Page 5 of 5

Re: Non-Statutory Abatements

Posted: Tue Nov 26, 2013 1:10 am
by damage control
Greetings Brothers and Sisters,

One Sister has a question with regard to the original alleged mortgage company who [hubby] signed the alleged mortgage papers with.

Her question is:

The original alleged mortgage lender sold the alleged mortgage to a new alleged mortgage lender who is the adverse defendant who is attempting to foreclose in addition to a debt collection company. Are all of these parties adverse for having participated?

Re: Non-Statutory Abatements

Posted: Tue Nov 26, 2013 2:25 am
by editor
This is only my opinion, but I have only very limited confidence in the non-statutory abatement.

I told you earlier I had some success with one, but I need to qualify. The abatement, at least the one I used, was in a civil case in which a plaintiff was suing for alleged property damages. The plaintiff sued a fictitious party, with a name in all uppercase letters. My abatement gave notice that I was not that person, and invited the plaintiff, if plaintiff wanted a remedy from me, to sue me as a proper party.

This is the essense of all abatements I have seen. The merits of the case were never discussed. The point was to assure the suit was brought between proper parties, so that all natural rights might be better preserved.

The abatement is not a silver bullet. And it is not appropriate in all cases.

Even in my case, after I had done notices of fault and default, the court proceeded anyway and held a hearing for summary default. I appeared at the hearing as a minister for public justice, to give notice I had never been joined to the proceeding.

I presented my abatement package, which I had certified by affidavit, into evidence. The judge looked it over, and said he couldn't recognize it as a court document, since the "county court" listed on its face did not exist. I told the judge I wasn't asking him to recognize the court. I said the abatement was evidence that I had given plaintiff notice they had not sued the proper party, and that the notices of fault and default proved plaintiff had been given plenty of opportunity to cure their defect.

The judge's jaw dropped to his chest. I could tell I had given him the right answer, and he had not expected it. He told "the room" that the parties would be given thirty days in which to file any addtional papers, at which point he would make a decision. He fled the room.

The plaintiffs asked their attorney "What the hell just happened?" The attorney said he had no idea. They had expected a default judgment. About forty days later I received a letter from a judge two counties away, giving his "opinion" that the defendant had never been properly joined to the case, and recommending the case be dismissed without prejudice. "Without prejudice" means the plaintiffs are able to bring suit again if they wish.

This was the end of it. The plaintiffs had already paid a year's attorney expenses and had nothing to show for it, so they gave up.

Please notice this is not exactly the same thing as saying "the abatement worked."

In your case it seems you are dealing with a mortgage which [hubby] did, in fact, sign. You've mentioned that the original mortgagee (bank) sold the loan to a third-party, and it is the third-party who is attempting a foreclosure. Do I have that right?

Other members may have some input on this, and I invite discussion, but I personally don't think an abatement is going to be much of a remedy in this situation. That is not to say I think you are without remedies.

Please check out this book:

I have not personally read it yet, though I hope to read it someday. I listened to an interview with the author on one of Alex Jones' programs. The subject matter deals with exactly this issue, and allegedy offers both insight and potential remedies.

The abatement process will put you in the position of claiming you are a different person than you claimed to be at the time you signed the mortgage. That may be true, but is your lifestyle really that of a free, unaligned man? Or are you subject to contracts of social security, licenses, permits, etc.? Most people these days are too encumbered by such contracts to withstand close scrutiny in an abatement process.

The above book is said to point out many shortcuts and illegalities practiced by the banks, which leave them without proper standing to bring foreclosure suits. One of these is failure to file assignments with the county recorder. Without having filed the assignment, the new bank [holder in due course] has no standing within the courts of that county. However most judges will allow it anyway, unless the issue is properly raised by the defendant.

This is just one of many remedies you may find within that book.

Side note: If any Forum readers were to feel called to send a copy of Clouded Titles to the Lawful Path, I would definitely read it and post a detailed review.

Re: Non-Statutory Abatements

Posted: Tue Nov 26, 2013 9:28 pm
by Thomas Jeffrey
Likewise, the following is only my opinion:
Please inform us of whether or not we may edit the Non-Statutory Abatement signature [autograph] line with regards to format and whether or not it may be edited to add a line for the bondsman's name, and, if we may edit the red ink right thumb print by inserting a box for this print. This may possibly insert the law of boxes and may open the demandant to new legal obstacles[?]
IMHO, it wouldn’t hurt to reformat the signature line as long as you don’t add to or exclude the information required for your mark (signature). In fact, the page numbers for the abatements can be relocated in the abatements depending on your formatting and font. For example, page four in your sample abatement may contain more or less words than your actual abatement if you increased or decreased the font, so you would need to adjust the page numbers accordingly. I also wouldn’t worry about inserting a box for your seal (thumb print).
1) Is the Non-Statutory Abatement served on all defendant[s] who participated in the attempt to steal from the demandant? There are two demandants serving Non-Statutory Abatement process to alleged creditors i.e., mortgage corporations.

All claimant parties listed or mentioned in the defective process should be served with an abatement.
2) Our comprehension is that all participating in the attempted criminal [?] trespass / criminal [?] mischief / theft / burglary and or attempted foreclosure are candidates for the Non-Statutory Abatement, is this correct?
A non-statutory abatement is used to identify defective process and present an opportunity for the claimant to cure his defects. A relevant maxim is “Legal form is essential form”. If you have received a Notice from anyone other than a court or one that names a court with hearing date, it’s my opinion that only parties named in the process as claimants or agents of the claimant should be served. That means the company/corporation itself and those whose names appear as the agents to contact.
3) If an attorney who was representing the adverse party [who was attempting to steal from the demandant] withdraws as the adverse party's legal representative, are they also a candidate for service of process of the Non-Statutory Abatement having withdrawn [were involved for minimum one year]?
I would think that if one withdraws as legal representative, for whatever reason and at whatever time, they are no longer involved with the action because they are no longer an agent of the claimant. Someone else may have some more information on this.

Gregory (Editor) had an outstanding response to the questions above. Please understand that abatements are a way to identify defects in legal form, and provide a chance for the other party to correct or cure their defects. The defects stated in the non-statutory abatements rely on your standing apart from any contractual ties to the U.S., state, or local governments. You must be able to provide evidence that you are who you say you are and not the “person” to whom the claim is being laid by the mortgage company. You must also be able to defend or maintain that position without getting into a defensive position, just like Gregory did in his example above.

To be frank… chances are that the mortgage company will ignore your abatement and default notices and proceed with foreclosure. The courts favor big commercial interests like mortgage companies, so a hearing or court date will probably be set regardless of your abatement and default notices.

The upside is exactly what happened to Gregory. He was able to provide evidence, through presentation of the abatement process and affidavits, that the plaintiff/claimant was given notice that their process was defective, and given ample opportunity to correct or cure those defects. The abatement did exactly what it was meant to do, but it was the way Gregory presented the evidence and rebutted the judge’s original reason for denying the evidence that was the deciding factor. It is so important to fully understand what the non-statutory abatements do, and why. Please read Gregory's response above very carefully. He has valuable practical experience that is very helpful.

There are a few great books on common law process in the public domain. Benjamin Shipman’s Handbook of Common Law Pleading is an excellent book free to download at many sites. I believe Amazon even carries a printed version for sale. Another good one is based on Shipman’s work called by the same title, by Joseph H. Koffler, also available for free download. These books help to describe what is needed to present, hear, defend, and adjudicate cases. They also describe many processes including abatements. Of course, the early books are much better than any books printed after the early ‘30’s.

I hope this has helped in some way.

God bless,