Jump to content

courtchange

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

    16
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1 Neutral

About courtchange

  • Rank
    Basic Account Holder
  1. No, that is exactly the reason why a court decision that conflicts with the correct order of time can not stand as a factual finding with a legal existence. That is where the case for the court change's existence comes from: exactly the impossibility of making a decision that an event on 4 Aug 1995 happened after an event on 13 May 1997. That is what the European Court of Human Rights decided. To count it as a decision that stands as a factual decision and is final, you would have to have time travel fantasies, and to evidence them. The alternative is to conclude that the decision's total fa
  2. Any reasoned factual claim can only be made into drivel by refuting one of the factual steps cited in its support. Anyone who wants to refute this item has to take the responsibility of stating that a court can decide that 2 dated events happened in reverse order than their date order in time, and have it stand as a factual finding and decision that time went backwards. Anyone who is willing to state that must realise they have stated that court evidence no longer has any tie to verifiable reality. They are invited to advise accordingly what folks involved in court cases that hinge on crit
  3. Even though it's good for ordinary folks for RLP to lose its court case, it can't be cited a s an outcome in which leave to appeal was refused. CLG reported that that happened to RLP too. But a silence by the political class and the media is enabling the court system to disregard and pretend has not happened, a massive advance in democracy, that means thee is no longer such thing as leave to appeal and no power to refuse it. Instead, all court decisions are faultable open endedly. They are no longer ever final. This is called the "court change". This is: since 7 July 1999 all court
  4. Won this case. All through the maximum period of "continuation" the council never supplied the responsible official who could actually give answers, to attend either of the 2 meetings it had with me, and never offered a substantiation of the view that the law allowed it to refuse recognition to my appeals. So the outcome is, extracted from them only in the last few days left: they had to allow an appeal case to proceed and thus they had to dismiss their own cased in court. So I won.
  5. On the eve of court, with hours to go, I have now got the council saying they are going to talk and to ask the sheriff to "continue" the case for 4 weeks to allow discussion.
  6. I read on their site that you can't take things to SPSO if a court case about them is in progress.
  7. It is an error of calculation, an item that should be taken account of in the calculation. By the written law that automatically makes it a valid appeal: any item perceived and explained by the appellant as an error of calculation is a valid appeal. Hence the court would act illegally to say otherwise, and I have already written so in my defence papers. I know the initial system for the council registering its claim to a council tax debt violates human rights by not providing for a defence case. But the sequestration procedure does provide for making a defence case, including when the cas
  8. Putting it simply:Human rights campaigning interest is needed, from any source. A dispute that should take place in a council tax appeal, and which I originally lodged as one, can't be taken to sequestration instead. A council can't be allowed to choose to ignore a council tax appeal, repeatedly, and later take the same money to sequestration.The law, and the public info on it, says there is an automatic right to make council tax appeals on any item you perceive as an error of calculation. It does not say the council has any veto over this, any power to define an appeal as not relevant and ref
  9. My council (Edinburgh) is applying to sequestrate me for council tax I don't owe. The disputed sum is big but I have more capital than its value. I have been making a repeated appeal annually, clearly on grounds of error of calculation. By law, anyone charged council tax has an absolute automatic right to do that, and the grounds may be anything the appellant perceives as an error of calculation. This is explicit in all the public information on council tax appeals and in the Local Government Finance Act 1992. It is a matter of simple exact statue law that has so shades
  10. A note - if anyone finds this "over their head", the right thing to do is to go through it word by word, sentence by sentence, step by step. Each statement I have made is entirely clear, it's not full of technical stuff. As it has a bearing on everyone's case, there is a solid responsibility not to disregard it. Anyone who is not told of it, their court case would be undermined. Everyone is entitled to know of it. There is a cover-up to stop, as you know.
  11. This is important, re your recent case with Lloyds TSB. I have joined this forum in order to post this info, after reading of the case. I tried posting it in "Welcome to the forum" yesterday, + it just receded out of sight very quickly. Now I have discovered this section for the bank charges issue. I read in the Metro: [ Marc Gander, of the Consumer Action Group, said the judge failed to consider that banks were acting illegally by disguising penalties as a fee for a service. But he added: "I would urge the hundreds of thousands of people who are making claims not to be disheartened." ]
  12. That's a mean thing to say if it's a case of can't afford it. That of course is the nonsense at the heart of the whole moneylending system, instead of having a green currency where every person can create new currency when they need it.
  13. This is important, re your recent case with Lloyds TSB. I have joined this forum in order to post this info, after reading of the case. I read: [ Marc Gander, of the Consumer Action Group, said the judge failed to consider that banks were acting illegally by disguising penalties as a fee for a service. But he added: "I would urge the hundreds of thousands of people who are making claims not to be disheartened." ] This means you have found, and expressed publicly, legal fault with how a court reached a decision. You have made a reasoned objection that the court improperly ignored an a
×
×
  • Create New...