1

TO: FROM:

Rachael Davies (Clerk to the Justice) Andrew of the PEARS family

North Somerset Courthouse c/o 1 Anson Road

The Hedges Kewstoke

St Georges Weston Super Mare

Weston Super Mare North Somerset

North Somerset BS22 9LA

BS22 7BB

DATE OF NOTICE BEING SERVED: Your reference 521300326569

Sent by recorded post.

NOTICE

REBUTTAL OF JURISDICTION, NOTICE OF

CONDITIONAL ACCEPTANCE, LAWFUL REBELLION

FACTS, DEFINITION OF CRIME UNDER COMMON LAW

& AFFIDAVIT OF TRUTH

Notice to agent is notice to principal, notice to principal is notice to agent.

Dear Rachael Davies,

This is NOTICE is a LAWFUL instrument. Please read this document in its entirety and respond

to EACH of the eight (8) numbered points below in 'substance' (which means to respond to each

point individually and in full). Failure to respond or rebut all/any of the points numbered herein in

'substance' or by acquiescing to this notice within three (3) days on receipt of this lawful Notice,

will be taken 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 which, all and any transgressors will be individually admitting to and, shall fully accept

and incur liability for. Any reply to this notice must be made upon oath or attestation and on your

full commercial liability and penalty of perjury and, within the reasonable time frame allotted. In

the event that all of my eight claims herein are proven to be incorrect, I shall accept that the Weston

Super Mare Magistrates court(‘De facto’)/Crown(‘Corporation’) does have jurisdiction, and in the

event of that proof being provided in full under the common law, I shall comply with the demands

or rulings under that jurisdiction.

TAKE NOTICE THAT: This document is EVIDENCE and a copy of which is required to be

filed into the JUDGE/MAGISTRATES records in any administrative hearing in connection with

this matter. Any 'person' or living being who enters a plea in MR ANDREW DAVID PEARS (legal

fiction) name in my absence SHALL BE the defendant(s) for any and all costs, penalties, charges

and suchlike.

DEFINITION OF NOTICE - (Blacks 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.

2

Any administrative hearings with regard to the fraudulent charges/allegations being pursued against

the legal fiction/myself the living being, either occurring by my own free will or by force, I Andrew

of the Pears family will automatically be presumed to be the sole shareholder of the trust account,

who would be acting 'under duress' as a third party agent for the legal fiction (the all capitals name)

MR ANDREW DAVID PEARS and, as the claimant and chief administrator of the trust and, on my

full commercial liability and penalty of perjury. However, I would only be able act as the 3rd

party

representative of the legal ‘person’ in a defensive manner under duress as it would cause a breach of

Crown copyright– the owner of the legal person. Therefore, a man cannot be an artificial 'person'

which would incapacitate him and deny him his right, as a sovereign to trial by jury.

Maxim in law- “Nemo admittendis est inhabilitare seipsum.” – “ No one is allowed to

incapacitate himself.”

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

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, otherwise you will be acting ultra vires.” In a common law jurisdiction the jury act as

the judges, whilst you can only act as the arbitrator.

Rachael Davies, you are required to REBUT ALL of the following eight points in full;

1. I conditionally accept that the summons (invite) issued by Weston Super Mare Magistrates

court is a lawful summons that I must adhere to according to English law, on proof of claim

that Weston Super Mare Magistrates court is indeed entirely a common law jurisdiction. It

is to my understanding that it would be a criminal offence under the English constitution and

common law, to enter such a corporate enterprise when it is evidently aiding and abetting

the crime of treason at common law. Therefore, any attempt to demand this of me at this

time would be an attempt to coerce me into aiding and abetting said criminal offence. I

require the exact legislation UNDER COMMON LAW that clearly evidences that the

summons is entirely lawful.

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).

2. Whereas it is now to my understanding that the Weston Super Mare Magistrates court

(alleged court of law) is in fact a private corporate enterprise (Aka “Ministry of Justice” as

can be evidenced by searching the website 'Hoovers'), which is trading for profit as a private

corporation standing in a maritime jurisdiction and imposing 'rules' rather than laws of the

‘law society’ and, that there is no lawful contract in place with, I Andrew of the Pears family

or the legal fiction. Nor do I consent to the SERVICE wilfully or otherwise, nor am I a

member of the ‘law society’; therefore I have no obligation to abide by its rules. I

conditionally accept that a lawful contract is in existence on proof of claim that said contract

exists which has: a) equal consideration b) full disclosure c) wet ink signatures signed

wilfully by both parties, and that the matters in question can be dealt with by an

administrative hearing operating in ‘trust law’ without the need for said lawful contractual

agreement or consent to its service.

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

3. Whereas it is to my understanding that Weston Super Mare Magistrates court operates as an

occult ‘Cest que vie’ trust hearing standing under maritime rules, where it does not even

declare such to the public being deceived into contracting and consenting to its

administration. I conditionally accept that Weston Super Mare Magistrates court is a court of

common law on proof of claim that it is so.

Maxim in law: Let those who will be deceived, be deceived

4. Whereas it is to my understanding that under common law the accused is innocent until

proven guilty and not guilty until proven innocent, and certainly not just assumed

guilty on ‘balance of probability’, which currently seems to be the case. I conditionally

accept the claim of Avon and Somerset police constabulary, namely ‘assaulting a special

constable in the exercise of his duty’, has any validity whatsoever on proof of claim that

such an assault did in fact occur. I have a credible witness with first hand experience of the

event who will testify under oath in a properly convened ‘Court de Jure’ that, no such

assault ever took place, that I Andrew of the Pears family have been accused thereof.

5. Whereas it is to my lawful understanding that the Weston Super Mare Magistrates court is a

'room of administration', I conditionally accept that I have an obligation to attend said court

on proof of claim that it is not such a 'room', and if proven not to be so then on proof of

claim that administrative courts have ANY lawful authority whatsoever. (Halesbury's

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”.

6. Whereas it is to my lawful understanding that there is a conflict of interest within the room

of administration otherwise known as Weston Super Mare 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 that I must attend the hearing set for the 11th

December 2013 on proof

of claim that there is no conflict of interest present in the administrative proceedings

whereby the prosecution is acting under an independent authority other than the

Judge/Magistrate(s).

Maxim in law: Ubi non est condendi auctoritas, ibi non est parendi necessitas. Where there is

no authority to establish (a rule), there is no necessity to obey.

7. Whereas it is to my lawful understanding that Queen Elizabeth II is in breach of her

Coronation Oath and contract by allowing 'royal assent' to man-made legislation and

treasonous EU treaties contrary to her oath unto God and to the English peoples and,

whereas she has evidentially ignored the Barons' Committee's petition of February the 7th

2001, when she was petitioned NOT to allow royal assent to the treasonous Nice treaty

and, that redress has never been forthcoming. Therefore, I conditionally accept on proof

of claim that the Crown/monarch has any lawful authority over affiant whilst being in

breach of the same said laws she declared an Oath to protect.

8. Whereas it is to my lawful understanding that NO Magistrate Nor Judge can lawfully stand under

his/her judicial Oath of office at administrative proceedings in a Magistrates court, and that if

they fraudulently attempt to do so, it would contravene Section 13 of the Statutory Declarations Act

1835 and, also contravene Section 2 of the Fraud Act 2006 (false presentation in public office).

Therefore I conditionally accept that a Judge or Magistrate can stand under their judicial oath of

office 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.

4

REBUTTAL OF JURISTICTION

I DO NOT and NEVER HAVE wilfully consented to contract with nor stand under the legislation

of the law society (Maritime rules) 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 understanding, still stands to this day by un-rebutted

petition to Her Majesty the Queen. I subsequently revoked any obligation that I may have had with

regard to the alleged monarch and Crown corporation, therefore the Crown has no lawful

jurisdiction over my sovereign being whatsoever.

The assertions and observations that I have expressed within this lawful document have forced me

into taking a different course of action in defense of my right for justice. It is my honourable

intention to seek remedy to this matter in a properly convened court ‘de jure’ in open forum so that

'justice can be seen to be done'.

Maxim in law: Ubi remedium, ibi ius. Where there is a remedy, there is a right.

This is due to the evidentially corrupted judiciary and police enforcement officers whom, many of

them are acting as criminals and who appear to be immune to prosecution in these extremely

corrupt times. They appear not to be subject to the rule of law and, who stand against the truth with

derision and in dishonour of their oaths of office without integrity or respect, as clearly evidenced in

my affidavit of truth.

Article 45 of Magna Carta 1215. “We will appoint as justices, constables, sheriffs, or bailiffs

only such as know the law of the realm and mean to observe it well”.

The fact that I have attempted to previously seek remedy to the allegations being falsely brought

against me, by standing under the corrupted present 'legal' system (in my ignorance) which has

seemingly further aided the policy enforcement agents of that corrupted regime. Therefore by

indirectly encouraging immunity to prosecution instead of providing justice, accountability and

transparency with regard to the individuals harassing and making claims against me, which are

fabrications of the truth, leaves me no alternative but to demand justice in a ‘de jure’ court of

common law that recognises the English constitution and the rule of law and due process of law.

Unless all points are rebutted in full within the 'notice of conditional acceptance' part of this

document (all eight (8) numbered points), I will not enter the corporate arena (Weston Super Mare

Magistrates court) of my own volition on the 11th

day of December 2013, as the alleged court will

clearly have no jurisdiction to make ANY demands on me or the legal fiction it addresses and, I am

not bonded for such an arena, which also has no authority to issue warrants of arrest against me and,

as it would be a crime under the common law for me to do so, I cannot lawfully attend under those

circumstances mentioned above.

If any of the said points are un-rebutted in 'substance' or acquiesced to then I demand that you 'cease

and desist' and do not harass me further with unsubstantiated claims or allegations of criminality

without clear and concise evidence to provide to a jury to deliberate upon. Anyone who transgresses

against me WILL be brought in front of a jury in a de jure jurisdiction and be cross examined by

me as a hostile witness and, will answer for their collusion of the treason matter evidently being

committed, and/or the also evidential harassment claims I am making within this document.

5

LAWFUL REBELLION FACTS

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 II 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 II 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”. (The service of the barons' petition was reported in the

Daily Telegraph on the 7th

of February and later on the 24th

of March 2001.)

4) These things she has conspicuously failed to do.

5) 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 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.”

6) 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.

7) 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 judgment of his own

cause”. It is for the Barons' Committee to let us know when they are satisfied that redress

has been obtained.

8) 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.

9) Transferring allegiance is not Treason because the oaths of allegiance are the office, not

the holder.

10) 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.

6

DEFINITION OF CRIME UNDER COMMON LAW

“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 99.99% of the time does not meet this requirement.

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]

2) 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]

3) 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]

Quoted passages from the section dealing with "OFFENCES AGAINST PUBLIC JUSTICE - E.

CONTEMPT AT COMMON LAW". (Archbold: Criminal Pleading, Evidence and Practice)

Sir John Donaldson M.R.: “Mens rea” in the law of contempt was something of a minefield. The

reason was that it was wholly the creature of the common law and had developed on a case by

case basis".

In Dean v. Dean [1987] F.L.R. 517, C.A. (Civ. Div.), the court said that: "Contempt of court,

whether civil or criminal, is a common law misdemeanour and it had long been recognised that

proceedings for contempt were criminal or quasi-criminal in nature and that the case against the

alleged contemnor must be proved to the standard of criminal proof namely, beyond reasonable

doubt"

Until Att-Gen v. Newspaper Publishing plc and others [1988] Ch. 333, C.A. (Civ. Div.), there was

widespread acceptance of the classification of contempts as being either civil or criminal. Civil

contempt consisted of disobedience to an order of the court in circumstances where the

disobedience is principally a matter that affects the parties to the case. Sir John Donaldson (again)

later pointed out that the classification was not really relevant, since contempts have to be proved to

criminal standards anyway. Buckley J. held that "No contempt had been committed because the

case was to be tried by a Judge sitting alone, who would be unaffected"

7

At common law, a contempt of court is an act or omission calculated to interfere with the due

administration of justice: Att-Gen v. Butterworth Islands, re a special reference from [1893] A.C

138. There is no impediment to a court making a finding of contempt, when it is appropriate to do

so, not against the Crown directly but against a government department or a minister of the Crown

in his official capacity: M. v. Home Office and another [1993] 3 All E.R. 537, H.L

Lord Diplock in Att-Gen v. Times Newspapers Ltd. [1974], ante, outlines the various ways which

the due administration of justice might be prejudiced: "The due administration of justice requires

first that all citizens should have unhindered access to the constitutionally established courts of

criminal or civil jurisdiction for the determination of disputes as their legal rights and liabilities;

secondly, that they should be able to rely upon obtaining in the courts the arbitrament of a tribunal

which is free from bias against any party and whose decision will be based upon those facts only

that have been proved in evidence adduced before it in accordance with the procedure adopted in

courts of law; and thirdly that, once the dispute has been submitted to a court of law, they should be

able to rely upon there being no usurpation by any other person of the function of the court to

decide according to law. Conduct which is calculated to prejudice any of these requirements or to

undermine public confidence that they will be observed is contempt of court"

Thus, airily waving away the legitimate concerns of a Litigant-in-Person, whose Common Sense

has been used to make reasonable statements and ask reasonable questions and requests, must be

deemed to be - at the very least prima facie - Contempt of Court, by virtue of undermining public

confidence. Conspicuous – by absence – from anywhere in the discussions of Contempt of Court,

are the following, which form the corollaries to what has been said:

1) That justice is served by counting costs – the implication being that justice will

not be served by counting costs and that counting costs is, therefore, a Contempt

of Court.

2) That justice is served by using expedient means – the implication being that

justice will not be served by using expedient means and that utilising expedient

means is, therefore, a Contempt of Court.

3) That justice is served by denying Indefeasible Human Rights – the implication

being that justice is not served by denying Indefeasible Human Rights and that

any denial of Indefeasible Human Rights is, therefore, a Contempt of Court.

4) That justice is served by means of rules designed with any or all of the above in

mind – the implication being that designing or implementing or following or

observing such rules is not serving justice and is, therefore, a Contempt of Court.

It seems hard to argue anything else, when set against (even, for example) what Lord Diplock said

in 1974.

8

AFFIDAVIT OF TRUTH

This 'Notice of conditional acceptance, affidavit of truth and rebuttal of jurisdiction' should be

handled promptly as such, in the proper manner in the protection of that.

I Andrew of the Pears family a sovereign, living, breathing soul acting under duress of circumstances at this

time as the authorised third party representative, beneficiary and chief administrator for the 'legal fiction' do

solemnly swear, declare and depose that this document, statements and evidence herein are both truthful and

evidential 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:

a) A workman is worthy of his hire.

b) All are equal under the law.

c) In law truth is sovereign.

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 judgment 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.

5) 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 so for him.

c) THAT the lawful seizure, collection, and transfer of ownership of

money or property must be effected by means of a valid

commercial lien.

d) 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.

9

6) 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, (Section 3 of the Fraud Act 2006) 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;

7) 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;

8) 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;

9) THAT I Andrew of the Pears family, is 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;

10) THAT I Andrew of the Pears family have a clear conscience of any perceived

wrongdoing (no 'Mens rea'), with regard to the law societies claims, assertions and

allegations or charges brought against myself/legal person under statutes derived from the

law societies legislation, that which relate to shipping rights under Maritime rules, 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 and lawfully adjudicated on.

EVENTS LEADING TO THIS ACTION

Since 2008, I have had numerous encounters with the alleged justice system whereby even though I

have seemingly achieved a modicum of success against the charges, it is quite apparent that justice

does not seem to have fully been done. The majority of my complaints against various police

constables has either not been upheld or been point blank refused. Various examples of these

incidents are as follows in chronological order.

1) On the 30-11-2008 I was accused of contravening Section 59 of the police reform Act 2002

and Section 5 of the public order Act 1986. Although I was found not guilty at court

whereby it had been ruled that “incorrect use of power” and that “excessive force” had been

used, with regards to the arrest and the assault on myself by the three arresting constables, I

10

was later unsuccessful in having my complaint that I made against the constables for the

assault upheld.

2) On the 16-07-2008 I was again accused of contravening Section 59 of the police reform Act

2002. On this occasion even without the intervention of a court, it had been decided that I

was innocent. However even though the judgment of the constables was deemed to be faulty

and my financial losses were fully reimbursed, the complaint of harassment I made against

the constables was again not upheld!

3) On the 25-09-2008 a police constable unfairly seized the vehicle I was driving that had

triggered an ANPR camera for no insurance. I was cautioned by the constable whom denied

me the right to produce my valid and current insurance document by either, issuing me a

producer or allowing me to verify that my valid documentation existed by taking me home

to examine it, even though I lived only a very short distance from the stop. However the

officer eventually transported me home regardless, but only after my car had been

impounded, guaranteeing that a financial penalty against myself had been secured. Upon

complaint against the constable for refusing the option of a producer, it was deemed that the

judgment of the constable was lawful and the complaint was not upheld. However, at the

time it had been suggested that the constable could have in fact verified the documents as he

did take me home anyway.

4) On the 27-03-2010 a police constable unlawfully issued a parking ticket which was later

quashed in the court upon appeal. However, my complaint that followed was not upheld.

5) On the 29-04-2010 I was unfairly arrested for Section 5 & Section 6 of the public order Act

after the council called the police with false allegations of verbal threatening behavior made

by myself during a phone conversation. However, upon later attending court, the

Magistrates threw the case out even without the need for a plea due to the exonerating

evidence of the phone call recording supplied by the prosecution, which showed no such

threat. The Magistrates then stated that they would put in a complaint to the CPS for wasting

the courts time. The constables prior to the court had at the scene refused to examine the

evidence of the phone call recording or, verify that there had even been an actual offence

committed by questioning the alleged victim before to arresting me.

6) On the 09-07-2010 police constables refused to attend scene of a violent assault after a 999

call had been made. After obtaining the permission of the land owner to lawfully park my

vehicle whilst purchasing fuel, upon returning to my vehicle a short time later I discovered

that I had been illegally clamped by a private clamping company. Soon after this the vehicle

clamper appeared and made verbal and physical threats against me whilst demanded monies

with menace. After refusing to pay the demands I was physically assaulted in front of three

independent witnesses, one of which called 999 on my behalf. Although approximately forty

minutes no police constable had attended the scene and I was left with no choice but to

allow the assailant to extort £130.00 from a friend’s credit card. After making a complaint as

to why no-one attended to keep the peace and prevent injury and loss to myself, an inspector

from Avon and Somerset police constabulary refused to investigate the complaint.

7) On the 16-01-2012 I was followed by a marked road policing unit and stopped for an alleged

speeding offence. Upon requesting the evidence of the alleged offence from the constables, I

stated that I had GPS and speed data logging equipment running live in the vehicle and that I

could challenge the allegation in court if need be. The officers then openly bragged that my

attempt to do so would be futile as they did not need to prove that I was speeding as “The

Magistrates would always believe the word of police officers over the word of a member of

the public”. Due to this blatant disregard of due process of law I immediately purchased a

11

Dictaphone in an attempt to protect myself in the future from any further injustices. Later

on at the trial they were proven to be correct in their assumption as I was found guilty and

consequently fined even though I had irrefutable electronic evidence of my innocence, as

this type of evidence is deemed to be inadmissible in court as apposed to the word of a

police constable. I subsequently made a complaint which was predictably not upheld.

8) On the 5-03-2012 a police constable arrested and street bailed me outside my own home for

an alleged Section 4a public order offence, namely threatening to kill the chief executive of

the local Citizens Advice Bureau. Upon investigation this police constable dropped the

alleged allegation due to the fact that the person who tendered the allegation openly

admitted that they had no recollection of me ever making any such threat to cause them

harm whatsoever, which resulted in the cancellation of the bail terms. However, the police

constable sternly refused my request to uphold the law and arrest the false claimant for

wasting police time and/or attempting to pervert the course of justice. Upon questioning as

to why this was, he replied that it was now a civil matter because the Citizens Advice

Bureau was a corporation? I was yet again left no option but to merely request that a

complaint be filed against the police constable’s dereliction of duty. Unsurprisingly by now,

a duty inspector refused to record the complaint yet again.

9) On the 12-04-2012 two police constables unlawfully evicted me from a friend’s house. After

the police were called to a non violent domestic dispute between my landlord and I, and

after I left the premises peacefully, the attending police constables without probable cause or

reasonable suspicion, 20 minutes later, followed me to my destination and unlawfully

evicted me from my friends house. Notably I was in possession of two sets of keys to the

house and was already inside the property with full permission of the owner at the time that

the constables had arrived at the house. Upon acknowledging the constables' inquiry as to

why I was occupying the premises without the owner being present by opening the front

door, they forced unlawful entry without a warrant, invite or any grounds whatsoever, which

caused me to feel harassed, alarmed and distressed by their action. They then proceeded to

evict me whilst refusing to verify my permission to reside in the property by contacting the

owner, after I had made every attempt to provide them with the necessary contact phone

number to do so. After reluctantly agreeing to leave the property to keep from a breach of

the peace occurring, I requested that the constables produce their collar numbers, which they

refused to do. It later transpired that the constables relinquished their possession of the keys

to the person who had notified them of the original domestic dispute, even though he had no

logical connection with the owner of the house I was forcibly evicted from! I immediately

made a complaint against the constables as I believed that this was one of the most blatant

examples I have experienced to date of misuse of power and harassment. Initially my

complaint was not upheld however, upon appeal it was partially upheld in two areas. Firstly,

the constables should have supplied me with their identification details and secondly, the

keys should have been retained by the constables and taken to the police station and/or later

returned to directly to the owner of the property and not handed to a third party. My third

and fourth allegations of the unreasonable eviction and harassment were not only, not

upheld, but were not even recorded. Whilst my complaint was upheld in part, it was not

considered appropriate that any formal disciplinary action should be taken against the

constables concerned.

10) On the 05-07 2012 a constable in an unmarked road policing unit vehicle subjected me to a

horrific experience by forcing me to engage in dialogue whilst driving along side of my car

on the wrong side of the road at speed. His verbal and instructive hand gesture of “wind

your window down” was then quickly proceeded by “Pull over I want a word with you”.

Under duress I was pulled over by the unmarked car without the use of the blue lights and

sirens, which caused me to be ‘seriously’ alarmed, harassed and distressed. The constable

12

attempted to justify this unlawful stop by making the allegation that I was speeding. After I

contested my innocence and informed the constable that I was now filming him, I demanded

that I see proof of his claim. He quickly ran to his car shouting that “You aren't going to be

filming me” and reentered his car and drove off in the same direction that he had come from

wheel-spinning and pebble dashing me and my car with loose stones off the road as he went.

Immediately I dialed 999 from a public phone box to report the incident as I believed the

severity and the aggressive nature of the stop merited the need to do so. After reporting the

complaint, the police constable in question mysteriously dropped the allegation using the

excuse that he in fact had forgotten to process a Form 19. More notably the investigating

complaints inspector refused to take the matter further as he deemed there were no grounds

to substantiate such a complaint.

11) On the 13-09-2012 a PCSO unlawfully issued me with another parking ticket, however, on

this occasion I was able to circumvent the need for a court appearance by contacting the

Central Ticket Office and after careful consideration of all the facts, they decided to excuse

payment of the fixed penalty notice. A minor win you could say.

12) On the 04-12-2012 a police constable attended my home address uninvited to carry out an

unsubstantiated and unwarranted check allegedly on behalf of Somerset County Council.

The constable claimed that he was following up on allegations that I possibly had possession

of fire arms and, that police records were showing that police constables had on a previous

occasion attended my address and searched the premises for guns, which clearly never

happened. Again I put in a complaint of this unlawful harassment and libelous allegation

and yet again the duty inspector refused to record the complaint even though no police

constables have ever search my property for guns?

13) On the 02-02-2013 two police constables again unlawfully issued me with a parking ticket

however, upon bringing it to the attention of the Central Ticket Office, this time they stated

that if I wished to appeal against the validity of the ticket I would need to request a court

hearing as “unfortunately the central ticket office is not in a position to consider any

mitigation that I may have to offer”, and that they wanted to draw my attention to the fact

that the cover of the notice is printed with the following statement “ mitigation will not be

considered by the issuing authority and correspondence not entered into”. This cannot be a

true statement as previous correspondence proves that they do. Interestingly upon entering

the court and presenting irrefutable and undeniable video recorded evidence of the incident,

which proved the constables’ statements were indeed false and in combination with official

documented council legislation, also proved that the constables had no legal right to issue a

parking ticket in the first place. However I went to the court hearing and was found guilty of

the offence regardless of the evidence I produced. In addition, I had also been obstructed

and assaulted by the constables vexatiously because I had dared to video the incident for my

defense. Again upon complaint the investigating inspector did not uphold my complaint due

to lack of CCTV footage even though I posted it to him. After my own enquiry as to how

that was possible, he stated he never received any such CCTV evidence. Upon closer

investigation by myself, it transpires that the return envelope he supplied me with had the

postage paid marking not in the correct position for a valid delivery, which looked like a

deliberate attempt at avoiding delivery of the material. (plausible deniability)

14) On the 28-02-2013 whilst traveling home late at night I pulled over at the side of the road to

take some Paracetamol as they were required. Whilst taking the medication a police

constable attempted to interfere into my business from a distance of 28 meters across a small

roadside ravine, due to previous encounters I then set my camera upon my dashboard and

pressed record for my own protection. Upon acknowledging the constable’s presence and

potentially another confrontation with a constable, I immediately left the scene in an attempt

13

to avoid any further harassment and continued my way home. However, 25 minutes later I

awoke to the sound of screeching tyres and slamming car doors only to witness a marked

police van, a marked road policing unit and an unmarked police vehicle pulling up outside

my address. Upon questioning the constables as to what grounds they had to attend my

address, they stated that a). they were there to investigate why was I filming them at the

roadside and b). that they were going to report me for the manner of my driving. I

immediately asked if they were intending to arrest me and had I broken any laws? To which

I was told “no”. Upon confirming this I politely asked them if they could please leave the

driveway and respect the boundaries of the property which they declined to do by then

marching onto the property further, in an attempt to raise the owner of the premises and

gather intelligence from inside a closed mobile home via photographic means through the

window. Under duress of these actions I protested my innocence and freedom to exercise

my right to film in a public place. I then asked them why were they climbing onto the

tailgate of my mobile home and photographing the inside, they claimed that they were

investigating, I asked them what they were investigating but they failed to justify their

actions legally. I was then assaulted by a constable who I had previously made a complaint

against for trespass. He assaulted me by pushing me over the bonnet of my car because I

was attempting to prevent him from committing further trespasses against me by blocking

his access by peacefully means in protest.

15) On the 10-05-2013 two police constables unlawfully followed and stopped me for an alleged

speeding offence. I was assaulted, arrested for a Section 5 public order offence and

ultimately kidnapped off the street, after having my video recording equipment smashed for

daring to evidence a contrived speeding offence. Whilst traveling home, late at night and

again on my own after purchasing food at a local garage, I had the unfortunate experience of

passing a marked police car coming from the opposite direction from that I was traveling in.

Only as we passed each other did I observe that the driver of the police vehicle was no other

than the same police constable which had just recently assaulted me on my own driveway

and, prior to that, had unlawfully evicted me from a friends house whereby the complaint of

which had been partially upheld. Due to this I was very cautious and apprehensive and

decided to set not only my video camera recording, but also a personal Dictaphone just in

case I was to be further unjustly stopped and/or harassed. Predictably the police constable

turned his vehicle around and proceeded to follow me as I carefully made my way home.

After the constables caught up with me, I decided to stop directly in front of a council

CCTV camera as back up knowing my recording equipment could easily be confiscated.

Immediately after I had pulled in to allow the constables to pass, they switched on their blue

lights and pulled in behind me. A special constable then quickly appeared at the nearside

window of my vehicle and banged aggressively on the window shouting the words “GET

OUT OF THE CAR, OR I WILL FUCKING DRAG YOU OUT.” I immediately exited the

vehicle and exclaimed that I was recording him and would he please repeat himself for the

benefit of the camera. I moved towards the special constable so that I could obtain a better

view as it was dark. It was at this point that the special constable stated “No you're not” and

assaulted me by knocking the camera out of my hand and onto the road, causing it to be

damaged beyond repair. It was at this point that the identified driver of the police vehicle

who was standing behind me, threatened to Taser me if I did not put my hands on the roof of

my car and relinquish my recording equipment. Without resisting I complied in full under

duress and protesting my innocence of any perceived crime or allegation of criminal intent,

whilst being handcuffed with the use of excessive force that caused injury to my left wrist. It

was then that additional constables attended the scene who then placed me into the back of a

police van. After begging him, one of the constables loosened the tightly locked handcuffs

before I was escorted to my detention at the police station. On arrival I was detained in a

cage and whilst still handcuffed I questioned the arresting constable whom I had made

previous complaints of harassment against, as to why I had been stopped by him earlier, to

14

which he replied, “perhaps if I didn’t fabricate complaints about officers, this sort of event

wouldn’t happen”. During my detention I demanded that the constables were searched as my

Dictaphone was not being disclosed as it contained the vital proof that I had been assaulted

by the constables. Interestingly after a complaint had been made, a month later the

investigating inspector revealed that the Dictaphone had mysteriously turned up, however,

but only with the vital evidence missing. Moreover, the investigating inspector also revealed

that the special constable had admitted to him that he did in fact use threatening words of

“get out or I will drag you out”, which is in direct conflict with his written statement.

It is this current and final example of gross injustice that has convinced me that I have no other

choice but to take this stance in lawful rebellion, in order to protect myself from such future

vexatious injustices. With regards to this case I have made many phone calls to the police (all

recorded by myself) in my attempts to secure the CCTV footage from within the police station

recorded at the time of my detainment. However, during several conversations I was met with

difficulty and/or blatant attempts at discouraging me from doing so. On one such occasion I even

recorded a detective who accused me of ‘foul language’ in order to justify ending the call, even

though my recording will prove that this was not the case. Again proof that these false accusations

made against me are a continual theme.

All of the above assertions are factual and evidential by documentation, video and/or sound

recordings to verify my allegations and claims. Because of the continual and ongoing abuse of

power and corruption I am experiencing from Avon and Somerset police constabulary (a

corporation, partnered with (South West One - 75% owned by IBM) and Somerset Council on

a regular basis, coupled with the fact that police corruption is at an all time high across the country.

This is further compounded by the IPCC and the PSD, the very institutions allegedly in place that

are supposed to curtail or prevent such corruption from going on. I am therefore forced into taking

defensive action by serving this document and denying the alleged courts of law any authority over

me, which are no more than corporate businesses deceiving the general public in order to generate

profit.

The documents and evidence herein constitutes to my understanding of 'lawful excuse' to any pre-

conceived allegations and/or charges brought against Andrew of the Pears family (a living breathing

sovereign being), as opposed to the all capitals name MR ANDREW DAVID PEARS, which as to

my understanding, represents a trust account and/or corporation, that is represented by a contract

commonly known as the 'birth certificate', which is the copyright of the Crown and which is to my

understanding a document representative of the trust account, and of which I also understand that I

cannot lawfully claim as my own, but that I would be the sole shareholder, beneficiary and

administrator of that trust if forced under duress to be so. Therefore, in that circumstance let it be

known to you that I would 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 the legal fiction, in ANY Administrative proceedings regarding this matter.

Without vexation, frivolity or ill will and, with all my natural, inalienable, indefeasible common law

rights reserve and, without any admission of liability whatsoever and on my full commercial

liability and penalty of perjury. I Andrew of the Pears family, do hereby solemnly swear attest and

affirm, that this entire notice, represents my lawful truth and understandings and my conditional

acceptance, on proof of claim that the eight (8) numbered contested points herein are fully

evidenced to be false.

Andrew of the Pears family. Dated:

15

First witness: Dated:

7/12/2013

Second witness: Dated:

Third witness: Dated: