Case authority - PNC / Council didn't get a look in!

This could be be turned into a tool against most "legal" situations and corporations/authorities.
Although it it is some years old, so are many of the Acts. i am sure some this could be condensed into a precise weapon against each arm of the system...what do you think?
ps. actual document at bottom

Case Authority
David Ward
v
Warrington Borough Council
Case no. WI 05257F
Date: 30 th Day of May 2013
Page 1 of 14Case Overview
What the Government would like people to believe, is that a procedural impropriety is an acceptable mistake that can be overlooked.
But the truth is, that it is a deliberate act of ‘fraud and malfeasance’ in a public office.
These are very serious crimes with criminal ‘intent’.
The definition of 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 caries a penalty of 7 to 10 years incarceration and the latter; where there are multiple instances.
63.5 million people are subject to this crime everyday on a multitude level, 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 and Debt Collection
companies are also ‘licensed’ by the same company.
Malfeasance, misfeasance and nonfeasance are also very severe crimes with a period of incarceration of life in prison.
Malfeasance is a deliberate act, with criminal intent to defraud and ignorance is no defence. Malfeasance that has been defined by
appellate courts in other jurisdictions as:
A wrongful act which the actor has no legal right to do
An act for which there is no authority or warrant of law
An act, which a person ought not to do
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 crimes 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 defiantly by the Executive Officers of the company.
The cost to us to victims 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...the Penalty Charge Notice.
It is important to note here that the Appellant at a tribunal did not challenge the PCN, or the Traffic Management Act 2004. What the
appellant did, was to remove from jurisdiction the very foundation to any claim made under any Act or Statute of Parliament.
All of which have the same legal dependency that has never been fulfilled in nearly 800 years.
There are in excess of 8 million Act’s and Statutes in this country alone and it is estimated that around 8 thousand pieces of legislation
are written and implemented every year.
None of which can be acted upon without the legal authority to do so. To act upon these same Act’s and Statutes without the legal
authority to do so is malfeasance in a Public office and fraud at the very least.
This case was undertaken at a tribunal and therefore became a valid recognised due process that undeniably confirms this to be the
facts of the matter.
Page 2 of 14Case details
This may appear to the reader to be a simple Penalty Charge Notice (PCN), but closer observation of the details will
conclusively show otherwise.
This is the PCN issued by Warrington Borough Council, which clearly shows a claim is being made against the
Appellant’s motorised road vehicle 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.
Page 3 of 14The next document and physical evidence is the ‘Notice to Owner’ dated 8 th April 2013 from the same Warrington
Borough Council, which also quite clearly makes the claim that on 5 th March 2013 there had been a violation of the
Traffic Management Act 2004 section 82.
Page 4 of 14Along with the opportunity to make representation as to why there is no liability.
Please note that this is an unsigned NOTICE and therefore it is not a legal document.
The mitigating circumstances are that there has been a procedural impropriety, which is clearly an option as this is clearly stated on
the Notice to Owner (3 rd box from the bottom).
So it is apparent that there is a deliberate procedural impropriety in place with the full knowledge of 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, that confirms that there is a procedural impropriety and that the order, which is
alleged to have been contravened in relation to the vehicle is invalid (2 nd box from the bottom). If not, then why would these
possibilities be on this Notice to Owner if a procedural impropriety were not a possibility. We also took the opportunity to complete
Page 5 of 14section 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 are as follows.
Notice to Warrington Borough Council
145 Slater Street
Latchford
Warrington
WA4 1DW
16 th of April 2013
Warrington Borough Council,
Enquiries & Payments Office
Level 6
Market Multi Story Car Park
Academy Way
Warrington
WA1 2HN
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
Your reference: Wl01185069
Dear Sirs,
We do not know to whom 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 couldn’t be legally responded to. That very act of not signing the document renders the document ‘void’ and therefore non-
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
representative’s of Warrington Borough Council are now culpable under the current legislation because one individual failed to sign
the document. This is a fact that must be understood. Strike two. Ignorance of current legislation.
The third grave error 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 events become really interesting because the Act
referred to is actually an Act of HM Parliament and Governments PLC, a recognised Unlimited 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 by those who have agreed to Act’s and Statutes of HM Parliament and Governments PLC. Therefore, 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.
Page 6 of 14Not Law, Not enforceable. 63.5 million people in the UK have not legally entered into those agreements (8 million plus) in full
knowledge and understanding and of their own free will. An agreement 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 an act 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, simply because; No standing commercial contract or arrangement or
agreement between Mr David Ward and Warrington Borough Council exists. 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 him 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 that is legally binding
of which to prevent this.
Mr David Ward does not 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
Page 7 of 14For 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 a mandatory duty 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.
Page 8 of 14There is no effective contest to the presentations made, so the presentations previously made in the correspondence stand as fact.
At this point Warrington Borough Council invited Mr David Ward to take Warrington Borough Council to a tribunal and the outcome
would be legal and binding on both parties. So we took advantage of this generous offer and we included copy of all documents up to
this point as physical evidence .
This was the same process as before, with same presentations sent to Warrington Borough Council and accompanied by 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 to whom I address this letter.
This is in response to Warrington Borough Council’s decision to reject my challenge against the PCN. Clearly the PCN has been
challenged by Mr David Ward, however, that challenge has never 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 that 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 completed and finalised 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 a
true bill can be raised.
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 Act’s 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 that is also presentable as fact. As the consent of the
governed is not presentable as fact, then the Act’s and statutes of HM Parliaments and Governments PLC cannot be acted upon in any
way that would cause loss to the governed. What is mandatory in this instance is the presentable agreements of 63.5 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 220,000 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 s2 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 s4, s2 of the Fraud Act 2006.
So let us summarise regarding the grounds for appeal with reference to the form provided for appeal.
1: 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.
Page 9 of 142: 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 in 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.
3. The Traffic Order that is alleged to have been contravened in relation to the vehicle concerned is invalid. The Traffic
Order (that’s a new approach, unfortunately it is not possible to 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-one 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 legislation or policies 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 activities 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.
Warrington Borough Council will find in favour of the Appellant Mr David Ward; and not in favour of continued transgressions
against current legislation that outcome.
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
a 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
Page 10 of 14There are addition changes in international law that the Adjudicator may not be aware of at this time. Please consider the following
that will 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
Page 11 of 14Page 12 of 14‘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 their claim to allow this 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 otherwise 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 that have been presented here.
The Appellant is not liable to pay. Case No WI 05257F Dated 30 th 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 29 th of May 2013.
Page 13 of 14‘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 that are obfuscator 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 their 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.
_________________________________________________________________________________________
Summary
It is apparent that the ramifications of this case authority are huge and not transparent 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 term of 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 Act’s and Statutes, by the Police, the Local Authority, the Judiciary, and Government licensed Bailiffs are
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 pay all manner of tax to the tune of 85%
in the £. Sometimes where fuel is concerned this is a much as 92% in the £.
The argument has been made that it is necessary to pay tax to pay for the services that we need such as Police, Ambulance Services
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 actually gets to keep what they pay 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 maths.
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.
Page 14 of 14

itheman, I agree with the overall sentiment of the document but from experience its NOT that we are incorrect with any proper assertions we make, its simply we are ignored completely.

Someone I am in contact with helped me with my speeding ticket, IMO I did nothing wrong in my submissions to the court about thier authority to prosecute. But they did anyway, completly ignored (which is what as of about midsummer 2019 they are doing) with non of thier paper work containing ANY signitures for liability of statments made/authority claimed, was found guilty & had extorted close to £1k.

The 1 I am in contact with has also their own motoring problems now going on close to 2 years & no resolution, completely ignored. At the mo' I don't know how to get any remedy in court with such a bent corrupt system we are dealing with. Remember the village idiot is always correct. May be challenge jurisdiction? Try to form a common law court with your own jurors? With CPR13 if you don't turn up the plaintiff wins by default, if you turn up you are deemed to agree to the proceedings, its a no win for us the people, so how to get remedy?

To digress slightly, the CV19 sh*te we are in I think most that come here will agree its a SCAM, may be, just may be there is an internal war going on with ??? & its a last ditch attempt for overall control, these people do get a real hard on for power. As for what comes out of our situation well who knows (apart from those that master (control) it)?

Is everything rigged? Of course - against us the people.

LS

i know, its all very frustrating mate.
They can't ignore us, not if we do it right, something must be missing...maybe
1. challenge the affidavit the message boy gives?
2. Rebut their claim / instrument?

i think it is quite powerful
1. that the judge has no power for contempt of court in a civil court (can't find where i read that)
2. No consent has been given and no proof.
3. They are all corporations...does anyone have the company and Dunns numbers? i can't find the list
4. the Maxim 2882. The voice of the people is the voice of God.

All that without the B'cert issue thrown in

Again in part, wake the sheepies up!! Boiling above down, should produce documents to rebut any claim - esp if the masses start to insist on it.
Freedom is a choice and belief based on fact is, well, powerful.

i'll hear back from the court re my request to set aside. It'll either need defending or appealing. And i'm for trying anything, within reason!!