What I’ve Been Up To And A New Article: What Is An Abatement?

Date:  March 4, 2016

Hello Friends,

It has been a while since I have last put out a newsletter, and I thought it would be beneficial to readers for me to explain why that is. Ever since the last newsletter (distributed on January 26-27 of this year) I have been busy making good on the promises I made in that and previous newsletters. I began immediately working on the Frequently Asked Questions PDF in order to get clear in my mind how it should be set up. The majority of the time spent in February was spent contemplating and beginning to outline this project (which is huge in terms of the time it is going to take to produce it) so that its production could progress much smoother once I was able to get under way and into a good working rhythm.

That meant that I had no time to spend writing new articles or putting out the newsletter. It’s only been since the last few days in February, when I finished the preliminary outline for the first chapter of the FAQ PDF, that I shifted my efforts toward composing and publishing a new article. This article should help readers gain a deeper perspective about the origin and legal precedence surrounding the “refused for cause” process, which is an abbreviation of the formal process of abatement. Some readers may even wish to try out the formal abatement process that I have come across using the explanation of it given in the article in a link to an offsite PDF about the process found on the website of one of the modern pioneers in the study of Law – Lee Brobst – whose writings have helped me to better understand what is happening in today’s courts with their fictional controversies.

Returning to the FAQ PDF, I think that readers will be pleasantly surprised and pleased, once it is completed, with the amount of practical information that will be contained in the ebook. Just about everything under the sun has occurred at one time or another to a number of readers who have shared their experiences with me and solicited my opinion about how to handle the tricky situations that confronted them. In many instances I was able to persuade readers from taking a drastic step that would have compromised their position had they chosen to take that course of action. Not everyone was successful, although each circumstance turned into a valuable learning experience for all concerned.

Readers of this FAQ will have the advantage of being able to see and learn beforehand from the actual experiences of others who have gone before them. Hopefully, too, it will also teach readers that you have to be able correctly to discern and to think about the facts involved in any legal matter with which you are faced in order to see the remedy that can be applied. Without the ability to see and verify the facts of a matter and be able to articulate them, an accused is left with being put on the defensive, having to disprove alleged facts based on statutory rule-making while simultaneously abandoning their position in actual Law. Once you abandon your position in Law, it can be difficult to regain it.

If you have ever wondered where the process described in the Common Law Remedy to Beat Traffic Tickets report had its origin from which it draws its legal precedence and authority, then you will be please to learn about these details from today’s offering just published in the Articles section on the CLR website. The article What Is An Abatement? will provide readers with the understanding of a firm and settled process of law that they can use in a multitude of matters. It will also provide enterprising readers, who have an interest, with ideas for search terms to use in their own personal research about this process. All readers are encouraged to do their own due diligent research into any of the articles published on the website as this will help you to gain confidence about the subject matter being studied.

Going forward, I intend to continue working on the FAQ PDF as the main priority to complete because it will provide readers with practical answers to common questions they may have. In between and as time permits, I may or may not be able to add additional articles to the website. I'll just have to play this by ear. Additionaly, this FAQ will not be set up as most FAQ pages you may be familar with on the Internet, that is in a question followed by answer format. Rather, it will contain a case by case study of individual circumstances (in the form of emails sent to me) which will allow the reader to investigate the deeper aspects of that case as they unfolded. In this way through a process similar to osmosis, intelligent readers will be able to gain an insight into the method of thinking that they need to adopt and develop when attempting to deal with their own matters.

If you have visited the Articles page recently on the website, you will notice that there are ten article titles (without links to a page) which have yet to be written. Each of these topics are important in your education about Law and how the current legal system works. If you know how to use the Law, you can effectively foreclose the System from using its “rules” against you. The more you know, the better able you are to handle any unexpected tricks the System has up is sleeve with which to compromise the position you have taken.

So, that is the update on my situation, and why you haven't seen any newsletters since late January. As always I encourage your feedback, good or bad, as this helps me to help you correctly understand your process.

Yours sincerely,

Thomas Eliot
Common Law Remedy


Why Is Understanding Consent So Important?

Date: March 21, 2016

Hello Friends,

One of the most important opinions given in the publications found on the Common Law Remedy website involves understanding the crucial importance of being able to demonstrate to the statutory jurisdiction your withdrawal of consent to be ruled by that jurisdiction through your presumed subjection to that jurisdiction. If I could choose one concept that is absolutely essential to your success in challenging a victimless traffic ticket, it would be your comprehension of the concept of consent. If you don’t thoroughly understand this concept, you are putting yourself at risk of losing your position as a man or woman up against an artificial jurisdiction which assumes the fact of your consent based upon the proven existence of other facts.

In the free report Common Law Remedy To Beat Traffic Tickets emphasis is made at the very outset beginning in the first chapter on the importance of understanding the concept of “consent” when contemplating attending a matter in court concerning a traffic citation. In the fifth paragraph there is the following statement:

“Only alike parties – or consenting parties to the jurisdiction – may bring suit or complaint against one another.”

In the very next paragraph, mention is made again of the importance of reserving your consent:

“By reserving your rights as a natural man or woman (and not as a legal fiction, as the entity is identified on the driver license), you effectively challenge the court’s jurisdiction. But you’d better know how to explain this, or the judge will trick you into consenting to his jurisdiction. And in many instances, you won’t even realize that this has happened!”

As has been stated before, your best bet for avoiding the statutory jurisdiction is to be in position to never have to enter the court at all! Unless you can recognize the instances when you are likely to have waived your consent, you will be operating in the dark, never really certain whether or not you are on safe ground in your process. If you are unclear what your process is about when using the refused for cause (R4C) approach to abatement, then you need to re-read and reconsider our article “The Procedure Of Honor And Dishonor In Dealing With Government.”

This article provides you with the lawful and legal basis on which you are executing the refused for cause process. If the government (that is, government agents and actors in the form of law enforcement officers, judges, prosecutors, and clerks of the court) refuses to recognize your process, the people involved in these acts can be held responsible for committing acts of terrorism against you. How would you know that?

Well, if you had taken my suggestion to download and read the Sovereignty Education and Defense Ministry (SEDM) PDF Consent.pdf (link provided at the end of the free report and also on the website on the Law Resource Link page), you would have come across the following excerpt on page 31:

2. Terrorist government: This type of government rules from above by force or fraud or both and always results in idolatry toward government....

Consistent with the above, Funk and Wagnalls New Practical Standard Dictionary (1946) defines "terrorism" as follows:

ter*ror*ism  noun  1. The act of terrorizing. 2. A system of government that seeks to rule by intimidation.

Webster’s New World College Dictionary:

ter*ror*ism  n. 1. the act of terrorizing; use of force or threats to demoralize, intimidate, and subjugate, esp. such use as a political weapon or policy.  2. the demoralization and intimidation produced in this way

In the American republican form of government, the requirement for consent in all human interactions is the essence and the foundation of all of our sovereignty as human beings. Only by consenting to become “persons” or “individuals” from a statutory perspective can we be detached from that sovereignty. This requirement is also the foundation of our system of law, starting with the Declaration of Independence and going down from there:

“That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed.”

On page 33 there is the following insightful statement:

“It is also a maxim of law that you cannot be compelled to surrender your rights and that anything you consent to under the influence of duress is not law and creates no obligation on your part...”

But there is more to learn by a careful reading of that PDF than just these self-evident truths about terrorism and the use of force by government officials. Once these facts are brought out in court through your testimony, they become part of the record. They stand as a public indictment against the very system (or at the very least, its agents) putting you under persecution. This (i.e. the fact that terrorist tactics are being used by public officials in order to intimidate people into submission) is something that the government and the courts cannot let become public knowledge.

But in order to understand the overwhelming importance of these concepts, you first need to be made aware of them. This is why I urge you all, if you haven’t done so already, to download and take the time to read that PDF on Consent. It will go into more detail than you care to imagine, and by the time you get half way through it, if you haven’t had a profound epiphany about this concept and its importance, then you simply must not have been paying much attention to what you were reading. I can only lead you to water, but I cannot make you drink. That choice is up to you.

As a study method, I also recommend that while reading through that PDF that you take notes (either physically with pencil and paper, or digitally, by opening up a file “consent notes.rtf”) and transcribe important passages that strike your attention so that you have those notes to go back to again and again in your study. Will this take time? Yes, it will. But it will be time well spent.

By the end of performing this note-taking process, if your mind isn’t thoroughly enlightened by what you have been reading, then there is little hope for you standing up for your rights under the common law. You may as well just pay the fine and move on with your life. I’m sorry if you are offended by the bluntness of that statement, but it is what it is! On the other hand, if you don’t feel ready to take on this challenge at this particular time, pay the fine and live to fight another day. In other words, pick your battles and keep studying until you are confident that you understand what you are doing and are ready to make a stand.

For those readers who are uncertain about using the refused for cause process taught in the free Common Law Remedy report, the next newsletter will contain information about a competing process which claims an 85% success rate among users. This process is strictly a paperwork process (similar to the R4C process) and does not involve anticipating making a court appearance.

If you have the time to implement this process (you need at least a 30 day lead time before the court date), it can be a very effective way in which to abate statutory jurisdiction process. Also, it won’t require that you learn nearly as much about Law as I require you to learn through using the R4C process. But then, such is your choice.

As always I encourage your feedback, good or bad, as this helps me to assist you in correctly understanding your process.

Yours sincerely,

Thomas Eliot
Common Law Remedy


The Non-Statutory Abatement Process Sold By A Competitor

Date: April 15, 2016

Hello Friends,

Learning about Law and how to use it does not have to be difficult. Yet learning how to use it in a statutory commercial court can be challenging to say the least. You have to learn the do’s and don’ts of legal procedure and process. And that can take a bit of getting used to being aware of how courtrooms operate or, at the very least, reading about someone’s account of what to do and what not to do. Still, though, actual courtroom experience is hard to beat in terms of a valuable learning encounter. And once you’ve encountered some courtroom experience, reading about it becomes easier to pick up.

But not everyone is ready to take on a courtroom experience, especially when they become convinced that they must attend a hearing, and they have little experience of being in front of a judge. The intimidation factor sets in, and it can be difficult to hold one’s composure and to remember all the things one wants to accomplish, let alone what one is watching out for in terms of tricks the judge might play in order to get you to acquiesce to his jurisdiction. Experience and foreknowledge (knowing a little something about what to expect) comes in handy when one is under the gun in oral discussions. 

It is for this reason that I’m introducing you to a competitor’s remedy which acts as a fairly simple though quite a bit more involved cookie cutter process of achieving the same kind of remedy as refusing for cause a citation. This method involves using as a witness an officer of the very court that is coming at you: that is, a notary public. However, for those who might by the off chance be paying attention (as I was when I was first introduced to this process), you might realize that if an officer of the court can assert this process in a statutory court, then you, as a man or woman, also have the authority to assert it as a non-fiction questioning the fictitious corporate court’s authority to invade your privacy with its faulty legal process. (The latter of these two descriptions is the tact that the refusal for cause process takes, that is, you would be addressing the court as a man or woman, as the case may be, and not as a legal fiction.)

Corporate statutory courts can only deal with those parties who declare themselves – through open testimony or failure to rebut the preumption – to be legal fictions and cannot deal with any party that is not agreeing to be represented as a legal fiction under personam jurisdiction. It is for this reason that I prefer the refused for cause (R4C) process, because it puts an insurmountable onus on the court (or more precisely, the plaintiff/prosecution) to bring forth evidence proving personam jurisdiction on the record in the matter. Once this objection is made and the plaintiff fails to correct his process, the matter has died before it can even get to court. Does this now explain why timeliness is so important in the notification of the court? Objection to the law of the court must be brought up at the earliest opportunity! Which means first thing. Or else, it becomes waived and the court can proceed. 

This is a basic question of Law that can only be challenged at the initial stage of any matter before any court, the acquiring of personam jurisdiction through acquiescense to Law by a court before it can proceed in the matter. Only subject matter jurisdiction may be challenged at any time during a legal matter. If a person inadvertently fails to bring up this objection at the very beginning of a matter, it cannot be taken up later once the person has waived this initial opportunity to challenge the Law being presumed by not objecting timely. Once a point of Law objection is brought up on the record at the very beginning of the matter (i.e. before a judge can even hear a complaint much less ask for a plea from the presumed “defendant”), the complainant/plaintiff must satisfactorily correct any error in his process or leave the field of battle.

This is what the Common Law Default Process taught by Greg Slaughter (who runs TicketSlayer.com) endeavors to assert. It is an abatement of the plaintiff’s process. It doesn’t challenge jurisdiction directly; it challenges the due process of the plaintiff. The package sold by the TicketSlayer website involves seven documents that are entered into the matter from the statutory side of the matter (i.e. as a legal fiction). In other words, the person who uses Greg’s Common Law Default Process is agreeing to personam jurisdiction through the use of the notary public (an officer of the court) who is asserting the process on the alleged defandant’s behalf. The seven documents include: an affidavit, a Notice of Default, a Final Notice of Default, a Motion to Dismiss, a Writ of Praecipe, a Writ of Mandamus, and an Acceptance of Constitutions and Oath of Office.

The Common Law Default Process taught at TicketSlayer.com is a formal abatement of the legal process improperly (meaning unlawfully) served on the accused (also called in statutory terms the “defendant”). The non-statutory abatement is a dilatory plea (i.e. a plea meant to defer or postpone something) that acts to delay a plaintiff’s action until certain errors in the plaintiff’s process are corrected. Notice in the list of documents that there is “a Motion to Dismiss.” This motion is issued to the judge, along with a Writ of Praecipe and a Writ of Mandamus. When using this Default Process within the statutory jurisdiction, it is apparently necessary to follow the protocol of formally petitioning the judge for a dismissal, which is why Greg states later on that it is necessary to attend the court hearing if this method is used. Even though this is something that government courts would rather not admit publicly is effective. 

In contrast, the refusal for cause is a Notice to the foreign (i.e. statutory) court that a sovereign state is invoking its right to deny a foreign state matter to be heard in any other court but the sovereign state’s court, which in this case is based in common law. This means if the plaintiff can show just cause for bringing the suit to court, then the matter can proceed according to the common law, which means that there MUST be an injured or damaged party. If there is no injured party, then due process (no one was harmed, therefore no foul) has not been achieved. And the matter is exposed as fraudulent!  

By using the refusal for cause, you, as a man or woman versed in Law, are giving notice to the statutory court that you are a “responsible asylum state of competent jurisdiction,” and that you are willing to hear the matter in your common law court provided that a verified complaint and claim (also known as a “ratification of commencement”) can be produced and that proper due process has been performed. The term “state” in the above mentioned phrase can refer to a “state of mind” and not necessarily to a physical (and fictitious) state, nation-state, or city-state political entity. Therefore, the refusal for cause is not a plea into the matter at all, but rather a Notice served on the plaintiff and a foreign court (in this case, a court based in political statutory law rules) by another sovereign state.

It is a well known and settled acknowledgment in the law of nations that a sovereign cannot be forced to submit it- or himself, without its or his consent, to another sovereign’s court. If you are not part of the political society (i.e. legal fiction society) seeking suit against you, you cannot be forced to answer suit in a foreign court. The suitor, if you so stipulate, must approach you in your own court and according to the law adhered to in that court. 

There were a couple of questions that came to mind when reviewing the FAQ page on the TicketSlayer website. The first had to do with: “What should I do if I don’t know who the prosecutor is in my case?” Greg’s answer follows:

Call the court clerk for the court your case is assigned to and ask the clerk what office (District Attorney, State Attorney, Commonwealth Attorney, County Attorney, City Attorney, the citing officer, etc.) is prosecuting my traffic ticket?

If the court clerk says that there is no prosecutor, or no prosecutor is required for traffic cases, then it is safe to assume that you would serve the local prosecutor that prosecutes crimes in general for your county.

This answer regarding what prosecutor to serve doesn’t make any sense. You would serve the prosecutor of the public entity coming at you. In other words, if a municipality were the public entity, serve the city prosecutor’s office. If the county were coming at you (either through the Sheriff’s Office or the State Highway Patrol) serve the county prosecutor’s office. It’s simple to know who to serve.

The second had to do with: “If I use the common law default, will I still have to go to court?” Greg responded to this question as follows:

Most likely. Most courts require traffic case defendants to appear at an arraignment to enter a plea, and then again at the time of trial.

Although the common law default lawfully nullifies the people’s claim against the defendant, and the default is part of the court record, very rarely will judges dismiss the case until the time that the defendant appears at trial.

While this answer may make sense for someone using the Common Law Default Process, to anyone who has studied the processes that are followed in Law and stand as precedent in commercial law (lex mercatoria) it may be considered superfluous. If a matter has been abated non-judicially, there is no real need to show up in a formal court setting. Indeed, if “the people’s claim against the defendant” has been nullified by the common law default process, then it stands to reason that no court case has yet arisen. If the paperwork is entered as part of the court record, that paperwork defines the record of the matter, which never came to fruition because it was abated before it was ever being brought to the court. In other words, the court has no say in the matter because final judgment was non-judicial, happening outside of any court’s purview. 

In my opinion, there is no need to attend a matter (a hearing) if no matter is ever brought up before the court, the matter having been settled outside of court before it was even brought to court. The abatement occurs once the notary sends the Final Notice of Default, without a judge’s input! Remember, the statutory notary is an officer of the court in matters such as this. Indeed, there is no need for a judge’s input once that notice is sent. The matter has become res judicata! (Hint: Look up that last term (res judicata), if you don’t already know and understand what it means.)

It is the same for someone serving notice of a refusal for cause on a court regarding a fraudulent complaint. Once the court is notified of the objection to the complaint, it is up to the complainant to correct his process so the matter may proceed, or to drop the matter altogether. End of story. No need to attend a hearing on a matter that was brought to the court’s attention by a plaintiff with unclean hands!

Of course you, dear reader, are entitled to your own studied opinion on these matters.  

As always I encourage your feedback, good or bad, as this helps me to assist you in correctly understanding your process.

Yours sincerely,

Thomas Eliot
Common Law Remedy


STSC thread: “All driving ‘licenses’ are contractual scams!”

Date: June 29, 2016

Note:  The reference to STSC in the subject line stands for “Saving To Suitors Club,” which is a web forum (savingtosuitorsclub.net) for people who wish to study about law and its practical application in the present day.

Hello Friends,

On the index page (as well as several other pages) of the Common Law Remedy website in the right side panel there is a box labeled “Law Resource Websites.” It contains links to other websites on which can be found valuable information about Law. It is placed there in a very inconspicuous location to see if anyone will notice it and take advantage of the vast amount of legal research there is to be found on the linked-to websites.

There is a reason why that box and those links exist on the CLR website. The reason those links exist is to help you, the itinerate reader, confirm the concepts and ideas I'm explaining in the free report and other publications found on the website. If you are having trouble accepting some of the things brought up in the free report and articles on the website, those links are there to help readers corroborate the ideas and concepts being expressed.

Admittedly, it can take some time to wade through all the hundreds of threads on any of those first two linked-to forums in order to find relevant information that may help one to deal with the legal situation which confronts them. If you’ve been a bit overwhelmed by the sheer amount of information on websites like these, then join the crowd because I was overwhelmed also when I first started looking deeper into all this. But I was glad that there were websites like these out there where I could do investigative and research work to help me learn about and understand the Law.

For those readers who, for whatever reason, are either unable to support my work or who believe that information about the law ought to be freely provided, these website can provide you with the education and information you need to have in order to find a resolution to whatever legal issue that concerns you. This means that it will likely take you some time to search through these resources to find the dependable information you are looking for, but at least you have somewhere credible to start.

If you don’t have the time to spend in research right now, and you need to be brought up to speed in a hurry in order to understand how to successfully handle a legal issue currently confronting you, there are publications (and email support) on the CLR website that can help to bring you up to speed on the key points in Law that you need to know in order to rebut the corporate legal system. So, one way or the other, you are going to end up paying something: either in countless hours of time (as I did) spent researching and figuring out what gets the attention of the system to recognize your process, or in money spent on additional practical information to help lessen the amount of time and shorten the learning curve needed to understand the relevant issues you need to assert and the practical courses of action to take in order to prevail in the matter which confronts you.

Today, in an example of how to use these forums as a research resource, we are going to take a look at one of the threads on the Saving To Suitors Club web forum which addresses how important it is to pay attention to the words and the definitions of those words being used in order to figure out what the legal system is communicating to the public.

The thread can be found by clicking on the following link:

Further proof from a state senator that all driving "licenses" are contractual scams!

However, you have to be careful what you accept or don’t accept when reading in forums such as this because not every poster is competent in Law. People’s understanding of law can differ widely. Which means that you have to understand the basic concepts of Law before you can begin to make out what is true and what is not true from a poster’s comments.

In addition to the questionable comment expressed in the subject line of the thread (that “all driving licenses are contractual scams”; not all driving licenses are scams), the poster of the OP (operating premise) draws (according to my experience and observation) a misleading conclusion when he states that — “This is a silver bullet...” — in reference to the 1985 letter from Arizona state Sen. Wayne Stump to the then Director of the Arizona Department of Public Safety, Ralph Milstead. In my experience there are no “silver bullets” — which the system will publicly recognize in so many words — that can be used to slay the statutory dragon. But if you know the Law and how to assert it, you can prevail.

In order to learn something from this post, you have to read the reply from the then Arizona Attorney General Bob Corbin (in the link found in the second post) to understand how the State’s legal system views this matter. If you do not understand the linguistic nuances that the attorney general is referring to in parcing his reply, you might be disposed to taking a pessimistic view of his statement. As in: “This game is rigged and we have no chance of winning.”

Read the comments made by KnowLaw in the thread in order to understand the linguistic nuances that the attorney general is dancing around.

Most people start from the viewpoint of themselves as being “citizens” of the state in which they live. Therefore, being a citizen of the incorporated state and/or federal government places them under the control and subject to the laws of those two fictitious legal entities. Such people, within their own minds, have already indicted themselves and lost any rebuttal they thought they could muster. At this level of understanding, this is a mental game, and one must be on their toes in order to successfully rebut the presumptions being made by state actors.

What the attorney general does not say in his reply is that it takes a Man (or Woman) to stand up and declare (rebut the presumption) that they are not subject to that jurisdiction and to require the state to provide said evidence of jurisdiction before continuing the action. That means that the state must come up with credible evidence of someone’s consent to “citizenship” under the legal definition within the context that the attorney general is using the word. If that consent does not come out of your mouth while under questioning or during discussion, then there is no evidence that the state has provided the court to prove its contention.

What this means is that you have to be on the alert every second you are under fire when standing before representatives of the legal system. Even better would be to avoid having to go before that system at all! Which is to say that if YOU do not ASSERT your rights and therefore, by your actions, abandon them, they will be denied you by the system.

In another newsletter, we will discuss the significance of the question that former Sen. Stump asked in his initial letter: “Can unenfranchised individuals who constitute the sovereignty of the State, with unalienable rights, be compelled into a diminution or forfeiture of those rights by administrative regulation or legislative enactments.” If you understand what he is asking, then you have a key to the remedy that you are seeking.

As always I encourage your feedback, good or bad, as this helps me to assist you in correctly understanding your process at Law.

Yours sincerely,

Thomas Eliot
Common Law Remedy


If you would like to learn more about these concepts so you can avoid the whole mess without having to “appear” in court at all, you can download our free ebook Common Law Remedy To Beat Traffic Tickets and learn about the secrets that the courts and legal profession don’t want you to know.

If you’d like to learn more about the law and how it can serve you, don’t hesitate to check out our Articles on Traffic Law section. Discover some of the secrets of law that you’ve never been taught!

The laws sometimes sleep, but never die.