|
Post by Administrator on Aug 31, 2016 17:16:05 GMT
Ok,
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.
|
|
|
Post by Administrator on Sept 1, 2016 12:15:20 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Administrator on Sept 2, 2016 6:05:25 GMT
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 3, 2016 22:25:19 GMT
|
|
|
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...
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. unless the government have changed the policy? www.gov.uk/driving-disqualifications/overviewIt 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.
|
|
|
Post by Administrator on Sept 14, 2016 8:10:28 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Administrator on Sept 14, 2016 10:10:31 GMT
These are the Rules for Magistrates Courts, time limits and things like evidence Prosecution must produce... Home Ā» Courts Ā» Procedure rules Ā» Criminal Ā» Rules and Practice Directions 2015 Rules and Practice Directionswww.justice.gov.uk/courts/procedure-rules/criminal/rulesmenu-2015#Anchor2.pdf file downloads 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 examples... 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!?
|
|
|
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 Magistratesā 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?
|
|
|
Post by Administrator on Sept 14, 2016 19:26:01 GMT
This legislation may be of interest to you.. The Criminal procedure rules - service of documents - contents list. www.bentcop.biz/crim-proc-rules-2015-part-04(1).pdfThe Road Traffic offender Act 1988 CHAPTER 53 part II - 44 Endorsement of Licences www.bentcop.biz/http://www.bentcop.biz/application_conv.pdfThe Road Traffic offender Act 1988 CHAPTER 53 part II - 45 Effect of Endorsement www.bentcop.biz/application_of_endorsements.pdfThe Road Traffic offender Act 1988 CHAPTER 53 part II - 48 Exemption from Endorsement www.bentcop.biz/dangerous_condiction_remove_cars.pdf( 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.
|
|
|
Post by Administrator on Sept 24, 2016 0:20:25 GMT
Our Virtual legal representative for Ossett bypass refunds to West Yorkshire police
|
|
|
Post by Administrator on Sept 28, 2016 16:51:37 GMT
|
|