AFFIDAVIT OF ABATEMENT [ NO SUCH CORPORATION EXISTS] Nul tiel corporation NOTICE OF ASSERTION IN ABATEMENT IS GIVEN THAT NO SUCH CORPORATION EXISTS (Your Name Normal) a Sovereign Man of Standing denies there is no such Corporation bearing the name “YOUR NAME ALL CAPS“ nor is such presumed corporation assignable to said Sovereign Man by legislative fiat Whereas, (Your Name Normal) declares; Nul tiel corporation.No such corporation exists, bearing the name (YOUR NAME IN ALL CAPS) The form of a plea denying the existence of an alleged corporation. Under the common law practice, a plea of “nul tiel corporation” was a simple negation or a denial of capacity in which the plaintiff sued, and was not an averment of an affirmative fact {New York Bond & Mortgage Co. v. McWilliams, 253 Ill.App. 404}. A plea that plaintiff corporation is not a corporation either de jure or de facto, and consequently not entitled to sue, is not a plea of ultra vires, which assumes an incorporation either de jure or de facto and a misuse of or departure from a franchise, but is a plea of “nul tiel corporation.” {Rialto Co. v. Miner, 166 S.W. 629, 632, 183 Mo.App. 119}. That a Special Plea of Nul Tiel Corporation is necessary to question the Corporate Capacity of the plaintiff, see: 10 Cyc. 1355; Inhabitants of Orono v. Wedgewood, 44 Me. 49, 69 Am.Dec. 81 (1857). Keokuk & Hamilton Bridge Co. v. Wetzel, 228 Ill. 253, 81 N.E. 864 (1907) (which held that a Plea denying that the plaintiff is a corporation is a Plea in Bar, but a Plea denying that the defendant is a corporation is a Plea in Abatement.); Koffler/Reppy, Common Law Pleading, 423 n. 67 (West, 1969). BACKGROUND Whereas, there are two (2) classes of citizens under American law never repealed. Federal citizens were not even contemplated when Article III was being drafted. Pannill v. Roanoke, 252 F. 910, 914 is definitive and dispositive on this important point. Federal citizenship is a municipal franchise domiciled in the District of Columbia. Murphy v. Ramsey , 114 U.S. 15 (1885) (the political rights of federal citizens are franchises which they hold as privileges in the legislative discretion of Congress). The standing of State Citizens to invoke any Title 42 [Municipal]remedies, in part because these remedies originate in the 1866 Civil Rights Act — a federal municipal statute. State Citizens are not subject to federal municipal law. (Emphasis added) At all times, “this state” acting in the name of the State of ______ having legislative jurisdiction gives cause for (Your name normal )to reserve His right to move to a common law cause of action for the appropriation of His birth name to be bastardized for commercial purposes and may be pleaded by alleging (1) “this state’s” misuse of (Your name normal) identity; (2) the manipulation of (Your name normal) proper name to “this state’s” exclusive advantage, both commercially and otherwise; (3) lack of consent to craft a likeness of my birth name for commercial and other purposes and to the extreme prejudice of (Your name normal) to wit:(YOUR NAME ALL CAPS); and (4) the resulting and ongoing injury, both commercial and otherwise. Also, consideration is likewise reserved to move for a RICO investigation regarding the issue of bastardizing the birth name on STATE OF _________ commercial instruments as a for profit enterprise and thereby, a taxable event. “this state’s” decision to use a name upon commercial instruments other than my birth name, whether such decision rests on religious, marital, commercial or other personal considerations, does not imply intent to set aside my birth name, or identity associated with that name. Unlike a registered trademark, My proper name cannot be deemed abandoned by Me throughout this possessor’s life, despite any failure to use it, and continue to use it, privately and or commercially. Montana v. San Jose Mercury News, Inc. 40 Cal.Rptr.2d 639, 34 Cal.Appl.4th 790 I (Your name spelled normal), declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed on February ______, 2010 With reservation of all rights, remedies and Treaties UCC 1-308 I am:____________________________________________ ACKNOWLEDGMENT State of _______ ) ) SS County of ______ ) On the day of the second month of the year of Our Lord Jesus Christ in the year two thousand and ten, Personally appeared before Me the above noted Frank Austin England, III and acknowledged to be the Man given of such proper Christian name, and thereby, making the aforesaid AFFIDAVIT FOR IDENTITY AND OTHER PURPOSES AND FOR CAUSE! Before Me: Notary for the State of __________ My commission expires: Notary Seal (Blog Master Note: The above document makes reference to Common Law Pleadings by Koffler and Reppy. So I will add an Addendum to Frank ‘Austin’ England’s post. The passage begins on page 422 and ends on 423 in the same book, copyrighted in 1969. It is also some insight into defense to show you are not a corporation. ) Addendum Notwithstanding the above observations, there are two views as to whether the Corporate Existence of a Corporation was in Issue under a Plea of the General Issue. The generally accepted view was that the Existence of the Corporation was not put in issue by a Plea of General Issue. This appears to be the better view, as the function of the General Issue was to deny Material Allegations of Fact in the plaintiff’s Declaration. If the Corporate Existence of the plaintiff were put in Issue the General Issue would be placing in Issue a Question of Law, as the Corporate Existence of the plaintiff can only be determined by construing the Charter of the Incorporation, and construction of a written document involves a Question of Law. The General Issue alone, therefore, should operate as an admission of the Corporate Existence of the plaintiff; [66] if it is desirable to place it iin the Issue the defendant should Specifically Traverse the Corporate. Existence of the plaintiff by use of a Plea Nul TielCorporation [67] Foot Note 66 – Inhabitants of Orono v. Wedgewood, 44 Me, 49 (1857) Keokuk & Hamilton Bridge Co. v. Wetzel, 228 Ill. 253, 81 N.E. 864, (1907), which held that a Plea denying that the plaintiff is a corporation is a Plea in Bar, but that a Plea denying that the defendant is a corporation is a Plea in Abatement. Foot Note 67 – That a Special Plea of Nul Tiel Corporation is necessary to question the corporate of the plaintiff, see: Inhabitants of Orono v. Wedgewood, 44 Me. 49, 69 Am.Dec. 81 (1857).
Posted on: Mon, 19 Jan 2015 22:16:43 +0000