swarb.co.uk

Tony · Joined: 02 Jul 2006 Posts: 121

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

Tony · Joined: 02 Jul 2006 Posts: 121

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

FH06URY · Joined: 24 Jan 2007 Posts: 1568 Location: South (UK)

Any chance of an "executive summary"? 2 short paras should do!

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

Tony, where did you learn English.

Ferenganar, Cardassia Prime or is it a literal translation for the original Klingon?

Tony · Joined: 02 Jul 2006 Posts: 121

Thank you for these!

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

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.

theycantdothat · Joined: 17 Oct 2005 Posts: 1102

Tony · Joined: 02 Jul 2006 Posts: 121

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.

dls · Site Admin Joined: 10 Apr 2005 Posts: 5822

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.

PeterM24 · Joined: 12 Jan 2006 Posts: 1606

***** DELETED

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

Tony · Joined: 02 Jul 2006 Posts: 121

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

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.

Woolfy · Joined: 16 May 2006 Posts: 357

I have several clients like Tony. They make me want to hang myself.

SALGADO INVESTIGATIONS · Joined: 14 Jun 2007 Posts: 552 Location: CROYDON, SURREY