How to dismiss a Court Case with Negative Averments

How to dismiss a Court Case with Negative Averments

https://www.amazon.com/Solution-Instruction-Manual-Sovereignty-Freedom/dp/B089LYGZC2

This video is about the very powerful tactic of filing a Negative Averments document into a court case that can effectively shut down the case and cause it to be dismissed.

Contact us at our link for a negative averments document-template- form.jotform.com/72196346394162

Thanks for helping restore the constitutional-republic one county at a time.

A Negative Averment is a negative statement/allegation that constitutes a statement of fact and that must be proved by the party making it. It’s a legal term that refers to a statement that denies or contradicts a previous statement or claim. In a court case the defendant may make a negative averment by denying allegations made by the plaintiff. Plaintiff claims defendant stole their car; defendant may make a negative averment stating they did not steal the car. The Negative averment is an important tool in legal proceedings because it allows parties to dispute claims & present evidence to support their position.

When one mails the parties to the cause a notice of negative averments the illusion of their control over one is rebutted. The racketeers then must show proof to contradict the negative averments.

What follows is a shortened version of a Negative Averment letter used in a Brevard County Florida Case that helped get that case dismissed in one of the most corrupt counties in the U.S. and Florida.

The accusers must rebut the negative averments or the assertions stand as facts that may be discussed in court, if it even goes to trial. Once these criminals are put on notice they’ll just want you and your case to go away. After one’s case is dismissed, one may sue all parties for damages.

The following negative averments are similar to rebutting the 12 Presumptions about which there is a video on this channel. And now for the abridged sample letter that lists the first 13 negative averments in full and then the last 17 have been shortened so that this video stays within 15 minutes-

From: john-edward: doe Authorized Representative for LEGAL FICTION JOHN E. DOE 123 Main St City, STATE ZIP
To: IMPOSTER LIST via first class mail
Re: CASE No.: 06-2024-MM-123456-AXXX-XX
Re: Violations of john-edward: doe Authorized Representative for LEGAL FICTION JOHN E. DOE civil rights. CASE No.: 06-2024-MM-123456-AXXX-XX

Certified Mail/Confirmation of Delivery/Validation Notice # 1234 5678 9012 3456 7890 12
Date: May 22, 2024
VERIFIED AFFIDAVIT OF FACTS BY SPECIFIC NEGATIVE AVERMENT
NOTICE TO PRINCIPAL IS NOTICE TO AGENT\
NOTICE TO AGENT IS NOTICE TO PRINCIPAL

Public servants named herein are in violation of their oath of office Name all the violators such as the judge, clerk of courts, police chief, and arresting police officer. Put their names and titles in all caps: hereinafter “OATH OF OFFICE VIOLATORS.”

I, the flesh and blood man known as john-edward: doe Authorized Representative for LEGAL FICTION JOHN E. DOE hereinafter “CLAIMANT,” does hereby affirm and declare that I am of legal age, have first-hand knowledge of the facts contained herein.

Therefore, let it be known by those responsible for the corporate Trust entity known as 18TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR BREVARD COUNTY, FLORIDA and any relevant parent or subsidiary company, including its Assigns, directors, shareholders, agents and affiliates, that I do hereby state that the following is, to the very best of my knowledge, true, correct and complete, presented in good faith, and not intended to mislead in any way.

1. CLAIMANT has seen no evidence from the “OATH OF OFFICE VIOLATORS” that violations of JOHN-EDWARD: DOE AUTHORIZED REPRESENTATIVE civil rights did not occur.
2. CLAIMANT has seen no evidence from the “OATH OF OFFICE VIOLATORS” that the Social Security Number normally assigned to persons of subject status constitutes a contract and accepts complicity that it has only been used due to the pressure of today’s market place, whereby it is required by everyone as they have been mandated to request in law and that the CLAIMANT has no interest in it except to be the grantor and holder in due course. CLAIMANT has not seen or been presented any evidence that LEGAL FICTION JOHN E. DOE is not a fiction in evidence.
3. CLAIMANT has seen no evidence from the "OATH OF OFFICE VIOLATORS that there is a contract between the CLAIMANT and the "OATH OF OFFICE VIOLATORS”.
CLAIMANT has not seen or been presented any evidence that the “OATH OF OFFICE VIOLATORS” has been injured ergo CLAIMANT has not seen or been presented any evidence that “OATH OF OFFICE VIOLATORS” and CLAIMANT have an enforceable contract.
4. CLAIMANT has not seen evidence that the “OATH OF OFFICE VIOLATORS” has any authority over CLAIMANT.
5. CLAIMANT has seen no evidence from the “OATH OF OFFICE VIOLATORS”, that the birth certificate is relevant to Sovereign Status and that this piece of paper through non-formal disclosure without the recipients full knowledge and consent that it constitutes property, ownership and subject status means that the contract is void ab initio and the “OATH OF OFFICE VIOLATORS” in failing to rebut this point accepts this. Furthermore, there is now tacit evidence on file of the living breathing sovereign through the scientific DNA of the LEGALLY LIVING BREATHING john-edward: doe Authorized Representative for LEGAL FICTION JOHN E. DOE is not an inhabitant, resident, franchise, subject or ward of, property, chattel of any corporate or corporeal UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT, Country, State, Sovereign Nation, municipal body, corporate City government, county government under any Authority.
Furthermore, CLAIMANT has seen no evidence that a legislation department or agency created by such authorities, nor the jurisdiction of any employees, officers or agents derive any authority from them and that the CLAIMANT IS NOT a subject of any of them as all hidden contracts openly signed, agreed to by digital media, verbally or otherwise are now void ab initio.
6. “OATH OF OFFICE VIOLATORS” now leaves the CLAIMANT open to be able to claim all heirs and titles under the CESTUI QUE TRUST ACT 1666 and the CESTUI QUE VIE OF 1666 in that he may defend his title in the name of the trustee. 1 Cruise, Bouv. Philippi v. Phillippe, 115 U.S. 151 (1885).
7. CLAIMANT has seen no evidence from the “OATH OF OFFICE VIOLATORS” that any document he has ever signed nor any document which may denote his as a CITIZEN that can be used to compromise his Sovereign Status as no full written disclosure was provided freely without coercion, misrepresentation and binding in contract. Ergo the “OATH OF OFFICE VIOLATORS” has not challenged the statement that the Passport did not provide full written disclosure about what applying for a passport meant and thus the “OATH OF OFFICE VIOLATORS” agrees that it is NOT legally binding at all and does not represent the CLAIMANT as a lawful entity. Furthermore the “OATH OF OFFICE VIOLATORS” has not challenged the subject status of the CLAIMANT in that he is not an inhabitant, resident, franchise, subject or ward of, property, chattel of any corporate or corporeal UNITED STATES GOVERNMENT, Country, State, Sovereign Nation, municipal body, corporate City government, county government under any Authority.
8. CLAIMANT has seen no evidence that a legislation department or agency created by such authorities, nor the jurisdiction of any employees, officers or agents derive any authority from them and that the CLAIMANT IS NOT a subject of any of them as all hidden contracts openly signed, agreed to by digital media, verbally or otherwise are now void ab initio.
9. CLAIMANT has seen no evidence from the “OATH OF OFFICE VIOLATORS” that there is a duty to perform as a Voter or register as a voter and that in so doing the CLAIMANT has voluntarily handed over sovereignty to the State or any other Body Politic.
10. CLAIMANT has no evidence from the “OATH OF OFFICE VIOLATORS” that there is any obligation on his part to become a subject through the Zip Code and accepts his assertion that he is a free man on the land. The Zip Code is merely used for identification only and that no expressly or implied adhesion contract is tied to his free status and that all benefits applied are waived save any common law rights under the United States Constitution, the state of FLORIDA and The Bill of rights. CLAIMANT has seen no evidence that any use of semantics by those who wish to dominate or masquerade as Government by altering the definitions of words, acts or phrases, to suppose an advantage over the sovereign spirit soul and that the words, person, driver, mail, resident, motor vehicle, drivers, passenger, employee, income, business owner and many others imply in any way shape or form can affect whatsoever his freeman on the land status and sovereignty. The “OATH OF OFFICE VIOLATORS” thus accepts the assertion that no Statute applies and that he does not reside or work in any territory, regulations, or implied authority.
11. Furthermore, the CLAIMANT has not seen or been presented any evidence that CLAIMANT is bound by the statutes and laws of THE UNITED STATES and STATE OF FLORIDA. 44a. 11a. CLAIMANT has not seen or been presented any evidence that any one of the “OATH OF OFFICE VIOLATORS” has conformed to the statutes and laws that bind CLAIMANT.
12. CLAIMANT has seen no evidence that any powers, contracts, obligations or controls by any united states officials preclude them from evidencing their oaths of office and their bonds of insurance for public liability and in particular in the Constitution of United States.
13. CLAIMANT has seen no evidence that any powers, statutes, ordinances, regulations, rules, and procedures contrary to several Acts of the U.S. Government or the government of FLORIDA are not null and void.
14. CLAIMANT has seen no evidence lawful right to seize his property.
15. CLAIMANT has seen no evidence that law passed by government legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land.
16. CLAIMANT has not seen evidence MELBOURNE POLICE OFFICER without authority didn’t violate CLAIMANTS due process rights.
16A. CLAIMANT has not seen or been presented any evidence of the nature of the charge or charges.
17. CLAIMANT has set a Fee schedule of $3000.00 per hour for each hour of unlawful detainment. The charge of $1,000,000.00 (One Million and 00/100 Dollars) due to be paid for arrest, handcuff, transportation in chains, tort of trespass and false imprisonment has been offered to be waived only as an out of court settlement.
18. CLAIMANT has seen no evidence that his Revocation of Power of Attorney does not stand as Truth from.
19. CLAIMANT sees no evidence that the Supreme Court, did not in a unanimous 9-0 ruling, make it explicit that agencies lack Sovereign Immunity and are subject to legal action by the public. See: Department of Agriculture Rural Development Rural Housing Service v. Kirtz, No. 22-846, App. 3rd Circ. (02/08/2024)
20. CLAIMANT sees no evidence that any involvement or collaboration in illegitimate tribunals by “OATH OF OFFICE VIOLATORS” that does not unlawfully strip individuals of their biological property without due process, trial by jury, or adherence to common law procedures is not an act of treason.
21. CLAIMANT sees no evidence that it cannot be construed that you; MELBOURNE POLICE OFFICER FIRST NAME LAST NAME BADGE ###, CHIEF OF POLICE AT MELBOURNE POLICE DEPARTMENT FIRST NAME LAST NAME are not participating with complete awareness, purpose, and malicious intent.
22. CLAIMANT sees no evidence that MELBOURNE POLICE OFFICER FIRST NAME LAST NAME BADGE ###, CHIEF OF POLICE AT MELBOURNE POLICE DEPARTMENT FIRST NAME LAST NAME has been officially authorized to partake in proceedings that encroach upon the rights of individuals.
23. CLAIMANT sees no evidence that before you; “OATH OF OFFICE VIOLATORS” assumed office you did not [willingly] swear an Oath to uphold, support, protect and defend the Constitution for the United States of America.
24. CLAIMANT sees no evidence that you; MELBOURNE POLICE OFFICER FIRST NAME LAST NAME BADGE ###, CHIEF OF POLICE AT MELBOURNE POLICE DEPARTMENT FIRST NAME LAST NAME have signed an oath of office to “We the People” as opposed to a defacto oath of office to the CORPORATION.
25. CLAIMANT sees no evidence that in your capacity as MELBOURNE POLICE OFFICER FIRST NAME LAST NAME BADGE ###, CHIEF OF POLICE AT MELBOURNE POLICE DEPARTMENT FIRST NAME LAST NAME policy/code enforcer you are not working for a foreign CORPORATION.
26. CLAIMANT sees no evidence that while acting in the capacity of FIRST NAME LAST NAME BADGE ###, CHIEF OF POLICE AT MELBOURNE POLICE DEPARTMENT FIRST NAME LAST NAME you are actually in fact a policy/code enforcer for the CORPORATION; not the original Republican Form of Government.
27. CLAIMANT sees no evidence that you MELBOURNE POLICE BADGE ###, CHIEF OF POLICE AT MELBOURNE POLICE DEPARTMENT are not in violation of section 1101(6)(d) of the 1935 Social Security Act.
28. CLAIMANT sees no evidence that the state of FLORIDA government was given the authority to arbitrarily rule over the lives and liberties of the people.
29. CLAIMANT sees no evidence that “OATH OF OFFICE VIOLATORS” have not devised or intended to devise a scheme or artifice to defraud, or for obtaining money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, in violation of 8 U.S. Code § 1341 - Frauds and Swindles.
30. CLAIMANT sees no evidence that MELBOURNE POLICE OFFICER BADGE ###, CHIEF OF POLICE; and the “OATH OF OFFICE VIOLATORS” are not in violation of 18 U.S. Code § 242 - Deprivation of Rights under Color of Law.

Take further notice that failing to immediately correct this issue with the dismissal of the instant case will be considered a trespass against Name all the violators such as the judge, clerk of courts, police chief, and arresting police officer.

I, as a part of the body Sovereign am presenting you with a NOTICE OF LIABILITY and opportunity to cure. The fine is $2,000,000.00 (Two million and no/100 Dollars) per claim.

If you do not rebut these truths and you remain in office I will be notifying the military. And your act of treason according to TITLE 10-ARMED FORCES Subtitle A-General Military Law PART II-PERSONNEL CHAPTER 47-UNIFORM CODE OF MILITARY JUSTICE SUBCHAPTER X - PUNITIVE ARTICLES 10 U.S.C. § 900 will be grounds for an immediate Military Tribunal. Also, I will file a Redress of Grievances with Director of Foreign Assets enforcement office.

Quote TITLE 10-ARMED FORCES
“Any person subject to this chapter who compels or attempts to compel the commander of any place, vessel, aircraft, or other military property, or of any body of members of the armed forces, to give it up to an enemy or to abandon it, or who strikes the colors or flag to an enemy without proper authority, shall be punished by death or such other punishment as a court-martial may direct.”

According to the United States Constitution Article III §3 the penalties for treason is death or life in prison. I a lawful part of the “Body Sovereign” hereby command you to resign within 10 days or else face the said consequences.
END OF ABRIDGED SAMPLE LETTER

There are a few more pages that are not included here to save time. Certified-Mail this letter to the violators and put each unique certified mail number in each letter.

We hope this helps and that through these videos you’re feeling more confident in your status as a sovereign & member of the Constitutional-republic that we are restoring one county at a time.

Need help info or docs, contact us- https://form.jotform.com/72196346394162