“Spiritual peace” demands naming their fraud

Forgive them only if they don’t know what they do, otherwise prosecute their crimes

This is not the end this is the new beginning

I am slowly learning how “spiritual warfare” is often “fought” through paradox, by resolutely keeping the peace. To “battle” corruption we stand in truth and honour, acknowledge disagreement, seek resolution, and give or take remedy as judged. Many people in institutional authority have a degraded conscience and consider mindless following of rules to be genuine morality, especially if paid to do so and given professional accolades for their spotless conformity. Our countervailing job is to name the crimes they are committing, and bring foundational law and holy principles back into consideration.

All my public justice work keeps coming back to two crimes: treason, when the legislature and/or executive cease to be our servant and instead become our master; and fraud, when lies are elevated above truth for selfish gain. It is tempting to get lost in a maze of minor administrative debate and secondary legislation, which misses the forest fire by focusing on just a few rotten trees. I am now seeing the process of putting people on notice for fraud as a spiritual gift to them, as it challenges them to reflect upon their behaviour and whether it comes from a righteous place.

Sadly, critical theory and Marxist thought permeate society, with a false morality that erases individual rights in favour of collectivist ideology. We will only enjoy our inalienable rights in the long run if we are willing to defend them from incursions. Yet that defence has to be done in a loving way, as our neighbours have been enticed into trespassing against us. The path to peaceful reconciliation is to keep surfacing the wrongdoing while signposting the pathway back to honour and honesty. The antidote to enemy lawfare that destroys our constitution is a ministry of salvation to its naive minions, albeit expressed in legal language.

Below is my draft notice to the Chief Executive of the Traffic Penalty Tribunal to put them on notice that they are indeed an accessory to a crime. We will only ever have constitutional rights if we are willing to defend them, and our performance does not just acquiesce silently and submissively. Everyone has an innate sense of right and wrong and what comprises natural justice, even if it can get hard to discern in some situations. It will probably take me another week of slog work to put together the supporting documentation, so as always I offer this as a draft for comment and improvement. Similar notices will go to the Council as well as the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Authority (DVLA).

To the Chief Executive, Traffic Penalty Tribunal

Notice of Fraud
Failure to rebut is acquiescence

As Chief Executive of the Traffic Penalty Tribunal I am hereby putting you on notice that the Traffic Penalty Tribunal is aiding and abetting Newcastle City Council and the DVLA in a criminal fraud under Section 2 of the Fraud Act 2006 through false representation. The fraud is to knowingly and falsely present and enforce a faulty categorisation of certain “N1” class vehicles as being commercial and hence charged for Clean Air Zones. This goes against the self-evident facts for financial gain. The statutory crime is compounded by the imposition of a further forfeit without constitutional due process; constitutional law is superior to statute, and this is also a common law crime.

This criminal fraud results in the unlawful forfeit of civil rights and property rights, so substantively exceeds the threshold for a mere disagreement in civil law over a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN). Newcastle City Council and the Traffic Penalty Tribunal are elevating and converting a legal fiction (DVLA classification for road tax) above fact of operational reality, and the IT policies of the DVLA above case law and equity, so as to unlawfully enrich themselves at the expense of the public. There is no primary legislation for Clean Air Zones that directs Newcastle City Council, the DVLA, or the Traffic Penalty Tribunal to overcome facts or superior law, nor could there ever be.

Furthermore, the Traffic Penalty Tribunal appears to be constituted so as to violate constitutional rights to due process, and therefore I assert that its adjudication in the matter is void ab initio. Furthermore, I assert that s16 of The Road User Charging Schemes (Penalty Charges, Adjudication and Enforcement) (England) Regulations 2013 is unconstitutional under the Bill of Rights 1689 as it violates the separation of powers and the prohibition of forfeit without conviction. It also breaches the Human Rights Act 1998 through failure to adhere to the European Convention on Human Rights Article 6. There is no possible equivalence between a private administrative tribunal and a court of equity or conscience.

The heart of the matter is that Parliament has exceeded its constitutional authority under s39 of Magna Carta 1215, which cannot be repealed by statute (contrary to popular claim). The same restriction on power is also reflected in the derivative statutory Magna Carta 1297, which remains primary constitutional law to this day, thus the Traffic Penalty Tribunal is bound by it. The Bill of Rights 1689 restates the same constraint on power in a different manner, albeit weakened, under the same inviolable principles of natural justice. Any and all forfeits demand a charge, trial, and conviction — all of which are absent here. I am suffering a loss of property and civil rights without due process in law.

The enforcement of constitutionally unlawful statutes, such as s16 above, is itself a crime under our constitution. A tribunal with a single state-aligned adjudicator lacking true independence or an oath of public office, confining themselves to an arbitrarily limited scope of secondary legislation, is not justice under the law. It destroys our constitutional right to a fair trial and conviction before a forfeit, and to destroy the constitution is treason (per R vs Thistlewood [1820]).

The removal of any constitutional safeguard without the permission of the people is high treason, the singularly worst common law crime, and still carries the death penalty, even if prosecution of treason has become unfashionable. This is not a minor technical matter; it cuts to the heart of our system of government, and amounts to the most serious level of criminality possible, worse than statutory fraud. Halsbury’s Laws of England is emphatic that administrative tribunals are unconstitutional, and Lord Widgery LCJ ruled them to be accessories to extortion. Now I can see why — The Traffic Penalty Tribunal is treading on exceptionally dangerous ground in lawful authority terms.

The implied position of Newcastle City Council and the Traffic Penalty Tribunal is that Parliament can legislate anything it wishes without any constraints on its power. Additionally, there is no remedy against that, barring the last resort fallback of judicial review, which is an abuse of its intended purpose. Meanwhile, the validity and enforceability of the Bill of Rights 1689 has in recent times been reaffirmed by a Speaker of the House of Commons (Betty Boothroyd), by the Cabinet Office (FoI response), case law (“Metric Martyrs”), and the Supreme Court (prorogation of Parliament). The existence of constitutional law, with resulting constraints on legislative and executive power, is not a conspiracy theory.

The full details including supporting facts and law to evidence the fraud and lack of due process are provided in attached statements. All actions that are taken outside of the umbrella protection of lawful acts are ultra vires and result in personal liability. I informed the adjudicator that higher law was in play, and that there was personal liability for her breaking the law. While consummately professional in executing an unlawful remit, this warning was not heeded, and now there are consequences. The rule of law is not mere adherence to low-level administrative rules so as to evade equitable treatment; we are everywhere and always equal under the law, and failure to uphold that priceless principle is a wrongdoing in every instance.

Enclosed is a rebuttal of the adjudication as being foundationally unlawful and hence void. As this is a criminal fraud, I am obligated to bring it to the attention of all parties involved, and duty bound not aid or abet the fraud by paying an unlawful PCN. It is regrettable that neither party has submitted itself to natural justice and constitutional law. Comprehension of the difference between legislation and lawfulness appears to be lacking, despite years of legal training and expertise. As the remedial education falls to myself, a schedule of fees is attached. I do not particularly wish to become the teacher of constitutional law, but it is my public duty in this instance to halt the fraud.

Should there be any further effort to pursue an unlawful debt or enforce an unlawful adjudication then you personally agree to recompense me in accordance to these fees and make whole any loss. Once more I remind you that ruthless adherence to the “law of rules” of secondary legislation is not the same as compliance with the rule of law, and only the latter carries the moral force of natural justice. These infringements on the equitable right to private travel, by falsely treating private travel in an ordinary conveyance as being commercial, impact our deepest and most cherished liberties, such as the right to protest and family life. As such, they cannot be tolerated.

My experience of interacting with those in authority is that many have an unshakeable belief in the innate authority of government itself, rather than perceiving it as an agent of the people and their servant. The reflexive reaction to being challenged in this way is to defend one’s actions and the system one serves. Yet there are many good people trapped in bad systems, unconscious of the personal harm they may be causing in the name of false authority. There is always room to reconsider the full lawfulness, truthfulness, and morality of our actions. If a search of one’s conscience recognises a wrongdoing that requires repentance, then grace and mercy are always on offer. None of us are beyond reproach, myself included.