swarb.co.uk

Tony · Joined: 02 Jul 2006 Posts: 34

I am involved in a hearing shortly at JR, with someone else.
I have taken from your site a tenet from the Bill of Rights 1668-9 , I note the Declaration is not there, but I think the Declaration or contract is the more invidious for the argument I have framed.
The tenet:
That all grants and promises of fines and forfeitures of particular persons before conviction are illegal and void;
from the declaration is in contradiction with elements of the RTA 1991, where fines are levied BEFORE trial.
The Declaration has its own inbuilt indemnity against future repeal, and later case law and precedent shows repeal expressly or impliedly being blocked by other precedent I won't trouble with at this time.

That the RTA and its consequences of downright plunder for the British public, as well as the moral bankruptcy of councils, ( I don't use the term LA's since that must for me be deserved ) is deplorable, is at last showing itself too widely to be ignored.

The present JR is aimed at having the RTA examined by the Law commission under the same named act 1965, apart from declaring relevant sections of the RTA as simply illegal.

It seems plain and irrefutable to me and my colleague the RTA situation is that the relevant sections is simply illegal since it enables fines to be imposed without conviction. This is the thrust of our argument. The logic has been embedded in the treatise, and cannot suffer refutation without disposing of 2000 years of Aristotelian, Cartesian, Western and modern logic, in addition to disposing of the essence of scientific methodology in nomic relationships, (causes) that underpins the efficacy of empiricism in all man's activities.

I want to anticipate a prejudicial JR and ask if anyone can think of a cogent reason why the RTA is legal in its activity that is precisely the contradiction of the DoR or BoR 1668-9, stating it is illegal.

What can anyone think of, that a Judge may come up with to defeat this argument.

To explain myself a little, I am not a solicitor or lawyer, but an academic. My specialty has been in Logic, formal reasoning, the laws of thought and the calculus of logic. apart from 4 other disciplines. I have prevailed in court using these tools against the Met Police, CPS, Amtrak Ltd, one of the largest banks in the world who settled out of court in four days for me to forbear harassment charges, and some others who have taken away serious costs for themselves while I conferred on myself the benefit of experience. The last with Amtrak, resulted in one single proposition that overturned the privity rule 1841, in two minutes, with the defending solicitor in tears, and judge giving her tissues, while giving me continuance for a full hearing of 3 hours. I was over prepared with paperwork for a 5 day hearing,and that is why the case came to a halt, but the defendant earned the title 'deplorably opportunistic" and the details are now with the OFT.
In short I am a loner, similar to the colleague in this application next week.
The practices of the day are in my view deplorable in many respects, and I have a small group of 4 sites, two whose agenda is to dismantle the structures of deception, sophistry and casuistry in argument, and suppresio veri and suggestio falsi in biased selection sets providing context that is egregious in its perversion, as in the example of the PCA, and LGO whom I have exposed in contradictions, showing clearly an agenda driven background that most solicitors or barristers would anticipate anyway.

I am taking the liberty of putting the link to one http://www.logiclaw.co.uk/ so any reader may determine quickly if I am a fraud or otherwise, although I should have hoped perception of my epistolary style would reason the contrary. If this breaches your code, then simply say so,and I will remove the link by editing out on receipt of the request later.
The question is, how will the Judges treat an irrefutable argument with such a vastidity of consequence? We are looking for bias, and pretext.
Tony

PS I punched this in much later....
CO2........
The new money arguments on CO2 emissions are similarly flawed and illogical. Richmond for example wants to tax people with 4 * 4 drive vehicles for PARKING because they pollute more than others. Think of the logic and childishness of it all, and its conspicuous chase for revenue without thinking. Tax motorists for driving NOT parking. (I said this elsewhere on August 8th 2006) The more people stay still, and avoid driving around to avoid wardens, the less CO2 emissions.

It's another Government and council, hot air biased emission of the same kind as that destroys our world by plundering the most hard working and least wealthy. When the RTA 1991 act is properly reformed to target moving vehicles rather than stationary ones the more the climate will be assisted, AND the sanity of normal people. A little sanity at the top would help. Think on the connection a little, and I am sure it will be as clear as the midday sun, parking is not the major problem facing mankind, driving too much is what needs to be trimmed back.
_________________
Tony

dls · Site Admin Joined: 10 Apr 2005 Posts: 2789

I think this a path trodden before.

The answer is that it is not exactly a fine imposed on you. You always have the choice to take it to the court. If you accept it beforehand, it is strictly speaking voluntary.

My own feeling is that the correct approach is to challenge tickets because the signage is not correct.

Tony · Joined: 02 Jul 2006 Posts: 34

Apologies I must have said something that led to a misunderstanding.

This is not relating to simply getting a PCN cancelled, most signage or wording errors may have that done fairly easily, its about getting the RTA reformed, since it is strictly speaking illegal.

Unfortunately the law is not regarded in the spirit these days, merely the letter, which is why 2 years ago I was fined for 3.3 SECONDS! That is observance of the letter of the law that is wholly morally bankrupt. The council were awarded, I should say quite inconsistently for the LGO only due to my arguments, the label maladministration by the LGO, but morality is also not the focus here.

Fines under the RTA are in contravention of the DoR, strictly speaking. Given the contradiction, it is not possible under formal logic to uphold a contradiction without either choosing one or the other alternatives to rely on, it is not possible to hold the two together and I shall present the formally valid argument for that irrefutable position on the site shortly.

The question was how will they treat the argument, while at present upholding both which is a de facto possibility, but not de jure. The only escape from a contradiction is to deny both, accept both, or whitewash under a pretext. The law of excluded middle precludes what I have just stated about both, I was asking for what kind of pretexts they are likely to come up when any argument on how to evade a contradiction is futile. It would have to be something about the constitution.

The third part has already had the case for the penalty quashed, it is the rights he had enshrined in the DoR he wants restored, and frankly so do I.
Apart from the Lord Hewart of Bury book on the new despotism around 1929, stating the argument's validity already, I am livid that my rights, hard won over hundreds of years since the Magna Carta, and this Declaration, have been quietly take from all of us. It's a matter of public interest, not a mere penalty.
Who ransomed the British subjects for a salary, is what I should like to know, but that isn't what I am asking here. The question is only the bold underlined one.

However your assertion

dls · Site Admin Joined: 10 Apr 2005 Posts: 2789

Try the idea of a civil penalty.

I feel sure I have seen this argument taken before the courts before, and that it has lost. I may well be wrong. You need to be sure.

None of us like the current systems for controlling motorists. I doubt it can be worth th eamount of money it will cost you to do what you suggest.

Tony · Joined: 02 Jul 2006 Posts: 34

Thanks for this, very grateful for your time, I am moving towards what I was focused on.

I am aware there is a distinction between the term fine, imposed after a conviction, and penalty that does not have the same consequence.

However forfeiture, is the consequence of an unpaid civil penalty or criminal fine and there lies some common ground.

My view is that the distintion fails in thrust and comes under:

Fines and penalties both belong to the class of conferring detriments, AND do not belong to the class of conferring benefits, no matter what their consequences. The same goes for forfeitures.

I have issued a without prejudice notice,in a case of my own, for harassment. I see it that if one is going to apply the law STRICTLY, as a moral bankrupt, then for the reasons they know of within themselves I don't have to explain my reasons for being vexed, as a disabled person being penalised for being 5 yards from a yellow line for just 60 seconds.

They will have crossed the boundary for vexation for me, when the NTO is served, which I have told them about. That is separate to the issue above, but it was on a related site. I am waiting for the NTO which I will represent for a number of reasons, eg: the car colour being wrong, the date of notice or issue being absent on the PCN, I know the council is rushing around rectifying this, but not in time for my one. A JR for me is a long way ahead. If you wish to verify my own case, there is a nav bar link to the 1-60 second PCN council., that should tell you, I am no where near a JR.

The issue is academic, and for me to look at personally perhaps in a year, when I have my own test. But for this colleague, whose name shall be visible very soon, I am interested in how such a contradiction may be resolved, and I don't yet see the distinction between forfeiture for either case, fine or penalty being excluded. Civil penalty is a good point however, I saw his adjudicator's hearing, BTW his is in Worcester, but the JR London. He ignored deliberately the NOT, and waited for bailiff's and defeated that attempt where th whole process had to start again. The Adjudicator's hearing allowed the appeal, but he, like myself, wants his rights removed from threat.

In conclusion I am grateful for that fine subtlety you made. I remain curious as to how the

“You always have the choice to take it to the court. If you accept it beforehand, it is strictly speaking voluntary.”

is explained. Is there one please? Very curious on that element,as I certainly don't know how.
THANK YOU once again.

I have posted up the theory behind the articles on my site, its is a complex nav to get there from the first link provided. It's at three levels, easy, a single sentence and the irrefutable argument I would be interested to see it criticised, since it is a logical contradiction that there is no formal escape from, in any world space or time. That's the simple nature of 'a priori' cognitive prcesses and the laws of thought..

Tony
_________________
Tony

Tony · Joined: 02 Jul 2006 Posts: 34

I thought I would provide the link for the argument against the RTA 1991, and for the Declaration of Rights 1668-9
This is a matter of growing public interest, and my approach is fundamentally different from standard legal procedure. I feel it should be available to your readers.
I am very interested in any cogent points in refutation, especially on the contradiction shown there.
http://www.iamtony.co.uk/TemplateLetters.html#b0
Hope you find it interesting.
Tony
_________________
Tony

theycantdothat · Joined: 17 Oct 2005 Posts: 417

I think the fundamental error you are making is that you are taking the wording of the Bill of Rights literally and not interpreting it in a historical context. It is an important document in the establishment of constitutional monarchy and part of its aim was to prevent the exercise of certain royal prerogatives without the consent of Parliament. I am not a historian, but presumably one of the abuses of royal power by the Stuarts was imposing fines without trial.

It should be noted that the tone of the Bill is virulently anti-catholic, a position that is unacceptable today. The Catholic Relief Act 1829 repealed the provisions in the Bill which prevented Catholics (and persons marrying Catholics) from taking part in government - without that change Tony Blair could not be Prime Minister and Ian Duncan Smith could never have become Prime Minister. Accordingly, it is established law that the provisions of the Bill of Rights can be amended.

Tony · Joined: 02 Jul 2006 Posts: 34

Thanks for this!
I apologise this reply is lengthy, it has to be, and it is not well ordered. I may come back to tidy later, but the essence is all here.

First I am not a historian, my competence lies elsewhere as stated, but my colleague is certainly one, and knows about this part of history exceptionally thoroughly.

There are several responses to your comments for which I am indeed grateful.

1.Concerning the meanings of terms. I beg to differ on that issue. First there is the slightest sense of a fallacy known as the 'argumentum ad hominam', because you treat a tiny issue that does not relate to the focus of the argument. I shall not pause for this. However I always find the literal meaning the one adhered to when facing a Judge, or adjudicator, or council. Now by example of my own council and a recent (2yrs ago) with Islington, is precisely that they do NOT INTERPRET the terms expressed, they invoke them precisely. It is that precision I argue with since, it costs the spirit of the law, and in my own JR case , way into the future, my council, and Islington enforced for 3.3 seconds, and 60 seconds. There are plenty or reasons for having it cancelled, but they have ignored them, and I have advised them to look in themselves for the reasons I have given them notice of harassment offences. Thus I take the view, that if they want to adhere to the law strictly for a matter of trivia in 60 seconds, I can do likewise and for far greater reasons, issue a claim for harassment of which they have already seen a draft. I prevailed in two harassment cases, one was a write of of a debt for £650, the other was immediate payment of £1650 by one of the largest world banks. This is simple, but does not relate to this case.
2.The points you make that I shall address, are I feel two.
1.You state -- taking the wording of the Bill of Rights literally and not interpreting it in a historical context.-- I think all of these titles below treat the argument against that notion
1. JUDGMENT OF LAWS L.J A MR JUSTICE CRANE 2002, para 62-3.
says ordinary statutes may be repealed Constitutional statutes MAY NOT.
2.Supporting Judgments in Seward V Vera Cruz 1884,
3.Kutner V Phillips 1891
4.West Ham Wardens V Fourth City 1892
5.Blackpool corpn V Starr Estate co Ltd, 1922
6.Birmingham City cncl V Oakley 2001. extract scanned spelling errors included. JUDGMENTS IN
Lord Hoffman •..........
7.'The words must be construed as 'always speaking' in the sense used by Lord Steyn in R -v- Ireland (1998) AC 147,158-159, I quite agree that when a statute employs a concept which may change in content with advancing knowledge, technology or social standards, it should be interpreted as it would be currently understood. The content may change but the concept remains the same. The meaning of the statutory language remains unaltered. So the concept of a vehicle has the same meaning today as it did in 1800, even though it includes methods of conveyance which would not have been imagined by a legislator in those days'....
This doctrine does not however mean that one can construe the language of an old statute to mean something conceptually different from what the contemporary evidence shows that Parliament must have intended'
3.I have enclosed below a few further extracts ( for which I can provide all the sources after this week, probably it will all be on the web anyway ), that support the view on the non repealable nature of the DoR 1668-9 which are regrettably for time, not properly ordered but address each of the points you mention save ONE. And For that I am interested, since it is unknown to me and will be investigated.
4.Your statement “it is established law that the provisions of the Bill of Rights can be amended.” everything above argues the contrary save the act you refer to in “The Catholic Relief Act 1829 repealed the provisions in the Bill which prevented Catholics .... Government” I agree here this is the case, but point out that it remains to this day that NO MONARCH can be a Catholic, just think of the Irish problem that would ensue. The view “can be amended” is fine, anything can be amended, the question is IS IT LAWFUL aand can they get away with it?
5.In conclusion, I will again thank you for the point concerning this sentence, and investigate. What I suspect may have happened is of course what has taken place in the RTA 1991. NAMELY anything can be repealed de facto, and the people that do it, hope to get away with it until such time as it is challenged, and that is where all the aforementioned cases provide compelling argument, dare I say irrefutable argument the process is patently the means to an end, and hope to get away with it. OF COURSE they will repeal anything and DO, (de facto but not de jure because precisely it is not allowed, without devastating consequence), but doing it without expressly stating it, is illegal from above. What happened, without further investigation of your reference, is what has happened here in the RTA. But because councils have become rich in revenue, at the price of being morally bankrupt is why people like my colleague and I and others are here now. As it turns out I believe my colleague is in front of the same Justice Laws or Collins as referred to above,which is going to be interesting, since his was the order that upheld non repeal,unless expressedly done, and certainly NOT impliedly. I would add, that he has been through the process of bailiff's from Northampton, and adjudicators hearings, Northampton threw the case back to the council he is in, Worcester, they began again, the adjudicator upheld his appeal. So you may ask why on earth is he, and even myself today, I trust you do see it has nothing to do with money? He has nopt paid any fine, and if I do pay 100, my councilc will have ahd to expend £1000 to get it, ans still face a court action. Its al about principle, that are a rarity today.
Also partly because I am vexed to say the least that someone or some group around 1929 ransomed the nations rights for a mere salary, and you will see this in a book “The new Despotism” by Lord Hewart of Bury in 1929 who foresaw what we have and whose argument have recently been reviewed and found to remain VALID. And the other reason is that this colleague is very very tenacious. I can tell you he drives his car without a road tax, has done so for 4 years, parks outside the police station in his area, and the police look the other way. They tried it on with him, and placed some 20 PCNs on his car, without knowing the road was unadopted. The case was thrown out,and they don't want to know him. All to do with the treason act 1848. So you have a very unusual chap in this party. In my own way I have different resources. I am equally, pursuing a case from behind the former iron curtain for 40 years, now Romania wants to get into the EU, they are finding me in their way, and I have contributed to the list of impediment to their accession, and I have only just commenced, since retirement a short while back. Anything that causes problems with the RTA in my view is an acceptable task since we have one borough where the police provide protection for wardens, and in the other they wear stab proof vests, I can provide the links if in doubt, and theres is a great deal more. Despite you comments, would it be reasonable to take the view that you would be a judge against the above motion?

Thank you. E. & O. I. Also apologies for the want of proof reading for a presentation due to time's pressure.

Tony Winter

Extracts randomly pulled out.............

The fact that the RTA 1991 contains no stated intention to repeal all or any part of the Bill of Rights – and – as I have said previously – the Declaration of Rights – which provides the Contract by which this kingdom is lawfully governed – is beyond the power of parliament to repeal!

It is a fact that the RTA 1991 is serving to create a de facto repeal of provisions made in the Declaration and Bill of Rights

Now in pursuance of the premises the said Lords Spiritual and Temporal and Commons in Parliament assembled, for the ratifying, confirming and establishing the said declaration and the articles, clauses, matters and things therein contained by the force of law made in due form by authority of Parliament, do pray that it may be declared and enacted that all and singular the rights and liberties asserted and claimed in the said declaration are the true, ancient and indubitable rights and liberties of the people of this kingdom, and so shall be esteemed, allowed, adjudged, deemed and taken to be; and that all and every the particulars aforesaid shall be firmly and strictly holden and observed as they are expressed in the said declaration, and all officers and ministers whatsoever shall serve their Majesties and their successors according to the same in all time to come.

I say that that full attention must be paid to the Judgment handed-down in the Case of Bowles –v- Bank of England (1912) – displayed in the bundle at page 91 & 92 – where it was resolved that- ‘No practice or custom, however prolonged or however acquiesced in on the part of the subject, could be relied on by the Crown as justifying an infringement of the provisions of the unrepealed Bill of Rights’

I must refer you to the Judgment of the Court of Appeal on 4th February, 1998 – in the case of Regina –v- Deegan – Case No 97/2635/X4 – and at the penultimate paragraph on the 6th Page of the Judgment - wherein it is clearly stated that HM Courts themselves may not write the legislation that they think to be reasonable!

“63 Ordinary statutes may be Impliedly repealed. Constitutional statutes may not.” *****

It is true that the courts cannot declare enacted law to be invalid: see per Lord Simon of Glaisdale in Pickin v British Railways Board at page 798F. That is because of the Sovereignty of Parliament. But Parliament itself can, if it wishes, put constraints on the extent of its own sovereignty. What it did in the 1911 Act was to provide for a new procedure whereby an Act of Parliament could be enacted and to limit to a small degree what an Act which came into existence by means of that procedure could deal with. That is not to say that the Act that results is to be regarded as delegated legislation, but merely that the sovereignty is, by decree of Parliament, subject to a limitation which must be followed. It is only if that limitation is on the face of the Act not complied with that a court can intervene; otherwise the Act is unimpeachable

***** JUPGMENT OF LAWS L.J A MR JUSTICE CRANE
18th Fcb- 2002 paras 62 &. 63
B e f o r e :

Judgment of laws 1884
LORD JUSTICE MAURICE KAY
and
MR JUSTICE COLLINS
____________________
THE QUEEN
on the application of
(1) JOHN BERNARD HAYSOM JACKSON
(2) PATRICK DOUGLAS MARTIN
(3) HARRIET MAIR HUGHES
Claimants
and
HER MAJESTY'S ATTORNEY GENERAL
_________________
Tony

Tony · Joined: 02 Jul 2006 Posts: 34

HERE IS THE SUBMISSION FOR TOMORROW. In the High Court.
Thought you might like to see it.
Thanks for all the help and comments.
TWO LINKS.

http://www.logiclaw.co.uk/arg4dor/RobinSubmit.html
http://www.logiclaw.co.uk/arg4dor/TemplateLetters.html#B0
PART OF THE EASIER TEXT

Three easy to understand sentences on this. 1. Contextual inferences, 2. Scientific methodology, 3. INESCAPABLE contradictions.

1. There are many examples, some recited above, that show the situation of civil unrest growing in direct proportions to the levy of these fines and forfeitures that are increasingly trivial in nature. The problem here is that these forfeitures grow rapidly, unchecked by any procedure or grounds that are open to reflect any mitigation that one would find in a court, and can well lead on to the total destruction or insolvency of the individual.

2. The correlation, or correspondence, or relationship, (whichever word you prefer) between the tenet, and its protection when upheld and plunder that follows when ignored is easy to see in widespread ticketing for the most trivial of offences nowadays. This of course was the very reason for its being formulated in the first place. Criminalised offences were in my view far more reasonably applied because there was no revenue to be gained, and police were humane in their decision making.

3. The contradiction however is the most important relationship, since the two in essence to the meaning of the words fines AND forfeitures before conviction cannot be placed side by side to any acceptable consistency in meaning. The one provides for the protection the other simply does NOT. The earlier unrepealable Declaration stands firmly entrenched in history, the later one has become a weapon for revenue collection on the most trivial, and leads to precisely a forfeiture I should be protected from, and have lost without my consent.

What follows from simple contradictions like this, is that one has to either uphold the Declaration, and reform the RTA, or uphold the RTA and repeal the Declaration.. The only way out of such contradictions is to simply ignore them, and allow the breaches to continue fueling civil unrest, or address the necessary reforms in the RTA by way of the Law Commission's act 1965, as a matter of great urgency.

All this is a matter of public concern, but quite separate from my own personal situation where I remain, as a fervently law abiding man, with a threat to my property in that I regard these rights as my property. I need that threat removed permanently, and this is the present plea for its return.

A long single sentence. The Middle one.......

1. For your Lordships kind attention and indulgence, I would like to refer to a short treatise on the matter that investigates and shows very clearly argued insights into the entire problem I have placed before you. This includes a thorough going analysis using three formal disciplines well known in their fields. I propose to provide a simple example first and rely on the argument by analogy providing the more technical terms for these disciplines. In a sentence, your lordships, with reliance on sound reasoning, formal logic, and scientific methodology;

2. There are reliable contextual inferences concerning the RTA that show unacceptable and reprehensible conduct; also between it and the Declaration of Rights, there is an inescapable formal contradiction that may not be left unaddressed, and finally the scientific methodology of causes shows clear nomic*correlations of deplorable plunder after the protection from fines & forfeitures has been breached, and for the very reason it was introduced in the first place.

3. Fines and forfeitures are not merely illegal,and contrary to the express tenet of the Declaration of Rights, but any single instance from the following recital, is simply criminal without even close inspection, because it is at the forefront of trivia and inhumanity in the entire system of almost total disregard to the spirit of the law, or does that not matter any longer?

Tony
_________________
Tony

Tony · Joined: 02 Jul 2006 Posts: 34

The conclusion for THIS case!

Today's JR application comment.

These are my personal views, I am certain the other three parties views will and should differ, and the press release may be entirely different by way of interpretation of what took place.

I have said in earlier threads, here or elsewhere in anticipation of this hearing.

FULL MANY A FLOWER IS BORN TO BLUSH UNSEEN, and full many an argument will fall by the wayside. Today was an example of precisely that.

Robin gave a fine performance, but alas my arguments were no where to be heard, I say alas because in my view, the judge was up the the level required in comprehension of an incisive statement deliverable in 5-10 minutes. With only 30 minutes on hand, allowing for exchanges, there is no more than 15 minutes of delivery time. No time to even read out the presentation Robin had worked so hard.

I think at this juncture, those interested will have read the text of some 90 lines or so, and the purpose has been accomplished in placing the results on the record.

All the text is part of ongoing and developing material that will now move to the links provided, and I leave you with this thought from our arguably greatest writer ever.

I repeat what I have said on my site and elsewhere.

Where the sense in it remains as truth does, true to the end of reckoning............

He who the sword of heaven will bear
Should be as holy as severe;
Pattern in himself to know,
Grace to stand, and virtue go;
More nor less to others paying
Than by self-offences weighing.
Shame to him whose cruel striking
Kills for faults of his own liking!
Twice treble shame on Angelo,
To weed my vice and let his grow.

Do you see? They weed our offences and let theirs grow.
I shall have more to say on this, when going over my notes.
Anthony
_________________
Tony

Vic · Joined: 31 Dec 2005 Posts: 194

Tony · Joined: 02 Jul 2006 Posts: 34

Thanks for this!
Yes it is Amen for my involvement, The appellant is now mounting an appeal.
I am involved in my own case, seeking a remedy for an enforcement that is based on the principle of giving a ticket "as soon as seen" earning the council the title "the 0-60 seconds council".
In general most councils break some laws in enforcing theirs. Hence the quote, 'they weed our vice and let theirs grow'.
That's where some counter weeding is set to take place. My council now have traversed the alerted second offence of harassment, apart from derogation in tort, manufacturing synthetic falsities, witholding information that may be prejudicial to their case, et al.
This will be a useful exercise in not laying down and being driven over. You see we're not allowed to stop, so if an obstacle is in our path, one has to run over it to comply with the law!!!!
I wonder how many people here really mind about it, I guess most are perfectly happy in the schadenfreude of seeing others picked off, and moving on with a resignation to the inevitability of decline and detritus in conduct as the world slides into pollution in mind, body and soul.
Tony.
My site will carry updates on the above, anything of importance, I will provide a snippet.
_________________
Tony

Tony · Joined: 02 Jul 2006 Posts: 34

I have provided a small piece of logic for the sceptic or fresher on the irrefutable argument on the contradiction between the DoR 1668 and the RTA 1991.

Also provided for those who I am sure think this chap is mad.

For me it is simply black and white, for many it appears to be:

“though the truth of it stands off as gross As black and white, my eye will scarcely see it”. Hen V.

The two links are here.

http://www.logiclaw.co.uk/arg4dor/TemplateLetters.html#Log1
http://www.forceofdestiny.co.uk/Literature/Questor/Logic.html

This is certainly NOT over yet unless there is a clear cut view of THE CORRECT label in sense and reference as to what's going on..........

Anthony
_________________
Tony

theycantdothat · Joined: 17 Oct 2005 Posts: 417

The rules of formal logic do not really have a place in the interpretation of legal texts. Logic is concerned with the validity of arguments. Legal texts do not take the form of arguments. Formal logic is concerned with the meaning of words "on the page", whilst the interpretation of legal texts often has to struggle with the meaning behind the words. In logic the meaning of "and" and "or" is clear; in legal texts "and" may have to be construed as disjunctive and " or" as conjunctive in order to determine the intention of the drafstman. The more obvious meaning of a sentence may have to be set aside and a less obvious meaning attributed to it if the more obvious meaning is inconsistent with the rest of the text. Extrinsic evidence may be admitted. Whilst there are rules to interpret legal texts, of necessity they have to have some flexibilty.

dls · Site Admin Joined: 10 Apr 2005 Posts: 2789

Tony,

Can I please make a suggestion which may hurt, but which will I am sure serve you in the long run.

Forget the rhetoric.

Your arguments work or do not work. They are nt improved by being called irrefutable. Any court would hear you a mile off, and cringe.

It will listen to what you say. If you are lucky, it will be polite.

It will then throw away three quarters of your words as you enjoying yourself, and look at what is left - an argument in law. You will have tested its patience severely.

Read Rumpole. Rhetoric is for juries. It only annoys judges.