so this is where we are so far..... I sent them this...
Dear Sirs
I am informing you that on 30th September 2009 (issued by hand in person to your agent ------------ of Jacobs Bailiffs, on -- October 2009) I issued you with a Notice that the implied right of access to ADDRESS had been removed. This Notice was clearly displayed on the automobile ---------. The notice also stated...
Please also take notice that the land known as England is a common law jurisdiction and any transgression of this notice will be dealt with according to common law...
Despite this your agent Richard Allen, with advice from his peers/superiors by way of mobile phone, STILL clamped the automobile disregarding my clear instructions that I did not consent to be in contract, refused to be in contract & was not in contract, he was now committing an unlawful act. In addition by clamping the automobile and demanding monies to release it is in fact a violation of the Bill of Rights, the Magna Carta & the Human Rights Act.
I am surprised to find that --------------- Parking Services, --------Bailiffs, or its agents, appear to be attempting to extort money in an unlawful manner. Please find enclosed an extract of the Bill of Rights Act 1689, enacted and formally entered into Statute following the Declaration of Rights 1689. I draw your attention to the section that I have highlighted:
"That all grants and promises of fines and forfeitures of particular persons before conviction are illegal and void".
This states that a conviction is necessary before a fine or forfeit can be imposed. As you will be aware, the Bill of Rights is a "constitutional statue" and may not be repealed impliedly. As stated in the "Metric Martyrs" Judgment in the Divisional Court (18th February 2002) by Lord Justice Laws and Mr Justice Crane (I will paraphrase, but have included a copy of the judgment's relevant sections 62 and 63):
62."We should recognise a hierarchy of Acts of Parliament: as it were 'ordinary' statutes and 'constitutional statutes.' The special status of constitutional statutes follows the special status of constitutional rights.
Examples are the ... Bill of Rights 1689 ... 63. Ordinary statutes may be impliedly repealed. Constitutional statutes may not…"
I am not aware that the Road Traffic Act 1991 makes express reference to repealing the Bill of Rights Act 1689. Please state which section, sub-section or any amendment says that it allows you to circumvent the Bill of Rights Act 1689.
Therefore, it would appear that Lambeth Parking Services, Jacobs Bailiffs and its agents have no lawful authority to demand money for an alleged infringement that has not been dealt with by a Court of Law, i.e. a Jury. If you wish to proceed against me, please refer the matter to a Court of Law in an orderly fashion. Otherwise, the forfeit demanded of me is illegal and void.
Please also confirm to me in writing that you have advised the relevant officers of the Council and its agents that they are acting illegally by attempting to claim powers which are forbidden to them, and that all issuing of penalties is being done only after conviction by a Court of Law.
In addition to the provisions of the Declaration and Bill of Rights, and in support of my own assertion that this process is not constituted in accordance with our laws, I must ask you to recognise the Great Charter of Our Liberties that is now incorporated into Statute Law under the name of the Magna Carta. I draw your particular attention to the provisions made at Articles 39 & 40 of the Statute, which states as follows:-
39. No free man shall be arrested, or imprisoned, or deprived of his property, or outlawed, or exiled, or in any way destroyed, nor shall we go against him or send against him, unless by legal judgement of his peers, or by the law of the land.
40. To no one will we sell, to no one will we refuse or delay, right or justice.
I do not believe that ------------ Parking Services, ----------- Bailiff & their agents are my peers, and they are certainly not the law of the land. I believe that HM Court Service is the law of the land. There can be no doubt that I am a free man and that Articles 39 & 40 apply to me. It is clear & very well recorded that the entire purpose of Magna Carta was to reduce the power of the king and not to increase this power and in consequence of the very obvious, it is clear that the option of trial by the judgment of my peers or by the law of the land is an option that is secured to me in all circumstances such as this, and not an option that may be exercised by or at the behest of the Crown, or by any authority that claims to hold an authority under the Crown. E.g. The Local Authority Corporation ----------- Parking Services with which I find myself in dispute.
In addition to the provisions of the Declaration and Bill of Rights, and the Magna Carta. I would like to draw your attention to the Human Rights Act 1998, and in particular to Article 6 (Right To A Fair Trail), and the provisions made in paragraph 1:
1. In the determination of his civil rights and obligations or of any criminal charge against him, everyone is entitled to a fair and public hearing within a reasonable time by an independent and impartial tribunal established by law. Judgment shall be pronounced publicly but the press and public may be excluded from all or part of the trial in the interest of morals, public order or national security in a democratic society, where the interests of juveniles or the protection of the private life of the parties so require, or to the extent strictly necessary in the opinion of the court in special circumstances where publicity would prejudice the interests of justice.
It is clear that the demands you are making seem unlawful and unclear as such I am issuing you with a Notice of Discharge of Outstanding Demand, Request for Clarification & the IMMEDIATE Release of Automobile -------------
Please read the following notice thoroughly and carefully before responding. It is a notice. It informs you. It means what it says.
The reason why you need to read carefully is simple. I am offering conditional agreement. This removes controversy, and means that you no longer have any ultimate recourse to a court of law in this matter, because there is no controversy upon which it could adjudicate. You always have the option of dragging these conditions into a court of law only to be told that they are, indeed, perfectly lawful. That is, of course, always your prerogative should you decide to waste your time.
For this reason it is important that you consider and respond to the offer in substance. The 'nearest official form' will not suffice, and consequently is likely to be ignored by myself without any dishonour on my part.
On the other hand there is a time-limit on the agreement being offered. It is reasonable, and if it runs out then you and all associated parties are in default, removing any and all lawful excuse on your part for proceeding in this matter.
For these reasons it is recommended that you carefully consider this notice and respond in substance, which means actually addressing the points raised herein.
You have apparently made demands upon me.
I do not understand those apparent demands and therefore cannot lawfully fulfil them. I seek clarification of your document so that I may act according to the law and maintain my entire body of inalienable Natural Rights.
Failure to accept this offer to clarify and to do so completely and in good faith within 7 (seven) days of the above date will be deemed by all parties to mean you and your principal or other parties abandon all demands upon me.
I conditionally accept your offer to agree that I am legal fiction 'person' your full name here and in capitals’ and that I must furnish you with details for consideration for forfeiture rendered by your company, upon proof of claim of all of the following:
1. Upon proof of claim that I am a person, and not a human being.
2. Upon proof of claim that you know what a 'person' actually is, in legal terms.
3. Upon proof of claim that you know the difference between a 'human being' and a 'person', legally speaking.
4. Upon proof of claim that you know the difference between 'legal' and a 'lawful'.
5. Upon proof of claim that I am legal fiction 'person' full name here in capitals again, being the entity to which your paperwork was addressed, and Cee: of Mr family, as commonly called.
6. Upon proof of claim that the charge was the result of a lawful investigation unmarred by prejudice.
7. Upon proof of claim that I am a member of the society whose statutes and subsisting regulations you are enforcing.
8. Upon proof of claim that I showed you some sort of identification.
9 Upon proof of claim that there is a nameable society that I belong to and that the laws covered within any alleged transgressions state that they apply to me within that named society.
10. Upon proof of claim that you provide a BILL for the sum demanded. As it is not possible to pay solely on presentation of either statement or notice. (For your information a BILL is an unconditional ORDER in writing, addressed by one person to another, signed by the person giving it, requiring the person to whom it is addressed to pay, on demand or at a fixed or determinable future time, a sum certain in money to or to the order of a specified person or bearer. (See Bills of Exchange Act)
11. Until the above proof of claims are received that you action the Immediate release/removal of the clamp from automobile ------------- or the unlawful clamp will be deemed as an obstruction & violating my freedom as granted under the Great Charter of Our Liberties that is now incorporated into Statute Law under the name of the Magna Carta Articles 39 & 40 & liable for a fee of £500, excluding fees for labour & costs that may relate to the liberation of the automobile ---------------.
12. Reimbursement for all travel costs whilst automobile ------------- is unlawfully clamped thus delaying me my rights to travel freely.
Sincerely and without ill will, vexation or frivolity,
Cee: of the Mr family
WITHOUT PREJUDICE, i.e. all Natural Inalienable Rights Reserved
Please address all future correspondence in the matter to a direct Human Self, namely Cee name of the Mr family, as commonly called.
They have now sent me a letter saying....
thank you for your resent letter and contents of which have been noted.
we would advice the vehicle has been clamped and impounded under the authority of the issued county court warrant of execution and upon instruction of our client. The vehicle will not be released until the balance above is paid in full. If you continue to evade the issue and payment is not forthcoming the vehicle will be sold at public auction and the proceeds of the sale will be allocated to your outstanding debt including any further fees applied.
We were passed this file in october 2009 and despite multiple letters and visits being made you failed to contact us to discuss the matter or make paymentnn. Therefore our bailiff is correct in enforcing the ourtstanding debt and has acted correctly under the authority granted by the county court. Every opportunity was given to you to make payment at an earlier stage in order to prevent further actioni by our bailiff
please contact our office immediately to discuss the current status of your file and arrange payment as the vehicle is due to be sold at auctioni within the next 7 working days
I hope this clarifies matters but should you require further information please write to the ddress provided above...
They have just disregarded everything mentioned in the earlier letter....
Has anyone got any ideas...
