinem confundit *
documents titled: One. Plea In Abatement; and, Two. Verification by Asseveration.
Page one of seven

One. Plea In Abatement;
Discussion;
19, 1973, states "A majority of the people of the United States have lived all of their lives under
have from, at least, - the Civil War - in important ways, shaped the present phenomenon of a
permanent state of national emergency".
between a "state of national emergency" and "a state of war":
that it activates the Law of War itself.":
And whereas, King Charles the First, in The Petition of Right, dated the seventh day of
the eighth month, in the year of Our Lord , Or What Ever Your Spiritual Beliefs May Be sixteen-
hundred twenty-eight, acknowledged that martial law is repugnant to Living man or woman
common law, and is revoked and annulled forever in accordance with law of the land in 'The
Great Charter of the Liberties' of Englandand America:
And whereas, the law looks to end all litigation and return to Peace, interest republicae ut sit
finis litium:
Now therefore, any proceeding to the contrary violates the established customs and usages,
and their Law and is a trespass on This Good and Lawful Living man or woman Man:
Chapter one:
Please find attached the following abandoned paper: LETTER OF TERMINATION OF

GENERAL DELIVERY SERVICE, signed by Camy Letcher.
and is returned, herewith, because it is irregular and unauthorized, based upon the following
to wit:
Page two of seven

Comes Now, a Good and Lawful Living man or woman Man, grateful to Almighty God for
My Liberty, and humbly Extend Greetings and Salutations to you from Jesus, the Christ, and
Myselfby Visitation, to exercise Ministerial Powers in this Matter, to return your paper, which paper
was abandoned by defendant, but is not accepted.
Whereas, the use of the Post Office Department’s General Delivery is a traditionally vested right
originating in the English Common Law, and implemented here, by the same traditions, customs
and usages from which the constitution is derived; and,
Whereas, those exercising power by or under the authority of a constitution are merely cloaked
with color of authority, the absolute Authority remaining in Good and Lawful Living man or
woman Menand Women; and,
Whereas, a traditionally vested right is an immediate incorporeal fixed right of present

or future enjoyment established and vested by tradition and usage among Goodand
Lawful Living man or woman Men and Women from time immemorial; and,
Whereas, it concerns this state, and the United States of America, that Goodand
Lawful Living man or woman Men and Women be preserved, interest reipublicae quod
homines conserventur; and,
Whereas, the preservation of the Post Office Department and its General Delivery is predicated
on the preservation of the traditional vested rights of Good and Lawful Living man or
woman Menand Women; and,
Whereas, a Good and Lawful Living man or woman Man’s or Woman’s use of General
Delivery in the United States Post Office Department is a traditionally vested right, fixed in
Him or Her, being a Post Patron and transient, and is not, therefore, within the discretion of the
Postmaster at this or any UNITED STATES POST OFFlCE; and,
Whereas, a Good and Lawful Living man or woman Man or Woman can not be compelled
to accepta benefit, i.e., free delivery or a Post Office Box, against His or Her consent, invito
beneficiumnon datur: and,
Whereas, one who advances a proposition, action, or deed contrary to, against, or in violation of
the Law of the Good and Lawful Living man or woman People ought not to be heard or noticed,
actor qui contra regulam quid adduxit, non est audiendus: and,
Whereas, it is not safe to obey one who has no right to deny the exercise of a traditionally vested
right to General Delivery, ius non habenti tute non paretur; and,
Whereas, traditionally vested rights, being previously fixed, and not subject to arbitrariness,
license, or permission, have no specified limit of, or duration in time, and in deed, do not ever expire
at any time; and.
Whereas, ignorance of a right does not in any way prejudice that right, or its Lawful exercise
thereof, ignorantia iuris sui non praejudicat iuri; and,
Page three of seven

Whereas, when fictions of law do not appear, they are in Law, the same as not existing at all,
de non apparentibus et non existentibus eadem est ratio; and,
Whereas, whenever and wherever the Truth is, i.e., Post Patron/sojourner/transient,- fictions of
law such as ‘resident’ or ‘customer’, do not exist, fictio juris non est ubi veritas; and,
Whereas, no one can be compelled to accept a status, which disparages them and falsely
describes them; and,
Whereas, confusion and anarchy result if everyone preserves not their jurisdiction,thereby
destroying this state, rerum ordo confunditur, si unicucuique jurisdictio non servatur; and,
Whereas, the Law itself desires that it be governed by that which it favors; Common Right vested
by Almighty God in all Good and Lawful Living man or woman Men and Women and which are
recognized by and in Our traditions, usages and customs, ipsae leges cupiunt ut iure regantur;
and,
Whereas, this Living man or woman state will not suffer laws of another to interfere with its
own, which in the conflict of laws, when it must often be a matter of doubt which shall prevail, the
court which decides will prefer the Law of its own country to that of the stranger; and,
Whereas, no private agreement between the United States Post Office Department and any
common carrier can prejudice, destroy, overthrow, impair, or derogate a traditionally vested right
held in common with all other Good and Lawful Living man or woman Men and Women,
ius publicumprivatorum pactis mutari non potest; and.
Whereas, strangers to a covenant by and between the Free Good and Lawful Living man or
woman People in this state lack Lawful standing to create law which destroys this covenant, i.e.,
the Constitution for the United States of America, which is governed by the traditions, customs,
and usagesof Good and Lawful Living man or woman People in this state, in common with all
other states in the union of several Living man or woman states; and,
Whereas, THE UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE and its codes, rules, and regulations
have no standing in Law by the Scripture and the Constitution for the United States of America,
it being a stranger thereto; and,
Whereas, THE UNITED STATES POSTAL SERVICE is a stranger to the Good and Lawful
Living man or woman People in this state, and therefore is not equal in status to any of Them; and,
Whereas, things tolerated because of war, martial rule, impositions, deceit,or

national emergency, do not affect the traditions, customs and usages of the Good and
Lawful Living man or woman Men and Women in this state, quae propter necessitatem recepta
sunt, non debent in argumentum trahi; and,
Whereas, things tolerated because of war, martial rule, impositions, deceit,or

national emergency do not become part of the customs and usages of Good and
Lawful Living man or woman Men and Women, because they are imposed on account of necessity
which
Page four of seven

does not exceed the legal memory of man, is of a specific time and place, and is not good beyond
the limits of the necessity, necessitas est les temporis et loci and bonum necessarium extra terminos
necessitatis non est bonum; and,
Whereas, no incorporeal traditional vested rights were, or are, lost by war, national
emergency, martial law, martial rule, impositions, or deceit, incorporalia bello non
aequiruntur; and,
Whereas, The Postmaster-General as Postmaster-General of The United States Post Office

Department, a public benefice conferred in common by Good and Lawful Living man or woman
s in their respective states, and it’s General Delivery Department is the Lawful Officer
serving Postal Patrons at General Delivery; and,
Therefore, your abandoned paper containing threats of denial of My traditionally vested right
to General Delivery, a right I hold in common with all Good and Lawful Living man or
woman s, and favored by the Law, is deceitful and is disparagement, harassment, a
disturbance of the public peace, a public nuisance, and a trespass upon Me, and is
therefore, contra bonos mores:
Chapter Two:
Whereas, your abandoned paper contains extraneous symbols, August 5, 1996, August
12, 1996 and August 10,1996, which symbology appears to denote time, but is confusing to Me;
for the reason, I measure time in Years of Our Lord , Jesus, the Christ according to the
customs and usages of this state; and,
Whereas, provisions of the peoples moral Law and custom forbids Me use of said unfamiliar
way of measuring time; and.
Therefore, your abandoned paper contains disparaging, scandalous, and libelous matter all
to My harm, in particular, and to this state in general:
* Lex non cogit ad Impossibilia *
Now, therefore:
I am returning your abandoned paper, and shall, henceforth, exercise My Right of Avoidance
and continue at General Delivery; for the reason: it is irregular, unauthorized, defective upon
it's face and utterly void, and is, herewith, abated for being a public nuisance. There appear to be
no factors which would warrant adjustment of the Abatement, due to a Conflict of Law.
Page five of seven

Chapter three:
Ordering Clause

Said Defendant shall abate the matter of attempted denial of General Delivery service, within
ten (10) days of the ordering of this Plea In Abatement, or show cause why the abatement should
not lie. Any and all written response must include a detailed factual statement and supporting
documentation, having standing in Law. If more time than ten (10) days is needed to respond, it
may be granted on written request of the Defendant. Failure to obey this court order or failure to
respond in the time prescribed, herein, will result in a Default and Default Judgment, Nemo debet
bis vexari pro una et eadem Causa, and may subject Defendant to Civil liabilities or Criminal
punishment pursuant to The Law of Nations, The Law of War, the Nebraska Constitution, and the
lex non scripta in this state:
Bobby Jean: Xxxx, suae potestate esse, et uxor

General Delivery
Hay Springs Post Office
Hay Springs, Nebraska
Two.
Verification by Asseveration
In Witness, Knowing the Punishment for bearing false witness before Almighty God and Men,
I solemnly aver, that I have read the annexed Plea In Abatement and know the contents thereof; that
the same is true of My own knowledge, except to the matters which are therein stated on My
Page six of seven

Sealed by the voluntary act of Our Own Hand on this eighth day of the eighth month, in the
year of Our Lord and Savior Jesus, the Christ, nineteen hundred ninety-six, in the two hundred and
twenty-first year of the Independence of America.
L.S.
(thumb print) , suae potestate esse, et uxor
Sign Manual
On this eighth day of the eighth Month, in the year of Our Lord and Savior Jesus, the Christ,
nineteen-hundred ninety-six, we, the undersigned Good and Lawful Living man or woman Men in
this state, having ascertained that our Brother, Bobby Jean, has read and knows the contents
ofthis Abatement, witnessed his execution and sealing of the same, and do herewith testify
tothe foregoing by voluntarily setting Our Hand and Sealing this Abatement.
Sign Manual
Sign Manual
Page seven of seven

The Public Notice
The public notice below should be posted in three places in your county for eight weeks,
beginning on the day you know that the defendants have received the abatement. Find the locations
before you serve the abatement and insert the locations into your abatement as additional notice.
The newspaper notice at bottom should be run once a week for three weeks and a copy of the
first week clipped out and attached to the Default before serving it on defendant. You should arrange
with the newspaper in advance to begin running the notice on the day after the Rule Day. Be sure to
serve the defendant and publish in the newspaper within ten days after the Rule Day.
=======================================================
Public Notice
Notice of Default
Be it Known and Remembered by All to Whom These Presents Come and May
Concern:
This public notice is posted for purposes of Edification and imputing Knowledge
to Christ’s church, and to all the World, Declareth and Witnesseth that,
county, Ohio, superior court case number process,
was properly and duly served on the day of the month in the Year of Our
Lord , Jesus, the Christ, nineteen-hundred ninety-six, upon Defendants
and , and same will Default on the day of the
month in the Year of Our Lord and Saviour Jesus, the
Christ, nineteen-hundred ninety-six, and Default Judgment in favor ofDemandant,
, suae potestate esse, will enter accordingly on that
rule day.
Causae ecclesiae publicis causis aequiparantur.

Quod omnes tangit, ab omnibus debet supportari.
Interest reipublicae quod homines conservatur.
Attempts to remove this posting are deemed in Law, actions of Trespass to

obstruct justice and pervert the public record.
=======================================================
=======================================================
Public Notice
Notice of Default and
Entry of Default Judgment:
Be it Known and Remembered by All to Whom These Presents Come

and May Concern: This public notice is posted for purposes of
Edification and imputing Knowledge to Christ’s church, and to all the
World, Declareth and Witnesseth that: Notice of Default
Judgment is hereby given, and the same was entered in favor of the
Demandant on the 5th day of the 6th month, 1996 A.D.,
in the matter of county, Ohio,
superior court case # , notice of same having been
Lawfully served upon Defendant . Therefore,
this matter is abated and all proceedings in litigation are at an end.
Any further action by said Defendant in this matter, will establish
evidence of Trespass on Case.
=======================================================
Glossary
Abandon To desert, surrender, forsake, or cede. To relinquish or give up with intent
of never again resuming one’s right or interest. Burrough’s vs. Pacific
Telephone and Telegraph Co., 220 P. 152, 155, 109 Or. 404.
American A.b. Belonging to the United States, Oxford’s Dictionary 1933. Of or

pertaining to the United States, Black’s Law Dictionary, 6th Edition
Americanize strictly, To make American; esp. to naturalize as a citizen of the United

States, Orford’s Dict. 1933
Abatement In actions at law, an abatement is an overthrow of an action caused by

the defendant's pleading some matter of fact tending to impeach the
correctness of the writ or declaration, which defeats the action for the
present, but does not debar the plaintiff from recommencing it in a better
way.
Abatements are of two types, statutory and common law pleas.
Statutory abatements are merely a statutory implementation of the common

law plea in abatement.
Pleas in abatements rely on immemorial custom and usage to their

authority, and not on any statutory authority by a legislature.
But, if issued against military powers and their courts in civil and
administrative cases the abatement has the effect of suspending all
proceedings in a suit because the military powers have no standing
to answer. See Black's, 3rd, (1933), page 7 to 8.
Abbreviated Name In Reg. v. Tugwell,3 Q.b., 704 it was held that the name was no part ofthe
description, and further, in Reg. v. Bradley, 3E. & E. 634 "that
an initial cannot be regarded as a Living man or woman name,"
and, in The Queen v. Plenty, L.R.. Vol. IV 346, the court ruled that "We are
of opinion that the word "misnomer," which means a naming amiss, is wide
enough to cover the faulty indication of a Living man or woman name
by means of the initial," and they again cite Bacon's Abridgement
ofthe Law, Misnomer.
But, in this same case, the court went on to say "that it was not a mere
case of misnomer, because the initials were no name at all," and that such
an error was pleadable in abatement.
Alien enemy In international law, an alien who is the subject or citizen of some hostile
state or power. A person who, by reason of owing a permanent or temporary
allegiance to a hostile power, becomes, in time of war, impressed with the
character of an enemy. See 1 Kent, Comm. 74, and Black’s 3rd. Whether
or not a person is an alien enemy, depends noton his nationality, but on the
place in which he voluntarily resides or carries on business. Porter vs.
Freudenberg, (1915) 1 KB. 857; Noble vs. Great American Insurance
Co., 194 N.Y.S. 60, 66, 200
App. Div. 773.
Arbiter One who arbitrates or moderates meetings of a jural society. Also called
a Host or Chairman. "Arbiter" is an untechnical designation of a person to
whom a controversy is referred, irrespective of any law to governthe
decision; and is the proper word to signify a referee of a question outside
of or above municipal law. Black's, 3rd, (1933) page 133.
Asseveration An affirmation; a positive assertion; a solemn declaration. Black’s 3rd.

page 154.
Avoidance A making void, useless, empty, or of no effect; annulling, canceling;

escaping or evading. Black’s 3rd, page 176.
Breach of the Peace A violation of the public tranquillity and order. The offense of breaking
or distrubing the public peace by any riotous, forcible, or unlawful
proceeding. 4 Blackstone ’s Commentaries, 142, et. seq.. Black’s 3rd., page
246.
Bureaucrat 2. An official who works by fixed routine without exercising intelligent

judgment. Random House dictionary of the English Language,2nd Edition,
Unabridged, page 279.
Bureaucratese n. a style of language, used especially by bureaucrats, that is full

of circumlocutions, euphemisms, buzzwords, abstractions, etc..
Living man or The religion established by Jesus Christ.

woman ity
2. Living man or woman ity has been judicially declared to be a part
of the common law of Pennsylvania; 11 Serg. dc Rawle, 394; 5 Binn.
R. 555;of New York, 8 Johns. R. 291; of Connecticut, 2 Swift's System,
321; of Massachusetts, Dane's Ab. vol. 7, c. 219, a. 2, 19. To write or speak
contemptuously and maliciously against it, is an indictable offence. Vide
Cooper on the Law of Libel, 59 and 114, et seq.; and generally, 1 Russ.
on Cr. 217; 1 Hawk, c. 5; 1 Vent. 293; 3 Keb. 607;1 Barn. &
Cress. 26. S. C. 8 Eng. Com. Law R. 14; Barnard. 162; Fitzgib. 66;
Roscoe, Cr. Ev. 524; 2 Str. 834; 3 Barn. dc Ald. 161;
S.C. 5 Eng. Com. Law R 249 Jeff. Rep. Appx. See 1 Cro. Jac. 421
Kent. 293; 3 Keb. 607; Cooke on Def. 74; 2 How. S. C. 11-ep. 127, 197
to 201. Source: Bouvier’s Dictionary of Law, 1856.
Church In a moral or spiritual sense this word signifies a society of persons who
profess the Living man or woman religion; and in a physical or material
sense, theplace where such persons assemble. The term 'church' is nomen
collectivum; it comprehends the chancel, aisles, and body of the church.
Ham. N. P. 204.
2. By the English law, the terms 'church' or 'chapel,' and 'church-yard,' are
expressly recognized as in themselves correct and technical descriptions of
the building and place, even in criminal proceedings. 8 B. & C. 25; 1
Salk. 256; 11 Co. 25 b; 2 Esp. 5, 28.
3. It is not within the plan of this work to give an account of the different
local regulations in the United States respecting churches. References are
here given to enable the inquirer to ascertain what they are, where such
regulations are known to exist. 2 Mass. 500; 3 Mass. 166; 8 Mass. 96;
9 Mass. 277; Id. 254; 10 Mass. 323; 15 Mass. 296; 16 Mass. 488;
6 Mass. 401; 10 Pick. 172; 4 Day, C. 361; 1 Root 3, 40; Kirby, 45;
2 Caines' Cas. 336; 10 John. 21 7; 6 John. 85; 7 John. 112; 8 John. 464;
9 John. 147; 4 Desaus. 578; 5 Serg. & Rawle, 510;11
Serg. & Rawle, 35; Mete. & Perk. Dig. h. t.; 4 chart. 531.
Source: Bouvier’s Dictionary of Law, 1856.
Church-warden An officer whose duties are, as the name implies, to take care of, or guard
the church.
2. These officers are created in some ecclesiastical corporations by the

charter, and their rights and duties are definitely explained. In England, it is
said, their principal duties are to take care of; 1. the church or building;
2. The utensils and furniture; 3. the church-yard; 4. matters of good order
concerning the church and church-yard; 5. the endowments of the church.
Bac. Ab. h. t. By the common law, the capacity ofchurch-wardens to hold
property for the church, is limited to personal property. 9 Cranch, 43.
Source: Bouvier’s Dictionary of Law, 1856.
Citizen A member of a free city or jural society, possessing all the rights and
privileges which can be enjoyed by any person under its constitution and
government, and subject to the corresponding duties.
Commerce The exchange of what is superfluous for that which is necessary, and as,
in the natural progress of things, the superfluities and wants of men have
increased, commerce has gradually become more intricate and extended.
Commerce is carried on in three different ways; 1st. By an exchange or
barter of one article for another, those who produce the articles treating or
negotiating directly and personally with each other. 2nd. The person
producing an article treating, as in the first case, directly with the person
wanting it, but receiving money, and not other goods, in exchange. And,
3rd. When the person producing the article and him who wants to use it
have no intercourse with each other, but apply mutually to a third and
intermediate merchant, who buys from the one, and sells to the other. This
last species of traffic or mode of exchanging articles is that whichhas by
way of pre-eminence received the name of commerce, which has not
always increased in proportion to the wealth of a nation, although nearly
so, in proportion to its luxury. A Commercial Dictionary on the Present
state of Mercantile Law, by Joshua Monterfiore, 1803. Trade on a large
scale, or the exchange of commodities (from the Latin cum mercis, or with
Mercury). A Dictionary of Foreign Trade by Frank Henius, 1946. “The
term ‘commerce’ as employed in U.S. Const. Art. Sec. 8, is not limited to
the exchange of commodities only, but includes as well, ‘intercourse’ with
foreign nations, and between states; and term ‘intercourse’ includes
transportation of passengers. ” People vs. Raymond(1868), 34 C. 492.
Commodity That which possesses the quality of ease, comfort: commoditas:

commodum: opportunitas (convenience). Profit, commodum:
emolumentum, (advantage, opposed to incommodum, detrimentum).
English-Latin Lexicon by Riddle (1849), page 115.Something which
affords convenience or profit, which can be exchanged for some other
value. The commodity must be in such tangible form, whether goods and
services, that it can be traded for something tangible. Thus, a commodity
becomes something that can be made the subject of trade, of acquisition
as well as of an exchange offering; something possessing exchange value,
that can be traded for something else. A Dictionary of Foreign Trade by
Frank Henius, page 120, (1946)
Common Law As distinguished from Roman law, the modem civil law, the canon law,
and other systems, the common law is that body of law and juristic theory
originated, developed, and formulated and is administered in England,
and has obtained among most states and people of Anglo-Saxon stock. Lux
v. Haggin, 69 Cal. 255.
Common Law As distinguished from statute law, it is the body of principles and rules
(cont.) of action, relating to government and security of persons and property,
that derive their authority solely from usages and customs of immemorial
antiquity, or from judgments and decrees of courts recognizing, affirming,
and enforcing such usages and customs; particularly the ancient unwritten
law (lex non scripta) of England. 1 Kent, Comm. 492; Western Union Tel.
Co. v. Call Pub. Co., 181 U.S. 92, 21 S. Ct. 561; State v. Buchanan, 5 Har.
and J. (Md.) 365, 9 Am. Dec. 534; Barry v. Port Jervir, 64 App.
Div. 268, 72 N.Y.S. 104; U.S. v. Miller (D.C.) 236 F. 798, 800.
Conflict of Laws Inconsistency or difference between the municipal laws of different states
or countries, arising in the case of persons who have acquired rights or
a status, or made contracts, or incurred obligations, within the territory of
two or more jurisdictions. Black’s 3rd., page 396.
Constable In English Law "a public civil officer, whose general duty is to keep the
peace within his district, though he is frequently charged with additional
duties. 1 Blackstone’s Comm. 356. In American Law he isan officer
(usually elected) whose duties are similar to those of a sheriff, though his
powers are less and his jurisdiction smaller. He is to preserve public peace,
execute the process of magistrates' courts, and ofother tribunals, serve
writs, attend sessions of criminal courts, have custody of juries, and
discharge other duties assigned to him bylocal law or statute. Comm. v.
Deacon, 8 Serg. & Rawle, (Pa.) 47; McCollough v. Commonwealth, 67
Pa. 30, 32; Leavitt v. Leavitt, 135 Mass. 191; Allor v. Wayne County,
43 Mich. 76, 4 N. W 492, cited in Black's, 3rd, (1933).
Since a jural society exists in Law, not under Martial Law powers, the
Constable stands, relative to the Sheriff of a county, in a superior position
by virtue of the Law by which he is bound.
Covenant An agreement between two or more parties, reduced to writing and

executed by a sealing and delivery thereof, whereby some of the parties
named therein engage, or one of them engages, with the other, or others,
or some of them, therein also named, that some act hath or hath not
already been done, or for the performance or non-performance of some
specified duty. De Bolle v. Insurance Co., 4 Warton (Pa.) 71; 33
Am. Dec. 38.
Coverture The state or condition of a married woman.
2. During coverture, the being of the wife is civilly merged, for many
purposes, into that of her husband; she can, therefore, in general, make
no contracts without his consent, express or implied. Com. Dig. Baron
and Feme, W; Pleader, 2 A 1; 1 Ch. Pl. 19, 45; Litt. s. 28;
Chit. Contr. 39; 1 Bouv. Inst n. 276.
Coverture 3. To this rule there are some exceptions: she may contract, when it is for
(cont.) her benefit, as to save her from starvation. Chit. Contr. 40.
4. In some cases, when coercion has been used by the husband to induce
her to commit crime, she is exempted from punishment. 1
Hale, P.C. 516; 1 Russ. Cr. 16.
5. Sometimes used elliptically to describe the legal disability arising from

a state of coverture. Osborn v. Horine, 19 Illinois 124; Roberts
v. Lund, 45 Ver., 86.
Custom A law not written, established by long usage and the consent of our
ancestors. Termes de la Ley; Cowell; Bracton. Folio. 2. If it be universal,
it is common law; if particular to this or that place, it is then properly
custom. 3 Salk 112.
De facto In fact, in deed, in actuality. This phrase is used to characterizean

officer, a government, a past action, or a state of affairs which must be
accepted for all practical purposes, but is illegal or illegitimate. In this sense
it is the contrary of de jure, which means rightful, legitimate, just,or
constitutional. Thus, an officer, king, or government de facto is one who is
in actual possession of the office or supreme power, but by usurpation, or
without lawful title; while an officer, king, or governor de jure is one
who has just claim and rightful title to the office or power, but has never
had plenary possession of it, or is not in actual possession.
De jure See 'de facto.'
Designata (persona designata). A person pointed out or described as an individual,

as opposed to a person ascertained as a member of a class, or as filling
a particular character. Black’s 3rd, 1933, page 1356.
In actuality, the person designated, given the current definition of ‘person’

is a fiction, and thus the processes of de facto powers that now exist when
served against Living man or woman s, are null and void, because such a
person does not exist in Law, or in a fiction.
Discussion A proceeding at the instance of a surety, by which the creditor is obliged to

exhaust the property of the principal debtor, towards the satisfaction of the
debt, before having recourse to the surety; and this right of the suretyis
termed the "benefit of discussion."
See the extended treatment of this subject in Black's, 3rd, (1933), page
588.
Dominion Sovereignty or Lordship. Ownership or right to property.
2 Blackstone’s Commentaries, l. Title to an article of property which arises
from the power of disposition and the right of claiming it. Baker vs.
westcott, 73 Texas, 129.
Ecclesiastical An organized religious body. The word 'ecclesiastical' pertains to anything

Society belonging to or set apart for the church, as distinguished from "civil" or
"secular," with regard to the word. Wharton, in Blacks, 3rd, (1933) page
640.
Et uxor "and lawful wife."
False Imprisonment The unlawful arrest or detention of a person without warrant, or by an

illegal warrant, or a warrant illegally executed, and either in a prison or a
place used temporarily for that purpose, or by force and constraint without
confinement. Black’s 3rd, page 926.
General Law A general law as contradistinguished from one that is special or local, is a
law that embraces a class of subjects or places, and does not omit any
subject or place naturally belonging to such a class. Van Riper
vs. Parsons, 40 N.J. Law, 1.
Human. L humanus, of or belonging to man, human, a derivative of the same root

as homo, homineni man. 3. Belonging or relative to man as distinguished
from God or superhuman beings; pertaining to the sphere or faculties
of man (with implication of limitation or inferiority); mundane; secular.
A New English Dictionary on Historical Principles; Founded mainlyon
Materials Collected by, The Philological Society, edited by James A.
H. Murray, Oxford: At the Clarendon Press. 1901.
Human being See: "Monster," in “Law Dictionary with Pronunciations,” by

James A. Ballentine, 1948 Edition. Lawyers Co-operative Pub. Co.,
Rochester, N.Y.
Humanitarian a philanthropist; an anti-Trinitarian who rejects the doctrine

of Christ’s divinity; a perfectionist. Collier’s New Dictionary of the
English Language 1928.
Humanitarianism n. the doctrine that humankind may become perfect without divine aid.
1992 Random House.
Human laws Laws which have man for their author, as distinguished from divine laws,
which have God for their author. See Borden v. State, 11 Ark. 519,
54 Am. Dec. 21 7, 220. Law Dictionary with Pronunciations, by
James A. Ballentine, 1948 Edition. Lawyers Co-operative Pub. Co.,
Rochester, N.Y.
Individual See “Person,” below.
Jural Society The term "jural society" is used as the synonym of "state" or "organized
political community." Black's, 3rd, (1933) page 1036. It is founded in law
and organized upon the basis of a fundamental law, which in the case of the
American Jural Societies as discussed herein, is that Law found in the lex
non scripta (the common law), maxims of law, and constitutional
maxims. The Jural Societies exist for the recognition and protection of
Living man or woman men and women and their God given rights.
Jus Gentium That law which natural reason has established among all men is equally
observed among all nations, and is called the “law of nations,” as being
the law which all nations use. Black’s 3rd, page 1044.
Jus publicum Public law, or the law relating to the constitution and functions of
government and its officers and the administration of criminal justice. Also
public ownership, or the paramount or sovereign territorial right or title of
the state or government.
Law Merchant One of the branches of the unwritten law or common law, consists of
(lex mercatoria) particular customs, or laws which affect only the inhabitants of
particular districts, under which head may be referred, the law or customs
of merchants (lex mercatoria), which is a paticular system of customs used
only among one set of the king’s subjects, which, however different from
the general rules of the common law, is yet engrafted into it, and made
a part of it; be allowed for the benefit of trade to be ofthe utmost validity
in all commercial transactions; for it is a maximof law, that “cuilibet
in sua arte credendum est.” (Credence should be given to one skilled in his
peculiar art). This law of merchants comprehends the laws relating to bills
of exchange, mercantile contracts, sale, purchase, and barter of
goods, freight, insurance, & c.- 1 Chitty’s Bl. 76, n. 9. From:
A New Law Dictionary by Henry James Holthouse, Lea and Blanchard,
Pliladelphia (1847)
L.S.. Locus sigilli The place of the seal; the place occupied by the seal of
written instruments, usually abbreviated to L.S.. Black’s 3rd., page 1129.
Lex Loci Law local, or the law of the local community or state.
Lex mercatoria see 'Law Merchant.'
Lex non seripta Literally, "law not written," i.e., the unwritten law that we know as
common law. Mark of Fraud. A token, evidence, or proof of fraud. Black’s
3rd., page 1161.
Martial Law Martial law is a code established for the government of the army and navy
[Law martial] of the United States. A New Law Dictionary by Henry James Holthouse,
Lea and Blanchard, Philadelphia (1847).
Maxim An established principle or proposition. A principle of law universally
admitted, as being a correct statement of the law, or as agreeableto
reason.
Coke defines a maxim to be "conclusion of reason," and says that it is

so called "quia maxima ejus dignitas et certissima auctoritas, et
quod maxime omnibus probetur." Coke on Littleton, 1la. He says in another
place: "A maxim is a propostion to be of all men confessedand granted
without proof, argument, or discourse." Id. 67a.Black's, 3rd, (1933)
page 1171.
Ministerial Powers A phrase used in English conveyancing to denote powers given or the
good, not of the donee himself exclusively, of the donee himselfnecessarily
at all, but for the good of several persons, including or not including the
donee also. They are so called because the donee of them isas a minister or
servant in his exercise of them.. Black’s 3rd, page 1391.
Note: To understand the power of the phrase, we must realize that while it
has authority in the common law, i.e., the lex non scripta, there is no
modern equivalent defined in the sources. It is thus an office of ancient
authority that exceeds the legal memory of man and relies on the Scripture
for its original derivation, wherein we are ministers under God acting under
the Great Commission commanded to Us by Jesus Christ.
If one goes to Black’s 6th Edition of the Law Dictionary, page 996, where
it says see ‘power’ and under ‘power’ on page 1170, it says, see
‘ministerial.’ Thus, the phrase is undefined in the modern sources.
Misnomer If the Living man or woman name be wholly mistaken, this is regularly
fatal to all legal instruments, as well declarations and pleadings as grants
and obligations; and the reason is, because it is repugnant to the rules
of theLiving man or woman religion, that there should be a Living
man or woman without a nameof baptism, or that such person should
have two Living man or woman names, since our church allows of no
re-baptizing; and therefore if a personenters into a bond by a wrong Living
man or woman name, he cannot be declared against by the name in the
obligation and his true name brought in an alias, for that supposes the
possibility of two Living man or woman names; and you cannot declare
against the party by his right name and aver he made the deed by his wrong
name, for that is to set up an averment contrary tothe deed; and there is
this sanction allowed to every solemn contract, that it cannot be opposed
by a thing of equial validity and if he be impleaded by the name in the
deed, he may plead that he is another person, and thatit is not his deed.
Bacon's Abridgement of the Law, Misnomer
and Addition, page 10, (1846). Philadelphia.
Misnomer (cont.) Again, where a party was sued by a wrong name, and suffered judgment
to go against him, without attempting to rectify the mistake, he could
not afterwards, in an action against the sheriff for false imprisonment,
complain of an execution issued against him by that name. ”Fundamental
Legal Principles."
'Misnomer' is a good plea in abatement; for since names are the only marks
and indicia which human kind can understand each other by, if the name
be omitted or mistaken, there is a complaint against nobody ... But,
though a defendant may, by pleading in abatement, take advantage of a
misnomer when there is a mistake in the writ or declaration, as to the name
of baptism or surname; yet in such a plea he must set forth his right
name, so as to give the plaintiff a better writ. 4 Bacon's
Abridgement of the Law, Of Misnomer, and want of Addition, page 9.
Monster A human being by birth, but in some part resembling a lower animal.
"A monster ... hath no inheritable blood, and cannot be heir to any land,
albeit it be brought forth in marriage; but, although it hath deformity in any
part of its body, yet if it hath human shape, it may be heir."2
Blackstone's Commentaries, 246.
Naturalism A system of morality or religion having a purely natural basis; a view of

the world, and of man’s relationship to it, in which only the operation
of natural, as opposed to supernatural or spiritual, laws and forcesis
assumed. Oxford’s Dictionary 1933.
Naturalist One who follows the light of nature, as contrasted with revelation.
Oxford’s Dictionary 1933.
Natural man 17. Unenlightened or unregenerate: natural man. And in the same source,
'unregenerate' is, 1. not regenerate; unrepentant; an unregenerate sinner.
2. not convinced by or unconverted to a particular religion, sect,or
movement. 4. wicked; sinful; dissolute. Random House Dictionaryof
the English Language, 2nd Edition.
"But the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they
are foolishness unto him: neither can he know them, because they are
spiritually discerned." First Corinthians, Two, Fourteen
Natural person "Natural person" means human being, and not artificial or juristic person.
Shawmut Bank, N.A. v. Valley Farms, 610 A.2d. 652, 654; 222 Conn. 361.
Individual trustees, in whose name title to real estate is held, are

'natural person,' see Driscol, et. al. v. Nueces County, Tex Civ. App., 445
S.W.2d 1, 6.
Natural person Natural persons may be members of civil governments. Rocklite
(cont.) products, v. Municipal Court of Los Angeles Judicial Dist., 32 Cal.
Rep. 183, 188; 217 C.A.2d. 638.
Those applying for benefits from civil government may be classedas

'natural persons.' Public Health Trust of Dade county v. Lopez, Fla., 531
So. 2d. 946, 948.
But, there is a difference between 'natural person,' and 'moral person,'

as seen in the following: "As to the estate and degree required by the statute
to be added, we must observe, that estate is defined by the civilians [as] the
capacity of moral person; for, as natural persons have a certain space in
which their natural existence is placed, and in which they perform their
natural actions, so have persons in a community a certain state or capacity,
in which they are supposed to exist, to perform their moral acts, and
exercise all civil relations ..."
Bacon's Abridgement of the Law, Misnomer and Addition, page 10, (1846).
Philadelphia.
Natural theology Theology based on knowledge of the natural world and on human reason,
apart from revelation 1992 Random House Webster’s College Dictionary
Nature worship A religion based on the deification and worship of natural phenomens.
[1865-1870] 1992 Random House Webster’s College Dictionary.
Nom de guerre Literally, "name of war," or, "war name." "An alien enemy cannot maintain
an action during the war in his own name." Wharton's Pa. Digest,
Section 20, page 94, (1853).
Nugatory Futile; ineffectual; invalid; destitute of constraining force or validity. A

legislative act may be “nugatory” because unconstitutional. Avery
and Co., vs. Sorrell, 157 Ga. 476
Parliamentary Law The general body of enacted rules and recognized usages which governs
the procedure of legislative assemblies and other deliberative bodies.
Black's, 3rd, (1933) page 1326.
Person An indispensable word with varied, overlapping meanings ...The

definitions here give an overview of current usage. A person is: a
physical, biological human being ... This sense overlaps the sense of the
person with rights and duties under the law. A person is: an existing person,
not an unborn child. An unborn child has no rights as a person. A person
is an artificial person, an abstraction of convenience regarded by
Person the law as a distinct being, having an existence independent of those who
(cont.) create or own it, such as a corporation, a labor union, a business trust.
The expressions 'juristic person' and 'legal entity' are frequently used as
synonyms of artificial persons. Source: Mellinkoffs Dict. of Am
Legal Usage, by D. Mellinkoff, West Pub. Co., St. Paul, Minn., 1992.
Persona Latin. Literally, the mask of the actor. In law, the persona is the fictional
‘person’ or entity created by governments under military law by the process
of novation.
Persona non grata In international law and diplomatic usage, a person not acceptable (for
reasons peculiar to himself) to the court or government to which it is
proposed to accredit him in the character of an ambassador or minister.
Black’s 3rd., page 1356.
Plunder To take property from persons or places by open force, and this may be in
the course of a lawful war, or by unlawful hostility, as in the case of pirates
or banditti. But, in another and very common meaning, though in some
degree figurative, it is used to express the idea of taking property from a
person or place, without just right, but not expressing the natureor quality
of wrong done. U.S. vs. Pitman, 27 Fed. Cas. 540. Black’s 3rd., page 1370.
Praemunire An offense against the king and his government, though not subject to
capital punishment. In America, the private Living man or woman
people are the king.
Preamble A clause at the beginning of a constitution or statute explanatory of the
reasons for its enactment and the objects sought to be accomplished.
See the cites in Black's, 3rd, (1933) page 1398.
In it simplest statement, a preamble is a goal statement.
Public Nuisance A public nuisance is one which affects an indefinity number of persons,
or all the residents of a particular locality, or all people coming within the
extent of its range or operation, although the extent of the annoyance
or damage inflicted upon individuals may be unequal. Bumham vs.
Hotchkiss, 14 Conn. 317; Black’s 3rd., page 1263.
Religious "A religious corporation is a "person" within the meaning of Emergency

Corporations Rent Control Act. Hoffman v. Apostolic Works, D.C. Mun. App.,
43 A.2d 848, 849. "
But, "An unincorporated association is not a 'person' unless expressly

declared such by statute. People v. Budzan, 295 N.W. 259, 260, 295
Mich. 547."
Secular 1. Of or pertaining to worldly things or to things not regarded as sacred;
temporal. 2. not relating to or concerned with religion (opposed to
sacred). 1992 Random House Webster’s College Dictionary.
Secular Humanism n. Any set of beliefs that promotes human values without specific allusion
to religious doctrines. 1992 Random House Webster’s College
Dictionary.
Secularism n. 1. secular spirit or tendency, esp. a system of political or social

philosophy that rejects all forms of religious faith or worship. 2. the view
that public education and other matters of civil policy should be conducted
without the influence of religious beliefs. 1992 Random House Webster’s
College Dictionary
Sign Manual An autograph signature: specifically, the official signature of a sovereign,

chief magistrate, or the like, to an official document, as letters patent, to
give validity. Webster’s Dictionary; Wharton, Law Dictionary.
Suae potestate esse Having full power over one's own dominions. This was givento
God’s people in Genesis 1:27-28 and reaffirmed again in the
New Testament in 'The Great Commission.'
superior court A court superior in Law to all others, such as that contemplated in pleas
in abatements, however is spelled “superior court” to distinguish it
from the statutory, corporate courts, Superior Court. Under Magna
Charta, Chapter 34, no man can be denied his own court.
Trespass Trespass, in its most comprehensive sense, signifies any transgression or

offense against the law of nature, of society, or of the country in which we
live; and this, whether it relates to a man’s person, or to his property.
Brown. Source, Black’s 3rd. page 1753.
Trespass on The form of action, at common law, adapted to the recovery of damages
the Case for some injury resulting to a party from the wrongful act of another,
unaccompanied by direct or immediate force, of which is the indirect
or secondary consequence of defendant’s act. Living man or woman
vs. Mills, 2 Walk. (Pa.) 131.
The process at common law to bring an action of Trespass is called

a Writ of Trespass.
United States "United States" is a Federal corporation; Title 28, Sec. 3002, 1993
Fed. Jud. & Proc. Rules b. The Republic of N. America. Abbrev. U.S.
or U.S.A. 1781. c. In other applications 1864. Oxford’s Dict. 1933.
Venue Formerly spelled visne. A neighborhood; the neighborhood, place, or

county in which an injury is declared to have been done, or fact declared to
have happened.
Visitation The act of examining into the affairs of a corporation. Inspection;
superintendence; direction; regulation. A power given by Law to the
founders of all eleemosynary corporations. 2 Kent’s Commentaries,
300-303, and 1 Blackstone’s Commentaries, 480, 481.
********
Certified Notice of Mistake
Send this in reply to any notice from a government agency along with a Notice to Abate, and
copy of the presentment document they sent you. When contacted by any government agency
thugs demanding you do something – this somewhat is after a court has done something and you
have to go back in time to correct these issues. Re-contract with them. It is all contracts in their
courts so don’t fight that issue. Create a NEW contract. Do this within 72 hour if possible.
Not legal advice
Ms Ellen F Smith in her private capacity
Oregon Department of Justice (court, judge, or whatever)
1162 Court Street NE
Salem, OR 97301-4096
Dear Ellen F Smith:
We, thank Ms Smith for her correspondence which we received 05-09-2016.
There appears to be a mistake as although the included correspondence was sent to JAMES T
DOE the correspondence implies that an ORDER/JUDGEMENT was against “You”. Would Ms
Ellen F Smith in her private capacity kindly confirm who “You” is, and/or forward this
correspondence to You.
In the matter of surety for the LEGAL NAME, I believe that there has been a mistake as the
SOLE BENEFICIARY has been incorrectly identified as a party in this matter. If I, and/or
PERSONS and/or friends of the court and/or such other parties acting in my “interests”, have led
the court or Ms. Ellen F. Smith in her private capacity or the OREGON DEPARTMENT OF
JUSTICE to believe by responding to “You” and or “JAMES T DOE” and/or such other
identification this court has erroneously address me as, presuming that I am the party with
SURETY in this matter, then that would be a mistake. I also see no evidence of contract. Please
forgive me.
As I have no knowledge of who “You” and/or “JAMES T DOE” and/or such other identification
this COURT/DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE HAS ADDRESSED me as,
1. I respectfully ask by what authority is the COURT/DEPARTMENT addressing me as such?

2. As the SURETY BOND (BIRTH CERTIFICATE) has been deposited into the COURT/
DEPARTMENT, what evidence does the COURT/DEPARTMENT have that I, as the SOLE
BENEFICIARY of the TRUST they are operating under, expressly agreed to accept the role of
SURETY in this matter?
3. As the government is the sole signatory party on the SURETY BOND (BIRTH
CERTIFICATE), with sole and full surety as TRUSTEE for the LEGAL NAME, what evidence
does the COURT/DEPARTMENT have that I am and expressly agreed to be a TRUSTEE and
SURETY for the LEGAL NAME?
4. What evidence does the COURT/DEPARTMENT have that I am an OFFICER, an AGENT, a
TRUSTEE or an EMPLOYEE of the United States of America Corporation?
5. WHAT evidence does the court have of any WARRANT OF AGENCY for the principal?
6. What evidence does the court have that there has been any meeting of the minds, any proper
notice given, that any considerable consideration was offered, or that I have any intent to
CONTRACT in this matter? (ruling, notice, etc)
I conditionally accept your offer __________________ (mention the document, order, and date
related to), upon proof of claim the above items have each been answered and addressed point by
point. As such, I am returning your offer, nunc pro tunc back to DATE OF ORDER OR
LETTER) for immediate response. Failure to respond in full, point by point is reason for
DISCHARGE and CLOSURE of your claim and offer. In which case I, a man as one of the
people require you to issue an order to _________________________ release claims, release
from jail, etc… whatever… YOU make the contract.
Notice: Failure by Ms. Ellen F Smith in her private capacity to respond within ten days from
receipt of this correspondence shall constitute legal accord and satisfaction of all claims.
AUTHORIZED BY____________________________ SEAL _________ _________ 2017

They have ten days before their claims are satisfied in full.
IN THE COUNTY COURT OF THE NINETEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT AND IN FOR
SAINT LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA.
) CASE NO: _______________

)
)
) JUDGE: ________________
AMUNHOTEP EL BEY )
(Petitioner/Secured Party) ) DIVISION: FAMILY LAW
________________________)
AFFIDAVIT OF COMMON LAW NAME CORRECTION
The affiant, Amunhotep El Bey, in Propria Persona (my own proper self), formerly known as
the artificial person, EUGENE JAMES WILLIAMS, is a Noble of the Washitaw Nation of
Muurs (Moors), better known as, “Uaxashaktun de Dugdahmoundyah,” also known as, “Amurru
Washitaw de Dugdahmoundyah,” which is an off branch of the Kushite Empire, the Ottoman
Empire, and the Songhai Empire, which later became the Al-Moroccan Empire; to wit: North,
South, Central America, and including the adjoining Islands; upon his inherited Nobility, and
upon his private Aboriginal/Indigenous, “In Full Life,” status and commercial liability, I,
Amunhotep El Bey, being duly affirmed under Consanguine Unity; pledge my national, political,
and spiritual allegiance to my Moabite/Moorish Nation; being the archaic Aboriginals/Indigenes
of Amexem/Ameru/Amurru/Al-Moroco/Amaru-Ka/Amen-Ra-Ka (the Americas), standing
squarely affirmed upon my Oath to the ‘Five Points of Light’ - Love, Truth, Peace, Freedom, and
Justice; deposes as follows:
I, being previously Identified by the Union States Society of North America – U.S.A. under the
colorable, Ward-ship name, EUGENE JAMES WILLIAMS, do hereby refute the fraud; make Public
and Publish my Corrected National Name; Declare and Affirm my true, ‘Proper Person Status’; and
reclaim my Rightful Social and Cultural Life of the State; in accord with my Moorish Nation of
Northwest Amexem / North America – acknowledging my Birthrights (See attached Affidavit of
Nationality). Having Lawfully and Legally Obtained and Proclaimed my Moorish Nationality and
Birthright ‘Name and Title’; in harmony with, in association with, and in Accord with Divine Law, the
Customs; and the Laws, Rules, and Usages of The Moorish Divine and National Movement; being
Aboriginal and Indigenous, and bound to the North American Continent by Heritage, by
Primogeniture; by Birthright; by Natural Birth; by Freehold; and by Inheritance. Declared for the
Public Record, I am returning the fictitious misnomer. I am now Rightfully Declaring, Publishing, and
Proclaiming my own Free National Name; Affirming my Actual, Rightful, and Civil ‘In Full Life’
Status; Conjoined to my Moorish American Consanguine Pedigree and National Honor. Let it be
Declared, Known, Published, and Resolved that: I Am: Amunhotep El Bey, ‘In Propria Persona Sui
Juris’ (being in my own proper person), by birthright; an Inheritance without the foreign, imposed
color-of-law, or assumed due process of the Union States Society; pursuant to, but not limited to:
The affiant is not a lawyer and his pleadings cannot be treated as such. In fact, according to
Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972), a complaint, "however inartfully pleaded," must be held
to "less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers" and can only be dismissed
for failure to state a claim if it appears "beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts
in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief." Id., at 520-521, quoting Conley v.
Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 (1957).
“Indeed, no more than affidavits is necessary to make a prima facie case.” (See United States v.
Kis, 658 F. 2nd, 526, 536 (7th Cir. 1981): Cert Denied, 50 U.S.L.W. 2169; S. Ct. March 22,
1982.)
1. Under common law, any adult or emancipated person has the right to change his or her name
without legal formality or permission of court to any name he or she lawfully chooses. N.J. –
Application of Ferner, 295 N.J. Super. 409, 685 A.2d 78 (Law Div. 1996).
2. The common law and statutory right to change one’s name belongs to the individual whose
name is being changed, Mo. –Barr v. Barr, 987 S.W.2d 471 (Mo. Ct. App. S.D. 1999); and in
the absence of statutory restriction, a person may lawfully change his or her name without
resort to any legal proceeding. U.S. –Jech v. Burch, 466 F. Supp. 714 (D. Haw. 1979); Ark. –
Clinton v. Morrow, 220 Ark. 377, 247 S.W.2d 1015(1952).
3. Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no rule-making or
legislation, which would abrogate them. Miranda v. Arizona 384 US 436, 125. An
unconstitutional act is not law; it confers no rights; it imposes no duties; affords no protection;
it creates no office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had never been
passed." Norton v. Shelby County, 118 U.S. 425 p. 442.
4. Free Moorish-American Zodiac Constitution: (Zodiac Constitution and Birthrights of the

Moorish Americans) being Ali, Bey, El, Dey and Al), Article two (2), Paragraph two (2).
5. United States Republic: Department of Justice: Moorish American Credentials: aa 222141-

truth a-1.
6. United States Supreme Court: Supreme Law - Acts of State.

7. United States Constitution: Article III (3), section II (2), amendment V (5) (liberty
clause) and amendment IX (9) (reservation of the rights of the people).
8. Resolution Number Seventy-Five (75): dated April 17, 1933 (Moorish-American Society
of Philadelphia and the use of their names).
9. Universal Declaration of Human Rights – United Nations – Human Rights [Article

Fifteen (15)].
10. Rights of indigenous peoples – United Nations: General Assembly - Part 1, Article 4.
11. The common law name correction/change, whatever you want to call it, is warranted due
to the fact that affiant’s declaration falls under his First Amendment Right of freedom of
Religion and our God given right under Natural Law and protected under the US
Constitution, “Freedom of Expression.” We all have a God given and Constitution right
to express ourselves and to believe as we please.
12. Your name is a high form of expression, something we can all agree upon; therefore, not
recognizing this declaration when affiant really doesn’t need permission to correct his
name, according to our God given Natural Law (Common Law) and Freedom of
Expression (1st Amendment), would be a grave “Miscarriage of Justice.”
WHEREFORE, I, ___________, being ‘Part and Parcel’ named herein, and by Birthright,
Primogeniture, and Inheritance, make a Lawful and Legal Entry of Common Law Name Correction;
Herewith Published for the Public Record. Let it be know from this day forth…
VERIFICATION
STATE OF FLORIDA
SS. AFFIDAVIT
COUNTY OF SAINT LUCIE
I, ___________________________, being first duly sworn, under oath, says: that he is the
affiant in this Affidavit and he knows the content of its body; that it is true of his own
knowledge, except as to those matters that are stated in it on his information and belief, and as to
those matters he believes to be true (All Rights Reserved Without Prejudice; U.C.C. 1-207/1-
308, U.C.C. 1-103.).
_______________________________
(Affiant, Your name)
All Rights Reserved Without Prejudice;
U.C.C. 1-207/1-308, U.C.C. 1-103.
(Your name)
(Your address)
Sworn to and subscribed before me on this ____ day of_____________ 2012.
____________________________________________
Notary Public At Large – State of Florida.
My Commission expires: ____________________________________

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing affidavit has been furnished by US
Mail to: St. Lucie County Clerk, Family Law Division, P.O. Box 700, Fort Pierce, FL 34954;
and the Clerk of the Circuit Court, Register/Recorder of deeds, P.O. Box 700, Fort Pierce, FL
34954, on this ___day of ________________2012. (The proper court to change/correct your
name is Family Law. You can pay the filing fees to file it there if you can afford it. Don’t pay
any filing fees, bring an Affidavit of Insolvency or ask the clerk for one. Just file it there if you
want to go by the book, lol! You want the court to dismiss the case because all you are doing is
making a declaration and giving public notice. Never go to the sheriff’s Office and get finger-
print and never go to family court for a hearing, because you don’t want your free and sovereign
name turned into another Strawman, because that is exactly what they will do if you pay the
filing fees, get finger-printed and ask for a hearing. You don’t want them to do anything because
an unrebutted affidavit stands as truth. You can also file this in any old traffic or criminal case,
because that serves as public notice too.)
Respectfully Submitted
by:______________________
Affiant, (Your name).
U.C.C. 1-207/1-308, U.C.C. 1-103.
(Your name)
(Your Address)
IN THE COUNTY COURT OF THE NINETEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT AND IN FOR
SAINT LUCIE COUNTY, FLORIDA.
)
)
AMUNHOTEP EL BEY )
(Affiant/Secured Party) )
________________________)
Notice of Public Records Correction
This correspondence and Public Notice is hereby presented and forwarded to your
company or corporate officials, personnel, and employees, relative to my corrected and changed
attribute/name, along with proper spelling. You are hereby given honorable notice to correct any
records, files, mailings, and other future correspondences, accordingly.
This correction is supported by law and declared pursuant to the fact that, “The common
law and statutory right to change one’s name belongs to the individual whose name is being
changed”, Mo. –Barr v. Barr, 987 S.W.2d 471 (Mo. Ct. App. S.D. 1999); “and in the absence of
statutory restriction, a person may lawfully change his or her name without resort to any legal
proceeding.” U.S. –Jech v. Burch, 466 F. Supp. 714 (D. Haw. 1979); Ark. –Clinton v. Morrow,
220 Ark. 377, 247 S.W.2d 1015(1952). Furthermore, “Under common law, any adult or
emancipated person has the right to change his or her name without legal formality or permission
of court to any name he or she lawfully chooses.” N.J. –Application of Ferner, 295 N.J. Super.
409, 685 A.2d 78 (Law Div. 1996). The courts presume that the legislature does not intend a
change in the common law unless the statute explicitly states otherwise. Carlisle v. Game and
Freshwater Fish Comm'n, 354 So.2d 362, 364 (Fla. 1977). Name change statutes in Florida do
not abolish the common law (doctrine) right of the natural person, nor remove from their
possession the substantive right to legally change their name.
This correction is made in accord with the honoring of my family bloodline/pedigree, and
exercising my natural substantive rights and religious heritage. Please correct your records as
soon as possible.
The former name, EUGENE JAMES WILLIAMS, is to be corrected on all records

replaced with the name, Amunhotep El Bey.
by: __________________
(Your name)
( Your address)
I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing has been furnished by US Mail to:
The Clerk of The Circuit Court, Register/Recorder of deeds, P. O. Box 700, Fort Pierce, Florida,
34954; The Clerk of the Circuit Court, Family Law, P. O. Box 700, Fort Pierce, Florida, 34954,
on this ___day of ________________2012.(This version is not as powerful as a Affidavit, but
Notice means offer according to the Black’s Law Dictionary 4th Edition. If there is no response
to it it is as good as gold because silence means acceptance.)
by:______________________
Amunhotep El Bey.
U.C.C. 1-207/1- 308, U.C.C. 1-103.
(Your Name)
(Your address)
NOTICE OF CORPORATE DENIAL AND NON-CORPORATE STATUS
EXHIBIT 004 - NOTICE OF CORPORATE DENIAL AND

NON-CORPORATE STATUS
With the knowledge of the fact that “Assumption” and “Presumption” may prevail unless
rebutted, or explicitly denied, this Affiant plainly states that Affiant is in no way to be
considered, termed as, or thought as, a person, legal entity, legal fiction, fictional character, or
corporation of any form; with the knowledge that all such entities are not living, breathing,
sentient men. Therefore, Affiant hereby makes express and explicit claim and affirmation to the
living, whose Creator is Affiant’s Heavenly Father; and, express and explicit claim that Affiant is
not a “person” or any other form of corporation.
The word “person” is according to several references and 22 USC Sec. 1621: Definitions -
STATUTE- For the purposes of this subchapter - (a) The term 'person' shall include an
individual, partnership, corporation, or the Government of the United States.
Point 004A. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 52, applies in Civil and Criminal actions
with equal force and effect because criminal is always civil in nature. No civil or criminal cause
of action can arise lest there be a contract. See Eads v. Marks, 249 P. 2d 257, 260. There is
always a presumption that a contract exists and that the responding party is a Corporation. Under
Rule 52, which is the same in all states as in the Federal Rules, the Texas Court of appeals (5th
Cir) has ruled of the finding of fact, by the Court, that “the failure of an adverse party to deny
under oath the allegation that he is incorporated dispenses with the necessity of proof of the
fact”. Thus, a presumption becomes a finding of fact by the court unless rebutted before trial.
Point 004B. Dr. Pepper Co. v. Crow, 621 S. W.2d 464, 465 (Tex App.-Waco 1981, no Writ)
“Plaintiff plead defendant was a corporation. Defendant did not deny by verified pleading
pursuant to [TRCP] 52 and 83 … that it was not a corporation; thus, such fact was established.
Point 004C. Louisiana Revised Statutes Art. 429 - Corporation existence is presumed unless
affidavit of denial is filed before trial.
Point 004D. A presumption is a rule of Law, Statutory or judicial, by which the finding of a basic
fact gives rise to the existence of presumed fact until presumption is rebutted. See Van Wart v.
Cook, 557 P. 2d 1161. In the Commercial Law of all States, a presumption means that the trier
(the Judge) of fact, must find the existence of the fact presumed per FRCP 52, unless and until
the evidence is introduced which would support a finding of its non-existence. Arizona Revised
Statutes: Title 47 Section 1201 (31) Presumption" or "presumed" means that the trier of fact must
find the existence of the fact presumed unless and until evidence is introduced which would
support a finding of its nonexistence. Thus, the Affidavit of Non Corporate Status is for the
purpose of rebutting any presumption that the Affiant is the Corporation named in the alleged
complaint.
Point 004E. Federal Rules Evidence, R.301 Agreement by Acquiescence

Rule 301 of the Federal Rules of Evidence states; “…a presumption imposes on the party against
whom it is directed the burden of proof [see 556(d)] of going forward with evidence to rebut or
meet the presumption.”
Point 004F. When the complaint is lodged by the Government for a fine, fee or a tax, all of
which are revenue, they are imposed only on Corporations. See Colonial Pipe Line Co. v.
Triangle, 421 US 100 (1975). Thus, this instant complaint, for the collection of some form of
tax, must have been lodged against a Corporation whose name is similar to my name. This
Affiant rebuts the presumption that this Affiant is the Corporation named in the alleged
complaint.
Point 004G. If Affiant is not a Corporation he cannot appear and plead. See West Union Tel. Co.
v Eyser, 2 Colo. 141; Greenwood v. Railroad Co., 123 Mass. 32; Foster v. white Cloud, 32 Mo.
505; Hobich v. Folger, 20 Wall. 1; Boyce v. M.E. Church, 43 Md. 359; Folsom v. Star Union
Etc. Fright Line, 54 Iowa 490.
Point 004H. When brought into Court by its Corporate name, its existence as a Corporation is
admitted. See Mud Creek Drain Co. v State, 43 Ind. 157; Johnson v. Gibson, 73 Ind. 282; Ewing
v. Robeson, 15 Ind. 26; Callender v. Railroad Co, 11 Ohio St. 516; Com. Ins. Etc. Co. v Taylor,
8 S.C. 107. Compare Ware v. St. Louis Bagging and Rope Co., 47 Ala. 667.
Point 004I. Stating not facts, but a conclusion only, is insufficient. It has been held that where the
representative of a railroad corporation is served with process, he may plead in abatement in his
own name that the Corporation is extinct. See Kelly v. Railroad Co., 2 Flip C.C. 581; Callender
v. Plainsville Co., 11 Ohio St. 516; Quarrier v. Peabody Co., 10 W. Va. 507; Evarts v.
Killingworth Co., 20 Conn. 447; Stewart v. Dunn, 12 Mees. & W. 655; Stevenson v. Thorn, 13
Mees & W. 149. Where the person is so served with that he may, by plea, deny that he/she
sustains any such relation to the Corporation that authorizes the service of process on him/her.
See Kelly v. Railroad Co.,2 Flip C.C. 581. In 1886 the Supreme Court did not grant corporate-
personhood to any State of the Union or Federal Government and that this doctrine derives from
a mistaken interpretation of a Supreme Court reporter’s notes. See Santa Clara County v
Southern Pacific Railroad Company [118 U.S. 394 (1886)].
Point 004J. No laws have been passed by Congress granting that corporations should be treated
the same under the constitution as living, breathing human beings. No court decisions, state or
federal, held that corporations were “persons” instead of “artificial persons.” The Supreme Court
did not rule in Santa Clara County v Southern Pacific Railroad Company [118 U.S. 394] (1886)
on the issue of corporate personhood. As railroad attorney Sanderson and his two colleagues
watched, Chief Justice Morrison Remick Waite told Delmas and his two colleagues the attorneys
for the opposing party that: “The court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether
the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which forbids a state to deny to
any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, applies to these corporations.
We are of the opinion that it does. This written statement, that corporations were “persons”
rather than “artificial persons”, with an equal footing under the Bill of Rights as humans, was not
a formal ruling of the court, but was reportedly a simple statement by its Chief Justice, recorded
by the court recorder". See Vermont Supreme Court building. Volume 118 of United States
Reports: Cases adjudged in the Supreme Court at October Term 1885 and October Terms 1886
published in New York in 1886 by Banks & Brothers Publishers, and written by J.C. Bancroft
Davis, Supreme Court’s Reporter. Point 004K. Here is the often expressed understanding from
the United States Supreme Court that “in common usage, statutes employing the terms person
and corporation are ordinarily construed to exclude the Sovereign man or woman.” Wilson v.
Omaha Tribe, 442 U.S. 653, 667 (1979) (quoting United States v. Cooper Corp., 312 U.S. 600,
604 (1941). See also United States v. Mine Workers, 330 U.S. 258, 275 (1947).
Point 004L. US Supreme Court in Luther v Borden, 48 US1, 12 Led 581: “…The government
are but trustees acting under derived authority and have no power to delegate what is not
delegated to them. But the people, as the original fountain, might take away what they have
delegated and in trust to whom they please. … The sovereignty in every state resides in the
people of the state and they may alter and change their form of government at their own
pleasure.” US Supreme Court in Wilson v Omaha India Tribe 442 US 653, 667 (1979): “In
common usage, the term ‘person’ does not include the sovereign, and statutes employing the
word are ordinarily construed to exclude it.”
Point 004M. Affiant is NOT a “United States Person”, “United States Resident”, "U.S. Citizen",
“U.S. Individual”, “U.S. Corporation” or “citizen subjected to its jurisdiction”; as such are
“words of art”; or corporation created under the laws of the United States or any state of the
Union States, the District of Columbia, or any territory, commonwealth or possession of the
United States or a foreign state or country, public or private.
Point 004N. Affiant is NOT a “resident of”, “inhabitant of”, a “franchisee of”, “subject of”,
“ward of”, property of”, “chattel of”, or “subject to the jurisdiction of” the State of the Forum of
any United States, corporate State, corporate County, or corporate City, or Municipal body
politic created under the primary authority of Art. I, Sec. 8, CI.17 and Art. IV, Sec. 3 CI. 2 of the
Constitution for the united States of America and not subjected to any legislation created by or
under the jurisdiction of any employees, officers, or agents deriving their authority thereof.
Further, Affiant is NOT a subject of the Administrative and Legislative Article I Courts or bound
by precedents of such courts created by the “United States”, as “Legislation enacted by Congress
applicable to the inferior courts in the exercise of the power under Article III of the Constitution
cannot be affected by legislation enacted by Congress under Art. I, Sec. 8,CI.17, of the
Constitution, “D.C. Code, Title 11 at p. 13 “an officer, agent, shareholder, franchise or fiduciary
agent, surety, resident inhabitant or domiciled in any corporation.”
Point 004O. Affiant declares, revokes and cancels all of Affiant's signatures on any and all forms
which may be construed to give the Federal Government or any other agency or department of
the United States Government, created under the authority of Article I, Sec. 8, CI. 17 and Article
IV, Sec. 3, CI.2 of the Constitution for the United States, authority or jurisdiction over Affiant.
Affiant also, revokes, rescinds and make void ab initio, all powers of attorney, in fact, in
presumption, or otherwise, signed either by Affiant or anyone else, with or without Affiant's
consent, as such power of attorney pertains to Affiant, by, but not limited to, any and all
government/quasi/colorable, public, Government entities or corporations, on the grounds of
constructive fraud, and non-disclosure of pertinent facts.
Point 004P. Affiant is NOT a vessel documented under Chapter 121 of Title 46, United States
Code or a vessel numbered as provided in Chapter 123 of said Title.
Point 004Q. Affiant hereby, cancels any presumed election made by the United States
Government or any agency or department, thereof, that Affiant is, or ever has been, a citizen,
alien citizen or resident of any territory, possession, instrumentality or enclave, under the
sovereignty or exclusive jurisdiction of the United States, as defined in the Constitution for the
united States of America in Art. I, Sec. 8 CI. 17 and Art. IV, Sec. 3, CI. 2. Affiant has no record
or evidence that Affiant does not cancel any presumption that Affiant ever voluntarily elected to
be treated as such a citizen or resident.
Point 004R. Affiant is NOT an enemy of the United States or any corporation created under the
laws of the United States or any state of the Union States, the District of Columbia, or any
territory, commonwealth or possession of the United States or a foreign state or country, public
or private.
Point 004S. Affiant’s name is a Possession of Affiant and is not given to any other, however, the
Christian Appellation that Affiant answers to is; Joseph-Cold: of the Sixpack Family, with
location of domicile where the Living Man stands, who may be NOTICED at OU812 Yellow
Brick Road, Somewhere , Kansas [zip], and is particularly unique to this Affiant, although not
affiliated with the “Corporate Body Politic” near the same location and is determined as
complete, necessary and sufficient identification evidencing Affiant’s neutral standing (15 USC
1681(h)).
Point 004T. This Affidavit was NOT written for the purpose of debating the constitutionality or
legality of the Communications Act of 1934, but rather to establish facts exposing the United
States Government’s lack of jurisdiction in this matter. Affiant is NOT a pirate, affiliated with or
an enemy of any public or private corporation, domestic or foreign, but is a neutral body. Any
past or future reference to Affiant as such by any agency and its officer(s) will be considered
“defamation of character” and will be litigated as such in the foreign jurisdiction where
offenders, oppressors, and all Libellees will have no immunity, “Within the Admiralty”. 28 USC
1333 or 1337, Bills of Lading Act, The Public Vessel Act, Foreign Sovereign Immunity Act,
False Claims Act; see 31 U.S.C. §3729(a)(7) and Federal Tort Claims Act. Any of the facts or
Laws presented herein are NOT contrary to the Communications Act of 1934, or Court decisions
applicable to Affiant. All facts contained herein are based upon ruling case law and un-overruled
decisions of the Supreme Court of the united States. None of these facts have been found to be
“frivolous” by any court, when argued in their exact and proper context. These are technical facts
that, under Commercial Law must be rebutted with “case law” or acquiesced to.
Point 004U. Any statements or claims in this Affidavit must be properly rebutted by facts of law,
or overriding Article III Supreme Court rulings, and shall not prejudice the lawful validity of
other claims not properly rebutted or invalidated by facts of law. Therefore, an Affidavit of
Truth, under Commercial Law, can only be satisfied: (i) through a rebuttal Affidavit of Truth,
point for point, (ii) by payment, (iii) by agreement, (iv) by resolution by a jury under the rules of
Common Law.
Point 004V. For reasons explicitly defined within this Point, Affiant denies having, or ever
having had, a “birthday”; but rather, Affiant DID have a “Nativity” upon the Soil and celebrates
his day of Nativity as such.
Point 004W. Affiant makes it perfectly clear that Affiant is an Adverse Party denying under oath
the allegation that Affiant is incorporated; as per: "The failure of an adverse party to deny under
oath the allegation that he is incorporated with the necessity of proof of the fact [it becomes part
of the official record]." Galleria Bank v. Southwest Properties, 498 Southwest 2nd
USE, MISUSE, AND ABUSE OF WORDS TO CHANGE THE MEANING.
Webster's 1828 Dictionary says this under "BIRTH": BIRTH, n. berth.
"Birth", "berth" and "born" all come from the same root of "to bear". When you look up "berth"
you find out that every definition has to do with ships. So our "berth-day" is the day we were
given a place within the maritime/admiralty jurisdiction of the State.
Webster's New World Dictionary of the English Language - Third College Edition, copyright
1988, page 132, berth n. ...4 a position, place, office, job, etc.
We perceive that this "berth" is the "office of person" aboard the SHIP OF STATE
A Living Soul has a date of Nativity; a Corporation Sole has a date of Birth/Berth.
There are only two birthday parties in the Scripture. In both cases a man lost his head. At
Pharaoh’s birthday party in Genesis the baker was hung and at Herod's birthday party in the
Gospels John the Baptist was beheaded. So how did a "Christian" culture end up celebrating
"Berth"-days as we do? Somebody had a plan, and that plan involved embedding a number (the
number of the beast) into our consciousness at a very early age.
A possible third “birthday” was mentioned in the Holy Writ; note that the 666 talents of gold
mentioned below did NOT include all that was brought by merchant means.
1 Kings 10:14 and 2 Chronicles 9:13, “Now the weight of gold that came to Solomon in one year
was six hundred threescore and six talents of gold;”
Therefore, I inform the nice policeman, the bureaucrat, the “de facto” court system, and all other
parties that may inquire, "I have no birthday," even backing that with, "No man can be
compelled to incriminate himself."
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION TO CLARIFY MEANING OF “U.S. CITIZEN”
The term "Citizen of the United States", as found in the Qualifications Clauses, is properly
constructed to mean a Citizen of ONE OF the States which are united by and under the U.S.
Constitution. This construction -- ONE OF -- is reiterated in the following passage from Words
and Phrases, to wit:
“Citizens of a state, within the removal act [18 Stat. 473, March 3, 1875] means citizens of one
of the United States, and the suits contemplated are suits between citizens of one of the states of
the Union on one side, and foreign states, or citizens or subjects on the other.” citing Roberts v.
Pacific & A. Ry. & Navigation Co., 121 F. 785, 789, 58 C.C.A. 61. (9th Cir. 1903)”]
Point 004K. Here is the often expressed understanding from the United States Supreme Court
that “in common usage, statutes employing the terms person and corporation are ordinarily
construed to exclude the Sovereign man or woman.” Wilson v. Omaha Tribe, 442 U.S. 653, 667
(1979) (quoting United States v. Cooper Corp., 312 U.S. 600, 604 (1941). See also United States
v. Mine Workers, 330 U.S. 258, 275 (1947).
Point 004L. US Supreme Court in Luther v Borden, 48 US1, 12 Led 581: “…The government
are but trustees acting under derived authority and have no power to delegate what is not
delegated to them. But the people, as the original fountain, might take away what they have
delegated and in trust to whom they please. … The sovereignty in every state resides in the
people of the state and they may alter and change their form of government at their own
pleasure.” US Supreme Court in Wilson v Omaha India Tribe 442 US 653, 667 (1979): “In
common usage, the term ‘person’ does not include the sovereign, and statutes employing the
word are ordinarily construed to exclude it.”
Point 004M. Affiant is NOT a “United States Person”, “United States Resident”, "U.S. Citizen",
“U.S. Individual”, “U.S. Corporation” or “citizen subjected to its jurisdiction”; as such are
“words of art”; or corporation created under the laws of the United States or any state of the
Union States, the District of Columbia, or any territory, commonwealth or possession of the
United States or a foreign state or country, public or private.
Point 004N. Affiant is NOT a “resident of”, “inhabitant of”, a “franchisee of”, “subject of”,
“ward of”, property of”, “chattel of”, or “subject to the jurisdiction of” the State of the Forum of
any United States, corporate State, corporate County, or corporate City, or Municipal body
politic created under the primary authority of Art. I, Sec. 8, CI.17 and Art. IV, Sec. 3 CI. 2 of the
Constitution for the united States of America and not subjected to any legislation created by or
under the jurisdiction of any employees, officers, or agents deriving their authority thereof.
Further, Affiant is NOT a subject of the Administrative and Legislative Article I Courts or bound
by precedents of such courts created by the “United States”, as “Legislation enacted by Congress
applicable to the inferior courts in the exercise of the power under Article III of the Constitution
cannot be affected by legislation enacted by Congress under Art. I, Sec. 8,CI.17, of the
Constitution, “D.C. Code, Title 11 at p. 13 “an officer, agent, shareholder, franchise or fiduciary
agent, surety, resident inhabitant or domiciled in any corporation.”
Point 004O. Affiant declares, revokes and cancels all of Affiant's signatures on any and all forms
which may be construed to give the Federal Government or any other agency or department of
the United States Government, created under the authority of Article I, Sec. 8, CI. 17 and Article
IV, Sec. 3, CI.2 of the Constitution for the United States, authority or jurisdiction over Affiant.
Affiant also, revokes, rescinds and make void ab initio, all powers of attorney, in fact, in
presumption, or otherwise, signed either by Affiant or anyone else, with or without Affiant's
consent, as such power of attorney pertains to Affiant, by, but not limited to, any and all
government/quasi/colorable, public, Government entities or corporations, on the grounds of
constructive fraud, and non-disclosure of pertinent facts.
Point 004P. Affiant is NOT a vessel documented under Chapter 121 of Title 46, United States
Code or a vessel numbered as provided in Chapter 123 of said Title.
Point 004Q. Affiant hereby, cancels any presumed election made by the United States
Government or any agency or department, thereof, that Affiant is, or ever has been, a citizen,
alien citizen or resident of any territory, possession, instrumentality or enclave, under the
sovereignty or exclusive jurisdiction of the United States, as defined in the Constitution for the
united States of America in Art. I, Sec. 8 CI. 17 and Art. IV, Sec. 3, CI. 2. Affiant has no record
or evidence that Affiant does not cancel any presumption that Affiant ever voluntarily elected to
be treated as such a citizen or resident.
Point 004R. Affiant is NOT an enemy of the United States or any corporation created under the
laws of the United States or any state of the Union States, the District of Columbia, or any
territory, commonwealth or possession of the United States or a foreign state or country, public
or private.
Point 004S. Affiant’s name is a Possession of Affiant and is not given to any other, however, the
Christian Appellation that Affiant answers to is; Joseph-Cold: of the Sixpack Family, with
location of domicile where the Living Man stands, who may be NOTICED at OU812 Yellow
Brick Road, Somewhere , Kansas [zip], and is particularly unique to this Affiant, although not
affiliated with the “Corporate Body Politic” near the same location and is determined as
complete, necessary and sufficient identification evidencing Affiant’s neutral standing (15 USC
1681(h)).
Point 004T. This Affidavit was NOT written for the purpose of debating the constitutionality or
legality of the Communications Act of 1934, but rather to establish facts exposing the United
States Government’s lack of jurisdiction in this matter. Affiant is NOT a pirate, affiliated with or
an enemy of any public or private corporation, domestic or foreign, but is a neutral body. Any
past or future reference to Affiant as such by any agency and its officer(s) will be considered
“defamation of character” and will be litigated as such in the foreign jurisdiction where
offenders, oppressors, and all Libellees will have no immunity, “Within the Admiralty”. 28 USC
1333 or 1337, Bills of Lading Act, The Public Vessel Act, Foreign Sovereign Immunity Act,
False Claims Act; see 31 U.S.C. §3729(a)(7) and Federal Tort Claims Act. Any of the facts or
Laws presented herein are NOT contrary to the Communications Act of 1934, or Court decisions
applicable to Affiant. All facts contained herein are based upon ruling case law and un-overruled
decisions of the Supreme Court of the united States. None of these facts have been found to be
“frivolous” by any court, when argued in their exact and proper context. These are technical facts
that, under Commercial Law must be rebutted with “case law” or acquiesced to.
Point 004U. Any statements or claims in this Affidavit must be properly rebutted by facts of law,
or overriding Article III Supreme Court rulings, and shall not prejudice the lawful validity of
other claims not properly rebutted or invalidated by facts of law. Therefore, an Affidavit of
Truth, under Commercial Law, can only be satisfied: (i) through a rebuttal Affidavit of Truth,
point for point, (ii) by payment, (iii) by agreement, (iv) by resolution by a jury under the rules of
Common Law.
Point 004V. For reasons explicitly defined within this Point, Affiant denies having, or ever
having had, a “birthday”; but rather, Affiant DID have a “Nativity” upon the Soil and celebrates
his day of Nativity as such.
Point 004W. Affiant makes it perfectly clear that Affiant is an Adverse Party denying under oath
the allegation that Affiant is incorporated; as per: "The failure of an adverse party to deny under
oath the allegation that he is incorporated with the necessity of proof of the fact [it becomes part
of the official record]." Galleria Bank v. Southwest Properties, 498 Southwest 2nd
USE, MISUSE, AND ABUSE OF WORDS TO CHANGE THE MEANING.

Webster's 1828 Dictionary says this under "BIRTH": BIRTH, n. berth.
"Birth", "berth" and "born" all come from the same root of "to bear". When you look up "berth"
you find out that every definition has to do with ships. So our "berth-day" is the day we were
given a place within the maritime/admiralty jurisdiction of the State.
Webster's New World Dictionary of the English Language - Third College Edition, copyright
1988, page 132, berth n. ...4 a position, place, office, job, etc.
We perceive that this "berth" is the "office of person" aboard the SHIP OF STATE
A Living Soul has a date of Nativity; a Corporation Sole has a date of Birth/Berth.
There are only two birthday parties in the Scripture. In both cases a man lost his head. At
Pharaoh’s birthday party in Genesis the baker was hung and at Herod's birthday party in the
Gospels John the Baptist was beheaded. So how did a "Christian" culture end up celebrating
"Berth"-days as we do? Somebody had a plan, and that plan involved embedding a number (the
number of the beast) into our consciousness at a very early age.
A possible third “birthday” was mentioned in the Holy Writ; note that the 666 talents of gold
mentioned below did NOT include all that was brought by merchant means.
1 Kings 10:14 and 2 Chronicles 9:13, “Now the weight of gold that came to Solomon in one year
was six hundred threescore and six talents of gold;”
Therefore, I inform the nice policeman, the bureaucrat, the “de facto” court system, and all other
parties that may inquire, "I have no birthday," even backing that with, "No man can be
compelled to incriminate himself."
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION TO CLARIFY MEANING OF “U.S. CITIZEN”
The term "Citizen of the United States", as found in the Qualifications Clauses, is properly
constructed to mean a Citizen of ONE OF the States which are united by and under the U.S.
Constitution. This construction -- ONE OF -- is reiterated in the following passage from Words
and Phrases, to wit:
“Citizens of a state, within the removal act [18 Stat. 473, March 3, 1875] means citizens of one
of the United States, and the suits contemplated are suits between citizens of one of the states of
the Union on one side, and foreign states, or citizens or subjects on the other.” citing Roberts v.
Pacific & A. Ry. & Navigation Co., 121 F. 785, 789, 58 C.C.A. 61. (9th Cir. 1903)”]
MEMORANDUM OF LAW AND POINTS OF AUTHORITY IN SUPPORT
OF AFFIDAVIT OF NON CORPORATE STATUS
1. The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 52, applies in Civil and Criminal actions with
equal force and effect because criminal is always civil in nature. No civil or criminal cause of
action can arise lest there be a contract. See Eads v. Marks, 249 P. 2d 257, 260. There is always a
presumption that a contract exists and that the responding party is a Corporation. Under Rule 52,
which is the same in all states as in the Federal Rules, the Texas Court of appeals (5th Cir) has
ruled on the finding of fact, by the Court, that “the failure of an adverse party to deny under oath
the allegation that he is incorporated dispenses with the necessity of proof of the fact”. Thus, a
presumption becomes a finding of fact by the court unless rebutted before trial.
2. Dr. Pepper Co. v. Crow, 621 S. W.2d 464, 465 (Tex App.-Waco 1981, no Writ) “Plaintiff
plead defendant was a corporation. Defendant did not deny by verified pleading pursuant to
[TRCP] 52 and 83 … that it was not a corporation; thus, such fact was established.
3. Louisiana Revised Statutes Art. 429
Corporation existence presumed unless affidavit of denial filed before trial.
4. A presumption is a rule of Law, Statutory or judicial, by which the finding of a basic fact gives
rise to the existence of presumed fact until presumption is rebutted. See Van Wart v. Cook, 557
P. 2d 1161. In the Commercial Law of all States, a presumption means that the trier (the Judge)
of fact, must find the existence of the fact presumed per FRCP 52, unless and until the evidence
is introduced which would support a finding of its non-existence. Arizona Revised Statutes: Title
47 Section 1201 (31) Presumption" or "presumed" means that the trier of fact must find the
existence of the fact presumed unless and until evidence is introduced which would support a
finding of its nonexistence. Thus, the Affidavit of Non Corporate Status is for the purpose of
rebutting any presumption that the Respondent is the Corporation named in the alleged
complaint.
5. Federal Rules Evidence, R.301 Agreement by Acquiescence
.” Rule 301 of the Federal Rules of Evidence states;”….a presumption imposes on the party
against whom it is directed the burden of proof [see 556(d) ] of going forward with evidence to
rebut or meet the presumption
6. When the complaint is lodged by the Government for a fine, fee or a tax, all of which are
revenue, they are imposed only on Corporations. See Colonial Pipe Line Co. v. Triagle, 421 US
100 (1975). Thus, this instant complaint, for the collection of some form of tax, must have been
lodged against a Corporation whose name is similar to my name. This Respondent must rebut the
presumption that this Respondent is the Corporation named in the alleged complaint.
7. If Respondent is not a Corporation he cannot appear and plead. See West Union Tel. Co. v
Eyser, 2 Colo. 141; Greenwood v. Railroad Co., 123 Mass. 32; Foster v. White Cloud, 32 Mo.
505; Hobich v. Folger, 20 Wall. 1; Boyce v. M.E. Church, 43 Md. 359; Folsom v. Star Union
Etc. Freight Line, 54 Iowa 490.
8. When brought into Court by its Corporate name, its existence as a Corporation is admitted.
See Mud Creek Drain Co. v State, 43 Ind. 157; Johnson v. Gibson, 73 Ind. 282; Ewing v.
Robeson, 15 Ind. 26; Callender v. Railroad Co, 11 Ohio St. 516; Com. Ins. Etc. Co. v Taylor, 8
S.C. 107. Compare Ware v. St. Louis Bagging and Rope Co., 47 Ala. 667.
9. Stating not facts, but a conclusion only, is insufficient. It has been held that where the
representative of a railroad corporation is served with process, he may plead in abatement in his
own name that the Corporation is extinct. See Kelly v. Railroad Co., 2 Flip C.C. 581; Callender
v. Plainsville Co., 11 Ohio St. 516; Quarrier v. Peabody Co., 10 W. Va. 507; Evarts v.
Killingworth Co., 20 Conn. 447; Stewart v. Dunn, 12 Mees. & W. 655; Stevenson v. Thorn, 13
Mees & W. 149. Where the person is so served with that, he may, by plea, deny that he/she
sustains any such relation to the Corporation as authorizes the service of process on him/her. See
Kelly v. Railroad Co., 2 Flip C.C. 581. In 1886 the Supreme Court did not grant corporate-
personhood to any State of the Union or Federal Government and that this doctrine derives from
a mistaken interpretation of a Supreme Court reporter’s notes. See Santa Clara County v
Southern Pacific Railroad Company [118 U.S. 394 (1886).
10. No laws were passed by Congress granting that corporations should be treated the same
under the constitution as living, breathing human beings, and none have been passed since then.
No court decisions, state or federal, held that corporations were “persons” instead of “artificial
persons.” The Supreme Court did not rule in Santa Clara County v Southern Pacific Railroad
Company [118 U.S. 394] (1886). (In this case, or in any other case, on the issue of corporate
personhood.) As railroad attorney Sanderson and his two colleagues watched, Chief Justice
Morrison Remick Waite told Delmas and his two colleagues the attorneys for the opposing party
that: “The court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the
Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which forbids a state to deny to any person within its
jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, applies to these corporations. We are of the opinion
that it does. This written statement, that corporations were “persons”, rather than “artificial
persons”, with an equal footing under the Bill of Rights as humans, was not a formal ruling of
the court, but was reportedly a simple statement by its Chief Justice recorded by the court
recorder. See Vermont Supreme Court Volume 118 of United States Reports: Cases adjudged in
the Supreme Court at October Term 1885 and October Term 1886 published in New York in
1886 by Banks & Brothers Publishers, and written by J.C. Bancroft Davis, the Supreme Court’s
Reporter.
11. Here is the often expressed understanding from the United States Supreme Court that “in
common usage, the term Sovereign, in statutes employing the terms person and corporation are
ordinarily construed to exclude the Sovereign man or woman.” Wilson v. Omaha Tribe, 442 U.S.
653, 667 (1979) (quoting United States v. Cooper Corp., 312 U.S. 600, 604 (1941). See also
United States v. Mine Workers, 330 U.S. 258, 275 (1947).
12. US Supreme Court in Luther v Borden, 48 US1, 12 Led 581:
“…The government are but trustees acting under derived authority and have no power to
delegate what is not delegated to them. But the people, as the original fountain, might take away
what they have delegated and entrust to whom they please. … The sovereign in every state
resides in the people of the state and they may alter and change their form of government at their
own pleasure.”
US Supreme Court in Wilson v Omaha India Tribe 442 US 653, 667 (1979):
“In common usage, the term ‘person’ does not include the sovereign, and statutes employing the
word are ordinary construed to exclude it.”
13. Rebuttable presumptions are in effect inferences that, in the absence of any controverting
evidence, the jury is required to make and, in civil cases, to accept as established facts. [89.
People v Wong Sang Lung, 3 CA 221, 84 P 843.]
14. BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY, 6th Ed. (1990), p. 1267.
Rebuttable presumption: In the law of evidence, a presumption which may be rebutted by
evidence. Otherwise called a “disputable” presumption. A species of legal presumption which
holds good until evidence contrary to it is introduced. Beck v. Kansas City Public Service Co.,
Mo. App., 48 S.W. 2d 213, 215. It shifts burden of proof. Heiner v. Donnan, 285 U.S. 312, 52 S.
Ct. 358, 362, 76 L.Ed. 772. It gives particular effect to certain group of facts in absence of
further evidence, and presumption provides a prima facie case which shifts to defendant the
burden to go forward with evidence to contradict or rebut fact presumed. Gulle v. Boggs, Fla.,
174 So.2d 26, 28.
15. BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY, 6th Ed. (1990), p. 1185
Presumption: An inference in favor of a particular fact. A presumption is a rule of law, statutory
or judicial, by which finding of a basic fact gives rise to existing of presumed fact, until
presumption is rebutted. Van Wart v. Cook, Okl. App., 557 P2d 1161, 1163. A legal device
which operates in the absence of other proof to require that certain inference be drawn from the
available evidence. Port Terminal & Warehousing Co. v. John S. James Co., D. C. GA., 92 F.R.
D. 100, 106.
A presumption is an assumption of fact that the law requires to be made from another fact or
group of facts found or otherwise established in the action. A presumption is not evidence. A
presumption is either conclusive or rebuttable.
I, Joe Sixpack, Declare and Affirm that I am not nor have I ever been a Corporation, Fiction of
Law, Fictitious Entity, Corporate Persona, Non-Entity, Legal Entity or a Surety for any of the
previously mentioned and that I further Declare and Affirm that I am a live man, American
Sovereign as stated in the original Constitution for the united States of America, of which all
public servants/public officials are sworn by their Oaths of Office to protect and defend, both
State and National, in which is also enumerated the type and size of bonds required by both
elected and appointed positions, in order to assure the Sovereign public that their trust and faith
in those public servants/public officials are well founded and that their duties will be discharged
in the most Honorable means until completion of their term of office.
Signature_____________________________
American National Tribunal
The House of Doe

The Clan of Doe ; A Court of Record
Lehigh Acres, Florida
cd.logistics49@gmail.com
JOHN SMITH DOE ®©™ TRUST
January 17, 2019
Re: EA746546
I hereby give notice that Executor of JOHN SMITH DOE Trust tenders payment for a U.S. obligation and if rejected it is the
intent of the grantor to file a suit in a court proper jurisdiction to have them clarify the matter. Notice to the trustee: you are hereby
ordered to cease and desist any and all Administration of the trust, by authority of the grantor in the exercise of the grantor's election,
we are assigning the administration of the trust to the clan of Doe Foundation, has expressed in the intention of the trust agreement.
Public Record 245668446
John Smith Doe , a Non-taxpayer as defined by Statute 245668446

℅ 420 High Street, Tampa, Florida 01-17-2022
7017 2620 0000 6473 0708
GOVERNMENT REMITTANCE COUPON

$ 32,525.25xx
Pay and pledged
to the order of Florida Circuit Court Acct# 245668446
Amount of
Obligation: THIRTY TWO THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED TWENTY FIVE AND 25/100 DOLLARS CREDIT BY A NONTAXPAYER AT PAR
INTENTIONS: The above United States government obligation is hereby accepted and acknowledged and I do sign and pledge the to tal value of the
obligation to the United States of America through the United States Department of Treasury to be redeemed for value and receivable at the Federal
Reserve, the Federal Reserve Bank, and or any member bank and or National Association as prescribed by Statute the act of Ma rch 9th, 1933; 12 USC
§411; 18 USC 8; UCC 1-308; 3-419 and the intention of the United States Congress concerning THE CURRENT NATIONAL EMERGENCY.
Memo: Discharging of government obligation: X______________________________

Beneficial interest holder and citizen of the United States of America
0057688
AFFIDAVIT OF NOTARY PRESENTMENT
TENDER OF PAYMENT
PROOF OF SERVICE
On _______this ___ day of _________________2019 ___________________________ Secured Party In

accordance with UCC 3-402 (a)(b)(1); UCC 3-302 appeared before me being known or having produced
identification #__________________________ presented the following documents listed below. I, the below
signed notary, personally verify that these documents were placed in an envelope and seal by me. They were
sent by United States Post Office Registered Mail: _______________________________ to CentryLink.
List of documents:
Money Order No. 245668446 Security ID# 0057688
Notice: Respondent(s) are granted ten (10) days or up to 30 days if specifically specified in writing and are to
respond to the request for “Proof(s) of Claim”, ‘statements’, ‘questions’, and ‘charges’ or otherwise... herein and
or to provide Respondent(s) on answers to inquiries to be returned to the Notary presenter listed below. All
evidence of documents to receivers who this content may concern, you are hereby officially served and notified
If you feel a negative averment or rebuttal of due process is in order for any of the document(s) presented and/or
statements listing herein, which is of concern to you or your office, so please respond in writing to notary acceptor
designated below. If a response is not received within 10 days, It will be considered that you and your office is
in compliance with all the documents and statements therein. Upon such time, I have been instructed to complete
a notary certificate verify statement of fact of your acquiescence/default, and to record it in the public record
and/or other public office within the same Union. Thank you in advance
Failure to respond subjects the Respondent(s) to Notary’s duty pursuant to Florida Statute §92.32 - Official findings
and reports; presumption of authority to issue or execute.—For the purposes of this law, any finding, report, or record, or duly certified copy thereof,
purporting to have been signed by such an officer or employee of the United States as is described above, shall prima facie b e deemed to have been
signed and issued by such an officer or employee pursuant to law, and the person signing same shall prima facie be deemed to have acted within the
scope of the person’s authority. If a copy purports to have been certified by a person authorized by law to certify the same, such certified copy shall
be prima facie evidence of the person’s authority so to certify.
Notary Acceptor:
_____________________________
Notary Print Name
(Notary Seal)
_____________________________
Notary Signature
Address: _______________________
_____________________________
_____________________________
CAVEAT
There is a dispute, the only due process and remedy open for you is on the issue of whether or not you
RESPOND TIMELY BY REGISTERED MAIL OR CERTIFIED MAIL.
RESPONSE DONE BY AFFIDAVIT FORM
ANSWER POINT FOR POINT EACH AND EVERY ISSUE IN SPECIFICITY TO VERIFY YOUR NEGATIVE CLAIM,
REBUTTAL OF SAID REQUEST PRESENTED TO YOU HEREIN FROM THE SECURED PARTY(S)
ENTER EVIDENCE AND POINTS AND AUTHORITY
THAT YOU/THEY DISCLOSE THEIR SOCIAL SECURITY NUMBER
THAT YOU/THEY QUALIFY THEIR AFFIDAVIT UNDER THEIR UNLIMITED LIABILITY COMMERCIAL OATH AND
VERIFICATION
THAT YOU/THEY SIGNATURE UNDER TITLE 28 PENALTIES OF PERJURY
NOTICE: THIS DOCUMENT WILL BE MADE APART OF THE PUBLIC RECORD UNDER RULE 902 (4),(8) OF THE
FEDERAL RULES OF EVIDENCE AND WILL BE USED TO ESTABLISH AN ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD WHICH WILL
PROVIDE AS EVIDENCE IN ANY JUDICIAL PROCEEDING AT LAW OR EQUITY REGARDING THESE ISSUES.
Note: notary public is not an attorney licensed to practice law in the State of Florida and has not given legal advice or
accepted fees for legal advice; provided and assistance in the preparation of the above-referenced documents, and has
no interest in any issue reference therein. Notary is NOT a party to this action and is ONLY acting in an authorized
capacity as witness and liaison to Communications between the parties.
§92.18 Certificate of state officer.--The certificate of any state officer, under seal of office, as to any official act occurring
in the course of the official business of the office in which the state officer presides, shall be prima facie evidence of such
To provide for Corporation by the federal government with the several States and territories and the District of Columbia in we're leaving
the hardship and suffering caused by section 4A out of the funds to provide the necessities of life to persons in need as a result of the
present emergency, and or to their descendants, whether residence, transit, or homeless. The Federal Emergency Relief Act of 1933
approved, May 12, 1933 (Section 4(a)).
“The ownership of all property is in the state”
“Under the new law government obligations, is backed by the credit of the nation. It will represent a mortgage and all the homes, and
other property of all people of the nation.” Senate Document Number 43, 73rd Congress, first session, Congressional Record, March
9th, 1933 on HR 1491 p. 83.
Obligations of the United States Shall be receivable for all public dues. They shall be redeemed at the Treasury Department of the
United States at any Federal Reserve Bank. 12 U.S.C §411- issuance to Reserve Bank; nature of obligation; redemption.
(Dec. 23, 1913 ch. 6, §16 (par.), 38 Stat. 265; Jan. 30, 1934, ch. 6, §2(b)(1), 48 State. 337; Aug. 23, 1935, ch. 614, Title II, §203(a), 49 Stae. 704.)
You are hereby notified that I do hereby tender payment for the above-referenced obligation of debt, and because this debt concerns
an obligation of the United States it is Dean by law and operation of statute to be a government obligation and must be handled in
accordance with the dictates and statue. I accept the obligation on and in behalf of the United States of America and hereby make an
assignment of the obligation(s) 2 the United States Treasury Department on and in behalf of the United States of America as
authorized by Statute. You are to present the item ( remittance coupon) to the United States Treasury Department or at any Federal
Reserve Bank to include any Federal Reserve member Bank to redeem the value of the obligation. 12 USC §411.
As part of the terms of the contract, she'll serve as my notice of change in terms of the contract, concealing and or suspending any
acceleration and or Associated penalties and paying the US government ( debt instrument) obligation for Value through acceptance,
pleasuring and assignment in full.
“ Since March 9th, 1933, the United States has been in A STATE OF DECLARED EMERGENCY.”
7 CFR §1901.508 serving of issued notes outstanding with investors
1. Endorse the Issued note as follows: “ pay to the order of---- without recourse.” The holder will then deliver the endorsed no, to
the Director, Financial Office
2. On receipt of the endorsed note the Director, Financial Office, will acknowledge receipt of the note and proceed payment to
the assignor of the par value of the note as of the date of the treasury check.
Please note that this is an attempt to discharge a government obligation. i.e. debt instrument is permissible by statue, please also note
that it is the official position of the United States government that:
An official website of the United States government.

legal Tender Status- Treasury Department--- U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY
http://www.treasury.gov/resource-center/flag/Currency/Page/legal-tender.aspx
Jan. 4, 2011- the pertinent portion of law that applies to the Coinage Act of 1965, specifically section 31 USC §5103, entitled ”legal
tender,” which states: “United States coin and currency (including Federal Reserve notes and circulating notes of Federal Reserve Doe
and National Doe ) are legal tender… Federal Reserve notes are not redeemable in any commodity and receive no backing by
anything. This has been the case since 1933. The notes have no value for themselves.”
So the remedy provided by the government for discharging government obligations is 12 USC §411, and elect to use such a remedy.

POWEROFABATEMENT

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

POWEROFABATEMENT

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

How To Establish Your Status and Stop Most Court Actions Before Hand

NOT Legal Advice

WHERE ABATEMENT OCCURRED

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

THE COURT: Is there any opposition?

MR. OxxxxxxxxxR: For the record.

THE COURT: Yes.

THE COURT: All right.

1 Corpus Juris on Abatement.

Definition, Nature, and Effect of Abatement

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

First Amendment Petition for Abatement

John Smith Doe

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

Notice of Abatement for Improper Service

If the (NAME OF STATE) UNIFORM TRAFFIC CITATION AND COMPLAINT is a

Enclosed and attached:

Affidavit of (Your Full Name) - Page One of Two

Affidavit of Denial of Corporation Existence of (Your Name)

THE UNITED STATES, a.k.a. THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

6. One (Your Name), is not a Corporation or Member of a Corporation, a Trustee or

Further Affiant says not.

(Your full Name), in sui juris Capacity

Name of Notary and his Address

(Corporate Entity Name) Petition for Order and Judgment of Default

(Your Full Name), in sui juris Capacity

STATE OF (NAME), INC., ) Case No:

NOTICE AND DEMAND FOR ABATEMENT AND MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN

1. Determination of Material Facts via Tacit Procuration

(Your Full Name), in sui juris Capacity

Executed on this day of , in the Year of our Lord, 2004.

(Your Full Name), in sui juris Capacity

On this day of , 2004, (Your Full Name) did personally appear

Name of Agent or Counsel:

(Your Full Name), Accused

The Honorable (Name of Judge),

(Your Full Name), in sui juris Capacity

RE: Case No. (Ticket Number)

Honorable Clerk of Court,

resident of (Name of State) (i.e. STATE OF NEW YORK).

revenue taxable activity and trafficking in commerce.

Rules Section VII, or is an in rem proceeding.

in all Caps. i.e. JOHN DON JONES).

Debtor with the (State name in all Caps.)

rem and in personam has liability.

DISCOVERY / INTERROGATORIES TO (Name of Policeman and County Prosecutor)

in all caps), operating under?

or Federal Government to incorporate and establish a democratic Corporation form of government?

4) Does this/these Trust(s) issue Permits and Licenses?

FIDUCIARY position? Or Both?

6) If so, is the LICENSEE or PERMITTEE an employee under CONTRACT?

under the authority of the Trust(s)?

Agent under the Articles of the Trust(s)?

state of (Name of State)?

10) What is the Public Community?

11) Is this Contract a Commercial Contract?

Prosecuting Attorney’s Office a Fiduciary and/or Trustee under the Trust?

on behalf of a fictitious entity called the State of (Name)?

17) Where is this fictitious entity chartered?

18) Is this fictitious entity a municipal corporation?

19) What is the geographical location of this chartered fictitious entity?

20) Is said fictitious entity an alter ego of some other entity?

21) Is this fictitious entity a fictitious plaintiff?

22) Can a fiduciary bring a legal action on behalf of an alter ego?