TO:
K. Needham (Legal advisor).
HMCS.
The court house,
Pewsham way,
Chippenham,
Wiltshire.
SN15 3BF. Your reference nc/1000190283

FROM:
David of the family Robinson (as commonly called).
c/o 26 Paul street,
Corsham,
Wiltshire.
SN13 9DG.

DATE OF NOTICES BEING SERVED:

Sent by recorded post.

NOTICE.

Contents:

AFFIDAVIT OF TRUTH.

_____________

(evidence of non jurisdiction of the Queen)

_____________

NOTICE OF MISPRISION OF TREASON.

(David Cameron-Treason evidence)

_____________

NOTICE OF CONDITIONAL ACCEPTANCE

_____________

NOTICE TO CEASE AND DESIST HARASSMENT.

(including new fee schedule).

_____________

NOTICE OF BREACH OF FEE SCHEDULE.

_____________

CLAIM OF RIGHT.

Maxim in law: - “ No one is restrained from having several defences.”

TAKE NOTICE: This document is EVIDENCE and a copy of which is required to be filed into the court records in any administrative hearing in connection with this matter. Any person or human being who enters a plea in MR DAVID PAUL ROBINSON'S absence SHALL BE the defendant(s) for any and all costs, penalties, charges and suchlike.

These SIX (6) LAWFUL NOTICES herein are required to be addressed and replied to in 'substance' within 28 days of their receipt, failing to do so may create Lawful Estoppel by acquiescence or by substance (which means, you need to respond to ALL of the numbered points that are required within this compilation of Lawful Notices IN FULL), and by paying close attention to those points that require a full response and, by addressing each separate and serious concern independently of all others).

DEFINITION OF NOTICE - (Black Law Dictionary 5th Edition)

Information; the result of observation, whether by the senses or the mind; Knowledge of the existence of a fact or state of affairs; the means of knowledge. Intelligence by whatever means communicated.

Any fact which would put an ordinary prudent person on inquiry. That which imparts information to one to be notified.

A person has notice of a fact if he knows the fact, has reason to know it, or has been given notification of it.

WHY A COMPILATION OF 6 NOTICES ?

It is my honourable and truthful intention to document and evidence some of the variances of this Treason matter which are evidenced and presented herein, to enable a broader sphere of understanding that encompasses a wider array of evidenced facts, most of which allude to the crime of Treason at common law. It is also my intention to seek remedy by evidencing the fact that I am completely Innocent of any wrongdoing in this matter and, that I have done all that I could in order to abstain from colluding with those evil traitors in government, etc., it being my constitutional DUTY NOT TO COMPLY with a TREASONOUS REGIME and an UNLAWFUL ADMINISTRATION of “injustice” and, that I claim under a common law jurisdiction 'lawful excuse' to any alleged criminality which can be more easily evidenced within this compilation of facts. My intent in forwarding this evidence to you is for my defence and not as an offensive act.

Furthermore, I have compiled this entire document under 'duress of circumstances' whilst being a freeman on the land 'officially' in lawful rebellion, all of which is evidenced herein. Therefore I have acted ONLY as a 'loyal subject' in accordance with British constitutional law which can easily be proven in a common law jurisdiction with 12 impartial peers overseeing and presiding on the facts. Any man woman or person that stands against me in this matter shall be accused of being a quisling and colluding with the enemy and is therefore a traitor to their country and a criminal.

In serving such notices however, it also raises the eyebrows of the traitors among us and has the propensity to weed-out the bad apples by observation of their Actions. Once Treason is known there is no simple escape, as those that know you know may retain the evidence to prove it.

Any hearings administered with regard to the unlawful charges/allegations brought against my legal person/ human being, either occurring by my own free will or by force, I David of the family Robinson will automatically be assumed to be the sole administrator of my estate as a third party agent for the legal person; (MR DAVID PAUL ROBINSON) and, as the claimant and authorised beneficiary and executor of the inheritance and, on my full commercial liability and penalty of perjury.

“All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing.” - E. Burke.

TO:
K. Needham
HMCS.
The court house,
Pewsham way,
Chippenham.
Wiltshire.
SN15 3BF.
From:
David of the Robinson family.
c/o 26 Paul street,
Corsham,
Wiltshire.
SN13 9DG.

DATE OF NOTICE BEING SERVED:

sent by recorded post.

AFFIDAVIT OF TRUTH

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

Dear K. Needham,

This is 1.) an affidavit of truth, 2.) a notice of understanding of misprision of treason, 3.) a notice of conditional acceptance, 4.) a notice to cease and desist harassment, 5.) a notice of breach of fee schedule and 6.) a claim of right and should be handled as such in the proper manner in the protection of that.

I David Paul of the family Robinson, a human being acting under duress of circumstances at this time as an authorised third party representative, beneficiary and chief executor for the 'legal person' do solemnly swear, declare and depose that the entire compilation of documents, statements and evidence herein are both truthful and factual to my lawful understanding and to the best of my present day knowledge and first hand experience. I swear by Almighty God and under my full commercial liability and penalty of perjury;

1. THAT I am competent to state the matters set forth herein.

2. THAT I have first-hand knowledge of the facts stated herein.

3. That all the facts stated herein are true, correct, and certain, admissible as evidence, and if called upon as a witness, I will testify to their veracity.

4. THAT the eternal, unchanged principles of commercial law are:

5. a.) A workman is worthy of his hire.

6. b.) All are equal under the law.

   1. In law truth is sovereign.

   2. d.)Truth is expressed in the form of an affidavit.

   e.) An un-rebutted affidavit stands as truth in law.

   f.) An un-rebutted affidavit becomes the judgement in law.

   g.) All matters must be expressed to be resolved.

   h.) He who leaves the battlefield first loses by default.

   I.) Sacrifice is the measure of credibility.

   j.) A lien or claim can be satisfied only through an affidavit by a point to point rebuttal

   resolution by jury or payment.

   1. THAT commercial processes (including this affidavit and the required responses with it) ARE NON-JUDICIAL and pre-judicial because:

   a.) No judge, court, government or any agencies thereof, or any other third parties whatsoever

   can abrogate anyone's Affidavit of truth;

   b.) Only a party affected by an affidavit can speak and act for himself and is solely responsible

   for responding with his own Affidavit of truth, that no-one else can do for him.

   THAT the lawful seizure, collection, and transfer of ownership of money or property must

   be effected by means of a valid commercial lien.

   THAT I am not the creation or chattel property of any person or any government agency

   whatsoever. I am not under any government agency, state or federal (i.e. unions), or any

   other self passed laws, statutes, regulations or policies.

   1. THAT any and all of the various papers, documents, adhesion contracts or “agreements” I may have signed with any government agency or entity or any others that might be construed to indicate a conclusion contrary to my herein below assertions were made, signed by me on the basis of a mistake due to lack of full disclosure creating a deliberate lack of full knowledge, a deliberate action of fraud, (2006 fraud Act section 3) non-disclosure concealment of material fact, and misrepresentation. Such action thereby creates a stressful situation of duress and intimidation (tort), vitiating all documents by such action of fraud.

   2. THAT it is the sincere belief and spiritual conviction of this affiant that slavery and peonage are immoral, are violations of the first precept of commercial law (“a workman is worthy of his hire”), that fraud, misrepresentation, non-disclosure, intimidation, deceit, concealment of material fact, lying, and treachery are morally wrong.

   3. THAT I have absolutely no desire to be a “client” (slave) of any government agency, state or federal (i.e unions), or any of their principles, or the “United Kingdom,” or to incur any debts or obligations to said entities for whatever “benefits” said entities might purpose/presume to provide or seek to provide to this affiant, or be directed by, subject to, or accountable to any parties other than my own conscience and best judgement for purpose of preserving inviolate my unalienable/inalienable indefeasible rights to life, liberty, freedom and property while engaging in the honourable, productive, and non-harmful activities of my life.

   4. THAT I David of the family Robinson, am the sole and absolute owner of myself, my body and to my understanding the chief executor and beneficiary of my estate and, I possess unconditional allodial sovereign title thereto and that I abjure, Renounce, forsake and disavow utterly and absolutely now and forever all presumptions of power, authority, or right by any government agency, and its principles, over the rights, life, liberty, freedom or property over this affiant from whatever source presumed or derived.

   5. 10.) THAT I David Paul of the family Robinson have a clear conscience of any perceived wrongdoing (no 'Mens rea,') with regard to the law society's claims and assertions/allegations or charges brought against my self/ legal person under statutes derived from the law society's legislation, that which relate to shipping rights under Maritime Admiralty law, which to my understanding requires a two party consenting contract with equal consideration and full disclosure, before becoming a legally/lawfully binding contract standing under such legislation, which cannot be 'legally' enforced in any administrative hearing except under the common law, where there is proven to be a 'Corpus Delecti' (body of crime), where it can be properly/lawfully adjudicated on.

   6. I DO NOT and NEVER HAVE wilfully consented to contract with nor stand under the legislation of the law society (Maritime Admiralty law) under any circumstances whatsoever, particularly whilst I am duty bound under the terms and conditions demanded by the 'Great Charter', and invoked by the barons' committee in 2001 under article 61 of Magna Carta 1215 - LAWFUL REBELLION, which to my lawful understanding stands to this day by un-rebutted notices to Buckingham palace and, that I have since pledged my allegiance to the barons' committee (Lord Rutland), who himself petitioned the (alleged) Queen on February 7th 2001 together with four other elected Barons from a quorum of the 25 selected, and required for to invoke lawful rebellion. I have subsequently revoked any obligation I may have had with regard to the crown, therefore the crown has no lawful jurisdiction over my sovereign being (See exhibit 'C' for Affidavits to Buckingham palace, Oath of allegiances to the barons' committee, to members Lord Ashbourne and later Lord Rutland).

   The entire compilation of documents and evidence herein, constitutes to my understanding 'lawful excuse' to any pre-conceived allegations and/or charges brought against David Paul of the family Robinson a living man, as opposed to the all capitals name ROBINSON DAVID PAUL which as to my understanding represents a trust account and/or corporation that, which is represented by a receipt being the ' birth certificate ' as commonly called, which is to my understanding the receipt of a trust account and is the copyright of the crown and, of which I understand that I am the sole shareholder and beneficiary and executor of that estate, therefore I acknowledge all public servants to be trustees. I will stand under my full commercial liability and penalty of perjury with regard to ANY allegations of wrongdoing brought against me or my legal person in ANY Administrative process regarding this matter.

   LAWFUL REBELLION FACTS. (Affidavit of truth).

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

   1. Magna Carta: Chapter 61 of Magna Carta covers the subject's rights to appeal to a committee of barons for redress against a tyrant.

   2. In 1999, after several hundred thousand postcards were sent to Queen Elizabeth 11 urging her not to give royal assent to the treaty of Nice, a quorum of 65 peers acting under the Magna Carta chapter 61, selected 25 of their number to form such a committee. They were satisfied that the conditions required to justify the use of the procedure specified in chapter 61 of Magna Carta were established.

   3. Four of these peers served the petition on Queen Elizabeth 11 on the 7th February 2001 at noon, insisting that she should; “Withhold the royal assent from any parliamentary Bill which attempts to ratify the Treaty of Nice, unless and until the people of the United Kingdom have given their clear and specific approval; uphold and preserve the rights, freedoms and customs of your loyal subjects as set out in Magna Carta and the Declaration Of Rights, which you, our sovereign, swore before the nation to uphold and preserve in your Coronation Oath of June 1953.

   4. (The service of the barons' petition was reported in the Daily Telegraph on the 7th of February 2001.)

   5. These things she has conspicuously failed to do.

   6. As a consequence of her failure to comply, all loyal subjects are required, “ Together with the community of the whole realm, to distress us and distrain us (the crown) in all possible ways, namely by seizing our castles. Lands, possessions and In any other way they can. Until redress has been obtained as they see fit.”

   7. The fact that “The whole community of the realm” is obliged to support the Barons' committee, means that individual OFFICIALS HAVE NO AUTHORITY to issue demands in the name of the crown, and commit the statutory offence of “fraud by misrepresentation”, if they try.

   8. The courts have no authority to deny the subjects' rights. Representatives of the crown may not breach the common law maxim that, “No man may sit in judgement of his own cause.” it is for the Barons' committee to let us know when they are satisfied that redress has been obtained.

   9. The Barons' Committee procedure is based on the subjects' common law right of “duress of circumstances”- we may commit minor crimes in order to prevent a worse one happening.

   10. Transferring allegiance is not Treason because the oaths of allegiance are the office, not the holder.

   11. Accordingly, as a loyal subject of the realm, I have entered into lawful rebellion as demanded and required by chapter 61 of Magna Carta 1215. When redress (as determined by the Barons' Committee), has been achieved, I will once again be a true and loyal subject to the holder of the office.

   ARREST. DETAINMENT CHARGES AND BAIL (Affidavit of truth).

   & SUMMARY OF NOTICES SERVED.

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

   By the time of my arrest on the 5th of November 2010 I had already served a series of lawful notices on both Wiltshire police (Chief Inspector Copus) and DVLA (Miss Newman) The IPCC, CPS & PSD in an attempt at lawful non-compliance against a treasonous system of Administration.

   Chronological Order;

   08/02/2010 I sent an Affidavit to Buckingham Palace;

   24/03/2010 I sent the 2nd Affidavit to Buckingham palace;

   (I retain the 2nd Affidavit as a copy and both postal receipts as evidence).

   02/03/210 I served upon Miss Newman (DVLA) a 'Notice of understanding and intent' with regard to an unlawful demand of £80.00p said to be owed for not tendering a SORN document on my private conveyance. (No reply was ever forthcoming from this particular Notice). (I retain a copy of this Notice with postage receipt as evidence);

   02/03/2010 I served upon Miss Newman (DVLA) a 'Notice of understanding and claim of right' with regard to de-registering my private conveyance. (I received a reply ignoring my claims). (I retain a copy of this Notice with postal receipt as evidence);

   22/03/2010 I sent a letter to Miss Newman (DVLA) requesting a response to my lawful notice. (I received a reply indicating that she would not engage further in any dialogue regarding this matter). (I retain copies of these letters and postal receipts as evidence);

   10/04/2010 I served a 'Notice of lawful Estoppel' on Miss Newman (DVLA). I retain a copy of this Notice with postage receipt as evidence);

   20/04/2010 I served a 'Notice of lawful objection' on Chief Inspector Ian Copus of Wiltshire police constabulary, Devizes, Wiltshire, after no rebuttal in 'substance' was forthcoming, but a statement was made: “ I am not in a position to provide objections to your common law rights and claims within regard to your letter.” I sent a letter to thank him for his correspondence (I retain copies of the letters and the original Notice with postal receipts as evidence);

   20/05/2010 I sent a thank you letter and confirmation of my understandings to Chief Inspector Copus. (I retain a copy of this letter with proof of postage as evidence);

   21/06/2010 I sent the Chief Inspector Ian Copus a 'Notice notice of understanding and intent' (I retain a copy of this Notice with proof of postage as evidence);

   07/07/2010 I served a 'Notice of permanent Estoppel by acquiescence' on Chief Inspector Ian Copus as I had received no reply to my previous Notice. In fact a reply was sent out late and crossed in the post. (I retain a copy of this Notice with proof of postage as evidence);

   16/07/2010 I sent a letter to the IPCC with a complaint against W. 1428 for 'serious neglect of duty and misprision of Treason'. I received a reply on 20/08/2010. (I retain a copy of these letters with proof of postage as evidence);

   29/07/2010 I served on Chief Inspector Ian Copus a 'Notice of opportunity to cure and intent' (I retain a copy of this Notice with proof of postage as evidence);

   16/08/2010 I served on Chief Inspector Ian Copus a 'Notice of permanent irrevocable lawful Estoppel by lack of substance' (I retain a copy of this notice and proof of postage as evidence).

   11/10/2010 I served a 'Notice of request for clarification' on Chippenham magistrates court (I retain a copy of this notice with proof of postage as evidence);

   11/10/2010 I Served a 'Notice of request for clarification' on Chief Inspector Ian Copus (I retain a copy of this Notice with proof of postage as evidence);

   12/10/2010 I served a 'Notice of request for evidence for my defence' on A. Holyoake, Melksham police (I retain a copy of the Notice with proof of postage as evidence);

   14/10/2010 I served a 'Notice of understanding of misprision of treason and intent' on Chief Inspector Ian Copus (I retain a copy of this Notice and proof of postage and a video of mailing as evidence);

   16/10/2010 I served a 'Notice of request for clarification' on Mr K. Needham (HMCS) (I retain a copy of this Notice with proof of postage as evidence);

   18/10/2010 I served a 'Notice for clarification' on the 'court manager' (on Chippenham magistrates court) (I retain a copy of this Notice with proof of postage as evidence);

   18/10/2010 I sent a letter to Christalla power (IPCC) after no response from her (I retain a copy of this letter with proof of postage as evidence);

   25/10/2010 I sent a letter to Mr. Holyoake (Melksham police station) as I had not received a reply to my previous Notice (I retain a copy of this letter with proof of postage as evidence);

   10/11/2010 I served a 'Notice of default of evidence required and rebuttal of jurisdiction' on P. Lambert (HMCS) (I retain a copy of this Notice with proof of postage as evidence);

   O3/08/2011 I sent an Oath to Lord Ashbourne (I retain a copy with proof of postage as evidence);

   20/09/2011 I sent another Oath to Lord Ashbourne ( I retain a copy and proof of postage as evidence);

   21/10/2011 I sent to Lord Rutland an Oath of allegiance with an accompanying letter requesting assistance in this matter (I retain a copy of this oath and letter with proof of postage as evidence).

   ARREST & proceedings (Affidavit of truth).

   On the 5th day of October 2010 at approximately 14.15 hours, whilst I David of the family Robinson was peacefully travelling alone in my lawfully de-registered private conveyance along the A4 from Calne toward Quemerford heading toward Avebury, Wiltshire, in my lawfully identifiable private conveyance known as 'WIZECROW' (as noticed to DVLA and Wiltshire Police Constabulary). Whilst causing no harm and travelling in a peaceful manner, I became aware in my off side wing mirror of a marked Police enforcement vehicle flashing its lights and the driver making hand gestures for me to stop. I carried on for a short distance, until I deemed it safe to stop and then did so.

   I wound down the window enough to be able to clearly speak with constable W.1964 Sergeant Lawson who approached from the rear of the truck on the offside, Constable W.1964 Lawson requested that I exit the vehicle. I asked him to clarify why he had stopped me, or if he had observed me being in breach of the peace, W.1964 Lawson tried the handle of the door of the cab which was locked. He mentioned the unusual identification plates on my conveyance.

   I also asked him if he was standing under his Oath of office as a constable, he ignored my questions and requested again that I exit my private conveyance, I declined his request and asked him if that was a request or an order, he said it was a request and I said that a request can be denied and I would decline his request. I exclaimed that I did not consent to the proceedings and that I had no obligation to exit my private conveyance, as I had not breached the peace or committed any crime.

   I asked him under what law I was required to exit my private conveyance, to which he responded, “under the roads traffic Act 1988.” I explained that I was not bound by the legislation of the law society's roads traffic Act of 1988 and that I was neither a public servant, nor operating in commerce, and that I was 'travelling' not driving, and that I had notified the relevant agencies being; DVLA & Wiltshire Police (including Chief Inspector Ian Steven Copus head of 'roads traffic policing' for Wiltshire) of my lawful standing, which had become my truth in law by un-rebutted ('in substance') Notices, which meant therefore that I was not lawfully nor legally bound by the legislation of the 1988 Roads Traffic Act, as I had gained a permanent irrevocable lawful Estoppel on both DVLA and Wiltshire police.

   W.1964 Lawson was joined by his colleague W.1382 Sartin who was checking the Licence disc details which had expired on the 31/08/09 and had been replaced with a lawful notice in the front windscreen of the cab, the notice read as follows; “ NOTICE, EXEMPT FROM LEVY. PRIVATE PROPERTY. OUTSIDE THE JURISDICTION OF THE UNITED KINGDOM. ANY PERSONS UNLAWFULLY INTERFERING WITH THIS PROPERTY, AFFIXING P.C.N'S OR HINDERING THE OWNER WILL BE SUED UP TO £100,000.00 ” (See prosecution exhibit CS/1 and CS/2 as evidenced by W.1382 Sartin).

   W.1382 Sartin asked about the notice in the front window, I explained that I had de-registered the conveyance by lawful notice, she then told me that my 'vehicle' was unlicensed which was contrary to the roads traffic Act 1988, I stated that I was under no lawful obligation to comply with the legislation pertaining to an unlawful process, and that it was unlawful for me to do so, therefore the legislation did not apply to me. I asked her if she was standing under her Oath of office, she declined to respond to my question and demanded, under threat of force, that I exit the so called 'vehicle'.

   I explained to W.1382 Sartin and W.1964 Lawson that I had no contract with DVLA or Wiltshire police, and that I was not operating in commerce or doing anything unlawful and that I had not been in breach of the peace, so they had no reasonable cause to stop or detain me further at the road side. Both constables seemed bemused with my claims at which I stated perhaps they should contact Chief Inspector Ian Copus for more clarification of my lawful understanding. I recall W.1964 Lawson then contacted Chief Inspector Ian Copus who apparently stated that I had been warned that I would be arrested if I did not abide by the roads traffic Act 1988. I exclaimed that he had also been warned by my series of lawful notices! I explained to the enforcement officers that Chief Inspector Copus would not respond to the points of law I had written to him about, with any lawful facts whatsoever to rebut my claims. I explained that he was in dishonour acting as a policy enforcement agent under an unlawful system of governance, and that he was wilfully acting for this treasonous regime who are acting under the legislation imposed upon the British people by a foreign imported Roman jurisdiction deriving from the European Union. “That is treason !” I exclaimed.

   I was ordered out of my private conveyance by both Officers under threat of damage to my private property, I explained that I had a lawful fee schedule in effect and that they were both in breach of said fee schedule, because they were making orders and harassing me unlawfully. After approx 5/10 minutes had elapsed where I had declined to exit my private conveyance, but because the enforcement officers were becoming more agitated and threatening, I decided, in order to prevent a breach of the peace, to exit my private conveyance. I expressed this intention to the police enforcement officers before exiting my conveyance and locking the door. Therefore, I exited my private conveyance 'under duress' and expressed this to the enforcement officers at all times.

   I was led to the rear of the truck and ordered to sit in the back of the patrol car, I refused, but later did so under duress and clearly stated that was my position. A lengthy discussion ensued with myself and both officers. I was asked for my name and address by W.1382 Sartin of which I refused to give, I told her that I had no obligation to contract and that by supplying a name or giving an address it is to my understanding that that could lead to the presumption that a contract existed between us, which I had not given my consent to willingly.

   I asked W.1382 Sartin to differentiate between the common law and Maritime admiralty law/ statute law pertaining to the law of the sea and contractual law, which I explained was entirely different to the common law, and to which the common law of the land has precedence over (the law of the sea, maritime admiralty law), she refused to respond to this reasonable request for clarification, I informed her that it was considered fraud if she did not make the distinction between the two jurisdictions when requested, I told W.1382 Sartin that I do not consent to these proceedings and that I have a lawful obligation to decline to contract under the terms laid down under chapter 61 of Magna Carta 1215- Lawful Rebellion.

   I explained my lawful position again, that I was officially in lawful rebellion and had lawful documents to prove this claim, that I had de-registered my private conveyance by a series of lawful notices as required by law, whilst in lawful rebellion, and that I have a lawful duty not to comply to the will of a treasonous administration.

   I explained the fact that they were themselves creating a 'tort' between myself and Wiltshire police constabulary (themselves included), and that their actions could result in complaints being lodged against them and/or commercial liens being served on them and others. I explained that they were in fact committing a 'serious neglect of duty and misprision of treason' by arresting me and not standing under their oaths of office, and therefore the law of the land, and that I had set in place a lawful fee schedule which they were both now in breach of.

   W.1382 Sartin asked me if I was threatening them at which I exclaimed that I was merely stating lawful facts. I spoke in a peaceful and non threatening manner throughout, I explained that I do not stand under the legislation that they refer to under the '1988 roads traffic Act' and that it states in Blacks law dictionary “Acts and statutes are the legislative rules of a society and are only given the force of law by the consent of the governed,” and whereas I am NOT a member of the law society and, that I was NOT driving a vehicle in commerce, I was 'travelling' not 'driving' and whereas I had NOT committed a breach of the peace, there was no lawful reason for my detainment whatsoever.

   W.1382 Sartin warned me again that I would be arrested if I did not give her a name and address, I told her under duress that my name was David of the family Robinson and explained the distinction between the name and the 'legal fiction' Represented by the all capitals name 'ROBINSON DAVID PAUL', and that she was to write the name down clearly as I had stated, she said she would write it as to my requirements as 'David Of the family Robinson,' she did no such thing.

   I did not supply a date of birth and I also declined to supply an address, I told them, “ that I could not supply an address as I would be entering into a presumed contract by doing so,” and that I would not cooperate in any way with this unlawful administration of legislation.

   I was then arrested at 15:02 on the 5th of October 2010 and my private conveyance was seized under section 165 A/C of The Roads Traffic Act 1988. I stated for the record that; “I have no obligation to the law society's legislation, as I am a freeman on the land in lawful rebellion. You are in fact in breach of my fee schedule which has been noticed to the relevant authorities.” I stated that I would require my file of lawful notices and other paperwork that were inside the living quarters of my private conveyance, as they were evidence for my lawful excuse/defence, and that they were in the rear of the conveyance/truck (living area).

   I was allowed to retrieve my defence paperwork, before I was placed back 'under duress' inside the police enforcement vehicle for transportation to Melksham police station. I explained to the two arresting officers (W.1964 Lawson and W1382 Sartin) whilst on the way to Melksham police station that, myself and three other concerned individuals had on the 14th of July 2010, attempted to report the crimes of sedition and treason at Devizes police station at approximately 14.30 hours.

   After being turned away by a police sergeant (W.1428) who eventually unlocked the front entrance to the police station to dismiss my claims of being in possession of criminal evidence, who then handed back the discs/evidence I had presented to him without any investigation into the allegations/evidence supplied whatsoever, nor would he provide us with a crime report number, of course. I later proceeded to lodge a complaint against sergeant W.1428 with the IPCC (independent Police Complaints Commission), 'for serious neglect of duty and misprision of treason'.

   I also sent to the IPCC the same evidence (FCO 30/48 discs) that myself and the three others were attempting to report on July 14th 2010, this evidence being a compilation of nearly 500 signed and/or stamped documents (FCO 30/48) gleaned from the public records office by a David Barnby, that prove the fact that sedition and treason has and is still being committed to this very day.

   The IPCC have failed to act on this important evidence and I have no confidence nor allegiance in their unlawful administration whatsoever. We filmed the attempt to report these crimes and therefore do retain the video evidence and have three (3) first-hand knowledge witnesses as proof to this claim. I also verbally reported this crime to both W.1964 Lawson and W.1382 Sartin, as well as Chief Inspector Copus (the latter by lawful notice in my defence).

   TAKE NOTICE THAT;

   The discs (FCO 30/48) which evidence the crimes of Sedition and Treason at common law, have been included within the contents of this document for your IMMEDIATE and URGENT ATTENTION (Exhibit A).

   I was taken under duress of circumstances to Melksham Police station where I arrived at 16:07 hours with the two accompanying arresting officers, where I was detained. I refused to contract or to stand under the jurisdiction of the Wiltshire police and informed them that I was under duress at all times, whilst officially in lawful rebellion. I informed the custody sergeant specifically that I was under duress and that I would not sign anything. I was duly processed and my defence papers were taken for photocopying without my consent by W.1382 Sartin. I did not sign anything whatsoever and requested a copy of the PACE book to accompany me in the detention room along with my defence paperwork. I was granted these items. I was treated reasonably well by my kidnappers.

   I was later relieved from my cell to stand before the front desk of the police station as the charges were read out before me, which I rebutted under duress and explained to all that could hear me that they were all acting for a treasonous government and therefore they were 'compounding treason'. A reasonable discussion ensued, but, by the looks of disbelief on some of their faces, I don't think my credulity was highly rated, and they are allegedly detectives ! I was taken back to my cell.

   I was kindly given an apple and a banana by inspector Bull and was also allowed to consume a pot of yoghurt that I had previously retrieved from the back of my truck. I spent an uncomfortable night on a hard surface in custody and awoke the following morning with a stiff neck and back, which was unhelpful to my muscular dystrophy condition. The following morning I had a shower and dressed before being taken by private security personnel, under duress, to a waiting prisoner transportation vehicle. I was assaulted with hand shackles, at which I stated quite loudly that this constituted common assault and, that I was under duress and did not give my consent to being shackled. I was taken to (the alleged) Chippenham Magistrates court, where I was confined to a holding cell. I was denied my documentation and my right to have a pen and paper (according to PACE). I was there for approximately six hours.

   Whilst in the holding cells, at one stage I was escorted to a room by security staff, where I was greeted by a psychiatrist. On asking why I was being seen by a psychiatrist, she told me that it had been requested by my solicitor. I told her that I was acting for myself and that I did not have a solicitor. I demanded that she send for this alleged solicitor, so that the matter could be remedied immediately. She called for him to come and he promptly arrived.

   He entered the interview room and exclaimed (rather loudly) that he was my solicitor and that he was going to represent me in court. I told the legal advisor in front of the psychiatrist (who is a witness to the fact), that he was not going to represent me in any way shape or form and that his first duty is to the court, his second duty is to the people and only thirdly to myself.

   I told him (legal advisor) that I would not agree to stand as a 'Ward of court', I told him that I act only for myself as a freeman on the land and that NO freeman would contract with a solicitor. I told him his services were NOT required. I had no writing implements whilst in the interview room with the psychiatrist and so I was unable to record her name as a result. I expect court files can be obtained to verify the name of this vital witness who is evidence to the fact that I made no contractual/consensual agreement with a legal advisor at ANY time whatsoever, therefore my standing and intention can be clearly proven. I was then escorted under duress back to the holding cell.

   I was later taken under duress and hand shackled to attend a hearing conducted by three magistrates. I had 4 witnesses that sat at the rear of the hearing who did not rise for the magistrates when they entered and, who will testify to the fact that I had NO LEGAL REPRESENTATION at the hearing WHATSOEVER. I Told the magistrate that I was there under 'duress of circumstances' standing under the common law of the land as a freeman on the land, whilst in lawful rebellion. I told him/they that I had lawful papers to prove my claims of 'lawful excuse', but that they had been denied me by those managing the holding cells at (so called) Chippenham magistrates court. The head Magistrate asked the prosecution council why this had been the case, at which no reasonable response was given by the prosecution. (she did not know).

   I told the head magistrate again that I was standing under the common law of the land which is my lawful right, and that I claim 'lawful excuse' for any alleged offences brought against myself/legal person with regards to the usage of my private conveyance on the public highways. I claimed my lawful right to a properly convened court-de-jure at which the head magistrate replied, “ we will see if it can be heard in this court room first.” I did not consent.

   Whilst at this preliminary hearing I explained that it is to my understanding that I do not need a license to operate a private conveyance under the common law (even though I had one), the charge of having not been licensed to 'drive' was revoked when it was realised that I actually had a current and valid license.

   I explained that It was not a lawful requirement for me to have a license to travel as a freeman on the land in my private conveyance, and that I have the right to free and unhindered travel under the law of this land and that this is an unalienable right and, that it is to my understanding that I have national insurance and do not require insurance if I am not bound by contractual law, under the law society's legislation and, that I am not required to pay road tax as a freeman, and that I was not operating the private conveyance in commerce and, that I had no contractual agreement with DVLA to incur this levy, nor am I a public servant. I explained that I had perfected due process according to my understanding and that I would not and could not lawfully stand under the jurisdiction of a treasonous administration.

   The prosecution proceeded in an attempt to have bail denied, I pointed out that the police had my address from my lawful documents so there was no need to deny me bail as they had photocopied the address without my consent. I made the true claim that I had absolute evidence that treason has and is still being committed to this day and that I required leave to prepare my defence and gather my evidence of the crimes. I told the magistrate(s) that some of the evidence was in my private conveyance which had been impounded under section 165 A/C of the roads traffic Act 1988 and, that I required access to my unlawfully detained property in order to retrieve said evidence.

   The magistrates retired and I was escorted out of the hearing and hand shackled again whilst being escorted back to the holding cells. I was then brought back in front of the magistrates some 20-40 minutes later by the two private security staff, again under hand shackles, which I protested to under duress, and each and every time the shackles were applied.

   The head magistrate stated that “Justice had to be seen to be done” and that “every man has the right to prepare his defence” and agreed to grant me unconditional bail. I accepted bail under 'duress of circumstances' and was released. It was approximately 15:30 hours when I exited police custody. I saw nobody but the security staff and the police at the custody reception area on my exit. I did not sign anything unless under duress in order to retrieve my personal property, nor did I speak to any solicitors on or before my release, except for the one time in front of the psychiatrist (who incidentally pronounced me to be of sound mind in the report that she wrote and showed me).

   The next day myself and a colleague went to the 'Greenmeadows' police compound located at The Ridgeway, Gypsy lane, Swindon, Wilts SN2 8DH, where my truck had been impounded. We went there to find out what the requirements were in order to have the truck released. I was told that there was a requirement for a VOSA inspection to be performed on the truck and that a fee of £200.00 was also required to be paid to 'Greenmeadow' for the recovery (theft) of the vehicle, before it could be released. The inspection found one (side light) bulb to be faulty and a worn brake hose, which was replaced, the parts and labour charges consisted of a total of £192.47p.

   After the minor work had been completed in compliance with the alleged 'requirements' of the VOSA test ordered by the police, I was informed that the truck had had a retention order placed on it which prevented me from entering or removing the vehicle or any property from my private conveyance. On trying to find out who and why such a restriction had been placed on my property, I was informed that officer W.1382 Sartin had placed it, but was now on leave for a few days. I was prevented from accessing my property in order to retrieve any food supplies or personal property or to collect my defence evidence, so that I could start to put together the defence.

   Immediately after the retention order was lifted an unlawful lien was placed on my private conveyance and again the officer who had allegedly placed the lien was on leave for the next few days. I was again denied access to my property. I was unable to gain access to the conveyance for around three weeks due to this unlawful lien and the previous retention order. To my understanding A lien cannot be lawfully served if no opportunity to rebut said lien is honoured, again this unlawful act (misfeasance in public office) prevented me access to important papers with regard to the treason allegations and to my defence, I was also further denied access to my personal property, including clothes and food. When I finally was able to retrieve some things by being accompanied by a police officer, all my food had perished.

   I eventually arranged for my private conveyance to be removed from the police compound by way of employing the help of an associate, and after paying the ransom of £392.47p and, after satisfying the police's requirements for the truck to be 'legally' transported, which also incurred more unnecessary delays. Luckily due to some administrative error I was not required to pay the extra storage fees that would have been out of my financial reach and as a result, I would have lost my property and everything I own within it. (I allege the unlawful lien was placed on my conveyance in order for this to occur -misfeasance in public office). I retain audio evidence of the phone call between myself and the officer who tendered the unlawful lien as evidence.

   We recorded the telephone calls and communication with 'Greenmeadow' staff and police with regard to the unlawful lien and retention order placed on my private conveyance, and retain all of this footage as evidence;

   On the 11th of October 2010, I sent a 'notice of Request for clarification' to Chief inspector Ian Copus and also to Chippenham magistrates court. (copies of these Notices with postage receipts have been retained as evidence;

   On the 12th of October 2010, I sent a 'Lawful Notice for request of evidence for my defence to The data protection officer Andy Holyoake at Melksham police station (A copy of this Notice with postage receipt has been retained as evidence);

   On the 14th of October 2010 I sent Chief Inspector Ian Steven Copus a Lawful ' Notice of Misprision of treason and intent' (A copy of this Notice with postage receipt and video evidence of proof of postage of the Notice and the 2 discs- 'Shoe horned into the EU' has been retained as evidence);

   On the 16th of October 2010 I sent to Chippenham Magistrates court a lawful ' Notice of request for clarification.' (A copy of this notice with postage receipt has been retained as evidence);

   On the 18th of October 2010 I sent to the 'court manager' of (the alleged) Chippenham magistrates court plc, a lawful ' Notice of clarification' (a copy of this Notice has been retained along with a postage receipt as evidence).

   On the 25th of October 2010 I sent to the data protection officer Andy Holyoake a letter as I had not received any response to my lawful notice (a copy of which with a postage receipt has been retained as evidence). It was replied to by Mr R. Staniforth (Wiltshire police), who stated in his reply that: “ In this case we will follow our normal procedure, which is to supply the crown prosecution service with the file. They should be in contact with you, if you are to conduct your own defence, and should supply you with the papers etc that you require.” The address he provided was for the Chief Crown Prosecutor, Crown Prosecution Service, Fox Talbot House, Bellinger close, Malmesbury Road, Chippenham, SN15 1BN. The video evidence I was trying to acquire was never forthcoming, I received a disc that crashed my friends computer that held no relevant evidence whatsoever.

   I also received a letter from Jo Revill Dated 27th October 2010 explaining that, as they were unable to deal with my request, it had been forwarded to Richard Staniford at Melksham Criminal Justice Unit. I was informed that, “ Mr A. Holyoake no longer works for Wiltshire police.” I also demanded the name of the psychiatrist by lawful notice, but this demand was also ignored.

   On the 10th of November 2010 I sent a 'Notice of default of evidence required and rebuttal of jurisdiction' (a copy of which along with a postage receipt has been retained as evidence). Whereas it is evidenced that Chippenham magistrates court plc are Acting unlawfully within a treasonous regime of administration, I have a lawful obligation to peacefully abstain and resist from unlawful demands by this unlawful administration of Justice that stands in conflict with the common law of the land and our natural, unalienable Rights and freedoms. It is unconstitutional ! To my understanding the enforcement of this legislation is a criminal Act of Treason at common law.

   After receiving documentation referring to the alleged offences committed whilst travelling in my private conveyance, I noticed within the pile of papers a 'Preparation for trial' document, which appeared to be signed by both myself and others (N.Wootton & J.R. Hope-legal representative).

   The address on said document was written in MY worst hand writing, that of which I remember writing on a document at the DWP (Department for Work and Pensions) up to a year before this crafted document appeared. I allege that it was 'lifted' from the DWP document. My signature had also been crafted onto the preparation for trial document. I did not sign it. I sent a copy of the alleged forged document to a consultant graphologist for examination. She, Margaret Webb MBIG (Dip) consultant Graphologist replied;

   “Thank you for contacting me regarding the forensic examination of the handwritten on the Preparation for Trial document for comparison with both copies and originals of your known handwriting and signatures.” She further wrote,

   “However my initial opinion is:”

   “The handwriting pressure of the address '26 PAUL STREET, CORSHAM, WILTSHIRE. SN13 9DG' point number 4 'Defendants contact details', is light and faded and therefore might not have been inserted at the time as point no, 5 'Defendants representative', handwritten in the box below as 'Not represented.' The ticks in the boxes also appear to be written with heavier pressure.” Also...

   “I strongly advise you to obtain the original of this document if possible as, without it, a reliable forensic opinion cannot be made as to the genuineness of the document. “ (I enclose a copy of this letter as evidence) - (Exhibit B).

   I had no legal representative present at the hearing and I engaged no-one except for security staff and police on my release. I did not speak to any solicitor on my release from the alleged Chippenham magistrates court. I decided that the corruption appeared to be so absolute among the police, solicitors and others within the administrative process that any further communication would be futile and therefore pointless, and so, I elected to keep my head down and send rebuttals of jurisdiction notices to the alleged court to remain in honour. I have been under duress as a fugitive for over a year now and seek remedy of this matter under the jurisdiction of the common law of the land, which has primacy over any other law except God's law in this United Kingdom.

   I managed to move my truck and myself away from Wiltshire after we had secured its release, as I had previously been intimidated by Wiltshire police (W.1428) after I had filed a complaint against him. I have been staying at an undisclosed location in Yorkshire for the past 13 months. I attempted to attend the hearing set for the 16th of December 2010 'under duress', but because of the distance I had to travel, and also because of unforeseen traffic delays and, that I had no credit to phone the so called court house, which meant I could not therefore inform the administration proceedings that I was en-route, the criminal proceedings continued in my absence. When I was approximately 20 minutes from arriving at the alleged Chippenham magistrates court, a friend and colleague (one of about 15 or so people who were in attendance at the location in support of my lawful position), informed me that the proceedings had been heard in my absence and that I had been heavily fined and, that there had been a 'no bail' arrest warrant issued for my immediate arrest for alleged traffic offences, which to my understanding are non arrestable offences. I did not proceed to the alleged court house and unlawful Administrative hearing, but instead turned around to return from whence I came.

   I have since sent two Oath of allegiance letters to Lord Ashbourne and then on hearing that he had a serious illness, that meant “he was out of the game,” I sent another Oath of allegiance to Lord Rutland, along with a letter requesting that the barons aid me in my defence of this matter, as I had also entered into lawful rebellion. I await his reply.

   LAWFUL CLAIMS & ALLEGATIONS (Affidavit of truth).

   The claims/allegations within this affidavit are the truth as I know it to be and, I make them on my full commercial liability and penalty of perjury and, with all my natural unalienable common law rights intact;

   I David Paul of the family Robinson claim that TREASON HAS, & IS TO THIS DAY, STILL BEING COMMITTED by those evidenced herein.

   I David Paul of the family Robinson allege an unlawful police stop. It was at no time claimed that I had in any way caused a breach of the peace, therefore there was 'no reasonable cause' for the stop;

   I David Paul of the family Robinson allege wrongful arrest, I had committed no crime and had notified the police authority as to my lawful standing;

   I David Paul of the family Robinson allege unlawful deprivation of my fundamental rights to life and personal property, I was unlawfully prevented access to my personal property including basic essentials contrary to section 3.1 of the 1988 roads traffic Act;

   I David Paul of the family Robinson allege unlawful assault by police and private security staff, I was hand-shackled and man-handled without my consent a total of Seven (7) times, which is common assault;

   I David Paul of the family Robinson allege an unlawful lien was placed on my property, because I had no opportunity to rebut it, therefore I allege malfeasance in public office contrary to section 3.1 of the 1988 roads traffic Act-S165;

   I David Paul of the family Robinson allege theft of my private property, which was removed from Quemerford Calne to Swindon by a 'Greenmeadow' recovery vehicle contrary to the terms laid out in my displayed notice that was positioned clearly in the front of the windscreen of my private conveyance, as evidenced herein (exhibit CS/2, W.1382 Sartin);

   I David Paul of the family Robinson allege an unlawful retention order prevented me from attaining my private property, which was placed moments before W1382 Sartin allegedly went on leave, therefore I allege malfeasance in public office contrary to section 3.1 of the 1988 roads traffic Act-S165;

   I David Paul of the family Robinson allege an attempt at unlawful representation, fraud and forgery, by an alleged legal representative who claimed to be representing me at the hearing, at which I rebutted and denied in front of a witness in this matter. The said legal representative is believed by me to be Mr J R Hope. An alleged co-conspirator who also signed the preparation for trial document is believed by me to be Mr N. Wootton;

   I David Paul of the family Robinson allege unlawful harassment by court Bailiffs whereby, I understand a court bailiff(s) acting under a presumed jurisdiction (Chippenham magistrates court/the crown corporation), harassed the dwellers of my c/o address, 26 Paul street, Corsham, Wiltshire, SN13 9DG, that being my parents' dwelling;

   I David Paul of the family Robinson allege 'fraud by misrepresentation' by all public officials unlawfully involved in this matter (See item 6 above under the heading 'lawful rebellion facts');

   I David Paul of the family Robinson allege misfeasance in public office by the officers at the alleged Chippenham Magistrates court detention facilities. I was denied my defence paperwork at the hearing and I was also refused paper and a pencil, whilst being detained contrary to my rights according to PACE;

   I, David Paul of the family Robinson, certify on my own commercial liability that I have read the above affidavit and do know the contents to be true, correct and complete, and not misleading, it is the truth, and nothing but the truth, and I do believe the above described acts to have been committed contrary to the common law of the land. Without malice, vexation, frivolity or ill will and with all my natural unalienable rights intact.

   signed________________________ Witnessed by____________________________

   Date:
   Witnessed by____________________________

   Witnessed by____________________________

   NON JURISDICTION BY THE FRAUDULENT QUEEN OF ENGLAND.

   REGINA/THE QUEEN

   V

   David of the family Robinson (as commonly called).

   LAWFUL ARGUMENT AGAINST JURISDICTION & SOVEREIGNTY

   1. Elizabeth Alexandra Mary Battenberg’s Fraudulent Coronation.

   1. The person who purports to be the queen has never, in fact, rightfully or Lawfully been crowned as the Sovereign. This knowledge stems from the fact that the Coronation Stone / The Stone of Destiny / Bethel / Jacob’s Pillar that Elizabeth Alexandra Mary Battenberg was crowned upon is a fake. The real Coronation Stone; made from Bethel porphyry, weighing more than 4cwt. (458lbs.) according to the BBC telex in the film “The Coronation Stone”, (Covenant Recordings), and Ian R. Hamilton Q.C. in three of his books: “No Stone Unturned” (pages 36, 44), “A Touch of Treason” (page 50) and “The Taking of The Stone of Destiny” (pages 27, 35); was removed from Westminster Abbey at 04:00 hrs on the 25th of December in 1950, by his group of four Scottish Nationalist students, which included and was led by Ian Robertson Hamilton himself. The other three were Alan Stuart, Gavin Vernon and Kay Matheson, as stated in his books. Further details at: http://jahtruth.net/stone.htm .

   1. The real Coronation Stone (“National Treasure No. 1”), was taken to Scotland where, in Glasgow, it was handed over to Bertie Gray to repair it, and was later hidden by industrialist and philanthropist John Rollo in his factory, under his office-floor, according to Ian R. Hamilton’s books – “No Stone Unturned” and “The Taking of The Stone of Destiny”, and the factory-manager.

   1. A fake stone copy had previously been made in 1920 by stone-mason, Bertie Gray, for a prior plan to repatriate the Coronation Stone, and it was made of Scottish sandstone from a quarry near Scone in Perthshire, weighing 3cwt. (336lbs.). The conspirators had used it to practice with, before going to London to Westminster Abbey to remove the real Coronation Stone from the abbey. It was that fake stone copy which was placed on the High Altar Stone at Arbroath Abbey, at Midday on the 11th April of 1951, wrapped in a Scottish Saltyre (St. Andrew’s Flag – Dark blue with white diagonal cross on it) and found by the authorities, then transported to England, where it was used for the “queen’s” coronation, according to Bertie Gray’s children in a Daily Record Newspaper article.

   http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/uk-world-news/2008/06/29/exclusive-our-dad-faked-stone-of-destiny-claim-family-of-stonemason-who-repaired-relic-78057-20624793/

   1. The stone upon which Elizabeth Alexandra Mary Battenberg was crowned weighs exactly 3cwt (336lbs.) as attested to by Historic Scotland in their official booklet titled “The Stone of Destiny”, “Symbol of Nationhood”, obtainable from Edinburgh Castle, published by Historic Scotland, (ISBN 1 900168 44 8), who have had the stone that she was crowned on in their care, in Edinburgh Castle, since it was returned to Scotland by John Major’s Conservative government in 1996.

   2. As previously stated, the genuine Coronation Stone weighs more than 4 cwt. (458lbs.), but the one that Elizabeth A. M. Battenberg was crowned on, that has been on display in Edinburgh Castle since 1996, weighs 336lbs, not 458lbs., and thus cannot be the genuine Coronation Stone.

   Therefore, never having been Lawfully crowned, she has NO authority to put the defendant on trial and the judge has NO authority to try him, because the judge’s “authority” comes from her.

   Further, and without prejudice to the above...

   2. Some of Elizabeth Alexandra Mary Battenberg’s other Crimes.

   Sample Crimes/Points of Law:-

   1. Mrs. Elizabeth Alexandra Mary Battenberg/Mountbatten; un-Lawfully residing in Buckingham Palace, London; also known by the criminal aliases Windsor and QE2, was knowingly and willfully, with malice-aforethought, fraudulently crowned on a fake Coronation Stone / Lia Fail / Stone of Destiny / Bethel / Jacob’s Pillar on June 2nd in 1953, and has been fraudulently masquerading as the rightful British Sovereign/Crown for the last 58 years, which the Defendant can prove beyond doubt. It is Mrs. Elizabeth A. M. Battenberg who should be arrested and charged; for her innumerable acts of high-treason against God and Christ, Whose church she falsely claims to head and in defiance of Whom she had herself fraudulently crowned, and Whom she has continued to rule in defiance of, and in opposition to, ever since; not the Claimant.

   1. Allowing people to legislate in defiance of God’s Law (Deuteronomy 4:2, 12:32) that she swore and affirmed, in writing, to maintain to the utmost of her power, and, in many cases, actually reversing what The Law states into being the very opposite of it. She has fraudulently imprisoned and punished people for enforcing The Law themselves as God commands them to do, and thus un-Lawfully prevented or deterred others from doing so. She has given Royal-Assent to 3,401 Acts of Parliament (as of 24/03/2011) and thus broken The Law against legislating 3,401 times. The very first time she gave “Royal-Assent” to ANY “Act of Parliament”, or any other piece of legislation, or allowed Parliament or anyone to legislate, she broke her Coronation Oath and was thus no longer the monarch, with immediate effect, even if she had been Lawfully crowned in the first-place, which she most definitely was not.

   Deuteronomy 4:2 Ye shall not add to the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish ought from it, that ye may keep the Commandments of the Lord your God which I COMMAND you.

   11:1 Therefore thou shalt love the Lord thy God, and keep His charge, and His Statutes, and His Judgments, and His Commandments, always.

   12:8 Ye shall not do after all the things that we do here this day, every man whatsoever is right in his own eyes.

   12:32 What thing soever I command you, observe to do it: thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it.

   A Bill MUST have Royal Assent before it can become an Act of Parliament (law).

   http://www.parliament.uk/about/how/laws/passage-bill/lords/lrds-royal-assent/

   1. Allowing the forming of political parties and demon-crazy (democracy) to divide, weaken, conquer and ruin the people (Deuteronomy 5:32, 17:20; Matthew 12:25).

   Deuteronomy 5:32 Ye shall observe to do therefore as the Lord your God hath commanded you: ye shall not turn aside to the right hand or to the left.

   17:20 That his (the Sovereign’s) heart be NOT lifted up ABOVE his brethren, and that he turn not aside from the Commandment, [to] the right hand, or [to] the left…

   Matthew 12:25 And Jesus knew their thoughts, and said unto them, Every kingdom divided against itself is brought to desolation; and every city or house divided against itself shall not stand:

   1. Removal of the death-penalty that is prescribed as the deterrent for capital crimes in The Law that she swore to maintain to the utmost of her power; e.g. Sodomy (Deuteronomy 23:17; Leviticus 20:13); Paedophilia; Rape; Murder; Adultery; etc., thus encouraging these crimes, that are now legion.

   Deuteronomy 23:17 There shall be no whore of the daughters of Israel, nor a sodomite of the sons of Israel.

   Leviticus 20:13 If a man lie also with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them.

   Etc., etc., etc.

   1. Actually encouraging and promoting sodomy, by legalizing it, then further enacting un-Lawful anti-discrimination legislation, promoting it in schools, and giving knighthoods to high-profile sodomites in the music, film and fashion industries, instead of having them Lawfully executed as a deterrent to others.

   Music - Elton John

   Film - Ian McKellen of Stonewall; John Gielgud

   Fashion – Norman Hartnell knighted 1977 and Hardy Amies knighted 1989.

   1. Enriching herself in defiance of God’s Law that she swore to uphold, at the expense of her subjects, driving them into debt-slavery (Egypt), poverty and homelessness (Deuteronomy 17:14-20). Including the collecting of graven-images and expensive jewellery (her famous art and Fabergé collections, etc.)

   Deuteronomy 17:14 When thou art come unto the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee, and shalt possess it, and shalt dwell therein, and shalt say, I will set a king over me, like as all the nations that are about me;

   17:15 Thou shalt in any wise set him king over thee, WHOM THE LORD THY GOD SHALL CHOOSE (see Psalm 2): [one] from among thy brethren shalt thou set king over thee: thou mayest not set a stranger over thee, which is not thy brother.
   17:16 But he shall not multiply horses to himself, nor cause the people to return to Egypt (slavery under man-made laws), to the end that he should multiply horses: forasmuch as the Lord hath said unto you, Ye shall henceforth return no more that way.
   17:17 Neither shall he multiply wives to himself, that his heart turn not away: neither shall he greatly multiply to himself silver and gold.
   17:18 And it shall be, when he sitteth upon the throne of his kingdom, that he shall write him a copy of this Law in a book out of that which is before the priests the Levites:
   17:19 And it shall be with him, and he shall read therein all the days of his life: that he may learn to fear the Lord his God, to keep all the words of this Law and these Statutes, to DO them:
   17:20 That his heart be NOT lifted up ABOVE his brethren, and that he turn not aside from the Commandment, to the right hand, or to the left…

   1. Legalising, facilitating and engaging in usury/interest, that has caused the ruin, bankruptcy and debt-slavery of the entire nation. http://jahtruth.net/greeneco.htm

   Deuteronomy 23:19 Thou shalt not lend upon usury/interest to thy brother; usury of money, usury of victuals, usury of any thing that is lent upon usury:

   1. Ignoring the “Year of Release,” where all debts are forgiven/cancelled every seven years, and the “Year of Jubilee” every fifty years, where all property is redistributed back to its owner and the wealth shared out, so that there will be no poor amongst the people.

   Deuteronomy 15:1 At the end of every seven years thou shalt make a release.
   15:2 And this is the manner of the release: Every creditor that lendeth ought unto his neighbour shall release it; he shall not exact it of his neighbour, or of his brother; because it is called the Lord's release.
   15:4 Save when (to the end that) there be no poor among you; …

   Leviticus 25:10 And ye shall hallow the fiftieth year, and proclaim Liberty throughout all the land unto all the inhabitants thereof: it shall be a Jubilee unto you; and ye shall return every man unto his possession, and ye shall return every man unto his family.

   1. Elizabeth A. M. Battenberg has also broken God’s Law by allowing the EU, which is not the British people’s racial brother, but is a stranger, to rule over you / us, in contravention of Deuteronomy 17:15.

   Deuteronomy 17:14 When thou art come unto the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee, and shalt possess it, and shalt dwell therein, and shalt say, I will set a king over me, like as all the nations that [are] about me;
   17:15 Thou shalt in any wise set [him] king over thee, whom the Lord thy God shall choose: [one] from among thy brethren shalt thou set king over thee: thou mayest NOT set a stranger over thee, which [is] not thy brother.

   Deuteronomy 7:2 And when the Lord thy God shall deliver them before thee; thou shalt smite them, [and] utterly destroy them; thou shalt make no covenant with them, nor show mercy unto them:
   7:3 Neither shalt thou make marriages with them; thy daughter thou shalt not give unto his son, nor his daughter shalt thou take unto thy son.
   7:4 For they will turn away thy son from following Me, that they may serve other gods: so will the anger of the Lord be kindled against you, and destroy thee suddenly.
   7:5 But thus shall ye deal with them; ye shall destroy their altars, and break down their images, and cut down their groves, and burn their graven images with fire.
   7:6 For thou [art] an holy people unto the Lord thy God: the Lord thy God hath chosen thee to be a special people unto Himself, above all people that [are] upon the face of the earth.
   7:7 The Lord did not set His love upon you, nor choose you, because ye were more in number than any people; for ye [were] the fewest of all people:
   7:8 But because the Lord loved you, and because He would keep the Oath which He had sworn unto your fathers, hath the Lord brought you out with a mighty hand, and redeemed you out of the house of bondmen, from the hand of Pharaoh king of Egypt.
   7:9 Know therefore that the Lord thy God, He [is] God, the faithful God, which keepeth Covenant and mercy with them that love Him and keep His Commandments to a thousand generations;
   7:10 And repayeth them that hate (or disobey) Him to their face, to destroy them: He will not be slack to him that hateth (or disobeyeth) Him, He will repay him to his face.
   7:11 Thou shalt therefore KEEP the Commandments, and the Statutes, and the Judgments, which I command thee this day, to DO them.

   7:12 Wherefore it shall come to pass, if ye hearken to these Judgments, and keep, and do them, that the Lord thy God shall keep unto thee The Covenant and the mercy which He sware unto thy fathers:
   7:13 And He will love thee, and bless thee, and multiply thee: He will also bless the fruit of thy womb, and the fruit of thy land, thy corn, and thy wine, and thine oil, the increase of thy kine, and the flocks of thy sheep, in the land which He sware unto thy fathers to give thee.
   7:14 Thou shalt be blessed above all people: there shall not be male or female barren among you, or among your cattle.
   7:15 And the Lord will take away from thee all sickness, and will put none of the evil diseases of Egypt, which thou knowest, upon thee; but will lay them upon all [them] that hate thee.
   7:16 And thou shalt consume all the people which the Lord thy God shall deliver thee; thine eye shall have no pity upon them: neither shalt thou serve their gods; for that [will be] a snare unto thee.
   7:17 If thou shalt say in thine heart, These nations [are] more than I; how can I dispossess them?
   7:18 Thou shalt not be afraid of them: [but] shalt well remember what the Lord thy God did unto Pharaoh, and unto all Egypt (and pharaoh ruled the whole known world at that time);
   7:19 The great temptations which thine eyes saw, and the signs, and the wonders, and the mighty hand, and the stretched out arm, whereby the Lord thy God brought thee out: so shall the Lord thy God do unto all the people of whom thou art afraid.
   7:20 Moreover the Lord thy God will send the hornet among them, until they that are left, and hide themselves from thee, be destroyed.
   7:21 Thou shalt not be affrighted at them: for the Lord thy God [is] among you, a mighty God and terrible.
   7:22 And the Lord thy God will put out those nations before thee by little and little: thou mayest not consume them at once, lest the beasts of the field increase upon thee.
   7:23 But the Lord thy God shall deliver them unto thee, and shall destroy them with a mighty destruction, until they be destroyed.
   7:24 And He shall deliver their kings into thine hand, and thou shalt destroy their name from under heaven: there shall no man be able to stand before thee, until thou have destroyed them.
   7:25 The graven images of their gods shall ye burn with fire: thou shalt not desire the silver or gold [that is] on them, nor take [it] unto thee, lest thou be snared therein: for it [is] an abomination to the Lord thy God.
   7:26 Neither shalt thou bring an abomination into thine house, lest thou be a cursed thing like it: [but] thou shalt utterly detest it, and thou shalt utterly abhor it; for it [is] a cursed thing.
   8:1 All the Commandments which I command thee this day shall ye observe to do, that ye may live, and multiply, and go in and possess the land which the Lord sware unto your fathers.
   8:2 And thou shalt remember all the way which the Lord thy God led thee these forty years in the wilderness, to humble thee, [and] to test thee, to know what [was] in thine heart, whether thou wouldest keep His Commandments (Law), or not.

   God warned His people, YOU, the British-Israel people ( http://jahtruth.net/britca.htm ), in the Revelation/Apocalypse to John, to come out of the Mother of Harlots’, abominable (Rev. 17:5) Babylonian ( http://jahtruth.net/robab.htm ) Market System:-

   Revelation/Apocalypse 18:4 And I heard another voice from heaven, saying, COME OUT of her, MY people, that ye take not part in her sins, and that ye receive not of her plagues (punishment).

   1. She has allowed Witchcraft and condoned it - http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1284449/100-UK-servicemen-class-pagans-MoD-reveals.html - and Satanism - http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/3948329.stm - in her/the realm and in her/the armed forces.

   Exodus 22:18 Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live.

   Deuteronomy 18:9 When thou art come into the land which the Lord thy God giveth thee, thou shalt not learn to do after the abominations of those nations.
   18:10 There shall not be found among you [any one] that maketh his son or his daughter to pass through the fire, [or] that useth divination, [or] an observer of times, or an enchanter, or a WITCH,
   18:11 Or a charmer, or a consulter with familiar spirits, or a WIZARD, or a necromancer (medium).
   18:12 For all that do these things [are] an abomination unto the Lord: and because of these abominations the Lord thy God doth drive them out from before thee.
   18:13 Thou shalt be perfect with the Lord thy God (Matt. 5:48).

   Matthew 5:48 Be ye therefore perfect, even as your Father which is in heaven IS perfect.

   Deuteronomy 32:15 But the Beloved waxed fat, and rebelled: thou art waxen fat, thou art grown thick, thou art covered [with fatness]; then he forsook God [which] made him, and lightly esteemed the Rock of his salvation.
   32:16 They provoked Him to jealousy with strange [gods], with abominations provoked they Him to anger.
   32:17 They sacrificed unto devils, not to God; to gods whom they knew not, to new [gods that] came newly up, whom your fathers feared not.

   Revelation/Apocalypse 21:7 He that overcometh shall inherit all things; and I will be his God, and he shall be my (adopted) son.
   21:8 But the fearful, and unbelieving, and the abominable, and murderers, and whoremongers, and SORCERERS, and idolaters, and ALL LIARS, shall have their part in the lake which burneth with Fire and brimstone: which is the second death.

   She has given an O.B.E. to Joanne "Jo" Rowling (J. K. Rowling), who promotes witchcraft, thus herself condoning the promotion of witchcraft, and the poisoning of the minds of the nation and its children.

   The other and major part of witchcraft/sorcery, that she has also allowed, and probably actually invested in, is the chemical and pharmaceutical industry that is slowly poisoning the nation through chemical-fertilizers, pesticides, chemtrails, vaccines, etc., and other pharmaceutical products/medicines/poisons (witches’ brews / potions) in order to maximize their profits, because they do not make any money from healthy people. That is why there are more sick people every year and a correspondingly higher NHS budget, rather than less sick people and a correspondingly shrinking NHS budget. The NHS, doctors and pharmacists are therefore obviously harming the population, not healing it. http://www.rense.com/general34/quotes.htm http://jahtruth.net/heal.htm

   Note well that it states in Revelation/Apocalypse 21:8 “ALL LIARS shall have their part in the lake which burneth with Fire and Brimstone . . .” and the word Parliament means “Speaking Lies” from the French words Parler which means to speak, and mentir which means to tell lies. Also the word Politics, poly meaning many; tics are blood-sucking parasites; thus politics means many blood-sucking parasites.

   1. Each and every single one of the above crimes carries the death-penalty, with public execution; under The Law that she swore to maintain to the utmost of her power; for not doing so, along with all those who likewise reject The Law of God — Deuteronomy 17:8-13, 27:26; Malachi chapter 4.

   Deuteronomy 17:8 If there arise a matter too hard for thee in to the judge that shall be in those days, and enquire; and they shall show thee The Sentence of Judgment:
   17:10 And thou shalt do according to The Sentence, which they of that place which the Lord shall choose shall show thee; and thou shalt observe to do according to all that they inform thee:
   17:11 According to The Sentence of The Law which they shall teach thee, and according to the Judgment which they shall tell thee, thou shalt do: thou shalt not decline to do The Sentence which they shall show thee, and turn not away from it to the right hand, nor to the left.
   17:12 And the man that will do presumptuously, and will not hearken unto the priest that standeth to minister there before the Lord thy God, or unto the judge, even that man shall die: and thus thou shalt put away the evil from Israel.
   17:13 And all the people shall hear, and fear, and do no more presumptuously (in thinking they are a law unto themselves).

   27:26 Cursed be he (like Elizabeth) that confirmeth not all the words of this Law to DO them.

   Matthew 5:17 Think not that I am come to destroy The Law, or the Prophets: I am not come to destroy, but to fulfil (in the Greek Original – pleroo = to fully preach it).
   5:18 For verily I say unto you, Till heaven and earth pass, one jot or one tittle shall in no way pass from The Law, till ALL (the Prophecies) be fulfilled.
   5:19 Whosoever therefore shall break one of these least Commandments, and shall teach men so, he shall be called the least in the Kingdom of heaven: but whosoever shall do and teach them, the same shall be called great in the Kingdom of heaven.
   5:20 For I say unto you, That except your righteousness shall exceed the righteousness of the scribes (lawyers) and Pharisees (politicians), ye shall in no case enter into the Kingdom of heaven.

   James 2:10 He who breaks the least of these Commandments and teaches others to do so is guilty of all.

   The renowned English jurist Sir William Blackstone famously stated, “No enactment of man can be considered law unless it conforms to the law of God.”

   All of The Law references quoted are copied from the Sovereign’s Bible upon which Elizabeth Alexandra Mary Battenberg’s Coronation Oath was sworn, containing God’s Law that she swore to maintain to the utmost of her power. It is a special large print and specially bound edition of the king James Authorised Version (1611) of the Holy Bible, that she placed her right hand upon, swore the Coronation Oath upon and then kissed, before she signed the Coronation Oath.

   1. Elizabeth Alexandra Mary Battenberg is therefore not only massively in breach of contract, but also massively in breach of The Law, and thus is not only NOT the Lawful Sovereign, never has been, and thus has NO jurisdiction to prosecute me, but is also a criminal, guilty of capital crimes, that carry the death-penalty, according to The Law she swore to maintain to the utmost of her power. That Perfect Royal Law of Liberty was given by God to the British-Israel peoples to protect the British-Israel peoples from exploitation, oppression, poverty and harm, and which God has warned the British-Israel peoples to return to, with dire consequences for failure to do so. Her obscene wealth and that of her relatives, cronies and accomplices must be seized and shared out amongst the poor and homeless.

   Malachi 4:1 For, behold, the Day cometh, that shall burn like an oven; and all the proud, yea, and all that do wickedly, shall be stubble: and the day that cometh shall burn them up, saith the Lord of hosts, that it shall leave of them neither root nor branch (nothing).
   4:2 But unto you that fear My name shall the Sun of Righteousness arise with healing in his wings; and ye shall go forth, and grow up as calves of the stall.
   4:3 And ye shall tread down the wicked; for they shall be ashes under the soles of your feet in The Day that I shall do [this], saith the Lord of hosts.
   4:4 Remember ye (and return to) The Law of Moses My servant, which I commanded unto him in Horeb for all Israel, [with] the Statutes and Judgements.
   4:5 Behold, I will send you Elijah the Prophet before the coming of the great and dreadful Day of the Lord:
   4:6 And he shall turn the heart of the fathers to the children, and the heart of the children to their fathers, lest I come and smite the earth with a curse (see verse 1).

   1. The person who purports to be queen was, in fact, as proven above, never rightfully nor Lawfully the Sovereign/Crown. Therefore the Crown/Prosecution/Regina has NO authority to put the defendant/claimant on trial and the judge has NO authority to try him, because the judge’s authority comes from her.

   1. In addition, without prejudice to the above, based on God’s Law that she swore to maintain to the utmost of her power the “queen” is in breach of contract. She has amongst other things accumulated a large amount of personal wealth and done many other things that are expressly forbidden, some of which are listed above, and so she has breached her contract with God and the British-Israel people. Therefore, even if, which is not admitted, the “queen” was genuinely crowned, the breach of contract disqualifies her from sitting and renders null and void proceedings instituted in her name.

   It is therefore of the utmost importance that Elizabeth Alexandra Mary Battenberg and the Sovereign’s Bible, that is kept in Lambeth Palace*, be present in court for my challenge to her jurisdiction and sovereignty to be heard, and for me to face my false-accuser, examine her and have her arrested.

   Signed: _______________________

   Date.

   Witnessed by________________________

   TO:

   K. Needham

   HMCS (allegedly)

   The court house,

   Pewsham way,

   Chippenham.

   Wiltshire.

   SN15 3BF.

   From:

   David Paul of the family Robinson.

   c/o 26 Paul street

   Corsham,

   Wiltshire.

   SN13 9DG.

   DATE OF NOTICE BEING SERVED:

   Sent by recorded post.

   NOTICE OF UNDERSTANDING OF MISPRISION

   OF TREASON.

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

   Dear K. Needham,

   Please read the following 'notice' thoroughly and carefully. It is a NOTICE, a LAWFUL DOCUMENT and EVIDENCE. It informs you. It means what it says. The information herein is of the UTMOST URGENCY and requires your IMMEDIATE and URGENT ATTENTION.

   Please be aware that failure to act on this LAWFUL NOTICE in accordance with the 1795 treason Act, which being the current law of this realm, contravenes the lawful duty of every/any British sovereign man/woman within or without the realm of the United Kingdom and Commonwealth and is an OFFENCE under the 'misprision of treason Act 1795,' SECTION 1.

   Whereby;...it is an offence at common law for any person(s) who knows that treason is being planned or committed, not to report the same as soon as he/she can to a justice of the peace. Also please be aware that the penalty for committing 'misprision of treason' in this day is life imprisonment, and that my sole intention of informing you of this fact in law is one of duty and not malice, menace, frivolity, vexation nor ill will.

   Whereas you have made UNLAWFUL DEMANDS on myself/legal person, and/or you have advised me to comply with unlawful statutes by threat of enforcement and, that you are acting for a 'corporation' who has no jurisdiction over my sovereign being whatsoever and, that the crown corporation is committing high treason against the sovereign peoples of the United Kingdom and Commonwealth at this time and, that I cannot lawfully nor morally support financially or in any other way a treasonous regime of governance. Indeed our constitutional law FORBIDS ME TO DO SO ! Therefore...

   It is to my understanding that you must now by the common law of this realm, with the evidence herein supplied, CEASE AND DESIST in all actions pertaining to the will of your peers in light of the evidence herein entrusted, which should be reported to a justice of the peace as soon as is reasonable to do so, and/or once the evidence herein has been verified to be a true statement of facts. Failure to do so would be an Act of 'misprision of treason at common law'.

   THEREFORE, where it is to my understanding and evidenced herein that:

   1. A long range deception strategy to create a single Federal European state with the erosion of each nation's sovereignty, currency and the powers to determine its own laws and affairs, was finalised by the Geo-political centre of the third Reich in Berlin 1942. This was done with the effect that should the Nazis lose the war, militarily, they should continue their plans for a European dictatorship economically, through corporatism (aka fascism), and political subversion. Their future shape of Europe is detailed in the seminars entitled 'Europaische wirtschaftsgemeinschaft' (public document worldcat. OCLC number 31002821). Translated into English as 'European Economic Community'. The chapter headings of this Nazi document were replicated almost verbatim in the 1992 Maastricht Treaty.

   2. Since the end of the war diverse treasonous persons, groups and movements with this ideology, have conspired to build on this agenda which has become known as the European Union.

   3. The involvement of the United Kingdom in this agenda began in 1948 with the formation of the European movement. This was a state funded Anglo-French pro-federal European lobbying body posing as a non-governmental grass-roots pressure group. The documentation evidencing these events are present on the discs FCO 30/48 herein provided.

   4. The said movement is still publicly active today lobbying for total European integration and a European constitution.

   5. The first move toward a federal Europe did not involve Britain directly, it was the signing of the treaty of Rome in 1957 by Germany, France, Italy, Belgium, Luxembourg and the Netherlands.

   6. Meticulous research has uncovered a wealth of official, archived documents from the period 1970-72 which shows the deceit perpetrated by the ruling elite at the time and these documents have been released after the thirty year rule.

   7. The common law applies to all sovereign living breathing men and women and dictates that we are all born free to do whatever we choose for ourselves provided we do not cause harm, injury or loss to another's life, liberty or property or their rights to life, liberty or property.

   8. England, within the United Kingdom of Great Britain is a common law jurisdiction and British parliament has no lawful authority ever to breach, surrender land or transfer, even temporarily, sovereignty except when conquered in war.

   9. No man (neither monarch, nor prime minister, nor any prelate, politician, judge or public servant) is above the common law of Great Britain that forms the British constitution (Magna Carta 1215, The Declaration and Bill of Rights 1688/89, the Coronation Oath Act 1689 and the Act of Union succession and settlement 1701-1707.

   10. The Declaration of Rights 1688 is an un-rebutted claim of Right by the people and therefore beyond the reach of parliament and still stands to this day. The Declaration includes the clause: No foreign prince, person, prelate state or potentate hath or ought to have any jurisdiction, power, superiority, pre-eminence or authority, ecclesiastical or spiritual, within this realm. This is mirrored in the Bill of Rights 1689 which still stands as legislation.

   11. Treason in statute law was redefined by the Treason Act 1795 for the principal forms to include; a) compassing the death or serious injury of the sovereign or his/her spouse or eldest son; b) levying war against the sovereign in his/her realm, which includes, any insurrection against the authority of the sovereign or of the government that goes beyond riot or violent disorder; c) giving aid or comfort to the sovereign's enemies in war time.

   12. Treason at common law is the offence of attempting to overthrow the Government of a state to which the offender owes allegiance; or of betraying the state into the hands of a foreign power.

   13. Sedition at common law means overt conduct such as speech and organisation that is deemed by the legal authority as tending toward insurrection against the established order. Sedition includes the subversion of a constitution and incitement of discontent (or resistance) to lawful authority.

   14. The evidence presented in the 'Shoe horned into the E.U.' files shows that the Heath Government of 1972 was well aware that an essential loss of national sovereignty would occur within thirty years with the passing of the European Communities Bill and knew it would, in all likelihood, be rejected if brought to the people, which of course it was not. This in itself is an Act of Sedition at common law.

   15. The passage of the European Communities Act in 1972, establishing the principle that European law would always prevail over British law in the event of a clash, thereby overthrowing the supremacy of the British parliament, was a criminal Act of Treason at common law by the Heath administration.

   16. The signing of the single European Act in 1986 reducing Britain's independent decision making powers further by extending majority voting in certain areas of policy making, was a criminal Act of Treason at common law by the Thatcher administration.

   17. The signing of the Maastricht Treaty in 1992, based on the original EEC Berlin document 1942, surrendering sovereign powers of the Queen in parliament to an unelected body in Europe, this was an Act of Treason at common law by the Major administration.

   18. The signing of the Amsterdam Treaty in 1997 increased the European Unions powers for action at community level. This included further European integration in legislative, police, judicial, customs and security matters and strengthened Europol. This was an Act of Treason at common law by the Blair administration.

   19. With the full knowledge of this Treason and to escape prosecution, the Blair Government repealed the Treason legislation in section 36 of the 'Crime and Disorder Act 1998.' abolishing the death penalty. This included the repealing of the Treason Act 1795. However, the crime of Treason at common law still stands as common law has primacy.

   20. The signing of the Nice Treaty in 2001 and the E.U. Constitution in 2004 were further Acts of Treason at common law by the Blair administration.

   21. In an attempt to further protect themselves against criminal prosecution, the Blair Government removed the word 'sovereignty' from the oath of office of constables in the police reform Act 2002 (section 83), and also modified the legislation to enable non British nationals to become officers (section 82). These are acts of both Sedition and Treason at common law by the Blair administration.

   22. The signing of the Lisbon Treaty in 2008 surrendered further control of policy including that relating to immigration and borders. This was an Act of Treason at common law by the Brown administration.

   23. The present Prime Minister David Cameron, by denying the British peoples right to a referendum on the European Union, and by surrendering further powers to the E.U. for direct taxation on the British people, and by allowing the EU to end the British rebate via further proposed treaties is evidence to prove that this is an Act of Treason at Common Law by the Cameron administration.

   24. The treasury department of the European Community has never allowed an independent audit by professional accountants of their books in the last 15 years. One year of non- publication is a criminal offence. In fact, its financial accounts have been disapproved by the E.U's own court of auditors for the past 15 years running. This crime has already been reported to the UK Serious Fraud Office by former MP Ashley Mote. They are in possession of the evidence and have confirmed to him that the remittance of British taxpayer's funds into the hands of this criminal enterprise is, of course, a criminal offence.

   25. The six European Treaties since 1972 are all unlawful and should be struck completely from the statute books.

   26. All of the documented evidence pertaining to these allegations can be viewed on the 'Shoe horned into the EU' discs herein.

   The evidence submitted herein is to my understanding precise and factual and is in no way whatsoever intended to deceive, mislead, cause mischief or as an act of frivolity, vexation or ill will. Whereas the entire document is required to be responded to in its entirety within 28 days of receipt of this lawful compilation of Notices, please respond as to your lawful standing in light of this evidence presented. Our constitutional law demands that we ALL take up lawful rebellion and to continue to harass those that refuse (as to the terms and conditions laid down under Article 61 Magna Carta 1215), which was Invoked by the barons' committee in 2001 and, which still stands to this day as the lawful position of the United Kingdom and commonwealth.

   I now AFFIRM that all of the information is correct and true to the best of my knowledge and that I am of lawful age and competent to serve this 'Notice of misprision of treason'.

   I hereby affix my own name to all of the affirmations in this entire document with explicit reservations to all my natural unalienable human Rights and habeas Corpus, and to my specific common law Right not to be bound by any contract nor obligation which I have not knowingly, willingly, voluntarily and without misrepresentation, duress or coercion entered into, and that any hearing with regard to this matter(s) is to be heard under the jurisdiction of the common law of the land in open forum, as this matter is of course, in the public interest and, that this is in accordance with my common law rights.

   Signed___________________________ Dated.

   Witnessed by____________________________

   Without Malice, vexation, frivolity or ill will with all my natural unalienable rights intact, and on full commercial liability and penalty of perjury.

   Evidence enclosed; File Discs (2) ' Shoe horned into the EU.' Exhibit A.

   A layman's guide to the constitution By Albert Burgess.

   Maxim's in law:-

   “Any Act done by me against my will is not my Act.”

   ” Ignorance of the law does not excuse misconduct in anyone, least of all a

   sworn officer of the law.”

   “ The contract makes the law.” ----- Source: Bouvier's dictionary of law.

   DAVID CAMERON MP COMMITS

   TREASON.

   David Cameron has denied that his party is in turmoil on Europe, as he came under pressure over his decision to abandon plans for a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty ( Headline in the 'Metro' newspaper).

   The Tory leader indicated that he will unveil a promise that power will never again be handed over to Brussels without the approval of the British people.

   He blamed Gordon Brown's Government for allowing the treaty - which achieved ratification on Tuesday with the signature of Czech President Vaclav Klaus - to become law without a referendum.

   Most Tory 'euro-sceptics' appear to have accepted shadow foreign secretary William Hague's argument that a referendum on Lisbon is no longer possible, as the Treaty is now law and its provisions, including a permanent President of the European Council and the loss of some British vetoes, cannot be undone.

   But there is growing pressure for Mr Cameron to promise a vote of some kind on Britain's relations with the EU.

   Senior backbencher David Davis wrote in the Daily Mail: "We should have a referendum, not on the treaty, but on the negotiating mandate that the British Government takes to the European Union."

   Mr Cameron is widely expected instead to promise a manifesto commitment to negotiate the repatriation of some powers on social and employment policy to Westminster.

   Speaking outside his London home he pointed the finger of blame for the ratification of Lisbon at the Prime Minister: "Let's be clear about what's happened here. The politicians that run this country have given away a lot of power to Brussels without asking people first.

   "I am going to make sure that that never, ever happens again. That's what today is going to be about."

   Asked if the Tories were now in turmoil, he replied: "Not at all. The party actually wants us to have a fresh approach in Europe, but above all the vote that we need is a vote to get rid of a Government that has completely let people down."

   The Daily Mail has reported that David Cameron has agreed to yet another EU treaty.

   The EU demanded an end to Britain’s £3.1 billion rebate and also pushed for direct taxation on all citizens, this was an unprecedented power grab all at once going on at this moment in time and this present treasonous government is there kissing the boots of the EU saying where do we sign.

   This must NOT BE ALLOWED TO HAPPEN.

   Now David Cameron MP has also lied his way into power, in the Daily Mail article it suggested and tried its hardest to convince the reader the treaty won't transfer any power and that because it supposedly doesn’t give away any powers there will be NO REFERENDUM, hang on just a minute there, what did the Cameron say? I remember he said there would be a referendum lock if another treaty is proposed which will transfer more power to the EU, what did this treaty propose? financial powers and no doubt taxation.

   ‘The lock will mean that any future treaty amendment which seeks to transfer power from the UK to Brussels will require a referendum in this country.’

   He lied and he and the media are now starting a campaign to convince the people of the UK that the treaty doesn’t need a referendum, that we know best, shut up and go back to work.

   Mr Cameron has pledged a ‘referendum lock’ which would require ministers to hold a referendum on any new EU treaty which affects Britain.

   But Government sources say proposed treaty changes would not transfer powers from Britain to the EU, so no poll is needed.

   The Daily Mail article with word play and no doubt a script direct from no. 10 media ops, says that because we get 900 million for this new treaty everything is A’OK.

   Well let me make a short story even shorter, IT’S NOT OK, this is yet more evidence at the controlled media in this country trying its hardest to convince the public that giving away our sovereignty is a good idea and will benefit us.

   The article goes on again trying to convince the reader that it will only affect the euro zone countries, THEN WHY DO WE NEED TO AGREE TO IT? maybe because IT WILL affect the UK?

   The new treaty will include the direct EU taxes that coincidentally were brought Up at the same time as the new treaty was announced, again putting a bundle of powers into one basket and tricking the public not to revolt.

   This is no time to be passive sitting idle watching your freedom escape to an unelected EU commission and a puppet government in London giving it away, telling us that because we only have to give a few billion to the EU that it’s okay. This is not a time to be politically correct, this is not a time to allow yet more treason to be committed without a word being said.

   The proposed EU direct taxation will affect every single person in the UK, we are being raped and told it’s okay, it's us your government, we will look after you, don’t worry.

   TO:
   K. Needham
   HMCS (allegedly)
   The court house
   Pewsham way
   Chippenham,
   Wiltshire.
   SN15 3BF.
   From: David Paul of the family Robinson (as commonly called).
   c/o 26 Paul street
   Corsham,
   Wiltshire
   SN13 9DG.
   DATE OF NOTICE BEING SERVED:
   Sent by recorded post.

   NOTICE OF CONDITIONAL ACCEPTANCE.

   _____________________________

   Dear K. Needham,

   This is a NOTICE of conditional acceptance, a LAWFUL document, please read it in its
   entirety and respond to EACH of the numbered points below in 'substance' (which means
   to respond to each numbered point individually and by fully addressing the serious points
   made herein).
   Failure to rebut all/any of the lawful points numbered herein in 'substance' or otherwise
   within 28 days of receipt of this lawful 'Notice of conditional acceptance', will be deemed
   to mean that all points that are expressed herein are true and agreed upon by all parties concerned,
   and that any further action taken against myself/legal person will be considered unlawful
   harassment and you shall accept and incur liability for any breach of my fee schedule.
   Any reply given must be made upon oath or attestation and on your full commercial
   liability and penalty of perjury.
   1.) Whereas in your letter dated 12th of October 2010 you make the claim in response to
   my challenge of jurisdiction, within a lawful Notice that I served on you on the 11th of
   October 2010 that, “ The court has jurisdiction to deal with these matters ” (with regard to
   alleged traffic offences). I conditionally accept your understanding on proof of claim that
   the (alleged) Chippenham magistrates court is indeed a common law jurisdiction.
   2.) Whereas it is to my lawful understanding that the (alleged) Chippenham magistrates
   court plc is in fact a corporate enterprise (as can be evidenced by checking the web site 'Dunne &
   Bradstreet') and, that in your letter dated 12th of October 2010 you made the claim that “ The
   court does not need a contract with you to deal with these matters.” I conditionally accept that
   the (alleged) Chippenham magistrates “court does not need a contract with me to deal with these
   matters” on proof of claim that the matters in question can be dealt with by an administrative
   hearing operating in trust law without the need for a contractual agreement, be that by tacit
   consent (which creates a contract in law) or by an agreed written contract.

   (Maxim in law- ALL law has either been derived from the consent of the people,
   established by necessity, confirmed by custom, or of divine providence).
   3.) In your letter to me dated 12th of October 2010 you wrote “ Your suggestion that these
   matters will be dropped if your queries are not answered in the manner you prescribed
   is not effective.” In the LAWFUL NOTICE that I served on you, that being a 'Notice
   of request for clarification' dated 11th of October 2010, which being a lawful document and
   is required to be rebutted within the reasonably allotted time frame given, in ' SUBSTANCE,'
   which means by answering each and every lawful point raised within the document in
   full, otherwise the understandings referred to within the Notice become my truth in law.
   Therefore I conditionally accept your understanding that my lawful Notice “is not
   effective” on proof of claim that a lawful notice can be lawfully acquiesced to without
   incurring such a penalty.
   4.) Further to your understanding that the (alleged) Chippenham magistrates court has
   jurisdiction over myself/legal person, I conditionally accept your understanding on proof
   of claim that the (alleged) Chippenham magistrates court is not a commercial enterprise
   (Registered corporation). (See 'Dunne & Bradstreet' website).
   5.) Further to your understanding that the (alleged) Chippenham magistrates court has
   jurisdiction over myself/legal person, I conditionally accept your understanding on proof
   of claim that I David Paul of the family Robinson, whilst officially standing under
   lawful rebellion, have ANY obligation whatsoever to consent to the jurisdiction of an
   unlawful administration.
   6.) Further to your understanding that the (alleged) Chippenham magistrates court has
   jurisdiction over myself/legal person, I conditionally accept your understanding on proof
   of claim that the crown has any lawful authority at this time to make such demands
   on myself/legal person.
   7.) Whereas it is my lawful understanding that I David Paul of the family Robinson have
   unalienable natural rights and freedoms to travel freely under the common law on the public
   highways and byways whilst not operating my private conveyance in commerce and, whilst not
   being a public servant. Therefore I conditionally accept your understanding on proof of
   claim ;WHERE precisely the common law clearly states that these rights and freedoms do
   NOT exist. please provide me with the full lawful facts/evidence which deny me this unalienable
   right under the common law of the land.
   8.) Whereas it is to my lawful understanding that there is a conflict of interest within the room of
   administration otherwise (allegedly) known as Chippenham magistrates court and, that the
   Judge/magistrate(s) are Acting as representatives for the crown and, that the prosecution are also
   Acting as representatives for the crown, does this not then prove that there is a conflict of interest
   with regard to ALL Administrative hearings in such places ? Therefore I conditionally accept
   the claim that there is no conflict of interest present in such administrative proceedings on proof
   of claim that the prosecution is Acting under an independent authority other than the
   Judge/Magistrate(s).
   9.) Whereas it is to my lawful understanding that the (alleged) Queen Elizabeth 11 is in breach
   of her Coronation Oath by giving 'royal assent' to man-made legislation contrary to her Oath unto
   God and, whereas she has also ignored the barons' committee's petition of 2001, whereby she
   was petitioned NOT to give royal assent to the Treasonous Nice treaty. Therefore I
   conditionally accept your understanding on proof of claim that the crown has any lawful
   authority whilst being in breach of the same laws she declared an Oath to protect.

   10.) Whereas it is to my lawful understanding that the (alleged) Chippenham magistrates
   court is a 'room of administration', I conditionally accept your understanding on
   proof of claim that it is not such a 'room', and if agreed to be so then on proof of claim
   that administrative courts have ANY authority whatsoever. (see Halesbury's on
   administrative law 2011- “ The law is absolutely clear on this subject, there is NO
   authority for administrative courts in this country and NO Act can be passed to
   legitimise them”).
   11.) Whereas it is to my lawful understanding that NO magistrate nor Judge can lawfully
   stand under his/her Oath of office at administrative proceedings in a magistrates court, and
   if they fraudulently attempt to do so it would contravene section 13 of the Statutory Declarations
   Act 1835 and, also contravene the 2006 fraud Act section 2 (false presentation in public office).
   Therefore I conditionally accept your understanding on proof of claim that the
   judge/magistrate(s) can lawfully take said oath and WILL DO SO at any hearing I/legal fiction
   are forced (or otherwise) to attend.
   12.) Whereas it is to my understanding that HMCS is a corporation that is not representing the
   British monarchy, I conditionally accept that HMCS has lawful jurisdiction in this matter on
   proof of claim that a lawfully/legally binding contract exists granting myself/legal person
   consent or, that HMCS are representatives of the British monarch and that they have absolute
   authority to stand in judgement against I David Paul of the family Robinson, or my legal person.

   All 12 points are required to be answered in full and on your full commercial liability and
   penalty of perjury and, within 28 days of your receipt of this Notice of conditional acceptance. In
   the event that all of my 12 claims above are proven to be incorrect, I shall accept that the
   (alleged) Chippenham magistrates court/crown does have jurisdiction, and in the event of that
   proof being provided I shall comply with the demands or rulings under that jurisdiction.
   I David of the family Robinson, do hereby solemnly swear attest and affirm, that this notice of
   conditional acceptance, represents my lawful truth and understandings, and my conditional
   acceptance, on proof of claim that the twelve (12) numbered contested claims herein are fully
   evidenced to be false.

   Signature___________________________ Witnessed by___________________________

   Date.

   With all my natural unalienable rights intact and on full commercial liability and penalty of perjury.

   TO:
   K. Needham.
   HMCS (Allegedly).
   The court house,
   Pewsham way,
   Chippenham.
   Wiltshire.
   SN15 3BF.

   From:
   David Paul of the family Robinson.
   c/o 26 Paul street
   Corsham,
   Wiltshire.
   SN13 9DG.

   DATE OF NOTICE BEING SERVED:

   Sent by recorded post.

   NOTICE TO CEASE AND DESIST HARASSMENT.

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

   NOTICE TO PRINCIPLE IS NOTICE TO AGENT, NOTICE TO AGENT IS NOTICE TO PRINCIPLE.

   Dear K. Needham,

   THIS IS A NOTICE a lawful document. It informs you. It means what it says. Any reply to this lawful Notice must be done on oath or attestation and on your full commercial liability and penalty of perjury.

   Whereas I have served un-rebutted Notices on the (alleged) Chippenham magistrates court plc, and that I do not consent to their unlawful jurisdiction or the making of UNLAWFUL DEMANDS against myself/legal person and/or agent thereof, and whereas you are continuing to harass my legal person/agent by sending bailiffs to the c/o address I occasionally use to receive post, whilst no proof of Jurisdiction has been forthcoming, and that this was demanded in my lawful notices, and that I am a sovereign being in lawful rebellion, and that I have 'lawful excuse' not to comply to this treasonous regime of governance, nor any other unlawful authority legislating under a foreign jurisdiction. YOU MUST CEASE AND DESIST HARASSMENT IMMEDIATELY.

   Furthermore, If I am forced under duress to pay a fine and/or be incarcerated TAKE NOTICE for this will be an unlawful enforcement of legislation and/or enforced coercion demanding that I commit a criminal offence by paying into the coffers of a treasonous regime, and/or be incarcerated for being no more than a “loyal subject of the realm,” of which I can prove unquestionably that I am.

   Whilst being in full knowledge of, and with evidence that, Treason has and is still being committed to this day, and that I have entered into lawful rebellion, therefore it being my duty as a “loyal subject of this realm” not to comply with this present system of unlawful governance and,

   Any demands that the (alleged) Chippenham Magistrates court plc make on myself/legal person, will be challenged in a properly convened de jure of 12 impartial subjects under the common law of the land as to my common law rights and, habeas corpus and, any hearing(s) must be conducted in open forum as to my constitutional common law rights. Any hearing with regard to the matter of Treason must surely be heard in public forum, as it is obviously in the public interest to do so.

   In light of the evidence presented herein I DEMAND that you CEASE AND DESIST in harassing me further without lawful cause to do so, and for yourself to understand, that you are causing me to suffer a 'tort' which could result in a commercial lien being served on you and, any and all third party co-conspirators and administrators unlawfully making demands against myself/legal person or agent thereof. Any further harassment from the (alleged) Chippenham Magistrates court plc, or any of their representatives, will result in a breach of my fee schedule of no less that £1,000,000.00p (One million) GB pounds (or gold/silver equivalent, as to my discretion), which shall be the standard sum for each and every breach of my rights by 'unlawful demand' that causes me to suffer a tort incl.; letters, telephone calls, visits by police or Bailiffs or any other third party agent representative of the office of the crown and/or acting on behalf of unlawful legislation enforced by the (alleged) Chippenham magistrates court.

   I stand under my full commercial liability and penalty of perjury as the chief administrator and executor for the Legal person and, as the beneficiary of the trust in any meetings forced or otherwise with regard to the crown/magistrates court, and any subsequent administration thereof. No hearing may be heard in private or in chambers. ALL forced hearings or otherwise, shall be heard in public forum under common law jurisdiction as to my established common law rights.

   NEW FEE SCHEDULE (Non negotiable instrument).

   1.) For ANY unlawful legislative demands made or enforced against my legal person and/or agent thereof, I demand a fee of £1,000,000.00p (One Million) GB pounds (or gold/silver equivalent), PER INCIDENT (To be paid within 30 days on receipt of the demand for payment).

   IN ADDITION to the above demanded fee a further fee schedule exists as follows;

   2.) For ANY ORDER unlawfully demanded against my legal person and/or agent thereof, no matter how trivial it may appear to be, by ANY officer, Judge, Magistrate or any other person/body presuming such an administrative role, I demand an additional £1,000,000.00p (One Million) GB pounds (or gold/silver equivalent), PER ORDER GIVEN;

   3.) For ANY unlawful transgressions against my legal person and/or agent thereof, that causes either to suffer physical harm, pain or emotional stress/anxiety or resulting in either to suffer any undesired physical effect whatsoever, I demand an additional fee of £500.000.00p (Five hundred thousand) GB pounds (or gold/silver equivalent), PER INCIDENT;

   4.) For ANY unlawful detention, incarceration or loss of property/freedoms incurred by enforced unlawful legislation against my legal person and/or agent thereof, I demand an additional fee of £250,000.00p (Two hundred and fifty thousand) GB pounds, (or gold/silver equivalent) PER INCIDENT, with an additional £25,000.00p (Twenty five thousand) GB pounds per hour or part thereof, for any time lost due to unlawfully enforced legislation;

   5.) For ANY breach of the peace incurred against my legal person and/or agent thereof, in addition to any of the above, I demand a fee of £100,000.00p (one hundred thousand) GB pounds (or gold/silver equivalent), PER INCIDENT;

   6.) For ANY unlawful letter/notice telephone call, email or any other unwarranted unlawful harassment directed at my legal fiction and/or agent thereof, I demand an additional fee of £25,000.00p (Twenty five thousand) GB pounds (or gold/silver equivalent) PER INCINDENT, with a further penalty of a £25,000.00p (Twenty five thousand) GB pounds (or gold/silver equivalent) PER HOUR or part thereof for any time lost by these nuisances;

   7.) For ANY correspondence made by my legal person and/or agent thereof in response to any of the above shall be charged at £5,000.00p (Five thousand) GB pounds per letter/notice, and/or at a rate of £25,000.00p (Twenty five thousand) GB pounds per hour or part thereof;

   8.) For ANY unlawful cash amount demanded from my legal person and/or agent thereof, shall be multiplied by a factor of 10 and returned to the sender for immediate payment within Five (5) working days.

   Without malice, vexation, frivolity or ill will and with all my natural unalienable rights intact, and on my full commercial liability and penalty of perjury.

   David of the family Robinson (Authorised agent for the legal person ROBINSON DAVID PAUL).

   Signed___________________________

   Witnessed by__________________________Date.

   Maxim;(Bouvier's Law Dictionary, 1856): An established principle or proposition. A principle of law universally admitted, as being just and consonant with reason.

   Maxim: The law of God and the law of the land are all one, and both favour and preserve the common good of the land.
   TO;
   K. Needham,
   HMCS.
   The court house,
   Pewsham way,
   Chippenham.
   Wiltshire.
   SN15 3BF.
   From:
   David of the family Robinson.
   c/o 26 Paul street,
   Corsham,
   Wiltshire.
   SN13 9DG.
   DATE OF NOTICE BEING SERVED:
   Sent by recorded post.

   NOTICE OF BREACH OF FEE SCHEDULE.
   _____________________________

   NOTICE TO AGENT IS NOTICE TO PRINCIPLE, NOTICE TO PRINCIPLE IS NOTICE TO AGENT.
   Dear K. Needham,
   THIS IS A NOTICE A LAWFUL DOCUMENT, it means what it says AND SHOULD be handled in the proper manner in protection of that.
   I David Paul of the family Robinson have received UNLAWFUL documentation making UNLAWFUL demands upon myself/legal person and, whereas I/my legal person, family, associates, friends and/or those under my care and protection have been recently harassed by alleged court Bailiffs at c/o 26 Paul street, Corsham, Wiltshire, who was representing the (alleged) Chippenham magistrates court plc as a third party thereof, has caused I David Paul of the family Robinson, acting as agent for the legal person to suffer a 'tort' and this is in breach of my lawfully established fee schedule already served on Chief Inspector Ian Copus on the 29th of July 2010 and, who is also liable and responsible for these UNLAWFUL PROCEEDINGS. THEREFORE, you are in breach of my lawfully established fee schedule, this and other breaches of said fee schedule are listed below.

   I David Paul of the family Robinson claim a breach of my lawfully established fee schedule. The fees incurred are required to be paid within 28 days of receipt of this Notice. All Deposits should be made into the following bank account:

   Visa Debit. SANTANDER;
   Account Name. MR D P ROBINSON.

   Account Number. 33482054

   Sort code. 09-01-26

   Expiry date. 07/13

   FEE SCHEDULE PRICES; (as from 29th of July 2010- see amended schedule above).

   Section 1.

   £6,000.00p (Six thousand) GB pounds (or the equivalent @ today's price, as to the date of this Notice served, in gold/silver), per hour or part thereof, per individual unreasonably involved for; ANY transgressions by public officers, government officials/principal or their agents, or participants in the system of justice should I be stopped by a uniformed or non uniformed officer doing so without reasonable cause, or prevented from going about my lawful peaceful right to roam: Questioned, Interrogated or in any way detained harassed or otherwise regulated.

   Section 2.

   £20,000.00p (twenty thousand) GB pounds (or the equivalent @ today's price as of the date of the Notice served) in gold/silver, per hour or part thereof, per individual unreasonably involved should I be handcuffed, arrested, transported, incarcerated or subject to any adjudication process without my Notarised and express written consent.

   Section3.

   £80,000.00p (Eighty thousand) GB pounds (In addition to any compensation awarded), (or the equivalent in gold/silver @ today's prices, as of the date of the Notice served) per hour or part thereof, per individual unreasonably involved, should violence be used against myself or those under my care and protection, or should any damage or loss be caused to my borrowed, hired private conveyance.

   Section 4.

   £500,000.00p (Five hundred thousand) GB pounds (or the equivalent in gold/silver @ today's price as of the date of this Notice served), per individual unreasonably involved should any type of weapon be used against myself or those under my care and protection, i.e Gas, electric or any kind of stun weaponry, baton, firearm or projectiles of any kind, or microwave and/or sound weaponry or any kind of injection of foreign materials into my body by whatever means, with substances intent to cause impairment, maim, subdue or sedate.

   NOTE. All demands are required to be paid in cash, or as to my discretion, in the gold/silver equivalent at the value of the market price on the date of the breach of fee schedule.

   FEES INCURRED;

   1. Whereas I was transported under duress to Melksham Police station and then again to Chippenham in Contravention to Section 2 of the Fee schedule I demand £40,000.00p (Forty thousand) GB pounds;

   2. Whereas I was arrested in contravention of section 2 of the fee schedule I demand £20,000.00 (Twenty thousand) GB pounds;

   3. Whereas I was incarcerated at Melksham police station and in custody for no less than 24 hours contrary to section 1.& 2. of the fee schedule I demand £524,000.00p (Five hundred and twenty four thousand) GB pounds;

   4. Whereas I was assaulted with hand-shackles on Seven (7) separate occasions contrary to section 2 of the fee schedule I demand £140,000.00p (one hundred and forty thousand) GB pounds;

   5. Whereas I was subjected to an unlawful administrative judicial process contrary to section 2 of the fee schedule I demand £20,000.00p (Twenty thousand GB pounds;

   6. Whereas I received three (3) orders from the alleged magistrates court, a) Ordered to get insurance, b) Ordered to pay the licence fee of the private conveyance, and c) ordered to obtain an MOT by the unlawful administrative process, I attach an extra fee of £250,000.00p per order. Therefore I demand a fee of £750,000.00p (Seven hundred and fifty thousand) GB pounds;

   7. Whereas I was unlawfully ordered not to enter nor touch any property within my private conveyance on two (2) separate occasions, I demand a further £500,000.00p (Five hundred thousand) GB pounds;

   8. Whereas I was prevented from going about my lawful, peaceful right to roam contrary to section 1 of the fee schedule, I demand 360 hours and no less, for 15 days of prevention from retrieving my private conveyance therefore denying my freedom to roam @ £6,000.00 (six thousand) GB pounds per hour. = £2,100,000.00p (Two Million one hundred thousand) GB pounds;

   9. I also demand full compensation for all financial losses unlawfully incurred totalling £422.47p (Four hundred and twenty two pounds & forty seven pence) GB pounds and pence. (I retain the receipts as evidence of expenditure).

   TOTAL= £4,134,422.47p (Four Million one hundred and thirty four thousand four

   Hundred and twenty two pounds and forty seven pence).

   TOTAL AMMOUNT NOW DUE WITHIN 28 days = £4,134,422.47p

   If payment is received within 14 Days of this Notice a reduction of 20% off of the total due will be accepted. If the demands are not met in full within 28 days from the date on this notice, the original outstanding amount will increase at a rate no less than 10% per calendar month.

   I David of the Robinson family, agent and representative for ROBINSON DAVID PAUL, do hereby affirm and attest that this document is lawful and represents my understanding and truth in law. I hereby authorise David of the family Robinson to act as agent and representative in this matter.

   Without malice, vexation, frivolity or ill will and with all my natural unalienable rights intact, and on my full commercial liability and penalty of perjury.
   Signed ________________________

   Witnessed by________________________
   Date.

   Maxim in law;
   When the common law and statute law concur, the common law is to be preferred.
   4 Co. 71- Bouvier's dictionary of law.
   TO:
   K. Needham,
   HMCS (Allegedly).
   The court house,
   Pewsham way,
   Chippenham.
   Wiltshire.
   SN15 3BF.
   From:
   David of the family Robinson.
   c/o 26 Paul street,
   Corsham,
   Wiltshire.
   SN13 9DG.
   DATE OF NOTICE BEING SERVED:
   Sent by recorded post.
   CLAIM OF RIGHT.
   --------------

   This is a lawful Notice. It informs you; it means what it says and should be dealt with in the proper manner in protection of that.
   I David Paul of the family Robinson, claim that Wiltshire police constabulary and the (alleged) Chippenham magistrates court have no authority over my human being nor legal person, I hereby notify you that you have NO JURISDICTION in this matter as:

   1. There is no controversy before the court.

   2. I do not grant jurisdiction as it is not my wish.

   3. I do not give my consent to be governed.

   4. I am a freeman on the land and a human being.

   5. I live in a common law jurisdiction and abide only by God's Law - the law of the land.

   I hereby claim my common law right to unhindered un-levied travel on the public highways and byways of the United Kingdom as long as I cause no other loss nor harm, or I do not cause a breach of the peace.
   Any counter claim to this 'Claim of Right ' must be made under full commercial liability and penalty of perjury and within 28 days of receipt of this lawful Notice.
   YOU ARE THEREFORE REQUIRED TO PROVIDE LAWFUL, FACTUAL EVIDENCE PERTAINING TO;
   PRECISELY which legislation applying to David Paul of the family Robinson or the legal person thereof, under the common law of the land, does prevents/restricts or disallows I David of the family Robinson from exercising my common law right to travel freely and unhindered in my privately owned conveyance ? A reply is required by quoting the current lawful legislation and disclosing the ACTUAL PROOF THAT SUCH A LAW preventing this unalienable Right to travel EXISTS !
   If no reply is received in substance within the reasonable time period allotted, that being 28 days from the date of this Notice served, then it will automatically be taken to mean that no objection is made and that no further action will be taken against me (the man) or my legal person 'MR DAVID PAUL ROBINSON' by HMCS, Wiltshire Police or Chippenham magistrates court plc, or any interested third party representating them.
   ANY future action taken against my 'human being' or legal person will result in a breach of fee schedule (see above under 'Notice to cease and desist harassment') and will cause me to suffer a 'tort'. In such cases where a tort should be suffered by my human being/legal person because of unlawful actions taken by HMCS and/or Chippenham magistrates court or any other third parties representing them, will result in a 'Notice of breach of fee schedule' being served, and/or commercial liens being served on all parties involved in such unlawful action.
   Without malice, vexation, frivolity or ill will and with all my natural unalienable rights intact, and on my full commercial liability and penalty of perjury.
   Signed__________________________
   Witnessed by__________________________
   Date.
   “THREE (3) ELEMENTS OF EVERY CRIME: “Every” crime must have all three of these three following elements in which to be a crime under law. Not two of the three. Not one of the three –but all three. Failure to provide 99.9% of the time does not meet this requirement. (Father is either forced or driven out of a child's life, father is usually poor and financially debilitated, or Father does not owe as either a crime or great dishonor has been committed against him).”
   1,) Mens rea -- “An element of criminal responsibility: a guilty mind; a guilty or wrongful purpose; a criminal intent. Guilty knowledge and wilfulness. United states v. Greenbaum, C.C.A.N.J., 138 F2d 437, 438. See Model Penal Code Section 2,02. See also Criminal (Criminal Intent). [ Blacks Law Dictionary, 6th Ed. p. 985]

   1. Actus reus – “The guilty Act.” A wrongful deed which renders the actor criminally liable if combined with mens rea. The actus reus is the physical aspect of a crime, whereas the mens rea (guilty mind) involves the intent factor. [Blacks, Ed. p. 36]

   1. Corpus delecti – “The body of a crime” The body (material substance) upon which a crime has been committed, e.g,. the corpse of a murdered man, the charred remains of a house burned down. In a derivative sense, the objective proof or substantial fact that a crime has been committed. The “corpus delecti” of a crime is the body, foundation or substance of a crime, which ordinarily includes two elements, the act and the criminal agency of the act. States v. Edwards, 49 Ohio St. 2d 31, 358 N.E. 2D 1051, 1055. [Blacks law Dictionary, 6th Ed. 344]

      Articles of the International covenant on civil and political rights;

   Article 9, subsection 5, ie: that “ anyone who has been the victim of unlawful arrest or detention shall have an enforceable right to compensation.”
   “Nemo admittendis est inhabilitare seipsum.” – “ No one is allowed to incapacitate himself.” Therefore, a man cannot be an artificial 'person,' which would incapacitate him and deny him his right, as a freeman, to trial by jury.
   Judge or magistrate - “You are at level three in the 'pecking order' I am at level two. I have jurisdiction over you - not you over me. I have the inalienable Right to trial by jury – and, if I don't want to avail myself of a jury, I'll give my consent to that effect. Until then do not exceed your jurisdiction,”
   If the common law no longer exists then it stands to reason that it must be TREASON !