RLP - and the Retailer which dares not speak its name loses their case in Oxford County Court

[MikeBigg]

From the RLP website: http://www.lossprevention.co.uk/court%20cases.aspx

 

UPDATE ON COURT CASES

 

MAY 2012

 

The two cases added to our snapshot of cases this month make interesting reading.

 

Both were first instance Small Track cases, which have no binding authority or precedence value. Each case turns on its own merits and were decided upon its own facts.

 

Of all cases that RLP’s clients have taken through the court system in 13 years, the case in Oxford County Court on 9th May has been the only one lost on all heads of damage with the Claimant awarded nothing.

 

Two days later, the decision in Oxford was referred to in a trial of another shoplifter in Northampton County Court on 11th May, of the same issues. The Judge in Northampton was also referred to the authoritative case law (Aerospace and Salvadori Court of Appeal cases), and preferring these cases, and the Claimant’s evidence, awarded Judgment in favour of the Claimant, for the £137.50 fixed contribution sought, together with court fees, fixed cost, interest at 8% per annum and witness expenses.

 

In both cases, the Defendants alleged that the security personnel were engaged to do just what they were paid for, and that there was therefore no loss to the retailer, which could be attributable to their thefts. They all alleged that the CCTV and security equipment was installed as part of the store’s overheads, and cannot be attributable to the shoplifter. They all alleged that their actions, whilst dishonest, caused no significant disruption to the business, and therefore had no basis in law. It was also alleged that the fixed contribution to the losses sought was arbitrary and again, had no basis in law.

 

In both cases, the same case law was relied upon, which is Court of Appeal case law, which is binding.

 

In the first case, being referred to as some kind of test case in certain circles (which of course, it was not) the defence on this basis succeeded.

 

In the second case, two days later, the same facts and case law was relied upon, which succeeded on every head of loss.

 

Such is the nature of litigation and hence why parties are encouraged to settle the claim without the need for court action and the risks it involves.

 

Transcripts of the Judgments have been requested and will be available in due course.

 

[andydd]

Mike.

 

That is the RLP version of the case, luckily CAG and CAB had people there so we know what REALLY happened

 

Andy

[ScarletPimpernel]

As Mandy Rice-Davies said during the Profumo case - 'well, they would say that, wouldn't they'.

 

Since their client (remember, RLP doesn't actually take anyone to court), lost this case, RLP have resorted to increasingly desperate measures to try to reassure their clients (and probably themselves), that their rather grubby business is worthwhile.

 

We have seen a very circumoquacious letter from RLP that attempts to invoke, amongst other things, Magna Carta as a reson why people should pay their speculative invoices. As begging letters go, it's certainly the longest I have seen, but also probably one of the least effective. Even Nigerian 419 [problem]mers sound more convincing.

 

The problem RLP have is that whilst they may recommend to their retailer clients that they take a case to court, the retailer has to decide whether it's worth risking the costs of lawyers and so on, and the possibility of major reputation damage, to claim a sum that RLP pulled from the thin air they call The Matrix.

 

Remember, the proper way to deal with shoplifting is the criminal justice system; there should be no place for pseudo-legal vigilantes that set themselves up as judge, jury and executioner.

[andydd]

Plus RLP clearly show that they are desperate that people settle/pay up before Court for two simple reasons a)> They run a very high risk of losing (especially since the Oxford case) and just as important b) Any amount they recover will be dwarfed by their legal costs

 

Andy

[courtchange]

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 or other legal decisions are open-endedly faultable on their logic, instead of final. "Open to open-ended fault finding by any party".

 

Its shifting of power in favour of ordinary people ensures that the court change has been under a media silence for 13 years, but it is on publicly traceable record through petitions 730/99 in the European, PE6 and PE360 in the Scottish, parliaments. Nobody has ever offered any argument refuting the court change, because the reasons why it is real stand up to scrutiny step by step.

 

The court change follows from my European Court of Human Rights case 41597/98 on a scandal of insurance policies requiring evictions of unemployed people from hotels. This case referred to violation of civil status from 13 May 1997, yet the admissibility decision claimed the last stage of decision taken within Britain was on 4 Aug 1995. ECHR has made itself illegal, by issuing a syntactically contradictory nonsense decision that reverses the physics of time, and calling it final. This violates every precedent that ECHR member countries' laws recognise the chronology of cause and effect, in court evidence.

 

Hence, the original ECHR is now, and since then, an illegal entity, because it broke all preexisting precedent that courts recognise the correct order of time, and it claimed a power of finality to issue decisions whose content is a factual impossibility. But for the original ECHR to lapse in this way, also breaches the European Convention's section on requiring an ECHR to exist. Hence, this section requires the member countries to create a new ECHR that removes the original's illegality. The source of the illegality being left standing was in the claimed power of final decision. Hence, the only way the new court can remove the illegality is by being constituted such that its decisions are not final. If decisions are not final, the only other thing they can be is open-endedly faultable.

 

This requires the courts in the member countries to be compatible with open-ended decisions and with doing in-country work connected to them. Hence, legal decisions within the member countries' courts also cease to be final and become open-ended, in all the Council of Europe countries.

 

The concept of "leave to appeal" is abolished and judges no longer have to be crawled to as authority figures. Every party in a case is automatically entitled to lodge a fault finding against any decision, stating reasons. These are further faultable in return, including by the original fault finder, stating reasons. A case reaches its outcome when all fault findings have been answered or accepted.

 

The first fault finding to make, is that all unaffordable legal costs are abolished by how they conflict with the world human rights principle of access to justice. Folks have waited centuries for a chance to say this !!! See how far reaching is the reform the court change can do once it starts?

 

World trade irreversibly means jurisdictions are not cocooned but have overlapping cases. When a case overlaps an affected and unaffected country, the unaffected country becomes affected, through having to deal with open ended case content open-endedly, that can affect any number of other cases open-endedly. Open-endedness is created in its system. So the court change is of far-reaching international interest. Through the existence of any legal dispute that overlaps into their country, the people of countries outside the Council of Europe too can lay claim to the court change, as a massive advance in democracy.

 

Now that CLG has circulated a report on the RLP case and invited folks to cite it as a precedent, it has an automatic duty to legal factuality also to circulate this description of the court change.

[dx100uk]

god same drivel you posted in 2007

 

dx

[andydd]

Huh !

[ItsEssexRob]

Mistaken thread. Great news though

Edited May 31, 2012 by ItsEssexRob
Mistaken thread

[courtchange]

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 critical facts should do about it. Anyone who is not willing to state that a court can make a final decision that time went backwards and have that stand as a finding of law, has not refuted the court change's reality.

Edited June 1, 2012 by courtchange

[Sidewinder]

Nope. Still lost me

[andydd]

Oh lordy..What is courtchange on ?

 

"Anyone who is not willing to state that a court can make a final decision that time went backwards" ..is there some sort of time travel involved ?

 

Andy

[courtchange]

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 factual impossibility makes it illegal and not a decision that stands or has any existence. Then you have to conclude that it was illegal for the court to print on that impossible decision "This decision is final. It is not open to any appeal either to the court or to any other body." That then leaves you with the implication that the court's whole present status is illegal, and that the illegality lies in being able to call any decision final.

Sidewinder, try going one sentence at a time.

[honeybee13]

Is this from babelfish? I mentioned this in another thread on this forum just now.

[sillygirl1]

I thought that too - or the OP is on another planet and doesn't understand the thread.

[andydd]

Its just words thrown together !..Ha

 

I cant see any relevance to this RLP thread or indeed any relevance to anything..well..not on this planet anyway.

 

Andy

[dx100uk]

only 10 posts since 2007 all drivell...................

 

 

dx

[caledfwlch]

Time travelling Freeman?