PCNs are illegal. Why?

It is also Unlawful and constitutes Conspiring to Fraud to pay a PCN. Why?

What is this all about then? Well What I am about to show, beyond all reasonable doubt is just that. PCNs are illegal and a direct act of fraud which contravenes the fraud act of 2006. The presentation of a PCN and a demand for payment is illegal; it also contravenes the Bills of exchange Act 1882. Hopefully by the end of this presentation all will become clear. This is a technical dissection of this process. If it is too much trouble to digest then go back to sleep and pay the thief. Let us start with the PCN.

Well we are really in trouble now and it is going to cost us a forfeit of 70 if we dont pay 35 in the next 14 days, so lets quickly save 35 by sending Warrington Borough Council 35. This is the usual response by most people because they are to busy

All rights reserved

Page 1 of 28

running around like headless chickens trying to make ends meet in todays world. I do not me an to be disrespectful this is just an observation of truth. The reason we are all running around like headless chickens, I hope will become obvious by the end of this representation and a solution become apparent. Lets look at this from multiple angles as to what exactly this is. First of all let us look at side one from a legal point of view. This is an offer of contract from Warrington Borough Council; it is a legal document which has been legalised by the wet ink signature of the Civil Enforcement Officer 084. Notice there is no name, to protect the legal identity of the Civil Enforcement Officer 084. It is also clearly stated at the top that, this is a Penalty Charge Notice or a Notice of a penalty Charge not the Penalty Charge itself or the offer of contract to which the charge applies. Yes we have now entered the world of legal speak, to which none of us are accustomed but it is entrapment as we, or you have not yet excepted the offer of contract where one previously does not exist. Then the document proceeds to quote the traffic management Act of 2004, this we will discredit later. All scary stuff or what? Further details recorded include the Road fund Licence Number and the Road fund Licence Expiry Date which is recorded as 0213. Which would implement a date of Feb 2013? Which mean, according to this legal document, the road fund had expired before the date of contravention, which was 05/03/2013. Date of contravention This is completely inaccurate as the road fu nd licence does not expire until the 02/2014. The Civil Enforcement Officer 084 has recorded incorrect information which might have rendered this process completely null and void if I had spotted it earlier, but we have just noticed this as we are compiling this information. Se-la-vie. Then we come to another interesting part which simply says that the Civil Enforcement Officer 084 who had reasonable reason to believe that the following parking contravention had occurred. Well what is this then is it a contravention of the Traffic Management Act 2004 or is it a parking contravention. Why should I care as to the beliefs of the Civil Enforcement Officer 084. Has a contravention occurred or not, does the Civil Enforcement Officer 084 actually know, or is he a complete imbecile after all it is his signature that has created this legal document and he got the date wrong for the road fund licence expiry date. We are only half way down the fist side and there is so much legal BS and deception here, it is beyond comprehension that Warrington Borough Council would produce such a document to entrap through deception the unsuspecting member of the public. This Civil Enforcement Officer 084 has just created a liability against himself if he did but know! We just love ripping into government documents and totally discrediting the content. We digress let us continue. A penalty charge is now payable Well we will see about that, we have not entered into an agreement yet and we have an opportunity to challenge but the document leads you into believing that you have an obligation to pay and there is a time limit of 28 days in which the payment MUST be paid. The penalty charge can be reduced by 50% if I hurry up and put my hand in my pocket and pay. If the penalty charge is 70 then how come it can suddenly be reduced by50% if we pay in 14 days. Is this penalty charge, a real charge or not. Or is somebody making this up as they go along. All will become clear as we go. Payment closes the case What case? Is it a red case or a blue case? Are we being led to believe there is an open legal case, is this more psychological deception to say that if we dont pay then there is actually a legal case still open? We will see. OK lets see what is on the other side. Instructions for payment well this take a full half of the second side, plenty of ways to pay and another Payment closes the case this creates more enfaces that the case should be closed; moor brain washing going on here then. There is no legal open case to answer to; this will become more obvious as we continue as there are no presentable facts. Remember that one, presentable facts, thats quite an important point. Whats next, a good bit, OK? If you believe that the penalty should not be paid To be consistent should that not say. If you believe that the penalty charge notice should not be paid. Call me pedantic but this is a legal document but it shows no consistency, What is the penalty, am I to assume that it is still the penalty charge notice. The standards in professionalism are appalling haw much ink have they saved; they want a forfeit of 70 we could use a little professional etiquette here and word the document correctly. This is outrageous and unprofessional. What about this word believe a belief is not a presentable fact, it is not quantifiable it has not precedence or place in a legal document; it just should not be there at all. And wish to challenge the PCN. Whats this, use of an acronym, are we to assume that PCN stands for penalty charge notice where has this been qualified previously in the document, it hasnt. What follows are options to respond if you wish to challenge the (Penalty Charge Notice) here after the PCN. The options are Phone, email and letter. We would not bother with the phone, ask yourself who is going to be on the other end of the call and will they be competent to take the call, when you start quoting Acts of parliament, Statute legal definitions etc, you will be wasting your time. We would not recommend email because the email address is that of a parking management company not Warrington Borough Council. We did undertake this processes and we found an email address for (Warrington Borough Council) here after WBC, the outcome was futile and non responsive, dont waste your time. We did not bother to write to WBC as we knew that this would also be blatantly ignored. Details of the councils policy and approach to challenge can be found at www . We really do not care what the police are at WBC or any other council, we are not employed by WBC and there for we are under any obligation to observe there polices legal or otherwise. If you are not employed by a particular company then you are under no obligation to know, read acknowledge,

All rights reserved

Page 2 of 28

understand any of their policies. How many companies are there in the UK, in what way are you obligated to observe all their policies. They are having a laugh. We also chose to ignore their 28 day period as specified on the front of this notice. We, you are under no obligation to observe their requirement, you, we do not have an agreement to observe. Just who do they think they are? Well let me qualify this for you WBC are a registered business at Companies house, and it has a legal standing which is equal to but not greater than that of McDonalds. Where is the requirement that you, have to observe the policies of McDonalds? You dont, get used to it, it is a fact. WBC is no different. As you can see from the next insert we did not write to WBC in their 28 day period, or if we did then WBC completely and blatantly ignored our communication. No surprise there, WBC are under no obligation to respond to you communications. They do not have a contract with you, if they respond to your communication it is because they want some money of you and for no other reason. The date on the Notice to owner is 08/04/2013.

All rights reserved

Page 3 of 28

OK first problem, Notice to owner We need a clear understanding of this before we can continue. We have read somewhere that there are 33 million vehicles currently on the road in the UK. How accurate that number is, who knows but it is going to be a lot, its a big number. None of these vehicles are owned by their respective keepers, or businesses. Legislation was passed quite a number of years ago now, where the title of these vehicles was passed to the DVLA Swansea. You do not own your car, motor cycle, truck, van, and lorry. Its a fact, get used to it. Ask yourself a question. Does the DVLA Swansea have the legal ri ghts to remove your vehicle from the road and crush it because it has no current road fund licence? The answer is yes, you have seen the adverts on TV, and you may even know somebody who lost their vehicles. DVLA Swansea has no rights to remove your vehicle and sell it at auction because they have no involvement in any financial part of the transaction but they can remove their vehicle and have it crushed because they have legal title to the vehicle. There is a legal method that you can utilise to regain title of your vehicle but we are not covering this in the content of this representation. In this representation we are only dealing with the PCN. Ok onwards. Notice to owner. Clearly Mr David ward is not the owner of this vehicle, there for WBC has sent this notice to owner to the incorrect address. We did cover this in our representations but first of all we are going to disseminate this document a little more before we get to that part. This document like the PCN is littered with obfuscatory information which is designed to mislead you in to complying with WBCs wishes that you send them money, money that WBC has no legal claim on. This notice to owner has been issued to you by WBC First question, who is Mr you, we dont know a Mr you, do you know a Mr you. Can you see it, we dont know who Mr you is and neither does WBC. You are the registered owner/keeper/hirer So which one is Mr you WBC the owner, the keeper or the hirer, apparently WBC dont know or have not got a Scooby Do which is correct. Obfusc atory Information need we say more. This is BS idiots wrote this document. You the owner/keeper/hirer are liable for the penalty charge notice Hang on a minuet not even Mr you is liable for the PCN the person who brought the PCN is the Civil Enforcement Officer 084 who created the liability in the first place, certainly not Mr you or Mr David Ward or the DVLA Swansea. This is obfuscatory BS and legal nonsense. Mr you does not become liable until Mr you accepts that liability freely or by admission of guilt. That is the only time that Mr you becomes liable for the PCN. This document is so full of BS. You may make representation to WBC We may, may we, you can bet your sweet life we are going to make representations to WBC on behalf of Mr you and WBC cannot stop us. Then there is more 28day rubbish but we will observe this by choice as WBC will proceed to court proceedings, now we could deal with the court proceedings but this is just adding complications and we just dont need to go there, so we will comply with the 28 days. In fact we did not wait the 28 days, lets just get on with it. Next comes more BS Note: if you blare, blare, the penalty charge will increase by 50% to 105 Come on guys do you know what this fixed penalty charge is or not, is it 35, 70, or 105 make up your minds. Is it WBC who are complete imbeciles or is it that they think we are complete imbeciles. Which is it. Next If you do not pay the full amount shown on the charge certificate, Here we go again poor Mr You and yes WBC have finally acknowledged that there is need of a charge certificate, whoopee we have not seen or been presented with a charge certificate because it has ether not been created yet or it does not exist. Dadarrrr. There cannot be a charge certificate because there has been no presentation of fact from WBC. This is so much BS you still will not believe. We said we would get to the presentable fact and we will we promise. The next page of the notice to owner is the how to make representation pages. We include them here for clarity but yes we are going to write an essay on a separate sheet. Not going to destroy this at all we think we have made our point. If it is your vehicle then tick the three boxes ticked, do not tick any other boxes that would not make sense to do so. Box one because the alleged contravention did not occur. More on this later. There has been a procedural impropriety. Yes there has. The order is invalid in relation to any vehicle.

Next.

All rights reserved

Page 4 of 28

Section two is ownership information, now we all know that we dont own the vehicle but to start muddying the water is just going to make things difficult, just put a line through this to block it out of the equation and move on to part three. This is where we begin to fight back and kick some backside; yes we have to be bold and strong here, if you are not going to be bold and strong at all stages then give up now and pay the thief. Go lie down again and go back to sleep this is no place for wimps.

Hope we have made this big enough to read and you can read our scrawl sign it date it, and yes as the legal person none of this freeman on the land stuff. All respect for these guys but this is not the place its just a PCN. The legal personality is a very powerful individual. Every bit as powerful as the human personality and possibly more. If you think that HM Parliaments and government PLC are big and you are small then thats just brain washed BS, the legal personality is equal to and every bit as big as any, and we do mean any corporation no matter how big you imagine them to be. Mr Legal personality, yes the straw man is just as big and just as powerful. Get your head around that one because it is true. Now the address we are actually sending this to in Warrington is as is stated on the bottom of the form. It is a little office on the sixth floor of a multi storey car park and the person inside is the car park attendant. What a complete waste of time and effort this is sending all our work to a complete dumpty, but we have to get to the next stage where the cool stuff happens. We will

All rights reserved

Page 5 of 28

include the representations here for your entertainment as we did in the true event, then we can get to the tribunal where the cool stuff happens. This is exactly what I sent hones.

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
Youre Reference: Wl01185069 Dear Sirs? We do not know who to name as the r ecipient 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 not legal and therefore illegal and unlawful 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 register 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. Display of lack of understanding and competence regarding what is the diferance 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.

All rights reserved

Page 6 of 28

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 peruse 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 dont 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. For and on behalf of Mr Ward

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

Mr David Ward reserves the right to use force to defend himself, his family and his family home, which is his inhalable right to do so.
Response to this notice should be forwarded within 7 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 LEGAL NOTICE

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.

All rights reserved

Page 7 of 28

NOTICE OF REMOVAL OF ANY IMPLIED RIGHT OF ACCESS

DATE 16TH of April 2012 DAVID ANTHONY WARD hereby gives notice that the implied right of access to the property known as 145 Slater Street, Latchford, Warrington WA41DW And all surrounding areas. Along with all associated property including, but not limited to, any private conveyance in respect of the following: Any employee, or agent or principal or any other person acting on behalf of the Warrington Borough Council Any employee or agent or principal or any other person acting as third party AGENTS for/or on behalf of the Warrington Borough Council. Please also take notice that the land known as England is a Common Law jurisdiction and any transgression of this notice will be dealt with according to Constitutional Law. I David of the Ward family claim indefeasible Right to self-defence, and to protect the Ward family home and the contents therein. And nothing less than a court ruling by a jury of my pears, will prevent me from defending my life, my family home and all that is held within. For and on behalf of Mr David Anthony Ward

WITHOUT PREJUDICE, i.e. all natural and Inalienable Rights Reserved Mr David Ward reserves the right to use force to defend himself, his family and his family home, which is his inhalable right to do so. Response to this notice should be forwarded within 7 days of receipt of this notice to the postal address known as, 145 Slater Street, Latchford, Warrington WA4 1DW
No assured value, No liability. Errors & Omissions Accepted. All Rights Reserved. WITHOUT RECOURSE NON-ASSUMPSIT

You have been served LEGAL NOTICE

New regulations are now in place as of 23rd October 2012 Under UCC Doc# 2012114776 which supersedes all preceding regulations internationally. The enforcement authority and or the members of Warrington Borough Council may not be aware of this. The following is for your advisement.

All rights reserved

Page 8 of 28

Courtesy Notice
Respondent (private details): Proponent (private details):

the members of Warrington Borough Council c/o alleged Warrington Borough Council Enquiries & Payments Office Level 6 Market Multi Story Car Park Academy Way Warrington WA1 2HN
Date: Re: Service: Monday 13th of April 2013

David Anthony Ward 145 Slater Street Latchford Warrington WA4 1DW 13TH April 2013

Unlimited personal liability arising from foreclosure of all banks, all corporate governments and all other corporations by UCC filings of the One Peoples Public Trust. (OPPT) References No Wl01185069

DULY VERIFIED DECLARATION OF FACTS:

With regard to operating or perpetuating any and all private money systems, issuing, collection, legal enforcement systems and any and all SLAVERY SYSTEMS of and against the One People* specifically the { damage of Proponent's measurable energy } of {David Anthony Ward}, by { the members of Warrington Borough Council } with address of {WARRINGTON BOROUGH COUNCIL, Enquiries & Payments Office, Level 6, Market Multi Story Car Park, Academy Way, Warrington; WA1 2HN.} hereafter Respondent. (*One People defined in UCC# 2012079290) I am the sole lawful and legal REGISTERED owner, custodian, and trustee of my BE'ing, any and all creations there from, and property thereof, UCC Doc. File No.'s 2012127810, 2012127854, 2012127907, 2012127914, restated and incorporated here by reference as if set forth in full, original notice of DECLARATION OF FACTS by public registration made and given by the One People's Public Trust, hereafter OPPT. I have and do knowingly, willingly, and intentionally adopt, reconfirm, and ratify said DECLARATION OF FACTS as my own duly verified due DECLARATION OF FACTS, nunc pro tunc praeterea preterea, unrebutted as a matter of law, as matter of fact, and as a matter of public policy, hereafter Proponent.

DULY VERIFIED NOTICE:

Proponent duly gives and makes notice to Respondent that Proponent DOES NOT CONSENT to any unlawful and illegal devaluing, diminishing, abrogating, subjugating, subordinating, usurping, invading, violating or theft of Proponent's duly secured BE'ing, any and all creations there from, and property thereof. Respondent is duly ordered to CEASE AND DESIST any and all said unlawful and illegal actions against Proponent effective immediately. Proponent duly makes and gives you due notice that Respondent is lawfully and legally responsible and liable, in principal and triple damages under common law, for any and all unlawful and illegal actions against Proponent by Respondent causing and resulting in any and all damage to Proponent, inclusive of physical harm, physical detention, property seizure, property damage, financial damage, or any other damage of Proponent's measurable energy. Respondents attention is directed to the DECLARATION OF FACTS, specifically the foreclosure in late 2012, of the worlds corporations operating under the guise of the people's governments, banks and all other corporations for cause of treason against and the damage of the one people of this planet without their knowing, willing and intentional consent, specifically:

Government Charters Cancelled:

(Refer: DECLARATION OF FACTS: UCC Doc # 2012127914 Nov 28 2012)

...That any and all CHARTERS, inclusive of The United States Federal Government, UNITED STATES, STATE of ...", Inclusive of any and all abbreviations, idem sonans, or other legal, financial or managerial forms, any and all international equivalents, inclusive of any and all OFFICES, inclusive of any and all OFFICERS, PUBLIC SERVANTS, EXECUTIVE ORDERS, TREATIES, CONSTITUTIONS, MEMBERSHIP, ACTS, and any and all other contracts and agreements made there under and thereby, are now, void, worthless, or otherwise cancelled, unrebutted; ...

Bank Charters Cancelled:

(Refer: TRUE BILL: WA DC UCC Doc# 2012114776 Oct 24 2012)

Declared and ordered irrevocably cancelled; any and all charters for Bank of International Settlements (BIS) members thereto and thereof including all beneficiaries, including all certain states of body owning, operating, aiding and abetting private money systems, issuing, collection, legal enforcement systems, operating SLAVERY SYSTEMS commandeering lawful value by unlawful representation...

All rights reserved

Page 9 of 28

Said DECLARATION OF FACTS, identified herein, restated here, remains unrebutted and stands as Absolute Truth in law , commerce and BE'ing, registered in public record, universal law ordinance, for all of the world to rely upon. See https://gov.propertyinfo.com/DC-Washington/ (registration required), or www.peoplestrust1776.org. Accordingly, Respondent is advised that they now act in the capacity of an individual entity, without a corporate safety net and with full personal liability for EVERY ACTION THEY TAKE under common law protected and preserved by public policy UCC 1-103, and Universal law, the governing law laid out in the OPPT UCC filings. (Refer: WA DC UCC Ref Doc # 2012113593) Should Respondent choose to act on behalf of a foreclosed entity, causing Proponent any damage as herein stated, Respondent, in their individual and unlimited capacity will be held absolutely liable. Such actions may result in lawful remedy being brought against Respondent, pursuant to public policy UCC 1-305, including but not limited to UCC Commercial Bill (Lien), against Respondents assets. Further, Respondents attention is drawn to DECLARATION AND ORDER: UCC Doc # 2012096074, Sept. 09 2012, duly reconfirmed and ratified by COMMERCIAL BILL UCC Doc. No. 2012114586 and TRUE BILL UCC Doc. No.2012 114776 which states: Volunteers within the military ... to arrest and take into custody any and all certain states of body, their agents, officers, and other actors, regardless of domicil by choice, owning, operating, aiding and abetting private money systems, issuing, collection, legal enforcement systems, operating SLAVERY SYSTEMS against the several states citizens, ..., and Repossess all private money systems, tracking, transferring, issuing, collection, legal enforcement systems operating SLAVERY SYSTEMS... ...all beings of the creator shall forthwith assist all Public Servants identified herein, to implement, protect, preserve and complete this ORDER by all means of the creator and created as stated herein, by, with, and under your full personal liability... Should Respondent cease and desist in any and all damaging actions against Proponent, actions brought against Respondents assets shall be averted. Respondent is cautioned of its compounding and accumulating liability through instructing, directing, or conspiring with colleagues in pursuing damaging actions against Proponent. Should colleagues so instructed detrimentally damage Proponent, they will be made jointly and severally liable, through Principal Agent Doctrine, preserved by public policy UCC 1103, and it is now your commercial and moral responsibility to inform them. It is your responsibility to investigate your liability and any potential future liability that is created by your knowing, willing and intentional free will choice to damage Proponent. Proponent has duly made and given an additional courtesy notice to Respondent, original notice is a matter of record made and given by OPPT. Should Respondent choose to interact with Proponent privately and individually beyond this date, Proponents terms and conditions are offered for Respondents acceptance, wherein the method of acceptance is clearly defined. Respondents attention is also drawn to positive benefits that the OPPT filings offer every person. Foreclosed banks cancels debt. Cancelled "government" charters eliminates unlawful taxes, statutory law, all courts etc. New governance is here. See page 5 for more information. Take due notice and be governed accordingly.

Proponent: ______________________________________

Date: __________________________________________

You have been served LEGAL NOTICE

All rights reserved

Page 10 of 28

Terms & Conditions

Respondent (private details):

Terms & Conditions Reference No: 70066722X

Proponent (private details):

the members of Warrington Borough Council c/o alleged Warrington Borough Council Enquiries & Payments Office Level 6 Market Multi Story Car Park Academy Way Warrington
WA1 2HN

David Anthony Ward 145 Slater Street Latchford Warrington WA4 1DW
13TH April 2013

Parties:
These Terms & Conditions are applicable to the above named parties, also including but not limited to colleagues acting for or on behalf of the named parties:

Applicability
Whereas all Banks and Government have been duly foreclosed upon (ref: UCC Doc # 2012127914 https://gov.propertyinfo.com/DC-Washington/), Respondent therefore acts in the capacity of a private individual. In the absence of government statutes and bank or other corporate contracts, the only instrument that will compel performance between private individuals is a lawfully binding contract.

Respondents Responsibilities
It is Respondents onus and responsibility to provide proof of claim in the form of a Sufficient Verified Response of a lawfu lly binding contract, presumed or claimed to exist between the parties. Additionally any claimed contract must possess all elements of a lawfully binding contract including but not limited to; offer, acceptance, true reliant statements of fact, intent and consideration, and that these elements have been knowingly, willing and intentionally disclosed to Proponent. Absent a lawfully binding contract, this document notices a contractual good faith offer of terms and conditions between the parties which upon acceptance will form a lawfully binding contract between the parties. It is Respondents responsibility to inform and advise any colleagues acting for or on behalf of Respondent of these terms and conditions.

See Schedule A for contractual obligations arising from acceptance of these terms. Sufficient Verified Response
Owing to the seriousness of the matter, only a response that meets the following criteria qualifies as a Sufficient Verified Response. Response must: 1. be duly registered verified and sworn documentation of standing, authority, value, and rebuttal of every point with specificity and particularity; 2. exhibit written delegation of authority signed by the Respondent if response is by another; 3. use words defined within common dictionaries (e.g. Webster's or Oxford). No correspondence will be entered into by telephone. A facsimile and digital scan of this document shall be legally binding as an original.

Method of Rejection
No contract shall be considered entered where Respondent does not do or perform any of the actions listed in Schedule A. No action, no contract.

Method of Acceptance
A lawfully binding contract is knowingly entered into by Respondent or any of their agents doing or performing any of the actions listed in Schedule A. Action is acceptance.

Terms of Acceptance
Acceptance is with Respondents consent to the following: 1. Agreement with all terms and conditions stipulated herein; 2. Unreserved acceptance of charges payable stipulated in Schedule A; 3. Respondent irrevocably and unconditionally waives any and all rights of objection, immunities or defenses.

All rights reserved

Page 11 of 28

Schedule A
Currency: *Troy ounces of 99.9% pure silver. Silver has been selected because the former corporations that issued currencies have been foreclosed. Collection fees: Collection fees for any unpaid invoices are additional.

Charges
Item 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 Description Any claim absent a lawfully binding contract between the parties Enforcing or attempting to enforce any prior issued instrument from a foreclosed entity Enforcing or attempting to enforce a judgment from a Court Engaging any 3rd Party service absent a lawfully binding contract between the parties Breach of privacy including but not limited to each or any form, notice or letter addressed to anyone other than the Proponent at the reply address noted on each presentment Unlawful physical or non-physical threat including but not limited to a threat of prosecution, restraint, bodily harm or legal action Unlawful physical harm including but not limited to restraining Proponent or inflicting bodily harm. Unlawful repairable Damage to the Proponents private property or goods instigated by or caused by the Respondent Unlawful destruction of Proponents private property or goods including but not limited to irreparable damage Unlawful claim of ownership of Proponents private property or goods including but not limited to sale or auction
Action against another, not party to these terms and conditions, absent a lawfully binding contract between the parties, causing harm to Proponent, including but not limited to damage of Proponent's measurable energy Each telephone call made by Respondent in the pursuit of any claim absent a lawfully binding contract between the parties

*Rate (in ounces of Silver) 2,000 oz. 2,000 oz. 5,000 oz. 10,000 oz. 500* oz. 4,000* oz. 10,000* oz. 5,000* oz. 10,000* oz. 5,000* oz. 1,000* oz.

12 13 14 15 16

1,000* oz. 1,000* oz. per calendar day 500* oz. per calendar day 1,000 oz. per calendar day 1,000* oz. per calendar day

Seizing Proponents private property or goods as surety for payment of any claim absent a lawfully binding contract between the parties Each day claim is made against Proponent's private property or goods, including but not limited to registering a lien, absent a lawfully binding contract. Unlawful arrest or detainment per calendar day or part thereof. Operating or perpetuating any and all private money systems, issuing, collection, legal enforcement systems, operating SLAVERY SYSTEMS of and against the One People*. *The One People as defined in UCC 2012079290

Note: Without a lawfully binding contract in place, any fee, charge or invoice levied on an incremental basis including but not limited to containing any interest component, will be treated as though a separate incidence. Units of increment will determine number of incidences invoiced.

Changes to Terms and Conditions

Terms and conditions may change at any time. Respondent will be offered new terms that will supersede and cancel any previously issued terms and conditions.

All rights reserved

Page 12 of 28

The One Peoples Public Trust (OPPT)

The OPPT documents that were disclosed on December 25th have swept across the land like wildfire. It has become a grassroots movement taken on by hundreds of thousands of people across the world (soon to be millions) who all want the same thing; They want freedom from the old enslavement system and a choice to live their lives according to their own free will and to exercise their own free will choices. The current systems have failed and they are being held up only by artificial means and the last bit of energy that was already in the pipes before the foreclosure. The OPPT documents open the door to the possibility of allowing the people to free themselves from these failed systems and co-create a new system, according to our desires and free will choices. Where each human is acting for the highest good of all and where we can all thrive.

What is the One Peoples Public Trust?

The One Peoples Public Trust itself consists of every person on the planet, the planet itself and the Crea tor. The One Peoples Trust trustees are a group of very skilled individuals including legal professionals who, in conjunction with a positive group inside the financial system, carried out extensive investigations into the massive fraud and theft taking place at the time. After exercising extreme prudence, the OPPT concluded that the corporations operating under the guise of the people's government and financial systems were committing treason against the people of this planet without the people's knowing, willing and intentional consent. Through a series of REGISTRATIONS of the BE'ing of the one people of this planet, the land, airs, seas and every creation thereof and there from, all unlawful and illegal claims of ownership and actions of management and control by the principals, agents and beneficiaries were lawfully and legally duly cancelled and foreclosed upon by their own free will choice not to remedy the damage they had caused. The final report from the investigation is to be found here http://www.scribd.com/doc/118067922/PARADIGM-DOCUMENT-FROM-THE-TREASURY-FINANCE-AG-INDUSTRIESTRASSE21-CH-6055ALPNACH-DORF-SWITZERLAND OPPT guards, protects and preserves all BE'ing, inclusive of gold and silver previously misused and abused by the banking system. The one people of this planet, and all BE'ings guarded, preserved and protected in Trust, individually and equally, are the only lawful and legal issuers of any legitimate REPRESENTATION of value, especially currency. The alleged main stream banking system no longer has asset backing. The trustees have returned and allocated a significant amount value to each human, a value that could pay the debt of the average person many, many times over. This is unnecessary of course. All debt has been eliminated by the very fact that the banks chose not to provide verified documentation that a loan had ever been made, as a matter of law, as a matter of fact, and as a matter of public policy, and the banks therefore chose by their free will choice to foreclose on themselves. Many significant changes have come about including that we now live in a world of unlimited responsibility and liability that may bother you, but when you have a huge asset to call upon in need, that fact is mitigated. At the same time, the trustees invoked a replacement system of governance called Creators Value Asset Centers or CVACs. The CVAC system is the antithesis of the corrupt, externally controlled looting devices that were termed Governments. They are in fact, in commerce, in law, preserved by public policy, REGISTERED as wholly owned, with full title, value and rights, co-jointly and equally by each of the one people on this planet, expressly warranted to be entirely transparent entities that exist only to serve the people of this planet by providing any systems of assistance the people of this planet deem necessary or desired, and these systems are prevented from impinging on any aspect of the free will of any human. The CVAC system is presented as a planet wide, completely interconnected network structure run only by bonded public servants who act with full responsibility and in full liability at all times. Every human on the planet is served by CVAC and its BRANCHES. Each former nation on the planet has one CVAC BRANCH reserved for it. This incredible paradigm shift is just beginning to unfold right now. Why is day to day life still the same? The old system is currently in denial and although there are negotiations going on continuously at the highest level, the news of the existence of the Trust is deliberately being kept out of the main stream media by the alleged corporate system to deceive the one people of this planet as it always has done. The impending implementation of funded CVACs will correct this situation. Yet this document is in front of you and YOU now know what is really happening. You are now part of the paradigm shift. This document is a lawful and legal challenge to approaches by individuals acting in ignorance of the new system or knowingly, willingly, and intentionally attempting to usurp, violate, invade, abrogate, subjugate, or insubordinate any BE'ing on this planet. It is also an invitation to participate transparently, with integrity, in the greatest period of change ever seen on this planet. In the months to come our world is going to change beyond recognition. Our true history will be revealed along with the truth of the system we have been living under. Much technology that has been withheld from us will be released including power production, health and transport. War, disease and pollution will be a thing of the past. Each of us needs to do our own research. Patience is required while we develop our own understanding of what is occurring and choose what we do with this information only as it resonates within each of us. There are many groups around the world that have formed to develop strategies on how best to use the OPPT filings to help free the people and many who are working to push the information out to the people as the CVAC system is prepared for rollout. Just Google One Peoples Public Trust, OPPT or go to www.peoplestrust1776.org.

Thank you.

You have been served LEGAL NOTICE

Page 13 of 28

You have been served LEGAL NOTICE

Page 14 of 28

You have been served LEGAL NOTICE

Page 15 of 28

You have been served LEGAL NOTICE

Page 16 of 28

We did honest, this is what we sent, and its true including the OPPT courtesy notice. This just gets us to the BS WBC rejection of representation which all councils will send out automatically as there is no body there who can understand all this legislation stuff. Do not give in at this stage we are nearly there. This is the Councils rejection of representation response document and it is a complete joke.

In what way have the council given any form of sensible response to the representations given which has addressed or negated the representation submitted by us. These people are making decisions which have an effect upon your life and wellbeing as your duly elected councillors, and to be quite brutally honest if you added all the brain cells together you just might add this up to a village half idiot. What Kind of response is this to the representation given and how douse this negate those

Page 17 of 28

representations. Well this rejection response achieves absolutely nothing. It is no more than a stuck record player and restates the original BS charge which was completely and clinically destroyed in the representations. If you think we are paying 105 for this kind of moronic idiocy, then you are living in lar-lar land. Whose name is on the top of this document? Professor Steven Broomhead. That begs the question professor of what? And out of which lucky dip bag did he get his professorship. This man is the interim chief executive of WBC. Interim? Does that not mean that this company is trading illegally without a real officially appointed Chief Executive Officer, Isnt that against the law. Who ells are there? David Boyer Assistant Director, This man isnt even a director he is a directors assistant, an assistant and an unofficially temp CEO. We wonder if the serious fraud squad would be interested in this, but then again why should they be, they are on the payroll of these criminals. Enough pointing and laughing at the village idiot brigade. Onwards to page two.

There was so much obfuscatory BS on this page; quite frankly we got very board. Lets have a look If the penalty charge is not paid or challenged The PCN was challenged and the challenge was unrebutted. The document continues only covering one part of the or statement, if this was a computer program on which we rely upon then this program would crash and burn, everybody dead. Legal documentation covers all eventualities just like computer programs. We live in a world where things have to work and work as intended otherwise planes fall out of the sky, trains will fall off tracks and crash, Power stations blow

Page 18 of 28

up etc: Why is it that WBC documentation can fall short of all standards expected of everybody ells. Need we say more, yes would you take ownership of this document and add your signature at the end, undersigning it with your integrity, claiming that the contents can be relied upon. Our response to that would be, only if you had a gun to my head. The notice to owner clearly states:-Who cares we have covered that one, more BS. The traffic management act says the owner is presumed to be the registered keeper. Presumption is not presentable fact, presumption is roomer or hearsay, it cannot be relied upon or presented as fact. Give me a break. Here is a good one. The Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) in Swansea have stated that you were the owner/ registered keeper of the vehicle on the date the Penalty Charge Notice was issued. Therefore you were correctly sent the notice to owner. OK, where is the statement of fact/truth, made under penalty of perjury which states that Mr, Mrs, Miss, and Master you were the owner/registered keeper of the vehicle on the date the PCN was issued, and signed in wet ink by a representative of the DVLA. Was this stamen of truth/fact under the same cover as this document? No it was not. We would dearly love to see such a document, as it would create such a liability for the DVLA. What a complete load of unsubstantiated BS. Who writes this rubbish? OK lets make an official offer of contract or agreement. To all Mr, Miss, Mrs, Master, or Dr yous. Whilst all of you are under no obligation to do so. Please can you send Mr David Ward any amount of money you wish, to the address on this communication, in the form of your choosing e.g. (Cheque, Postal order, Cash rapped in cardboard, or even by direct transfer to his PayPal account 140561@tiscali.co.uk.) In return Mr David ward is under no obligation to undertake any action what so ever, under the terms of this contract/agreement, but will willingly accept any donations or gifts of money without prejudice. Who in their right mind would do such a thing????????? Come on there is no contract or agreement between you, us, anybody or any council, where there is any obligation to pay for anything without that contract or agreement. Read the representations again, pleas. This is also true with HM Parliaments and governments PLC and HM customs and excise, United Utilities, the BBC etc the list goes on. All these criminals take illegally 85% of your earnings and give you nothing in return. Give me a break. Give yourself a break. We challenge anybody to proof otherwise supported by presentable facts. Not rumours, not hearsay, not the man down the pub said, not general understanding of the populace. Presentable fact, under penalty of perjury. Contract or agreement. With a wet ink signature. Lets keep things legal if you dont mind. If it is not legal then it is illegal by default!!! OK next lie. The adjudicator will consider your appeal and make a final decision which is binding on both parties Absolute rubbish, the tribunal documentation says not. The adjudicators final decision is not binding, we will cover this when we get there. Failure to pay or lodge an appeal will result in a charge certificate being issued We have now reached the appeal stage and we still have not been presented with a negotiable asset or true bill or charge certificate, or any method of payment for this PCN which does not violate the bills of exchange act of 1882. Amazing, next document.

First question. Why did we not receive these two pictures, which the Civil Enforcement Officer 084 clearly took at the scene, with the notice to owner document, instead of with the rejection of representation document after representations have been made? Could this be to further enforce a state of fear, being now presented with the rejection of representations, are we now

Page 19 of 28

more pliable and ready to comply with the wishes of WBC and just pay the PCN. What is the point of sending these two pictures with the rejection of representations? We will come back to this point of observation. What do these two pictures present as presentable fact? Let us consider this without making any assumptions. Does the picture clearly show whether or not the driver is present in the car? No. Could it be that the vehicle has simply manoeuvred into this place to allow oncoming traffic to pass? That would be an assumption. What does this picture show which is incriminating evidence without making assumptions. Well clearly the vehicle is stationary or would appear to be so as this is a still picture. Ups there we go again another assumption. Does this picture clearly show that the vehicle is parked in a disabled parking place? No it does not. The picture shows clearly that the vehicle is in the vicinity of a marking on the ground which reads sabled There is no word in the Oxford dictionary which is spelt sabled. That is all that the picture shows. We are not going to comment on the second picture. What we will ask for is the statement made under penalty of perjury by the Civil Enforcement Officer 084, confirming that the vehicle concerned was parked in a disabled parking place and that statement of truth must have a wet ink signature which validates the statement in honour. Was this statement of truth/fact present in the document bundle with the two pictures? No it was not. This is what is known as presentable evidence which is incriminating enough to create a liability. But only if there was a prearranged agreement that only disabled vehicles could park in this place. Question? When did Mr you make this agreement, where that agreement is physically presentable as fact. Sixty three and a half million people have not entered into that agreement. You, I, or any of the Sixty three and a half million people in this country have not entered into that agreement, if we had then it would be physically presentable as fact. There would also be full disclosure in that agreement in the form of terms and conditions. When did you sign that agreement? Then and only then, would WBC be able to enforce that agreement and make the appropriate charge, which has been previously agreed upon in the full disclosure of the terms and conditions. These two photographs present absolutely nothing of consequence. Do not make assumptions, assumptions can only get you into trouble when another smart arse points out the obvious and makes a counter claim. Need we say moor. So what was the point of presenting these photographs when the representations have been rejected and not with the notice to owner? To place the individual in a state of fear, gain their compliance so that they will pay the money. It is obvious. It is a psychological tactic. It is also an act of terrorism. I wonder if Terresa May of homeland securities would be interested in acts of terrorism, possibly not she is on the same payroll. This might be considered a strong view point, but a viewpoint is respective. That does not invalidate the point of view. Gaining someones compliance by placing them in a state of fear for any reason is an act of terrorism. So what was the point of including these two pictures with the rejection of representation and not including them with the notice to owner? You decide; your view point is valid; who ells walking this planet can say that your view point is not valid. Next Document is the last which was included in the rejection of representation pack, it is method of payment sheet. Who cares what this says, we dont. We are going to tribunal to make more representations, otherwise known as legal arguments. In short we are going to take a lawyer to school or at least let him/here know that they cannot pull the wool over our eyes and that his/here decision is not legally binding in any way shape or form

Onward to the tribunal process.

Page 20 of 28

Whats all this then? Sorry this did not scan very well, we think they do this on purpose.

The traffic penalty tribunal are independent from the council. They only get paid when you stuff up the tribunal process and it costs you money. They might also get paid by the council when you win your tribunal but then the council will have to pay. We think the second outcome is cool. Dont stuff up this process it will cost you more money.

Page 21 of 28

This is a well crafted document, without much if any obfuscatory information or BS. First thing to note here is the adjudicator is a lawyer, a lawyer is a civilian who knows about law and legal, but he/she is still just a civilian no different than us. The second thing to note is the time limit of 28 days. If this person has not got your representations in front of him/her then they will decide in favour of the council and you will have to pay. Well maybe not but it will make things more complicated as the council will proceed to court. If you have decided on this path then do not delay.

Important thing to note here is that the hearing is informal and you dont need a lawyer to represent you. He/she is a lawye r a lawyer is a civilian this is informal, the outcome of which is not legally binding. You are not entering into an agreement here; you cannot be bound by that agreement. How many ways can we emphasise this to get the point across without shouting this out with a 10 kilowatt PA system. It is stated on the document that this is informal. Three methods as before, on the phone, in person, or by letter. A word of advice, do not under any circumstances entertain the phone or in person. This person drives a nice car, has a nice home, and earns lots of money by taking it from you. If you engage them vocally unless you are a fully trained lawyer with 10 years experience. This person will talk you into making an admission and decide in favour of the council. Dont do it you will loos. If you restrict yourself to post you already have a 60% bet ter

Page 22 of 28

chance at success. But thats not going to happen here because we are going to beat the lawyer at his game. Make no mistake here this is a game to them. The game is to take your money. We have to make an apology here as we filled in the form sent it with our representations and did not scan it. The part we posted was the same as this. Not going to destroy this at all we think we have made our point. If it is your vehicle then tick the three boxes ticked, do not tick any other boxes that would not make sense to do so. Box one because the alleged contravention did not occur. More on this later. There has been a procedural impropriety. Yes there has. The order is invalid in relation to any vehicle.

Next.

Same as before dont change anything. Sign and date it as before and dont forget to include the representations on a separate sheet. We also included a copy of the WBC formal notice of rejection of representations which made WBC look like complete imbeciles. What follows is the representations we sent to the adjudicator/lawyer.

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 representations 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 representations 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 content 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 Bills 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.

Page 23 of 28

So let us summate 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 22000 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 Bills 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 (thats a new approach, cant 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 there for 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 Bills of exchange Ac t 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 representations 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 adjudicators decisions. For and on behalf of Mr David Ward

WITHOUT PREJUDICE, i.e. all natural and Inalienable Rights Reserved Mr David Ward reserves the right to use force to defend himself, his family and his family home, which is his inhalable 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.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------We also include an OPPT courtesy notice and documentation the same as WBC Yes we did and without prejudice. Yes we kicked layers ass, read it again and again. We boxed the layer into a corner which he/she could not escape from and we used legislation to do it. So what happened next? Next we received an email from north@trafficpenaltytribunal.gov.uk containing two attachments PDF.

Page 24 of 28

Decision Cover Letter (Appellant) 1249270-1.pdf

Now Kerry Conway is a naughty girl because she says here that The Adjudicators Decision is final and binding on both you and the council. OK, which council Kerry it does not say here and who is Mr You Here we go again with the obfuscatory BS and we have already established that this is an informal tribunal. Also note that it does not matter what Kerry has included in this document because Kerry has not signed here document in wet ink and the content cannot be relied upon. Why is it that we are always ranting on about signing a document in wet ink? Ask yourself a question. Did you sign a contract of employment? Did you sign a consent form when you went to the dentist? Did you sign a consent form when you went to the doctors? When did you ever formalise something without a signature in wet ink? This is what makes things legal and a contract that has not been signed in wet ink is just a piece of paper with marks on it!!!!!!!!! Has Kerry signed this document in wet ink and sent it to me? No she has not. The content of this communication cannot be relied upon in honour. It is just a piece of paper with marks on it. Correction its a PDF file sent by email. BS, BS, BS. It is informal. OK, what ells did we get, another PDF. Adjudicator Decision 1249267.pdf What does this have to say?

Page 25 of 28

Well whats all this then? Appeal allowed on the ground that the council does not contest the appeal What BS is this? Does this mean that if the council contested the appeal that the appeal would not be al lowed????? Thats what it says. Where is it written signed and agreed that WBC has the rite or authority to disallow my appeal. I demand that somebody send me a copy whilst I confirm that my signature is upon it making that agreement. Have you picked yourself up of the floor laughing yet? OMG these people have their heads that far up their own backsides that they are smiling at me through their own teeth.

Page 26 of 28

The council has decided not to contest the appeal We want know who it is that dresses the council in the morning and sends them off to spend time in the office having meetings about when they are going to have a meeting. The council have no choice but to listen to the recommendation of the lawyer as the council have no idea what so ever as to what law or legal is. When did you last recommend a good film to watch? The adjudicator has there for directed that the appeal is allowed without consideration of any evidence or the merits of the case What colour was the case? Blue or Red? The adjudicator has there for directed the traffic that the appeal be allowed. The adjudicator is a civilian who steals from you. OK lets have a think about some of these scary words. Adjudicator, definition of?

An adjudicator is someone who presides, judges and arbitrates during a formal dispute. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adjudicator. This just might be correct but this was an informal tribunal (informal). So it is just some civilian than is asked to make a choice. Was the case red or blue?
Tribunal, as this is informal then its a one person committee meeting Without consideration of any evidence or the merits of the case You can bet your sweet life that the lawyer does not want to give consideration to the evidence!!! (Because there was no evidence to consider) or the merits of the case; would those merits somehow any chance be the representations which prove that none of the acts and statutes (or polices) of HM Parliaments and governments PLC can be acted upon without the consent of the governed, maybe, yes. Can we understand how or why the Lawyer would not want to give any consideration to such things in writing? Could that be by any chance that it would be completely illegal without the consent of the governed being presentable as fact. The answers are all there if you know what to look for. So what exactly is this thing? Well it is informal and not signed in wet ink and can be sent by email as a PDF as it is all

BULL SHIT
Let us not forget that the Civil Enforcement Officer 084 who formalised a legal document by applying his signature in wet ink.

Page 27 of 28

Now this is something we should have expected but did not and yes it came as quite a surprise when we opened it and discovered that it did contain a signature in wet ink signed by Scot Clark as representative of WBC. This cancels the PCN legally. Yes this is the real proof, physical presentable fact, signed in wet ink, can be relied upon in honour, that all PCNs are illegal. _______________________________________________________________________

Final analyses
Is this physical presentable fact? Yes it is. What is the fact? It is a fact that all PCNs are not only illegal but is al so a violation against the Bills of exchange act of 1882 when a demand for payment is made without a negotiable asset or a true bill being presented with a wet ink signature. It is also a violation of the Bills of exchange act 1882 if a bill or (negotiable asset) is raised and pre sented without that Bill having a commercial agreement or contract to support that Bill. To make a demand for money without the presentation of a bill is an act of fraud contrary to the fraud act 2006. To pay a demand for money under these circumstances is actually conspiring to fraud, and a contravention of the fraud act 2006. This also proves beyond any reasonable doubt that, (and here is the really cool part) None of the legislation, polices, Acts and statutes of HM Parliaments and Government PLC can b e acted upon without the physical presentable as fact, consent of the governed. None of the legislation, polices, Acts and statutes of HM Parliaments and Government PLC can be given force of law without the physical presentable as fact, consent of the governed. If any of the legislation, polices, Acts and statutes of HM Parliaments and Government PLC, polices or legislation of local government is acted upon, and that action should cause an individual lose in the form money or lose any other way, without the physical presentable as fact, consent of the governed. Then such an action is an act of fraud under the fraud Act 2006. The penalty for fraud currently stands at seven to ten years in prison, the latter where multiple instances occur. All instances of taxation be direct tax, vat, duty on fuel, Beer, wine, tobacco, PAYE, road fund licence, all licences, council tax, Pole Tax etc has always been illegal and constitutes a violation against the fraud act of 2006 and the Bills of exchange Act 1882. Every member of the public, all 63.5 million are now entitled to redress under the same legislation and are entitled to the return of these funds with an 8% compound interest. All the official departments of government central and local, HM customs and excise, DVLA, BBC, United Utilities etc are all culpable under the same legislation. Mr David Ward will on receipt of a return stamped self addressed, send to the requestor, a sworn stamen of truth under penalty of perjury that the letter received from Warrington Borough Council carries the signature in wet ink of the representative of Scot Clark and there for can be relied upon in honour.

This is what we have all been waiting for, this is now just a academic administrative paper process, Lets all stop paying th e thief, or go back to sleep and keep paying the thief, it now a matter of personal choice.

IT IS DONE

Page 28 of 28