Quote from Dilandau on August 25, 2025, 1:14 pm

Abatements in the Context of Legal Proceedings:

In legal proceedings, certain preliminary objections may be raised that do not address the merits of the plaintiff's claims but instead point to procedural or formal defects. These objections must be asserted by the defendant at the outset; otherwise, they are deemed waived. Historically, under common law, such objections were classified as matters of abatement or suspension and were introduced through dilatory pleas. Their primary purpose was not to dispute the plaintiff’s substantive right to relief, but rather to delay or suspend the action by challenging procedural deficiencies.

Dilatory pleas could, for example, question the court’s jurisdiction over the subject matter or assert that the plaintiff lacked the legal capacity to bring or maintain the suit. At common law, a non-statutory abatement had the effect of suspending the lawsuit until the plaintiff corrected the procedural errors identified. If the plaintiff remedied the defects, the case could proceed. However, in practice, plaintiffs often failed to cure the deficiencies or respond adequately to the abatement, particularly in cases where the defendant had been misidentified or improperly named.

Definition, Nature, and Effect of Abatement

Definition
Abatement, in the context of legal actions, refers to the suspension or dismissal of a case due to a defendant’s assertion of facts that undermine the validity of the writ or declaration.

At Law: Abatement occurs when the defendant pleads specific facts that challenge the correctness of the writ or declaration, thereby defeating the action.

In Equity: Abatement is not an outright dismissal but rather a suspension of proceedings, usually because necessary parties are not properly before the court.

A plea in abatement is a plea that does not dispute the merits of the plaintiff’s claim but instead challenges the place, manner, or timing of its assertion. It asks that judgment be entered for the defendant “pro hac vice” (for this occasion), while leaving the plaintiff free to bring the action again in another form, place, or time.

Effect of Abatement

At Law

Effect on the Principal Suit: When a suit at law is abated, it is completely terminated and cannot be revived. However, this does not extinguish the plaintiff’s underlying cause of action. The plaintiff may file a new suit, provided it is done in proper form and jurisdiction.

In Equity

Abatement typically suspends proceedings until the defect—such as the absence of a necessary party—is corrected.

Pleas in Abatement Not Favored
Because pleas in abatement are considered dilatory (they delay rather than resolve disputes), they are disfavored both at common law and under modern procedural codes.

Such pleas must be pleaded with the highest degree of certainty, alleging every fact necessary for their sufficiency.

Courts do not presume facts in their favor; rather, every presumption is taken against them.

They must be raised at the earliest possible opportunity, and if the facts are known, before filing a plea to the merits or requesting a continuance.

Objections to Jurisdiction

At common law, objections to jurisdiction were not considered pleas in abatement, but rather a separate category of pleas known as pleas to the jurisdiction.

These pleas differed in form: they had to be made personally by the defendant (not by attorney), and they concluded not by asking that the writ be quashed but by questioning whether the court should take further cognizance of the action.

Nevertheless, because their effect is to defeat the present suit without barring the cause of action, modern practice generally treats pleas to the jurisdiction as dilatory pleas subject to the same procedural requirements as pleas in abatement.

Types of Abatement

At Law: Termination of the specific suit, though not of the cause of action itself.

In Equity: Suspension of proceedings until the defect—such as improper or missing parties—is remedied.

Jurisdictional: Challenges to the court’s authority, often treated as pleas in abatement under modern rules.

Note on Authority:
The text originally cited Corpus Juris. The modern equivalent is Corpus Juris Secundum (C.J.S.), Abatement and Revival and American Jurisprudence 2d (Am. Jur. 2d), Abatement, Survival, and Revival. Courts now primarily rely on statutory law and procedural rules, such as the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (e.g., Rules 12(b) and 19, governing dismissal for lack of jurisdiction, improper venue, or failure to join necessary parties).

Temporary Effect of Abatement

Abatement results in a temporary impediment to a legal action without extinguishing the plaintiff’s ability to reinitiate the suit in proper form.

2 categories of abatement are traditionally recognized:

1.  Statutory Abatement – codified by legislative enactments.

2.  Non-Statutory Abatement – derived from common-law principles, later echoed in statutory form.

Even within statutory courts, where official records are presumed valid and cannot be collaterally attacked, a properly raised non-statutory abatement may operate to suspend proceedings until the underlying defect is addressed. Historical commentary extended this principle even to special tribunals, including military courts created by statute, emphasizing that abatement could halt proceedings if foundational requirements were unmet.

The Role of Faith in Legal Authority

In Christian doctrine, believers are considered endowed with divine authority, reflecting God’s image through repentance and commitment to Christ. This spiritual transformation, confirmed by the Holy Spirit, is viewed as conferring moral legitimacy that transcends mere human opinion. Within that framework, covenants between God and believer are seen as inviolable and binding.

Historically, in the common law tradition, solemn acts under seal carried particular legal weight. Execution of an instrument “under seal” required a comparable level of formality in any response or counter-instrument. Early commentators—including Bouvier’s Law Dictionary (19th century)—recognized that such solemnity emphasized the seriousness of obligations. Modern practice no longer requires seals for most contracts (see Restatement (Second) of Contracts § 95; Uniform Commercial Code § 2-203), but the concept illustrates how law historically required due reverence and formality for documents purporting to suspend or defeat legal proceedings.

Character in Legal Context

Legally, “character” denotes an individual’s recognized mental and moral qualities distinguishing them from others. In 19th-century commentary, Christian character was sometimes described as imparting unique legal or moral standing, reflecting societal assumptions of the time. For example, Bouvier’s Law Dictionary (1856 ed.) emphasized individuality and capacity recognized in law.

Modern law, however, no longer distinguishes legal capacity on the basis of religion. Equal protection principles under the U.S. Constitution (Fourteenth Amendment) prohibit differential treatment based on religious affiliation. Thus, while historically significant, such religious distinctions carry no binding legal effect today.

Reconfiguration of Parties through Abatement

When a plea in abatement or similar mechanism is lawfully invoked, the structure of the proceeding may shift:

• The original plaintiff’s procedural standing can be suspended or impaired.
• The defendant, through abatement, may assume the role of demandant, compelling reconsideration of whether proper parties are before the court.

This reconfiguration reflects the principle that a defect in parties or procedure renders the action premature. Equity courts (chancery practice) historically required the presence of all necessary parties before proceeding, and abatement ensured suspension until those defects were corrected.

Authorities:

• Corpus Juris Secundum (C.J.S.), Abatement and Revival
  American Jurisprudence 2d, Abatement, Survival, and Revival
• Federal Rules of Civil Procedure: Rule 12(b) (defenses, including lack of jurisdiction, improper venue, insufficient service), Rule 19 (required joinder of parties).
• The Restatement (Second) of Contracts *Treaties by American Law Institute  § 95 (regarding sealed instruments).
• U.S. Constitution. Amendment 14, § 1 (prohibiting legal distinctions based on religion).

Jurisdictional Boundaries and the De Jure state

In scenarios where jurisdictional boundaries are crossed, it becomes legally untenable for one party to initiate a lawsuit against a defendant situated within a separate legal domain. Moreover, when a Christian engages in the lawful process of challenging martial authority, they are regarded as embodying the de jure state—a rightful but dispossessed sovereign power, as elucidated in Austin’s treatise on jurisprudence.

Hierarchy of Legal Authority and Jurisdiction

Within the hierarchy of law, parties of higher legal stature are immune from suits initiated by those in subordinate positions. Acting under the principles of a Good and Lawful Christian, an Abatement Demandant is considered to be operating within the framework of common Christian Law, a legal order held superior to the jurisdiction of the original plaintiff—particularly one governed by emergency or martial law since 1863.

This principle is rooted in the doctrine that parties subject to the jurisdiction of the Law of War lack the legal capacity to respond to processes within common law, which remains the realm of the Abatement Demandant. Courts established under military law, though they may acknowledge the authority of common Christian Law, are rendered incapable of adjudicating matters within its domain, as they are deemed inferior in this specific legal context. An inferior court cannot supersede the rulings of a superior one, thereby preserving the hierarchy even within the confines of the Law of War.

Clarifying Marks within Abatement

Marks within an abatement identify the specific formal deficiencies or critical errors present in the original plaintiff’s legal action or procedure. These errors must be corrected by the now-abatement defendant if they wish to pursue their initial claim. Such defects extend beyond mere misnomer to include the improper combination of legal causes (misjoinder of causes of action), the improper joining of claims (misjoinder), and the erroneous inclusion of parties to the suit.

If left unaddressed, such mistakes may invalidate the proceedings. The importance of these marks is emphasized in legal texts on common law pleading, which detail both the consequences of these errors and the procedures required for their correction.

Pleas Out of Bar in Legal Abatements

A plea in abatement is distinct from a plea in bar; it is considered out of bar and functions similarly to a “special appearance” in an Administrative or Military Law Court. The jurisdiction of a court is limited to matters within its lawful authority. Accordingly, for a Christian Non-Statutory Abatement to fall within the scope of a Military Law Court, all preliminary errors cited in the abatement must first be resolved. If the original plaintiff has not remedied these procedural defects, they have not legitimately advanced their case against the Abatement Demandant, leaving the court without a matter to adjudicate.

In essence, the case rests solely on the fact that the original plaintiff initiated a process against another party; however, without adhering to the procedural requirements of their own legal system, they cannot move the case into a position to be contested, or in bar.

The foundational rule in such cases is the integrity of the plaintiff’s process. Any error renders the process defective and grants the alleged defendant sufficient grounds for an abatement. In legal practice, mistakes such as misnomer are considered fatal flaws in both equity and common law suits.

There is, however, an exception to this principle. If the original abatement respondent acts in a manner that acknowledges the court’s jurisdiction—such as failing to respond to the plaintiff’s process, objecting without raising a jurisdictional challenge (demurrer), or making any form of court appearance—they inadvertently submit to the court’s authority. This includes a statutory “special appearance,” which, despite its name, effectively places the party within the court’s jurisdiction. Nonetheless, an abatement in itself does not constitute an acknowledgment of jurisdiction. Generally, the named defendant does not appear before the plaintiff’s court, thereby maintaining their stance out of bar.

Distinguishing the Christian Individual from Legal Personhood

From a Christian perspective, a living, breathing human being cannot be equated to a legal fiction or persona. Christians are understood to be direct creations of God, possessing intrinsic value and substance granted by their Creator. In contrast, a persona is a construct of legal systems—an entity without innate substance, often expressed as a corporation or as a legal identity tied to government-issued identifiers such as Tax Identification Numbers, Social Security Numbers, or driver’s licenses.

These 2 entities—the Christian individual and the legal persona—operate under distinct systems of law reflective of their respective origins. They cannot be interchanged or subjected to the laws governing the other. Each remains bound by the laws of its creator, resulting in an irreconcilable conflict of laws in which each system inherently denies the validity of the other.

The ultimate conflict arises from the nature of their existence itself: divine law stands in fundamental opposition to man-made law at every point of consideration. The Bible, specifically Acts 10:34 KJV, affirms that God shows no favoritism, whereas human laws frequently do, creating an irreconcilable dichotomy.

A Christian’s relationship with God is that of an heir, with rights and responsibilities inherited through the sanctity of Christ’s sacrifice. This covenant inscribes the Christian’s name in the Lamb’s Book of Life—known only to God—and binds the believer exclusively to divine law.

Governmental Constructs and the Persona

In contrast, governmental and imperial powers have devised the concept of the persona to simulate lawful procedure. Yet from a Christian perspective, this construct—born of novation—fails to qualify as true law. It is regarded as contrary to the laws of God and the principles of common Christian Law, deriving not from divine providence but from martial and mercantile deities rooted in ancient mythologies.

---

The Concept of Nom de Guerre in Legal Jurisprudence

The exertion of dominion over others is rejected by both natural law and moral principle. Nevertheless, the legal system has adapted the persona to function as a nom de guerre—a war name—particularly within the framework of the Law of War. This practice separates the living Christian individual from their legal representation. According to The California Style Manual issued by the California Supreme Court, the stylistic rendering of names in legal proceedings illustrates this distinction.

The way a name is presented reveals the separation between a real person—the Christian man—and the persona, which is a fictitious legal identity. Under the Law of War, names are traditionally expressed in all capital letters, such as JOHN J. SMITH, denoting the nom de guerre.

Bound by international treaties, the lex mercatoria, and the Law of War, modern Chancery and Administrative Courts are prohibited from engaging with real individuals. Instead, they are restricted to interacting solely with legal fictions or personae, identified exclusively by their nom de guerre. This convention extends not only to individuals but also to corporations and state-created entities. As a result, all parties appearing before such courts are required to do so under a nom de guerre, typically styled in all uppercase letters or incorporating a middle initial.

Historical commentary supports this distinction. For instance, Francis Wharton’s Pennsylvania Digest observes that during times of war, an “alien enemy” cannot pursue legal action in their own name. Similarly, Chief Justice Waite, in United States v. Diekelman, explained that martial law embodies the absolute authority of the military commander and is synonymous with his will.

---

Christian Naming and Legal Distinctions

A Christian, consistent with the rules of English grammar and common Christian Law, writes their name using proper capitalization—for example, John Elias Smith. This stands in contrast to nom de guerre formats such as JOHN SMITH or JOHN E. SMITH.

The use of a nom de guerre signals the nature of the tribunal: whether a Military Chancery Court operating under the Law of War or an Administrative Court exercising executive jurisdiction. Such venues exclusively address matters involving legal personae or commercial transactions between them.

When a Christian accepts or responds to a nom de guerre, they effectively relinquish their divine rights under common Christian Law and subject themselves to secular authority. Within the Law of War and Administrative Courts, Christians are deemed “alien enemies” and are never summoned in their true Christian names. Only the persona, represented by a nom de guerre, is recognized as a party capable of participating in modern Administrative Court proceedings. Without a nom de guerre, there is, in effect, no party with which the court may engage.

 

Understanding the Rules of English Grammar in Legal Contexts

In legal discourse, the application of the Rules of English Grammar is not merely a matter of linguistic correctness but carries significant legal consequences. Proper nouns—specific identifiers for persons, places, or things—always begin with a capital letter. By contrast, general nouns, which describe a class or group, are not capitalized. This distinction in capitalization can profoundly alter meaning and shape legal interpretation.

For example, Riddle’s Latin Lexicon illustrates:

state refers to a Christian community possessing dominion over a geographical territory, making them the res publica or lords of the soil.

State, however, denotes the ministerial government established by a constitutional compact among the Christian people within that geographical area.

Thus, state carries a general legal meaning, while State identifies a specific, legally constituted entity. This distinction is carefully preserved in Christian Common Law Abatements, where precise usage—such as county (not County), united (not United), and court (not Court)—is crucial. These differences mark the boundary between the general “laws of Florida” and the statutory “Laws of Florida,” illustrating the conflict between common Christian Law and man-made legal fictions.

Similarly, in legal documents, the phrasing The State of Florida versus in the state of Florida conveys distinct legal standings. The former represents a legal fiction under administrative law, while the latter reflects a broader, general description. This nuance extends to court seals and judicial signatures: a “Court Seal of the State of Florida” differs from a seal of a lawful court in Florida state, just as a rubber-stamped facsimile of a chancery judge contrasts with the ink-signed signature of an elected judge acting within a judicial department.

The United States Government Style Manuals of 1959 and 1986 further emphasize this principle, requiring numbers tied to serious subjects—such as reckoning time from the birth of Christ Jesus—to be written out in words. Christian Common Law follows the same practice, spelling out numbers (e.g., sixty instead of 60), in contrast to martial law usage, which abbreviates numbers for military purposes.

Since President Lincoln’s adoption of the Lieber Code in 1863, all American courts have been viewed as operating under the authority of the Commander-in-Chief and, consequently, unable to render binding rulings at Law. Founded upon military principles, these courts follow statutory Rules of Court in English, while also employing unpublished procedural rules for official acts. Phrases such as “IT IS SO ORDERED” or “DONE AND ORDERED” carry no real weight in English or in their own rules of procedure, underscoring their distinct status before the public.

The Legal Implications of Misnomer in Christian Common Law

The term misnomer—the incorrect naming of an individual—has profound legal repercussions, especially within Christian Common Law. Historical authorities such as Bacon’s Abridgment make clear that even something as simple as using initials in place of a full name constitutes a fatal error. According to Bacon, initials do not represent a lawful name, and any legal process that employs them is invalid.

The Nomo-Lexicon: A Law Dictionary further defines misnomer as the substitution of one name for another, stressing the critical importance of accurate naming in legal proceedings. A misnomer is therefore a substantial defect in legal documents and a valid ground for abatement. Because names are the primary means of identifying parties, precise appellation is indispensable in law.

In the Christian tradition, naming conventions follow a specific pattern. A Christian appellation generally includes the first and, at times, the second baptismal or given name, while the family or surname may be set apart in form. Historically, both Hebrews and Christians primarily used given names, with familial or locational designations added as identifiers—for example, Jonathan Paul of the Peters family or Jonathan Paul: Peters. Similar patterns appear in surnames such as Williamson (son of William) or Peterson (Peter’s son), and in biblical references like Saul of Tarsus or Jesus of Nazareth.

The correct Christian appellation identifies a person by given names, with additional elements marking lineage or place of origin. This practice persists in cultures that use de or von (meaning “of”), as in Juan Carlos de Santiago or Bernhardt von Bismarck. These established forms reflect a lawful naming tradition that predates the widespread adoption of nom de guerre and persona designations after 1865, when Christian Common Law was displaced by the Law of War.

Civil Motion Practice Undermines Equity

In modern legal practice, courts rely heavily on “motion practice” and the general rules of civil procedure. However, when pursuing a purely equitable claim, the process must be handled differently. A private, equitable claim uses the court record to establish due process and to assert facts requiring parties to show cause, thereby preventing them from later asserting any prior, equal, or superior claims. Once this is established, a claimant may invoke the exclusive jurisdiction of equity to state their claim.

It is critical to recognize that statutes and codes are effectively offers to contract under frameworks such as the Emergency Banking Act. The jurisdiction they invoke—often described as “banking-UCC-military”—is, in essence, an offer. Even statutory codes themselves are structured as offers. This is why, as Gibson emphasizes, a plea in abatement must be filed. Failing to abate constitutes a waiver. Under the merged court system, doctrines of waiver may be applied against a party who appears in response to a summons, especially when motivated by fear of property seizure. Silence is not an option; one must respond appropriately.

According to Gibson, abatement is the first step whenever a court or plaintiff lacks jurisdiction, whether in rem, in personam, or over the subject matter.

• Gibson §21: After an answer is filed, if no plea in abatement is entered to challenge local jurisdiction, no exception for lack of jurisdiction can later be raised.
• Critical Rule: Do not file motions first, as that confers jurisdiction on the court. The proper response is a plea in abatement framed as a show-cause order, for example: “Order to Show Cause Why the Matter Should Not Be Abated.” The subsequent filing should read: “Plea in Abatement and Order to Show Cause.”
• Gibson §230: If there is any ground to dispute the court’s jurisdiction, a plea in abatement must precede all other defenses, including motions.
• §231 – Modes of Defense:

1.  Plea in abatement – relies on facts outside the bill and outside the merits of the controversy to abate the suit, or denies jurisdictional allegations.

      2.  Disclaimer – a type of answer where the defendant disclaims all interest in the subject matter and requests dismissal.

• §232 – Order of Defenses:

1.  Pleas in abatement (including notice and demand of abatement, bill of exceptions, removal)

      2.  Motions to dismiss

      3.  Demurrers

      4.  Pleas in bar

      5.  Answers (disclaimers)

      6.  Cross bills

• §233: This order reflects the logical structure of pleading: pleas in abatement are always first, challenging the court’s jurisdiction over the defendant or the subject matter.
• §242 – Rationale: A defendant seeking to dispute jurisdiction must do so before responding to the merits of the case.
• §252: Pleas to the person of the defendant assert that the individual does not hold the character in which they are sued (e.g., not an unmarried woman, executor, administrator, guardian, heir, or bankrupt).
• §260 – Timing of Plea in Abatement: Since a plea in abatement challenges the court’s right to act in the suit, it must be filed before any other step is taken. The practice requires the plea to be resolved before filing motions, demurrers, pleas in bar, or answers.

Appearance and Jurisdiction

Gibson §§222–224 define an appearance as any act by which a defendant acknowledges the court’s jurisdiction in a particular case. Appearances may be:

1. Special or limited – recognizing jurisdiction only for a specific purpose.

      2. General or unlimited – recognizing the court’s jurisdiction in the full case.

"ABATEMENT - INDIVIDUAL TRIUMPHS OVER IRS! - by Samuel Greene

This transcript showcases an individual's swift victory over the IRS in a remarkable 1994 case in California. My attempt to accurately transcribe the court reporter's notes is reflected in this document. Notably, the word capitalization in the document, exactly as recorded by the court clerk, is crucial to understand the context."

SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA; MONDAY, APRIL 15TH, 1994 ;2:00 P.M.

THE CLERK: Item number 7, case number CV-94xxxxx, United States of America versus Michael D Anderson

Location: San Diego, California; Friday, April 15, 1994; 2:00 P.M.

Clerk: Item number 7, case number CV-94XXXXXX, United States of America versus Michael D. Anderson.

Mr. Harris: Good afternoon, your Honor, Assistant U.S. Attorney William Harris appearing for the United States, and its agency the Internal Revenue Service.

The Court: Is there any opposition?

Mr. Anderson: For the record...

The Court: Yes.

Mr. Anderson: My Christian name is Michael David, and my family name is Anderson.

The Court: Understood.

Mr. Anderson: That is spelled capital M, lowercase i-c-h-a-e-l, capital D, lowercase a-v-i-d, capital A, lowercase n-d-e-r-s-o-n.

I have responded to this petition, found at my residence, which attempts to create a fictional identity under the name of capital M-I-C-H-A-E-L D. Anderson. The deceptive artifice presented to this Court must be dismissed as a Public Nuisance. For the record, Michael David exercises the right to be heard on this matter.

As a lifelong Californian residing in San Diego County, I, Michael David, assert my distinct legal identity outside the Federal Judicial District's scope in Southern California. My legal authority is symbolized by the California Bear Flag, and my principles are anchored in my Family Bible. Upholding Article 6, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution, I recognize the oaths taken by court officers to defend both the Californian and U.S. Constitutions. This oath compels my right to constitutional civilian due process, safeguarding my life, liberty, and property as God-given rights. As a private citizen, I'm not bound by the Trading with the Enemy Act, as modified in 1933. It is the court's paramount duty to protect my constitutional rights. My identity is self-declared, not defined by external legal interpretations, and I choose to reserve further comment.

The Court: Please remove your belongings from the podium and take a seat. Mr. Harris, do you wish to respond to this claim of mistaken identity?

Mr. Harris: Your Honor, Mr. Anderson appears to believe that his manner of spelling his name absolves him from legal responsibilities.

The Court: Thank you, Mr. Harris. Clerk, please call the next case.

*** (Proceedings concluded.) ***

Being informed that this particular defense has been employed numerous times and has succeeded on each occasion.

Following the initial case, another dozen individuals applied the same approach under his guidance over the next several months. None of them has faced any further legal consequences related to these matters.

He also mentioned that his brother had a federal warrant issued for his arrest. When federal agents attempted to serve it while he was away, he utilized the same arguments in court and filed a plea in abatement. Subsequently, he received official confirmation that the warrant had been withdrawn.

Mr. Anderson speculates that a name in ALL CAPS means a person subject to military jurisdiction, which fits imperfectly with what I've been saying over the past couple of years.

 1 Corpus Juris on abatement. This will explain a lot of what happened in this case.

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.

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 grammar);
Mail received: c/o (USPS address, including [Zip Code]

Regarding the mentioned (complaint, demand, or accusation, with its case number), which is attached and forms a part of this abatement request. I, John Doe, hereby seek the court's intervention to nullify the cited (accusation, complaint) based on the grounds outlined herein.

1. The document, alleging to be against "JOHN DOE," was handed to me on a specific date. Recognizing the risk of potential coercive actions if it were to be disregarded, I am compelled to bring this matter before the court through this petition. I urge the court to nullify this document to prevent any unwarranted infringement on my personal liberties.

2. The delivery of the document to me, titled in the name of "JOHN DOE," suggests a case of misidentification. This name, styled in all capital letters, does not correctly represent my legal identity. My actual name, following standard English grammar for natural persons, is "John Doe," with only the initial letters capitalized. Therefore, the accusation or complaint, as it currently stands, inaccurately names me effectively, giving you notice that the doctrine of idem

sonans has been terminated.
 
3. Should the complainant or accuser have a legitimate claim against me, they are obliged to direct it towards my correct legal name. My current objections are aimed at enabling the issuance of a more accurately framed legal document, which is a fundamental aspect of the abatement process.

4. This submission strictly serves as a petition for abatement, distinct from a plea in bar. It should not be interpreted as a request for the dismissal or mere modification of the existing legal document. The appropriate and just resolution of this matter lies solely in the court's implementation of abatement.
5. When a court reviews an abatement petition, it should offer the petitioner the benefit of the doubt. The law recognizes abatement as a right under certain conditions, not merely at the court's discretion. This includes cases of misnomer or incorrect naming of a defendant. Abatement principles apply equally in equity and legal cases, underscoring their broad applicability across different legal contexts.

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 and exercise the appellate forum or issue a formal Quo Warranto.

Dated this day of the (First -Twelfth) month of the 2025 Two thousand twenty-fith year Anno Domini,

in County:

in state:  (capitalize lawful name of State):

John Doe

[Note: When a DEMAND is abated, it can theoretically be refiled properly naming the accused person.  Court demands frequently contain significant errors that go beyond simply misnaming the accused. Improper use of uppercase letters and incorrect capitalization of legal terms such as plaintiff and defendant can create confusion regarding the parties, the venue, and the court itself. The most effective strategy is to address each of these issues individually within abatement petitions, beginning with the incorrect identification of the defendant. Courts generally lack authority over natural persons without their voluntary consent. If a claim is refiled with correct naming, additional abatement petitions can be used to challenge other procedural defects.]

Maxims of Law  (All biblical references= KJV 1611)

The Non-Statutory Abatement - Christian common Law Abatement - uses Maxims of Law from
Bouvier's Law Dictionary (1914) and Black's Law Dictionary (1957 & 1968), and Broom's Maxims.

Error juris nocet:  Error of law is injurious.

Ex nundo Pacto non oritur Actio: No cause of action arises from a bare agreement [A
consideration of some sort or other is so absolutely necessary to the forming of a contract that
agreement to do or pay any thing on one side without any compensation on the other is totally
void in law].

Fictio juris non est ubi veritas: Where truth is, fiction of law does not exist . Non est certandum
de regulis juris. There is no disputing about rules of law.

Legatos violare contra jus gentium est: It is contrary to the law of nations to do violence to
ambassadors. [see definition of 'ambassador' below].

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.

Nullum tempus occurrit ecclesiae:  Time does not bar the right of the church.

Quae lege communi derogant non sunt trahenda in exemplum:  Things derogatory to the
common law are not to be drawn in to precedent.

Nihil quod est contra rationem est licitum: Nothing against reason is lawful.

Ex Dolo malo non oritur Actio. A right of action cannot arise out of fraud: [a misnomer is a
fraudulent name].

Causae ecclesiae publicis causis aequiparantur: The cause of the church is a public cause.

Definitions of Key Words and Phrases used in the Christian common Law Non-Statutory Abatement

Ambassador: Now then, we are ambassadors for Christ. II Corinthians 5:20

Avoidance: A making void, useless, empty, or of no effect; annulling, canceling; escaping or evading. Black's Law Dictionary, 3rd Edition, page 176. Of common law as in God's Law, referred to as the Law of Avoidance. Common law. Common law is God's Law that became the Customs and Usages of the people from time immemorial . In Latin, it is the lex non scripta, the 'law not written', for it is written in the heart of the Christian Man. All Administrative Codes, Rules of Procedure, and Regulations that violate common law are void and do not apply to Good and Lawful Christians. Statutes which violate the plain and obvious principles of common right and common reason are null and void. Bouvier's Dictionary of Law, 1856 . Blackstone's Commentaries says a law which violates the Law of God is void .

Time of war: Enemy.

Concerning what constitutes a 'time of war', it: exists for purposes of R.C.M.1004(c)(6), and Parts IV and V of this manual in virtually every act conceivable by any person, against which the United States government has made a law, rule, or regulation. Manual for Court's Martial, supra, page IV-4, Article 104(c)(6)(c).

'Enemy' is not restricted to the enemy government or its armed forces. All the citizens of one belligerent are enemies of the government and all the citizens of the other . Ibid., Manual, page IV-34, Art. 99-23c(1)(b).

General delivery: The evidence of a mailbox on a house or a Post Office Box are evidence of residency and of an
enemy in the field and did not exist prior to Lincoln's War . A doorbell or knocker is an 'invitation' to break down the door of a house because it is presumed that their existence is to allow anyone to enter for any reason by announcement without further protocol. General delivery has never been attached to any legislation through commercial statutes. Postal laws since Lincoln's War have not changed in any manner concerning general delivery to transients. General delivery is the only non-commercial side of the Post Office.

General delivery is a mailing 'location', not an 'address'. Christians, as all of God's people, are sojourners - The land shall not be sold for ever; for the land is mine [God's]; for ye are strangers and sojourners with me. Leviticus 25:23 - and as such are transients in His land. "General delivery is intended for use primarily at: c. Any post office to serve transients and
customers not permanently located ". The Post Office Domestic Mail Manual at D930, 1.1. General delivery is a common law right recognized by the Post Office. The Post Office is not the Postal Service. The latter is under military control.

Calling for mail in general delivery is granted by the Post Office for transients and sojourners, i.e., Good and Lawful Christians.

Law of nations: In Latin; the Jus Gentium; that law which natural reason has established among all men is equally observed among all nations as being the law which all nations use . Ibid., Blacks 3rd, page 1044.

L.S.: The legal seal of the King and the location of this seal [marked by a Christian as ambassador of His Lord and Savior, Christ Jesus, the King of Kings].

Mark of Fraud: A token, evidence, or proof of fraud . Ibid., Black's 3rd, page 1161. Nil dicit. Nihil dicit.

'He says nothing'; Latin; nil dicit . This is the name of the judgment which may be taken as of
course against a defendant who omits to plead or answer the plaintiff's declaration or
complaint within the time limited. In some jurisdictions, it is otherwise known as judgment 'for
want of a plea'. Gilder v. McIntyre, 29 Tex.91; Falken v. Housatonic R. Co., 63 Com. 258, 27A.
1117; Wilbur v. Maynard, 6 Cob. 486.

20 fundamental Maxims of the Exclusive Equity Jurisprudence.

1. Equity sees that as done what ought to be done: Equity treats what should have been done as already
accomplished.

2. Equity will not suffer a wrong to be without a remedy: Ensures that there is a remedy for every wrong.

3. Equity delights in equality: Emphasizes fairness and equal treatment.

4. One who seeks equity must do equity: The petitioner must act fairly.

5. Equity aids the vigilant, not those who slumber on their rights: Encourages prompt action to assert rights.

6. Equity imputes an intent to fulfill an obligation: Presumes a person intends to fulfill their obligations.

7. Equity acts in personam: Focuses on obligations imposed on individuals.

8. Equity abhors a forfeiture: Tries to avoid the harsh consequences of forfeiture.

9. Equity does not require an idle gesture: It disregards actions with no practical impact.

10. He who comes into equity must come with clean hands: This requires the petitioner to be free of
wrongdoing.

11. Equity delights to do justice and not by halves: Seeks complete justice.

12. Equity will take jurisdiction to avoid a multiplicity of suits: It prevents multiple lawsuits over the same
issue.