| WE are shocked and somewhat bemused ... Although we have a great many People that are readers of the material we put out, and have been with us, for a great many years, we still get letters/notes from People like the one below. Please Critically read before we continue: ~~~ Hi The CLS, I'm due in court on the fourth of March (must double check the date). Got a summons in December by registered post which I collected at the post office (it was my parents address so thought it might be family matters). Appeared in Court in January. I stated that that was not my address it was my parents address. They want me to prove there was a license at that address. Why should I? It's not my property. Summons was for AN ADDRESS … My address is ANOTHER ADDRESS. Surely they have to have the correct address in order to get conviction? I felt very intimidated by the judge as he seems to be siding with the state solicitor (conflict of interest), who pays his wage. I want to fight for my rights. With your help I would hope to achieve that goal and after to have it on your website for people to read. I believe we must learn the law and use it for our protection. Summary of events: July 2015 inspector calls to house, unfortunately I answered the door, stated the person he was looking for was not at the property. Any post from an post TV license, was placed back in post box with return to sender. Picked up the registered letter in December. Hope to hear from you soon, thank you in advance. ... Best Regards, Paddy ~~~ Ok … lets have a critical go at this. To be crystal clear and for the record, we are not having a go or trying to be disparaging of the Man (Paddy), we are critiquing all the human errors that have been made, which from time to time any of us can be guilty of. Paddy Stated: "Got a summons by registered post which I collected at the post office". This tells us that the post office tried to deliver the said "summons", and failed to do so, because there was nobody at the address to accept it. It would have been returned to the sorting office as not being delivered. NOTE: Delivery was NOT refused. … In this case, it would have gone back to the SENDER as undelivered, and therefore NOT LAWFULLY SERVED. Therefore NO CASE could proceed at that time. Paddy erred, by picking up the "summons" from the post office and signing for it. The said "summons" was issued in Paddy's name. Paddy did get the "summons", it was in his name, and he did appear in the Court on the day confirming all of this, therefore he conceded Jurisdiction to the Court. The Court are now treating the address question as a technical issue/error, and not relevant, because Paddy has identified himself as being served, and is in the Court to answer the charge. THIS ISSUE SHOULD NOT BE DROPPED, but it will be "overlooked" and "passed over" by the Court, if Paddy continues to let it be so. JURISDICTION was/is established for the case to proceed. The State are not trying to convict "the address" per se, they are attempting to fine/convict Paddy. Paddy stated: "I felt very intimidated by the judge as he seems to be siding with the state solicitor (conflict of interest), who pays his wage". Yes Court is a very intimidating place to find yourself, nonetheless, Paddy has offered NO EVIDENCE to us that the said Judge was/is siding with the state solicitor. Paddy has NOT provided us with a FULL TRANSCRIPT or any EVIDENCE of what was said/stated by the parties to the case on the day, so this is just his emotions/feelings, and are at present NOT relevant to the matter, they are just here-say. Paddy stated: "I want to fight for my rights. With your help I would hope to achieve that goal and after to have it on your website for people to read. I believe we must learn the law and use it for our protection". This is a contradiction in terms really, as if you are going to "fight for my rights" per se, then why would you need or want anyone's "help"? Equally, Paddy with this statement is also telling us, that he has not Critically read any of the material that we have been sending out, issuing and broadcasting for a great may years now, and directly to Paddy. If Paddy believes he must learn the law, why has he not learned and know the law already? And more to the point, why has Paddy NOT brought the LAW into Court? The answer to that question probably rests firmly in the human condition called "If it does not affect me, why would I give a damn or bother?" … In other words, Paddy didn't see the TV License issue as an issue affecting him, because nobody came knocking on his door until July 2015, and then of course it became something that was immediate to him, but something he had not prepared for. Now Paddy is in a bit of a bind … and seeks "help". Paddy Stated: "July 2015 inspector calls to house, unfortunately I answered the door, stated the person he was looking for was not at the property." Was it "unfortunate" that Paddy answered the door, or was it "unfortunate" that he stated to the inspector that "the person he was looking for was not at the property", or perhaps both? The more serious issue may arise, given that Paddy is now in the Court. The said inspector can now evidence that on the face of it Paddy lied to him, about not being "the person he was looking for" (if it was indeed Paddy he was looking for). This will of course not go down well with the Judge, and will paint Paddy in a certain light, of either being a bit crazed, or a bit of a liar or possibly both "a crazed liar!". Paddy Stated: "Any post from an post TV license, was placed back in post box with return to sender." How many times have we covered this "return to sender" thing with People? We know there are several characters out there, that still put it out to People, that sticking something back in the post with a "return to send (RTS)" note on it, is the magical or silver bullet that will solve all your problems … FFS. Yes there are times when it may be appropriate to put a "RTS" note on an envelope or card and send it back, but in this case, it may have made matters worse for Paddy. It may have flagged the matter with the TV License Inspector, that Paddy and the address should be investigated. If nothing else; but to establish if the property has People living in it, or not. Clearly, there must be someone there, if they are getting their mail back with "RTS" on it, and perhaps they are evading payment? So in this case the "RTS" thing has potentially assisted in getting Paddy into Court and into trouble. Paddy Stated: "They (the Court/Judge) want me to prove there was a license at that address." This perhaps this is where Paddy's case can start/begin. Up to this point, the case against Paddy was open and shut (and may still be). In Court, Paddy did not ask/seek a Gary Doyle Order, as in FULL DISCLOSURE of the Accusers Evidence, and this is why the Court are desirous of Paddy proving "his case". They have shifted the BURDEN OF PROOF from themselves onto the Accused (Paddy). THE BIG QUESTION: How is it possible in LAW, for Paddy to PROVE "there was a licence at that address" ... if "that address" is not his? Perhaps Paddy should ask the Judge that question, and ask the Judge to make an Order to do something that in LAW cannot be done? Will the Judge be able to make such as Order? Well only if wishes to have the matter Judicially Reviewed and/or have potential impeachment proceedings issued against him. Paddy gave evidence by making the statement "I stated that that was not my address it was my parents address." … and by making such a statement, the Court have now bound Paddy to PROVE HIS STATEMENT, which in LAW they are correct to do. Whereas if Paddy had had his research and study done, he would have said to the Court, the State/TV License Authority as the accusers, carry the BURDEN OF PROOF in LAW to PROVE THEIR CASE … This brings the headache back to the accuser(s). THIS CAN STILL BE DONE … IF PADDY PUTS IT TO THE COURT. IN CONCLUSION: There is absolutely no need whatsoever for any of the People that subscribe to the material we put out, to coalesce to the Courts in respect of these types of matters. The LAW is clear and very well defined. Judges may not be happy that you are seeking a "Gary Doyle Order" as in FULL DISCLOSURE, and may challenge you on the validity of this. If you are found wanting or lacking in the knowledge you need, Judges will and do take advantage of your lacking, and your ignorance of the LAW will only serve to help the prosecution/accuser. If you are not prepared to have a VERBAL TUSSLE with a Judge, and then are not prepared to put EVERYTHING ON RECORD ACCURATELY by writing to the Court/Judge … you are going nowhere in a hurry. ALL the Information, the Knowledge and the LAW you need in these types of cases (CRIMINAL), are to be found under the DPP Guidelines for Prosecutors (2010) … S8 and S9: https://www.dppireland.ie/publications/category/14/guidelines-for-prosecutors/ Moreover, the book "The Gary Doyle Order" … works through a particular case, and specifically gives and outlines what you can seek and by LAW get here: www.TheGaryDoyleOrder.com/ For those of you reading this, there are no excuses for not being prepare and not seeking a "Gary Doyle Order" and/or FULL DISCLOSURE. And at least on the face of it, giving yourselves a fighting chance of winning your case(s). ~~~ The Next School of Commonology is on Monday 28th. March 2016, and focused on the Criminal Aspects of Income Tax, and what can happen in Court. More information and booking is available here: www.itcl.eventbrite.com/ | 
No comments:
Post a Comment