Code: ctzreate
swarb.co home
swarb.co.uk
Law discussion forum (UK)
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

INSIGHT! Entire procedure,misconduct from PCN to Court 28/04
Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    swarb.co.uk Forum Index -> Road Traffic Law
Visit lawindexpro

 
 
 
 
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
Tony



Joined: 02 Jul 2006
Posts: 121

PostPosted: Fri Jan 18, 2008 1:51 pm    Post subject: INSIGHT! Entire procedure,misconduct from PCN to Court 28/04 Reply with quote

Caught!

UPDATED Mon, 28 Jan 2008 11:19:43 SEE BOTTOM OF PAGE.

INSIGHT! CAMDEN council.
The 60 seconds that put them under notice inviting them to a 'caught'!
This case; one of about six coming, that will be linked at the main site index, is a detailed hold-your-hand through the entire Road Traffic Act 1991, Parking Adjudicators - PATAS, Traffic Enforcement TEC, and the Local County Court.

The council’s derogation of essential parts of it, along with their their own code of conduct., used as a distraction, further the interests of revenue, ahead of principles of Truth, Tort, Justice and Fairness, by means of incentivised, and wholesale manufacture of opportunism to confer SUBTRACTIONS described as ‘AWARDS’. One; of many, consequences is that the increased power, re-labelled as ‘authority’ influences each court it comes in contact with, in a manner that compromises that court’s integrity also.

At each stage of the process; referred to by PATAS reviews et al, as a scheme; OED 5b. A plan of action devised in order to attain some end; a purpose together with a system of measures contrived for its accomplishment; a project, enterprise. Often with unfavourable notion, a self-seeking or an underhand project,

FIVE INCONTROVERTIBLE SELF CONTRADICTIONS in just ONE LETTER alone; others following, up to 12 contrarieties in that same single page letter. Why this case being placed in the public Domain? It is an ongoing process whose causal determinants belong to the council, as former defendant; tacitly consenting by way of failure in response to an invitation to resolve.

Then look at the second page and SEE EXACTLY how a Charge certificate is manufactured in a false cause, by ECONOMIC and economic truth that implies falsity. The council have expressly decided to not resolve the issue, and tacitly consented to the move to publish all. Those exchanges will be printed to show how and why.

The case is complex, only two letters of about twelve are seen at this time. If people cannot understand the details in logic, and disambiguation reasoning. then IT IS NOT FOR THEM.
Direct link
http://www.logiclaw.co.uk/Injustice/
The second page in this case has been posted, The fraudulent charge certificate that manufactures commissions by way of omissions. HOW it is done exactly.
The main link; that should be read first is
the two newer pages are
http://www.logiclaw.co.uk/Injustice/l1.html
and
http://www.logiclaw.co.uk/Injustice/l2.html
Old Menu link here....
http://www.logiclaw.co.uk/cmp_abs/index.html

The second case; known at http://www.twtanb.co.uk,/ is set to be increased in the exchanges that took place in and out of court with the court with the staff at Camden, and with the MP. Other cases will be pinned to the main menu later, this is a lengthy task in the unravelling, given the time alloted for such a thing that ought to not even exist.

Sorry I am inadequately available at the present time to comment on replies, PLEASE, IF ITS NOT FOR YOU, THEN DON'T READ IT. It's intended to unravel and show truths about what is going on behind the countenance of moral rectitude and probity that all is not what it seems to be, and is presented as. The whole sequence relies mainly on self contradictions, so it is an examination of how the parking laws are being used to manufacture revenue in false cause actions.

What you will see at this stage is the allegations, claim, indefensible false representations, truths and proofs, with the Judges comments AT the short two hour hearing.

The other cases coming are of a similar nature, and in one case, a large nationally known courier, the monitoring has gone on for months, and shows procedural improprieties are rife.

For the new statutory legislation on parking the link for them is here. http://www.logiclaw.co.uk/Acts/acts.html

The New Road Traffic Acts 2007. There are several useful parts in two new procedures for appeals, but generally the new loosening of issuing tickets for DRIVING, (away it is suggested) while parking are the major new change giving licence to errant peccant wardens and councils to increase incentivised issue of PCNs, for trivia, while trivialising their own improprieties, the new nice name for offences.

APOLOGIES for any infelicities in advance, there is considerable material to publish, and no hurry whatsoever. This has its pressures as well as being distateful, so any errors please forgive with some little tolerance. This is intended to help and clarify. It has no doubt its imperfections, just like the daft drafts we are looking at which are not quite so daft considering their design and purpose that is perfectly clear.

For those whose views take the path, THIS IS TOO LONG, and BREVITY IS THE SOUL OF WIT, it is suggested they take a short equation, E=MC2, and explain it in ten words, OR explain in ten words why for example a court case can't be properly summed up in 5 words, but gets published in pages of justifications. Then take a book of law, and ask why anyone bothered to publish its 400 pages when a word to the wise will suffice. Verbum satis sapientis. Then take to task the man who wrote 'brevity is the souls of wit' Shakespeare, and reason in ten words why he wrote 38 pieces and couldn't do it in a sentence.

It is hoped, but not expected, this will be useful to those who are at the wrong end of. “Ignorance of the law is no s excuse.”


Sat, 26 Jan 2008 15:14:03

The site has been updated, two sections,

[b]Contributors Pages, look at Barry Moss's contributions.[/b]

http://www.logiclaw.co.uk/pages/index.html
And

More detail, with added exchanges, so far this is about 10% of the case material. Direct links for each letter, are at the top of the page.
http://www.logiclaw.co.uk/Injustice/

Main Index.
The FIVE / TEN MINUTE READ first INSIGHT
Sections 1-intro. 2-issues. 3-claim. 4-The letters, 5 Judge. 6-NON-Compliance args, Background

[b]1.A letter about mid-way in the case traversal; where early signs of malfeasance were apprehended and anticipated, had now become incontrovertibly crystallised..[/b]
a.CLICK here to see the letter that was the half way mad house in the affair.

[b]2.The Trigger Charge Certificate that lead to the allegation of wilful offenses & breaches of statute.[/b]
a.If you have read the first then go on and look at the fraudulent Charge certificate.

[b]3.How do you make a determination of favour or disfavour under a statute? This; disability, was more difficult, since it required a judgement of comparison, others were far far simpler. [/b]
a.We take the Disability Discriminations Act 2005. Just one page to read.

In proving the breaches of each statute, the course of conduct was monitored and recorded  meticulously, each arose in a series of letters that showed incontrovertible logical inconsistencies.
Logical contradictions, contrarieties, sub contrarieties and other formal disciples, will show the reasoning applied by the council's top team of 21st century lawyers was irrational throughout.  
Where a contradiction was identified; far too obviously and easily, it determined and proved in most respects acts of constructive fraud. Where a contradiction exists, the two assertions entail each other's falsity. Meaning where revenue was behind the agenda of an action, it rendered that action as Fraud, within the meaning of the Fraud Act 2006, Section Fraud by false representation.
There was no way out of the impasse, that is why the legal team were replaced with a new team coming to court, to play the new game of not being aware, and palliating a litany of breaches as a slight imperfection of the system.

One letter alone, filled with 'admit nothing deny everything' philosophy with at least 7 contradictions.
The full original letter, see exhibit 1, the essential textual components. The original reply. The causal antecedents.


There's more now and worse to come.

The post has been updated with what I hope is to many a simple exposition of the law of non contradiction in its formal setting, as part of a far wider and more complex calculus of logic that is a very exact science.

This may receive small embellishments, but will not be take much further as most may find it a strain.

The logic is explained in rudimentary form at http://www.logiclaw.co.uk/Injustice/#log

The rounding off in the clear and proven comparison of trashing the Disability Discrimination Act is done here below, in clauses 3 and 4. One could say it wasn't trashed but upheld, where discrimination was against not in favour, a nice interpretation for the deceivers, not the believer.

http://www.logiclaw.co.uk/Injustice/#let1

How do you make a determination of favour or disfavour under a statute? This; disability,  was more difficult, since it required a judgement of comparison, others were far far simpler.
a.We take the Disability Discriminations Act 2005. Just one page to read.

Now the farce gets deeper, It's June 2006, the case hasn't yet got under way. I warned them a claim was going to come if they didn't stop, sending them a draft to take notice. They warned me that they Fully uphold statutes, in their repLIE. The disability Discriminations Act was already in tatters, there was more to come. THEY wanted their £50, and I had sent them £100 saying OK I am buying the whole package up front, forget the discount. By now I had exchanges with about six different people, NONE were a match for logic. They weren't thinking, trained to do, not think Observe how they assert what they deny in an earlier letter.

b.We are going to enforce for 60 seconds, AND we fully uphold the Disability Act.


The floor is clear for the readers and kind gentlemen.
_________________
Tony


Last edited by Tony on Mon Apr 28, 2008 4:56 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Tony



Joined: 02 Jul 2006
Posts: 121

PostPosted: Thu Jan 31, 2008 9:38 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

The new index, additional material.
Not for the faint hearted here.....
Link at the end

Main Index Sections
1 - The Introduction.
2 - The Issues.
3 - The Claim.
4 - The Letters, Bold red highlighting indicates this is on the site and available.

A.Five to ten contrarieties and contradictions in a single letter, impossible to controvert.
B.The Fraudulent Charge Certificate impossible to controvert.
C.The Disability Discrimination Act comparing two cases. Discrimination against for 60 seconds......
D.The Disability Discrimination Act thrown in the bin while fully upholding it? How does one do that?
E.A contrariety in a bungled single sentence, clarifying to the claimant what they are themselves confused about. Turning down the £100 bonus.
While telling the claimant they are legally obliged to follow procedure and breaking it while saying it. Warning the claimant the adjudicator's decision is binding, but ensuring he never go top talk to one. Another farce.
F.The allegation in probability theory and logic, suggesting the letter was lost by temporal choreography, and admitting not sent out, typical.
G.Cancelling the Charge Certificate without so much as an apology. Call it retreat with damage limitation.
H.The letter saying 'it has come to their attention' the Charge was issued out of procedure under the RTA 1991 Schedule 6. Farce. Clearly I hadn't told them in at least 6 exchanges, they found out by accident and were putting it all right, how magnificent. Wonderful spin.
I.Hanging on the the bitter end for the PCN charge. They still wanted it?
J.Locked up Freedom of Information letters with a key admission buried in two pages of text hoping the claimant was blind as well as disabled.
K.A spin neuro linguistic spin letter cancelling the PCN in the everlasting present continuous.....Amusing
L.Lawyers invited to court, running for cover under the vicarious umbrella of the 'barking solutions depart-meant.'
M.The letter advising that the claim issued in the county court was a letter seeking reassurance at the alter of the Gods. Lost in translation spin.
N.Two collateral letters from the housing department coincidentally pulling teeth to evict the claimant from his garage, under threat of payment delinquency WHILE he was in credit £200 farce. Collateral bullying that 's of course not vexation, never say that.
O.The same letter advising that the Council would NOT expect the claimant to suffer harassment during and while he exercised his rights. Not a joke.
P.Missing letters in the post, A second time, blaming the post office, double indemnity, and spinning like a top, and backdating the whole thing.
Q.The special ontological spin analytic argument that was supposed to provide grounds for the strike out.
R.Palliation and extenuation in the hearing,
S.The TWO word expose of the spin neuro linguistic truth statement concerning backdating to the silence of the Judge and the lawyers.
T.The null claim that then concluded as claim left at the court for £1 million if the claimant's life threatening weight loss had not stopped.
U.Letters to the councillors, MP, and CEO, all showing admit nothing deny everything philosophy.
V.More to come, the possession order for a property that had to be worth some £50 million pounds, collateral cases, common purpose and more.

5 - The Judges Comments.
6 - Non-Compliance arguments,
7 - The Background
8 – Propositional Logic
HOW to disambiguate with laws of thought and logic,-- incontrovertibly. The ONLY tool of 19-30 disciplines to disambiguate spin.

The Camden Council Code of Conduct
1 Introductions 3
2 Definitions 4
3 Purpose of the code of conduct 5
4 Key Principles 7
5 General Conduct Obligations 8
6 Conflicts of Interest 10
7 Personal Benefit 13
8 Relationship between Council Officials 15
9 Access to information and council resources 17
10 Reporting breaches, complaint handling procedures & sanctions 20
11 Councillor misbehaviour 22

The play within a play, Hamlet, the Farce. And a double wammy in 'contradictio in adiecto.'

PAUSE THEIR MOROCCO (Merchant of Venice) HANG ON ...... Am I getting muddled up OR are they muddled up, trying hard to muddle ME up....... WORK IT OUT.

1.the authority sending a Notice to Owner to the registered keeper of the vehicle
2.This means that a Notice to Owner cannot be issued to the Registered Keeper.

I GIVE UP. You try it out.

http://www.logiclaw.co.uk/Injustice/

YES indeed, hope there are no broken records here...
_________________
Tony
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
FH06URY



Joined: 24 Jan 2007
Posts: 1568
Location: South (UK)

PostPosted: Thu Jan 31, 2008 10:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Any chance of an "executive summary"? 2 short paras should do!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ncmoody



Joined: 02 Oct 2007
Posts: 164
Location: Worcester, England

PostPosted: Thu Jan 31, 2008 10:52 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Tony, where did you learn English.

Ferenganar, Cardassia Prime or is it a literal translation for the original Klingon?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Tony



Joined: 02 Jul 2006
Posts: 121

PostPosted: Fri Feb 01, 2008 12:24 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Thank you for these!

Quote:
1.Any chance of an "executive summary"? 2 short paras should do!
2.Tony, where did you learn English.
Ferenganar, Cardassia Prime or is it a literal translation for the original Klingon?


Regrettably clearly "your sense pursues not mine", care to look it; and the remainder to the couplet up MfM Angelo to Isabella.

Here's betting you don't like the answers.

Is this short enough?...... One line. BOTH answer can be taken in a variety of lengths, to the short and sleightful even those with a mote in the mind's eye on my failings, that are very many...just read answers 1.........and quit.

1.....Entire procedure,misconduct from PCN to Court – CAUGHT. If not for some, leave it alone.

OR 2......slightly longer, as said already, a complex case, cannot be explained in a short E=Mc2, that is the foundation of a CERN, the world's largest particle physics laboratory. This of course is much much simpler......

Its' like the SHORT story in part 1 of 5, that enlarges as it gets worse........The MP who recently mis-appropriated just £13K, then it rose to £260k, then over 3 yrs to about £1.2 million, and he gets a nice holiday for two years on full pay, yet another £280k while many fine very hard working people, give their guts to be delivered such a mental derogation in neuro linguistic misdirects and semantics, the public mental health bill is now into billions. That simple. Mis-appropriate IS NOT equal to embezzlemeant tonights BBC , or even Theft. FOR SOME who do two hours work a day....


OR 3..... Part I of the RTA 1991, and the readers are being taken through its major areas of abuse to the public, in minute detail, is below, it could be that long, after all you chaps here must be able to read those, so what's the problem, see its length below? Even councils presumably are aware of it, although they are blissfully not aware of their own code of conduct.

Quote:
1.Tony, where did you learn English.
Ferenganar, Cardassia Prime or is it a literal translation for the original Klingon?[/


The short reply....
1.....
If you find ENGLISH from the OED like any of the above languages, then you should acquire the larger OED not the pocket book size, the words I use are in't for certain, Apologies if you don't recognise my country's language.... although I make spelling mistakes and typos, this is hardly a degree course.

Or 2......IF you had cared to read any of the deposed material you would have come across the Cv's of myself Wife,and Son Total 5 formal degrees, 2 informal, and capable of acquitting ourselves on the the remaining topics reasonably well, but of course NOT remotely competent in other disciplines...... nearly as well as those , albeit also fluent in several foreign languages. Does that answer your question honourable kind sir?


OR 3......I have been accused of using obtuse language often, I have the right, and licence myself to speak as I find fit.. Those are my standards.

If you wish to consider the analogous argument; I posted elsewhere in response to an appeal to obscurantism, then like such appeals as

Appeal to Pity
Appeal to Ridicule
Appeal to Spite
Appeal to Derision,
and others like
Appeal to Incomprehensibility, Do consider....
( so next time you watch a film in Japanese, like 'The Throne of Blood', perhaps not understanding the language there), you will prefer to criticise that author too because you failed to understand his Japanese.

http://www.forceofdestiny.co.uk/Fallacies.html
Mostly cut and paste from here on.

OR 4....... Qualifications below.

This part has been edited; those intended to see it will have so done, and as I do not like to place such material of a private nature too openly. It remains where it has always been at the site links given in some posts, where context is more apposite. The qualifications in the list were 11 lines shortened to.
Son, Music Scholar at TWO cathedrals, and one famous school on organ, piano violin, singing, with BSC, ON PGTC, with a new Academy beginning this year. Wife, two formal degrees, 5 other disciples, one informally at the level of a degree. Myself, two formal degrees, 5 other disciples, two informally at the level of a degree.

Where did you learn your English and Etiquette kind sir....???

1.A short or long answer is fine by me.
2. Where context precedes percept; 
an idea I derived from Shakespeare and Empson, I assure you I can read a world of meaning in one word, but two are much much better. I exposed complete perjury in the court, in two, showing cognitive dissonance in an economic truth statement..... with the lawyers and Judge listening in silence. Not a sign of controversion.... The case ended.... Their not wishing me to traverse the full case..


The RTA to compare what is in store, at every stage almost pure farce.
The abuse list could even be this long...............AND the council are in agreement that I exercise the right to impart, and receive such info, EVEN MORE AMAZING isn't it?

OR 5.... The LONG answer on INSIGHT CAUGHT.....
General

Driving offences
The long list; over 90 lines, that was here, has been replaced by the url.

http://www.logiclaw.co.uk/Acts/RTA1991/roadtraffic1/www.hmso.gov.uk/acts/acts1991/Ukpga_19910040_en_1.htm
_________________
Tony


Last edited by Tony on Sun Feb 03, 2008 6:31 pm; edited 3 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ncmoody



Joined: 02 Oct 2007
Posts: 164
Location: Worcester, England

PostPosted: Fri Feb 01, 2008 10:38 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

One thing is for sure Tony.

You should see someone about your bout of verbal diarrhoea !

As for your English, I have no problem with the words, just the way you string them together.

Quote:
OR 3......I have been accused of using obtuse language often, I have the right, and licence myself to speak as I find fit.. Those are my standards.


Same as applies to me, I think! or should I say "what's sauce for the Goose..."
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
theycantdothat



Joined: 17 Oct 2005
Posts: 1102

PostPosted: Fri Feb 01, 2008 12:26 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

ncmoody wrote:
As for your English, I have no problem with the words, just the way you string them together.


That is my feeling, except that I would go further and say, on the whole, I do not have too much of a problem with the sentences, but the way you string them together. It is not length that is a problem with your posts or the vocabulary you use, but that despite their prolixity, your posts come over as elliptical. I find this frustrating as I know you have important points to make, but there is little point in making them if you make them in a way that no one (and that includes a few lawyers who ought to be able to understand) can understand. Several people have now come forward to say that they can make no sense of your posts. I know that that is no proof that they are incomprehensible, but I urge you to consider that you may get more response if you write in a more amenable style suitable to a forum intended for the general reader who does not have the benefit of your wide ranging and impressive educational achievements.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Tony



Joined: 02 Jul 2006
Posts: 121

PostPosted: Fri Feb 01, 2008 1:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Well what a nice response. As expected, and I did say you won't like my answer. And expected you to not answer my question.

Quote:
You should see someone about your bout of verbal diarrhoea !


Typical fallacy of appeal to derision! An unsound argument. Not one at all, just a piece of sound bite for effect.

Clearly you had a serious problem of reading the short list of fallacies I gave you, and trod straight into one of the 'pats' you were shown to avoid.

Quote:
As for your English, I have no problem with the words


So what was the argument about foreign languages as in Ferenganar, Cardassia that clearly you profess to be an expert in, and couldn't understand plain OED English, with a spice of play on words.

Quote:
no problem with the words just the way you string them together.


Means you have a problem with the way I string them together. IE, you likely don't like my manner also.

To resolve that problem, I suggest you take a course in syntax, double entendre, quips, puns, and general manners, add a pinch of the semantic conception of truth, then a course of examining the meaning of meaning in a brief refresher of logic.

Quote:
Same as applies to me, I think!


WHAT? Not sure?

Well compare the language of “bout of verbal diarrhoea !”
and look for similarities in my arguments. If you don't find any then the analogy fails , as it has, sorry.

When constructing an analogy you will need to ensure the properties on either side of the equation meet the requirement of sufficiency in significant values that make them 'type members' of the class of inferencing.

Such fun to play with words.

If that was the analogy you were relying on, then you usurped my standards to your own reproof without providing grounds for your standards (Ferenganar, Cardassia) being remotely of similar kind to mine.


Quote:
should I say "what's sauce for the Goose..."


Not in this case as I have just shown you the analogy doesn't hold.

If I am the goose, using OED, literature, and Shakespeare's language, then I hope you will see that your
Quote:
Ferenganar, Cardassia Prime or is it a literal translation for the original Klingon?


Is the 'sauce' precisely. I wonder if you got that point, If not then we can all wait and as I have said before;

Look, he's winding up the watch of his wit; by
and by it will strike.

I am out for the day, I won't waste time in the waiting either for the strike or the answer to the question.

Play on words, such fun ! You have a nice day,

Quote:
Several people have now come forward to say that they can make no sense of your posts. I know that that is no proof that they are incomprehensible, but I urge you to consider that you may get more response if you write in a more amenable style suitable to a forum intended for the general reader who does not have the benefit of your wide ranging and impressive educational achievements.


This I think is a nice point well put, honestly with reasoned argument, and taken.

The term 'several' however is equally distributed by the obverse in views, hence refuted in its equilibrium.

Thus I can controvert it, by saying that among those who do not understand; and snipe, those who do, pay the converse in compliments.

Notwithstanding that, my posts here, and those I have touched on, have been read by a total of some 32,000 reads, for about 8 threads. I see I may be controversial, and don't mind the dialectic for it's purposes, but point taken.

Perhaps I should say I prefer to write for a more specific audience, where strict adherence to rules that are arbitrary shows a sheepish compliance, and generosity of spirit is a quality hard to find.

Nice to exchange reasoned language with you, after what has gone before.

Apologies for typo's, and infelicities, as usual.
_________________
Tony


Last edited by Tony on Fri Feb 01, 2008 6:52 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
dls
Site Admin


Joined: 10 Apr 2005
Posts: 5822

PostPosted: Fri Feb 01, 2008 2:27 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Tony,

If you post for your own pleasure, fine. If you want to persuade other people of something, you have to make your posts legible to them. They are not.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
PeterM24



Joined: 12 Jan 2006
Posts: 1606

PostPosted: Fri Feb 01, 2008 2:40 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

***** DELETED

Last edited by PeterM24 on Fri Feb 22, 2008 7:46 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ncmoody



Joined: 02 Oct 2007
Posts: 164
Location: Worcester, England

PostPosted: Fri Feb 01, 2008 5:04 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

dls wrote:
Tony,

.....you have to make your posts legible to them. They are not.


Thank you dls, I was beginning to think I was on my own.


The pity of all this is that from what I have been able to 'wade' through Tony may have something interesting to say.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Tony



Joined: 02 Jul 2006
Posts: 121

PostPosted: Fri Feb 01, 2008 8:59 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Tony,
If you post for your own pleasure, fine. If you want to persuade other people of something, you have to make your posts legible to them. They are not.


Quote:
If you post for your own pleasure, fine.


Yes I do AND also I post to show people what is happening around and to them, by presenting FACTS written by an elected council, called AUTHORITY, and showing how those we elect treat us.

I let them judge if the bulk of my comments are incontrovertible; as I say they are, NOBODY has done so. It would be nice if someone said TONY I found NO contrarieties or contradictions and explained to me how they arrived at their conclusions. WHEN they examine the evidence and quote the phrases.

Quote:
If you want to persuade all other people of something, you have to make your posts legible to them.


NO I rarely if ever try to persuade.

Please don't misunderstand this, It involves responsibilities one should be careful of. Governments persuade and that's more than enough highly questionable responsibility (having in mind WMD and NONE found with lives lost) for all of us to swallow.

I refer you to Oscar Wilde Picture of Dorian Gray, Chap 2, "There is no such thing as a good influence, Mr. Gray. All influence is immoral--immoral from the scientific point of view." I think this has value.

Quote:
make you posts legible. They are not.


Presumably you speak here for 'other people'.

This is easily verified.

I suggest for a period of say 7-10 days, all those people who DON'T understand what I have said, write in to this post, QUOTING what they don't understand, and I will
explain, say every 48 hours, giving others a chance to do so before me. AND see if you speak for all of the 'other people'.
.
I can already take on board that PeterM24 and ncmoody to begin with, DONT.

Although ncmoody's last post suggests he has altered his stance.

To re-iterate, I am happy to explain if they quote what they refer to, and after giving others a chance to do so first, I will step forward and clarify what remains obscure.
Quote:

I dont have the strength to read them...thats the problem! Tony do you copy and paste...or are you an extremely quick typer?


I am a quick typist, and where I cut and paste it's either fairly obvious or I stated so, please refer back to the link in the previous answer, you will see I said
Quote:
Mostly cut and paste from here on.

I answered it, you asked a question already answered.

If you also note I did say a number of times, it is NOT for some, they should read other posts. Clearly it's not for you, as you say, which with respect is suggested as your problem rather than THE problem, since you declared you have not the strength.

All were warned to leave it if it caused problems. If people don't head a warning then they are likely in for a bout of 'Aristotelian justice that can remain unexplained at this point, being of little import.


I made it simple, saying

Quote:
The case is complex

Quote:
Not for the faint hearted here.....

Quote:
If people cannot understand the details in logic, and disambiguation reasoning. then IT IS NOT FOR THEM.

Please check back...

Quote:
Thank you dls, I was beginning to think I was on my own.
The pity of all this is that from what I have been able to 'wade' through Tony may have something interesting to say.


This appears to be a change of heart, please refer to what has been said above, and let's all see what is so incomprehensible. While I say that Logic has been my own special discipline for many many years, the language there IS more like a calculus so in that respect I see why it may be difficult for some, but cannot be altered, only explained.

I am expecting a flood of posts as to what is not understood.
_________________
Tony
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Bakedalasker



Joined: 06 Nov 2006
Posts: 1067
Location: South France

PostPosted: Fri Feb 01, 2008 9:14 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I reckon I'm in the majority here. I just ignore his posts for reasons mentioned by the other posters. Tony obviously is committed to his cause whatever that is. He lost me with it through his communication techniques. Add to the fact he also get judgemental on other users who oppose his arguments.

He is beyond me.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Woolfy



Joined: 16 May 2006
Posts: 357

PostPosted: Fri Feb 01, 2008 9:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I have several clients like Tony. They make me want to hang myself.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
SALGADO INVESTIGATIONS



Joined: 14 Jun 2007
Posts: 552
Location: CROYDON, SURREY

PostPosted: Sat Feb 02, 2008 12:05 am    Post subject: Re: INSIGHT! Entire procedure,misconduct from PCN to Court 2 Reply with quote

Tony wrote:
Caught!

UPDATED Mon, 28 Jan 2008 11:19:43 SEE BOTTOM OF PAGE.

INSIGHT! CAMDEN council.
The 60 seconds that put them under notice inviting them to a 'caught'!
This case; one of about six coming, that will be linked at the main site index, is a detailed hold-your-hand through the entire Road Traffic Act 1991, Parking Adjudicators - PATAS, Traffic Enforcement TEC, and the Local County Court.

The council’s derogation of essential parts of it, along with their their own code of conduct., used as a distraction, further the interests of revenue, ahead of principles of Truth, Tort, Justice and Fairness, by means of incentivised, and wholesale manufacture of opportunism to confer SUBTRACTIONS described as ‘AWARDS’. One; of many, consequences is that the increased power, re-labelled as ‘authority’ influences each court it comes in contact with, in a manner that compromises that court’s integrity also.

At each stage of the process; referred to by PATAS reviews et al, as a scheme; OED 5b. A plan of action devised in order to attain some end; a purpose together with a system of measures contrived for its accomplishment; a project, enterprise. Often with unfavourable notion, a self-seeking or an underhand project,

FIVE INCONTROVERTIBLE SELF CONTRADICTIONS in just ONE LETTER alone; others following, up to 12 contrarieties in that same single page letter. Why this case being placed in the public Domain? It is an ongoing process whose causal determinants belong to the council, as former defendant; tacitly consenting by way of failure in response to an invitation to resolve.

Then look at the second page and SEE EXACTLY how a Charge certificate is manufactured in a false cause, by ECONOMIC and economic truth that implies falsity. The council have expressly decided to not resolve the issue, and tacitly consented to the move to publish all. Those exchanges will be printed to show how and why.

The case is complex, only two letters of about twelve are seen at this time. If people cannot understand the details in logic, and disambiguation reasoning. then IT IS NOT FOR THEM.
Direct link
http://www.logiclaw.co.uk/Injustice/
The second page in this case has been posted, The fraudulent charge certificate that manufactures commissions by way of omissions. HOW it is done exactly.
The main link; that should be read first is
the two newer pages are
http://www.logiclaw.co.uk/Injustice/l1.html
and
http://www.logiclaw.co.uk/Injustice/l2.html
Old Menu link here....
http://www.logiclaw.co.uk/cmp_abs/index.html

The second case; known at http://www.twtanb.co.uk,/ is set to be increased in the exchanges that took place in and out of court with the court with the staff at Camden, and with the MP. Other cases will be pinned to the main menu later, this is a lengthy task in the unravelling, given the time alloted for such a thing that ought to not even exist.

Sorry I am inadequately available at the present time to comment on replies, PLEASE, IF ITS NOT FOR YOU, THEN DON'T READ IT. It's intended to unravel and show truths about what is going on behind the countenance of moral rectitude and probity that all is not what it seems to be, and is presented as. The whole sequence relies mainly on self contradictions, so it is an examination of how the parking laws are being used to manufacture revenue in false cause actions.

What you will see at this stage is the allegations, claim, indefensible false representations, truths and proofs, with the Judges comments AT the short two hour hearing.

The other cases coming are of a similar nature, and in one case, a large nationally known courier, the monitoring has gone on for months, and shows procedural improprieties are rife.

For the new statutory legislation on parking the link for them is here. http://www.logiclaw.co.uk/Acts/acts.html

The New Road Traffic Acts 2007. There are several useful parts in two new procedures for appeals, but generally the new loosening of issuing tickets for DRIVING, (away it is suggested) while parking are the major new change giving licence to errant peccant wardens and councils to increase incentivised issue of PCNs, for trivia, while trivialising their own improprieties, the new nice name for offences.

APOLOGIES for any infelicities in advance, there is considerable material to publish, and no hurry whatsoever. This has its pressures as well as being distateful, so any errors please forgive with some little tolerance. This is intended to help and clarify. It has no doubt its imperfections, just like the daft drafts we are looking at which are not quite so daft considering their design and purpose that is perfectly clear.

For those whose views take the path, THIS IS TOO LONG, and BREVITY IS THE SOUL OF WIT, it is suggested they take a short equation, E=MC2, and explain it in ten words, OR explain in ten words why for example a court case can't be properly summed up in 5 words, but gets published in pages of justifications. Then take a book of law, and ask why anyone bothered to publish its 400 pages when a word to the wise will suffice. Verbum satis sapientis. Then take to task the man who wrote 'brevity is the souls of wit' Shakespeare, and reason in ten words why he wrote 38 pieces and couldn't do it in a sentence.

It is hoped, but not expected, this will be useful to those who are at the wrong end of. “Ignorance of the law is no s excuse.”


Sat, 26 Jan 2008 15:14:03

The site has been updated, two sections,

Contributors Pages, look at Barry Moss's contributions.

http://www.logiclaw.co.uk/pages/index.html
And

More detail, with added exchanges, so far this is about 10% of the case material. Direct links for each letter, are at the top of the page.
http://www.logiclaw.co.uk/Injustice/

Main Index.
The FIVE / TEN MINUTE READ first INSIGHT
Sections 1-intro. 2-issues. 3-claim. 4-The letters, 5 Judge. 6-NON-Compliance args, Background

1.A letter about mid-way in the case traversal; where early signs of malfeasance were apprehended and anticipated, had now become incontrovertibly crystallised..
a.CLICK here to see the letter that was the half way mad house in the affair.

2.The Trigger Charge Certificate that lead to the allegation of wilful offenses & breaches of statute.
a.If you have read the first then go on and look at the fraudulent Charge certificate.

3.How do you make a determination of favour or disfavour under a statute? This; disability, was more difficult, since it required a judgement of comparison, others were far far simpler.
a.We take the Disability Discriminations Act 2005. Just one page to read.

In proving the breaches of each statute, the course of conduct was monitored and recorded meticulously, each arose in a series of letters that showed incontrovertible logical inconsistencies.
Logical contradictions, contrarieties, sub contrarieties and other formal disciples, will show the reasoning applied by the council's top team of 21st century lawyers was irrational throughout.
Where a contradiction was identified; far too obviously and easily, it determined and proved in most respects acts of constructive fraud. Where a contradiction exists, the two assertions entail each other's falsity. Meaning where revenue was behind the agenda of an action, it rendered that action as Fraud, within the meaning of the Fraud Act 2006, Section Fraud by false representation.
There was no way out of the impasse, that is why the legal team were replaced with a new team coming to court, to play the new game of not being aware, and palliating a litany of breaches as a slight imperfection of the system.

One letter alone, filled with 'admit nothing deny everything' philosophy with at least 7 contradictions.
The full original letter, see exhibit 1, the essential textual components. The original reply. The causal antecedents.


There's more now and worse to come.

The post has been updated with what I hope is to many a simple exposition of the law of non contradiction in its formal setting, as part of a far wider and more complex calculus of logic that is a very exact science.

This may receive small embellishments, but will not be take much further as most may find it a strain.

The logic is explained in rudimentary form at http://www.logiclaw.co.uk/Injustice/#log

The rounding off in the clear and proven comparison of trashing the Disability Discrimination Act is done here below, in clauses 3 and 4. One could say it wasn't trashed but upheld, where discrimination was against not in favour, a nice interpretation for the deceivers, not the believer.

http://www.logiclaw.co.uk/Injustice/#let1

How do you make a determination of favour or disfavour under a statute? This; disability, was more difficult, since it required a judgement of comparison, others were far far simpler.
a.We take the Disability Discriminations Act 2005. Just one page to read.

Now the farce gets deeper, It's June 2006, the case hasn't yet got under way. I warned them a claim was going to come if they didn't stop, sending them a draft to take notice. They warned me that they Fully uphold statutes, in their repLIE. The disability Discriminations Act was already in tatters, there was more to come. THEY wanted their £50, and I had sent them £100 saying OK I am buying the whole package up front, forget the discount. By now I had exchanges with about six different people, NONE were a match for logic. They weren't thinking, trained to do, not think Observe how they assert what they deny in an earlier letter.

b.We are going to enforce for 60 seconds, AND we fully uphold the Disability Act.


The floor is clear for the readers and kind gentlemen.


This reminds me a cross between Master Yoda http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yoda and some very involved legalese. It's not that I don't understand it but that i cannot be bothered to try as it takes up too much brain power that might be better off being used in more fruitful endeavours.

Is that the effect you are trying to create?

I also think that there may be some interesting and possibly valid points here somewhere.
_________________
Best regards

PI Guy - http://www.salgadoinvestigations.com/
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Display posts from previous:    
Post new topic   Reply to topic    swarb.co.uk Forum Index -> Road Traffic Law All times are GMT + 1 Hour
Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next
Page 1 of 5

 
Jump to:   
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group