FIRST RED CAR SEIZED

[HVYMTL]

wheres your evidence?

Well, for starters I have a notice of seizure here with the date and the confirmation that the car seized was displaying the identifying mark "HVY MTL".

Secondly I have a letter from South Wales Police, confirming that they forwarded the first two notices on to North Wales Police.

Thirdly I have a letter from Clarence House, contents marked private and confidential. (a fact I intend to respect)

I'm sure that I have sufficient proof of the facts.

Thinking about it, I'm not going to send this final notice registered either. I mentioned previously I would do this upto 3 times, checking and verifying information as I go. This first round has already proven a lot as far as I am concerned. For a start they have been unable to mount any authority to prosecute me for the lack of TAX MOT or Insurance. That fact alone is a small victory. Further they have offered no rebuttal of my argument, and hence it's presumable at this point that it is correct and therefore cannot be rebutted.

If I send registered then there is an extra layer of proof, however that might be somewhat unfair in this case. It's tricky to explain but it is my feeling that continuing unregistered is more in keeping with the spirit of the law. I.E I'm giving them a chance to resolve this without the record. If they won't resolve it then next time I'm starting notice 1 with intention of prosecution sent registered. It's not my intention to unfairly or maliciously prosecute an unsuspecting chief constable who looks like a good chap from his picture. My feeling is that they are quite surprised about the whole thing and didn't even realise the error because they have not been trained properly.

On the second go around, the gloves come off because by that point they KNOW what they are doing is wrong, and that's a whole different kettle of fish.

[Too Far Gone]

You can probably use a commercial Liens in cases like this. These hit hard and where it hurts.

http://www.thebcgroup.org.uk/video/commercial-liens


I'm not sure how much knowledge is needed to bring one about effectively and safely, but the link might be interesting to you, if nothing else. I'm sure the whole community is behind you one this one matey, and no matter what happens, you have my full respect for making the effort.

Good or bad, win or lose. Keep the thread going until the end mate, knowledge is power.

[Sidlander]

wheres your evidence?

If I send registered then there is an extra layer of proof, however that might be somewhat unfair in this case. It's tricky to explain but it is my feeling that continuing unregistered is more in keeping with the spirit of the law. I.E I'm giving them a chance to resolve this without the record.

Nah dude, i get it.

[HVYMTL]

Update
---------

Well this morning I got a letter from Sgt Patrick Joyce Asst Chief Constable of South Wales police, dated 16th of Feb, confirming he has once again taken it upon himself to intercept and re-route the letters I've been sending to his boss Chief Constable Vaughan. In the letter it says that further correspondence will also be automatically sent on to North Wales Police Legal department.

Now call me paranoid, but I reckon they deliberately pre-dated the letter and then waited until after they reckoned I'd send the next round of notices to send it to me, so that it would look like I consented to them forwarding them on. Unlucky for them that I didn't send the latest round of notices before this letter arrived... muhahahaha.

Anyway so I am now sending him this response;

----------------------------------

Mr Patrick Joyce
Date : 6-3-2012

Thank you for your letter dated 16-2-2012, which arrived rather belatedly here on 5-3-2012. One can only wonder why it took over 2 weeks to deliver a letter a mere 168 miles, but I'm sure there is a good reason for the delay.

On receipt of your second letter I can confirm that I had forwarded a photocopy of the previous letter received from you and now have also forwarded this latest letter to Clarence House, London, so that they may decide what to do with you.

I sincerely hope, for your own sake, that either

1) You have authority to intercept and divert letters / NOTICES which are not addressed to you and are marked as Private And Confidential, and that the Post Office are to blame for the notable delay in delivery,

or

2) That despite the possibility that your actions have been ULTRA VIRES, a case of professional malpractice and grounds for charges of attempting to pervert the course of justice, that those above us will feel it is inappropriate for whatever reason to bring proceedings against you.

Best of luck with that, the matter is no longer in my hands. I confirm at this time that any further correspondence received at this address from you will also be forwarded and may be used against you.

Finally I would like to thank you for all your help in the matter of the unlawful seizure of my car, and the manner in which you have faithfully and without prejudice carried out your duty, but unfortunately on this occasion I cannot.

-----------------------------

I'd love to be there to see the look on his face when he reads that!

[HVYMTL]

Actually no.. I'm not going to send him anything. I'm just going to forward the letter anyway... no point goading him, and besides he thinks he's been clever but in reality he's given me a way to prove that the notices have been sent to Polin and have been acquiesced to.

I'm also still working on the next notice to Polin, I'll post up the final version when it's been sent.

[Sidlander]

Love it. Rooting for you mate.

[HVYMTL]

Update
----------

Still fighting the internal battle atm, nothing new has happened lately, it's been 2 months now and they are remaining silent and keeping the car. (and have probably already crushed the thing)

As it stands and how I feel right now, I just want to call it a draw and see if/how they come back at me. Been thinking about contacting the IPCC (independent police complaints commission) about Mr Joyce and his behaviour in re-routing letters/notices which are not addressed to him.

As far as I can tell, they are currently stumped and can't act, and have started resorting to the old 'back dated paperwork' trick, and if they are willing to do that who knows what other dirty tricks they will get up to if I continue without sufficient knowledge and confidence.

My senses are telling me to stop now and regroup with what learnt this time round.

Thanks go out to Dean Clifford (search youtube) for the information which I've used in this battle.

[HVYMTL]

Update
---------

Just had a brainwave....


sent to : enquiries@ipcc.gsi.gov.uk

(ipcc = independent police complaints commission )

--------

Dear Sir/Madam,

I'm writing to ask a question on whether or not I have grounds for a complaint against
a police officer. I wish to describe the nature of the matter in general terms prior to
divulging specifics if it is the case that a complaint may be made.

I sent a letter to a chief constable with regard to a matter I was dealing with, with a
different police service who were ignoring my letters.

The assistant to the Chief constable, went behind my back and re-routed my letter to
the very people I was asking for assistance in dealing with, on the justification that
in his opinion they were the best people to deal with it.

I wrote another letter, this time with the Chief Constable named as respondent, and
with "Private and Confidential" written on the envelope, only to get another letter from
the same assistant saying that he had done it again, and that any further correspondence
would be automatically diverted without further response from them. The second letter
was dated the 16th of Feb, and yet did not arrive here until the 5th of Mar. I sincerely
doubt the post office would take over 2 weeks to deliver a letter a mere 168 miles,
so I suspect he deliberately changed the date and made sure the letter would not arrive
until after the next letter from me was due to be sent.

My question therefore is this; does this officer have the right to intercept and divert
post which is not addressed to him, I guess in order to avoid dealing with the problem
as requested, and if not what can I do about it?

Many thanks

-----------------

[HVYMTL]

Update
----------

Had a little chat with Albert Burgess last night about this battle, and a couple of things he said just don't ring true to me. Now don't get me wrong I respect his bravery in standing up and doing those videos last year, but I don't think he's very smart or particularly committed to telling the truth. For instance, he said that one time CPS were going to drop a case and he forced it through by threatening to arrest them for obstructing the course of justice. I seriously doubt that even a chief constable would have such authority, and Albert (by his own admittance) was only a special constable.

If CPS decide something, I really doubt a jumped up handcuff happy special constable would change their mind by issuing threats of arrest. I mean for a start, it would be the CPS who then decide whether to prosecute, or if it has been a false arrest, and they are not likely to try and prosecute themselves!

He also denied that the police make any presumptions, and only investigate. He was completely oblivious to the presumption illustrated by Dean Clifford, and whilst I hinted at it, I didn't actually tell him the nature of the presumption, only that a presumption is always made by officers, which he denied.

This would seem to confirm to me that the police generally have no idea that they are mis-applying the law, and given how difficult it felt to explain it to him in a friendly exchange via internet, I doubt highly that many cops would ever listen and take it on board from anyone other than a senior officer in the force. (And certainly not from joe public in the street.)

He also said that the police have 6 months to deal with the matter, which is completely contrary to the facts published on the ask the police website where it states that they have only 14 days to issue a notice of intention to prosecute otherwise the issue cannot proceed to court. Personally I'm more inclined to believe the ask the police website than the words of an old ex-special constable, no matter how brave he has been in the past.

[Tim.lee]

HVYMTL... He also said that the police have 6 months to deal with the matter, which is completely contrary to the facts published on the ask the police website where it states that they have only 14 days to issue a notice of intention to prosecute otherwise the issue cannot proceed to court.

THIS CAN BE DONE VERBALLY WITHIN THE 14 DAYS.

I was stopped by the side of the road and was told that I was going to be prosecuted but I never received a NIP, just a Summons, is this right?

If you are stopped by the Police, there is no obligation to issue a Notice of Intended Prosecution if you have been spoken to and cautioned for the offence. In this regard, if the Police Officer says something as basic as "you are nicked" or "you can argue that in Court", that will be regarded as adequate notice. The Police will be entitled to issue a Summons immediately as they have already established your identity.

http://www.motorlawyers.co.uk/procedure ... cution.htm

they then have 180 days to issue a summons (6 month) i know this as i had my summons and it was out of date. 186 days. the cps dropped all chargers on me but still crushed my car. now if i was better equipped and had known what i do now i would have gone down the route your doing and i would be sueing them for unlawfully taking my car as i was aquitted of commiting a crime.

i hope you get the outcome your wanting what ever that maybe as it is hard to try and play ball with these crooks. remember its there ball there court there tools and there rules. but well done for trying. if you do get a summons through post it up and ill take a look at it.

yorkie pudding