Code: ctzreate home
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 

The Honest Flowchart, not the PATAS, NPAS one -EVIDENCE now.

Post new topic   Reply to topic Forum Index -> Road Traffic Law
Visit lawindexpro

View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message

Joined: 02 Jul 2006
Posts: 102

PostPosted: Sat Mar 03, 2007 2:45 pm    Post subject: The Honest Flowchart, not the PATAS, NPAS one -EVIDENCE now. Reply with quote

Today, site has been update with microflow charts of SCHEDULE 6 and CPR 75 breaches Wed, 7 Mar 2007 15:33:35

The one that shows what flows through the pursuit of plunder unalwfully.

Exposing SCH 6 & CPR 75 breaches done wilfully by councils for a select few.

The Honest Flowchart

Many answers provided.
Note also the link below,at swarb, is shortly to be revealed with the Bill of Rights arguments that have been wronged, set straight in the light of day, that they will need to shield the eyes of reason to.

They have been kept from view because of a court case now in progress, showing wilful harassment, and attempted fraud.

The one the Councils, PATAS, and bodies with integrity SHOULD be showing you.
Shows all the wilful omissions in schedule 6 and CPR 75 that the councils skip in order to get their money faster, and regrettably not legally.

Under development, and all the cases of malfeasance and misdemeanours are traversing the court over the ensuing months.,%20parking%20fines%20are%20illegal%20&%20voi%200.htm

There's more on parking with a build up of victories to help, - all here, and coming.

Last edited by Tony on Tue Jul 17, 2007 9:28 pm; edited 6 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

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

PostPosted: Sat Mar 03, 2007 6:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

This is going to be a must read.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Site Admin

Joined: 10 Apr 2005
Posts: 5826

PostPosted: Sun Mar 04, 2007 9:29 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Lets hope that the clarity picks up.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail

Joined: 02 Jul 2006
Posts: 102

PostPosted: Sun Mar 04, 2007 11:44 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Yes, no promises! I hope the logic will improve too!

I'll summarise it and simplify it for all to see, how easy the BoR will be.

It so happens that Protocol 5 Article 6 already has the essence of it, so it shall be only refutable by those who don't adhere to human rights today and do adhere to balk / chop logic, that is of course every ones privilege.

I see I must be absolute.

I can give an insight that the false emphasis on words like civil penalty rather than fines, and the different eras are rendered timeless to remove ambiguity and equivocation encountered on its way to court.

I have held the essential BoR part back from court, ( Two bundles, bundle one finished at 300pages) as this may well take a year with the most mendacious council I have yet seen, and I can also state that admissions have been given in writing, even an hour long chat with the police revealed they shouldn't even be defending, but with so much money on their side at stake, it will be very interesting.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 02 Jul 2006
Posts: 102

PostPosted: Thu Apr 26, 2007 8:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

I need to bring this urgently to your attention.

Procedural defects through SCHEDULE 6 RTA 1991, and CPR 75.3 are common.

When a late stat dec is filed, the councils try to refute it with a rebuttable presumption that YOU failed to file the original. WELL if they fail to send you a stat dec and or a NoR and appeal form, they derelict their duty in S6 and breach CPR 75.3.

They have proof of contraventions when they take pictures, and you should also have a camera a recorder with you to rebut. FAR more importantly however is that you need to watch minutely the traversal of time, where it and postal delinquency are wilfully used to increase charges and pass the next fraudulent act forward to the bailiffs.

You have been warned. Two cases under court view have various elements of this proven 100 %, and particularly in one case, by way of irrefragible unambiguous contextual inference the party ADMITTED in writing their own breach, hoping no doubt it would be overlooked, just like parking contraventions are overlooked when they occur for 2 seconds, ie never.

In ANY exchanges make absolutely sure you have evidence of 'service' to rely on. They rely on averment, but not such evidence, and that is where one ring fences propositons for a shrew. The case material is closing fast towards 800 pages, that will be unravelled freely.

To give you one example of 20 contradictions, a charge certificate was received without prior service of appeal or notice of rejection, very common.

The respondent wrote concerning the rebuttable presumptions of guilt contained in the CC where it is stated 'either you did not appeal or you did not pay' reversing the presumption of innocence in UDHR and ECHR.

Incensed was the response, with an allegation of failure to serve these; since both propositions were FALSE, AND more importantly a warning “they would not understand to beware of unambiguous contextual inferencing, and the function of culpability in anticipation and expectation.” Couldn't be fairer than that?

That warning was not headed, or understood, and the response was fatal in many ways, one of which was. 'at not time at any stage did we receive any representations from you.”

The response was, “you were warned”, now you have just contradicted the existence of the letter you are replying to, AND 4 others, one from yourself, AND just admitted you never sent out the NoR or Appeal.”

How? ..........easy.

you never received any representations at any time, then it follows that you never sent out an appeal or NoR because you had no representation to trigger it, thank you!

Now take a look at the evidence to the contrary. This got far worse, and eventually 20 contradictions and false representations were recorded. Back came the reply 'it is now accepted that you did .....etc' The effrontery of it.

At present the individuals are running for shelter under the 'vicarious liability umbrella'.

This failure in S6 and CPR 75.3 is known and spoken of at PATAS and even Justice Collins states his awareness of it, but equally suggests 'all you have to do is go to to the local county court and say 'Oi' see BoR at PATAS.

I can't say more at this time, but you do see the problem. When ever you send anything to your appeal authority, expect them to hasten payment and pressurise you to pay or they will punish more. The PCN itself has the word 'pay' on average 16 times to provoke subliminal persuasion.

SO, make sure you can rebut the presumption of guilt and prove it in a court. Get receipts of service.

They don't because they rely on their false outweighing your true in credent bulk of their title or size.

Check out the thread here for elements of what they themselves reveal in their own knowledge of this, you don't have to rely on me.

I am getting ready to be sectioned, knighted or beheaded, because unfortunately I don't believe in things that I know to be false, and especially things that 'seem or appear to me' that I should believe in order to conform and submit to peer pressure, where reason tells me otherwise.

PATAS and TEC are jut revealing signs of compromised integrity to be revealed soon.

“Hence we shall see, how power changes purpose what our seemers be” WS, MfM.

Catch some of the other threads here.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 02 Jul 2006
Posts: 102

PostPosted: Sat Apr 28, 2007 12:41 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Have a look here on councils breaking the law.

trying out the old computer software failure argument, it happens every day??????

I have information directly from a large national / international company that gets £85K tickets in the ONE depot per annum, and they have '1?' depots in S. London alone. They are getting CC's frequently, and with a little help are beating them now 100 down 4 upheld.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 02 Jul 2006
Posts: 102

PostPosted: Tue Jul 17, 2007 9:31 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Here is a link showing some of the EVIDENCE to substantiate what has been going on, it will be ongoing and continuously updated as details become available.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message

Joined: 04 May 2006
Posts: 358

PostPosted: Wed Jul 18, 2007 12:48 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

in english - what is this about?
I am not a lawyer
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website

Joined: 02 Jul 2006
Posts: 102

PostPosted: Wed Jul 18, 2007 10:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

in English - what is this about?
I am not a lawyer

In short simple English that should be understood AND assented to.

You need to link up with the thread on PLUNDER just below. It's dead easy some pictures show clearly a council wanting revenue for NO CAUSE.

The evidence on this link, is being provided to prove that this; plunder; comprising a very significant part of otherwise lawful enforcement, is not fiction, and in each case a person is being abused, sleep destroyed, financially detrimented beyond reasonable conduct unlawfully for gain. All for our apparent amusement as in a bullfight. This is just one example of many I observe and far more that go unobserved. The recipient's of this usually suffer a year or more, because the council's; in many cases, don't back down when they make a mistake. Or is it a mistake when warden's freely confess they enjoy issuing unlawful PCN's for the feeling of power it gives them along with their perks? THE VICTIMS very rarely if ever get compensated for being victims, and this encourages continuance of the activity.

That's the simple English for those who want it at that level. For those who want to go a little deeper, they can read on............................................................

In simple terms I don't think it is lawful or correct, and somebody should speak out against it in terms that make it clear it's totally unacceptable. It's not alone me, EVEN PATAS in the mild tones in the red highlights are just tapping the councils on the shoulder before another warden gets attacked and slaughtered because the system is out of control.

One might just say it's cheaper to pay up, and let them get away with it. But doing so, adds energy the their purposes and now they don't even see the boundaries of the law any more.

We have fundamental rights to a fair and public hearing, and we expect when we elect people to govern, in central and local government, that they will respect our rights and NOT put their revenue interests ahead of these rights so far that the breach the boundaries of their own codes of conduct, and literally break the law wholesale to obtain revenue at excessive amounts that have NO grounds until the reach a court. Because until they do so they are mere allegations. ONLY when a court, PATAS, NPAS, TEC, County, rules it IS a debt, can if be enforced. NOT before,and NOT by a council.

Most people are too busy, pay and move on. BUT allowing this means that they have become now so confident they can DO to innocent people what they like in spite of the law, and as yet I have yet to hear a word on this thread, by any person, of outright condemnation. Perhaps it's because it's not happening to them, so there is some schadenfreude in being amused by other people's misfortune.

Some of us don't think that money is everything, some think that sound principles and right and moral conduct is worth having, rather than to live in a community where each person will become lawless, and the stronger become predators of the weaker. Remember most or all have loved ones in the family, and the older and younger members, as well as the females may not be able to fight this kind of thing. It is that simple, and I trust the English is simple too.

SO when councils very frequently 'overlook' sending appeal forms, and instead send charge certificates, and register the debts at TEC, lifting a £50 PCN to £155, and thereafter allowing Bailiffs to do the same, IE; make out 3 ghost visits and then turn up saying you owe £390, it is all clearly what this thread describes it as. PLUNDER. We have a hundred councils thinking they can issue charge certificates to people who , as in a case I am reviewing NOW, sent my neighbour an appeal form to file on 17th July, and raise a charge certificate on the 14th, 3 days earlier that should follow after 8 weeks when the PATAS hearing and 28 days are allowed for, telling her she now owes £155, when no fair and public hearing has yet taken place, we have a situation totally out of control being managed by people who for want of a better phrase are purely evil, with no respect for fellow members of the community we all belong to and elected them to govern with some integrity even if they have no soul for it.

One might be reasonably expected to feel just perhaps a little peeved in being threatened one owes £155 growing fast for something one has not done. If you look the pictures on this thread, you will see what I mean. SO next time perhaps you receive a threat of £155, growing to £390, as the man did, when the council put up their own photographic evidence proving the contravention did not occur, and STILL they want £390. you might just understand we are dealing with somebody completely out of control of their sanity,and in a public office to boot. Yes to boot innocent people into depression for nothing, just because they didn't' curtsey to irrationality. So far it has cost this man 1 year, and the council still battles on thinking they will bully him into submission. They will not succeed.

Irrational words from Tony, perhaps, I know I am alone, but they are derived from statutes and case law, so the just happen to be codified in a set of rules we ALL are expected to adhere to.

Here are some of them to name a few.....

EU HR Protocol 5 Article 6 - right to a fair trial

Article 6 provides a detailed right to a fair trial, including the right to a public hearing before an independent and impartial tribunal within reasonable time, the presumption of innocence, and other minimum rights for those charged in a criminal case (adequate time and facilities to prepare their defence, access to legal representation, right to examine witnesses against them or have them examined, right to the free assistance of an interpreter).

Procedural Defects

Nice kind soft words aren't they, for fraud? Not sure, well look at the fraud act just underneath it then. I hope that helps persuade the reader.

Miah v Westminster (PATAS Case no. 2050339777) Patas Review 2005-6

The Appellant produced a Charge Certificate that was issued to him on 10 October. At that time this appeal was pending. The Charge Certificate informed the Appellant that the penalty was increased to ?150, threatened enforcement action through the courts if it was not paid, and stated that it was then too late to challenge the issue of the Penalty Charge Notice.

The Adjudicator said that issued as it was whilst the appeal was pending, this was an entirely unlawful demand for money, coupled with the threat of court action. For a public authority to issue such a document was utterly unacceptable. But this was not an isolated case. He was aware of other instances of this happening over a period of time. His understanding was that such unlawful Charge Certificates were being issued because of a problem with the local authority's computer system. That might be the explanation, but it did not make it any the less unacceptable. Nor did it seem that in the meantime the local authority had put in place steps for a manual scrutiny of the documents it issued to intercept any unlawful Charge Certificates to prevent them being despatched.

That the local authority continued to issue such documents, knowing full well that it was happening and that they were unlawful, and that this had persisted for some time, appeared (Comment: Oh Dear it's just an appearance not reality?) to suggest a lack of appreciation by the local authority of the seriousness of the situation and a lack of urgency in resolving it.

The procedural impropriety [ nice word for fraud] in the issuing of the unlawful demand fundamentally undermined the lawfulness of the enforcement process in this case, and undermined the authority and jurisdiction of the tribunal. This unlawful act debarred the local authority from pursuing further enforcement of this penalty.

Appeal allowed.

FRAUD Act 2006.
Just one simple section of the main three...
2 Fraud by false representation

(1) A person is in breach of this section if he-

(a) dishonestly makes a false representation, and
(b) intends, by making the representation-
(i) to make a gain for himself or another, or
(ii) to cause loss to another or to expose another to a risk of loss.

(2) A representation is false if-

(a) it is untrue or misleading, and
(b) the person making it knows that it is, or might be, untrue or misleading.
(3) "Representation" means any representation as to fact or law, including a representation as to the state of mind of-

(a) the person making the representation, or
(b) any other person.
(4) A representation may be express or implied.

(5) For the purposes of this section a representation may be regarded as made if it (or anything implying it) is submitted in any form to any system or device designed to receive, convey or respond to communications (with or without human intervention).

RTA 1991 Schedule 6.

(7) It shall be the duty of an authority to whom representations are duly made under this paragraph—

(a) to consider them and any supporting evidence which the person making them provides; and

(b) to serve on that person notice of their decision
as to whether they accept that the ground in question has been established.

Charge certificates

6.—(1) Where a notice to owner is served on any person and the penalty charge to which it relates is not paid before the end of the relevant period, the authority serving the notice may serve on that person a statement (a "charge certificate") to the effect that the penalty charge in question is increased by 50 per cent.

(2) The relevant period, in relation to a notice to owner, is the period of 28 days beginning—

(a) where no representations are made under paragraph 2 above, with the date on which the notice to owner is served;

(b) where—
(i) such representations are made;
(ii) a notice of rejection is served by the authority concerned; and
(iii) no appeal against the notice of rejection is made,
with the date on which the notice of rejection is served; or
(c) where there has been an unsuccessful appeal against a notice of rejection, with the date on which notice of the adjudicator's decision is served on the appellant.

Here is a link again showing some of the EVIDENCE to substantiate what has been going on, it will be ongoing and continuously updated as details become available.

A new link has started, building a small sequence of arguments encountered in court procedures that are exhibiting all the signs of centrally managed and choreographed get out clauses that are increasingly inconsistent with rational fairness.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:    
Post new topic   Reply to topic Forum Index -> Road Traffic Law All times are GMT + 1 Hour
Page 1 of 1

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