Speeding Opportunity to Withdraw

PRIVATE. Without Prejudice.

For and on behalf of MR ………………..
Address
Goes
here
[POSTCODE]

Their name
Their
Address
………….
………….
POSTCODE

Date:

URN: 63/FC/02470/21
Our Reference: MR_RICHARD_LEWIS_001

Notice of opportunity to withdraw

Dear, Mr Richard LEWIS, acting in the capacity of CHIEF CONSTABLE for DYFED POWYS POLICE

DO NOT IGNORE THIS NOTICE. IGNORING THIS NOTICE WILL HAVE LEGAL CONSEQUENCES.

We did not know to whom to name as the recipient of the communication, as the sender failed in his/her duty of care and did not sign the document titled SINGLE JUSTICE PROCEDURE NOTICE sent on 25/11/2021. The action of not signing the document legally means that no living man or woman has taken legal responsibility for the content of the document on behalf of DYFED POWYS POLICE. The very act of not signing the document renders the document ‘void’ and therefore non-legal and unusable in law under current legislation.

This document will be kept on file as physical presentable evidence as it represents the criminal activities of DYFED POWYS POLICE whether they are aware of this transgression or not. Ignorance of the law is no defence, and all of the representatives of DYFED POWYS POLICE are now culpable under current legislation because one individual failed to sign the document. This is a fact that must be understood.

It is important that Mr Richard LEWIS understands that as the CHIEF CONSTABLE of DYFED POWYS POLICE Mr Richard LEWIS is vicariously liable and is therefore responsible for all the representatives under his authority.

The company/corporation you are acting on behalf of DYFED POWYS POLICE are potentially engaging in deliberate deception and acts of fraud. Please be aware, company logos/titles do not make claims, they are not living or breathing and cannot speak or write; only men and women can make claims.

We now draw your attention to the following: –

The Companies Act 2006

“44 Execution of documents.

Under the law of England and Wales or Northern Ireland a document is executed by a company-

By the affixing of its common seal, or

By signature in accordance with the following provisions.

A document is validly executed by a company if it is signed on behalf of the company-

By two authorised signatories, or

By a director of the company in the presence of a witness who attests the signature.

The following are “authorised signatories” for the purposes of subsection (2)-

Every director of the company

In the case of a private company with a secretary or a public company, the secretary (or any joint secretary) of the company.

A document signed in accordance with subsection (2) and expressed in whatever words, to be executed by the company, has the same effect as if executed under the common seal of the company.”

The legal effect of the statute is that documents and deeds must be signed on behalf of the company by a director in the presence of a witness, or by two authorised signatories. Without adherence to these provisions no contracts can be considered duly executed by a company and their terms are therefore legally unenforceable, as was clearly implied when the Court of Appeal endorsed the view of Lewison J in the case of Williams v Redcard Ltd [2011]:

“For a document to be executed by a company, it must either bear the company’s seal, or it must comply with s.44, In order to take effect as if it had been executed under seal. Subsection (4) requires that the document must not only be made on behalf of the company by complying with one of the two alternative requirements for signature in

s.44 (2): it must also be “expressed, in whatever words, to be executed by the company. That means that the document must purport to have been signed by persons held out as authorised signatories and held out to be signing on the company’s behalf. It must be apparent from the face of the document that the people signing it are doing something more than signing it on the company’s behalf. It must be apparent that they are signing it on the company’s behalf in such a way that the document is to be treated as having been executed “by” the company for the purposes of subsection (4), and not merely by an agent “for” the company.”

Fraud Act 2006

“Section 4, Fraud by abuse of position

A person is in breach of this section if he-

Occupies a position in which he is expected to safeguard, or not to act against, the financial interests of another person,

Dishonestly abuses that position, and

Intends, by means of the abuse of that position-

To make gain for himself or another, or

To cause loss to another or to expose another to a risk of loss.

(2), A person may be regarded as having abused his position even though his conduct consisted of an omission rather than an act.”

If Mr Richard LEWIS acting in the capacity of CHIEF CONSTABLE for DYFED POWYS POLICE is not able to provide evidence that the document sent to Mr ……………… is not fraudulent in nature, we will take it that it is fraudulent in nature, and that Mr Richard LEWIS acting in the capacity of CHIEF CONSTABLE for DYFED POWYS POLICE is now conspiring with it.

Take notice of the following: –

Fraud is a deliberate action to defraud where the victim of the crime is unaware having no knowledge of a situation or fact. This crime carries a penalty of 7-10 years incarceration and there latter, where there are multiple instances of.

Malfeasance, Misfeasance, and Nonfeasance are also very serious crimes with a period of incarceration of life in prison. Malfeasance is a deliberate act, with criminal intent to defraud. Ignorance is no defence. Malfeasance has been defined in appellate courts in other jurisdictions as a wrongful act which the actor has no legal right to do; as an act for which there is no authority or warrant of law; as an act which a person ought not to do; as an act which is wholly wrongful and unlawful; as that which an agent has no authority to do and is positively wrong or unlawful; and as the unjust performance of some act which the party performing it has no legal right.

Crimes of this nature cannot go unpunished. “I was just doing my job” or “I was just following orders” is no excuse.

Also consider the following: –

There are some fundamentals to be given consideration before an agreement or a contract is valid and enforceable.

Full disclosure by the parties. If there is no full disclosure by the parties then the agreement is void from the outset. There would not be any physical presentable evidence to any missing disclosure, but the absence of this material physical evidence is evidence of the fraud.

Agreed consideration by both parties. There must be a consideration by both parties! There must be material evidence of this consideration.

There should be a signed agreement by both parties. Without the signature from both parties there is no material evidence to the agreement or contract.

Must be compliant with the companies act. (See above).

The very absence of the company seal or signatures from the company is the material evidence of the fact that the activities are fraudulent from the start.

Does Mr Richard LEWIS acting in the capacity of CHIEF CONSTABLE for DYFED POWYS POLICE wish to proceed any further?

If so then Mr Richard LEWIS, acting in the capacity of CHIEF CONSTABLE, for DYFED POWYS POLICE carries the formal and noted obligation to provide the material evidence of Mr ……………… wet ink signature where Mr……………… consent to be governed can be granted as the very foundation of any claim, which must be presentable as fact.

To date the representatives of DYFED POWYS POLICE have not provided any material evidence to support the claims in previous correspondence, Mr Richard LEWIS as the CHIEF CONSTABLE you are ultimately responsible and have been made fully aware of your obligations of services and members of DYFED POWYS POLICE and are hereby given this opportunity to resolve the matter or take responsibility for your actions and answer to them.

At this point it is prudent for us to advise you not to delegate this matter and to deal with this yourself and resolve it, because ultimately you are responsible for your own actions and have to be accountable for them.

What is also important to note is that all representatives of DYFED POWYS POLICE are accountable for their actions personally, the actual POLICE FORCE cannot be responsible as it is a company formed by an Act of Registration, and it is of no material substance; it is the people and their actions that are accountable because they are of material substance and presentable as such, and this includes but does not limit you Mr Richard LEWIS acting in the capacity of CHIEF CONSTABLE for DYFED POWYS POLICE.

The time has now come for you Mr Richard LEWIS in the position of CHIEF CONSTABLE for DYFED POWYS POLICE to consider the facts presented here and act accordingly with honour. We have literally spelt everything out to you in plain terms, so you are now fully aware of the consequences of each action that you take in your position as the CHIEF CONSTABLE of DYFED POWYS POLICE.

We hereby provide Mr Richard LEWIS acting in the capacity of CHIEF CONSTABLE for DYFED POWYS POLICE seven (7) days to provide the material evidence which can be presented as fact to support these claims, or alternatively to make an honourable withdrawal. Failure to take this opportunity will leave us with no option but to initiate legal proceedings against Mr Richard LEWIS in the position of CHIEF CONSTABLE for DYFED POWYS POLICE by way of a securitised Commercial Lien.

We now draw your attention to some published Commercial Liens served on POLICE CONSTABLES who have made similar claims without providing the physical presentable material evidence to support such claims.

Chief Constable Simon Byrne-06-06-2016 http://bit.ly/2dmwQXK
Chief Constable Simon Byrne-28-06-2016 http://bit.ly/2d49wi5
Cheshire Constabulary-03-02-2016 http://bit.ly/2azwlLg
Chief Constable Simon Byrne-28-06-2016 http://bit.ly/2aMUegc
Chief Constable Andrew J Cook SH-CC-28-09-2016 http://bit.ly/2cNNG0o
Chief Constable Andrew J Cook SH-FC-28-09-2016 http://bit.ly/2dpCYQh

Finally, we would like to draw your attention to the fact that court orders are not valid as judges do not sign orders in wet ink and/or seal them with official court seals ever, this is a fact. The orders are not even filed ‘on and for the record’ this is because they do not exist, this is also a fact. So any court official or public servant serving as an officer of HM Parliaments and Government PLC and any of its sub office including but not limited to DYFED POWYS POLICE are acing fraudulently if they act or instruct others to act upon unsigned and unsealed court orders, because they are not in fact orders, they are just pieces of paper with marks on then and not actually an order, just a document that pretends to be an order.

Please be aware that Mr Richard LEWIS carries an obligation in his office of Police FORCE to suppress any wilful and belligerent acts of terrorism.

A copy of this document has also been sent to Justices’ Clerk, Llanelli Magistrates Court, Town Hall Square, Llanelli, SA15 3AW.

You have been served Legal Notice.

No further correspondence will be entered into regarding this matter.

Please be reminded ignoring this notice will have legal consequences.

Without malice or mischief, in sincerity and honour.

Yours Sincerely

For and on behalf of the Principal Legal Embodiment by the title of MRS……………….
For and on behalf of the Attorney General of the House of ………
For and on behalf of Baroness……. of the House of ………

No assured value. No Liability. Errors & Omissions Excepted.
WITHOUT RECOURSE. NON-NEGOTIABLE. NON-ASSUMPSIT.