DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: The Flame Pit
*****************************************************
#Post#: 25764--------------------------------------------------
Re: CAZ/ULEZ areas : Were letters sent to local residents by
your authority - yes or no?
DIR By: chueewowee
Date: June 12, 2024, 5:55 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: ManxTom link ---
>
>
> 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...
>
--- End Quote ---
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.
#Post#: 25766--------------------------------------------------
Re: CAZ/ULEZ areas : Were letters sent to local residents by
your authority - yes or no?
DIR By: chueewowee
Date: June 12, 2024, 5:58 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Neil B link ---
>
> [quote author=chueewowee link=topic=1840.msg22167#msg22167
date=1715510840]
>
> 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.
--- End Quote ---
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.
[/quote]
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.
#Post#: 25769--------------------------------------------------
Re: CAZ/ULEZ areas : Were letters sent to local residents by
your authority - yes or no?
DIR By: chueewowee
Date: June 12, 2024, 6:01 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: cp8759 link ---
>
> [member=691]ManxTom[/member] 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"?
>
--- End Quote ---
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.
#Post#: 25772--------------------------------------------------
Re: CAZ/ULEZ areas : Were letters sent to local residents by
your authority - yes or no?
DIR By: Southpaw82
Date: June 12, 2024, 6:10 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
::)
#Post#: 26070--------------------------------------------------
Re: CAZ/ULEZ areas : Were letters sent to local residents by
your authority - yes or no?
DIR By: ivanleo
Date: June 14, 2024, 1:48 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: chueewowee link ---
>
> He's back he won his case.
>
--- End Quote ---
Oh look, a flying pig!
*****************************************************
Page 5 of 5
DIR Previous Page