When writing ✍🏼‘Notice’s: 📝

Maxims of Law: The Maxim; “maxime ita dicta quia maxima ejus dignitas et certissima auctoritas, atque quod maxim omnibus probetur” ~ “A maxim is so called because it’s dignity is chiefest, and its authority most certain, and because universally approved by all”.

It is prudent and astute of the Author of any ‘Notice’, to apply a liberal sprinkling throughout the ‘Notice’ being written with poignant ‘Legal Maxim’s relevant to the subject matter being dealt with…

The insertion and application of ‘Maxims’ from both ‘Law & Commerce’ demonstrates to the addressed party and whomever else, it may eventually concern…

That the Author is well researched and by adding the relevant ’Maxims’ adds a great deal of weight, credibility and veracity to your ‘Notice’… and subject matter..!

“It abides i: a man or woman; to have to comprehension how to use and apply their own ‘Legal Corrupt System’ against them; thereby enabling, we the “living men & women”; to hold these criminals feet to the flames..! 🦶🏻🔥

‘Official Oppression’; the concealing facts by way of ‘Abrogation’ and non-disclosure of ‘Affidavits’ and supporting documentary evidence, which is an abuse of one’s power’ and ‘fraud’…

Constitutes ‘Official Misconduct’; ‘maladministration’; ‘malfeasance’; ‘nonfeasance; and ‘misfeasance’ in a ‘Public Office’…

“A contract founded on a base and unlawful consideration, or against good morals, is null”.

“in odium spolitoris” ~ "in hatred of a destroyer".

And; i: am; without evidence; knowledge or understanding that any evidence to the contrary exists and furthermore;

Case Law:

a) In Attorney General's Reference (No 3 of 2003) [2004] EWCA Crim 868, the Court of Appeal held, that a public official who dishonestly abuses his position of trust, by failing to disclose information, that he is under a legal duty to disclose, is guilty of misconduct in public office, which is a common law offence…

The court said that; "the essence of the offence is breach of duty by the public officer, where the motive is irrelevant, provided that the act or omission was wilful and without reasonable excuse or justification" (para 61).

The court also said that; "the duty must be a duty of a public nature, and the act or omission must be calculated to injure the public interest, so as to call for condemnation and punishment" (para 62).*

b) In R v Bowden [1996] 1 WLR 98, the House of Lords affirmed that; a judge who deliberately conceals from the parties a personal interest in the outcome of a case is guilty of perverting the course of justice, which is also a common law offence.

The court said that; "a judge who has such an interest in the outcome of a case, as might reasonably be thought likely to influence his decision, ought not to sit on it. If he does so, knowing of his interest, he commits a grave breach of his judicial oath. If he conceals his interest from the parties he adds to his breach of duty an element of deception which makes his conduct criminal" (p. 105).*

c) In Attorney General v De Winton [1906] 2 Ch 106, the Court of Appeal held that; a public official who holds a public office in trust for the public, is bound by fiduciary obligations and must not use his office for private gain. The court said that; "a person who accepts an office under the Crown, whether it be judicial or ministerial, accepts it subject to this condition, that he will not make use of his office for his own private purposes. He holds it in trust for the public; and if he uses it for his own private purposes he is guilty of a breach of trust" (p. 113).*

(Author’s) comment:

Please note in paragraph c); the use of the term ‘Trust’.

IMHO… this denotes that the individual referenced is a ‘Trustee’… 🤔

‘Maxim’:

"actor qui contra regulam quid aduxit, non estaudiendus"…

"the party who has brought something contrary to the rule, is not to be heard".

It is a legal maxim that states that a man or woman; who violates a rule or principle of law, should not be allowed to benefit from it.

It is also known as the “clean hands doctrine” or the “dirty hands doctrine”…

Depending on your point of view…

Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Clean_hands

“AI” ~ Artificial Intelligence…

Many are aware of the potential misuse of AI and the consequences mankind may face should AI go rogue…

However; that said AI has some phenomenal fringe benefits, that can be mind blowing and extremely helpful, if the use of this phenomenal technology is used and applied correctly…

Here’s a ‘Notice of Conditional Acceptance’ for a ‘Fixed Penalty Notice’ generated by ‘Claude AI’… (free) below ⬇️

Everything depends on what’s known as the prompt; meaning you only get out what you put in.

The description (prompt) of what you input into the chat of what’s needed or required, sets the parameters that AI will work to…

It’s pretty amazing check it out for yourself. A link can be found below… 👇🏼

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

Here is a draft ‘Notice of Conditional Acceptance’ that you can use in response to a fixed penalty charge offer. Of course it goes without saying that it will need to be edited to each individuals needs…

To: [Name and address of recipient]

Date: [Insert date]

RE: Fixed Penalty Charge Notice Number [insert notice number]

NOTICE OF CONDITIONAL ACCEPTANCE

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am in receipt of your offer dated [insert date] relating to fixed penalty charge number [insert number] alleging that [insert alleged offence].

I conditionally accept your offer on proof of claim that:

1. You have the authority, right and jurisdiction to make this offer. Please provide evidence of your alleged authority.

2. This matter is governed by common law and not admiralty or statute law. Please confirm or provide alleged evidence.

3. There is an actual claimant who has suffered an alleged direct physical or financial injury as a result of my actions. Please provide details and evidence of the alleged injury suffered.

4. I am legally obliged to make payment against this offer. Please provide details and evidence of any alleged obligations.

5. This payment relates to a lawfully binding contract involving equitable consideration and full disclosure. Please provide details and evidence of the alleged contractual obligations.

I conditionally accept your offer to discuss the matter in further good faith on receipt of your proofs of claim relating to points 1-5 above.

However, failure to provide such proofs of claim within 28 (twenty-eight) Calendar days of this notice will constitute your ‘Tacit Agreement’ that no further action is warranted and that this matter is now settled in full and perpetuity…

Sincerely,

[Your name]

cc: [Include name of any relevant third parties]

NOTE: We must remain in honour at all times. Therefore the offer of 28 (twenty-eight) calendar day’s in which to respond, is a more honourable and equitable option when writing ✍🏼’Notice’s 📝

Should a case ever end up in a ‘de jure court’.

You are able to demonstrate to the court, that you remained in equity and honour at all times.

https://claude.ai

Disclaimer: This channel does not provide or offer any ‘Legal’ advice whatsoever; the posts are for informational and educational purposes only.

Please use the information provided at your own risk..!

IS THIS THE END OF INCOME TAX..?

Very interesting, informative and important article,
a must read..!

(Excerpts) Below 👇🏼

New Zealand and Australia are facing what could escalate into their biggest constitutional crisis ever – an income tax revolt by ordinary taxpayers with the potential to bring down the current system of government.

Already two thousand New Zealanders and a similar number of Australians are understood to have joined the movement, and organisers are expecting thousands more as news of their activities spreads.

Ian Wishart continues his special investigation.

"If they could have written the [Canadian] Income Tax Act so as to include natural persons, it would never have been written that way in the beginning or rewritten that way in subsequent amendments.

The Government wouldn’t have had to resort to manipulating contract law and to implementing other elaborate means to play upon the legalese ignorance of the Canadian people…

But, further, the basis of this detax system is the fact that the Government cannot make statutes, rules or regulations requiring a natural person to either make, or not to make, a contract. It would be an interference in the property right."

CONSTITUTION

Constitutional experts in New Zealand claim the Crown has absolute control in this country because there is no written constitution guaranteeing the individual sovereignty of NZ citizens.

"The Government doesn’t want it that way, because adopting a Constitution as the fundamental law of the nation could remove a Government’s right to introduce reforms or policy initiatives that were in conflict with the Constitution," remarked one constitutional lawyer privately…

For all here in Great Britain 🇬🇧 England 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿 Ireland 🇮🇪 Scotland 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁳󠁣󠁴󠁿 and Wales 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁷󠁬󠁳󠁿 and the Commonwealths Australia 🇦🇺 New Zealand 🇳🇿 & Canada..! 🇨🇦 and USA 🇺🇸

Please share far and wide… so everyone can stop 🛑 ✋ paying Tax..! 💰

Maxims of Law & Commerce

“A Court of Admiralty has no jurisdiction over those things which are determined by common law” ~ “admiralitas jurisuitionem non habet super iis qu communi lege dirimuntur.” Loft.479.

The Maxim “admiralitas jurisuitionem non habet super iis qu communi lege dirimuntur” means…

“the admiralty has no jurisdiction over those things which are decided by the common law”.

It is a principle that limits the scope of the admiralty or maritime law, which is the body of law that governs the activities and disputes on the seas or other navigable waters.

The principle states that the admiralty law does not apply to those matters that are already settled by the common law, which is the body of law that derives from the customs and traditions of the people, and is usually administered by the courts of the land.

For example, the admiralty law does not cover the crimes, contracts, torts, or property rights that are not related to the maritime affairs, but are governed by the common law.

The phrase “admiralitas jurisuitionem non habet super iis qu communi lege dirimuntur”… is derived from a longer Latin expression by the English jurist and historian Sir Matthew Hale (1609-1676), who wrote: “admiralitas jurisuitionem non habet super iis qu communi lege dirimuntur, nisi forte quatenus in mari vel in portubus maris, vel in fluminibus navigabilibus, vel in locis infra fluxum et refluxum maris, vel in locis infra corpora comitatum, quae infra fluxum et refluxum maris sunt, aliter quam in locis extra corpora comitatum, quae infra fluxum et refluxum maris sunt, dirimuntur.”

This means: “The admiralty has no jurisdiction over those things which are decided by the common law, unless perhaps insofar as they are decided in the sea or in the ports of the sea, or in navigable rivers, or in places within the flow and ebb of the sea, or in places within the bodies of the counties, which are within the flow and ebb of the sea, differently than in places outside the bodies of the counties, which are within the flow and ebb of the sea.”

The maxim “A Court of Admiralty has no jurisdiction over those things which are determined by common law” is a paraphrase of the Latin phrase “admiralitas jurisuitionem non habet super iis qu communi lege dirimuntur”, which means “the admiralty has no jurisdiction over those things which are decided by the common law”.

For example, the admiralty law does not cover the crimes, contracts, torts, or property rights that are not related to the maritime affairs, but are governed by the common law.

The maxim is cited from a law dictionary written by John Loftus (d. 1729), who was an English lawyer and legal writer.

The full title of the dictionary is “A New Law Dictionary, Containing the Interpretation and Definition of Words and Terms Used in the Law; and also the Whole Law and Practice Thereof, Under All the Heads and Titles of the Same. Together with Such Informations Relating Thereto, as Explain the History and Antiquity of the Law, and our Manners, Customs, and Original Government”.

The dictionary was first published in 1717, and was reprinted several times in the 18th century. The maxim is found in the entry for “Admiralty” in the dictionary, where Loftus quotes the Latin expression by the Roman jurist Ulpian, and then gives his own English translation of it.

The citation “Loft.479” refers to the page number of the dictionary where the maxim is located.

‘Rule of law’

A core principle of the ‘Rule of law’ is equality i.e.

We are all equal in the eyes of the Creator and/or God…

And all are equal under God's laws…

Therefore we are all equal under the ‘Rule of law’ and no one is above the law..!

Whereas; the following are eternal unchanged principles and are fundamental, non-derogable, natural and spiritual, individual, indefeasible, inherent ‘God-given’ non-negotiable, unalienable, inviolable, divine rights, entitlements, dominion and liberties.

And are enshrined in the ‘Rule of law’ and are binding upon the ‘Crown’, it’s Heirs; Successors; Nominees and Assigns and all the ‘Crowns’, Office(s); Officer(s); Government(s); Governmental Agent(s); and or Agencies and or their Employee(s); and all Non-Governmental Agent(s); and or Agency(s); and their Employee(s); in
perpetuity… and cannot be derogated from, other than by or in lawful acts of war.

These ‘Rights’ are enshrined in the following Acts:

The Charter of Liberties 1100; the Magna Carta 1215 (Clauses 39, 40 & 61); the Confirmation of the Charters 1297 (Clauses 39, 40) ~ (25 Edw. 1 cc 1 6); the Statute the Fifth 1351; the Observance of Due Process of Law 1368 ~ (Section 3); the Liberty of the Subject Act 1354; the Confirmation of the Charters & Statutes 1416; the Confirmation of Liberties 1423; the Cestui Que Vie Act 1666 ~ (Article IV Chapter 11 18 & 19 Cha 2); the Statute of Frauds 1677; the Habeus Corpus Act 1679; the Declaration of Rights 1688; the Bill of Rights 1689 (1 Will. & Mar. Sec. 2 c. 2); the Cestui Que Vie Act 1707; the Offences Against the Person Act 1861; the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights 1966 (paragraph 58); the International Covenant on Cultural, Social and Economic Rights 1966; the Internationally Protected Persons Act 1978 ~ (Sections 1, 2 and 5); the State Immunities Act 1978 ~ (Part 1, Sections 1-10); the British Nationality Act 1981 - (Section 50: 1); the International Criminal Court Act 2001) including, but not limited to, the Siracusa Principles; the War Conventions; the Oviedo Convention 1997; the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.

Acts that continue to sit on the ‘United Kingdom’ (Inc) Statute books and have not been lawfully repealed.

Whereby in part, collectively together, form the unwritten ‘Supreme Constitution’ on the land mass known as ‘Great Britain and Northern Ireland’ legally known as the ‘United Kingdom’ (Inc).

“The Law of God and the natural Law on the Land and the Common Law are one and the same”.

“The Laws of God cannot be affected, degraded, amended, voided.” (Deut 12:32).

‘Alfred the Great’ Anglo-Saxon King… in the 9th century, reformed the law of his kingdom and assembled a law code “The Doomsday Book” which he grounded on biblical commandments.

He held that the same law had to be applied to all men and women, whether rich or poor, friends or enemies…

This was likely inspired by the passage from the bible; Leviticus 19:15

"You shall do no iniquity in judgment. You shall not favour the wretched and you shall not defer to the rich. In righteousness you are to judge your fellow.”

“Courts whether of the King, or of the people, or of parliament, are established not by written law, but by common law”…

"rex debet esse sub lege, quia lex facist regem" ~ "The King should be subject to the law for the law makes the King”…

Council Tax: Attachment of Earnings Order

We should always decline to fill out the form the council send out after the liability order notice asking for your financial circumstances…

The Adult Court Bench Book (June 2020) states on page 78…

“These are adversarial proceedings between the council and the debtor, so the council must show a ‘prima facie’ case before the court conducts a means enquiry.”…

So the onus is on the council to prove that the debt is owed, and then it is up to the court to make enquiries about your income and expenditure etc…

So you don’t have to complete the form the Council sends you after their fake court case, despite the warning they print on it that not completing the form is a criminal offence – and so that warning in itself is illegal, quite apart from any other consideration…

However, they may get your employer’s details from HMRC and go to them directly. This is, of course, a breach of the Data Protection Act 2018…

(Excerpt): To read more, clink the link below 👇🏼 and make sure you subscribe to the regular news 📰 email… to get priceless information…

Many topics can be found in this phenomenal blog… so make sure you check through the archives..!

https://awakenedgb.wordpress.com/2023/11/16/council-tax-attachment-of-earnings-order

The Magistrate’s Court System and the ‘Birth Certificate Scam’ ~ ‘Legal Fiction Person Name’… gets exposed by… ‘Santos Bonacci’ (short 7 min video)…

Please share far and wide..!

Council Tax Debts become Unenforceable Overnight..!

Christmas seems to have Come Early… 🎄🎅 🎁

Recently, there was a court case by Wayne Leighton and Bristol & Sutor, a bailiff company acting on behalf of North Somerset Council, over a council tax debt of £1,200 that was ruled on December 21st 2023.

This case was about council tax debt enforcement…

Typically, when people do not pay their council tax, the council can obtain a court order called a "liability order" to allow bailiffs (enforcement agents) to seize possessions to pay the debt…

Bailiffs must follow certain rules under the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 when doing this…

The Judge in the ‘Leighton’ case at the County Court at Bristol ruled that the document shown by the bailiffs to Mr Leighton was illegal..!

The document only showed instructions from the council to collect the debt. It did not show the liability order from the court allowing them to seize goods, as required by law…

Because of this ‘illegal’ document…

The judge awarded Mr Leighton £4,000 💷 💰 in damages for trespass, assault and false imprisonment, as well as interest and legal costs…

The Judge also declared that the liability order was invalid and quashed it…!!!

The case has been widely reported in the media and online as a landmark ruling that could affect millions of people who owe council tax debts and face bailiff action…

This now sets a ‘legal precedent’…and now means that anyone can use this ‘Case Law’ to stop bailiffs at their door ✋ 🛑 and/or even sue for damages… if the bailiffs do not show the correct paperwork with the liability order…

Normally the liability order would be a written document signed by a judge… 📝

However, courts have moved away from this, tried and lawful method in recent times, allowing oral pronouncements instead, making it harder for bailiff’s/defendants… to get written proof an order exists…

This causes problems for bailiffs trying to show proper paperwork…

The law says bailiffs must provide paperwork in advance before seizing goods…

So anyone can now put Bailiffs and Councils on ‘Notice’ 📝 about the new ruling, preventing them from even visiting…

Additionally, the Judge did not allow harassment damages because bailiffs have some right to "harass" people as part of their job duties while acting legally…

However, without proper paperwork, bailiffs lose their defence against harassment claims…

This potentially makes illegal visits… a criminal offence ⛓ of harassment…!!!

Bullet Point Summary:

- Recent court case (Leighton vs Bristol & Sutor) changes council tax enforcement rules

- Judge ruled bailiffs showed illegal paperwork to defendant

- Defendant awarded £4000 + interest/costs in damages

- Ruling means anyone can sue bailiffs for similar illegal paperwork

- Courts made it harder for defendants to get liability order proof

- So bailiffs now have trouble proving they can seize goods

- People can put councils/bailiffs on notice to prevent visits

- Visits without complete paperwork open bailiffs up to criminal harassment charges…

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2007/15/schedule/12

(1) How Long Can You Be Chased for a Council Tax Debt? - MoneyNerd. https://moneynerd.co.uk/how-long-can-chased-council-tax-debt/.

Bailiffs Council Tax older than 6 years - Dealing with Bailiffs. https://www.dealingwithbailiffs.co.uk/CouncilTaxNDRMoreThan6YearsOld.htm

This is the legislation that applies to the above ⬆️ case…

These are the details of the High Court Judgement… (above)… ☝🏼

“Trespass Notice..!”

Remove any and all implied, presumed and/or assumed… ’Right of Access’ to YOUR Property..!

Can be displayed on the gate and/or entrance to your property, and/or on your front door and/or in your window of your property..!

Attached is a ‘Case Law’ judgment to use against any ‘Roadside Pirate’s 🏴‍☠️ 👮‍♂️ attempting to unlawfully detain a driver under the Road Traffic Act 1988.

All too often, barristers who know these powers do not exist. Still use them, to try and convince judges, to rule in their favour, as the barrister acting for and on behalf of the police attempted to do so in this case.

So just in case, the Pink Belt Barrister attempts to say that, because this judgment was in the County Court, it is not binding.

It is important to note, why such a statement is not accurate!

Her Honour Judge Belcher did not create New Law.

What she did do however, was confirm that whilst ‘Section 159 of the Road Traffic Act 1959’ has been repealed by ‘Section 163 of the Road Traffic Act 1988’.

The Common Law position has not changed.

The Common Law position being. that there are no powers under ‘Section 163 of the Road Traffic Act 1988’ to detain a driver!

So whilst a County Court judgment is not binding, her Honour Judge Belcher’s: ‘ratio decidendi’ ~ ‘Rule of Law’ is binding!

So if you, or someone close to you, has been detained under the “Road Traffic Act” as unfortunately still frequently happens.

You can use this judgment as your aid to sue the Police for False Imprisonment.

Indeed, this now suggests that the courts take the view that any Barristers/lawyers/solicitor’s attempting to use so called alleged ‘detention powers’ under ‘Section 163 of the Road Traffic Act 1988’ on behalf of the police as a defence, is so hopeless, that it should be struck out and judgment awarded without even having to go to trial!

This is ‘Case Law’ which is invaluable!

However; I feel it’s important to mention, that we all must read through these posts in particular the attached PDF’s and in particular this judgement to get a better comprehension of exactly what is said within.

To often we take for granted what others say (hearsay) as truth, without checking and corroborating the facts for ourselves…!

When Claude was asked how it could improve this ‘Notice of Conditional Acceptance’…

This is the reply…

What specific details about the circumstances surrounding the event of being issued a ‘Fixed Penalty Notice’ would you need in order to accomplish generating a comprehensive ‘Notice of Conditional Acceptance’..?

Here are some key details needed to generate a comprehensive lawful Notice of Conditional Acceptance in response to a Fixed Penalty Notice:

- The full name and identifying details of the recipient (your name, address etc.)

- The exact date the Fixed Penalty Notice was issued and details of how it was delivered (mail, in person etc.)

- Name of the agency/organisation that issued the notice

- Name the living man or woman acting in the capacity of Cuntstable and or officer 👮‍♀️ and or agent who issued the notice.

- The alleged statutory violation or offense for which the notice was issued.

- Location, date and time when the alleged violation occurred.

- Specific statutes/laws claimed to have been violated

- Details of any events or communications prior to issuance of the notice

- The amount of the penalty or fine imposed

- Due date for payment if specified

- Copies of any documentation, evidence, or supporting materials from the issuing agency

- The desired remedies being sought (e.g. dismissal of notice, proof of claim, further information etc.)

- Details of any applicable procedures, regulations, or laws that have not been properly followed

- The governing jurisdiction/law you are operating under

- Any mitigating circumstances or additional context about the alleged violation

- Your reservation of rights and non-consent to any unrevealed claims

With these details of the specific situation provided, I could then research the relevant laws and craft a Notice of Conditional Acceptance that conditionally accepts the notice pending proof of claim and validation of any defects. The more case-specific details you can provide, the better I can tailor the notice to the particular circumstances at hand.

Assuming you had all the relevant information. Please generate a comprehensive outline of Notice of Conditional Acceptance.

Here is an outline for a comprehensive Notice of Conditional Acceptance based on the details provided:

I. Introduction

A. Date notice sent.

B. Identifying information of sender (name, address).

C. Name and address of party notice is directed to.

D. Description and date of Fixed Penalty Notice being responded to

II. Notice of Conditional Acceptance.

A. State that the FPN is conditionally accepted upon proof of claim.

B. Specify the conditions that need to fulfilled for acceptance:

1. Provide verification of the law or statute violated.

2. Validate authority and jurisdiction to issue notice.

3. Provide proof of delegation of authority to impose fees.

4. Verify proper procedures were followed.

5. Substantiate any claims made in the FPN.

6. Validate signatures and documentation.

7. Offer the required legal proofs, exhibits, evidence as applicable.

III. Request for Additional Information.

A. Request full accounting and documentation related to any claims.

B. Require response by a specific date (e.g. 28 days)

IV. Reservation of Rights. Quote the Bill of Rights and the Magna Carta. “No fine nor forfeiture before conviction by a trial by jury of your peer’s…”

A. Do not consent to any unrevealed claims or fees.

B. Reservation of all rights and defenses without prejudice

V. Notice of Default & Opportunity to Cure.

A. Outline any perceived faults, defects, omissions, or failures regarding the FPN (e.g. insufficient evidence provided, improper procedure followed, lack of jurisdiction).

B. Offer a reasonable timeframe (30 days) for the defects to be cured before further action is taken.

VI. Conclusion

A. Summarize basis for conditional acceptance subject to validation and verification

B. Statement that non-response will constitute agreement and a waiver of any claims.

C. Signed notice with contact information and date.

https://www.anthropic.com/news/claude-2

A big shout out and Credit to Robert… of TOD ~ ‘The Observation Deck’… for the production of this free Prompt E Book.

The quality of the replies from AI depend on what you put in…

Good information in… great information out..!

Chat GPT - Open Source (free to use).

https://chat.openai.com/auth/login?next=%2Fc%2F8219b3e5-fa82-434e-922a-b7b7da61cdac

Copilot uses Chat-GPT. (free to use).

https://copilot.microsoft.com