Random Freemanesque Babblings from idiots unable to sustain their own thread

[Siegfried Shrink]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mgqhS31jIqo

The ever combative Rob Sproul has had a letter from TV Licensing saying he does not need a TV license because they have accepted his claim that he does not have a TV. Fair enough, you might say.

robert says always remember people a corporation legal entity name has no right of mind to contract it is a sou less legal fiction no man or woman can make a claim an agreement or a contract on its behalf because it would then be fraud cause the soul less legal fiction has no life to instruct or make a claim do you get it yet fight back

It seems a TV licence is a paedophile licence (who knew you needed one) so despite TV licensing taking his word for it that he does not watch TV, he still wants to pick a fight with them. I swear this man could pick a fight with himself over which boot to put on first .

[Siegfried Shrink]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mE4X1TedDCQ

Here is his first TV licence rant.

robert got a letter from tv licensing for the legal occupier robert phoned up told them the law and got the records updated for two year for the fiction legal occupier lollollollollol just having fun people wake up and fight back its easy

[Burnaby49]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mgqhS31jIqo

The ever combative Rob Sproul has had a letter from TV Licensing saying he does not need a TV license because they have accepted his claim that he does not have a TV. Fair enough, you might say.

robert says always remember people a corporation legal entity name has no right of mind to contract it is a sou less legal fiction no man or woman can make a claim an agreement or a contract on its behalf because it would then be fraud cause the soul less legal fiction has no life to instruct or make a claim do you get it yet fight back

It seems a TV licence is a paedophile licence (who knew you needed one) so despite TV licensing taking his word for it that he does not watch TV, he still wants to pick a fight with them. I swear this man could pick a fight with himself over which boot to put on first .

Sounds like Confederate Army general Braxton Bragg;

Bragg had a reputation for being a strict disciplinarian and one who adhered to regulations literally. There is a famous, apocryphal story, included in Ulysses S. Grant's memoirs, about Bragg as a company commander at a frontier post where he also served as quartermaster. He submitted a requisition for supplies for his company, then as quartermaster declined to fill it. As company commander, he resubmitted the requisition, giving additional reasons for his requirements, but as the quartermaster he denied the request again. Realizing that he was at a personal impasse, he referred the matter to the post commandant, who exclaimed, "My God, Mr. Bragg, you have quarreled with every officer in the army, and now you are quarreling with yourself!"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Braxton_Bragg

[Siegfried Shrink]

More from ROBERT SPROUL the feisty Scots lunatic.
It is his reaction to a letter saying his application for leave to appeal against his conviction for a minor public order offence has been refused.

robert says legal name fraud is being used against the living man fraud and personation and subrogation and fraud is being used to commit crimes against the living man ignorance is no excuse to break the law especially when prima facie evidence has been presented to prove a mans innocence without a shadow of a doubt.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LVsyz6wlj6Y
With his application to appeal he sent a letter from a doctor saying he was a living man, and from someone else saying the doctor was a doctor.

H'e's in good form. And, of course, he is going back for more.

[fortinbras]

I must admit that I cannot follow Sproul's explanations in the absence of English subtitles.

[BoomerSooner17]

I must admit that I cannot follow Sproul's explanations in the absence of English subtitles.

Or punctuation. And is Sproul referring to himself in the third person?

[Siegfried Shrink]

It is his habit to refer to himself in the third person. I don't think he wants to create joinder with himself in case his legal name person turns his living man person in to the polis.

[longdog]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a4FxhUA0SKM

[Hercule Parrot]

robert says always remember people a corporation legal entity name has no right of mind to contract it is a sou less legal fiction no man or woman can make a claim an agreement or a contract on its behalf because it would then be fraud cause the soul less legal fiction has no life to instruct or make a claim do you get it yet fight back

At first glance this is astonishing nonsense. Does robert really believe that "corporation legal entity names" cannot be bound by contractual obligations? So if he paid a building company to repair his house, or a motor engineering firm to repair his car, this would not be a contractual arrangement they had to meet? If he paid thousands of poonds* for a family holiday, the airline has no obligation to deliver Team Sproul to the intended destination, etc?

But on reflection, I think the explanation is rather sad. Wee rabbie has no concept or experience of being a paying customer, excepting banal retail transactions where goods and payment are exchanged proximately. He cannot conceive a situation where he would benefit from the rights and obligations of a contract with a business. In robert's shriveled worldview, contracts exist only as a device to be used against him.

(* the local currency)

[Siegfried Shrink]

contracts exist only as a device to be used against him.

I think to him, pretty nearly everything exists only to be used against him.

[aesmith]

Since all the usual suspects are a bit inactive at the moment I was looking at some older material, and saw the "BOEVAT" website as mentioned earlier. Does anyone else think that the court order posted on their success page looks blatantly fake?
http://boevat.org.uk/success/
http://boevat.org.uk/wp-content/uploads ... -Court.pdf

[ArthurWankspittle]

Since all the usual suspects are a bit inactive at the moment I was looking at some older material, and saw the "BOEVAT" website as mentioned earlier. Does anyone else think that the court order posted on their success page looks blatantly fake?
http://boevat.org.uk/success/
http://boevat.org.uk/wp-content/uploads ... -Court.pdf

Doesn't look right somehow does it? Especially the bold part having odd spaces and no full stops. It also doesn't make that much sense, the claimant was not there but their representative was heard? The result is a stay anyway, the claimant can get their act together and go back to court.

[aesmith]

Yes, possibly the stay was true. The rest looks nonsense, there's nothing wrong with the claimant being represented by a lawyer (except in the world of the FMOTLs), and all that stuff about invoices is clearly rubbish. Gobbledegook to use the legal term.

[Siegfried Shrink]

I am prepared to believe that by standing up to companies like Parking Eye, you stand a fairly good chance of sucess, but not because of any lack of invoices with wet ink signatures.
The main reason would be that the law surrounding their activities and practices is a bit of a rats nest, that it would in all cases be counterproductive to incur the costs of actual trials of their claims and the nature of the evidence used to support claims is often rather doubtful in interpretation.

Typically, some fines for overstaying in Motorway service stations should be unenforceable. Many people may not be aware that M-way service areas have local service roads which can be used to go in and out of them, tucked away somewhere discreet, usually. If you enter the service area from the motorway, and leave by the back door, your number plate is never registered as leaving. If they have evidence of you leaving after 5 hours instead of two, this is not 'proof' that you were parked in the service area all the time, you could have left the area for a local errand and re-entered by the back door. I have often used unofficial service area exits and entrances and always looked carefully for any cameras. Unless they were very tiny and well hidden there did not seem to be any, so reasonable doubt seems to be built into the system. It relies on people paying up and looking cheerful about it.

Some situations are 'bang to rights' but enough seem to have flaws that if everyone was prepared to take them all the way, it might cause some changed practices.
In the case stated, it does seem possible that the parking company sent along a minion with no rights of audience, just papers.(Amended in light of later posts) It is possible that the hearing was envisaged as an entirely administrative matter, and the claimants did not go to the expense of a barrister or a solicitor with rights of audience, an expensive proceedure bearing minimum charges in mind. Sloppy paperwork is no real indication of fabrication, mere incompetence is no real hinderance to employment in low level admin jobs.

Confronted by an actual person, who had in person right of audience, the judge simply kicked it into the long grass, parking company and parker to pay their own costs.

Conflating a messy system with many perfectly legal escape routes with pseudo legal nuttery gives the wrong idea. They may have success because the legal framework is creaky and unfit for purpose, not because their magic worked.
Similar results would be expected from an advice site that stuck to real law. The last thing Parking Eye and similar companies want is resistance that has some chance of success. Or sane resistance at all for that matter.

The more the system is automated, the bigger the chance of mistakes,but the cheaper the enforcement becomes. Any kind of grit in these wheels is often just more trouble than it is is worth in the grand scheme of things. Although legal under British law (cries of 'shame, shame') the form of the parking contract is so much a foisted unilateral contract that it should be illegal.
Before the law was changed recently the best thing was to send them a cheque for a couple of quid to cover any actual loss they may have suffered from your trespass and invite them to sue for any other monies claimed.

[Hercule Parrot]

Doesn't look right somehow does it? Especially the bold part having odd spaces and no full stops. It also doesn't make that much sense, the claimant was not there but their representative was heard? The result is a stay anyway, the claimant can get their act together and go back to court.

I suspect it was voice-dictated by an overworked and irritated District Judge. I have squinted at it closely and cannot see evidence of tampering, and it would be incredibly reckless to publish a falsified court order anyway. Certainly contempt, possibly fraud.

Parking Eye had stated (http://boevat.org.uk/wp-content/uploads ... evised.pdf) that they would be represented only by "our advocate from LPC Law", however the Judgement indicates that this "advocate" was discovered to not have professional standing to conduct proceedings in the absence of the Claimant. This is not the first instance of these private parking companies playing fast and loose with the rules, and a familiar point of challenge for those who dispute their claims (http://www.parkingcowboys.co.uk/right-of-audience/)

My reading of the Judgement is that the Judge wasn't prepared to swallow it this time. S/he has rightly refused to allow the LPC representative to present their client's case. Meanwhile the defendant is cheerfully yapping on about his willingness to pay if only Parking Eye would send him an invoice. So the Judge has stayed the case for this to be resolved.

I do not think it is quite the victory that Beovat are claiming. If Parking Eye have any sense, they will now send the defendant a conventional business invoice. They cannot continue these proceedings without doing so, and the only other option is to give up and hand the defendant a victory to crow about. If they send an invoice (for only the original fine/charge) the defendant would be well-advised to pay it. He can then enjoy the stress and cost he has incurred to Parking Eye.

I suspect that in reality the defendant will not pay the invoice, but will instead dispute some aspect of it's procedural regularity, by reference to arcane legislation. Parking Eye can then return to court with a qualified representative and the Judge's irritation will switch to the defendant. He will lose, and pay Parking Eye's costs.

[AndyPandy]

Yes, possibly the stay was true. The rest looks nonsense, there's nothing wrong with the claimant being represented by a lawyer (except in the world of the FMOTLs), and all that stuff about invoices is clearly rubbish. Gobbledegook to use the legal term.

I think it's genuine, if the claimant didn't state a representing Solicitor on the original claim form or later nominate a legal representative in accordance with CPR 42.2 then any Solicitor that just rocks up has no right of representation.

I would say Parking Eye cocked up big time by forgetting to nominate a representing Solicitor thinking the letter to the Southampton Court would be enough. It isn't but the Judge was actually quite lenient with them by not throwing the case out and granting a stay.

[aesmith]

But if that was the reason for disqualifying the attending solicitor then why quote the legislation relating to Lay Representatives? And once a hearing date is given they'd know that it wasn't going to be decided on the papers. (Edit, Parking Eye have been using LPC law for a while, I find it hard to believe they sent an unqualified rep)

[AndyPandy]

But if that was the reason for disqualifying the attending solicitor then why quote the legislation relating to Lay Representatives? And once a hearing date is given they'd know that it wasn't going to be decided on the papers. (Edit, Parking Eye have been using LPC law for a while, I find it hard to believe they sent an unqualified rep)

I think it's here in CPR 42 (PD)

1.3 A solicitor appointed to represent a party only as an advocate at a hearing will not be considered to be acting for that party within the meaning of Part 42.

Doesn't the letter from Parking Eye reference them as an advocate, if they didn't formally appoint them then the Judge wouldn't consider them to be a Solicitor as defined by CPR 42.1 / CPR 6.2d, which would bring in the Lay Representatives Order.

Hopefully, one of our learned breathen could confirm or not.

[ArthurWankspittle]

Parking Eye had stated (http://boevat.org.uk/wp-content/uploads ... evised.pdf) that they would be represented only by "our advocate from LPC Law", however the Judgement indicates that this "advocate" was discovered to not have professional standing to conduct proceedings in the absence of the Claimant. This is not the first instance of these private parking companies playing fast and loose with the rules, and a familiar point of challenge for those who dispute their claims (http://www.parkingcowboys.co.uk/right-of-audience/)

Now you mention this I recall reading a case a while back. To keep costs down the parking companies use, let us say, less that fully qualified solicitors to act for them. However, if I have this right, they have to declare what they are up to and fill in a form or two which tells the judge the situation. Not doing this, or not doing it correctly, is one thing to challenge in a hearing if you are the defendant, because the judge won't be impressed that one side is trying to blag him over their status and will likely postpone or end the hearing in the defendant's favour. And if it gets postponed, the parking company has to weigh the cost of getting the right representation and a re-hearing against the cost of a ticket.

[Hercule Parrot]

But if that was the reason for disqualifying the attending solicitor then why quote the legislation relating to Lay Representatives? And once a hearing date is given they'd know that it wasn't going to be decided on the papers. (Edit, Parking Eye have been using LPC law for a while, I find it hard to believe they sent an unqualified rep)

If Parking Eye's representative had been a qualified solicitor they would have automatically had right of audience.