DATE OF NOTICE BEING SERVED: Your reference Sent by recorded post. NOTICE

TO: Rachael Davies (Clerk to the Justice) North Somerset Courthouse The Hedges St Georges Weston Super Mare North Somerset BS22 7BB FROM: Andrew of the PEARS family c/o 1 Anson Road Kewstoke Weston Super Mare North Somerset BS22 9LA 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 5 th 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. 1

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 3 rd 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. 2

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 11 th 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 7 th 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. 3

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 11 th 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. 4

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 7 th 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 7 th of February and later on the 24 th 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. 5

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, 6 th 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, 6 th 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" 6

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. 7

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. 8

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) nondisclosure 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 9

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 10

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 11

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 12

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 13

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 preconceived 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: 14

First witness: Dated: 7/12/2013 Second witness: Dated: Third witness: Dated: 15