Strike at the Root! Nature & Cause, Abatements and Demurrers

[TheBlackTruth]

<font color="darkblue" face="tahoma">

Note: Please make sure you go through and familiarize yourself with the Lawsuit Basics-Word Study before delving into this subject-matter!

<hr>

Well, I've been doing research this past week on what I'm calling pre-arraignment or pre-answer actions. By this I mean the sort of steps one can take BEFORE they answer to the merits of the case/charge itself. What I write below is the result of the research thus far and the conclusions I've come to. I'd appreciate it if you guys and gals can peck away at my conclusions and add to this thread however you can!



I have some documents that I'd like to share with you for your opinions and I also welcome the contributions of you all if you have also done some research in this area.



Before delving into the technicalities, it appears to me that the instruments discussed below are essentially asking some very simple questions that most of us are likely to take for granted when an action is allegedly brought against us.



Here are some of these questions:

<UL type=circle>[*]Is a Uniform Traffic Citation/Promise to Appear/Notice to Appear a valid charging instrument (Indictment/Information)?
[*]Does the charging instrument specifically name the Injured Party or Sworn Claimant?
[*]Does the charging instrument specifically identify the alleged Defendant?
[*]Does the charging instrument specifically identify how the allenged Defendant is liable for stated charge or claim?
[/list]
Essentially, if the answers to any of these questions is "no", then what we have is a deffective complaint and as such it is susceptible to sustain an attack. Failure to mount such an attack BEFORE one answers the alleged complaint voids the grounds for any such attack in the future as an answer will admit the presumption of validity.

Failure by the respondant/plaintiff to cure said defects would mean there is in-fact no case. You are not yet a "Defendant" until there is a case.

The ways I've found to mount such an attack are by way of Plea in Abatement, Motion to Dismiss and Demurrer (in some states, the Motion to Dismiss and Demurrer are one in the same). See Note Below.

Here is a really interesting court case to read regarding Nature and Cause: Wagner v. Maryland (Nature and Cause)<a name="demurrers"></a>

Here are some sample Demurrers:

<ul compact>Demurrer 1


Demurrer 2
[/list]<a name="abatements"></a>

Information on Abatements:

<ul compact>Abatement Handbook


Another Abatement Resource
[/list]<P style="padding-left: 40px;">NOTE:Â*Â*DEMURRER - From the Latin demorari or old French demorrer, to wait or stay. In pleading, imports that the objecting party will not proceed with the pleading, because no sufficient statement has been made on the other side; but will wait the judgment of the court whether he is bound to answer. Demurrers are no longer available in Federal and many state courts. In Federal Courts the equivalents are often various motions pursuant to F.R.Civ.P. Rule 14.



As far as I know Demurrers are still used in California and wherever they are prohibited, just take the same content and put it into a "Motion to Dismiss".



Ok, well thats it for now. Let me know if I've gone off the deep end here!



-BT

</FONT>

[weishaupt1776]

[color=black][b]I was wondering if we should attach an affidavit in support of the abatement:

<UL type=circle>[*]Affiant has not seen or been presented with any material fact that the Uniform Traffic Citation/Promise to Appear/Notice to Appear is a valid charging instrument (Indictment/Information) and believes that none exists.
[*]Affiant has not seen or been presented with any material fact that the charging instrument specifically names the Injured Party or Sworn Claimant and believes that none exists.
[*]Affiant has not seen or been presented with any material fact that the charging instrument specifically identifies the alleged Defendant and believes that none exists.
[*]Affiant has not seen or been presented with any material fact that the charging instrument specifically identifies how the allenged Defendant is liable for stated charge or claim and believes that none exists.[/list]
I believe we should also get some Supreme Court cites that an unrebutted affidavit stands as truth and in corporate that language into the abatement & affidavit.

I was wondering if there are any cites that ALL points of the Affidavit must be rebutted.

[seeker]

Did you not read this part??

"There are only two authorities used in these Abatements. They are the Common Law (and the Common Law Codes where existent) and Maxims of law. DO NOT USE ANY CITES FROM ANY COURT DECISIONS because they are all based on statutory authority - not law (this includes decisions of the State and Federal Supreme Courts). Using ANY statutory authority DESTROYS the force and effect of non-statutory Abatements and opens the door to emergency powers statutory counter-attacks"



Also, they are very specific about content -- and the fact that

"..Generally in writing an Abatement Body, items listed are Emergency Powers Process errors in spelling and capitalization of words. A WORD OF WARNING: Emergency powers entities are "masters of deception" in using "choice of words" and wording in a Process. "



It seems this is an area that would do much, but we MUSt be cautious and LEARN correct procedure very carefully. But, fortunately, that ain't too hard for smart people!



Seeker

[TheBlackTruth]

Originally Posted by weishaupt1776

I believe we should also get some Supreme Court cites that an unrebutted affidavit stands as truth and in corporate that language into the abatement & affidavit.

I was wondering if there are any cites that ALL points of the Affidavit must be rebutted.

<font color=darkblue face=Tahoma>Weis,



As seeker said, Sup. Court Cites would be inappropriate in a common law abatement. However, to answer the above-captioned question, there are sufficient maxims in law regarding affidavits. Essentially the maxim you are referring to states that an affidavit must be rebutted POINT-FOR-POINT in order to be a complete rebuttal. So in this, I would think it wise to infer that an Affidavit isn't an atomic instrument which can fail if any one assertion is defeated.



-BT



p.s. I beleive Case Cites in Motions and Demurrers are appropriate, principly because it requires the judge make a decision which inherantly requires/yeilds some sort of restricted jurisdiction, and such an affidavit wouldn't prejudice or handicap the affiant, however, it may be a bit redundant if you take a look at the sample demurrers posted.



I don't know about ya'll, but i'm pretty excited about te prospects of attacking even before we get to the point of challenging SMJ or PJ[/color]

[seeker]

I concur!! Between perfecting this techinique and coming up with SOMETHING for thos ***** arbirtration BAS*** we could RULE!!!



Seeker

[weishaupt1776]

Originally Posted by seeker

. . . DO NOT USE ANY CITES FROM ANY COURT DECISIONS because they are all based on statutory authority - not law (this includes decisions of the State and Federal Supreme Courts). Using ANY statutory authority DESTROYS the force and effect of non-statutory Abatements and opens the door to emergency powers statutory counter-attacks"

[color=black][b]I apologize for not reading that part & also for not stating further that statutory code does not apply to Sovereigns unless they unwittingly mix it in w/ their Common Law remedies. However, in this thread <A HREF=http://www.suijuris.net/main/suijuris/forum/viewtopic.php?forum=4&showtopic=11138&mode=&onlyto pic=&show=5&page=2>HERE</a>, I believe there are Court decisions that cite the Common Law as an authority over code w/out using the code therefore making those particular cites valid for Common Law pleadings. WHADDYA THINK?

[seeker]

My take is as ICE and jerseee always say "INVESTIGATE and make sure you KNOW what you're doing! BEFORE attempting any "remedy" -- or you get burnt."



Just my two centts (and a half) but this is indeed exciting. I remember looking at it in the past, but not having the time to deal with it!



A group effort will make it that much more exciting and FUN!



Are we having FUN yet!?!



Seeker !

[TheBlackTruth]

<font color=darkblue face=tahoma>I'm with you on that one, seeker.



Anyways, I DID send out my Pleas in Abatement (based on the information above) on Friday, so I'll keep you posted on what happens. I anticipate they will all go unanswered and I'll have to follow-up with a default and then try to get the default honored.



Weis,



That does seem plausible. . .I'll have to see an abatement that uses such cites, i suppose. I'll do more digging!

-BT[/color]

[cowboy]

Hello, I'm new here and just testing to see if this works.

Is there a file section here ? I see there were some word documents in this thread, just wondering if there was a central repository as well.

[TheBlackTruth]

<font color=darkblue face=tahoma>Hey, cowboy. Welcome to the group.



The links above are from my own personal "repository" and I want us to do some due diligence in investigating these concepts before I upload the docs and indorse them for general use. So, I guess i'm saying, if you want to use what I have, use at your own risk as I'm presently in the middle of trying some of this stuff out.



-BT[/color]