Post by Administrator on Nov 23, 2019 19:24:27 GMT
4.
DVLA
Provide verification of Anne Sacoolas retaining her driving licence, where it was protected from revocation and thereby injury to the licence holder from it being withheld by the DVLA through protection from the courts jurisdiction (rights and Privileges)
You asked the Telford court to "look again" at the order because you found it was the right thing to do, when errors were made by the prosecution and court...
I am asking you to again ask the court to look again at my order and change it, due to this damages claim I am hereby making.
A Government GP (Doctor) has given me leave from the (probation service unpaid work order) due to injury I have suffered from being prosecuted illegally. Which has been recognised by The Government Doctor as Caused by the actual illegal prosecution. Therefore I am claiming damages against the probation service
Therefore, the DVLA who have taken my Driving Licence away have caused injury to me, by loss of ability to drive.
It is an injury and I can enter a damages claim to the DVLA under Human Rights.
I have the valid legal papers now, that sets out your revokation of my driving licence is injury.
And I have a right for you to provide a remedy.
You are a government department that can act to remedy the matter by asking the court to reopen the case and change the order.
And you also hold information unique that proves Anne Sacoolas still retains her driving licence after exercising a right and Privilege.. (Diplomatic immunity) was the right exercised
So you have government diagnosis and prescription of rights exercised where its confirmed that a driving licence is protected by rights and Privileges
And I have provided the legal work that the government university's have published that sets out the injury caused by illegal prosecution and the validation of the right I am exercising
_________
I have exercised a right. Human rights act. In proceedings
With probation, due to injury
The right has been recognised and I have been given remedy (temporarily) from the court order.
This was provided free of cost.
I didn't need to go to court to obtain this remedy.
In the exact same framework and application procedure and by the same proceedings..
I am exercising another right..
The right to Petition protection.
It has to be applied and put into effect in the same manner, for free.
People don't have to repeatedly prove the law of the right to medical rights. The law is preexisting
You just exercise the right.
Now , I am exercising the right to Petition protection.
And the injury has been caused and the remedy is relief from the court order permanently.
The law is preexisting . Any doubts.. and the "first Amendment right to a remedy" validates and confirms that right and the remedy.
The right to Petition
And the remedy against being prosecuted illegally which causes injury.
The probation service have to recognize this right and must make the court look at the order and change it. To apply the remedy.
There is no reason to doubt the framework or claim. As its provided by government university prescription.
MPs are like GPs
They hold surgery for political matters.
A GP holds surgery for medical matters.
When there is an injury caused by illegal prosecution..
And where the law has been confirmed to exist and where even driving a vehicle has been confirmed to be covered by rights and Privileges..
There is no fee for a Claimant to pay.
GP rights are exercised freely
MP should confirm a political right for free, especially in relation to injury confirmed by a GP surgery.
Its is not a defence of law.
It is a right being provided and exercised. There should be no reason for any legal work, lawyers or defence in relation to a court.
The Claimant does not need to do anything at a court.
The public services deal with forms and the law is preexisting
A claim is made. Its recognized. Its applied.. that means the court have to apply if following the public service receiving the claim. They process the claim of the right*
The remedy follows...
In the instance of the right to Petition protection... relief from and conviction or sentence must be applied.
DVLA
Provide verification of Anne Sacoolas retaining her driving licence, where it was protected from revocation and thereby injury to the licence holder from it being withheld by the DVLA through protection from the courts jurisdiction (rights and Privileges)
You asked the Telford court to "look again" at the order because you found it was the right thing to do, when errors were made by the prosecution and court...
I am asking you to again ask the court to look again at my order and change it, due to this damages claim I am hereby making.
A Government GP (Doctor) has given me leave from the (probation service unpaid work order) due to injury I have suffered from being prosecuted illegally. Which has been recognised by The Government Doctor as Caused by the actual illegal prosecution. Therefore I am claiming damages against the probation service
Therefore, the DVLA who have taken my Driving Licence away have caused injury to me, by loss of ability to drive.
It is an injury and I can enter a damages claim to the DVLA under Human Rights.
I have the valid legal papers now, that sets out your revokation of my driving licence is injury.
And I have a right for you to provide a remedy.
You are a government department that can act to remedy the matter by asking the court to reopen the case and change the order.
And you also hold information unique that proves Anne Sacoolas still retains her driving licence after exercising a right and Privilege.. (Diplomatic immunity) was the right exercised
So you have government diagnosis and prescription of rights exercised where its confirmed that a driving licence is protected by rights and Privileges
And I have provided the legal work that the government university's have published that sets out the injury caused by illegal prosecution and the validation of the right I am exercising
_________
I have exercised a right. Human rights act. In proceedings
With probation, due to injury
The right has been recognised and I have been given remedy (temporarily) from the court order.
This was provided free of cost.
I didn't need to go to court to obtain this remedy.
In the exact same framework and application procedure and by the same proceedings..
I am exercising another right..
The right to Petition protection.
It has to be applied and put into effect in the same manner, for free.
People don't have to repeatedly prove the law of the right to medical rights. The law is preexisting
You just exercise the right.
Now , I am exercising the right to Petition protection.
And the injury has been caused and the remedy is relief from the court order permanently.
The law is preexisting . Any doubts.. and the "first Amendment right to a remedy" validates and confirms that right and the remedy.
The right to Petition
And the remedy against being prosecuted illegally which causes injury.
The probation service have to recognize this right and must make the court look at the order and change it. To apply the remedy.
There is no reason to doubt the framework or claim. As its provided by government university prescription.
MPs are like GPs
They hold surgery for political matters.
A GP holds surgery for medical matters.
When there is an injury caused by illegal prosecution..
And where the law has been confirmed to exist and where even driving a vehicle has been confirmed to be covered by rights and Privileges..
There is no fee for a Claimant to pay.
GP rights are exercised freely
MP should confirm a political right for free, especially in relation to injury confirmed by a GP surgery.
Its is not a defence of law.
It is a right being provided and exercised. There should be no reason for any legal work, lawyers or defence in relation to a court.
The Claimant does not need to do anything at a court.
The public services deal with forms and the law is preexisting
A claim is made. Its recognized. Its applied.. that means the court have to apply if following the public service receiving the claim. They process the claim of the right*
The remedy follows...
In the instance of the right to Petition protection... relief from and conviction or sentence must be applied.