Force of Destiny

2000+ Free world Best Books

Logic Law

Restitution. PCNs County Court orders restitution of £2500

Against Bexley County Council.

The schema.

The case references.

Restitution. PCNs County Court orders restitution of £2500 against Bexley County Council.

Here is the very professionally presented case by Andrew.

The schema is here now, and the case material and arguments will follow shortly.

Click picture to enlarge, wait a few seconds, then click on lower right box to enlarge further.

20 parking tickets to be repaid in 14 days.
A little encouragement, have a look at this one.

Just got back from Dartford County Court on a 2 dates issue against London Borough of Bexley:
Anyway the long and the short of it is I won
Restitution for 28 already paid tickets, total amount inc. costs = 2500 with 14 days to pay!
I need to get my head around things and I have a few other things to do so I will go into detail later.
Main things were JR/Barnet and Winder vs Wandsworth.

Many thanks to Wayne P, Tony W, Teufel, DW190, Legaladviser and others.

Now for a cup of tea!

Top.

First load, this will be polished in stages.

Two user links will be provided; those to links on the site at http://www.logiclaw.co.uk,
that are unlikely to be removed or moved. And those that may be moved not under our control. More references will be added to strengthen this for councils who DO NOT ADMIT their documents are faulty, we have several in mind, and these will render an action malfeasant, and in some cases perjurous.

Important point: Some councils wilfully withdraw discretion; using it as punishment, and omit statutory procedures wherever the traversal of a case under the RTA 1991, meets the ambit of a 'court', PATAS, NPAS, TEC, before reaching a' higher' court - County or High court. In these areas their conduct breaches many other statutes that re-enforce any action in a county court as the breaches render jurisdiction arguments pointless. These involve acts and offences of;

1. Perjurous manufacture of synthetic evidence at PATAS; on record, at each line a link will be placed at the end of this publication.

2. Wilfully, frivolously and vexatiously rejecting informal appeals – allowing the case to go to the adjudicators while not producing evidence at that hearing, even not turning up, effectively putting a 'price' on the fundamental right of appeal,

3. Derogation of duty in Schedule 6 of the RTA 1991, see HERE...., by omitting to send you your appeal from; relying on exchanges being delinquent by 'the post office', thereby

4. Breaching the EU HR protocal 4 article 6

5. False representations through template replies, coupled with bullying,

6. Choreographed introits and exeats of varying correspondence officers to intimidate and break the cognitive continuity,,

7. Harassment, Fraud, and breaches of the Audit Act section 17.1 – 2 below, non feasance, malfeasance and more.

8. Breaches of the Global statement of truth at TEC, breaches similar in kind to 3. above at CPR 75.3 again failing to allow you an apepal under the statutory declaration scheme, and

9. By so doing additionally inflating Bailiff collection fess all where you are entitled to be informed of the progresses against you as each stage is traversed.

10. In another case a council singularly breached seventeen statutes to get their revenue, but failed. This shall follow publication, but is a 700 page case. Being indexed for us at present.

11. Add to all these factors, the brethren 'authorities', Police, Judiciaries, and Ombudsmen, not yet wishing to open floodgates and upset their fellow authoritarians, the system is a wholesale breach of Magna Carta, and the Bill of Rights 1688-9; that remains in statute, un-repealed, and as a symbol of freedom derogated, along with EU conventions and charters.
    The original external lings are with the original version given by Andrew, they are being tidied for html downloads and should be completed in 7 -10 days.
    _________________________________________

    Claim Jurisdiction Boddington vs British Transport Police................... This internal site, extl original site. Wandsworth vs. Winder.............................................This internal site, extl original site. Cases/Referrals London Borough of Barnet vs Adjudicator JR.........This internal site, ext original site. RTA 1991 Section 66.................................................This internal site, ext original site. Al's Bar v London Borough of Wandsworth.............This internal site, ext original site. Patas Annual Report 2001-2......................................This internal site, ext original site. Patas Annual Report 2002-3......................................This internal site, ext original site. Luckha v Aylesbury....................................................This internal site, ext original site. Audit Commission Act....(see 17.1/2).........................This internal site, ext original site. Patas Moulder V Sutton............................................This internal site, ext original site. Strauss V Lond Bor Kensington / Chelsea...............This internal site, ext original site.

Here is the original skeleton from Andrew.
The schema has some links that are missing, and is being transposed from below to the one above, where the links are being tested, and found in two places; here where they are unlikely to be removed, and the original link or case material. To save time, as this information is being needed by many, the original is available immediately, the missing bits and much additional material is being added over the next few weeks.

A comment on some councils, where jurisdiction has been ruled on; fallaciously I would add, but nevertheless ruled on, and only a cogent rebuttal under a specific Justice 'stare decisis' would reverse or at least show where the court o' f law is errant, and has created a ruling that is inconsistent, and leads to a 'reductio ad absurdem'. This will be a later expose. For Camden council in particular the jurisdiction issue is better taken directly to the High Court. One London Court is can not or will not to rule on fact as it would be suggested from material that is known to only a few at this time. In other courts, the jurisdiction issue can be strengthened by the following cases; that are among some further half a dozen or so additional arguments, several of which are drawn fro the simple ruling From Justice Sedley on the right to controvert any issue; also the principle of “Audi alteram partem”; (To hear the other sides argument) and more will follow;

R v London Borough of Camden ex parte Paddock (1995) Justice Sedley
"The principle that a decision making body should not see relevant to giving those affected the chance to comment on it and if they wish, to contravert it is fundamental to the principle of law (which governs public administration as much as it does adjudication) that to act in good faith and listen fairly to both sides is the duty lying upon everyone who decides anything." and others here; http://www.logiclaw.co.uk/arg4dor/caselaw.html

Woolwich Building Society v Inland Revenue Commissioners (No 2) [1992] 3 All ER 737;
Deutsche Morgan Grenfell Group Plc v Inland Revenue and Another [2006] UKHL 49.

Expand - Collapse

The early history is at:

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=19542