Baron David Ward Affidavit Zoom discussion

Zoom 7 PM Alberta time daily https://us02web.zoom.us/j/6945489985?pwd=UllwRmwzRUhWS2pXUWNQODNEbnhSZz09

Show more

This is a talk on the Baron David Ward Affidavit and the MP lien process given to a group at Thorne on Friday evening the 9th of February 2024.

At the bottom of some slides, you will see 'video' in red with information about the channel on YouTube and the title of the video.
There are link below to those videos.

Exhibit (A) https://youtu.be/k4Q71qmhjYM

Exhibit (B) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=otOvAymtO6M&t=1s

Exhibit (E) https://youtu.be/4g0BIQT8ezA

Exhibit (F) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dTbfpbtkqeE&t=1s

Exhibit (G) https://youtu.be/RbsUQmoMWPc

Lien Process https://youtu.be/lGgED6b2fE4
with no door, just a curtain.
Zoom 7 PM Alberta time daily https://us02web.zoom.us/j/6945489985?pwd=UllwRmwzRUhWS2pXUWNQODNEbnhSZz09

Second half of Kirsty and Susie's presentation at Airbox.
Airbox is a freedom club just north of Newcastle, hosted every Thursday evening by Mark Steele in the restaurant area upstairs. Please come along any Thursday you're in the area or spread the word. Follow us on Facebook - https://www.facebook.com/groups/764179465116189. Speakers we've hosted include Michael O'Bernicia, David Adelman (The People's Lawyer) AJ Roberts, John Hamer, Mark Devlin and Dawn Lester and David Parker. We're hoping to have Richard Vobes pop in when he's up north shortly too.

A detailed explanation of Exhibit B of the Baron David Ward Affidavit of Truth and Statement of Fact.
This is much more than a Parking ticket!
Listen and learn!
Download the document from https://bdwaffidavit.weebly.com/uploads/1/1/0/8/11089944/exhibit_b_parking_charge.pdf
This video has been shared in good faith as it states in the video that people will learn this truth if we share the video.

Join Zoom to also connect and PDF will be uploaded

email info@constitutionalconventions.ca for PDF

Ladies and Gentlemen. It is our Duty and obligation and very great honour to make the following announcement and Decree. On this Day the 20th Day of March 2015.
It is now confirmed Formally, on and for the Record as of this Day the 20th Day of March 2015 Agreed by the State and the
Crown By way of un-rebutted Affidavit and statement of Fact and that there is a lasting tacit agreement through Acquiescence and Royal Assent by Default. That there has never been any such thing as LAW. But only the presumption of law, where a presumption is nothing of material substance and any presumption can be dismissed by a formal challenge.
It is now confirmed Formally, on and for the Record as of this Day the 20th Day of March 2015 Agreed by the State and the
Crown By way of un-rebutted Affidavit and statement of Fact and that there is a lasting tacit agreement through Acquiescence and Royal Assent by Default. That Parliament does not reign supreme and that any notion of government has no legitimacy without the Material evidence that the governed have given their consent and that there cannot be any legitimate Government For the one cannot exist in isolation without the other. Also that any action taken by way of Act or Statute of Parliament is and always has been a criminal offence of FRAUD and Malfeasance in the office at the very least.

It is now confirmed Formally, on and for the Record as of this Day the 20th Day of March 2015 Agreed by the State and the
Crown By way of un-rebutted Affidavit and statement of Fact and that there is a lasting tacit agreement through Acquiescence and Royal Assent by Default. That the office of the Judiciary is nothing more than a sub office of a commercial body and the status and standing of any Judge or Magistrate currently on this land has no greater status or standing or authority than the Manageress of McDonalds. Also it is formally recognised on and for the record that the state is a is legal embodiment by an act of registration which is of no material substance and therefore fraud by default and that the interests of the State are the interests of the State alone to the detriment of anybody and anything else including its own officers of the state. That the actions of the State are now recognised as an unconscionable and criminal fraternity capable of heinous crimes without measure.

It is now confirmed Formally, on and for the Record as of this Day the 20th Day of March 2015 Agreed by the State and the
Crown By way of un-rebutted Affidavit and statement of Fact and that there is a lasting tacit agreement through Acquiescence and Royal Assent by Default. That any and all executable Orders and Documents must carry an affixed common seal which denotes point of origin and that any and all excitable Orders and Documents must be signed by human hand and in wet ink by a named authoritative living being who takes full responsibility for the content of that formal excitable Order or document. Any deviation from this standing process where there is no affixed common seal or signature in wet ink by a living hand with authority to do so, will be recognised in perpetuity as a criminal offence.

It is now confirmed Formally, on and for the Record as of this Day the 20th Day of March 2015 Agreed by the State and the
Crown By way of un-rebutted Affidavit and statement of Fact and that there is a lasting tacit agreement through Acquiescence and
Royal Assent by Default. That all imposed Taxation and Duty is and always has been not only a criminal offence but is also

House of WardHouse of Ward

145145 Slater Street Slater Street
WarringtonWarrington
[[WA4 1DWWA4 1DW]]
13th Day of February 2015
detrimental to all the people of this planet. That from this day forward and as of the 20th Day of March 2015 and in perpetuity the enforcement of all Taxation and duty is a recognised Act of Terrorism.

It is now confirmed Formally, on and for the Record as of this Day the 20th Day of March 2015 Agreed by the State and the
Crown By way of un-rebutted Affidavit and statement of Fact and that there is a lasting tacit agreement through Acquiescence and Royal Assent by Default. That there is no such thing as money or commerce. No body gets paid or has been paid. No Body has the capability to Pay anybody or for any thing or Item without Money. All commercial instruments are nothing more than pieces of paper with marks on them. That there value is only confidence and belief where confidence and Belief is recognised as being of no material substance. The continued use of these commercial instruments is for the feeble of mind who insist on living in a make believe world of their own making. Capitalism will forever be recognised and in perpetuity as the exploitation of another for personal gain. This has always been an unconscionable and detrimental activity to the human race since Babylonian times.

It is now confirmed Formally, on and for the Record as of this Day the 20th Day of March 2015 Agreed by the State and the
Crown By way of un-rebutted Affidavit and statement of Fact and that there is a lasting tacit agreement through Acquiescence and Royal Assent by Default. There is no greater Sanctuary than the human home, be this home a castle or a wood hut or a blanket on the ground. From this day forward as of the 20th Day of March 2015 let it be known that any transgression of this sanctuary other than by invitation, that any transgression of this Sanctuary is a recognised Act of War and aggression. We have the right by the very fact that we live to protect our life and the life of our loved ones. Any transgression of this Sanctuary can be met with equal or great force with impunity. This is the long standing law and traditions of this land. So say we all.

It is now confirmed Formally, on and for the Record as of this Day the 20th Day of March 2015 Agreed by the State and the
Crown By way of un-rebutted Affidavit and statement of Fact and that there is a lasting tacit agreement through Acquiescence and Royal Assent by Default. That the practice of election by way of secret ballot is and always has been an abomination and deception with no credibility or redeeming qualities. By the very fact that this is a SECRET Ballot by any means of notarisation or recording renders the outcome obsolete by definition that is a secret Ballot. By the very fact that there is no recognised unelective or reveres process and by the very fact that there is no such word to this effect in the recognised dictionaries. Then this elective process by way of secret ballot is and always has been void ab initio. Have a nice Day. On and for the record.

Bring out the town crier and let the Bell ring. Let it be known across this planet, that from this day the 20th Day of March 2015 that the satanic Roman Empire is no more. Let it be by Decreed that this is the day and will always be the day in perpetuity when the days of austerity and tyranny end for all time to come. Let this day go down in history across this planet as a day of celebration for all time. So say we all.

Let the celebrations begin. So say we all.
http://discovertheevidence.org/downloads/affidavit-of-truth-and-statement-of-fact/

Affidavit of Truth and statement of Fact.
1. I, Baron David of the House of Ward (being the undersigned) do solemnly swear, declare and depose....

2. THAT I am competent to state the matters herein, and do take oath and swear that the matters herein are true, certain and correct as contained within this David of the House of Ward Affidavit of Truth and Fact.
3. I am herein stating the truth, the whole truth & nothing but the truth; and these truths stand as fact until another can provide the material and physical evidence to the contrary.

4. THAT I fully and completely understand, before any charges can be brought, it must be firstly proved, by presenting the material evidence to support the facts that the charges are valid and have substance that can be shown to have material physical substance as a foundation in fact.

5. From Exhibit (A). “Formal challenge to the twelve presumptions of law” A presumption is something that is presumed to be true and as a presumption then there is only a need for a formal challenge to that presumption to dismiss that presumption until the physical and material evidence can be presented to support that presumption.

6. From Exhibit (B). “Case Authority WI-05257F” David Ward V Warrington Borough Council, 30th Day of May 2013. Which is a case at court tribunal undertaken by recognised due process It is clear in the case that David Ward did not challenge the PCN or the traffic Management Act 2004 section 82. But what was challenged was the presumption of the consent of the governed. What is a mandatory requirement before the Acts and statutes can be legally acted upon is that the consent of the governed has some validity and that it can be presented as material fact before any charges can be brought. It is clear from this case authority undertaken by due process that: - (1) It is illegal to act upon any of the Acts or statutes without the consent of the governed where the governed have actually given their consent and that consent is presentable as material physical evidence of the fact that the governed have given their consent. (2) Where the Acts and statutes are acted upon then this is illegal and a criminal action by the state. (3) The criminal action is Malfeasance in a public office and fraud. (4) Were there is no consent of the governed on and for the public record then there is no governed and where there is no governed then there is no government. The one cannot exist without the other. (5) As this criminal activity is observed to be standard practice and has been for nearly 800 years, then this is clear observable evidence to the fact that LAW is a presumption and there is no such thing as LAW. See Exhibit (A) the twelve presumptions of law.

From Exhibit (C). “The Material evidence of the FACTS” It has been confirmed by the Rt. Hon. Lord Chief Justice Sir Jack Beatson FBA, on and for the record that:- (1) Whilst there is no material and physical evidence to the fact that the governed have given their consent. Then the office of the Judiciary has no greater authority than the local manageress of McDonalds. As the office of the Judiciary is a sub office of a legal embodiment by an act of registration. Where this act of registration creates nothing of physical material substance and is also fraud by default. Any objection to this observation of fact should be taken up with the Rt. Hon. Lord |Chief Justice Sir Jack Beatson FBA, Where the Rt. Hon. Lord Chief Justice Sir Jack Beatson FBA would then have to present the material and physical evidence that the governed have given their consent. As the office of the Judiciary is nothing more than a private commercial and fraudulent enterprise built upon fraud and criminal intent. This is by no stretch of the imagination a valid government by the people for the people as it is by default a private company providing a judicial service for profit and gain but where

there is also and always a conflict of interests where there is a conflict of interests between the needs of the people and the state (Company) Policy which has no obligation to the people or even the needs and wellbeing company staff. This has been confirmed by Chandran Kukathas of the London School of Economics and state office titled the Department of Government. See Exhibit (C) The Material evidence of the FACTS.

7. From Exhibit (D). It is quite clear that there is due process for the execution of legal and commercial documents. Where these processes are not followed then the very presence of a document which does not comply with these processes then the document it’s self is physical and material evidence of Malfeasance in a public office and fraud.

8. From Exhibit (E). It is very clear that all instances of Taxation and Duty, VAT is not only not necessary but only serves to deplete and subtract from the populations prosperity. Not only this but as we have shown it is also illegal and criminal to do so without the agreement or the consent of the governed. It is unconscionable and a recognised act of terrorism. The Exhibit speaks for its self.

9. From Exhibit (F). The Facts are the Facts. There is no money. The facts are the Facts. A great number of people live their lives in a world of make believe. Let us consider this. Two barristers or lawyers will and do enter into a court room and one of them will lose. For some reason which is beyond our comprehension it is a professionally accepted practice to have a 50% failure rate. In a world of reality there is some people who service the planes at the local airport between flights. If these people had a 50% failure rate then 50% of the planes would fall out of the sky. THAT IS A FACT. There is no money, just the illusion of money. There is legal tender and fiscal currency and commercial instruments and promissory Bank notes, but there is no money. It is quite clear that a lot of people live in a world of make believe and Alice in wonderland Lar Lar land. There is no money. It is not possible to pay for anything without money. You never paid for anything and you never got paid. That is a fact.

10. There is no valid, legal or lawful government on this land. See Exhibit (H) The Hypocrisy of the Secret Ballet Elective Process.

11. From Exhibit (G). My rights end where your rights begin. Your rights end where my rights begin. Rights are not granted by government or the crown and they cannot be taken away or violated by government or the crown. A Judge does not have the right to trespass on my property so the judge cannot give a Bailiff or a civil enforcement officer or a policeman the right by means of a warrant or an order because the Judge, who is a company servant by default, does not have that authority unless I agree. A public servant is a servant by default with the status of servant and a servant has no authority above the one who grants that authority. Until the Judge can present the agreement or the consent of the governed then the Judge has no authority to grant a warrant or a court order. Exhibit Case Authority WI-05257F. David Ward V Warrington Borough Council. 30th day of May 2013. Also Exhibit (C) The Material evidence of the FACTS. These are the facts. The material evidence of these facts has been provided.

12. This Affidavit of Truth and statement of Fact stands on and for the record as FACT until some other can present the material physical evidence to the contrary which is valid.

Without ill will or vexation.
For and on behalf of the Principal legal embodiment by the title of MR DAVID WARD.
For and on behalf of the attorney General of the House of Ward.
For and on behalf of Baron David of the House of Ward. All rights reserved.

Exhibit (A)

Formal challenge to the twelve presumptions of law

19th Day of January 2015

Formal challenge to the twelve presumptions of law
Definition of presumption: http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/presumption
1. An idea that is taken to be true on the basis of probability:
As a presumption, is a presumption on which must be agreed by the parties, to be true.
THEN and EQUALLY
If one party challenges the presumption to be true on the basis of probability. Then this is all that is recognised to be required to remove the presumption is a formal challenge to that presumption. The presumption then has no standing or merit in FACT.
A probability: http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/american_english/probability
1. The extent to which something is probable; the likelihood of something happening or being the case:
By definition then this is not substantive as it is only a probability of what may be and therefore has no substance in material FACT.
A State Court does not operate according to any true rule of law, but by presumptions of the law. Therefore, if presumptions presented by the private Bar Guild are not rebutted they become fact and are therefore said to stand true. There are twelve (12) key presumptions asserted by the private Bar Guilds which if unchallenged stand true being Public Record, Public Service, Public Oath, Immunity, Summons, Custody, Court of Guardians, Court of Trustees, Government as Executor/Beneficiary, Agent and Agency, Incompetence, and Guilt:

(i) The Presumption of Public Record is that any matter brought before a state Court is a matter for the public record when in fact it is presumed by the members of the private Bar Guild that the matter is a private Bar Guild business matter. Unless openly rebuked and rejected by stating clearly the matter is to be on the Public Record, the matter remains a private Bar Guild matter completely under private Bar Guild rules;

We, the undersigned formally challenge the Presumption of Public Record as it is by definition a presumption by definition and has no standing or merit in presentable or material fact.

(ii) The Presumption of Public Service is that all the members of the Private Bar Guild who have all sworn a solemn secret absolute oath to their Guild then act as public agents of the Government, or
“public officials” by making additional oaths of public office that openly and deliberately contradict

their private "superior" oaths to their own Guild. Unless openly rebuked and rejected, the claim stands that these private Bar Guild members are legitimate public servants and therefore trustees under public oath;

We, the undersigned formally challenge the Presumption of Public Service as it is by definition a presumption, by definition and has no standing or merit in presentable or material fact.

(iii) The Presumption of Public Oath is that all members of the Private Bar Guild acting in the capacity of "public officials" who have sworn a solemn public oath remain bound by that oath and therefore bound to serve honestly, impartiality and fairly as dictated by their oath. Unless openly challenged and demanded, the presumption stands that the Private Bar Guild members have functioned under their public oath in contradiction to their Guild oath. If challenged, such individuals must recues themselves as having a conflict of interest and cannot possibly stand under a public oath;

We, the undersigned formally challenge the Presumption of Public Oath as it is by definition a presumption, by definition and has no standing or merit in presentable or material fact.

(iv) The Presumption of Immunity is that key members of the Private Bar Guild in the capacity of "public officials" acting as judges, prosecutors and magistrates who have sworn a solemn public oath in good faith are immune from personal claims of injury and liability. Unless openly challenged and their oath demanded, the presumption stands that the members of the Private Bar Guild as public trustees acting as judges, prosecutors and magistrates are immune from any personal accountability for their actions;

We, the undersigned formally challenge the Presumption of Immunity as it is by definition a presumption, by definition and has no standing or merit in presentable or material fact.

(v) The Presumption of Summons is that by custom a summons unrebutted stands and therefore one who attends Court is presumed to accept a position (defendant, juror, witness) and jurisdiction of the court. Attendance to court is usually invitation by summons. Unless the summons is rejected and
returned, with a copy of the rejection filed prior to choosing to visit or attend, jurisdiction and position as the accused and the existence of "guilt" stands;

We, the undersigned formally challenge the Presumption of Summons as it is by definition a presumption, by definition and has no standing or merit in presentable or material fact.

(vi) The Presumption of Custody is that by custom a summons or warrant for arrest unrebutted stands and therefore one who attends Court is presumed to be a thing and therefore liable to be detained in custody by "Custodians". Custodians may only lawfully hold custody of property and "things" not flesh and blood soul possessing beings. Unless this presumption is openly challenged by rejection of summons and/or at court, the presumption stands you are a thing and property and therefore lawfully able to be kept in custody by custodians;

We, the undersigned formally challenge the Presumption of Custody as it is by definition a presumption, by definition and has no standing or merit in presentable or material fact.

(vii) The Presumption of Court of Guardians is the presumption that as you may be listed as a "resident" of a ward of a local government area and have listed on your "passport" the letter P, you are a pauper and therefore under the "Guardian" powers of the government and its agents as a "Court of Guardians". Unless this presumption is openly challenged to demonstrate you are both a general guardian and general executor of the matter (trust) before the court, the presumption stands and you are by default a pauper, and lunatic and therefore must obey the rules of the clerk of guardians (clerk of magistrates court);

We, the undersigned formally challenge the Presumption of Guardians as it is by definition a presumption, by definition and has no standing or merit in presentable or material fact.

(viii) The Presumption of Court of Trustees is that members of the Private Bar Guild presume you accept the office of trustee as a "public servant" and "government employee" just by attending a Roman Court, as such Courts are always for public trustees by the rules of the Guild and the Roman System. Unless this presumption is openly challenged to state you are merely visiting by "invitation" to clear up the matter and you are not a government employee or public trustee in this instance, the presumption stands and is assumed as one of the most significant reasons to claim jurisdiction - simply because you "appeared";

We, the undersigned formally challenge the Presumption of Trustees as it is by definition a presumption, by definition and has no standing or merit in presentable or material fact.

(ix) The Presumption of Government acting in two roles as Executor and Beneficiary is that for the matter at hand, the Private Bar Guild appoints the judge/magistrate in the capacity of Executor while

the Prosecutor acts in the capacity of Beneficiary of the trust for the current matter. if the accused does seek to assert their right as Executor and Beneficiary over their body, mind and soul they are acting as an Executor De Son Tort or a "false executor" challenging the "rightful" judge as Executor.

Therefore, the judge/magistrate assumes the role of "true" executor and has the right to have you arrested, detained, fined or forced into a psychiatric evaluation. Unless this presumption is openly challenged to demonstrate you are both the true general guardian and general executor of the matter (trust) before the court, questioning and challenging whether the judge or magistrate is seeking to act as Executor De Son Tort, the presumption stands and you are by default the trustee, therefore must obey the rules of the executor (judge/magistrate) or you are an Executor De Son Tort and a judge or magistrate of the private Bar guild may seek to assistance of bailiffs or sheriffs to assert their false claim against you;

We, the undersigned formally challenge the Presumption of Government acting in two roles as Executor and Beneficiary as it is by definition a presumption, by definition and has no standing or merit in presentable or material fact.

(x) The Presumption of Agent and Agency is the presumption that under contract law you have expressed
and granted authority to the Judge and Magistrate through the statement of such words as "recognize, understand" or "comprehend" and therefore agree to be bound to a contract. Therefore, unless all presumptions of agent appointment are rebutted through the use of such formal rejections as "I do not recognize you", to remove all implied or expressed appointment of the judge, prosecutor or clerk as agents, the presumption stands and you agree to be contractually bound to perform at the direction of the judge or magistrate;

We, the undersigned formally challenge the Presumption of Agent and Agency as it is by definition a presumption, by definition and has no standing or merit in presentable or material fact.

(xi) The Presumption of Incompetence is the presumption that you are at least ignorant of the law, therefore incompetent to present yourself and argue properly. Therefore, the judge/magistrate as executor has the right to have you arrested, detained, fined or forced into a psychiatric evaluation. Unless this presumption is openly challenged to the fact that you know your position as executor and beneficiary and actively rebuke and object to any contrary presumptions, then it stands by the time of pleading that you are incompetent then the judge or magistrate can do what they need to keep you obedient;

We, the undersigned formally challenge the Presumption of Incompetence as it is by definition a presumption, by definition and has no standing or merit in presentable or material fact.

(xii) The Presumption of Guilt is the presumption that as it is presumed to be a private business meeting of the Bar Guild, you are guilty whether you plead "guilty", do not plead or plead "not guilty". Therefore unless you either have previously prepared an affidavit of truth and motion to dismiss with extreme prejudice onto the public record or call a demurrer, then the presumption is you are guilty and the private Bar Guild can hold you until a bond is prepared to guarantee the amount the guild wants to profit from you.

We, the undersigned formally challenge the Presumption of Guilt as it is by definition a presumption, by definition and has no standing or merit in presentable or material fact.

We formally challenge all presumptions of law and as we have formally challenged all the twelve presumptions of law then the presumption of law formally has no substance in material FACT.
As a scholar of law and recognised R.B.A. (Recognised By Achievement) Parra Legal by the demonstrated knowledge at court tribunal. (See enclosed case authority exhibit B . David Ward and Warrington Borough council 30th Day of May 2013. Case No WI-05257F) We will recognise the rule of law, when and only when there is the material evidence of that assumed rule of law has some material evidence of substance in presentable material fact.

Until then the search for the rule of law that has some credibility in material fact: continues.

It is done.

Without ill will or vexation.
For and on behalf of the principal legal embodiment by the title of MR DAVID WARD
For and on behalf of the attorney general of the House of Ward
For and on behalf of Baron David of the House of Ward
All rights reserved

Exhibit (B)
Case Authority

Case No WI 05257F
David Ward
And
Warrington Borough Council
Date: 30th Day of May 2013

Case Overview
What the Government would like people to believe is that a procedural impropriety is an acceptable mistake which can be overlooked. But what this is, is a deliberate act of fraud and also malfeasance in a public office.
These are very serious crimes with criminal intent.
Fraud is a deliberate action to defraud where the victim of the crime is unaware having no knowledge of a situation or fact. This crime carries a penalty of 7 to 10 years incarceration and the latter, where there is multiple instances of. 63.5 million People are subject to this crime everyday as it is now commonplace and is carried out by the largest and most ruthless criminal company in this country.

This same company is also a public office with the enforcement to execute this crime which is inclusive of but not limited to:- The office of the police, The office of the Judiciary, Local government and central government. Independent Bailiff Companies which are licensed by the same company.

Malfeasance, Misfeasance and Nonfeasance is also a very severe crime with a period of incarceration of Life in prison. Malfeasance is a deliberate act, with criminal intent to defraud. Ignorance is no defence. Malfeasance has been defined by appellate courts in other jurisdictions as a wrongful act which the actor has no legal right to do; as an act for which there is no authority or warrant of law; as an act which a person ought not to do; as an act which is wholly wrongful and unlawful; as that which an officer has no authority to do and is positively wrong or unlawful; and as the unjust performance of some act which the party performing it has no legal right.

Crimes of this nature cannot go unpunished. If crime goes unpunished then the criminal will undertake the action again and again. When the criminal is rewarded for the crime by their peers and superiors it then becomes difficult to know that a crime has been committed in the first place. However, it is everyone’s obligation to be fully conversant with their actions, and the consequences of their actions in every situation.

“I was just following orders” Or “I was just doing my Job” Is no excuse.

When the full extent of these crimes is realised, it then becomes blatantly obvious that these crimes are deliberate and in full knowledge if not by the lower subordinates but definitely by the executive officers of the company.

The cost of these crimes has been estimated to be in the region of £4,037.25 Trillion over the past 35 years. This is the cost to the people of this small country which is far in excess by many times the global GDP.

The simplicity of this case is very often overlooked as it involves a simple PCN. (Penalty Charge Notice)

It is important to note here that the appellant at tribunal did not challenge the PCN, or the Traffic Management Act. But the appellant took out the very foundation to any claim made under any Act or statute of Parliament. All of which have the same legal dependency which has never been fulfilled in 800 years.

There are circa 8 million Acts and statutes. None of which can be acted upon without the legal authority to do so. To act upon these same Acts/Statutes without the legal authority to do so is Malfeasance in a public office and fraud at the very least.

This case which was undertaken at tribunal and there for recognized due process confirms this to be the facts of the matter.

Case details.
This may be a simple PCN (Penalty Charge Notice) but close observation of the details will conclusively show otherwise.
This is the PCN (Penalty Charge Notice) issued by Warrington Borough Council which clearly shows that a claim is being made under the traffic management Act 2004. There is clearly no disclosure to the fact that there is no liability to pay as the outcome will show.

The Next document and physical evidence is the notice to owner from the same Warrington borough Council which also quite clearly makes the claim that there has been a violation of the traffic Management Act 2004 section 82. On the 08th April 2013.

Along with the opportunity to make representation as to why there is no liability.

We would also point out at this point that this is an unsigned NOTICE and not a legal document. The mitigating circumstances is that there has been a procedural impropriety, which is clearly an option as this is clearly stated on the notice to owner. So it is apparent that there is a procedural impropriety in place and this is known by Warrington Borough Council otherwise this option would not be a part of the Notice to owner. We also took the opportunity to utilise a second option which confirms there is a procedural impropriety and that the order which is alleged to have been contravened in relation to the vehicle is invalid. Why else would these possibilities be on this notice to owner if there was not a procedural impropriety. We also took the opportunity to complete section 3 of the notice to owner to clarify the procedural impropriety on a separate piece of paper as advocated by
Warrington Borough Council as there was not enough space on the notice to owner provided. These presentations were as follows.

Notice to Warrington Borough Council

Warrington Borough Council,
Enquiries & Payments Office
Level 6
Market Multi Story Car Park
Academy Way
Warrington
WA1 2HN
145 Slater Street
Latchford
Warrington
WA4 1DW
16th of April 2013

Notice of opportunity to withdraw
NOTICE TO AGENT IS NOTICE TO PRINCIPAL AND NOTICE TO PRINCIPAL IS NOTICE TO AGENT APPLIES
DO NOT IGNORE THIS LETTER. IGNORING THIS LETTER WILL HAVE LEGAL CONCEQUENCES

You’re Reference: Wl01185069

Dear Sir’s
We do not know who to name as the recipient of this communication as the sender failed in his/her duty of care and did not sign the document sent to Mr David Ward at his address. The action of not signing the document sent to Mr David Ward legally means that no living person has taken legal responsibility for the content of the document on behalf of Warrington Borough Council and the document cannot be legally responded to. That very act of not signing the document renders the document void and therefore none legal and unusable in law under current legislation. Strike one. Deliberate Deception.

This Document will now be kept on file as physical presentable evidence, as it represent the criminal activities of the representatives of Warrington Borough Council whether they are aware of this transgression or not. Ignorance of the law is no defence and all of the representatives of Warrington Borough Council are now culpable under the current legislation because one individual failed to sign the document. This is a fact which must be understood. Strike two. Ignorance of current legislation.

The second big mistake on the document is that the document is a notice to owner. Under current legislation the owner of any motorised vehicle is the DVLA Swansea SA99 1BA, this means that some imbecile at Warrington Borough Council has sent a notice to owner to the registered keeper and not the official owner. Strike three. Document sent to the wrong address. We have not progressed beyond the first line yet and we are falling around on the floor in a state of hysteria at the competence levels demonstrated by the representatives of Warrington Borough Council. Mr David Ward is the official registered keeper not the owner.

The very next line refers to the Traffic Management Act 2004. Now this is where things get really interesting because the Act referred to is an act of HM Parliament and governments PLC, a recognised corporation or an all for profit business. An Act which is not law in the UK, it is not even referred to as law as it is an Act of a corporation or an all for profit business, or policy, but it is not a law. Strike four. Displays lack of understanding and competence regarding what is the difference between law and legislation.
Acts and statutes of HM Parliament and governments PLC can only be given force of law by the consent of the governed which have agreed to those Acts and statutes of HM Parliament and governments PLC. There for there is a mandatory legal requirement under current legislation that the governed must have given their consent legally which can be physically presented as fact before the Acts and statutes of HM Parliament and governments PLC can be given force of law. Not Law, Not enforceable. Sixty three and a half million people in the UK have not legally entered into those agreements in full knowledge and understanding and of their own free will, which must be kept on the public record for the Acts and statutes of HM Parliament and governments PLC to be given an action which involves force. Or force of law. The answers to the questions are in the understanding of the words used to implement acts of force. Or Law.

The next item we come to is a demand for payment. A demand for payment without a signed Bill is a direct contravention of the Bills of Exchange Act 1882. Strike Five. The Bills of exchange act of 1882 is based upon a pre existing commercial contract or agreement. See Bills of exchange act of 1882. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Vict/45-46/61.

Profiteering through deception is an act of fraud. Strike six. See Fraud Act 2006. http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/35/contents. Insisting or demanding payment without a pre existing commercial arrangement which is based on presentable fact in the form of a commercial agreement is an act of deception. Payment is a commercial activity.
You have been served LEGAL NOTICE

Mr David ward has no recognisable legal means to respond to a demand for payment without a signed bill which is based upon a pre existing commercial contract or arrangement or agreement, because there is no standing commercial contract or arrangement or agreement between Mr David Ward and Warrington Borough Council. If Mr David Ward was to willingly comply with the demand for payment without a commercially recognised bill, then Mr David Ward would have knowingly given consent and conspired to a commercially fraudulent action. This in turn would make Mr David Ward culpable under current regulation for that action. Mr David Ward will not knowingly create that liability against himself or create that culpability.

The very presentation of the document that we are responding to from Warrington Borough Council, which is also a document that will be kept on file for future presentation as physical evidence, which is presentable physical evidence and a list of transgressions against the currently held legislation.

This same document supplied by Warrington Borough Council recognises that there may be, or has been a procedural impropriety by the enforcement authority. This is the only saving grace on this document which allows for a honourable withdrawal, of the proceedings implemented illegally by the enforcement authority.

This document is representation as to the procedural impropriety by the enforcement authority and as stated at the outset of the document, gives an opportunity to withdraw due to the procedural impropriety by the enforcement authority. This process is also a matter of complying with current legislation, without which Mr David Ward would be unsuccessful if he were to pursue legal proceeding against the enforcement authority and or the members of Warrington Borough Council.

As the opportunity to withdraw has now been presented to the enforcement authority and the members of Warrington Borough Council under a procedural impropriety by the enforcement authority. Should the above mentioned not take the opportunity to make an honourable withdrawal and confirm such in writing to Mr David Ward, then Mr David Ward will be left with no other option in the future but to start legal proceedings against the enforcement authority and the members of Warrington Borough Council.

The content of this document will be in the public domain in the next few days as there is no agreement in place which is legally binding with which to prevent this.

We don’t expect to be hearing from the enforcement authority and or the members of Warrington Borough Council again unless it is in the form of a written confirmation of withdrawal of proceedings. No further correspondence will be entered into regarding this matter.

WITHOUT PREJUDICE, i.e. all natural and Unalienable Rights Reserved

For and on behalf of David Ward

Mr David Ward reserves the right to use force to defend himself, his family and his family home, which he has an unalienable right to do so.
Response to this notice should be forwarded within 10 days of receipt of this notice to the postal address known as,
145 Slater Street, Latchford, Warrington WA4 1DW
No assured value, No liability. No Errors & Omissions Accepted. All Rights Reserved.
WITHOUT RECOURSE – NON-ASSUMPSIT
You have been served LEGAL NOTICE

Warrington Borough council decided at this point not to recognise the representation given or the requirement for Warrington Borough council to present the legal and presentable “Consent of the governed” Which is mandatory for Warrington Borough council to have the correct legal authority before acting under the Acts and statutes of parliament.

It is also important to note that Warrington Borough council did not at this point contest the presentations made.

There is no effective contest to the presentations made. So the presentations made stand as fact.
Also at this point Warrington Borough council invited Mr D Ward to take Warrington Borough council to tribunal and the outcome would be legal and binding on both parties. So we took advantage of this generous offer and we also included copy of all documents up to this point as physical evidence.. This was the same process as before. Along with same presentations sent to Warrington Borough council. Along with a letter to the adjudicator as follows.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dear Adjudicator
Please forgive the informality as we have not been made aware of the name of the adjudicator.

This is in response to Warrington Borough Councils decision to reject our challenge against the PCN. Clearly the PCN has been challenged by Mr David Ward, But that challenge has not been rebutted by Warrington Borough Council, as Warrington Borough Council have only repeated the grounds under which the PCN was raised. Copy under same cover which is highlighted. Also a PCN is a penalty charge Notice and as such a notice of a penalty charge. A recognisable Bill has not been raised and presented to Mr David Ward complete with a wet ink signature.

As the presentations made by Mr David Ward where not addressed. Then the challenge made by Mr David Ward still stands and the PCN is not valid or enforceable.

Warrington Borough Council has made a demand for payment, but has not presented Mr David Ward with a Bill which is recognised under the Bills of exchange act of 1882. (Which also must have a signature in wet ink?) Warrington Borough Council cannot raise a Bill because there is no commercial arrangement in place between Warrington Borough Council and Mr David Ward under which to raise a Bill.

For Mr David Ward to respond by paying without a bill signed in wet ink, then that would be a direct violation of the bills of exchange act of 1882. In addition to this as there is no commercial arrangement and Bill presented, then this would also be a contravention of the fraud act of 2006. Mr David Ward is not in the habit of knowingly conspiring to fraud. This action would also create a liability against Mr David Ward.

Warrington Borough has also listed in their “rejection of presentations” the Traffic Management Act 2004 – s78 in support of their claim. The Acts and statutes of HM Parliaments and Governments PLC can only be given force of law by the consent of the governed. What is mandatory in the first instance is the consent of the governed which is also presentable as fact. As the consent of the governed is not presentable as fact, then the Acts and statutes of HM Parliaments and Governments PLC cannot be acted upon in any way which would cause loss to the governed. What is mandatory in this instance is the presentable agreements of sixty three and a half million governed to be in place before an Act or Statute can be acted upon. We fail to see how this is in support of the PCN presented to Mr David Ward.

We fail to see how listing the Traffic Management Act 2004 – s78 supports the claims made by Warrington Borough Council in any way other than to create obfuscation in attempt to confuse the mind.

There are no agreements in place between the 22000 residents of the Warrington Borough and Warrington Borough Council, which can be presented as fact complete with signatures in wet ink, which can be presented to support the claim of Warrington Borough Council in support of a demand for payment. Without violating the Bill’s of exchange Act of 1882 and the fraud act of 2006 section 2 Fraud by false representation see: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/35/section/2. And section 4 part 2 A person may be regarded as having abused his position even though his conduct consisted of an omission rather than an act. See: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2006/35/section/4. An omission in the form of an omitted signature would constitute an act of fraud under section 4 section 2 of the fraud act of 2006.

So let us summarise regarding the grounds for appeal with reference to the form provided for appeal.

• (A) The alleged contravention did not occur. No contravention has occurred, because there are no agreements between the 220,000 members of the Warrington Borough and Warrington Borough Council, which can be legally presented as fact in support of the alleged contravention.
• (C) There has been a procedural impropriety by the council. The council did not respond to the challenge made by Mr
David Ward in a manner which would make any sense or would constitute a rebuttal to the challenge. Warrington Borough Council are advocating to Mr David Ward in their demand for payment without a bill presented, a direct contravention of the Bill’s of exchange Act 1882 and the Fraud Act 2006.
• (D)The traffic Order which is alleged to have been contravened in relation to the vehicle concerned is invalid. The traffic order (that’s a new approach, can’t find a listing for that.) is illegal because there is no agreement between the parties which is legally presentable as fact and signed in wet ink. You have got to love that word legal, legally blind, legal consent. All presentable as fact complete with a signature in wet ink, and without the signature in wet ink on a legal document in the form of an agreement, then it is not legal or is illegal and therefore not lawful. You have to love the word legal.

Need we continue? It is obvious at this point that there is no body at Warrington Borough Council that is capable of understanding the challenge made by Mr David Ward, or capable of responding, there for an Adjudicator becomes necessary.

There is only one outcome to this tribunal, where the adjudicator is a recognised lawyer and is independent of the council.

• A challenge has been made and has not been effectively rebutted by Warrington Borough Council.
• The action of demanding payment without the presentation of a lawful legal Bill which is subject to The Bill’s of exchange Act of 1882 and signed in wet ink cannot be responded to in the manner expected by Warrington Borough Council, without a second transgression against the fraud act of 2006.
• Regardless of the policies or legislation of Warrington Borough Council or HM Parliaments and Governments PLC, any commercial activity would constitute an act of fraud without the commercial agreements in place beforehand.
• The continued activates where demands for payment are made without observing the bills of exchange act 1882 and a recognised bill is presented complete with wet ink signature is a continued procedural impropriety by the council and the members of Warrington Borough Council are culpable in law for their actions.

There can only be one outcome to this tribunal which is acceptable under current legislation and that outcome will be found in favour of the appellant Mr David Ward and not in favour of continued transgressions against current legislation by Warrington Borough Council.

In the document provided outlining procedure to make presentations in this tribunal process, there is a section concerning Costs in favour of the appellant, where a party has behaved wholly unreasonable.

We have taken a considerable amount of time and energy responding to Warrington Borough Council when making representation and in preparation for this tribunal. It is not without reason that a consideration could be expected. This would also serve to enforce the decision made by the adjudicator in this tribunal. If the adjudicator is truly an independent and an honourable individual then a consideration is in order.

Mr David Ward also notes that as this Tribunal is informal then it is also recognised as not legally binding regardless of the findings of the Adjudicator.

We would also like a response in writing from the adjudicator to relay the outcome of this tribunal conveying the reasons for the adjudicator’s decisions.

For and on behalf of Mr David Ward

WITHOUT PREJUDICE, i.e. all natural and Unalienable Rights Reserved

Mr David Ward reserves the right to use force to defend himself, his family and his family home, which is his unalienable right to do so.
No assured value, No liability. Errors & Omissions Accepted. All Rights Reserved.
WITHOUT RECOURSE – NON-ASSUMPSIT

There are addition changes in international law that the adjudicator may not be aware of at this time. Please consider the following which also has some bearing on this tribunal.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The results from the tribunal are as follows. Decision Cover Letter (Appellant) 1249270-1.pdf

Clearly this is a tribunal and as such recognised due process which is legal and binding on both Parties. In addition to this there was the adjudicator’s decision.

Adjudicator Decision 1249267.pdf

“Appeal allowed on the ground that the council does not contest the appeal” “The council has decided not to contest this appeal”
Warrington Borough Council cannot contest the appeal. There is a mandatory requirement for Warrington Borough council to present as physical evidence and factual foundation for the claim, which is the legally signed on and for the public record
“Consent of the Governed” This is the legal authority that Warrington Borough council would have to present as physical evidence and foundation for there claim, for the claim to have any legal substance in presentable fact.
He who makes the claim must also provide the foundation and the physical proof of that claim other wise the moon could be made from cream cheese just because Warrington Borough council claim this is so.
Without this physical evidence then the claim is fraudulent. Hence a crime is committed by Warrington Borough council and that crime is fraud not a procedural impropriety or a mistake. Also, there is a second crime. This second crime is Malfeasance in a public office. A clear and intended action to extort funds where there is no legal authority to do so.
“The adjudicator has therefore directed that the appeal is allowed without consideration of any evidence or the merits of the case”
Clearly there are merits of the case which have been presented here.

The appellant is not liable to pay. Case No WI 05257F Dated 30th day of May 2013.
There is also confirmation of this fact from Warrington Borough council and signed in wet ink by an officer of the state Scott Clarke Dated 29th of May 2013.

“Due to the unanticipated shortage of parking services staff. Warrington Borough Council has no alternative except to exercise our discretion and cancel the above Penalty Charge Notice”
This is a very interesting choice of words which is obfuscatory in nature. Warrington Borough Council will never be able to provide staff which can provide the legal consent of the governed because for the past 800 years the governed have never once been so much as asked to provide the legal consent of the governed on and for the public record. Warrington Borough council or it’s parking services staff cannot provide something that does not exist and is of no physical substance for the foundation to the claim. “Warrington Borough Council has no alternative except to exercise our discretion”
As there is no legal consent of the governed then Warrington Borough Council does not have any authority or discretion to exercise. This also applies to HM Parliaments and Government PLC, the parent company.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The ramifications to this case authority are huge and not all apparent at first glance. Consider the following.

A licence is a permission to undertake an action that would otherwise be illegal. HP Parliaments and Governments PLC clearly do not have the legal Authority to issue any form of licence without the legal and physically presentable signed in wet ink consent of the governed. Also. HM. Parliaments and Governments PLC do not have the legal authority to determine that an action is illegal without the legal and signed consent of the governed physically on and for the public record. There is no physical record of the fact. 63.5 million People have not signed the consent of the governed.

63.5 million People have never once been asked and have never once signed the consent of the governed and as the office of Parliament is only a four year office then there must be this signed legal document every four years on and for the public record. All forms of Tax, VAT, Duty, Council tax etc is illegal and constitutes fraud and malfeasance in a public office without this legal dependency being fulfilled.

The enforcement of these Acts/Statutes, by the Police, the local authority, the Judiciary, and government licensed Bailiffs is also illegal and constitutes malfeasance without this legal authority to do so.

It is a known fact and this has been documented by Chartered accountants that the populace pays all manner of tax to the tune of 85% in the £. Sometimes where fuel is concerned this is a much as 92% in the pound. The argument has been made that it is necessary to pay tax to pay for the cervices that we need such as police, ambulance and so on. Then it can also be argued that these people who provide these services should not pay any form of Tax. They should live a tax free life. This is not in evidence. In fact the contrary is true.

It would also be accurate to argue that the 15% that the populace gets to keep actually pays for all the services inclusive. People provide services not government. This would be an accurate assessment of the available facts. There is no valid reason to pay tax at all and the cost of living would drop by 85% at a minimum.

Do the math.

All the public officials are also victims of this crime. Including the Police, Ambulance, Paramedic, Teachers and so on. In fact there is not an instance where there is not a victim of this crime.
The ramifications span well beyond the content of this case authority undertaken by recognised due process at tribunal.

Exhibit (C)

The Material evidence of the FACTS

19th Day of January 2015

It is on and for the public record by way of published records at http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/wpcontent/uploads/JCO/Documents/Speeches/beatsonj040608.pdf

That at the NOTTINGHAM TRENT UNIVERSITY 16 APRIL 2008 the HON. SIR JACK BEATSON FBA spoke the following words. (Supplement 1 Provided)

“The 2003 changes and the new responsibilities given to the Lord Chief Justice necessitated a certain amount of reexamination of the relationship between the judiciary and the two stronger branches of the state --- the executive and the legislature.“

It is clear from the HON. SIR JACK BEATSON FBA spoke words that the office of the Judiciary is a sub office of the state. Therefore there will always be a conflict of interests between any private individual who is not a state company employee, AND there is and will always be a conflict of interests Where a Judge or a magistrate is acting in the office of the judiciary, where the office of the judiciary is a sub office of the state!

What is a State?

See (Supplement 2) from the London School of Economics

“1) The state should not be viewed as a form of association that subsumes or subordinates all others. 2) The state is not an entity whose interests map closely onto the interests of the groups and individuals that fall under its authority, but has interests of its own. 3) The state is, to some extent at least, an alien power; though it is of human construction, it is not within human control. 4) The state is not there to secure peoples deepest interests, and it does not serve to unify them, reconcile them with one another, bring their competing interests into harmony, or realize any important good such as justice, freedom, or peace. While its power might be harnessed from time to time, that will serve the interests of some not the interests of all. 5) The state is thus an institution through which individuals and groups seek to exercise power (though it is not the only such institution); but it is also an institution that exercises power over individuals and groups. 6) The state is, ultimately, an abstraction, for it has no existence as a material object, is not confined to a particular space, and is not embodied in any person or collection of persons.”

Also:-

“The question now is: what does it mean to say that a state is a corporate entity? The state is a corporation in the way that a people or a public cannot be. “

A number of things are clear from this definition of state from the London School of Economics.
1. A state is a corporate entity by an act of registration. A legal embodiment by an act of registration.
2. A state has no obligations to anything other than the state and to the exclusion of anything or anybody else.
3. A state is nothing of material substance but only a construct of the mind.

All that is created by the same process is equal in status and standing to anything else that is created by the same process. There is a peer relationship of equals that are separate legal embodiments.
Consider the graphic representation for those that are feeble of mind.
Legal embodiments by an act of registration are created as equals by default and have a peer relationship by default

( Principal Legal embodiment )
Any other legal person created by the same process
It is quite clear from the graphical representation shown here and it should be quite obvious to even the most feeble mind that.

When a Judge, any Judge or Magistrate is sat in there subordinate office to a principle legal embodiment then that Judge or Magistrate is
not a fit and proper person to sit in Judgement
of any other PRINCIPAL Legal embodiment.
And has no authority

| ( Principal Legal embodiment ) ( Principal Legal embodiment )
HM Parliaments & Governments PLC. = McDonalds
=
| |
Office of the Executive
= Office of the Executive
| |

CEO or Chief executive officer = CEO or Chief executive officer
| |
The legislature = Company policy
| |
Office of the Judiciary = Company policy enforcement
| |
Lord Chief Justice
= Policy Enforcement Officer
| |
QC Judge = Any Company officer
|
Circuit Judge
|
District Judge
|
Magistrate

If there is any disagreement to the above stated FACT. Then they should take this up with the Rt. Hon Lord Chief Justice Sir Jack Beatson FBA.

The Facts Are the Facts. This is the material evidence of the FACTS.

From the Supplement 2, Definition of State from the London School of economics.

“The question now is: what does it mean to say that a state is a corporate entity? The state is a corporation in the way that a people or a public cannot be. “

A Corporation is a legal embodiment by an act of registration.......
To be legal then there has to be a meeting of the minds and an agreement between two parties. Legal is by agreement.

So by agreement:-

1. The state should not be viewed as a form of association that subsumes or subordinates all others.
2. The state is not an entity whose interests map closely onto the interests of the groups and individuals that fall under its authority, but has interests of its own.
3. The state is, to some extent at least, an alien power; though it is of human construction, it is not within human control.
4. The state is not there to secure peoples deepest interests, and it does not serve to unify them, reconcile them with one another, bring their competing interests into harmony, or realize any important good such as justice, freedom, or peace. While its power might be harnessed from time to time, that will serve the interests of some not the interests of all.
5. The state is thus an institution through which individuals and groups seek to exercise power (though it is not the only such institution); but it is also an institution that exercises power over individuals and groups.
6. The state is, ultimately, an abstraction, for it has no existence as a material object, is not confined to a particular space, and is not embodied in any person or collection of persons.

If a carpenter were to register a chair he had made. There is the act of registration, then the certificate of registration where two parties have agreed that there is a chair...

The point being that there is a chair and this chair is of material substance.

A legal embodiment by an act of registration where there is nothing of material substance created, is nothing more than a figment of the mind that has agreed to create nothing of material substance.

This very legal agreement is an act of fraud by deception.

The state is, ultimately, an abstraction, for it has no existence as a material object, is not confined to a
particular space, and is not embodied in any person or collection of persons.

The State which is a legal embodiment is of no material substance.

How is it possible that:-
• A legal embodiment by an act of registration which is of no material substance by default, or
• A State, which is of no material substance by default, or
• A corporation, which is of no material substance by default

How is it possible that something of no material substance in fact or which is a fiction of the mind can:-

• Have a life of its own, or
• Claimed to have Authority over another, or
• Can be held responsible, or
• Have a liability, or
• holds property , or
• Have any form of powers or
• Be in any way or have any form of legitimacy in existence, or • Undertake an act of force.

It is quite clear that, Chandran Kukathas, Department of Government and the London School of Economics, have had great difficulty defining what a state is. Why are we not surprised at this? It is not possible to define or give definition to or to legitimise something which is of no material substance and is a figment of the imagination.

Fraud however has been clearly defined as a criminal act with full knowledge and intent to engage in criminal behaviour for the personal gain of oneself or another, to the expense of another party.

To bring about by an act of force, support of this same fraud and criminal intent is also clearly recognised as act of terrorism.

So it is quite clear and has been confirmed by the Rt. Hon Lord Chief Justice Sir Jack Beatson FBA, who has achieved the highest status within the office of the Judiciary as Lord Chief Justice that.

This Land by the name of England and the (United Kingdom (Private corporation)) which extends to the common wealth is run definitively by terrorists who maintain their status by fraud and deception to the

Show less