swarb.co.uk

Tony · Joined: 02 Jul 2006 Posts: 102

It would be nice to have an explanation, this topic, among others was deleted. I guess it is 'policy'. Don't expect me to participate too much.

Posted: Sun Jul 02, 2006 9:45 am Post subject: BoR 1688 & RTA 1991, parking fines illegal appeal NOW.

Here is the opening item again, and the rest is available, and there is to be the complete unravelling of how the BoR is impliedly repealed, and watered down in the EUHR, with a complete reversal of the presumption of innocence, in the UDHR and ECHR by the widespread uses of 'rebuttable presumptions' that cannot in fact be rebutted by the unwary.

I didn't expect this from an independent forum, although the approach to the topic looked very establishment in style and content.

Never mind.

A standard Charge Certificate and DVLA charge, has these in the form of.....

Either you did not reply to the NoR or did not Pay.

Both disjuncts are presumptions of guilt because it is actually impossible, unless omniscient, to KNOW what the respondent did or didn't do.
I have a precise example of this being a false representation (Fraud Act 2006) on both disjuncts, and proof also that the rebuttal was met with arrogance and authoritarianism.

All to be revealed, but perhaps we shall see which forum it is for.
I didn't expect this from an independent forum, although the approach to the topic looked very establishment in style and content
.
Never mind.

If anyone is interested to see the BoR and its abuse properly explained. I have it ready, but with some litigation in progress, wish to see how it is treated in court first. That is the reasaon for delay.

The original starter thread below, 6 pages that were in the public domain.
--------------------------------------------

Posted: Sun Jul 02, 2006 9:45 am Post subject: DoR 1688 & RTA 1991, parking fines illegal appeal NOW

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

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

With the new EU partners, we are learning how to stifle dissent in EUHR Pr 5 Art 10. Watch it happen as it happens!
The old startup was here..

There are twenty pages, and an index, resume and synopsis that is about 3.

http://www.forceofdestiny.co.uk/Literature/Questor/CT/page3.html

and the pages are linked but invisible.

Those on the side of justice, should duck for the onslought of sophistry.

Now is the Freedom of our discontent, made glorious Summer by this son of Pork !

The Bill of Rights analysis and exposition of flaws is expected to be placed here shortly after end of May
_________________
Tony

Bakedalasker · Joined: 06 Nov 2006 Posts: 1063 Location: South France

Tony · Joined: 02 Jul 2006 Posts: 102

Well it's no problem,
I have the LOT!
want it back?
no problem.

They are stored on the site below.
for sure, here is page 1 of 6.

http://www.iamtony.co.uk/sw/swarb_co_uk%20%20View%20topic%20-%20DoR%201668%20&%20RTA%201991,%20parking%20fines%20are%20illegal%20&%20voi%200.htm

The ONLY link to it is from Swarb - THIS site here.
_________________
Tony

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

GOOD for you

Tony · Joined: 02 Jul 2006 Posts: 102

Hi, Thanks for that!

I have a little experience of lost threads, and crashing a planeload to get at one, in a case with Romania, a topic of stolen inheritance was embarrassing the local Mayor. The forum thread was closed twice at 7700 reads. They joined the EU and then proceeded to breach instantly Protocol 5 Article 10 erasing the threads. EU commissioners are advised.
They like these, went on a site they can't touch, and the case unfolds.

There are three London cases, I am watching closely and advising on, cases for restitution of unenforceable nullity PCNs, with 5 Precedents, and 10 rulings, two bundles 700 pages. All unfolding now, one showing 20 breaches of collateral statutes to enforce a PCN illegally. ALL proven on the councils own letters. Another for restitution as a 'mistake of fact' under the 'statute of limitations',already with a precedent in another court. I will post these here for the benefit of others who are inhumanely treated. We'll see how they go first. Win or lose they will all get published to expose the unbelievable law breaking behind the scenes. To give an insight, I have seen a national company; getting 100 pcns a week, deliver appeals by recorded delivery, and when calling up for the PATAS appeal forms and NoR. They admit receiving 6 and not the 7th in the same bundle, and then laughingly say, AH you can't make an appeal unless we send you an appeal form, like giving the witness, judge jury and sentencing all to one body to whom when you appeal, they play God. Apart from the 100 weekly pcns, where I have 20 examples of them, I have all the other case files and can backup what is said here. I was behind a case in Poole, and they backed down giving compensation of £80, Hillington Council is caught in illegal conduct and proven. And Bucks, and Oxford are sub judice too.

All the lost swarb threads are below.

I can assure you the BoR will traverse the three untenable args at PATAS, as well as a new attempt by DVLA to promote rebuttable ???? presumptions of guilt that is spoken about as calmly as the civil penalties are supposedly just allegations and can be challenged. Except when there is a very serious challenge they avoid sending appeal forms like Dracula fears garlic, or the Devil fears a cross.

I will provide an insight to the framework on the BoR soon.

The lost files..... Linked directly from Swarb and all credit to Swarb is meant in good faith.

http://www.iamtony.co.uk/sw/swarb_co_uk%20%20View%20topic%20-%20DoR%201668%20&%20RTA%201991,%20parking%20fines%20are%20illegal%20&%20voi%200.htm

The link takes you to the first page; 1-6, and the page numbers top left work as usual for the other 5 pages.

Apologies for style and any infelicities for which I take responsibility.

I deplore injustice, and sophistry to make a gain by false representations, and am not prepared to watch the innocent go to PATAS and play Russian Roulette with an argument, where for want of the correct one, the Adjudicator knows, he keeps silent on. Smiling as the appellant goes out, completely confused at the injustice of it all.
_________________
Tony

clive pearson · Joined: 02 Sep 2006 Posts: 369

did not Her Majesty swear on Oath to "Govern us according to our Laws and Customs" however?

those Laws and Customs are the right to remain silent, the right to be seen as innocent till proven Guilty, the right to a fair Trail etc

when does She appear in Court charged with breaking Her Coronation Oath?

or Treason?

if breaking a sworn Oath is good for one then why not anyone Please?

is She above the Law?

the stupid old cnut deserves a bullet in the head for neglecting her subjects

Traitor!
_________________
Welcome to Great Britain, the Land of "Selective Freedoms"

this bonfire night I intend to burn an effigy of the PM

"there will be NO Birmingham Northern Relief Road"!!, Liars, Liars Liars!

clive pearson · Joined: 02 Sep 2006 Posts: 369

how do I petition the Queen to appear in Court on Treason charges?
_________________
Welcome to Great Britain, the Land of "Selective Freedoms"

this bonfire night I intend to burn an effigy of the PM

"there will be NO Birmingham Northern Relief Road"!!, Liars, Liars Liars!

cogito ergo doleo · Joined: 13 May 2006 Posts: 292

Oh lord.....
_________________
Three months until dissertation hand in
5 months till final year exams
1 week before nervous breakdown comes along

dls · Site Admin Joined: 10 Apr 2005 Posts: 5826

Bakedalasker · Joined: 06 Nov 2006 Posts: 1063 Location: South France

Tony · Joined: 02 Jul 2006 Posts: 102

BTW the principle of deleting threads that are not replied to, could be invidious and simplistic. When a thread is read by many, it suggests it has more popularity than manifest by response levels, so two factors may be more relevant, response and readership.

I did say I would be placing the short piece on this soon, here is the header and first few pages, with a first part analysis of what has happened. I may be wrong, but the reasoning is less likely to be flawed at least.

There are about twenty three pages, they were in a case I recently had a hearing on with a council, but I held them back to be free to publish as not sub judice. The outcome of the case so far is still somewhat suppressed for private reasons, but, I was prevented from having the arguments; as yet due to CPR, heard but the council took a first detriment, of between £3 to £4k. I am claimant alone, they had three their side, including barrister. The quantity of lawyers on their side is a matter of indifference, since the arguments show many false representations internally proved, and many irreconcilable contradictions, that cannot be resolved by any number of sophistical or casuistic arguments. Contradictions are irrefutable, that is the present situation, they don't want to get near them.

The very very learned Judge said their system was in a mess. Both sides are pondering. Magna Carta (40) and Human rights (5 – (6.2)) stand breached at present! ..... fully witnessed by eight in court.

Crown mischief in short, is now Council mischief in tort.

The arguments from establishment sources are misdirected and rely on false emphasis within a same class concept to promote the notion of a difference where similarity is overwhelming. I will clarify if this is obtuse, later, along with that 'civil penalty' argument that is now, to quote directly from a council wording, an 'award' so that proves it has reached ground level at last, we can queue up for those PCNs now it's a competition.

The main issues, are the principle in the BoR, who owns the prerogative, the fines and forfeitures / civil penalty aspect is a total linguistic misdirect. I am proof reading the link, and that will be available soon, but meantime, the intro is done, the index is to be reformulated.

I suggest not to bore too many, I put up the first page. I would be well paid if fatuous arguments, and argument ad hominums were left aside,otherwise nobody benefits, and this is intended to help clear a few issues. Please forgive me if I don't entertain disputes in the debate, I have other priorities at present.

The Bill of Rights; BoR, - tenet 12, how it was removed as protection for the British public and is repealed, but neither express or impliedly, -- simply de – facto.

Top, Main Index, Next Index, End.

There are currently three arguments on this issue at PATAS, they may be examined later.

Frankly they are irrelevant to the arguments here, because they are in the author's view a misdirected focus that persuades and leads the listener away from the principles, and into the world of sophistry and arts of specious persuasion that become untenable when confronted with sound argument or logic. Away from the woods, and into the trees, wading into and dismantling the methodology used; at this time, that relies on false emphasis of differences where similarities are far more overwhelming.

In short, the Bill of Rights, is dead, it remains as a piece of constitutional law, to impress and mesmerise the reader into false belief. Each attempt to re-examine the issue as a legislative construction with consequence fails, because it no longer exists except as an ornament like the pyramids of Egypt..

------------
The principle in the bill; ie the rights granted to the British people, has moved from the Crown, to the Councils, but more importantly has become the new mischief and abuse by councils, that was formerly that of the Crown before the bill. The principle that remains in the Bill of Rights is no longer in sharp focus because the goalposts have moved, and each attempt to identify where, is met with the standard answer, “that was the Crown prerogative”, where it should be, “that is now the Council prerogative”, simply that. Except we have to work it out for ourselves.

What parliament deplored in 1688, it permits today, and looks upon benignly because, allowing the prerogative to go unfettered with the councils, aids its central funding issues. This eases pressure on central funding, where it can now be collected locally, in a manner that is in many cases unlawful. The whole problem is enshrined in far more complex civil law, such that very few solicitors will even get involved with unless a major claim is possible. Target driven systems create structures that put spiritual values well behind those overriding targets. Then ask if this is the will of Parliament or the will of the people expressed through parliament.

What was located at the Crown level, is now at Council level, and the controls in the hands of the perpetrators of abuse, so they decide if an appeal comes close to the ambit of a 'court'. Codes of conduct drawn up by councils; like duty, honesty, integrity, transparency, and open to public scrutiny derived from local government acts, are flags waving at half mast so entrenched that internal dissent is pariah; at pain of losing one's job, and integrity compromised, overflowing into whatever 'court' it comes in to contact with, compromising that body as well. This is not hearsay.
------------

The above paragraph sums it up, in my view, as Neil Heron said to me recently as a 'no brainer'

A short index,

The main issues: this will be changes as the piece progresses. (there are about twenty five pages being proof read).

1. The Crown Prerogative (1)
2. The real difference between a fine and a civil penalty is as much as between a forfeit and a possession order, very little, almost nothing. (2)
3. The BoR Tenet 12. Fine, Forfeiture,Next particulars, civil penalty and distraint, the words historically through time.
4. The watered down equivalent between Tenet 12 and the EU HR act Protocal 5 article 6.
5. Why it is invidious to water the principle down, - the irreversibility of damage.
6. The removal and usurpation of that principle, using the semantics of parliament is sovereign or supreme.
7. The cause and effect of the principle when the bridle to its abuse is placed under the control of the very abuser of the principle.
8. Why Parliament had to remove the privilege from the Crown, due to the 'mischief' -- establishment terminology --, being done, and what Parliament saw in its use that it could take advantage of for its own purposes.
9. Why our forefathers were better off under these penal systems when the were removed, than now when they are reinstated. The march of progress? Certainly not in this area.
10.

Class concepts the simple introduction.

The first can be treated very easily, 'ceteris paribus', all things being equal, and taking for granted that de-jure meant correspondence with de-facto.

1.What is the Crown prerogative. Language used in reference to the Crown is usually chosen to exalt, where for an ordinary person, to say one has a prerogative is unusual. A prerogative, however one colours or shades it, means it belongs to the class concept of a privilege.
a.Relevant would be the definition; OED 2. a. A right, advantage, or immunity granted to or enjoyed by a person, or a body or class of persons, beyond the common advantages of others; an exemption in a particular case from certain burdens or liabilities.

2.We all have some rights, de jure; in law and when it comes to determining if they are upheld, one sees if they are de facto, actually upheld. This distinction can be minimal but in many cases vast and constitutes when they are so, false representation, a term in the Fraud Act 2006.

3.So one can say it was the privilege of the Crown to confer a judgement on an individual or group, that either subtracted from them or awarded to them some thing; some times subtracting from one and awarding the forfeitures to another. Hence when Parliament halted the privilege, because it deplored the abuse or 'mischief' ( A DVLA term in use ), being done, people who had crossed the boundaries of regulated exchanges had to be tried before a court of law before judgement as to fines or forfeitures. (Historical usage of these terms will be added later).
--a.This bridle or fetter on the prerogative was placed on the Crown in 1688 BoR, and later codified further in the Declaration of Rights 1689, the difference is immaterial here.

4.To round off this part, the prerogative, or privilege, is a power to do something not available in general to all. It doesn't take rocket science to determine who has that privilege now.
--a.A book 'New Despotism' by the then Chief Justice of England, Lord Hewart published in 1929., alerted some people to an awareness of changes leading to despotism, -- absolute authority, and this tendency has been fertile with the growth of democratic principles.
--b.When the 'mischief' is unchecked it defeats principles of justice, equality, fairness, proportionality, and so on.
--c.One of our basic rights still remaining is Magna Carta, (40) To none will we sell, to none will we deny, to none will we delay right or justice, 'hangs' in the balance.
--d.Prior to 1688 unjust usage was permitted only if employed under the Crown Prerogative. After that, injustice was prevented by compelling such acts to pass through due process, and a court had to determine if a person was guilty before they could be submitted to a fine or forfeiture. Fines and Forfeitures belong to the class concept of conferring a detriment; treated later, and they have varying degrees of gravity.
--e.The separation of punishment from the Crown, by way of passage through a court was essential to ensure some form of justice to; at that time, a few wealthy, but inevitably became understood to apply to all. It put in place a process whereby the individual could appeal before his punishment was conferred.
_________________
Tony

cogito ergo doleo · Joined: 13 May 2006 Posts: 292

I can see the bandwidth is going to reach it's maximum quite quickly.

Rolling Eyes

_________________
Three months until dissertation hand in
5 months till final year exams
1 week before nervous breakdown comes along

Tony · Joined: 02 Jul 2006 Posts: 102

continued from 4 above

5.
Parliament, embodied in the concept of the 'will of the people', began to look around for less unpopular fiscal measure, and dispatched penal regimes away from themselves, to raise revenue, outside normal statute, focussing on special activities that may be described as controlling functions. The purpose was achieved by regulating activities subsumed under class concepts that would meet with immediate consent of shall we say inconvenient or unacceptable activities that could be easily slotted in to syllogistic reasoning, to make such penal regimes acceptable in principle.

1. Motoring is just such a prime target for revenue, except what makes it even clearer that revenue is at the heart of it, is the irrational reasoning behind its penal enforcement. Cars cause congestion by parking? Interestingly enough congestion is caused when more cars are on the move than are parked.
2. When wardens come along like dogs among pigeons, to scatter them back into the traffic flow one has more congestion, and more CO2 also, both unnecessary and undesirable consequences of such a rationality. But the rationale was originally nicely framed, before revenue went ahead of the spirit of the law. Raising revenue from driving, and relaxing parking costs would be far more appropriate an argument for CO2 and congestion reductions. But this affects 'fuller employment' that sounds so much better, even if that means the system becomes a parasitic and non productive tumour feeding on the body electorate, eventually stifling its very life force.
3. Parliament now; in the judiciary is regarded as 'Parliament is Sovereign' or 'Supreme'. Shall we say it has just crowned itself, like Caesar, and forget that it prefers to hide that its power derives from the electorate and officiated on by the Monarch. You only glimpse this supposed illusory side of its reliance on the people, when the politicians come around with their lamb faces on, to re-invite one to re-elect them.

#

So in its 'wisdom' it came up with; among other things, a penal regime for parking not driving.

Now here s where the 'transfer of power' becomes clear.
#

It conferred the previous Crown Prerogative powers it derogated or disliked, on all the children in the councils, so now we have about a hundred prerogatives being used, diversely. It provided a system of nice semantic ring fenced challenges through bodies that were unaccountable like PATAS, NPAS, Local Government Ombudsman and so on. So people could vent their follies in anger, let off steam, provided that a few got through to ensure their appearance was independent and impartial.

1.The appeal process however was also given to the council with time out feature, so that if one suffered injustice, and came to late, it was 'out of time' and justice denied, Magna Carta's last remaining tenet 40 just got thrown out..
2.The representations process was strictly controlled by those same councils, so that in their 'wisdom', one could only appeal if one was sent an appeal form or statutory declaration at relevant stages where the ambit of the process when it comes close to a court in Schedule 6, or CPR 75. Now one does not expect a doctor to be familiar with this process, as one equally doesn't expect an adjudicator to be familiar with medicine. The only difference being that one could trust a doctor, he took something called the Hippocratic oath, but some adjudicators took the Hippocritic oath; not hearsay, I will prove it soon, irrefutably.

To conclude this part, when next confronted by the argument, the Bill of Rights was a C-rown prerogative, you can reasonably riposte, yes I am aware of that, but now it is a C-ouncil prerogative. Same penal powers, somewhat stronger, since the appeal process is also in their hands, that was not in the Crown's, and the so called 'courts' are not accountable IF one can get to them, and is prepared to make that challenge. The PRINCIPLE in the Bill of Rights conferred to the British public has been transferred to councils, and the name game begins with accountable bodies getting a make over change name every time their image gets tarnished, like Local Government Ombudsman now the Public service Ombudsman, The Police Complaints Authority now the Independent Police complaints commission, and the council that is presumably elected, is now the Local Authority which sounds more like they conquered than got elected. Getting the picture?

1. This writer tried, and offered to pay the full amount, waiving his discount, his cheque was returned, and no appeal was sent him, preventing his arguing further, this too will be placed here in due course. Sound familiar?
2. We have Think Tanks now, to work things like this out. Blink Banks may mean, when you blink, they bank.

Pages 2-3, the site has Venn type images that may help some, otherwise the text pages are still about 20 to go in proof reading.

Questor,(c) the Author, apologizes for any infelicities in this work, for which he takes responsibility of authorship, but NOT for use or misuse. It is free, for study purposes,and not permitted to be sold or used commercially except perhaps in legal argument that involves no reward.

2. The real difference between a fine and a civil penalty is as much as between a forfeit and a possession order, very little, almost nothing.

To see graphical images of this go to the link below.

Emphasising a difference; in order to materially imply a falsity, and persuade the respondent that because a fine is a different word from civil penalty, then the two words; that relate to the same matter, are in different classes, when they are merely different type members of the SAME class concept of conferring subtractions!
It has the same flavour as;
“What's in a name? That which we call a rose By any other name would smell as sweet.,” (R&J)
where a fine by any other name would smell deceit!
Things that are subtractions = A = death penalty, B = bodily harm, C = forfeit, D = FINE that includes criminal consequence, E = CIVIL penalty that’s not criminal, F = Fines and Civil penalties that include criminal consequence, and G = defamation and so on until no value is conferred.
The dividing point, no value conferred, has on the other side,
Things that are additions =1 = smile of approval, 2 = smile and handshake with kiss, 3 = bottle of perfume, 4 = a credit in e newspaper, 5 = a large gift, say £50,000 , 6 = a large gift, say £50,000 AND an undisclosed lottery gift, say £??,000 and then, 7 = A lottery gift, 8 = 4 litre car, 9 = an undisclosed lottery gift.

It should be clear that each side has class members of different types in varying degrees of gravity.
It’s not possible for a civil penalty to belong to a benefit or a lottery win to a detriment. To emphasise a civil penalty as if it were so much better as to belong to a benefit is false emphasis, when the similarities are overwhelming an d difference a matter of degree. Where a fine and a civil penalty are the same value and only the consequence different and either will be paid anyway, the emphasis of difference is a deceit.
In the determination whether a type member belongs to a class, the principle is the same as scientific method, namely necessary and sufficient conations. The best example of a simple cause is: IF there is a simple cause of life; then the presence of oxygen is necessary for life, if and only if the absence of oxygen is sufficient for the absence of life. Substitute water for oxygen and derive the same result, making the two causes both necessary and sufficient. Substitute Vitamin D, and discover its absence is not sufficient for the absence of life, only the absence of a quality or condition such as rickets. There one has a cause of rickets and so on.
In class immediate inferences, the same negative yield; sufficiency in the absence, is the important factor.
A type member belongs to a class when it meets the requirements of the defining characteristics of that class.
A class can be viewed as all those entities having a certain property of satisfying a certain pro positional function. This function defines or determines the class.. Members of the class are those significant values of the defining function that give rise to true propositions when substituted for the variable. For example, when values are assigned to the class ‘x is a detriment’ the result is in some cases a true or a false proposition. Those significant values NOT yielding false propositions constitute the members of that class. (The sufficient condition!).
If x is a gift of £500, it does not yield a true proposition for the class of detriments, it does however yield a true proposition for the class of awards. Simplify this further to make detriments = subtractions, and benefits = additions. Now when you have a council or government behaving ludicrously, they will attempt to describe a civil penalty as an award; and I will show just such a council letter doing precisely that, in
“You were awarded this Penalty Charge Notice because”.

What you have here is an attempt to place - (E) - above in the class of detriments, into the class of benefits. Either they are trying to make the distress appear less than it is, or simply, and more likely, having a laugh at one’s expense which is a disgrace, undermining the foundations of correspondence theory and truth itself..

Then you have a middle extreme when for example Justice Collins says “These are not fines, they are civil penalties”, where both fines and civil penalties clearly belong to the class of conferring subtractions, BUT the distinction with false emphasis attempts to materially imply that civil penalties, which are not custodial are of some benefit as to suggest they are awards in a more subtle sense. First this emphasises the distinction fails to show the overwhelming similarities of a Fine for £100, and a Civil Penalty for £100 being nil, if either is paid, and equally where a civil penalty comes with such provocation that one might become insulting in court, then one can get a custodial for another reason.
The important difference between a Fine and Civil penalty is merely that of degree in gravity, and there is very little difference in degree at this level.
Pointing to a distinction or difference between types or members of the same class concept is analogous to using synonyms or shades of meaning to lead one away from the heart of the issue. It’s like telling a child he has just received a little graze, when his knee cap is hanging off. Such false emphasis is totally unacceptable to an injured party, but it is he medicine that authority delivers to itself when describing its own faults.. First rarely if ever admitted; a serious fault in ‘culpa lata’, and second always choosing those soft terms that shades away from true correspondence with reality, persuading and misleading.
To tease this out further, one has to also look at the history of usage of the terms fines, civil penalties, forfeits and distraints.

A direct link to the images pages is here

http://www.forceofdestiny.co.uk/Literature/Questor/CT/page6.html

A direct link to the text pages is here
http://www.forceofdestiny.co.uk/Literature/Questor/CT/CT.html

PS
Thanks for that.
I would say this,
It takes one to know one, so those who thought it was too lexical clearly recognised it, so must have it too.

The point about the Bill of rights is that

"All grants and promises of fines and forfeitures of particular persons before conviction are illegal and void".

Means you cannot be fiend or distrained on until AFTER a trial. I know there is a quibble on fines – civil penalties, but the argument is untenable and flawed. The right we were supposed to have, was that these penalties were challengeable, and not enforceable until after a hearing.

Hence Parliament has ruled itself the new sovereign, and is using the penal code, that it deplored in the monarchy now itself through the councils.

PS don't forget this useful link, it shows where the councils derelict their duty and deny you a hearing while increasing the threat unlawfully.

http://logiclaw.co.uk/S6T.html#idx
_________________
Tony

Tony · Joined: 02 Jul 2006 Posts: 102

With the abuse part of the Crown Prerogative thwarted by the Bill of Rights in 1688-9, and the similarity between fines and civil penalties, being blurred by false emphasis as a distinction suggesting they belong to difference classes, the prerogative abuse that WAS thwarted is now very much alive in England today.

Parliament; crowning itself with 'parliament is sovereign' re-using those powers by conferring the prerogative on its children of some hundred councils, giving them the appeals process to control or NOT, their own mischief and abuses, the Bill of Rights is now more important and more relevant than ever before.

The only difference is that when the prerogative was abused against a few wealthy; prior to the 17th century, it is now abused against the majority of weaker members of society with ring fenced semantic schemes and procedural rules in tribunals permitting councils to compromise the integrity of each judicial body it comes in contact with.

The Bill of Rights is an argument proper for the manifesto a party of integrity to seek a mandate for election to the next parliament. Very little other parts of a manifesto are relevant to the similarities in ideologies that make little difference to the lives of the ordinary people.

More coming with an exposure of precise abuse as seeen in court last and this month.

Sorry about any delay, these things take time and are subject to judicial procedure.

The Bill of Rights granted in principle, FREEDOM from fines and forfeitures, ( civil penalties and distraints ) to all individuals, BEFORE conviction at a trial or hearing.

It's important to note tht the BoR is a valid arguemnt for the DVLA, since they are a dept of the Treasury and the Crown, I have seen their letters in a case overseen, and they confirm the Crown is the claimant 3rd party.
_________________
Tony

Tony · Joined: 02 Jul 2006 Posts: 102

PROVING....

The Bill of Rights 1688 is still alive today, see the Crown is involved here.
Wayne's pages.

http://www.logiclaw.co.uk/pages/index.html
_________________
Tony