Tuesday, February 14, 2006

NPAS Submission - Payne v Mole Valley DC

Oral Submission to the Adjudicator.

NPAS 15 February 2005 12.15

Payne v MVDC

Submission of David Payne

Good morning Sir and thank you for your time (and for your explanation as to your own function at this hearing).

Before saying anything else, I must place on the record of this hearing that I am not content with this tribunal, because this hearing is not being held in full accordance with the provisions of our own most basic laws – or in accordance with the provisions of the Human Rights Act - all of which provide that my case must be judged by an independent tribunal.

The evidence of the now-recorded and public admissions of the National Parking and Adjudication Service now serves to reveal that the process of this present tribunal is being funded in part from the resources of my opponent – and this admission leads to the inevitable conclusion that this hearing is not established in a manner that is Independent from the interests of my opponent.

In addition, I must draw your attention to an Adjudicator’s Decision that was given in Case No SF 272 (Higgins v Sefton Borough Council) wherein the Adjudicator, a Mr Knapp, found that a defence based on the provisions of the Bill of Rights did not succeed, because (it was inferred) the High Court had already ruled on the legitimacy of cases analogous to the case of NPAS Tribunals – and had failed to raise the questions that Mr Higgins raised in support of his case –

In a word, Sir, the Adjudicator in the case of Mr Higgins said that because the High Court had not raised any questions about the legitimacy of the RTA 1991, when measured against the requirements of the Bill of Rights, then it was in order for him (the adjudicator) to ASSUME that the RTA 1991 was entirely lawful – in spite of clear evidence that a serious and far-reaching breach to the terms laid down in the Bill of Rights was in process!

With respect, I have to tell you, Sir, that the laws of our country may not be assumed by persons less than the Judges of HM High Court, and in conesquence of the most inadequate and untidy decision made by Mr Knapp, in the Appeal of Mr Higgins, I am bringing the evidence of The Bill of Rights and the evidence of the Sefton Decision right back to the NPAS Organization, by way of this present hearingl.

I must advise you, Sir, that the most exhaustive investigations have failed to establish that the High Court has ever ruled against the Bill of Rights Argument that I am now advancing on my own behalf - in any manner at all, such as has been suggested by the Sefton Adjudicator –

and I must tell you, Sir, that the Process of Investigation into the accuracy of the reasoning given in the Sefton Decision included letters addressed directly to the Director of NPAS, who failed to provide Case Law of any kind that would serve to support the statements made by the Adjudicator in the Sefton Case - In spite of many letters that were submitted to NPAS by concerned members of the public!

In addition to the Sefton Case, I must bring to you and to this hearing the Case of Robin de Crittenden –v- Worcester City Council (Case No WC 49), wherein it was suggested by an NPAS Adjudicator for the very first time that the Bill of Rights was intended only for the purpose of preserving to the Subject a Right of Challenge to the Crown -

And wherein it was suggested, for the very first time, that this right of challenge had been preserved by the right of appeal to the processes of NPAS and the tribunals that are assembled by NPAS –

In response to these most recent speculations on the reasons for the provisions
Of the Bill of Rights, I must respond by pointing out that The text of the Bill of Rights states clearly enough that no fines or forfeitures may be imposed before the process of judgment and conviction - and this text clearly indicates that a Court of Law is required to resolve disputes of any kind, either Civil or Criminal –

Because Judgments are involved in the preamble to the Bill of Rights, as well as Convictions and it is quite clear that only HM Courts have the legal authority to imposing lawful judgments &/or convictions -

AND with the precise words of the Bill of Rights very much in mind, I must record with you that the provisions of the Bill of Rights cannot be satisfied by any process of appeal to anywhere other than HM Courts of Law!.

In dealing with the former attempt by NPAS Adjudicators to defend their own functions and to defend the interest of those LocaAuthorities who are paying for
their services, I must introduce into evidence the Application for A Judicial Review that is now before the Administrative Court, in Case No WC 49 (de Crittenden – v- Worcester City Council).

You will see from the text of this application to the Administrative Court that Mr de Crittenden has asked the Court to set aside the new and unsubstantiated opinion that the Bill of Rights was intended only to provide a Right of Challenge to the Crown.

In addition, you will see that this Application for Judicial Review invites the Administrative Court to strike down the RTA 1991 - which is the sole authority for the existence of tribunals such as this present tribunal - on the grounds that the provisions of the Declaration & Bill of Rights may not be breached by anyone at all and/or by any Purported Act of Parliament.

In a nutshell, Sir, you will see for yourself that the Constitutional Status of the RTA 1991 is now under challenge because of the poor decisions made and the poor reasons given by adjudicators hearing cases that were previous to my own present case –

and I must ask you, Sir, to avoid the process of falling into the trap of placing reliance upon the questionable opinions of other adjudicators, when deciding upon the merits of all that I am saying to you myself, in connection with my own appeal.

In addition to the provisions of the Declaration and Bill of Rights, and in support of my own assertion that this tribunal is not constituted in accordance with our laws, I must ask you to accept into evidence the Great Charter of Our Liberties that is now Incorporated into Statute Law under the name of Magna Carta –

I am producing a Copy of the Statute for the record of this tribunal, and I draw your particular attention to the provisions made at Article 29 of the Statute, which states as follows:-

NO Freeman shall be taken or imprisoned, or be disseised of his Freehold, or
Liberties, or free Customs, or be outlawed, or exiled, or any other wise destroyed; nor will We not pass upon him, nor condemn him, but by lawful judgment of his peers or by the Law of the Land. We will sell to no man, we will not deny or defer to any man either Justice or Right.

There can be no doubt that I am a Free Man and that Article 29 applies 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. eg. the Local Authority with which I find myself in dispute..
Before proceeding further, I must call upon you to assemble a jury of my peers to decide upon the merits of my case – and I must record with you that if the RTA 1991 does not provide you with the authority necessary for you to assemble a jury of my peers to pass judgement on me, then I must ask you to advise my opponent that the Case against me may not be pursued because there is a basic failure within the provisions of the legislation that provides for any such pursuit.

It will be clear to you, Sir, that all failures to safeguard me against Oppression & Tyranny - as required by Our Common Law (by The Magna Carta of 1225), and as provided by the Statute now published as Magna Carta (which incorporates the Common Law Provision of the 1225 Magna Carta) - are flaws that may not be allowed to pass, if Liberty & Justice are to be preserved.

In Summary, Sir, I now enter all relevant documentation into the record of this tribunal – and for the purpose of removing all and any doubt about the case that I have presented to you - I now provide you with a full printed copy of my submission, with the copies of the documentation to which I have made reference.

NOTE – At this point hand the Adjudicator a file of the documents to which you have referred, with a printed copy of this present document, so that all references and evidence are provided for the record.

To Close my submission, Sir, I feel that I can do no less than invite you to decide
upon an adjournment to these proceedings, bearing in mind the provisions of the important laws that I rely upon and that are now before you. –

Bearing in mind also the most inadequate decisions that have been made by other adjudicators, in other case of appeal based upon the provisions of The Declaration and Bill of Rights.

I ask you to consider that there is now an approach made to the Administrative Court by way of an Application for a Judicial Review of those earlier decisions –

And It is my position that it is no light thing for you to take upon yourself any decision to set aside the provisions of Magna Carta andthe provisions of the Declaration & Bill of Rights –

I believe that it is in the interests of all concerned, yourself included, to leave all these matters in the hands of HM Judges, and I invite you to follow this line of Reasoning..

In the event that you make a decision to proceed with this present hearing, to some conclusion of your own, then I must advise you that I can take no further part in what is clearly an unlawful and ill-considered process.

Thank you, Sir, for the patience/consideration that you have shown towards

End of draft/


JohnJo said...

Now that should test their metal.

Anonymous said...

Fantastic!!! The net draws yet tighter!!!

Anonymous said...

It's Article 39 not 29.

Blog Archive

only search Neil Herron Blog