|
|
|
|
( Left is a
sculpture not a picture, click to enlarge and look at finger pressure
). Click
Pictures for links, end pictures to enlarge.
As in other FREE
pages available for cases on this website.
Provided by Tony,
to assist in rebuttal arguments by
British quasi judicial bodies that show aspects of being
pretenders,
equivocators, purporters and subtracters. SOME of these are specially
selected to riposte real arguments found excessively frequently with
their exchanges with people unfamiliar for deceptive persuasions.
This is the header page for complete exposures of the entire predatory approach of bodies that call themselves 'authorities.'
There are several of these all due shortly, and their names are:
The Transport for London, (TfL,)
An issue between the contravention code used for box junctions, is inconsistent with the statutory requirements, and is being opened up, and may show wilful negligence and awareness of the deceptions. The semantic constructions lack proper punctuation, that when properly re - inserted where the clause introduction word groups are, properly marked, shows incontrovertibly that the code and the statute are both misleading, and misrepresent the legislation as it ought. This shall be thoroughly dealt with, before doing so please look at the link here, that shows the nature of the 'mens rea' {guilty mind(s)} that is / are under focus that are not isolated.
The Mayor of London, the manner of choreographing buffering systems to ring fence complaints out towards other bodies to spread the vicarious liability and umbrella to smudge and cover individual malfeasances.
Arguments from his 'office,' not a person, the 'office' now talks with its own vocal chords, The Greater London Authority (GLA,)
All here in the one place...
The partial menu coming.....
The Office of Fair Trade, to come.
The Traffic Penalty Tribunal (TpT,) formerly NPAS,
How a simple question; framed by Medusa, put by Wayne Pendle to the team of seven from the council, followed by their immediate ADMISSION, and then the rapid cover up by the TpT making any doubt about 'independence,' utterly spurious, and confirming where irrational reasoning is foremost, that adjudicators, when faced with cases with serious consequences, and malice in want of candour and ethics, will behave as if the councils are employing them as barrister, which they do...pay their salaries, that is, --- through the Joint Committee of Councils, of course. --- (fallacy of amphiboly) .
The Parking and Traffic Adjudicators (PATAS,)
“An adjudicator's decision is unimpeachable.” The latest in fashion of being ruled by virtual counterfeit, Demi-Gods who cannot be questioned.
Then examine their variety of decision that are in direct contradiction with each other. A farce for money.
The Traffic Enforcement Centre, Item7, 3 faults.
(TEC.) a deemed court, with illegally constructed warrants and orders of recovery,
The appeals process is ring fenced semantics, with two pincers each side to close the mindset of free thought, and deliver ambiguity and injustice.
To be explained shortly, where grammatical constructions with prominence and false emphasis delivers ring fenced injustice.
See how to sign the box that states “I did not receive a response to my appeal”. A construction with prominence and false emphasis to blot out he Achilles heel of honest appeal (WHEN YOU GET A RESPONSE that's irrelevant...) Coming soon...
“THREE FAULTS in caught's o'flaw”
Read below, then see what a JUDGE has to say about warrants:
"The obtaining of a search warrant is never to be treated as a formality. It authorises the invasion of a person's home," said Lord Justice Latham at the judicial review hearing.
Remember their language, “The contravention occurred...PAY”, now then “THE offences occurred.. REFUND.”
And you may expect to be told
“ WE must protect public finances” in an argument you can't have it back, power doesn't work that way, look this way. ?? When WE have taken the money from the public, it's ours, BUT we call it theirs to protect of from... ???? Yes you guessed it, THEM.
Watch their faces, and ask, “what have you got to say that's a fact, not a thought? If you can tell the difference”
Can't handle the simple question, let's make it a ring fence like you do, JUST TICK the box to mean YES? JUST TICK...
Remember TEC ring fencers, and circumlocution forms, Do not change the words, and take care of perjury under the Act 19911. Got it?
“DO YOU DENY that the order or warrant has court seal present? [ ]”
Check your form first and don't ask this if it is correct, ie; with a seal.
If the order has no court seal, then the warrant is a 'false representation' of fact, ( Fraud Act 2006 sections 1-4 ), then simply hold up the 'proof of absence of seal,' and ask; between the description of warrant, and the document without a seal, that's not a warrant, how do they resolve the contradiction? [ ]”
SO IF you fail to deal with the questions, you shall be taken to admit them.
If you don't do it now, I will place it on a court form N266 'notice to admit facts' and ask the court to order you to answer, then we can look at you both and observe... Yes, that odd phrase 'fair and public'.
REMEMBER: Silence is the 'mens rea' & culpability of deceit, and a guilty mind. If you hear nothing, it's the loudest most important sound you are listening for. Quietly ask again as many times as required, or ask the judge to order it, please answer the question, but not with an irrelevant thesis, (informal fallacy of 'ignoratio elenchi' ) JUSTicily a yes or no. If it's a hearing not a trial, the Judge may not allow you free speech in asking questions. Then ask him to ask it. If you are getting nowhere begin assessing a judgement on the Judge, and establish for yourself if he is upright. EG: The audit commission doesn't allow you to ask a question 'WHY' clever, are they? Then ask the question “how or to what purpose,” that way, if he doesn't allow it, it's clear they are all hiding guilt. same result.
When you leave, ask that the order is justified with full explanatory grounds. The favourite templates are devoid of merit,' 'totally without merit,' and such phrases that show no grounds, where in CPR everybody else has to show grounds. A particular expose of this is coming from a judges bench in the administrative court. That way you will know if the judge left his ideals behind when he left college or university.
A. Many warrants have the term 'offence' on the top, where it should say 'contravention'... This misrepresents the legal situation. Simply refer the warrant back and state it is non compliant, the term 'offence' is a misrepresentation of the legal situation... It follows that within the meaning of the Fraud Act 2006 the document is a purporter, and contains a false representation or misleading representation.
B. The warrants are NOT sealed individually which means many if not most or all, from TEC, have no court seal on them at all.... (YES think about it, then ask yourself why shortly after Wayne asked the NCC Judge to comment, followed shortly after by TEC putting prices up for making applications that are Out of Time, at £35, each, with £75 for each request to set aside the 'deemed' court officers decision, on geographical grounds usually... Presumably to pay for the potential floodgate). See a judges comment on unlawful awful warrants here, from Wayne.
This part is simple... JUST ask to see a 'seal' ( a live original one? ) on the warrant of execution, or order for recovery...
C. This is the nasty bit. Many, if not most or ALL warrants drawn up by TEC, are on a revoked order since 2002. We are watching how a judge handles this in a south county court. This will come out, when we see how the forces of reaction play their semantics... See below now in red.
Bookmark this page, and see with added purpose
“How power change purpose, what our SEEMERS BE.”
Watch them play “see nothing, hear nothing, know nothing,”
in semantics of “ not aware of nothing,”
(note the double negative) and avoid answering or dealing with
facts under CPR 16,5,5. where “ a defendant who fails to
deal with an allegation shall be taken to admit
that allegation.”
“We didn't do nothing wrong!”
A case on this is coming in the South County Courts, where we are looking to see if it behaves like other offices:
“of ambiguations and equivocations in a manner in which it is anticipated the 'system' will resolve the issues by way of their 'circumlocution offices' Little Dorrit, currently showing BBC1 episode 2 ”
“OED Circumlocution Office: a satirical name applied, by Dickens, to Government Offices, on account of the circuitous formality by which they delay the giving of information, etc. A phrase or sentence in which circumlocution is used; a roundabout expression.” In modern language that roundabout is now called SPIN, and it makes the average person dizzy if not sick... NHS mental health bill rising? Now we know part of the reasons why...
That rule that was revoked in 2002, meaning all warrants are drawn up on documents that were revoked six years ago, and were not valid or legal. Indeed quite illegal.
Click the url on the right for the SI: The Civil Procedure (Amendment) Rules 2002.html
Citation,
commencement and
interpretation
1. These Rules may be cited as
the Civil Procedure (Amendment) Rules 2002 and shall come into
force -
(a) for the
purposes of rules 2, 29(b) and 35 of these Rules, and this rule,
on 1st October 2002;
(b) for all other purposes, on 2nd
December 2002.
Revocations
35.
CCR Order 48B is revoked. That SIMPLE, Discovered by Wayne P.
AND HERE IS A BIT MORE, Can it be worse?
When one makes an Out of Time declaration, OoT, to bring the case to a court, that is allowed for up to six years, and more in some cases, this is HOW the TEC deemed court, officer refuses it.
Like many legal prints, showing prominence and small type face on the details.
The application is REFUSED
on the grounds that the Northampton County court is not the appropriate location. Clever?
Just like a judge saying appeal DISMISSED
because he is out to lunch that day, and not offering an alternative date, leaving it for you to work out the riddle.
Last but not least the situation on contracts between Councils and their third party enforcement agencies.
THE NCP agreements, that were novated in about April 2007 and signed around end January 2008,
backdated with every tense still in the future, from the Feb 2008, HOPELESS is the word for it.
|
The main parts, in shorts!, will be: Parts 1,2,4 now here...
|
Links will be provided shortly.
