|
Post by Administrator on Sept 16, 2016 8:08:30 GMT
I wanted to say something regarding the actual current justice system we have inherited from the past.
I don't believe that it is in any way fair or modern with today's world and society.
Courts were places where members of the public would be called or gathered to - the jury.
Where a specific time and date was set.
Where certain scrolls and documents and parchments had to be presented in a specific manner, at an exact time.. and where only certain people were permitted to "The Bar"
I believe that the entire cherade is like some ancient arcane ritual where justice is not purchased and bargained for between charlatans and far from independent judges or magistrates - who are all road safety partnership members with the police and councils!
The Ex police chiefs Run the organised professional witness companies who - like James Boothby are mostly ex police or working for the police! In most cases the independent device testing and witnesses are safety camera van technicians who shot you down! Or are friends or colleagues with the police! Some are paid to evaluate road signs as a 2nd job, when they failed to evaluate the signs the day they got you speeding!
In terms of court... And some strange appearance that a naughty person must be made to endure while being attacked by the prosecution and police who are not independent from the court is highly questionable in fairness and morals. While needing to present the exact document at the metaphorical full moon or solstice, while chanting the exact magical text and spell, while fighting the prosecution and being gagged and bound from free speech ..is obsurd in this day and age.
When a road is undoubtedly unlawfully signed. And dangerous. Not to mention illegal and a public safety concern...
You can not buy truth. Or justice. And no man or woman should have to pay vast sums of money to any Lawyer or solicitors to investagative or inspect road signs when the tax payer had already been funding the Council, Highway authority, Highway Agency and police safety partnership to check the road. Of which duty they have been "dodging" and fraudulently with deception misleading the public over.
If a court ever was a place of justice, it has become a buisness center. And not even one of honest buisness. The magistrates are above themselves and out of control. While corporate police chiefs build new temple fortresses of power. Where they command and order. Not the Law, but their personal whims and will.
Thus... The future I believe can not be this.
There can be no deadline to establish the truth. No cost or fee for public enquiries into the truth of events. And no guilt or innocence through wealth or poverty.
No requirement for any person to be forced to attend any place, when they give account to be properly evaluated by phone, letter, computer, internet.
The police have licence to begin and administer punnishment as soon as an arrest warrant is issued. Even before you are proved guilty by a court of law.. and that experience can never be compensated for by money. The legal abuses suffered.
The current system leaves you at a loss even if you Win your case in most driving offences you cannot claim back all the solicitors fees. Thus how can it be possible that to place a mobile police camera on a road, if you get legal help you are by default in financial loss. No police authority should have licence to put you at automatic loss with no possible claim just by "choosing" to place a officer on a road!
Especially when the majority of these roads are unlawfully signed, dangerous and not even the correct consistent speed limits.
Entrapment falls short of the truth. The real situation here is that we have, without doubt organized, planned co-ordinated and controlled farming of drivers. By the police chiefs and councils highways and Department of transport.. for their sport, leisure, control and a vain attempt to plug a hole in the deficit that they themselves are draining by their own pleasure and vocation of Government play time.
When the average man is just trying to get on with his normal day to day job and life.
These terrorists abuse the system that we are funding and voting for. Using false trust and trickery against the mostly honest citizen.
|
|
|
Post by Administrator on Sept 16, 2016 15:32:45 GMT
I have mentioned this briefly in another thread.. I had to go to Stockport magistrates Court several years ago, for a contravention of a Arrow sign, prosecuted by PC Bateson of Greater ManChester Police. I had looked into the Driver Alertness Course, which is an intensive course with an instructor, reserved usually for accident cases. On the premis that education is better than Punnishment, the local duty Solicitor got me on the Course. But We had to get the Court to ring the Chief of police to get permission from him. The Magistrates apparently could not send me on the course without permission from the chief of police. So, the Court can be in Direct daily contact with the Chief Police officer. Both the Court and the Chief Police Officer have power to remove any convictions made in error or by mistake. Although this may be by slightly different process, it results in the prosecution or conviction in question being deleted or reversed. - Possibly the Chief might do it by Direct access to the court with his signature and authority. Or Just by position. of Chief officer having authority over the police records. and Police Led prosecutions (mostly driving related) So, as many of the Magistrates are reported to be in on the Road safety partnerships, I am wondering why it is that if a solicitor wins a appeal or contest over any road signs case.. why the other drivers prosecuted under the same sign or regulation would have to "Appeal" and why and court decision over such matters, would not have to be reported directly to the Chief police officer for correction? Just like with the Wharfedale observer story and the Traffic regulation order on the A65 Rawdon. All drivers were contacted automaticaly. Thus, you might see why courts and magistrates are reluctant to deem a road unlawful even when the signs are 100% unlawfull and illegal, even if you submit the appropriate evidence. If the court has heard many, many cases on the road, when the Road safety partnership is supposed to conduct regular signage checks.. you would question how it is at all possible for roads to end up with unlawful signs !? Well.. on that premise I present the entire website and investigations. As that is what we are here to find out about and get something done about it.
|
|
|
Post by Administrator on Sept 16, 2016 15:44:53 GMT
Why does the Trail ultimately always lead to the Chief police officer? His signature on the traffic regulation orders for speed limits that should not exist and are not consistent... His permission required from the Courts... His police led prosecutions... first point control of all driving and recreational drug related prosecutions... His Ex-police chief colleagues running independent buisnesses giving independent witnesses and forensics devices.... His ACPO rules that are not followed correctly... His responsibility to make certain any other organisation is not operating fraudulently or using false accounting.. His refusal to acknowledge or accept complaints... The professional standards department diverting complaints to the IPPC... Solicitors and private prosecutors refusing to prosecute or investigate the police, except unusual strange police prosecution organisations and independent ex-police private investigators... The Ex-police Road safey support framework to back up the police chief, ex-police chief run road sign checks, that are failed to be carried out by staff who are double agents as sign checks and mobile camera operators, and independent witnesses, working for the Chief and supposedly independent buisnesses, - people like James Boothby and Steve Callaghan... The police chiefs keen criminal psychology subject university study interests and education, with particular specialisation in Criminal minds. Criminal tactics and criminal strategy.... Im am sorry but for me, this is obvious to the pattern of a gangster-like organisation that is not answerable to the public. But more a terrorist-like outfit of dominance and control. With no functional complaints system or true method of control over any way of these people being made to obey the Law in which they claim to represent, follow and promote.
|
|
|
Post by Administrator on Sept 17, 2016 8:58:07 GMT
Ive mentioned the fact that the majority of drivers are prosecuted for speeding offences and traffic light offences in areas they are unfamiliar with or that are far away. This presents problems getting to courts that are long distances, especially if you were on holiday or visiting a relative and do not go there often. You can defend yourself in court and supposedly submit a lawful defence by post to file with the court (or contest jurisdiction over the road which requires no defence, but could have huge implications for the court if they have prosecuted many, many drivers on the road.. Only later to be informed by a bit of paper and a few photos that their road was not enforceable. It seems like many good defences or mitigations sent by post seem to fail. But you do have legal right to defend yourself. Though, we have established that the current strategy the courts and defence solicitors are using does not entitle you to claim back all the legal costs even if you win. So by the police chief placing a speed camera, he is automaticaly charging you a fixed penalty if you choose to employ a solicitor. Because you can never ever get the money back. Even if not guilty. Which cannot be justice. Thus the term "fixed penalty" suits the pice chief well. As if you want legal help then the police chief has Automaticaly scored a "fixed penalty" against you before you have even started. Any papers you are likely to send into the court in your own defence, if you do not go in person to beg, are likely not to be effective. Simply because you have not been 'admitted to the bar' of legal professionals. And the court dont take too kindly to drivers sending in a piece of paper that may instantly render the police and councils speed camera prosecutions on that road for the last year..all void. Not forgetting that the magistrates are on the road safety partnership as well. The main problem is that the solicitors dont want to run the matter through as a 'civil claim' for litigation. Just like if you fall or have an accident by tripping up over an uneven pavement slab. If you are caused to trigger a police camera and there are unlawful illegal road signs or markings.. The insurance is questionable. And the council can be litigated against. This could be done within weeks of the date of the alledged offence. Before the police actually list amy prosecution case with any court. During the conditional offer phase. You take the council or police to court over the road signs being unlawful. Exemption from court jurisdiction and litigate against the police. And they will have to pay up and withdraw the N.I.P. You could do it after you had been prosecuted. Or even if you are not even in any police matter at all currently. Just necause you might challenge the road as a regular caring citizen helping road safety and other drivers. And fighting council corruption. They are not playing it that way at the moment because it is not good for buisness. Yet drivers are loosing their livelihoods and jobs and driving licences. Which has a strain on their family and relationships and marriages. All for money.. When the police could do more driving courses. Yet that would be less buisness for lawyers and solicitors. Many perfectly good defences filed with courts seem to fail simply because... (I believe) That its been designed so that court hearings are always far away, or bounced from court to court around a county. Solicitors know their local speed camera sites and it costs to pay them to travel. The Magistrates are unlikely to accept even the truth and law on paper. Unless they get a good beg and grovel in front of them in person. Or else they are throwing weeks, months and years of the police chiefs little speed trap and many court cases down the tube. Just because you send in 2 pieces of paper and a photo that their road is dangerous and in fact unlawful. And the Bar will not stand for that. Not unless you have paid a barrister or solicitor 500-1000 to add to their franchise. And the road signs might just get reconfigured to a new incorrect set up by the council. Like at Slaithwaite in Huddersfield on Manchester road. Where if you check google maps.. The road signs were unlawfull.. But they just got changed at a certain date to a 'different' unlawful configuration! Thus i present... Www.bentcop.biz! The crooked police chiefs. Who are an advertisement for crime. Or ekse what other job would they do?! Keen interests in Cambridge studied Criminal Psychology, big buisness partners with ex police chiefs and police Lords. The future of law is Bentcop. Get your children Bent. Get them in the school of Bentcop. Church of the Association of Chief Police Officers. The Bentcops council. Keep it crooked. Or there will be no criminals left.
|
|
|
Post by Administrator on Sept 17, 2016 9:25:36 GMT
I believe these statements to be true to the best of my knowledge. And an accurate account of the general police culture outlined in the Theresa May police federation speech.
Bentcop.biz
|
|
|
Post by Administrator on Sept 17, 2016 10:51:03 GMT
Magistrates in far away places that you are summonsed to court to appear before ~ for driving on roads where the speed limit was not consistent with an identical profile road in your own area...
The Magistrates expect you to make the effort to travel on public transport or get a lift, otherwise pay high fees to a legal professional to represent you. When you can not claim back all the expenses.
Thus we are indebted to the Magistrates and police chiefs by default if we are not compelled to make long distance public transport journeys across the kingdom at risk of being stranded in our vehicles ~ dar from home if we are disqualified from driving.
A Horse! A Horse! My Kingdom for a horse! My job, my livelihood! My family!
It is ironic that in the Dark age of history through the "Inquisition" and witch trials of English and European history.. It was the Inquisition that would travel to you! Depicted in many films and movies as travelling around in a hore drawn carriage to administer holy justice to the masses. They would do the favour of doing the rounds to you.
Yet now it is us who are having our jobs and careers threatened and at the mercy of Highwayman police chiefs who place strategic road toll traps against the traveller in the name of justice and road safety. Yet these roads fail to comply with safety regulations!
And on failing to name the driver or give statement you were the driver.. Carrying 6 penalty points..
How can the owner/keeper of the vehicle name another driver by letter/form and then it is that person who is obligated to appear in court? When both persons letters should carry the same evidence before any court?
And why be charged with failing to state you were the driver if you have stated it in writing.. And also stated it to the prosecution and to the court..
All of whom can accept a statement at any stage in writing.
How could it be that three departments.. Pilice, prosecution and court can all deny you have made such a statement when it is clearly there in writing multiple times! 6 points and half a driving licence gone and no road traffic offence at all done for that! Just the refusal of three departments claiming you have not sent a document when it has been sent without doubt multiple times with the words in writing?
It can not be law, justice or legislation or your actions that is a problem.
It is nothing but the staff conduct and behavior of the police, prosecution and court simply refusing to comply. And nothing else.
They refuse.
|
|
|
Post by Administrator on Sept 25, 2016 0:48:01 GMT
The exampler for a virtual legal representative. I have exchanged my name in this exampler with Mr. U. R. Wrong. Note, that when it states that the driver statement "May" be accepted by the Court. What It means is that it is "permissible in LAW" for the statement to be accepted "when produced/filed for that hearing". It does not mean that the court "May or May not" choose to accept it at their discretion, if it is produced. And the Prosecution can not object to it being read out, in the absence of the driver. As it is crtitically required. The prosecution are likely to have a trend and co-culture with the court of attempting to coast through cases with wins banked on their objecting habbits. When in truth those objections are limited. in this situation facing an MS90 offence the statement itself is on Par with the guilty or not guilty plea of a charge. because production of the driver statement, would have the ability to render a guilty plea as "not guilty" by the court. via virtue of truth, if the statement were signed and contained a statement of truth within it. It would contradict a guilty plea. Unless the court was rigged to find them guilty regardless of evidence. You cannot produce a document stating that you were the driver, and be guilty of not providing the statement when it is there on the table. Regardless of the other offence. If you claimed you have not produced said document when you have produced it in front of the court... You must be lying. And the magistrates would have to find you not guilty. It's a bit like walking into a police station and admitting a crime with absolutely no evidence at all. They would just laugh at you.
|
|
|
Post by Administrator on Sept 27, 2016 9:40:00 GMT
I put a few complaints through to some of the regional Crown Prosecution Service units last night.
In an attempt to try find if there are some less corrupted ones who might be able to help get the unlawful road signs investigated on a national liaison basis.
As if it exists with the police, it must exist with the CPS as well.
I got a telephone call this morning from a young woman from the Crown Prosecution service victim liaison. I think either Dorset or Hamphire. Unless its the same one. I dont know if it was the Chief Crown prosecutor or not.
(Note that in Dorset, drivers are not getting prosecuted for under 1second into red at a traffic light anyway. So it seems from the Police and driver training websites. Thus Simon Byrne knows that he is with intent, administering justice unfairly within the uk, against human rights. And is proud of the fact to bolster his ruthless police image)
I bried her on how my situation started with the Ossett and Haslingden bypass. And my unlawfull road sign findings across the UK.
She did not disagree with me about the road signs. Or my claimed illegal arrest. Or in regards to my petition.
What she was saying is that as its not her area, she couldnt fo anything about it as its not CPS policy.
I made my point that in law, any person can lay evidence with the CPS. And the CPS can take the case and direct the police.
Ahe said that was not in their policy and she would send me a copy of it.
I was trying to explain that i believed the policy is not based on the actual legislation (a bit like the highway code not being exactly correct to legislation for stopping distances and seatbelt distances) but she was not having any of it.
They have been trained not to think about or question their own rules and procedures.
I have read the Crown prosecutors code and decision making rules. And i can quote it if i must... Specifically..
But it does allow for national liaison. Just that the staff do not want to do it.
The thing is, that it doesnt cover all potential situations. You have to look at the law governing the evidence submission and apply it with common sense.
The fact that the CPS are making very wrong and in fact unlawful decisions already. Which is why i am having to do the petition.. Gives question to how we can expect them to even approach the complaints policy honestly if there is evidence other areas of their work has issues.
I believe that the CPS higher management have informed, educated and trained CPS staff to not truly understand why they are there. What the complaints procedure is for even. Its purpose could not possibly ever be intended not to allow very serious national concerns about unlawful road signage across the UK from being dealt with on a collaborated level.
The CPS, police and courts are all acting...without doubt to continue what they have been doing. To protect their own interests and in fact.. Not truly take aboard complaints as they should. They are protecting themselves, instead of protecting the public and the roads.
I do think a lot of it is to do with bad training. And not fully understanding the policy and code. And how it should apply to the situations. But there is a lot of refusal to comply with complaints when there are genuine concerns.
I was actualy impressed that she called. As i didnt request a telephone reply. Kust email. And she was decent enough to hear me out and discuss the matter somewhat. Bit they certainly are trained to be strong and adamant. I need to find where i read the section that says any person can lay evidence to the CPS.
Its only one line of procedure rules..
But it does say that any person can lay evidence with the CPS.
And i do believe that the avenue exists for exactly this type of situation, where the police are not available.. Or else there is a problem with the police. Or in private prosecution cases where the CPS can take over.
I think the elaboration around that existing has been neglected to be explored and covered in CPS training.
Also ignored for the reason to protect the CPS and police as well.. Just like the poolice complaints system has failed. The staff are obstructing the publics complaints. And further obstructing their investigations and the reporting of police crime.
Which is why i question this...
If the crown prosecution service has the powers to "take over" any private prosecution case. (Which it does) because it states so on the CPS under its private prosecution guidance...
Then what would happen if the private prosecution case was actualy an investigation of the CPS?! How could it take over an investigation into its own alledged corruption or criminal behavour without compromising the investigation?!
Would it have to be taken on by a CPS unit from a different area? Or a crown court unit as opposed to a magistrates unit?
What if it were all of them? And the headquarters as well?!
It must have to stay with the private prosecutor. But what private prosecutor would take on the entire Crown prosecution service?! You would have to go to the Ombudsman... And they are currently resigning tasty like hot cakes on a baking tray!
|
|
|
Post by Administrator on Sept 29, 2016 21:44:04 GMT
Does everyone not think that it is very, very unusual that they are making cars that you can speed in.
And get fines?
And phones with cameras facing both ways so people can watch you?
And building huge police stations to watch people on the internet, with complaints departments that do not truly exist.. Or function correctly.. And staffvrefuse to answer or claim not to know. Question aswers and their policys go against legislation... Yet they act completely against policy? While claiming they cant deviate from it.
No one questions anything. Or askscwhy they are doing it. And how it fits in to any solution.
|
|
|
Post by Administrator on Oct 2, 2016 13:12:54 GMT
So.. Ive been looking at magistrates courts vs Crown court. Because if a decision has been made by a crown court over a matter that will effect other cases... It can only be reheard in the crown court or a higher court. Not a lower court. So i was questioning ifca magistrates court can even hear a case contesting the road signs enforceability at a camera.. Ifcthe matter has been previously heard at a crown court over the road signs. And it is not a decision over drivers actions.
But.. Apparently property law is not regulated by the heirachy that governs criminal law. Thus is traffic regulation order decision making in a case allowed to be heard repeatedly at magistrates over and over when the crown court are hearing cases concerning decisions that will effect other drivers?
Can you have property law within criminal and civil proceedings? Because the European regulations are governing all courts. Or have been.
But the thing is that with section .85 of the road traffic regulation act, its origin was that there is no offence and no speed limit or traffic regulation order to observe in the first place. If the road signage is not as prescribed.
So that is why the ACPO association of chief police officers use of red light and speed detection technology says the evidence is not even submissible.
The legislation wording is used that you can not be "convicted". It is meant to be obvious that you can not be convicted because there has been no offence under the circumstances and there can be no prosecution.
But it does not mention that you can not be prosecuted! That part is meant to be obvious.
So really.. When the road falls to an unenforceable state, there are no indications or observations of any direction that are required to be complied with. By law.
The simplest example in criminal law would be this... Lets make up some laws to give an hypothetical comparison to if there were some similar laws to the section .85 road signs law.
These are just creative examples to help us understand the dynamics.
So lets say...examples..
If no visible sales price is placed on or attached to an item that is being offered for sale and no label identifying its owner is attached. It shall not be an offence to take the item to deprive the owner of it.
So... We have a situation where we are now not just trying to get evidence of if a person took and item or not. What happened at the time and place. And the intent of the person. In a usual theft case.
We now are concerned with the actual items themselves and the labels. And the owners placing of them.
Just like tbe road signs. But items in shops usually were there and then they are not. Or display stock and items change.
With the road signs everything is fixed in place and recorded. So it is unlikely to require much investigation and difficult to miss an error with the signs because they are there all the time.. Or not there as tbe case may be, when they should be there. And that is a police and council pre prosecution matter that should have been correctly evaluated prior to any prosrcution. It can be reported to the police. The problem is that thr police led and croen prosecution are not being honest about the signs. But not in relation to tbe actual size and placement and mai tenance. They cannot claim its not a certain size when it is a size. What tbey are trying to do is discount the legal satus or ignore it. Or just claim that the signs are "acceptable" or adequate.. When they are not. So it is not any question related to the actions of the defendant.
It is entirely a matter of fact. As in tbe "case stated" type of approach.
The problem is that tbe CPS and police do not want to state anything at all.
I did a brief talk about the way it could be classified as property law. But in fact it is no lae at all between any court or convention when the law states a court cannot convict a person.
This changes focus from police to court responsibility. But i do believe that reading the evolution of the section .85 legislation in context with the other legislation in that chapter.. Such as police and emergency vehicles.. It is clear that you cannot be convicted for the reason that... No offence has occured because no regulation was in force that had to be complied with. So no prosecution can exist in law either under those circumastances.
I will do a better video of these points with the virtual legal representative soon. This was just the brief.
|
|
|
Post by Administrator on Oct 5, 2016 11:24:54 GMT
Challenging a Magistrates Court is not easyA local advisory Committee, not the Judicial Investigations office is who you complaint to for magistrates Complaints, even though the enforcement of a road is concerned will ALL cases heard regarding it. At all courts. And i have just found out that apparently, according to the road traffic regulation act, under the Disqualification of drivers licences.. a Crown court may not even have had the jurisdiction to hear appeals in cases that are related to driver acts or actions, and not a contest of if the court could convict in the first place. If i have understood this correctly, while you are disqualified from driving.. !? The Crown Prosecution service might have overooked this, as they do not appeal or defend drivers! only prosecute. Note that this is special procedure rules for instances where a driver has been disqualified only. Not in other instances. It is a court procedure rule for driver disqualification that is different from regular "Criminal procedure rules" and "Civil Procedure rules" as well as "Property law" because in property law, apparently there is no Higher Court authority over a lower courts previous decisions. And it seems that with this Driver Disqualification matter... A lower court takes presidence over a Crown Court or Higher court, even in Appeal! "unless" the Magistrates (lower court) did not have the authority in the first place! thus then that will only apply in certain cases. Such as the section .85 where the court does not have power to convict a driver. Thus really the Magistrates Court act section 142 to correct mistakes & errors made previously by a court SHOULD be the correct avenue. and you are right to appeal to that magistrates Court. (who usually refuse to even contemplate or entertain the idea) and we see also that it appears almost impossible to complain or have the matter investigated by these "elusive" Local Advisory committees. who seems very local council, Mark Williams Burn, police Commissioner & Mayor - type of people like places! especially being local ones! Just remember that you are supposed to be able to complain to the Council Highways department as well! To me this seems all too well organised to prevent any challenges to these unlawfully signed roads. So in a case only where someone has been banned from driving by a court. No other court can hear the case to make any other decision over the matter. In relation to that offence or any offence, if the Original court did have the authority to disqualify the driver in the first place. That will cover MOST cases of driving offences. Because it is ONLY with the road signs not being lawfull, that we get section .85 that says a court does not have the power to convict ANYONE. Thus a Crown Court CAN hear the case in that instance. BUT it does not HAVE to. It CAN be re-heard by the magistrates Court. BUT if it is effecting ALL DRIVERS who have been prosecuted, you really would not summons them all together at an appeal. In fact, thus i truly believe that there needs to be no "Individual appeal" in regards to unlawfull road signage that has been incorrect over a long period of time. I truly believe that the Magistrates court act Section 142 Magistrates’ Court Act 1980 - Power to rectify previous errors & mistakes made by the Court is the correct procedure. Because why should one defendant have to appear to do any appeal presentation, when none of the other drivers have to? It doesnt make sense. What if you are reporting the unlawfull road signage, as a citizen who has "not" been convicted by the court? but you have found the court has made mistakes?! You can write to the court to "Report it". to correct its errors. Thus WHY section 142 ALLOWS for mistakes and errors to be rectified WITHOUT a hearing in certain situations. It IS there in the legislation. Just that courts really dont like it when you are informing them they have 7 years of unlawfull convictions behind them that require correcting. And IF they do not "Want to do it".. well they must do it. And IF the Road was not enforceable in the first place, it should never have been allowed to even progress to the Crown Court anyway. What we are identifying here is that NO COURT had the power to convict. Not that..oh now that a Crown court has heard any case it must go there to be decided. It is not for any Judge or magistrate to "Decide" upon or make any "Order" over any action or act. When a court does NOT have the power to convict, there is no evidence to present. Just like in Civil proceedings rule 11. contest court jurisdiction.. "No defence is required". only the appropriate forms. These are processed by the Court legal team who are supposed to "give verification" to legal documents, law, exemptions and supposedly "check road signs requirements with a manual" as if they were the LEGAL ADVISOR, or they can even "Ask" the legal advisor. If they disagree, then it is obviously the case that the legal advisors or court legal staff are not giving correct legal advice! Which, in light of the "Police" Legal services.. for example D.Stickley of West Yorkshire police, who repeatedly submits unlawfull prosecutions, is the very source of the entire problem in the first place! The Correct action is this.. "Anyone" simply writes to the court, under section 142, representing the drivers who have been unlawfully convicted. They send in the evidence. The Court investigates & corrects their past mistakes. The Chief of police has powers to do this. The Local Council should report it to the police & Court. The fact is that they dont want to, because its them who have been using the camera unlawfully in the first place. And the Court, by refusing to correct the errors is aiding and abbeting the police & council, if they do not comply. There is nothing wrong with the evidence and legislation over the Macclesfield traffic light signage & stop line. It is NOT lawful. It is very easy to establish that from the measurements and manuals. It is in no way a complex or complicated criminal case at all. All evidence is fixed, factual and legislative. Just like any Civil Proceeding Parking ticket fine where a road marking has been incorrect. It is down to the staff not wanting to comply. Thus we have conduct and behavoir. Yet the Judicial investigations office only want to accept shouting and screaming as bad behavoiur, not lying, failure to reveal information when there is a legal obligation to do so, false accounting and fraud, refusal to act when there is a legal obligation to do so.. all covered in the Ministry of justice conduct and behavior employment policy under 3.10 truth & honesty. Not being honest, and not accepting the truth, IS the conduct and behavoir of staff, judges, magistrates, legal advisors. Whoever. This is all general, for when multiple cases are known where none of the drivers could have been convicted/Disqualified, but appliesfor unlawfull road signage as well... you dont have to go to the crown court if the magistrates court never had powers to convict in the first place. Because you are not contesting the magistrates decision. Not decision could be made in the first place, because the police are not even allowed to use the evidence, by the road traffic act 1991. The road must comply with the Home office approval requirements, for use of the device. which is the road must comply with the TSRGD & Traffic signs manuals. And if It is not being reported or identified, at the same location.. case after case after case.. there is indeed a very serious problem. Which is either the Police and CPS failing to reveal the status of the signs to the court. Or the court not examining the evidence correctly when it is being presented & layed. (Regardless of if defendants appear or not) I have put a complaint through, to the Judicial investigations Office. About The Magistrates at Crewe, Warrington, Calderdale and Burnley... but the Investigations office are saying that they do not investigate magistrates! only Judges from the Crown or other courts. But is impossible for these matters not to be connected to Crown Court judges, because there will undoubtedly be appeals and cases that have progressed to the Crown court concerning the enforceability of the road, and decisions that would effect all the drivers there. So have had to add to the complaints now. I might do a complaint submission for the Leeds Crown court in relation to my Bill of Rights protections as well. Who are these "Local advisory committee's ? It sounds a lot like the local council road safety partnership type thing to me. Why are magistrates free from the Ministry of Justices judicial investigations? it all seems very conveniently set up to protect the magstrates and make it very difficult to complain about them. These Advisory committes seem rather hard to find, let alone easy to complaint to. when the majority of roads in England are not signed correctly, and there are a huge number of these driving cases.... it just seems very "Rigged" and elusive. The Magistrates seem immune to all challenges.
|
|
|
Post by Administrator on Nov 2, 2016 16:35:37 GMT
So... I know the Police and Council and government are corrupted.. But this is now even worse...
Honours and promotion for lies and deception?.. Playing for "The Team"
While innocent people are being led to believe that the Government are creating a good honest culture.. By television programs like Peppa Pig... And He-Man with a moral story line to them...
The truth of the situation.. Is that Court legal sneak's like Sam Goozee Clerk of the Justices.. From Huddersfield magistrates court are being "promoted"
For "Sneak services" of charlatanship to tbe police and courts. And Misinstry of Justice.
Goozee has apparently landed a new job in Leeds on the West Yorkshire Advisory Committee along with Mrs.Gillian Moorhouse.
So dont expect any of your complaints about magistrates court conduct or behaviour to get anywhere.
Goozee is partly responsible for my illegal prosecution and conviction at Huddersfield magistrates court.. Where i issued a citizens arrest against him for allowing the illegal cases againdt me to go ahead. He also appointed colleagues from nearby solicitors "Carr and Co" to tbrow the case.. After he appointed them himself.. Taking control of my defence and sending me the incorrect court time so that i missed my hearing. All complaints to the Court were ignored and rejected.
After questioning other victims at co..unity service.. It turned out that i was not the only one that Goozee had used the move on. He has done the paper switch and fraudulent false account of court time to other defendents in other cases. The extent of his acts is unknown.
He has failed to provide information to magistrates when there was a legal obligation to do so.
Now...after helping West Yorkshire police "secure" years of prosecutions and convictions by dirty tactics and fraud.. With help from tbe adjoining police castlegate building.... Goozee now sits on tbe Advisory committee for West Yorkshire based in Leeds at the magistrates court.
We can now see how the entire legal corruption situation of the United Kingdom has ended up as bent and corrupt as it is..
Many many other male and female High ranking Justice staff and important decision makers must have worked their way up the ranks in a similar fashion...
With the police and corrupt CPS pulling strings and connections for them.. By "playing for the side" which has required a regular and historic case influence of givibg false accounts.. Misinformation, failure to reveal information, putting justice consumers at a disadvantage and perverting the course of justice.
These actions, conducts and behaviours are highly esteemed in the legal world. And promising charlatans like Goozee, not only get promotions but special protections as well. Now Goozee is in a position of trust to protect all the Magistrates Courts in West Yorkshire.. By keeping the goal posts secured. So that no complaints or disputes get through. This enables the magistrates and court staff to fearlessly continue their abuse and perversion of justice unchallenged. And with the added bonus of conducting the "heist" against drivers in co-operation with the local solicitors, lawyers and barristers.. Including the local "duty solicitors" .. The system is completely immune from challenge and allowed to operate above and beyond the books of law and regulation.
The employment policy being more like an in-joke between the police and magistrates. Who can even rename colours.. So that red can be green and the word down means up.
Nothing is impossible for these people when will alone rules obediance to their fancy.
Thus the Chief Crown prosecutors (not independent from the court or road safety partnerships) are guaranteed legal immunity from the ombusdman as well.. Who has also achieved his position through a similar promotional system as Goozee. Devotion to the ministry... Not to the truth and law.. Grants promotion.
With this as tbe template for high society, the honest working man is doomed to fall foul of the traps and tricks "set up" by the police and local council.. While they enjoy a guilt free conscience of absolute power and rule over the dosile honest and caring working classes.
|
|
|
Post by Administrator on Jun 25, 2017 12:30:01 GMT
So.. i just did a delivery today round the corner from Calderdale Magistrates Court.. Beautifull Little Court building and although i hate courts, it WAS my fave and the cutes little court ever.. i hope the building is kept and put to good use, like Peace Hall.. I noticed as i drove past all the doors were boarded up and notices up... After i got home.. ive just looked online and apparently it was in the Halifax Courier newspaper about only 1 year months ago! recently. So seems its gone like Macclesfield Magistrates Court has. Not certain the exact date it closed.. it might have been earlier this year? www.halifaxcourier.co.uk/news/calderdale-magistrates-court-and-county-court-to-be-closed-1-7727695So... looks like for now the Courts staff and Magistrates have escaped "justice for unlawfull prosecutions" All seems very hush, hush.. with the Government running it through under "saving funds" as the Courts were only being run on half the time they were capable of... My memory there is a "Punk" Local Halifax gentleman, with a old acoustic guitar and he got checked by the guards got a tea or coffee from machine then went back out and was sat on Grass by himself, playing the guirat, strumming one or 2 notes, not amazingly as if the ijstrument were consolating his imminent fate at his hearing or whatever he was in for.... and the lesbian type secutiry staff hand searching him in & out.. lol.. i was just there for info enquiry at the time i think. Obviously Government not admitting any liability or connection to illegal prosecutions at this stage still solidering on... I hope they havent destroyed all the letters and complaints archives especially all the staff ones of failing to comply with my legal orders.
|
|
|
Post by Administrator on Jul 3, 2017 21:41:47 GMT
This legal notice on the Ossett bypass A638... still in place.. regarding a traffic regulation order closing the road briefly for litter picking, 2 months ago.. issued by the City Solicitor?! Im guessing Alan White was not picking up the litter... It mentions "Vices and Versus" Not a very long detailed document.. i think i might have another go at a petition notice with a legal authority to place attached... They have commercial banner ad up on Ossett bypass at moment which has not been removed & a massage Parlour at side of Motorway.. M1.. Bernadette Livesey City Solicitor Wakefield county Hall Wf1 2QW Using Road Traffic regulation act.. vimeo.com/206251194City Solicitor - Bernardette Livesey Monitoring Officer vimeo.com/206251194Tel: 01924 305177 Email: blivesey@wakefield.gov.uk Borough Planner - Neil Rodgers Tel: 01924 305858 Email: nrodgers@wakefield.gov.uk
|
|
|
Post by Administrator on Jul 12, 2017 13:22:45 GMT
Not traffic light related, but CPS prosecution related when they are not supposed to prosecute but continue regardless through a legal "Red light"
Is is not Criminal Damage if you are renting a house or a guest, if you have a domestic argument.
|
|