What are the consistent references to "we"?
I'd also really like to know the answer to this.
@chueewowee when is your court hearing due? I'd love to get a transcript.
What are the consistent references to "we"?
I'd also really like to know the answer to this.
@chueewowee when is your court hearing due? I'd love to get a transcript.
I was simply going to lock this garbage. If you want to play, fee free!
I was simply going to lock this garbage. If you want to play, fee free!
Just like most FMOTL content, it might provide an endless source of entertainment
I don't think he (or should it be "they"?) is a FMOTL though.
He's not once mentioned Magna Carta, common law or Admiralty courts, and he hasn't said "I (or "we") didn't contract to pay CAZ and ULEZ fees!"
Maybe it's a Welsh thing...
@ManxTom see reply 15:
In order to save pointless replies, informing about procedure of pcn appeals: As I stated in my opening post, the case is about to reach court.
That means:
- we have not accepted a demand and,
- offers for solution have not been satisfactory frpom our point of view.
- 'Court' means a court of law - a civil court at the county court, not an adjudicator or a TEC.
- Time for representations to the LA are over.
Moreover, we did not accept the pcn, on th ebasis of claim of unlawful.
We did not appeal to an adjudicator because that implies forgoing redress at a court of law; a civil court.
Like the FMOTL brigade, he is labouring under the misapprehension that:
1) It's up to him to "
accept" or "
not accept" the PCN,
2) It's somehow up to him whether the routes of redress are satisfactory,
3) It's up to him to decide which venue has jurisdiction,
4) He can unilaterally ignore Parliament's decision to remove such matters from the jurisdiction of the county court and give exclusive jurisdiction to the adjudicator.
I wonder if he'll come back after he's lost and tell us that the courts are all "
corrupt"?
He is back. The he has a name.
I'm here to teah you a lesson. But I will not spend long; Mainly here for good folk, to encourage htem in the face of miserable unreasaonable snide comments that abound everywhere onb these islands now.
Forst I'd like to teach some of you, quite a few of you, some mannes.. You're too far away. But let me tell you You wouldn'tt dare in my precense to denonstrate your poverty of spiirit with the same trite, bad manners. Quite usual amongst the 'PCN experts'.
I see therer eare various snide remarks, including reference to FMOTL and 'we'. That's after complaininbg about priciples, and thelaw. The common law you thinbk does not exist, when in fact it is the just about the WHOLE of the law, GOVERNING
princliples.
Ok Let's begin the show down. I wil get personal, like you have, for the sake of the good folk who drop by, becausre yo uar enmisleadingf them, in your stuppidity.
The 'we' is we. Thtaq is not 'I' alone.
Th ei is not alone, Thats all yo need tonow. We coul dbe the whol epublicfor all you know. And ther is a we. I t is Father and son. My son is an apprectice asked to pay £235.00, with threats to his livlihood upon enforcement after ignoring his ountnence to an initial fine of £90 or so, as I already mentioned.
That should be enough to get you impovershed ones going. You know, the ones who are the same as the inmpoverished WEF minions obn our councils, government and in fact, all intistutions, polluting our whole public life.
You see, what you have usually won do date, is avoiding paying when the LA made a simple mistake in the letters on a page... OK fair enough, but really you were still liable otherwise. Its apetty matter. OUrs was a great matter like so many other poor folk hit with penalties for CAZ as first time, unknowing entrants.
.
I don't think he (or should it be "they"?) is a FMOTL though.
He's not once mentioned Magna Carta, common law or Admiralty courts, and he hasn't said "I (or "we") didn't contract to pay CAZ and ULEZ fees!"
Maybe it's a Welsh thing...
Yes the magna carta is common sense, nothing more, and still in full force, will be so long as common sense rules; whichuis always reasonable, as a matter of coursse.
Yes WE (my son and I - that is a we, and in fact thousands of innnocent public) were threatened through coercion at the hands of Enfoecrcement agents through the TEC, which is course unlawful when th counbtennace to a charge questions its lawfulnees. That is, our reply like all appeals as to 'not knowing or understanding the CAZ signs' which are quecting its laawfilness, which was stidiously ignmored. But this time they met me. I am a father, My son and I make we. nothibng lessnothing more. Myt son was th eonbe who had intact feeling of unfairness andinjustice, unliek you popor advisors. Who mock the law, or the natural lw, which my son, like so many other good people, feels. I.E in common sense, which some aqbandon,for some sort of self gain.
But it doesn't have to end badly; that's up to the judge and the legal argument they are presented with; first htey decide if you have a case that is worth hearing.
I wonder how many , if any , have actually take such a case of sign authorisation to court. I know of none.
No surprise at the zero figure because the court you describe has no jurisdiction for such matters.
That means they cannot hear your case simply because the Tribunal avenue is/was available.
Reminds me of a case where some fool took Newham to Small Claims for stress of receiving pcns.
Newham didn't turn up and he won 4 X £5,000.
No doubt big celebrations ensued.
BUT the case was re-heard with Newham citing 'no jurisdiction' and all £20,000 had to be paid back, together with whatever costs Newham incurred for writing those two words.
You Sir are a fool trying to garner some credibility for your indignation over a pathetic first world problem.
This forum prides itself on assisting against some often quite appalling council behaviour.
NO ONE READING YOUR POSTS SHOULD BE MISLED INTO THINKING YOUR ACTIONS ARE THE WAY TO BEHAVE OR PROCEED.
This thread should be moved to the Flame Pit.
Wrong. Your post should be reomcved. A complaint of lawfulness of contract, by road soign or noit, is a case for the CIvil Court of LAw; of course it is nbot a case for snal lclaims court. Only filk demanding paymenbt can use that particular avenue.
@ManxTom see reply 15:
Like the FMOTL brigade, he is labouring under the misapprehension that:
1) It's up to him to "accept" or "not accept" the PCN,
2) It's somehow up to him whether the routes of redress are satisfactory,
3) It's up to him to decide which venue has jurisdiction,
4) He can unilaterally ignore Parliament's decision to remove such matters from the jurisdiction of the county court and give exclusive jurisdiction to the adjudicator.
I wonder if he'll come back after he's lost and tell us that the courts are all "corrupt"?
Ha ing fun. I amy angry Yo all borke myt trust. I feel like swwearing at you. Then ytoiu ban me, eh?
shame on you.
He's back he won his case.
Maybe I shgoul dtake over YOUR boards? Maybe you should retire now?
To omuch bad advice here. You hate the law. Yoiu love the pcns.
Agree x 1
View List