Force of Destiny


2000+ Free world Best Books


Logic Law


These pages are part of an ongoing project to balance JUSTICE as it SHOULD be balanced.

SPECIAL FOCUS on Fraud, Harassment, False representations and other forms of malfeasance on PARKING TICKET ENFORCEMENT, that has all the aspect of wilful negligence and not simple negligence. The frequency, occurrences and obdurate intransigence is far too high for this to suggest otherwise.

Go Down to Index FOR PATAS RULINGS AGAINST CAMDEN IN PARTICULAR.

Truth lost sometime back in the 1600's Rape and Blind imbalance of justice is back in vogue.

Truth
Unveiled
by Time.
Bernini
Truth around 1645

The exquisite sculpture of Bernini,
as an allegory of life today
by abuse of power, money
and strength.
The Rape of Proserpina.

Justice at the
Local Government
Ombudsman
(LGO) PATAS, and TEC
Blind & Off Balance, - Spin.

  1. Main Index (You may not believe it, the middle is a sculpture not a picture, click to enlarge and look at finger pressure).
    Each     site index is being categorised to simplify searches to topics of particular focus,
    please refer to them in the interim of this page being assembled.
    ( These sites are over three gigabytes, this is a long task, please use menus and site maps meantime ).

Full case materials and traversals will be placed here over the forthcoming weeks. Please revisit and see if YOUR CASE DETAILS qualify YOU to represent the case at PATAS successfully.

Beware, Sometimes you need to go therein person, there is evidence soon to be placed here showing conduct consistent with bias against those who do not, unless they are large companies.


PATAS Ruling you will need to refer to when representing your case.

There are about 50 to come soon. Case numbers and details. Click on the underlined items to bring up the pdf or jpg file of the actual case. Copy it to your desktop and use it. FREE. The pictures should enlarge if you need.


Index

2070195148

2070186974

2nd page of these

Camden permit badges that do not show expiry date are NOT enforcible.

2070154989

CAMDEN This is a VERY bad one, and occurs too frequently. The council signs a certificate stating the copy of the PCN is a TRUE copy of the original when it is NOT. Looks like perjury just a 'little'?

2070198623

207018277A

CAMDEN This is unlawful, and becoming now so frequent as standard practice to prey on the ignorance of the motorist and get higher fees, jump the procedure, and rely on paying and moving on.

2070152495

2nd page of this

CAMDEN ALL the statutory details on the PCN referring to Section 66 RTA 1991.
An inclination to omit evidence in order to enforce.

2070172175

Camden, Non compliance with RTA on the 'YOU' issue that was left after they altered their format to the two date issue. A pdf file.

2070040312

Camden CCTV Notices
NON compliant, appeal March refused, reviewed and UPHELD 8th Sept.
Page 2 top see THE APPEAL is ALLOWED. BASED on the LUKHA CASE HERE.

AUDIT COMMISSION ACT 1998
payments collected are ILLEGAL UNDER THIS ACT, ESPECIALLY after a PATAS RULING The whole act and
CLAUSE 17.1
Not to mention all the others, TWO date, and YOU non compliances.
Clause 17.1 on its own to the right. Sorry to the WRONG.

The clause that's no cause.
Declaration that item of account is
unlawful. 17. - (1) Where-
(a) it appears to the auditor carrying
out an audit under this Act, other than an audit of accounts of a health service body, that an item of account is contrary to law, and
(b) the item is not sanctioned by the Secretary of State,
the auditor may apply to the court for a declaration that the item is contrary to law. Better get the Secretary of State to sanction it I guess, but keep it quiet.

MORE CAMDEN sections.


A downloadable xls file of the methods used by PATAS, in co-operation with councils that looks like they are against them. BUT are even handed to ensure the cleverer party wins, and the party who TRUSTS the authorities to observe their code of candour, lawfulness and honesty. Provided by courtesy of LMAG.


London Motorist Action Group. (lmag).

ALSO (lmag here)


Important PATAS rulings against Camden

ALSO another page here.


Be careful, Points to watch on their semantics.


Every attempt to use a word other than the statutory word is the informal fallacy of 'irrelevant thesis,' (ignoratio elencho) namely any word that may be true, so that the sworn declaration can be true; but irrelevant, and the word is not the word YOU need to focus on. For example; Bucks CC, argued that “they are satisfied that the extent of their markings of the bays are clear” -- WHO ON EARTH is interested? (coearly illegal is the point they avoided). When asked to admit or deny, if their parking bays were 'PRESCRIBED' as set down in the TSRGD 2002 regulations, they admitted the bays were NOT PRESCRIBED...


At that point, they lost, but in came the shining white horse of the TpT adjudicator, and ruled that the extent of the bays were clear, and overlooked the admission of guilt. NOT difficult to see the ruling s was by an adjudicator employed and paid by the council to look like independent party, where independence meant only from Patas, not from the councils. SEE the irrelevant thesis? Get one word wrong, and watch the injustice take over.


Patas provides ruling that UPHOLD AND DISMISS The Barnet V Moses High Court hearing, so that there is an even number for and against. That means, to the less familiar motorist on appeal, Camden will say their case was upheld, and the motorists appeal dismissed by PATAS, and deceitfully overlook their candour and truth, in the code of conduct, to tell you to argue against that ruling with others PATAS provided. This ensures they LOOK like they are even handed in rulings that ALL without exception,belong to the class rule of being nullities. They muck up your thinking process, let you leave the court confused, and laugh as you do so, because you failed to get the word right, and the adjudicator PASSIVELY rather than ACTIVELY overlooks the principles of justice, and hides what he knows you should be informed about. That's' the way of evil, and malevolence in our society in its descent to injustice and iniquity.


  1. The PCN following the Barnet V Moses High Court ruling BECOMES a NULLITY. That means no enforcement action can follow a nullity AND that a nullity doesn't belong to the framework of a PCN on appeals, instead it belongs to the framework of restitution, Fraud, Malfeasance, Maladministration, Harassment, and Misrepresentations.

    1. A nullity is like a marriage contract where the Priest was not ordained. So when after five years one discovers the original contract was void, one cannot argue anything within the framework of a marriage, only something that belongs to separate people, one cannot re-marry,the marriage didn't take place in the first place. One has to go back to the initial point where it all began and seek remedies from that point.

    2. Appeals within the old RTA 1991, or claims that are out of time, may be pursued, but note there are sections opening that disclose wholesale malfeasances by councils, and semantics used by the TEC.

  2. One is not appealing a PCN under the old framework, one is appealing a nullity, namely something that belongs to a different framework as shown in 1. above.

  3. Take care on the choice of words. Camden for example will constantly argue, like a broken record, that their PCNS are 'valid' NOBODY at all is interested in their validity whatsoever. The words are, the PCN became a nullity, and as such we are talking about only a nullity or what is the same thing, a document that is NOT compliant with the statutory requirements of section 66, in line with the Barnet V Moses High Court Ruling, and also in line with PATAS, NPAS, TpT, rulings upheld for claimants against Councils. You will find this argument on validity will change its form, and they will choose ANY word that suggests to the mind, the nullity is OK, so long as the words nullity or non compliant document are not used they feel safe from paying back an unlawful fraudulent gain.

  4. The next thing the councils rely on, are where PATAS fail in their statutory obligations to follow case-law, in the High Court, and come up with semantic detritus like, 'to my mind' this is substantially compliant, or 'I am not bound by the higher decision' these argument forms are all deceptive, and deplorably in their aim to retain unlawful funds gained contrary to the Audit Commission Act sections 17.


Comments by Medusa.