|
Logic
|
'Without prejudice' towards any
person whomsoever. top
Index; not
in chronological order, to
700 page bundle one, traversals, Bundle two unseen as yet, can
remain as a new claim not yet made. Focus - what underlies
truth, how
it is managed.
The
material deposed here is a copy
of the traversals at the public hearing,
and is only altered in spelling and proof readings. A running
commentary is made throughout, explaining certain concept as
required. The writer takes responsibility for any infelicities so
deposed, and apologises beforehand for any derogation that is
unintended, but has its own merit in desert that is left to the
reader to determine from the facts so deposed. Right and left
columns are collateral material that came by the way in the
research required to assemble this for public consumption. They
are placed for the nonce, and the textual material contained in
the traversals that are not referring to case law, or scripts
whose ownership is credited where possible, leave all the
remainder where obviously the author's own coinage as his
intellectual property that may not be used for commercial gain
whatsoever without his prior consent. That and the book
forthcoming is the sole copyright of Quester © , and those
named in the copyright header of the book.
Three
entry point to the case, through portals provided by
letters to the claimant that showed immediate contradictions with
the defendant's OWN paperwork,. The claimant has not had to
bother to find material where Camden Council contradicted its own
material there were just too many self contradictions to require
further perusal. Not in chronological order. Each takes about 5
minutes speed reading to open the eyes of anticipation of,
what
TRUTH LIES ahead.
Letter
1 – five + contradictions, Letter 2 - TWO false
representations, Letter three, - wholesale spin.
Theoretical
considerations.
Winter:
claimant, Camden: Defendant.
-
The
Main Issues
-
Chronological
Schedule of issues
-
The
claim issued as an injunction served after six weeks reading.
-
The
claim page
one. Winter
wasn't interested in a money claim.
-
SEVENTEEN
breached statutes all
for sixty SECONDS stop in a side street.
-
Three
non-compliant unenforceable flaws on
the original PCN identified, but NOT the central issue, that was
simply Camden Council's policy to serve
detriments for contravention trivia,
while semantically
trivialising their OFFENCES.
-
The
Judge's effective
comments at the hearing.
-
The
briefly worded face saving order, used by Camden Council to
advise the claimant, as usual omitting the content of the
hour and a half hearing, that could have been a week.
-
Council
Exchanges between Winter,
-
Chief
Executive Officer,
-
Correspondence
officers,
-
Locum
Solicitor,
-
Acting
head of Law
department,
-
Chief
Lawyer,
-
Barrister
called in to defend the case
since Winter would NOT
accept the cancellation of the PCN,
-
Inviting
them to come to 'caught' and collect their prize.
-
Copied
to the Mayor,
Councillors, Member of Parliament and Prime Minister, response –
SILENCE.
-
Re-assurances
that Camden Council FULLY uphold the Disability Discrimination
Act, AND FULLY uphold the human rights ACT, Proceeding
immediately to breach both, for
reasons of not wanting to meet Winter in a PATAS hearing or a
Court.
-
Cancellation
of a falsely manufactured and fraudulent Charge Certificate,
with two false representations, issued in breach of schedule
6 of the RTA 1991, done all too frequently.
What's a false
representation? Layman's terms it's a LIE, legal terms, a
statement / representation that does NOT correspond with the
facts, like you have been awarded with a PCN which is NOT a
benefit of gift or winning prize!, You didn't pay when you did,
or you didn't appeal when you
did!
Simple, their template
paperwork is filled with them.
-
TWENTY
FALSE representations; just the introduction, under the
Fraud act 2006.
-
A
similar number of questions in a 'Notice to Admit' or deny,
neither admitted nor denied ever! Those questions are now
public for them to controvert, and the claimant shall place
them alongside his inevitable disambiguations.
-
Twenty
Contrarieties , contradictions incontrovertible questions then
asked in;
A notice
to admit facts. NONE DENIED! What
is Fraud by false representation? Simple, Fraud
Act 2006;
(2)
The sections are-
(a) section 2 (fraud by false
representation),
(b) section 3 (fraud by failing to disclose
information), and
(c) section 4 (fraud by abuse of
position).
Fraud by false
representation
(1)
A person is in breach of this section if he-
(a) dishonestly
makes
a false representation,
and
(b) intends,
by making the representation-
(i) to
make
a gain for
himself or another,
or
(ii) to cause loss to another or to
expose
another
to a risk
of
loss.
(2)
A representation is false if-
(a) it is untrue
or misleading,
and
(b) the person making it knows that it is,
or might be,
untrue or misleading.
Comment. Don't tell me five legally
trained employees are NOT aware, and expect to face a judge
and
deny it.
-
Winter
loses three stones in weight, in
three months from the stress, and medical checks in and out of
hospital to reveal five added conditions of deterioration to his
health. On realising
and making determinations of the
cause, he lodged the
claim on 11th
December 2006. By the time the
case material had been read, some six weeks, he stopped losing
weight and his health and life was no longer under immediate
threat.
-
Appeal
schedule before
the hearing?
-
Winter
invites the solicitors to attend as witnesses, they get
choreographed with exeats, and new team makes their introit. The
umbrella of vicarious liability is opened up to cover them.
-
Perjurous
witness statement produced, as the case material, backdated, and
the cognitive dissonance shown in the court with utter
precision. Remainder not shown as yet.
-
Tautological
and self defining tautological arguments; without material
content or grounds to rely on, from the Legal council.
-
Case
struck out no order for costs. Council take away a £4,000
loss of costs they have the effrontery to ask for.
-
Judge assures Winter he has not
yet had, and is
entitled to; Magna Carta, 40, “To NO man will we deny or
delay Justice”, EIGHTEEN months later, Winter invites
council to give him
this right, they
sidestep the question as expected.
-
Judge
assures Winter he has not had, and is entitled to;
his EU Human Rights, Protocol 5 Article 6, to a fair and pubic
hearing. EIGHTEEN months later, Winter invites council to give
him this right, they sidestep the question as expected.
-
Winter
leaves a document with the court shortly after the brief
hearing, stating that if he should suffer continuity of
detriment to his health with his life threatened or terminated,
then a claim was prepared for £1,000,000.
-
Winter
writes to chief lawyer, copied to acting head, after the case
inviting Camden Council to approach and resolve the adversarial
situation; and mend fences. He advises that omission to answer
will be interpreted adversely. Read, ignored, not
answered, therefore
admitted, simply
not written down.
-
The
acting head lawyer replies for the CEO showing Winter their
council's code of conduct, a banner of integrity, advising they
are expected to uphold the code, during and while he
exercises his fundamental rights. All other times? Anyone's
guess.
-
The
same acting lawyer then advises the the CLAIMANTS NOTICE of the
claim is interpreted as Winter seeking re-assurance?
AND
Continues to advise Winter that she would not expect him
to experience harassment DURING and WHILE he exercises his
rights, MEANING that at all material times when Winter doesn't
exercise those rights, he
may expect harassment.
-
Winter
Invites the CEO to resolve this problem or he shall continue to
behave adversarially, as
he must so do; under the terms defined by Camden Council,
on December 22nd 2006 and April / May 2007. in
order to avoid future
harassment.
Chief
Executive Officer sends the same old semantic replies, ignoring
his questions, as usual; Freedom of Information, respect,
lawfulness, truthfulness out the window. Winter compelled, as
advised to continue the case, to avoid future harassment. It is
clearly what they wish. Such a topsy turvy word!
What's
Harassment?
Simple,
(1)
A person must not pursue a course of conduct-
(a) which
amounts to harassment of another, and
(b) which he knows or
ought to know amounts to harassment of the other.
(2) A
person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on
summary conviction to imprisonment for a term not exceeding six
months, or a fine not exceeding level 5 on the standard scale,
or both. (That's only intended for us),
-
Camden
Council is served with the case issued
as an injunction,
and
prepares to thwart the terms of the injunction, IN FRONT of the
JUDGE who issued the case, then palliate their way through it
all.
More
will be added. This is expected to take months to put here, as
each page of serious malfeasant content will be commented upon
with scientific, semantic, and logical precision, using nineteen
and more disciplines of sound reasoning, and the calculus of
logic which shows exactly where and why, the contradictions and
contrarieties are INCONTROVERTIBLE and could NOT be denied.
-
Winter
now makes his case public; with Camden Council's consent,
in order to protect himself from future harassment, advising
Camden Council that the material was reported to two police
authorities in October 2006, and the case may still go to court,
this time the High Court, in a different construction. Comment;
What's consent?
Camden Council have
a definition that
is more often than not a false representation. If you pay a PCN,
under duress, and vexation of an increasing amount, leading to
double, treble, bailiffs, and bankruptcy or suicide, then ask
for it back under the statute of limitations, for those being
unenforceable nullities, they replie “you consented to
pay!” Clever little semantic children who invented that.
Next time you pay for something under duress, add the comment
“this is expressly, NOT implied consent.” That way,
you know what is in your mind, and they can't tell you what was
in it two years later, its called knowing your own mind, not
having others tell you what was in it, when they cannot possibly
know anyway, unless omniscient! It prevents the 'rebuttable
presumption' coming up again in future.
-
Police
may be given the case, simply to observe and record what they do
about it. There is NO need for investigative forensic,
all that work has been down for them, it's just to watch justice
in Britain 2007, with all those promises coming at us from every
quarter before election time, indeed every time a poll shows a
dip, they dip in to re-invigorate it all..
-
Winter
informs the court that contradictions and contrarieties are
incontrovertible 'a
priori' laws of thought, noting
that if Camden Council brings 1000 lawyers, and 100 Judges none
shall be able to controvert the determinations. Correspondence
theory under 'a
posteriori' empirical determinations in accordance with
probability theory,are
as faithful and objective and deposed on Camden Council's own
paperwork, as incontrovertible evidence.
-
The
anniversary invitation to resolve the adversarial exchanges, or
they must continue. 11th
Dec 2007.
-
The
reply from the Chief Executive Office. Presumption of consent
that must be.
-
What
has to follow in the equilibrium of psychological repression.
And logical necessary determinism.
-
At
least eight; closed eye, forseeabilities in extenuations while
the case unfolds to light, what needs be put to right. Watching
time unfold what plighted cunning hides, and who with shame thus
derides.
-
Possession
Order, and Bailiff
enforcement -- Gives
Claimant Multi Million
pound property?
-
Collateral
cases that show this is widespread in its 'awards' to others.
|
Law
|
|
Essential
Logic
|
Motorist
|
|
Classic
Fallacies
|
|
Challenges
|
|
RTA
Schedule 6
|
|
Conduct
Fallacies
|
|
RTA
/ CPR 75.3
|
|
|
|
Victories
|
|
|
|
News
Items
|
|
|
|
Case
law
|
|
|
|
Illegal
Procedures
|
|
|
|
Bill
of Rights
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
top
|
A
citizens' toolbox for everyday. DIY disambiguation of spin,
casuistry, sophistry, and malfeasant mindlessness. A
selection from over one hundred topics in the
forthcoming book.
___________________________________________________________________
-
Theoretical
considerations, in a treatise on critical thinking.
-
The laws of
thought, Theory of flux.
-
Natural cause
and final cause reasoning; where the boundaries meet, and how
the breaches of final cause reasoning lead to Machiavellian
ethics.
-
Bureaucracy and
template systems, that fail in correspondence with facts, and
the lack of will and templates that admit faults, leading to the
detriment in the integrity of mental health.
-
Blurred
distinctions in B. Russell's “On Denoting”, and
Wittgenstein's Notes, leading to erroneous formulations in
wholly determinate senses, Frege's merit vindicated.
-
Relevant
extracts from Carl Jung's 'Structure and dynamics of the
Psyche', showing where conscience is the natural fulcrum
regulating the conscious and sub-conscious.
-
A practical
guide going behind the faces of deception.
-
Principles of
Instinct, psychic function, heuristics, and autonomous thinking.
-
Opposites, and
or Contradictions, a substantial difference.
-
Outlines of
design and purpose revealing the inner will of directing minds.
-
Six essential
rules and two axioms of validity.
-
Over twenty
rules for disambiguation of sophistry.
-
Causal and Final
Reasoning, the fallacious boundary of malevolence.
-
Observing the
stream of consciousness, and disambiguating the 'forked tongue'
syndrome.
-
Scientific
methodology, principles of necessary and sufficient reasoning.
-
Forty plus
common fallacies, and the infinite variety of correspondence
theory breach.
-
Divergent and
convergent thinking in legal drafting.
-
How some
fallacious rulings in exception determinations are self
confuting.
-
The art of
“suppressio veri”, “suggestio falsi.”
-
Knowing and
believing, showing and deceiving.
-
How to swear a
truthful lie, and to determine how many layers of ambiguity.
-
Disambiguating
the sentential parts into propositional forms.
-
Truth table
matrices in the calculus of logic, and probability theory.
-
Critique of
foundation errors in Russell's 'On Denoting' and Wittgenstein's
notes
-
How and where keywords indicating the
subconscious truth are determined with clarity.
|
|
|
top
|
The Judges comments.
-
On arrival at the hearing, Judge S....... asked if I was “the
person who wrote” the schedules, and I said 'yes'.
He passed a comment, 'this is S.U.P.E.R.B', then asked,
'what does an ordinary person do when met with this sort of
thing?' I answered ' they just go under'.
-
While I was
commenting on; the crafted palliating and biased selected
descriptions of one administrative error; in twenty that
remained suppressed, delivered by Mr. Normans and then openly
analysed to him, Mr Cremin and Mr. Mahoney, how the witness
testimony revealed cognitive dissonance that was an economy of
truth implying a material falsity, to the total silence and
un-rebutting ears of the three council team and the Judge, there
followed intense quiet arguing internally and the Judge told
them to 'either leave the chambers or be quiet'. At
length he then effectively continued;
-
“You have
taken this man to the end of his tether.”
-
“Your
system is a mess in every department.”
-
“Have you
carried out a review?”
-
And a final comment
on their hurriedly leaving, to ”stop, and say
properly goodbye and show some respect.”
-
I had made it clear
to the Judge that as at the stage of the case hearing, my
fundamental rights under Magna Carta, “To no man shall we
deny or delay Justice” and my EH HR Protocol 5 Article 6
rights have yet to be given me under widely accepted
conventions, charters, and for over 800 years, The Judge
concurred that I remain to have these rights satisfied.
-
Afterwards a
letter was left with the court that should my health
deteriorate and I fail, in one year and one day, there would be
a claim for one million for my family. As that year approaches
its end, and I remain detrimented, the claim remains 'in
potentia', without prior notice more than 7 days, that such a
repetition and re-visitation will be immediate, five-fold
higher, and located at the High Court, where I may stand a
chance to be heard on the way to Lords and the EU courts.
Hence the essence of this letter is to invite
you, to respond, display, show to me and the world, the substance
of the aforementioned code of conduct; without
translations, by Ms
Fields, acting, on behalf of her directing mind that
should be the CEO; since it was to that person I wrote, and she
mentioned in reply. I re-iterate Judge S........... asked if you
had carried out a review and the answer was - of course –
NO. It would not interest me anyway, more than my health and
safety, it is a matter for Camden Council's own self esteem, and
integrity.
|
|
|
top
|
The claim
schedule. Page 1.
Particulars
of Claim. (
Claim Nr. 6CL ........... )
Statutes
in
contrariety, breach or contravention listing “ACT(s)”
numbered
1-15, with brief introduction and statement of claim, followed by
a more detailed list plus case law rulings, the
Parliamentary Ombudsman's six principles of good administration,
and others after the introduction. The claimant shall rely on
case
law rulings,
with application of disciplines in reasoning of formal logic,
syllogisms, scientific methodology, and contextual inferencing
throughout traversal.
“Without prejudice whatsoever”
Traversal index.
-
The
Road Traffic Act 1991, section 66 – (3) (c),(d),(e),
plus
attempt at section 70, ( JR ?)
-
Claimant
sees this part as a
“mistake
of fact”, nullity,
and unenforceable at the outset.
-
The
Road Traffic Act 1991,
SCHEDULE
6.—2. (7), (a), (b), 4. (a), (b), (c), 5. (1), (2), (3).
plus 6.—(1), (2) (a),(b),(c), (3). and 7.
Unlawful
and wilfully negligence in conduct.
Breaches
in SCHEDULE 6, over time, mean and have consequences for the
remainder.
-
Disability
Discrimination Act 2005 Chapter 13,
part
2, part 5, 21B – 1, 21E Duties for purposes 1. -(b), 4.
(c), (d) and 49A General duty parts -1. (a), (b), (c), (d), (e).
Disfavoured.
-
Protection
from Harassment Act 1997, Chapter 40,
1. - (1), (a), (b). Breached.
-
Human
Rights Act 1998 (UK) Chapter 42,
6.
- (1), and (6) "An act" includes a failure
to act,
plus
Derogations. 14. - (1), Breached.
-
The
European convention on Human Rights, Protocol 5,
Article
6, Article 8, parts 1, and 2, Article 14. Breached
-
Tort,
Breach of Statutory duties,Negligence in the above recitals, -
duty of care
imposed
by compliance with, and breach of duty of care arising from the
purpose of the ACTS 1-5 above, and that this duty passes the
three stage Caparo test and Wednesbury principles.
-
Magna
Carta. Relevant clauses 39, 40. as
collateral constitutional declarations & principles,
-
Declaration
and Bill of Rights 1668-9, relevant
tenet. Where it will be shown that there ARE TWO de facto
contrarieties of de jure constitutional declarations that are as
close to the pure form of contradictions as to make present
rulings at PATAS logically untenable.
-
The
Administration of Justice Act 1970 S.40,
1:--
(1),(a), d. (2). Preceding 3. above in time.
-
Freedom of Information Act 2000. 10. - (1).
Breached
-
Misrepresentation Act 1967, in general terms,
negligent and fraudulent.
-
One
other Act,
breach
and clarification to be unfolded at stage 2, or at the outcome
of case.
-
Deposing false statements and allegations, - as
truths.
-
Malfeasance.
-
The
Theft Act
1967.
-
The Fraud Act 2006.
-
Several others in waiting.
In proving
the breaches of each statute, the course of conduct was monitored
and recorded meticulously, each arose in a series of
letters that showed incontrovertible logical inconsistencies.
Logical contradictions,
contrarieties, sub contrarieties and other formal disciples, will
show the reasoning applied by the council's top team of 21st
century lawyers was irrational throughout.
Where a contradiction was
identified; far too obviously and easily, it determined and
proved in most respects acts of constructive fraud. Where a
contradiction exists, the two assertions entail each other's
falsity. Meaning where revenue was behind the agenda of an
action, it rendered that action as Fraud, within the meaning of
the Fraud Act 2006, Section Fraud by false representation.
There was no way out of the
impasse, that is why the legal team were replaced with a new team
coming to court, to play the new game of not being aware,
and palliating a litany of breaches as a slight imperfection
of the system.
|
|
|
top
|
-
A letter
about mid-way in the case traversal; where early signs of
malfeasance were apprehended and anticipated, had now
become incontrovertibly crystallised.
-
CLICK
here to see the letter that was the half way mad house in the
affair.
-
The Trigger Charge Certificate
that lead to the allegation of wilful offenses & breaches
of statute.
-
`If
you have read the first then go on and look at the fraudulent
Charge certificate.
-
How do you make a
determination of favour or disfavour under a statute? This;
disability, was more difficult, since it required a
judgement of comparison, others were far far simpler.
-
We
take the Disability Discriminations Act 2005. Just one page to
read.
-
Now the farce gets deeper,
It's June 2006, the case hasn't yet got under way. I warned them
a claim was going to come if they didn't stop, sending them a
draft to take notice. They warned me that they Fully uphold
statutes, in their replie. The disability Discriminations Act
was already in tatters, there was more to come. THEY wanted
their £50, and I had sent them £100 saying OK I am
buying the whole package up front, forget the discount. By now I
had exchanges with about six different people, NONE were a match
for logic. They weren't thinking, trained to do, not think
Observe how they assert what they deny in an earlier
letter.
-
We
are going to enforce for 60 seconds, AND we fully uphold the
Disability Act.
OR READ this first for
the introduction. The link is also at the end here.
Five
graves to Cairo. Stop for 60 seconds, up comes a green eco
friendly?
dressed
chap to help with a ticket for commission. The
synopsis, play within the play.
-
That's
inhuman! NO we can give a ticket 'as soon as seen'.
-
Write
a long letter headed “this is a three part
representation.”
-
And
by the way, looking at others shown me, we call these
'AWARDS'.
-
Take
note it has 'pay' written some 16 times all over the paperwork
so the subliminals do their work on you.
-
We
have 6 shops where you can go for retail therapy and enjoy the
experience of your purchase.
-
Just
a sec, what about disabled, section 49A of the Act? Forget it
mac, we allus show dis-special-favour
to
your kind.
-
Send
second and third representation letters, and get told, we FULLY
uphold
the Disability Discriminations Act.
-
Look
I'm fed up with this game, I want a hearing.
-
Forget
about the discount, here is a full £100 cheque, in
advance, let me argue the case with some ad-judas.
-
By
the way, there are
four
things wrong
with
your ticket, 2
date, YOU, and 28 days from,
-
also
the colour
of the car is wrong.
Look
at the words and look at the pics. Have you go'ut the right
car? Ever heard of compliance?
-
Nope,
we
punish for 60 seconds trivia, and trivialise our own offences.
-
If
you don't pay we get our way, and escalate the rate for being
late.
-
We'll
send you a notice of rejection if you send another, 4th
appeal..
-
OK
got it! I will hand deliver it back in two weeks.
-
This
said and
DONE,
to be sure, the claimant asks
for a receipt!
What a fool, can't you trust anybody? Just being careful!
-
So
I paid, and appealed informally as well as formally copying
all to nine people!
-
To
be sure they get it, the exchanges were sent FAX, Email, and
letters, also including a draft claim for harassment,
disability, breach of human rights and so on mounting, sent
the legal department, where they have locums,
and acting
heads.
-
Six
weeks later, in comes a Charge Certificate. Sorry a Large
CERTIFICATE, probably another AWARD.
-
I
write and accuse Camden Council of failing to send me a notice
of rejection; as
stated they have a duty in Schedule 6 or the Road Traffic ACT.
-
I
advise them there are two of many disciplines of reasoning,
they will not understand but, they are in a context from which
unambiguous inferences follow, and their design and purpose is
precisely determined and recorded.
-
They
are warned to be circumspect, a fast reply denotes
reason and truth prevails, a slow one will reveal evasion
crafting.
-
The
replie takes 27 days in construction.
-
Camden
Council deny receiving ANY representation at ANY stage.
-
OH
HO, So why are you even writing to me then?
-
ALSO
while you care to think about it, IF you can! You
have just admitted what I accused you of, NOT
sending me a Notice of rejection, and Appeal form. How? Think
about it.
-
You
just said you never received anything, at any stage,
from me. It follows you had NO appeal form from me, to trigger
sending a rejection and appeal form to me. GOT IT! QED.
-
Too
difficult to work out that one, we don't reason truth here, we
treason proof and use templates, so thinking aloud is not
allowed.
-
When
the clock is ticking, if nothing happens , and particularly
when WE do nothing, then we can proceed to punish people who
dare to ask questions and ask for their human frights!
-
This
gets far far worse and worse. We'll pick the exchanges at this
point and let it weave in and out.
-
The
sequence from here to a 'caught' is also fraught, with four
hills of attrition and pay to get their way, but Winter, the
Claimant gets possession of a multi million pound building,
-
WHAT?
-
APPEAL?
-
What
about the hearing first! What fun?
-
Magna
Carta, Bill o' frights,
-
Fun
dam mental human rights
-
HA
rass meant,
-
Fraud,
-
Audit
Commissions Act,
-
Misrepresentations
Act.
-
And
the list gets to twenty.
-
Never
mind it was all just an admin error, and after all it's the
WILL OF PARLIA-MEANT
-
This
guy can't spell either, but he can reason, we can only
treason.
-
Never
mind we are Britain, 21st
Century,
not a third world count-ry, you can have a 'fare and pub-lic
hearing'.
-
Winter
loses three stone from stress, and goes to ho-spittal to find
the causes, before hehehe checks out.
-
What
a Malaprop chap this is, he is distracted. Never mind, we can
send him over to the hospital and get him sectioned.
-
We
are Councillors, Mayor, MP, and CEO al fully informed but the
£50 pounds must be paid no matter how many laws we break
in the procedure.
-
We
have a code of conduct, that is for us to show you and
distract your reading, while we hide behind it and give you an
bigger award.
-
AND
the CEO gets her acting lawyer to write, we don't expect you
to suffer haha rassemant, during
and while you exercise your rights.
-
At
all other times expect it............
-
Don't;
believe me read the letter its all coming out.
-
There
are about a dozen, we'll got through them one by one, 'cos
Winter's is distracted, and we've lost his reason.
Go to
one of the letters, we'll start at say the middle one, the point
where the malformed was unavoidable.
In proving the breaches of each statute, the course of conduct
was monitored and recorded meticulously, each arose in a
series of letters that showed incontrovertible logical
inconsistencies.
Logical contradictions,
contrarieties, sub contrarieties and other formal disciples, will
show the reasoning applied by the council's top team of 21st
century lawyers was irrational throughout.
Where a contradiction was
identified; far too obviously and easily, it determined and
proved in most respects acts of constructive fraud. Where a
contradiction exists, the two assertions entail each other's
falsity. Meaning where revenue was behind the agenda of an
action, it rendered that action as Fraud, within the meaning of
the Fraud Act 2006, Section Fraud by false representation.
There was no way out of the
impasse, that is why the legal team were replaced with a new team
coming to court, to play the new game of not being aware,
and palliating a litany of breaches as a slight imperfection
of the system.
One letter alone,
filled with 'admit nothing deny everything' philosophy with at
least 7 contradictions.
The
full original
letter, see exhibit 1, the essential
textual components. The original reply.
The causal antecedents.
Go
and look at the letters....
OR READ this first
for the introduction. The link is also at the end here.
A
note on Camden Council sem-antics.
-
If
you ask Camden Council about the ticket being unlawful they say
our tickets are 'VALID'; confuse you.
-
Is
the ticket a penalty? Camden Council states it is an AWARD; to
distract you.
-
If
you send Camden Council a representation, as you have seen, they
call it emails, and correspondence; to fail you on the first..
-
If
you send Camden Council a CLAIM form, they reply that your are
seeking re-assurance. To translate your notices to submissions..
-
If
you advise Camden Council you are claiming for harassment, they
will replie you should not get harassment WHILE and
DURING you are exercising your rights (that Camden Council
disrespects). Otherwise expect it. To set a standard for
irritation.
-
If
you ask Camden Council where is the second date on their old pre
Aug 2006 PCNs, they come up with two senses that create new
cloned references. It's
impossible. Every sense that refers to a unique event, creates
new events.
-
If
you ask Camden Council for your money back, they will not have
heard of the statute of limitations, and mistake of fact /law.
To block.
-
Every
word you state that corresponds with a statute, Camden Council
have another palliation term for it so as to avoid any word that
admits anything, always a different word in extenuation. To
enforce their philosophy as ADMIT NOTHING DENY EVERYTHING.
-
If
you get Camden Council in a Contradiction, one of twenty, they
will ACCEPT you are right, but never ADMIT it, so guilt is
denied.
-
If
you allege something against Camden Council, they will replie
they have NOTED
your comments. To admit nothing.
-
Ask
Camden Council if they received your 'letter', they will say NO,
having in mind they received your 'representation'. EVERY sense
of a word for you is different to a word for them so they admit
nothing and deny everything. So YOU failed to do what is
required.
-
If
the letter that have you is sent was by EMAIL, then they haven't
received it, because you didn't send it by mail, and if you
didn't record it, then it's as you have guessed. DENIABLE.
-
The
list is endless, the philosophy is senseless..
top
|
|
Search this site: (n/a yet)
