nul tiel | Freedom Documents https://keystoliberty2.wordpress.

com/tag/nul-tiel/

Freedom Documents ~ documents from sovereigns on

how to attain freedom- Not legal advice-just what has
worked for others

Tag Archives: nul tiel

Affidavit of Abatement (No Such Corporation)

12 Sunday A ₂₀₁₂

P U

≈₄C

Tags
affidavit of abatement, District of Columbia, federal citizenship, Inhabitants of Orono v. Wedgewood, Koekuk &
Hamilton Bridge Co. v. We el, Montana v. San Jose News Inc, Murphy v. Ramsey, no corporation, nul tiel,
Pannil v. Roanoke, proper name, Rialto Col. v. Miner

(For Frank ‘Austin’ England III)

AFFIDAVIT OF ABATEMENT

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

1 of 4 6/10/2018, 7:39 PM
nul tiel | Freedom Documents https://keystoliberty2.wordpress.com/tag/nul-tiel/

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. We el, 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Whereas, there are two (2) classes of citizens under American law never repealed.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 _______ )

2 of 4 6/10/2018, 7:39 PM
nul tiel | Freedom Documents https://keystoliberty2.wordpress.com/tag/nul-tiel/

) 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 Existenceof
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 be er 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 wri en 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. We el, 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 ofthe
plaintiff, see: Inhabitants of Orono v. Wedgewood, 44 Me. 49, 69 Am.Dec. 81 (1857).

Reading further into the book: If you have been charged with a crime and the Indictment has your
name in all capitol le ers, and that is not your Christian name, the defense is a Plea of Abatement
instead of an Affidavit.

3 of 4 6/10/2018, 7:39 PM
nul tiel | Freedom Documents https://keystoliberty2.wordpress.com/tag/nul-tiel/

10 Incredibly Cool Father's

Day Gift Ideas Flying Off
Shelves

Report this ad

10 Incredibly Cool Father's

Day Gift Ideas Flying Off
Shelves

Report this ad

Create a free website or blog at WordPress.com.

4 of 4 6/10/2018, 7:39 PM