|
Post by Tony Dunkley on Apr 6, 2024 20:56:44 GMT
The thing is Tony, people would take you more seriously if you’d even bothered to turn up to court for your own court case. Yes, you're never going to win any Court action if you have so little faith in your case that it's not worth your time to show up and say your thing. The public posting, on the internet, of made-up, knowingly false, or derogatory statements, including anything intended to diminish the standing and/or reputation of the subject, amounts to a recognised punishable form of harassment and/or stalking. A photographic record of the above post, with the posters details, will be added to the file currently being compiled by the Police. www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1997/40/contents
|
|
|
Post by kris on Apr 6, 2024 20:56:54 GMT
Oh well never mind , are you saying you did appear in court?
|
|
|
Post by Mr Stabby on Apr 6, 2024 21:04:26 GMT
Oh well never mind , are you saying you did appear in court? According to the Section 8 Court order authorising the removal of Halcyon Daze, he "attended by telephone". It's reasonable to assume therefore that he didn't attend in person.
|
|
|
Post by thebfg on Apr 6, 2024 22:11:54 GMT
Oh well never mind , are you saying you did appear in court? According to the Section 8 Court order authorising the removal of Halcyon Daze, he "attended by telephone". It's reasonable to assume therefore that he didn't attend in person. Maybe he's forgot he didn't go. He was ill, so plausible.
|
|
|
Post by Mr Stabby on Apr 7, 2024 7:11:12 GMT
According to the Section 8 Court order authorising the removal of Halcyon Daze, he "attended by telephone". It's reasonable to assume therefore that he didn't attend in person. Maybe he's forgot he didn't go. He was ill, so plausible. I suppose it's possible that he could have forgotten that he didn't go but if he checks the Section 8 notice he can clearly see that he "attended by telephone".
|
|
|
Post by Tony Dunkley on Apr 7, 2024 14:10:00 GMT
For the three deadheads responsible for the last four posts :- thunderboat.boards.net/post/393625/thread . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . the comments directed at brummieboy apply equally well to these three specimens !
|
|
|
Post by kris on Apr 7, 2024 14:16:45 GMT
So you attended by telephone due to ill health. Was this because the judge refused your appeal to have the case postponed? Did you shout at them down the phone?
|
|
|
Post by Tony Dunkley on Apr 7, 2024 14:20:01 GMT
|
|
|
Post by Tony Dunkley on Apr 7, 2024 21:26:27 GMT
Apr 3, 2024 12:33:11 GMT 1 Andyberg said:
Cant find any trace of Mersey or Wyre in the for sale ads now…mebbee they have both sold?
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
For the attention of professional liars Tom Deards, Lucy Barry, and all the other crooked staff at the Canal & River Trust's Illegal & Connivance Services
If Commercial Boat Services/Brian Clarke have sold either boat they're in big trouble, . . the Law - that's the real Law, NOT the pretend version that C&RT sells to mindless pricks such as Andyberg - says that title to those two L&L Shortboats, Mersey and Wyre, remains with the owners they were seized from by the C&RT and its thieving contractors.
It's far more likely that both boats have been taken off the market because of the increasingly widespread publicity given to the fact that neither vessel is C&RT's or Commercial Boat Services to sell.
'Seizing' goods, an item, property, or belongings does not equate with acquiring 'good title', . . unless the seizure of the goods (etc.) has been properly and specifically authorized or ordered by way of an enactment, a Writ, or a Warrant.
This, apparently, incomprehensible (for all C&RT's gullible, unthinking supporters) and (for C&RT and CBS) inconvenient but undeniable fact, is what makes every single one of C&RT's Section 8 boat "removals" unlawful, . . because the 'seizure' of the vessel in question is executed with the predetermined intention of either destroying the vessel, or selling it on to a third party, . . entirely absent any authority or documentation originating from any enactment or Court ordered 'seizure power' to do so lawfully/legally.
___________________________________________________
Paragraph 2) of Schedule 12) to the Tribunals, Courts and Enforcement Act 2007 states :-
Enforcement agents
2(1) In this Schedule “enforcement agent” means an individual authorised by section 63(2) to act as an enforcement agent.
2(2) Only an enforcement agent may take control of goods and sell them under an enforcement power.
_____________________________________________
The words - "enforcement power" are of special significance with regard to C&RT's unlawful seizures of Section 8'd boats from their rightful owners.
Neither C&RT, nor Commercial Boat Services bogus Bailiffs, have ever acted or are ever authorized to act under any such "enforcement power". It follows therefore that C&RT's Section 8 boat 'seizures', and the 'evictions' of the owners that usually accompany the 'seizing' of the vessel are all, without exception, wholly unlawful/illegal.
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
Keeping in mind what's written above, . . now read what's written below :-
"In the course of the obiter dictum recorded in the transcript, the trial Judge, HHJ Halbert, went to some trouble to ensure that Geoffrey Mayers, the boat owner, fully understood the law with regard to the ownership of the boat that the C&RT had removed from the canal. Although the C&RT led the boat owner to believe that his boat 'Pearl' was legally 'seized' when it was lifted it out of the canal near Northwich, transported by road to the Gloucester area, then the owner told that it now belonged to the C&RT, was impounded by its agents, and that he was not allowed access to it, . . the Judge told Geoffrey Mayers that he did in fact retain full unencumbered ownership and good title to the vessel, . . and that he was within his rights, and the law, to go and collect his boat at any time he wished to, . . reclaiming it from the C&RT agents who held it, unlawfully impounded, on C&RT's instructions.
This informative, and rather difficult to argue with combination of Judicial guidance and legal opinion, was discovered by Nigel Moore and I in a copy of a trial transcript I had whilst we were working on and preparing a (successful) Defence to a 2014 C&RT County Court Claim for Declaratory and Injunctive Relief in respect of another boat (not 'Pearl') that this so-called Trust had in its sights, . . with the intention of stealing it from the rightful owner, . . as the Canal & River Trust has, by 2024, now done to hundreds of boat owners in the course of many hundreds of unlawfully executed Section 8 boat removals."
_____________________________________________________________________________________________________________
|
|
|
Post by dyertribe on Apr 7, 2024 21:31:22 GMT
Let it go, let it go Can't hold it back anymore Let it go, let it go Turn away and slam the door I don't care what they're going to say Let the storm rage on The cold never bothered me anyway
|
|
|
Post by Aloysius on Apr 7, 2024 21:31:50 GMT
Turned chilly again tonight
|
|
|
Post by Tony Dunkley on Apr 7, 2024 21:48:47 GMT
|
|
|
Post by dyertribe on Apr 7, 2024 21:51:42 GMT
Let it go, let it go Can't hold it back anymore Let it go, let it go Turn away and slam the door I don't care what they're going to say Let the storm rage on The cold never bothered me anyway
|
|
|
Post by fi on Apr 7, 2024 21:54:32 GMT
You are just winding Tony up by your repetitive comments. He just does the same back.
|
|
|
Post by Aloysius on Apr 7, 2024 22:19:52 GMT
Well, I guess you have to have some fun.
|
|