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What she did do however, was confirm that whilst ‘Section 159 of the Road Traffic Act 1959’ has been repealed by ‘Section 163 of the Road Traffic Act 1988’.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

When to use Chat~ GPT4

Template for Setting Clear Guide lines

AI Generated Content Refinement Checklist

Ultimate Checklist for Adopting AI at Work

Supercharge
Your Workday
With ChatGPT

For those who are not familiar yet with the capabilities of Generative AI…

Matt Wolf 🐺 gives a thorough run down on what AI is currently capable of and where it’s heading in the future.

A relatively short 30 min video, well worth watching and well worth subscribing to his YouTube Channel for updates on the world of AI.

He also produces a weekly news letter, also well worth subscribing too.

Editors ✍🏼 Note 📝

We should be aware of the fabulous advantages that AI can help common man or woman, but we must also be aware and keep in the forefront of our minds of the potential pit falls of AI.

And that it could be used for nefarious reasons by those who mean to do mankind harm.

So for now, let us use it wisely and use what advantages we can gain, and use this tech against the narcissistic, parasitic, lower than pond life, scum sucking, bottom feeding controllers of this world and take back this planet that belongs to every man & women and offspring..!

Not to just a so called privileged few who think they’re gods on earth..

https://youtu.be/mfEj7BsWR7A?si=qE4HlIy60Ql9Iux3

Common Law v Admiralty Law ~ People v Persons.

“Common Law Handbook for Jurors, Sheriffs,
Bailiff’s & Justice’s”…

“Common law is Common sense”…

…The question each jurist must ask themselves is…

“Is there an injured party…???”

There is a Common Law principle which states… that for there to be a crime…

There must first be a victim… (corpus delecti), the state cannot be the injured party…

In the absence of a victim there can be no crime..!

This is what the grand jurist must discover…

“The constitutions of most of our states assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves, in all cases to which they think themselves competent, (as in electing their functionaries executive and legislative, and deciding by a jury of themselves, both fact and law, in all judiciary cases in which any fact is involved) or they may ask by representatives, freely and equally chosen; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed; to freedom of person; freedom of religion; freedom of property; & freedom of the press.” -- Thomas Jefferson, letter to John Cartwright; June 5, 1824; “The Thomas Jefferson Papers,” Library of Congress

“Meet Your Strawman and Whatever You Wanted to Know”… By: David E Robinson.

“Happy is the man that findeth wisdom, and the man that getteth understanding.” ~ Pro. 3:13

The original STRAWMAN Trust.

Your Mother was the Exchanger / Trustor / Settlor…

‘Clearfield Doctrine’

The Clearfield Doctrine (which Larry probably can't find, either) arises from a 1943 Supreme Court Case, Clearfield Trust Co. v. United States, 318 US 363-371.

The essence of the case is that when an incorporated government uses private bank script as its currency it sinks to the level of any other incorporated entity, loses its sovereign status (if it ever had any) and becomes subject to the same laws as any other corporation.

The Clearfield Doctrine strips these pretenders of their "government" cloak and when they attempt to use the abusive powers of government to enrich themselves, it's time to remind them of exactly who and what they are.

This can be used against them in any number of contexts.

They claim to have a commercial interest in your marriage and children? Prove it..!

They claim to have a commercial interest in your home and land..? Prove it..!

They claim to have a commercial interest in your estate..? Prove it..!

They have a right to tax you for anything..? Income..? Property..? Prove it..!

“ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat” ~ “The burden of the proof lies upon him who affirms, not he who denies”. Dig. 22, 3, 2; Tait on Ev. 1; 1 Phil. Ev. 194; 1 Green l. Ev. 74; 3 Louis. R. 83; 2 Dan. Pr. 408; 4 Bouv Inst. n. 4411

“Thou shalt not bear false witness: thou shalt not speak falsely before the King, nor before the Judge, nor in the assembly of the Princes, nor in the presence of the Ruler, nor unto the Minister of the Law, nor among the multitude; nor in the ear of thy friend, nor to thy wife, nor thy child, nor thy servant: neither shalt thou withhold the truth from the King, nor the Judge, nor him that is set in authority: for thus shall righteousness be established in all thy borders.”

The Clear Field of ‘Clearfield Doctrine’…

Corporations… are NOT Governments..!

A Superior Statute..!

COUNCIL TAX: Bristow & Sutor Case Law;

All you need to do with these debt collectors, is send them a copy of the ‘Leighton vs Bristow & Sutor’… ruling in the High Court.

This ruling simply means, that the Bailiffs / DCA (Debt Collection Agency’s) have to show, a physical copy of the ‘Liability Order’…

As there is no physical copy of the ‘Liability Order’ the alleged debt can’t be enforced..!

Tell them; that if they don’t stop communicating with you and drop their claim (without proof), you will take them to court and win just like Wayne Leighton did..!

Ref. J90SA002

Read the full judgement here..! Below 👇🏼

https://awakenedgb.wordpress.com/2024/03/01/council-tax-bristow-sutor-case-law