|
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.
The
argument exactly as presented by the witness statement
sworn for truth. Its dependencies, in CPR.
The
principles of how a word and its meaning are defined both
logically and grammatically, or lexically.
The
left and right parts of the arguments, premisses, and the
conclusion.
-------------------------------
“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.”
This is an
argument to strike out the case. Let's examine the
grounds the argument relies
on.
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.
-------------------------------
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”
means “to 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.”
-------------------------------
For immediacy of comprehension I will substitute the
reference CPR 3.4 with
ONE of its defining
terms only; “abuse.”
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 to
“abuse” ---
“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.
“pursuant to Rule 3.4 and the overriding objective
– [of
fairness]”,
“The grounds of the Defendant's application are
” the
“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)
|
|
Ancillary material
used in the case relating to Tort.
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.
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 )......
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.”
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;
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.
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."
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.
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.
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.
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.”
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.
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.
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.
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.
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,
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;
consistent with
increasing the charge,
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.
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.
cutting the time
between the receipt of revenue, from 56 days to perhaps one
week,
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.
Ultra vires
conduct, tort of statutory duty, tort of deception, and tort
of misrepresentation; not representing the truthful and
correct procedure, ghost skipping.
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.
Consider the
underlying meaning of these two sentences from the law
department.
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
Parking.soluti_ns@.........gov.uk) 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.
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.
In the first
instance
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.
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.
They should
have done that BEFORE raising a CC in the first
instance. Indeed the claimant suggests they did.
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”.
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.
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.
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.
Turning to the
definition in statute.
Tort
of STATUTORY DUTY
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Suffice to say thus
far the defendant has breached the statutory duty in
this recital;
Omission to send
the claimant a Notice of Rejection,
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.
A Charge
certificate can only be obtained by the relevant person
performing a wilful act to draw it up, print it and post it.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
Tort
of Duty of Care.
The caparo
three part test.
The
Caparo test –The three-stage 'Caparo' test requires:
foreseeability
of damage
a
relationship characterised by the law as one of proximity or
neighbourhood; and
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? ).
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.
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.
Statutory purpose
and duty have been breached, the claimant avers this is
irrefutable save by illusion and semantics that shall not pass
his discernment.
At this stage the
claimant is “satisfied the contraventions of statute,
and Tort in Statutory Duties expressed and aforementioned
occurred.”
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."
|
