Affidavit’s, Abatement, and Administrative Process

$25.00

This Webinar discusses the different topic of the administrative process as well as introduces you to what an abatement is. An abatement is not a challenge to jurisdiction

Description

[vc_row][vc_column][vc_column_text]

THE DON QUIXOTE
SCHOOL OF LAW

By Don Quixote, J.D.

COMMON LAW ABATEMENT

COMMENTS FROM THE PROFESSOR ON TRAFFIC CITATIONS AND

INTRODUCTION TO ABATEMENT

 

There are many that believe that special appearances (by paper work, motions, etc.) nullify a court jurisdiction. Under emergency powers, this is false doctrine. There is no remedy in challenging a court jurisdiction, except by abating its process, first. Abatement’s 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.

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

Professor of Law
Don Quixote, J.D.[/vc_column_text][/vc_column][/vc_row]

Joseph

Owner of Private Side Solutions, LLC. and High-Frequency Radio Network.

Leave a Reply

Skip to toolbar