Return to first page menu of this topic.

Search this site: (n/a yet) Previous Next Letter / Page.


Bernini - The Rape of Proserpina


Force of Destiny
Philosophy,
Music,
Logic.


2000+ Free world Best Books A-Z Aeschylus, Aesop, Alcott, Andersen, Antonius, Aristotle, Aristphanes, Augustin, Austen, Bacon, Bastiat, Baum, Behn, Berkeley, Bible_1, Bible_2, Bronte_C, Bronte_E, Shakespeare.
Shakespeare


Logic Law
Fighting illegal motorist parking tickets,
Statutes & Laws


Bernini - The Ecstasy of St. Teresa

Click browser or here to return to HOME page. These pages are by courtesy of A. Winter.

  1. The original Camden Council Charge / Large Certificate,letter to show it exists.......Exhibit 2 ( lores, hires) OR

  2. The Camden Council text extract from it that shows a typical logical pair of disjuncts. OR

  3. The Camden Council text extract from it that shows a typical logical pair of disjuncts. Disambiguated, and commented


Camden Council quotes are in blue italics.


We are sending you this charge certificate for one of the following reasons.”


You did not reply to the Notice to Owner OR Pay the Penalty Charge.”


If you do not immediately understand the principle of analysing a truth table matrix for a pair of disjuncts then take it from someone who does; and the theory will be explained elsewhere for those interested try here later.


The FORM of the proposition where either side of the 'OR' sign is P and Q; is


Either P (reply) OR Q (pay).


This one has the form NOT as the adverbial predicate to both disjuncts, thus;


Either Not P (reply) OR Not Q (pay).


NOT ( P OR Q) it may also read as Either NOT P OR NOT Q.


It is sufficient for ONE of the disjunct to be TRUE, to make the proposition itself TRUE. Only when both disjunct P or Q are false is the proposition false. FOR a simple proposition. FOR a NOT proposition reverse the theme.


Let's examine the truth / falsity of each side and see first HOW one is false, and the other is strictly true but falsely implies. It's economic for economics reasons, that implies a falsity that's manufactured, and then concealed.


THAT is what happens to many motorists, frequently, AND wilfully. It has to be wilful, if a 27 day review, denies it all, and then incontrovertible proof shows that had to rescinded. The false representations made were incontrovertibly fraudulent, within the meaning of the Fraud Act 2006 where the link is on the first page.

I hope that is simple for most.


Look at the exact extracts from two letters that accompanied the cheque to Camden Council.


Fri, 19 May 2006 10:48:58

This letter and cheque HAS BEEN placed through the letter box at the shop of 7-9”

Sun, 11 Jun 2006 10:18:01

......at the full rate of £100, in advance purchase of the whole package of representations leading towards civil remedies as appropriate! ( comment again this was within the period for discount )


Look at the cheque on their receipt letterhead.


Consider again this.

Either Not P (reply) OR Not Q (pay).


THE RIGHT HAND disjunct IS a false representation and Fraudulent. Agreed about the Greed?


Hence and THUS. I did PAY the penalty charge AND I overpaid it asking for the full package.


The Charge certificate breached my Human rights, Disability, Fraud Act, and Harassment, and that is only 4 of the seventeen to come. In the FULL chronological schedule that was given to the COURT, and will be published here soon.


NOW what about the left hand side of the Disjunct.

Either Not P (reply) OR Not Q (pay).


Do you remember? If not click here and see what HAPPENED.

Exhibit 3 ( The receipt, because Winter anticipated what was going to happen, silly him). ( lores, hires)


Winter filled in his Notice to Owner, and took in by hand, ensuring he got a receipt!

The receipt confirms incontrovertibly Winter DID REPLY, to Camden Council, as well as to what they were repLYING.


IS that unambiguously clear? Not simply doing so, but AFTER a 27 DAY review, that suggests a team of people went over the documents, and ALL ignored the obvious, and having taken into account Winter INSISTED he would bring it in by hand, then constructed the FALSE representation that Winter did not do what he said he would do. Charming, all a deliberate wilful manufacture and pack o'flies, nicely described as a simple administrative error.

Remember the maxim? Punish for trivia, magnifying the revenue, and trivialise the offences we omit wilfully as acci-dental errors in pulling teeth from the motorist. The most beautiful thing about this system is, the moment a Parking Ticket is issued, even falsely; yes you will see a false one here soon, the computer takes over an automated 'triggering by date order' pursuit paperwork for mounting revenue. All that needs to be done from that stage onwards is, to simply OVERLOOK something, and then deny it hoping the respondent is too busy to observe what is being falsely manufactured, and stand up to them. After all, if it gets to a court, sorry 'caught' they can simply back down and accept you were right, ignoring they were wrong. Nice balancing act from the Acting Lawyers.


The next admission was of course unavoidable.

Exhibit 5 (The admission 7 words buried, as usual in 2 pages of distraction). ( lores, hires)


Camden council admitted FIRSTLY by denying everything, the logic compelled the admission then it was obtained in writing, under the Freedom of Information Act; under compulsion of pure logic, the fact they did not send Winter an appeal form and a Notice of Rejection as prescribed by law, fascinating ? Breach his fundamental human rights, far more skilfully than in a third world country, because they have nice terms for the omissions.


What does this all mean? VERY SIMPLE. ANY single omission in the procedural sequence will manufacture a false cause, like a domino effect game, where there is a cascade failure thereafter leading to mounting debt all based on one single domino being misplaced, WILFULLY, and thus a false cause.


Camden Council as usual, in their playing semantics, I have a 3rd party example later on where an email representation was sent, and they answered it after 56 days, saying they didn't receive it in writing, as usual suggesting that an email is something of a new classification of writing that is NOT writing. Any problem in belief here?


NEXT

How can Winter reply to a Notice of Rejection AND appeal within his fundamental human rights IF they do not send him one, wilfully – by accident, deliberately overlooked. Clever move, the OMISSION manufactures a COMMISSION and by way of a false cause a Charge Certificate (TOTALLY fraudulent, and false in not one, but both its alternatives) for a higher sum.


It's simply NO GOOD going around accusing third world countries of breaches of human rights, when Britain has constructed a draft that manufactures such breaches wholesale. The entire procedure is a reversal of not alone human Rights, but steps outside the Bill / Declaration of Rights 1688-9 where every citizen has been granted freedom from fines and forfeitures before a trial. Par-liar-meant has usurped Monarchical prerogatives, crowned itself 'Parliament is sovereign' and now does precisely what it deplored when ensuring the Bill or Rights was introduced to protect the wealthy from the Monarch, the only difference is now the commoners are unprotected from the Parliament they are persuaded to elect. Traditional scientific method, and “The function of General Laws in History” – C. G. Hempel.


The process is called 'trial and error between appetition and aversion' “Mechanical and Teleological Causation” - C. A. mace. -- The 'Thorndike cat' – E. Thorndike, and “Active Tendencies” - Prof G.F. Stout, to find the best way to synthesise the objectives under the culture of targets, oops sorry how clumsy of me, they call these now, 'baseline performance indicators'. Same as the DCA is now called the Ministry of Justice.


That failure, is a true representation on the FACE of it, but a FALSE representation since the AUTHORSHIP of the omission is synthesised and caused by their own omission wilfully.


There you have it. How 'false causes in action' are manufactured to gain access to revenue fraudulently. PATAS know this, and other cases showing multiple breaches for several large companies will come out soon.


An economic economic truth that manufactures an impLIED falsity.


All done by simply overlooking a duty of care, and statutory obligation.


IF you think for a single moment this is a one off. Then look at the Miah V Westminster PATAS case well known to PATAS, and the councils, AND there are people with dozens of these corroborations, happening frequently. The disease is widespread.


Conclusion: FALSE representation on the right hand side, and FALSE representation on the left hand side by way of ECONOMIC truth that implies and synthesise the false cause.


This is the tip of the iceberg on what is to come in disclosures.

Please revisit and or bookmark.


top