Post by Administrator on Aug 31, 2016 17:16:05 GMT
So i have spoken to several solicitors, specialist lawyers and even one of the few private prosecutors in the UK.
None of them know about the law around my problem. None know about exclusive cognisance or the right to petition.
The private prosecutor says that if it was a situation where he was prosecuting someone illegally, it would be identified by the court and the hearing would not allowed to be made. The case would not be allowed to be held by the court.
He says he has never prosecuted the Crown Prosecution service. No one has. Or the police either. In cases against the police it is usually a individual officer who is prosecuted by a specialist firm that deals with prosecutions against the police. Not a prosecution against the police as an organisation.
There is a idea i could do though, to get a certificate of legal advice from a private prosecutors evaluational view, confirming that THEY can not prosecute a petition or Mp. And presenting that to the CPS would be substantial evidence to compell them to withdraw their prosecution case.
If it was the House of Lords who invoked the exclusive cognisance by email for Hanningfield and not his solicitor or barrister... Then clearly the only guidance on it is what is on the parliament website and the actual legislation itself.
After all... Section .85 of the road traffic act and other legislation for traffic offences is often one line of text that the police base whole prosecutions and enforcement on.
In regards to Parliamentary Exclusive cognisance for parliamentary members.
The Government has a fraud policy. And also a truth and honesty employment policy.
So anything not permitted as behavior and conduct in that parliamentary member policy would not be covered by the exclusive cognisance.
Such as lying, cheating.. Fixing votes..not telling the truth when they have an obligation to do so.. Or covering up crime from other non parliamentary areas of government such as local councils highways departments.
The road signs manuals not being followed correctly in relation to road safety is an immediate safety risk. Thus they would have an obligation to inform people for safety reasons.
As for petitioning.... Petitioning parliament as a non member excludes the public from parliamentary member employment policy. And the specific law on petitioning states that ALL prosecutions are illegal. This means no law at all can be used.
That means that in a stand off challenge contest between the public and parliament the public have more powers of protection. Because it is illegal for the government to use law against a petitioner at all...who is also under no rule of policy. Where as if you have been voted into parliament by the grace of the public.. You as a MP or Lord are actually there by the will of the voter and bound to the rules and regulations and truth and honesty expected from you by the public.
The public are not under the same obligations or requirements.
Thus the Parliament is not allowed to lie or cheat or avoid obligations.
Unfortunately Ministers believe that are above the public through snobbery somewhat. And believe that politics is about strategic avoidance of truth to gain popularity. Yet the voter is not valued and respected in any gesture other than a cast vote and a statistic.
I think a good example of what is acceptable from Members of Parliament would be "A DOCTOR"
A doctor needs to be able to do his job unobstructed... Thus has licence to run red traffic lights and speed to get to patients and for genuine purposes he can give reason for..
He also might shout and swear.
He may also not disclose certain details for diplomatic reasons... But that does not give him licence or permission to lie or give false information or details knowingly. Unless it was a genuine mistake.
And that lies in the centre of the issue with MPs. Are they good honest people? Or are they charlatans acting in their own interests? Do they have genuine reasons for cover-ups. Or is it done to protect their own popularity and image?
Mps have to weigh up their own interests vs the interests of the public. Which is why you get Mps resigning.
With exclusive cognisance you only need to compare the MPs work to other jobs that have licence or privilige of exemption from law.
Everyday things.. Parking permits, highway maintenance, council sticker signs, emergency vehicles, freedom of speech, lots of laws, fines and regulations that citizens might be fined for breaking or have to obtain a special permit.. Yet exemptions are not out of the normal or uncommon. Depending on what type of work you are doing and for what required genuine purpose you can give good reason for.
An MP would be hard pressed to explain a genuine reason for stealing a thousand pounds in cash from the cafe till in parliament, if refreshments are not free to them.
Yet the Mps can hold an event and put on free refreshments if they organize it.
There is not usually a citizen excuse for theft. Or a special permit.
I think with exclusive cognisance the public should be the judge and jury. Which is why Mps cover up a lot of their illicot activities from public scrutiny. Its their tricks they want to hide. Not display.
Where as the Mps control the police and courts anyway and the Right to petition is the publics defence in law from being prevented from challenging the Mps.
In a way... The battle is between thr publics open petitioning and the Mps amd Lords "undisclosed" activities. Or the ones they use tricks to distract attention from.
Usually its not the public who cannot challenge the MPs.. Its the public who have not realised what they are actually doing, and preventing the public opposing it. Or the government pulls stunts and publicity yo create a need for the agenda they want to push forward with.
Create poor people and you create a need for security gates and cameras.
Unless you are just nosy or like to control people for fun.
Post by Administrator on Sept 12, 2016 11:17:21 GMT
Calderdale Magistrates court have sent back my Bill of Rights and petitions committe evidence. And refuse to process a exemption from Jurisdiction for the Ossett bypass under the Civil Proceedings rule 11.
They said get legal help. The House of Lords have informed me that I only need to submit a "Representation" in writing to the court. Which i have now done. But also I have mentioned that...
Dear Calderdale Magistrates Court,
I have sent a paper copy of the email just for reference.
I wish to add that, you can please inform the Court Manager, Administration and Magistrates Employees that
1. A speeding offence is regarding a vehicles motion on a road.
2. The legal matters of Road and pavements in relation to their enforcement IS a civil matter. And does fall within the Acknowledgement of service and Civil proceedings defence rules rule 11.
Contest Court jurisdiction.
a.. A Fall or injury on a road or pavement is Civil in regards to accident claims.
b. A fight or crime on a street is a action regardless of place (unless in a different county border from the jusrisdiction of the court.
c. jurisdiction is not limited to physical space, but legal space and dimensions of restriction as well.
d. The fact of if a road is enforceable in the first place in order for police to obtain submissible evidence and prosecute in a court with jurisdiction over the road, is without doubt a civil matter of court jurisdiction before the offence has even taken place.
e. The joint requirement for a motoring offence is that an action that is unlawfull must be taken on a road that is within the legal jurisdiction of the court. Thus it is where Civil and criminal Law meet.
f. Other than the reminder that the Police, local authority and Magistrates are member of the road safety partnership. And they are under contractual obligation to inform and notify eachother of the road signage, safety and legal status of any enforced road. And any jurisdiction period in which the Court, police led prosecution or Crown prosecution service has legal authority to enforce any road within the Jurisdiction of that Road safety partnership, or wider road safety partnership. When any member of that road safety partnership has been made aware of any issue or legal problem with the road signage of any stated road. Historically, or recently in regards to its enforceability.
Automatic exemption from Court jurisdiction applies without appeal, to all drivers wishing to make a claim to either
You can not get legal help from solicitors who do not want to put all the road signage correct and who are friends and colleagues with the police led prosecution, court staff and local duty solicitors social peers.
Also please note that....
1. Unlawfull, illegal Road signage was taken to Huddersfield Police station. To report. The Police stated that - (quote) IT IS A CIVIL MATTER.
Thus when challenging a court over the Illegal road signs, section .85 of the road traffic act. It can be presented to a Court through the Civil proceedings & defence rules, of which exemption from Jurisdiction falls within. And The Police have stated in Direct quote that the road signage IS a "Civil matter" thus court Jurisdiction can be contested under Civil procedure rules. Because any matter relating to The Road & Signage is a civil matter. And if this is raised as issue with the Court - no "Defence" in relation to the Criminal prosecution charges is required to be submitted. The case is "set aside" and there is no time limit for defence or prosecution objections to the evidence being allowed. Thus it has become entirely a matter of proving to the court, with no immediate time limit, the unlawfull road signage, rendering the jurisdiction of the court over the road not in effect. And this will apply for multiple drivers for however so long the road has not been enforceable. And that it would be a matter for the Court as member of the road safety partnership to under obligation of LAW and Road safety partnership contract - have the local or national Highways department evaluate the road, and the Police led prosecutions would require re-evaluation. Either by the acting Chief constable, the Court or the Prosecution. None being so independently unrelated to the Chief police officer themself. To whom the Court answer to non independently from the Chief constable.
Related documents Acknowledgement of service - Exemption from Court jurisdiction - defence rule 11. submitted evidence / representation N510 form - when permission from the Court is not required
Post by Administrator on Sept 13, 2016 11:11:40 GMT
Ok.. this doesnt make sense unlss they have changed it.
I got a 6 month driving ban when i was in my early 20's
about 5 years later or so i was banned for 2 years!
Now I have been banned for 6 months again.
according to this information on the government website it doesnt make sense at all. Why was I banned for 2 years for a regular few mph over the limit speeding offence? when it was about 5 years after my first 6 month ban? I was going out with a girlfriend who lived on a remote farm and it was really difficult to visit her. Sam Goozee? Roy the prosecutor from the Pub in Town? Police contacts? I think i was "Set-up" to be banned for 2 years.. stitched up by the police.
It was either Sam Goozee, Clerk of the justices or the Police led Prosecutor who pulled my driving licence out and read i had still got a ban listed from previously.. but it was at least 3-5 years old! so should not have counted towards a 2 year ban just for totting up.
See.. further example of Police/CPS/Court corruption.
Post by Administrator on Sept 13, 2016 11:31:20 GMT
Also look here...
The MS90 failure to give information as to identity of the driver.. 6 points.
I am certain that if the Court choose NOT to give you any "Penalty points" for an offence, either guilty or not guilty.. then the DVLA will not be contacted. Because points and endorsement will not be at all used. If they are NOT going to give you points, but a fine instead.. then they will fine you and NOT endorse you. Thus there should not be a situation where the DVLA have record of any offence that caries 0 points. because if you are given NO points but convicted, and only fined. you will get a fine from the court and the DVLA will not be involved.
You CAN get a disqualification of itself, not related to any other offences. But if it IS applied, by totting up to 12 points.. then it MUST be from the total of points on your driving licence and the endorsements.
So... you should not have any endorsement that is contributing to a disqualification unless it has the appropriate points next to it.
and currently my newly applied MS90 (crewe magistrates)does not say 6 points next to it! it says 0! and the total number of points 0!
Some offences give a number you can get between 3-6 points.. but it does NOT say you can get 0! or LESS points for that specific offence! so for failing to give driver details MS90 you can NOT get 0 points. Thus it can NOT be a correct communication from the court convicting. because if they were going to give you a fine only and NO points.. they would not contact the DVLA at all. the DVLA only deal with Endorsements/penalty points applied to driving licences from Courts. And only the number of points that is possible for each offence. For the MS90 it is fixed at 6 points. no more no less.
The Lady at the DVLA is not understanding this when i am trying to explain it to her.
The current 6 month Disqualification can NOT be from a 0 point added MS90. And i have NOT even been given any endorsement listed at all for the TS10. Which was the only way i could even possibly have got convicted for the MS90 !
The DVLA are not getting this at all. Or considering the fact the Huddersfield magistrates sentanced me to 6 penalty points - 2 x 3points for stopping on a motorway on 2 occasions, but those points never ever appeared and the DVLA do not know anything about it & dont care! neither do Huddersfield magistrates Court (then consider the fact the entire lot has been prosecuted against me illegally anyway!) someone is messing with the computers i am certain. Dont forget that both the Ossett bypass & Haslingden roads ( 3points + 3points ) are also unlawfully applied anyway because the roads do not have the lawfull road signage! so the entire lot is unlawfull!
Putting an MS90 on my driving licence with 0 points listed next to it, is an act of fraud and covered by the Fraud act under false accounting.
I do believe that police writing down or changing a statement, complaint or other record would come under false accounting as well. Including incorrect evaluation of the legal status of road signs. The council/Highways giving false account of the state and condiction of road signs and other road markings.
General matters Preliminary proceedings Custody and bail Disclosure Evidence Trial Sentencing Confiscation and related proceedings Appeal Costs Other proceedings General and listing Practice Directions Glossary Case management rules extract
The prosecution actualy must provide the court with any evidence relevant to your plea.. so if you are pleading not guilty then anything that would show you are not guilty must be produced to the court.
I still have had no letter or notice from the COURT, no fine of sentancing email or letter from the Court. It must be served on the Day it is issued and if by post it must be sent on the working buisness day it is issued by the court!?
1688 Bill of Rights - The right to Petition - It is the Right of the Subjects to petition the Queen & all Commitments & Prosecutions for doing so are illegal.
Post by Administrator on Sept 14, 2016 10:38:09 GMT
On The re-hearing of Driving convictions SP30 cases on the Ossett bypass between 2000 - 2016 by default of rule 11. Exemption from court jurisdiction.
This states by rule, that there is no reason why a magistrates court cannot re-open a case regarding a driving conviction, if the road signage was or is not correct & lawful. in fact it is in the interests of justice to do so. Unless a Crown court has ruled in that specific case appeal (I abandoned my Bradford crown court appeal, thus no decision was made in relation to the Ossett bypass in my instance)
The only reason a Magistrates court cannot re-open the case is if there is an ongoing matter in relation to the case. Now.. for the court to say there is an ongoing matter in relation to the case (multiple driver convictions, or else my petition or related issues) then the court would have to acknowledge to me, the prosecution and Police that there WAS an ongoing issue in relation to the offence.
But you could say that about any driving convictions on enforced roads. Thus the magistrates cannot use that excuse, of other prosecutions on the road. Then we ask what about sucessfull appeals at the Crown on the road that the magistrates Court have not ammended for other drivers within the same effected road signage period?
Although.. Now that I have found you can "Contest court jurisdiction" which is not in relation to a "Defence" from the prosecution.. as NO DEFENCE IS REQUIRED. Then in the interests of justice, a contest of Court jurisdiction regarding the charges IS VIABLE, because if there is no Magistrates court Jurisdiction on a ROAD, in a county, there is no Crown jurisdiction either on that road in that same county. Thus the magistrates court.. If it does involve multiple drivers - all of which would be exempted from jurisdiction and their defences not required.. WOULD fall within the Section 142 Magistrates’ Court Act 1980 - in fact the Court would be obliged to include ALL convictions on the road of which the Jurisdiction is contested over a certain timeframe. for example 2000-2016. - If the Court refused on only the basis that the matter was still ongoing.. well how can it hold any hearings of NEW convictions on any such road if there is still a concern regarding previous cases?
Section 142 of the Magistrates’ Court Act 1980 states that a magistrates’ court may vary or rescind a sentence or other order imposed or made by it when dealing with an offender if it appears to the court to be in the interests of justice to do so, and it is hereby declared that this power extends to replacing a sentence or order which for any reason appears to be invalid by another which the court has power to impose or make.
Furthermore where an individual is convicted by a magistrates’ court and it subsequently appears that in the interests of justice the case should be reopened – Section 142 provides the power for this to be done.
The important issue here to note is whether it is in the interests of justice to reopen the case.
Is there a specific time period for the case to be reopened?
There is no specific time limit provided for under Section 142 of the Act which states when a case can be reopened. In most cases, however, this should be done within 28 days. Will an application be dismissed if it is entered after 28 days?
In some cases a magistrates’ court will not reopen a case when the application has been made after the 28 day period. However, it is not enough for them to refuse to do it simply because of the time period. For this to be able to be done the court must give a substantial reason behind the decision.
Are there any exceptions to the situation when Section 142 will apply?
The power conferred on a magistrates’ court under Section 142 of the Act will not be exercisable in relation to any sentence or order imposed by it in the following circumstances:
1. That the Crown Court has determined an appeal against:
That sentence or order The conviction in respect of which that sentence or order was imposed or made Any other sentence or order imposed or made by the magistrates’ court when dealing with the offender in respect of that conviction
2. Where the High Court has determined a case stated for the opinion of that court on any question arising in any proceedings leading to or resulting from the imposition or making of the sentence or order.
The basis notion under this Section of the Magistrates’ Court Act 1980 is that the case cannot be reopened by a magistrates’ court when there is still a situation arising concerning the original criminal conviction.
Philip Rule writes in favour of giving the power in s.142 of the MCA 1980 the broader test the statute provides, and not limiting it to mistakes
Section 142 of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980
The power of the magistrates' court to re-open a conviction is provided by s.142(2) of the Magistrates' Courts Act 1980. This provides that, “Where a person is convicted by a magistrates' court and it subsequently appears to the court that it would be in the interests of justice that the case should be heard again by difference justices, the court may so direct”. The applicable test is therefore in the interests of justice, which it is submitted is a broad and encompassing test.
It is suggested that the citation in Stone's Justices' Manual 2008, vol.I (at para.1-2235 fn. 6) that: “The purpose of s.142 is to rectify mistakes. It is generally to be regarded as a slip rule and the power under the section cannot be extended to cover situations beyond those akin to mistake” is a misstatement of the law. Taken literally it is misleading in the approach to be properly taken to the power provided by and decision required by s.142. It is submitted that the danger of misapplication of s.142 is presently a serious one given the widespread reliance placed on Stone's Justices' Manual in legal advice often given to the bench in the magistrates' court and its use by District Judges (magistrates' courts).
The case which is relied upon for the proposition in Stone's is: R. v. Croydon Youth Court ex parte DPP  2 Cr App R 411. It is submitted that the principles upon which the discretion ought to be exercised have previously been often misunderstood because too literal an approach was taken to the Croydon decision. It is trite that the safeguards of the ECHR are not rigid but provide principles of evolving and adapting fairness to be applied by the courts. The concept of fairness generally guranteed by art.6 is given a broad and purposive interpretation and as an evolving concept may require procdures to be re-assessed (eg, R. v. H  2 AC 134). It was submitted to the High Court in R (Acton) v. Feltham Magistrates' Court  EWHC 3366 (Admin) that the effect of the Croydon decision has been misunderstood or mis-stated in the textbooks which have attributed to it the principle cited in Stone's. Alternatively, if the test is properly understood to be limited to “mistakes” the test in the Croydon case, decided prior to the implementation of the Human Rights Act 1998, must now be read in a way compatible with art.6 of the ECHR so that it truly reflects the broad “interests of justice” test. The courts should distinguish, decline to follow or at least not rigidly apply the Croydon decision, which pre-dates the implementation of the Human Rights Act 1998. If that decision is applied to produce a more limited “mistake rectification” approach to s.142 than the “interests of justice” it is submitted that such test would not be compatible with the right to a fair trial as guaranteed by art.6 of the ECHR. This becomes a matter of vital importance in the case of those who have entered an unequivocal plea and have been sentenced for the offence, as they cannot appeal to the Crown Court, nor seek to rely on the ability of the court to vacate a plea of guilty pursuant to S v. Recorder of Manchester  AC 481.
( old cars may be faulty such as older cars or classics. This may exempt someone from endorsement disqualification from driving. (such as example - peer friend of David Cameropn who owns and drives a classic sports car.
Or an old ford Escort or Cortina (unless such vehicles have all been tendered from service by a cash for cars deal by the government - in which case very few of those cars would be left on the roads. Unlike in America, South Africa or Australia. Thus exemption from disqualification for an offence while driving a classic or older car would now be reduced and rare.
1688 Bill of Rights - The right to Petition - It is the Right of the Subjects to petition the Queen & all Commitments & Prosecutions for doing so are illegal.
Refusing to provide a service I understand that the Legal Ombudsman (LeO) will now accept complaints from prospective clients where a person has unreasonably been refused a service; or a person has persistently or unreasonably been offered a service that they do not want. In what circumstances can I reasonably refuse to provide a service and how do I demonstrate that I acted properly?
Reasonable reasons for refusing to provide a service include:
you do not undertake that type of work the client is unable to fund the work required you are too busy/do not have time to do the work ethical, regulatory or other reasons to refuse (for example a suspicion of money laundering, conflict of interest, insurance issues), or the case is too complex or difficult or you do not have the relevant skills and experience.
There may be other reasonable reasons for refusing to provide a service. You should consider whether your decision to refuse service is reasonable on the facts and whether it is likely to lead you to breach Principle 2 of the SRA Code of Conduct 2011 requiring you to act with integrity.
It is unlawful to refuse to provide a service to a prospective client on the basis of age; disability; gender reassignment; marriage and civil partnership; pregnancy and maternity; race; religion or belief; sex or sexual orientation. It is also contrary to the SRA Code of Conduct. Where you refuse to provide a service to a prospective client you should provide them with a reason for that refusal.
LeO recognises that there will be limited paperwork in cases relating to prospective clients. In some cases, where an enquiry is by email, the response will be recorded. In other cases, for example enquiries via phone or in person, there may be no record. Given the changes to the rules, you may wish to consider making a note of what has happened in some cases, for example if the prospective client seems upset or angry about your refusal to provide a service.
Where the firm has not provided a service, LeO would not normally expect the full complaints procedure to be followed. Instead, if you receive a complaint regarding refusal of service, a short explanation of why you refused to act should be sufficient. You should also signpost the client to the LeO.
It is important to note that where a person is complaining about being refused a service they will need to produce evidence that there was no legitimate reason for the refusal to provide the service. They will also need to show that there has been a financial loss or that they have been unreasonably inconvenienced by the refusal. For this reason, it is likely that this type of complaint will be rare.
For details of the Scheme Rules please see the Legal Ombudsman's website.