Force of Destiny

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

( 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.

Fallacy.1. Deception, guile, trickery; a deception, trick; a false statement, a lie. Obs.
Deceitfulness (obs.).b. Deceptiveness, aptness to mislead, unreliability.
A deceptive or misleading argument, a sophism.
In Logic esp. a flaw, material or formal, which vitiates a syllogism; any of the species or types to which such flaws are reducible.
Also, sophistical reasoning, sophistry.
GOTO Fallacy 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8.
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 with deceptive persuasions. First here are three different pages of the simpler forms of this fallacy.
'Begging the Question', or 'Petitio Principii', or the 'Circular argument.' Different names for the same form. 1, 2, 3.

  1. A complex example, the first, simply because it is cloaked in legal language. The argument is quite ludicrous, it was disambiguated as a similarity to the Ontological argument for the existence of God that is a construct itself of TWO fallacies. Winter V Camden. Central London County Court case.

Some cases of question begging are fairly blatant, while others can be extremely subtle.

Example #1:
Bill: “God must exist.”
Jill: “How do you know.”
Bill: “Because the Bible says so.”
Jill: “Why should I believe the Bible?”
Bill: “Because the Bible was written by God.”

Example #2:
“If such actions were not illegal , then they would not be prohibited by the law.”

Example #3:
“The belief in God is universal. After all, everyone believes in God.”

Example #4:
Interviewer: “Your resume looks impressive but I need another reference.”
Bill: “Jill can give me a good reference.”
Interviewer: “Good. But how do I know that Jill is trustworthy?”
Bill: “Certainly. I can vouch for her.”

Introductory preamble, skip to the focus.

Most fallacies, are overlays of other fallacies with divergent or convergent prominence. They are managed as part of a choreographed management of the function of “suppressio veri, sugegstio falsi” suppress the truth and suggest what's false. This function of human conduct is the correlation of the function of 'appetition and aversion', appetite for benefit and aversion to detriment, that shows a course of conduct with utter precision.

The begging the question argument can be very sophisticated, and I have provided a complex example used in the Central London County Court, where it was taken apart in the traversal bundle minutely. It's subtleties are far less obvious than the irrelevant thesis, and become very obscure when the semantic cloak is obscured in civil procedure rules, that are familiar to a lawyer, but not to the layman. Its was taken apart by a person familiar with at least 5 disciplines, two being logic, but a limited working experience of law. The logic was the tool that engaged with the form instantly, as it matched the ontological argument for the existence of God, originally by St. Anselm about the 10th Century, and an awareness of the problem of circularity and a serious confusion over the issue of whether existence is indeed a predicate. For these, click here. Sorry to digress here, for those interested in the deeper arguments it is expounded in a treatise shortly to be released.

The irrelevant thesis arguments in quasi judicial courts have become quite sophisticated, and needs careful focus on the ideas and thoughts expressed in the words and sentences. It is very important to look at the 'snap' factor, ie the match or close match of argument and rebuttal. If there is no instinctive or immediate perception of 'SNAP' then look deeper. The response arguments are carefully phrased to match as close a possible to the ideas in the original arguments. The “1. Topic A is under discussion. 2. Topic B is introduced under the guise of being relevant to topic A 3. Topic A is abandoned,“ example makes A B C distinct but in real life it's far more subtle. Have a look at the first one here. Carefully cocooned in semantic overload, and prominence, so that it is easy to believe that what you are looking at, is like a 'stick insect' disguised as a real stick (ie: the argument closely matches your dispute), and you then accept the argument as valid against yours, when it is not. These are usually very valid arguments, and the trick used to to get as many words in your argument, into theirs, to disguise the wrapping to a close match, when it is a mismatch. The grammatical approach is quite simple, usually they will either swap a qualifying attribute, quality, property or else move the focus of the term to a higher generic level. See the first two arguments below. Both used by councils, successfully in one case with a judge supporting, because the appellant did not have the experience or articulate ability to dispute it, and in the second one, it's ongoing, but disambiguates easily. Click here.

A variety of methods are used to achieve this, notable for example in public office, where people are questioned, and prove unsuccessful in addressing questions, they are removed, others replace them, but the policies of the directing mid(s) remain in place, and small variations take place to palliate the change over or 'shuffle' as it's often called. The politic and policy system frequently show this where policies converge, and diverge, more recently being focussed on background forces of power and wealth that has intruded upon the democratic process substantially. The numbers of legal exchanges that reflect this function are legion. Typically, when several questions are asked of people carrying out official functions, they show the management of response that indicates the underlying thoughts with clarity as looking at either the surface reflection of water or what lies beneath. Official functions are often programmed responses that have to be escalated to the requisite levels in order to get access to truth, as increasingly decision making is centralised. Some basic principles reveal the underling patterns and their adherence to design and purpose.

Truthful responses have immediacy that crafted ones do not. Reviews that take days, weeks and months, reveal grappling with the questions and aversion, choice of words also shows two streams of consciousness. The main controlled conscious and directed output, and the natural flow from the contents of the subconscious complexes that break through in 'realisations.' showing cognitive dissonance.

The function of any adjudicator will reveal either passive observance, allowing the adversarial parties to fight unfairly, or show interference with management pursuant to; for example, furtherance of the 'overriding objective of fairness'. Like an umpire in a game, if certain rules are flouted without control, then it's obvious that under Court CPR, Civil Procedure Rules, some rules are treated strictly and others flexibly. This will show design and purpose, and is determined by perception of the critical path... Showing impartiality towards each side, while important, is not the same as showing impartiality where there is an equality of arms, or one side is is clearly demonstrating injustice.

The critical path of biased discretion shows its features in design and purpose when the process is ongoing or complete. When a flexible approach is used, and it coincides with one side, not balanced by the other; being treated strictly then clearly the adjudicator is biased without a shadow of doubt, especially when the party being supported has background circumstance of power or wealth that have influence. The result of such a hearing will be the proof that the use of discretion was applied with bias. Appeals denied re-enforce the view that the adjudicator is inflexible and does not treat the process independently, showing aspects of venality.

Responses that begin with phrases like “your comments have been noted”, leaving an air of unsatisfied expectation only. Depending on how this is phrased, it will mask intent to address the issues raised, or show they will be ignored.

The balance between the two functions of clear 'culpa lata', culpa lata dolo aequiparetur: ``a concealed fault is equivalent to a deceit'', And obvious candour shows the legal maxim admit nothing and deny everything” in operation.

Silence, lack of cogent response, lack of relevant response, reveal the casuist and sophist at work with deception. If one has that recorded or in writing, it becomes incontrovertible immediately. It is part of the function of an amalgam in 'design and purpose', 'appetition and aversion', 'acts and omissions' where in each process those acts that leave traces, and omissions that leave none, but show coherence in the structure of design and purpose in achieving the goal, then the omissions, that are the cloak that wraps and hides the 'mens rea' can be easily teased out by direct questioning, and examination of response in several dimensions, of speed, reaction, colour of face, hesitation being prominent, and when CPR 16.5 is borne in mind; “a defendant who fails to deal with an allegation shall be taken to admit that allegation.” the conclusion is the same anywhere else in open forums, as in a court of law.

This was a paragraph number 7 in the defendant's case.
The keywords that bring out the logic and argument forms are bold highlighted, some underlined.

This is a three stage disambiguation, for those unfamiliar. Logicians should see the forms of the propositions with immediacy as in looking at an algebraic expression. I have highlighted the keywords, that express the key ideas and thoughts, and the remainder should be considered, in the usual manner where grammar is an inefficient expression of thoughts, as defeated by the precision of the logic. To the unwary, the grammatical forms and their structures cloak and wrap like a cocoon, the logic, so that is harder for the average reader to see the logic, and hence the awful fallacies and their deceptions.

  1. The argument exactly as presented by the witness statement sworn for truth. Its dependencies, in CPR.

  2. The principles of how a word and its meaning are defined both logically and grammatically, or lexically.

  3. The left and right parts of the arguments, premisses, and the conclusion.


  1. I am duly authorised by the Defendant to make this witness statement in support of the application that the Claimant's Claim Form and Particulars of Claim be struck out by the court pursuant to Rule 3.4 of the Civil Procedure Rules 1993 and the overriding objective. The grounds of the Defendant's application are that the Claimant's statements of case disclose no reasonable grounds for bringing the claim and/or the statements of case are an abuse of the court's process.

    1. This is an argument to strike out the case. Let's examine the grounds the argument relies on.

    2. First understand what the OVERRIDING OBJECTIVE and CPR 3.4 ARE, put simply, in two phrases, they are; “ Dealing with a case justly”, and “Striking the case out where, it shows no reasonable grounds, and or is an abuse etc.” For further ideas what this means look at the CPR extracts below section 3, but particularly focus on the highlighted words and phrases here.


  1. Next understand how dictionary definitions of word meanings are structured. This is how the disambiguation was presented in the court bundle that went beyond five hundred pages part one of two. Part two was worse, and not yet seen as at June 2008. Before you read on, please consider how a case of over 500 detailed pages, thoroughly exposing ten obvious contradictions in one of the defendant's letter, can possibly show no reasonable grounds; for exposing a pack of lies, and mendacious legal purporters. If you need grounds for this assertion then click here, part of the case material already in the public domain, with lots more to come. To have imagined for a second, a person capable of presenting a case in court, referred to by the Judge as SUPERB, was incapable of taking apart every letter, to it tiniest detail in deception and lies, shows a remarkable ineptitude.

    The case was a dispute over a parking ticket, that eventually saw the council breach seventeen statutes, and initially costs them £4000 in lost costs. Since that time, the claimant oversaw a number of cases in a variety of tribunals, and noted the widespread use of these forms of deception, in BRITISH tribunals?

      • The original rebuttal argument is here, but a more simplified one is, in this example;

        From a dictionary, the word “Abuse” = “To use improperly”, “to misuse” or 5 = 8-3.

      • This shows the form of a definition as :

        ___________ = ......................Df,

        eg: the word “___________Abuse” = “......................To use improperly”, “to misuse.”

        where ___________ is the definiendum and .................... the definiens or defining terms.

        .Each reversible or interchangeable.

      • THUS: ABUSE means “To use improperly”, “to misuse” and like an equation 3 = 5-2 = 8-5,

        and can be reversed to “To use improperly”, “to misuse” meansto abuse

        When used in a sentence like;

        “how willingly have we abused our golden time.”, “how willingly have we used improperly our golden time.”
        and “how willingly have we misused our golden time.” the terms can be replaced without change of meaning.

      • A “ ___________triangle” may be defined as “.................... a figure of three sides” The word triangle is the definiendum and the quoted text;“a figure of three sides”, the definiens or defining terms. They are marked out in blue adjacently.

      • Compare this with the two part meaning(s) of our example CPR 3.4 below, brought up here very succinctly as;

        eg: the reference word ___________CPR3.4” = or refers to......................abuse”

        • ___________CPR 3.4 answers to the meanings of,

        • ....................(a) discloses no reasonable grounds and

        • ....................(b) an abuse of the court’s process.”


  1. For immediacy of comprehension I will substitute the reference CPR 3.4 with ONE of its defining terms only; “abuse.

    1. Now re-examine the original argument shortened and slightly re-phrased, without loss or change of essential meaning, to show the properties of the form of this construction. The almost verbatim original below this simplified form in b.c.d will become “pursuant toabuse” --- “The grounds of the Defendant's application are an abuse It's is now abundantly clear the statement has the properties of a synonym just like 5 = 3+2. Does this now really look as ghastly as it IS?

      It's the wrapping and cloaking of the general terms in the heading, CPR 3.4 as against its specific definitions, added to which the amalgam is carefully phrased with false emphasis and ambiguous prominence, coupled with adjunct words that are superfluous to obscure the FORM that is an informal fallacy of reasoning well known since Aristotle's time 2300 years ago. See all the cloaking and semantics by re-examining the original above, and notice now that only the bold face terms are of any real significant value logically. Remember Grammar is an imperfect instrument of thought where Logic is precise with its calculus making it scientific in methodology.

      Be sure you are certain that while the assertion is internally coherent, and tautologous, it is nevertheless a pure deception as any form of argument that has the properties of TRUTH and CORRESPONDENCE when it comes to showing the grounds or evidence that the statement corresponds with fact or reality. IT is VITAL the above assertion is proved by some instance in reality where the conduct or assertions by the claimant corresponds with the term abuse, otherwise the abuse is uncorroborated by any means that establish its truth, and a falsity. Now the simple example will be rolled back out to its original form in stages.

    2. pursuant to Rule 3.4 and the overriding objective – [of fairness]”,

    3. The grounds of the Defendant's application are ” the

    4. case disclose no reasonable grounds and/or are an abuse of the court's process.

      • The directing mind(s) (probably a lawyer or barrister) who wrote the witness statement for the witness to sign, is saying;

      • pursuant to Rule 3.4 and the overriding objective” ___________ the definiendum, Let's see what 3.4 and overriding... means: [ see again below; (a) discloses no reasonable grounds and (b) an abuse of the court’s process.]

      • the GROUNDS are that the statement of

      • case disclose no reasonable grounds and/or are an abuse of the court's process.”

      • effectively the definition in the CPR 3.4 -- (and 1.1 overriding objective - actually superfluous, since this is hardly fair) is merely expanded out in .................... the definiens.

      • So there are NO ACTUAL grounds OUTSIDE these terms, and their own definitions at all, the argument is circular, saying.....analogously; ----------

        Strike out because CPR 3.4 (ie; (a) discloses no reasonable grounds and (b) an abuse of the court’s process.) on the grounds that it(a) discloses no reasonable grounds and (b) an abuse of the court’s process..”

        That's the circularity. If you re-expand CPR 3.4 to its definiens on the left side of the equation, it is the same as the terms on the right hand side. I hope that, while this is convoluted, because the original argument, awfully and unlawfully, IS SO, it is now clear to a reader unfamiliar with (logical) forms of arguments.

      • Have you ever seen such circularity with design and purpose to argue persuasively and mendaciously?
        All caught out, and running for vicarious cover, when they backed down, cancelled everything and asked the case be discontinued. Add a sprinkle of malevolence and this would be apposite, since all was prepared by a top London council's legal team, in the 21st century, where they showed the claimant their code of conduct honoured in its breach, of seventeen statutes, wholesale, on integrity, honesty, truth, sincerity and lawful conduct. Are you beginning to see the farce? With evil penal consequence, used at Court, LGO, OFT, PCA, TEC, (in exchanges coming soon) and Parking adjudicators. Each body will be placed in categories, where they have used these forms, so you see how common they are used, and learn to dispose of them.

      • The proper way to show grounds would be something like, the claimant abused the court's process by swearing a statement of truth that was false, misleading, or obstructing the overriding objective, by hiding material evidence, or some such grounds. Then presenting the hidden evidence to show the abuse of CPR 31.6 (b),(i) where he failed in his duty to show evidence that was adverse to his case.

      • The analogous example; when testing IF a triangle is a triangle, one looks at a figure drawn on paper and if it has four sides, then it will not be a triangle, it will be a square. One will be unable to say, looking at a four sided figure, that it has three sides adding up to 180 degrees, and therefore it must not be a triangle. That is what grounds look and sound like.

      • It's called corroborating evidence, and is supported with exhibits, of which this council produced only their own manufactured material, and a forsworn statement.” “Tell the council to read my lips, and move to 'grade c' in the 11 year old stream.”

So carefully worked out, to obstruct and defeat honesty and truth that the terms deplorable and disgraceful are not bad enough. If one examines the sequences of false representations (lies) then the idea that there was no 'mens rea' – thoughts, that were synchronised with the 'actus reus' - acts, of the deposed statements of truth, is ludicrous. It so happens that in TWO words from that statement the claimant showed to the Judge, and legal team of three, that the statement of truth was perjured, of course to the COMPLETE silence of all, and that non controverting means ONLY one thing in law in CPR 16.5 below. Which shall be produced soon, to show how 'cognitive dissonance' works in language that's synthesised constructions.


CPR. 16.5 (1) In his defence, the defendant must state –

(3) A defendant who –

(a) fails to deal with an allegation; but

(b) has set out in his defence the nature of his case in relation to the issue to which that allegation is relevant,

shall be taken to require that allegation to be proved.

(4) Where the claim includes a money claim, a defendant shall be taken to require that any allegation relating to the amount of money claimed be proved unless he expressly admits the allegation.

(5) Subject to paragraphs (3) and (4), a defendant who fails to deal with an allegation shall be taken to admit that allegation.

The overriding objective. (back)


CPR 1.1 (1) These Rules are a new procedural code with the overriding objective of enabling the court to deal with cases justly.

(2) Dealing with a case justly includes, so far as is practicable –

(a) ensuring that the parties are on an equal footing;

(b) saving expense;

(c) dealing with the case in ways which are proportionate –

(i) to the amount of money involved;

(ii) to the importance of the case;

(iii) to the complexity of the issues; and

(iv) to the financial position of each party;

(d) ensuring that it is dealt with expeditiously and fairly; and

(e) allotting to it an appropriate share of the court’s resources, while taking into account the need to allot resources to other cases.

Power to strike out a statement of case (back)


CPR 3.4 (1) In this rule and rule 3.5, reference to a statement of case includes reference to part of a statement of case.

(2) The court may strike out (GL) a statement of case if it appears to the court –

(a) that the statement of case discloses no reasonable grounds for bringing or defending the claim;

(b) that the statement of case is an abuse of the court’s process or is otherwise likely to obstruct the just disposal of the proceedings; or

(c) that there has been a failure to comply with a rule, practice direction or court order.

Standard disclosure – what documents are to be disclosed (back)


CPR 31.6 Standard disclosure requires a party to disclose only –

(a) the documents on which he relies; and

(b) the documents which –

(i) adversely affect his own case;

(ii) adversely affect another party’s case; or

(iii) support another party’s case; and

(c) the documents which he is required to disclose by a relevant practice direction. (back)

1.In very short: Anselm's argument for the existence of God is that God is an entity greater than which no entity can be conceived. It is not possible to imagine such an entity that does not exists since it is contrary to the notion of his greatness.

Examine the argument for abstract, (ontological) proof and self definitions that have no grounds to rely on. Arguments of this form have the structure of an analytic definition, being internal to the definiendum of the definiens and questionably analogous to Anselm's Ontological Argument, or to put it plainly, is like saying that pursuant to a triangle being such, the grounds on which it relies are that its three angles add up to two right angles.

a)The concept is, one defines a term by either analytic or verbal means.

b)Definitions have the form ___________ = ..................Df,

c)where ___________ is the definiendum and ................ the definiens or defining terms.

d)Each reversible or interchangeable.

e)It's simply not good enough in law, to say a triangle is so because it has three angles that add up to two right angles. This doesn't prove anyone's guilt whatsoever. In law one must give cause and grounds for the given instance being a member of the class argued.

f)One can't say he is guilty because guilt deserves punishment, a person is only guilty because he has committed a or the specified offence, then he deserves punishment. (back)

Ancillary material used in the case relating to Tort.

  1. Tort, misrepresentation, deceit and statutory breach of duty of care is somewhat more complex and the claimant relies on a traversal of the three part caparo test in conjunction with the Wednsebury principle of reasonableness and others, to show cause and culpability of contravention in this section.

    There are many rulings in this area of law, considerably argued in a variety of ways. The claimant intends to adduce the main three, but prior to that a forward in his own analysis of the meaning of the terms used to ensure unambiguous equivocation.

    1. OED 2. Eng. Law. The breach of a duty imposed by law, whereby some person acquires a right of action for damages. ( A wrongful act or omission )......

    2. Without the presence of a thinking mind, as in the Sartrian example given below, there is no such thing as a wrong in nature. A volcano may explode eliminating the entire population of a village below its influence, and where the event goes unrecorded to a thinking mind there is no value judgment. As Shakespeare rightly says, for there is nothing either good or bad but thinking makes it so.”

    3. An objective standard of reasonableness has blurred edges due to the wide variety of subjective views that all change over time, its a concept in slow flux. I refer however to;

      1. Regina -v- Secretary of State for Defence Ex Parte Smith; Regina -v- Same Ex Parte Grady Etc [1996] QB 517 CA 1995-11-06

      Sir Thomas Bingham MR Armed Forces Discrimination Employment

      ............ The greater the policy content of a decision, and the more remote the subject matter of a decision from ordinary judicial experience, the more hesitant the court must necessarily be in holding a decision to be irrational.

      1. The policy content of the council's decision is wholly within the bounds of the aforementioned comments of......... To re-iterate....The purpose and aims of the 1984 Act were considered by Mr Justice McCullough in R -v- The London Borough of Camden ex parte Cran [1995] RTR 346. He said (at page 365D):”[It] is not a revenue raising Act.” and (at page 360J-L): “...[T]he 1984 Act is not a fiscal measure.... All its provisions...are concerned in one way or another with the expeditious, convenient and safe movement of traffic and the provision of suitable and adequate parking facilities on and off the highway. This is reflected in the wording of Section 122(1). There is its policy; there are its objects.”

      ............Pursuit of a course of conduct employing a strategy whose policy content is so distant from the above comment, and so close to obtainment of revenue by any means, has to be viewed as inhumanely rationalised (in the sense of a calculation), within the frame of an irrational policy (In the wider sense of the harm being done, as in over fishing where there is a declining stock or over fishing where it generates odium and provocation in the community, resulting in increasing crime due to senselessness in either either temproal trivia or side street plunder ) that is out of control and without the slightest notion of reasonableness, since it breaches all norms of lawful behaviour. The claimant rarely sees a clamp or tow away in a congested high street, where it would in itself cause congestion, these things invariably take place in side streets in the same manner as other predators,eg; lions picking off the weak at the outer boundaries.. While pursuit of revenue may be calculated and perfectly rationalised, it is not rational to pursue it to such detriment extent, unfettered and unrestrainedly, as to become a tumour on the body of society that eventually must suffocate and kill the body it subsist on. “The court may not interfere with the exercise of an administrative discretion on substantive grounds save where the court is satisfied that the decision is unreasonable in the sense that it is beyond the range of responses open to a reasonable decision-maker. But in judging whether the decision-maker has exceeded this margin of appreciation the human rights context is important. The more substantial the interference with human rights, the more the court will require by way of justification before it is satisfied that the decision is reasonable in the sense outlined above.” Profound cultural changes do take time, but "A belief which represented unquestioned orthodoxy in year X may have become questionable by year Y and unsustainable by year Z."

      1. The claimant has been denied his Human Right, not merely substantially but in its entirety. The application for a claim, injunction and order is its testimony.

    4. Without going in to detail in the “Peregrine Fixed Income Ltd -v- Robinson Department Store Public Co Ltd., EWHC Commercial 99 ComC 2000-05-18”

      The Honourable Mr Justice Moore-Bick Contract, and bearing in mind the PCN as an allegation is legally proximitous with the objective of creating a contract, Held: A court should not see behaviour in the absence of any allegation of absence of good faith or as unjustified or involving a breach of contract, unless it is clear that the belief in which he acted was flawed in one of the ways identified in the Wednesbury case. In the claimant's view the defendant has acted consistently in bad faith towards all the breaches in statute of the index page, and consistent with zeal for revenue, but in particular with the aspect of prejudice and malice towards the claimant's conditions, albeit unknown in detail but certainly known in general.

      Wandsworth London Borough Council -v- Winder [1985] AC 461 HL 1985-01-01 Lord Fraser of Tullybelton Housing Local Government

      Lord Fraser of Tullybelton. : selected extract from context, in the event that “The local authority sought to strike out the defence and counterclaim as an abuse of process,”..... ".......It would in my opinion be a very strange use of language to describe the respondent's behaviour in relation to this litigation as an abuse or misuse by him of the process of the court.....Held: Mr. Winder was entitled as of right to challenge the local authority's decision by way of defence in the proceedings which it had brought against him. The decision was based on "the ordinary rights of private citizens to defend themselves against unfounded claims.

      1. The arguments used here are the observe since the claimant is bringing this claim, but regards it being a defence where the defendant was pursuing an allegation debt, remorselessly, ruthlessly and still is doing so as far as the claimant is concerned. The claimant has sought the protection of the Court for unreasonable behavior and having been denied his right to a fair and public hearing, is in the primary sense of the cause in action, substantially defensive. The claimant does not see the rest of his life, as either being subjected to this kind of treatment that is wholly unreasonable towards a disabled person with other problems to address, and the time given to the deplorable conduct is avoidable time , trouble and vexation that has a proportional cost toe the clinical, and surgical attempt at unlawful subtraction. The punitive and exemplary aspects of this case are the primary focus, since if it comes to part two, the claimant will show with compelling arguments in excess of the norm for such conduct, the defendant has operated a system well within the norms and boundaries of Wedensbury unreasonableness.

    5. So where does one pin the meaning of a wrong, except in the codification of some benchmark that is the rheostat of the times, altering and calibrating the meaning against some standard, as the mores do in the progress of culture. To get at the inner boundaries of the objective standards, clearly where there is a statutory duty, that has to be a fixed standard to commence with. Where there is a breach of statutory duty it has to follow the boundary of reasonableness has been breached and a wrong committed. In statute, there are references to duty. Hence statutory duty where it is breached is consequently a tort, - wrong. What can be plainer than that? The Wednesbury principle of reasonable is widely used in its aspect of unreasonableness, as usual the denial is the exclusive method of determination, focusing on what is clearly unreasonable. There a many citations of the use of the principle, but the claimant is going to focus with greater emphasis on the statutory duty which when breached has to be unreasonable. So far the claimant has shown in each statute where a breach has occurred and for each of these the defendant has behaved not merely with unreasonableness, but contrary to the law. At this juncture a wrong being bound to a contravention could not be plainer than unreasonableness. For each contravention there is a tortious liability that has been breached and the claimant is satisfied these contraventions, occurred, along with their corresponding breaches in tort.”

    6. Misrepresentation, deceit, are also as easily clarified as being a non correspondence with a description and its referring reality. Little difficulty here also. Duty of Care requires only a short further analysis. Each of us should understand what the primary meaning of care is, OED b. To feel concern (great or little), be concerned, trouble oneself, feel interest.

      Indifference will be the mid term between care and its opposite for which there is no obvious antonym, but the claimant suggests it belongs to the class of either amusements derived from schadenfreude, or simply malice, malice aforethought or using ones power to harm or better still confer a detriment as opposed to a benefit that would be the material and symptomatic evidence of the aspect of the opposite of care.

      It is asserted that a sufficient condition in causes shall be identified by breaching, or ignoring a statutory duty, and going so far in doing so, as to acting or omitting to act in a manner that is detrimental to the recipient of the impact of such acts. ( To reiterate where stated elsewhere, an omission is the counter side of an act, in that is negatively characterised. What makes it more invidious is its use as deception, where it has the advantage of invisibility requiring entry to the mens rea of the perpetrator. Nevertheless the impact is the presence of the results of such omissions.

    7. What is simpler than to understand a duty of care, that should be upheld by all people that live in an interdependent community. To care, about purpose in statute, and refrain from predatory delivery of PCNs requires one simple courtesy. The claimant does not expect other people to care for him in particular but does expect they care in statutory duty in delivering detriments, such that they consider the foreseeable impact of their actions on disabled persons. The defendants knew the claimant was disabled by recording of the information from the vehicle; albeit the wrong badge. Rather than watch for a driver to disappear from sight,why on earth not alert him to the error, and he would surely move away. To omit this while observing a victim, (what else can the motorist be called when the purpose is to deliver a PCN and not ask him to move away), is the precise negative characterisation of an act cloaked in an omission for the purpose of the realisation but to avoid moral culpability or shame. Shame of course being that function according to Sartre ( the renowned French philosopher and playwright in L'etre et le Neant, - Being and Nothingness – in his insightful conception of shame, whereby a voyeur for example, is caught in the act, and what was a hidden pleasure is derided in shame ), of the presence of an observing or conscious mind. Without the observer any sense of shame becomes almost a nullity unless it causes cognitive dissonance as a result of prescriptive cultural upbringing or nurture. The defendant shows every feature of wilful conduct after this, being caught, that is consistent with the classic features of blocking and denial.

    8. TORT

      It is a philosophical principal of UK law that people are expected to conduct themselves in such a way as to minimize the harm or injury they do to others. This principle is reflected in the large body of `tort law'. The word `tort' is derived from the latin word `tortus', meaning a `wrong', in the sense discussed above. `Tort' or `tort law' is the body of law concerned with allowing the victims of harmful actions, whether caused deliberately or by negligence (see: Negligence) to claim compensation from the perpetrator.

    9. culpa lata

      From culpa lata dolo aequiparetur: ``a concealed fault is equivalent to a deceit''. This term appears occasionally in law reports, either with or without its loose translation `GrossNegligence'. There is an abundance of concealment available in the letters of the defendant.

    10. Omissions while a little more difficult to prove, are nevertheless very provable by simply observing the pattern of the resultant impact over time.

      Take the omission of sending a Notice of Rejection to the claimant,

      1. referring to the PATAS review again, footnote *1. the first stage. The subject matter is the penalty charge. During this stage, neither the local authority nor the recipient of the NTO has any right to take any step before either the Parking Adjudicator or the County Court.. The result is;

      2. consistent with increasing the charge,

      3. avoiding a hearing, perhaps in this case avoiding a person at a hearing who may overturn the resident argument, place a new ruling, and bring on a floodgate, In this area the claimant has provided arguments to several people for use, and in each case Camden has either backed down or cancelled a hearing for this precisely consistent reason.

      4. The council wrote that its Parking solutions had advised the PCN “is being cancelled” 22nd Dec 2006, the claimant has received no such notice, how long does it take, will it take a year or will the claim itself be the trigger, anticipate, expect and observe with purpose.

      5. cutting the time between the receipt of revenue, from 56 days to perhaps one week,

      6. closing cases within a devoid and specious argument that such closures mean the motorist has consented, the most ludicrous notion the claimant has ever read. In this case the only class of penal delivery where consent is noteworthy, is the masochist, and certainly not the motorist. If the penal authority derives sadistic pleasure from the schadenfreude in it to then there is the perfect match. The BBC programs show the amount of pleasure derived from these penal deliveries, and the amount of stress apprehension and intimidation on its receipt. Please, please let no person argue to the claimant that closed cases mean consent, the entire institution of marriage and consensual relationships would be in the most awful mess for such a notion to sustain relationships. To avoid absolutes, a qualified nobody would consider paying a fine as a matter of consent.

      7. Ultra vires conduct, tort of statutory duty, tort of deception, and tort of misrepresentation; not representing the truthful and correct procedure, ghost skipping.

      8. And finally consistent with zeal for revenue, and contrary to the object and purposes of the act, as well as its particular sections. Please examine a representative example ahnd to the claimant by a very large national company in receipt of about 100 PCNs weekly, and with at the date of deposing this, nearly 20 examples of this occurrence. Please note that at this stage part one, this evidence is submitted for clarification the claimant is not relying on a single example, for the Judge and court alone. Should the defendant choose to contest the claimant's particulars, the claimant will at that point release a substantial set of exhibits, collateral examples, and proceed to stage two. It is expected that disclosure of al the requested document in the first application notice to disclosure and answer shall have been completed by this time, the claimant expects compliance with the court orders and procedure on discovery, and relies on the court's orders as applied for. This is, in the claimants view, a very serious widespread problem that is completely out of control and refer the similitude to the crown prerogative pre 1668-9 powers and abuse that was capped by that bill and declaration. It has returned in precise consistency with scientific method; to be shown in 11. below, when Parliament conferred these penal powers to person who do not follow, or understand basic principals of noblesse oblige, or responsible accountability.

    11. Consider the underlying meaning of these two sentences from the law department.

      1. 03 October 2006. We have reviewed the Council's records in light of your assertion and record that at no stage have we received any representations from you. We note in your email dated 6 July (sent to you advised our client that you be making formal representations (hand delivered) within two weeks, and thanked Parking Solutions for the Notice to Owner you had received. However despite your stated intention, no formal representations have been made. The Council maintains that it has therefore acted correctly in serving the Charge Certificate in relation to the unpaid Penalty Charge Notice.

      2. 11 October 2006. We have now met with our instructing department, who have reviewed all correspondence received from you in light of your email of 6 October, and in particular your reference to a receipt obtained from Parking Solutions (date stamped 21 July 2006)..........It is now accepted that you did in fact deliver formal representations to Parking Solutions.

      3. In the first instance

        1. There were no exchanges; by the councils own admission, between the time of the council raising the false charge certificate on 06/09/2006 and the earlier formal appeal hand delivered and receipted on 21st July 2006.

        2. Thus from i. above 03 October 2006. We have reviewed the Council's records there was ONLY ONE record required to 'review' the previous one, which was on file, and with a covering letter explaining its contents. A 'review is an overstatement and obfuscation of what was done. The operator had only to look up the relevant PCN number, open the file / folder and look at the 1st or 2nd previous exchange from the date of issuing a CC. That's all! Review makes it all sound such a substantial task.

        3. They should have done that BEFORE raising a CC in the first instance. Indeed the claimant suggests they did.

        4. When the claimant alleged what they did, on 7th September they had more than ample opportunity to review their records under a duty of care and statutory duty, and look up that last file BEFORE writing 28 days later, the falsity and the claimant suggests arrogantly deceitful assertion “We have reviewed the Council's records in light of your assertion and record that at no stage have we received any”.

        5. To add insult to injury; which is what these assertions are, the defiant and omniscient assertion a few lines below, However despite your stated intention, no formal representations have been made. is a far worse assertion since its falsity, would also require considerable circumspection in reasoning. If the claimant stated his intention, it is likely he would have carried it out. If he had carried out, then as in their inured procedure, they may take advantage of postal or motorist delinquency and were clearly counting on no receipt being obtained.

        6. Collateral evidence shows a powerful usage of the rebuttal in representation, that is if they are not made in writing, they may be declined. An Email is in writing, they had about 108 of these, and is a representation, but by emphasising the class of representation, to exclude others that are more traceable, the purpose of strategy is enhanced by using the communications method that permits no denial of receipt, since many are done by post, and not recorded. The true meaning of the denial in the clear equivocation of D. above is that the author most likely has in mind, indeed has to have in mind, no formal records, but went the further mile in confidence and incongruently to attempt to wrap the remaining 108 emails, in the same confident rebuttal, and hope to get away with it. The formal representation referred to ALL the informal ones.

        7. The defendant is unaware that falsities, compound themselves, and when put under pressure, the focussed mind; in its conscious separation by the surface tension between it and the subconscious contents, begins to seed itself with parts of the sub-conscious content in the so-called Freudian slips, that prevail all over their correspondence showing both conscious rationalised and strategic argument, bleeding with spatter of subconscious truths. That is the whole essence of the sophistry and casuistry in employment here and elsewhere.

    12. Turning to the definition in statute.

      1. Tort of STATUTORY DUTY

      2. The claimant avers the defendant had statutory duty of care, expressed in the RTA schedule 6 Section 7 where it is stated ;

        (7) It shall be the duty of an authority to whom representations are duly made under this paragraph—

        (a) to consider them and any supporting evidence which the person making them provides; and

        (b) to serve on that person notice of their decision as to whether they accept that the ground in question has been established.

      3. There is no disputing the fact that the defendant DID consider, and therefore as a result of such consideration they KNEW their relevant duties, since in issuing 500,000 PCNs annually there is most unlikely to be the remotest tenable argument that they were not aware of the relevant statutes; this being the primary one, and to act accordingly.

      4. The conjunct AND is a binding one, where its breach clearly and unambiguously leads to the direct consequence of the charge certificate, that it did in this case. Issuing a charge certificate out of procedure is contrary to statute and of course an act of will.

      5. A charge certificate can only follow from

          6.—(1)Where a notice to owner is served (false) on any person and the penalty charge to which it relates is not paid before the end of the relevant period, the authority serving the notice may serve on that person a statement (a "charge certificate") to the effect that the penalty charge in question is increased by 50 per cent.

      6. It follows the charge certificate was obtained unlawfully. Serving it on the claimant conferred a detriment upon him unlawfully, and its impact lead to a temporal correlation in consistency with a deterioration in health, as if cause and effect. The nomic relationship as to cause can only be determined satisfactorily upon the elimination of the hypothetical cause, by way of scientific method, which the claimant is establishing, and should his health recover this year with no intervening factors, it is reasonable to conclude that this was the causal chain. The principles of scientific method are clearest in their simplest form that is the substrate to the entire civilisation and efficacy of how things work.

        1. Sufficient and necessary conditions.

          Best expressed as a conditional, easily understood in this simplest of unqualified example.

          IF there is one simple condition, or nomic relationship for the existence of life, THEN,

          the presence of oxygen is necessary for life, if and only if the absence of oxygen is sufficient for the absence of life.

        2. The claimant needs not pursue this line, at present, it shall be evidenced by medical records in the fullness of time that may exceed the period of this cause in action.

    13. Suffice to say thus far the defendant has breached the statutory duty in this recital;

      1. Omission to send the claimant a Notice of Rejection,

      2. To consider the representation and fail to fulfil the conjunct has to be an act or omission in the class of cognisance, if this has to be further determined, then the claimant shall make application to call relevant witnesses from the council for cross examination, and shall produce the several hundred pages that will forensically show who were the people attending to the consideration aspect of the representation, in stage two of the proceedings with further disclosure.

      3. A Charge certificate can only be obtained by the relevant person performing a wilful act to draw it up, print it and post it.

      4. When the claimant responded with his allegations, they were flatly and peremptorily denied in consistency with the tort of deceit since they have been proven doubly false and admitted. AND of course the charge certificate was cancelled as a result, with an excuse that is rejected as a further deceit that follows on the origins of a mutated form of conception in the first instance.

      5. The additional assertion the claimant was delinquent in his returning the NTO was a further misrepresentation and deceit in Tort, that was proven false and admitted.

      6. The threat of enforcement shortly thereafter, was an additional intent in breach of statute being some undetermined time beyond the period when the TEC would revoke the CC and the system would get recycled for another attempt.

      7. This intent has the aspect that is precisely consistent with the acts and omission in the earlier appeal stages. There is no reason whatsoever to suggest the intent was likely to be changed in its trajectory unless the first law of Newtonian motion applied, which was that the claimant apprehended it and prevented its realisation.

      8. Recurring to the immediate commencement of the entire process at the point of delivery of the PCN, the wardens are so motivated as to obtain a number of PCNs daily that their duties to assist the purpose of statute encouraging motorists to move on, or even alert them, in a manner that requires the mere utterance of HEY! precludes any observance of statutory purpose by order of the directing minds concerned. The behaviour IS predatory. Furthering Statutory purpose in its breach by wilful direction in the entire command structure, to not think, but deliver.

      9. Negligence - Duty of care.

        "The rule that you are to love your neighbour becomes in law, you must not injure your neighbour; and the lawyer's question, Who is my neighbour? receives a restricted reply. You must take reasonable care to avoid acts or omissions which you can reasonably foresee would be likely to injure your neighbour. Who, then, in law is my neighbour? The answer seems to be - persons who are so closely and directly affected by my act that I ought reasonably to have them in contemplation as being so affected when I am directing my mind to the acts or omissions which are called in question." .....Donoghue v Stevenson [1932] AC 562, Lord Atkin attempted to lay down a general principle which would cover all the circumstances where the courts had already held that there could be liability for negligence.

        This general principle underpins the following in its milder sense. The claimant is the member of the community to whom the act and omissions of the council have a direct causal link on delivering a PCN, where the warden could exercise his duty of care by not merely being negligent, but being pr-active in serving the purpose of statute, and instructing the claimant to move 'or else'. In fact the widespread perception is that wardens are both predatory and have no interest in following purpose in statute, the purpose they follow is 'target' they are given to keep their jobs.

      1. Lord Wilberforce accepts what might be seen as the high point of the adoption of the statements of Lord Atkin in Donoghue v Stevenson. He says: - ‘Through the trilogy of cases in this House, Donoghue v Stevenson, Hedley Byrne & Co Ltd v Heller v Partners Ltd and Home Office v Dorset Yacht Co Ltd, the position has now been reached that in order to establish that a duty of care arises in a particular situation, it is not necessary to bring the facts of that situation within those of previous situations in which a duty of care has been held to exist. Rather the question has to be approached in two stages. First one has to ask whether, as between the alleged wrongdoer and the person who has suffered damage there is a sufficient relationship of proximity or neighboorhood such that, in the reasonable contemplation of the former, carelessness on his part may be likely to cause damage to the latter, in which case a prima facie duty of care arises. Secondly, if the first question is answered affirmatively, it is necessary to consider whether there are any considerations which ought to negative, or to reduce or limit the scope of the duty or the class of person to whom it is owed or the damages to which a breach of it may give rise’.

        What is set down in the disability discrimination act , in particular is that the duty of care is to

      2. Tort of Duty of Care. The caparo three part test.

        The Caparo test –The three-stage 'Caparo' test requires:

        1. foreseeability of damage

        2. a relationship characterised by the law as one of proximity or neighbourhood; and

        3. that the situation should be one in which the court considers it would be fair just and reasonable that the law should impose a duty of given scope on one party for the benefit of the other.

        Proximity' in this case means legal, not physical, proximity. The claimant and the defendant are in proximity if there is some sort of relationship, interaction, or dependency between them. Many writers have pointed out that the criteria in Caparo do overlap somewhat. Of course there are many situations where a duty of care may be assumed to exist, and it won't be necessary to invoke the Caparo test. For example, no-one would dispute that road users owe a duty of care to other road users. Moreover, there are situations where the duty of care is imposed by statute; see, for example, the Occupiers Liability Act 1957.

        A. Conferring a detriment in an allegation whose penal power leads invariably to a court, registration of a debt, and enforcement is subtraction, exaction and damage that is perfectly foreseeable, ( Can it be called a benefit? Does this need to be argued? ).

        B. The duty of care arose the moment the defendant delivered to the claimant a PCN, creating a relationship of proximity (legally) between them and the claimant in the first part of the Caparo test. The allegation is part of the structure of the RTA 1991, and legal proximity is satisfied. ( Does this need to be argued? ).

        C. The claimant is not concerned whether “it would be fair just and reasonable that the law should impose a duty of given scope “ The law does give the precise scope the claimant is referring to in each section of each Act breached with straightforward precision in this traversal. ( Does this need to be argued? ).

      3. Determination of whether the duty was discharged. In general, the motive of the defendant is irrelevant to the determination whether he breached the duty of care, as are his own personal qualities. The determination is made by comparing the defendant's behaviour with what would reasonably be expected to meet the standard of care required by law. Whether the defendant adequately discharged his/her duty is a question of fact, something often forgotten by the courts, and something for which we should lament the passing of jury trials for negligence.

        The claimant has separated this part of the extract as probably the overriding argument that the tortuous aspects of this case are regarded with a completely open mind, whose main focus is on the reality of this nationwide malaise, that is so out of control. The solicitors working for councils are stretching the boundaries of nomenclature with such spin as to produce falsity in assertions to such an unbelievable extent that wherever the claimant encounters a solicitor's argument he sees immediately its purpose, fallacious content, sophistry and mis-correspondence with reality. With twenty contradiction to yet reconcile, and as many FOI questions deceptively masked or obfuscated, the claimant begs the court to indulge his overwhelming scepticism in the truth and illogical reasoning that is likely to be delivered in the forthcoming hearings.

        =========== {

        The factual nature of the determination was the subject of the HouseOfLords decision in QualcastVHaynes1959, where the judge at first instance, and the CourtOfAppeal held themselves bound by authority to reach an absurd decision. The House stressed that whether the defendant is in breach is somewhat to be determined as a matter of common sense, not by reference to precedent.

        } ============

        Particular problems arise in cases where the defendant is an expert in some particular field. In medical cases, for example, a doctor's judgement will be measured against the standards of the profession as a whole. It does not matter that there is a body of opinion, even perhaps a substantial body, that would not have come to the same conclusion (BolamVFriernHospitalManagementCommittee1957). However, the existence of expert testimony does not prevent the determination of whether the defendant was in breach or not being a legal matter (BolithoVCityAndHackneyHA1998); It is -- in principle -- open to the court to hold the defendant liable, in the face of expert evidence to suggest that he did what would have been expected of him by the profession.

      4. The claimant contends there is little or no need to re-travers the index of breaches to show breaches of compliance, and statutory duty, this is done in each section of this traversal.

    1. Statutory purpose and duty have been breached, the claimant avers this is irrefutable save by illusion and semantics that shall not pass his discernment.

    2. At this stage the claimant is “satisfied the contraventions of statute, and Tort in Statutory Duties expressed and aforementioned occurred.”

    3. The claimant has not stopped to enumerate the instances, suffice to say there are more than three of serious import, and therefore more than sufficient. This should take no more than a brief time to concur with and rule upon.

Part of the duty to act fairly was treated in this section.

Statutory Power: Duty to act fairly.

R v Commission for Racial Equality ex parte Hillingdon London Borough Council (1982). Lord Diplock "I do not think that in administrative law as it has developed over the last 20 years attaching a label "quasi-judicial" to it is of any significance. Where an Act of Parliament confers upon an administrative body functions which involves making decisions which affect to their detriment the rights of other persons ... there is a presumption that Parliament intended that the administrative body should act fairly towards those persons who will be affected by their decision."

R v Inland Revenue Commissioners ex parte Unilever PLC (1996) Lord Justice Simon Brown "Unfairness amounting to an abuse of power .......... it is unlawful ....... because it is illogical or immoral or both for a public authority to act with conspicuous unfairness and in that sense abuse its power".

R v Secretary of State for Home Department ex parte Pierson (1998) Lord Hope " unfairness ...... as there are no statutory rules, the presumption must be that he [Secretary of State] will exercise his powers in a manner which is fair in all the circumstances." R v Department for Education & Employment ex parte Begbie(2000) Lord Justice Laws "Fairness and reasonableness and their contraries are objective concepts: otherwise there would be no public law, or if there were it would be palm tree justice."

free webstats