Ian2day
18-12-2009, 10:48 AM
They bloody slipped that one in didn't they! A rule, a fucking slip rule, that allows them to do what they fucking like. Without prior notification. No chance for me to speak to say my case in full. Oh no.
If I prove that the court is a business. Then their so called terms is a part of a laid out contract. Which has been amended without my informed consent. Therefore a contractual dispute exists? Which would mean that only when the dispute is settled, can any action against me be taken by the court, the claimant or its agent or representatives?
So I have to prove first, that the court is a registered business? Once I have established this. I can dispute the amendment to the contract made at a hearing in my absence without informing me that it was even going to bloody take place! Who ends up rich out of all this. Lawyers thats who...
There is a funny tune, being played on a fiddle somewhere...
If I prove that the court is a business. Then their so called terms is a part of a laid out contract. Which has been amended without my informed consent. Therefore a contractual dispute exists? Which would mean that only when the dispute is settled, can any action against me be taken by the court, the claimant or its agent or representatives?
So I have to prove first, that the court is a registered business? Once I have established this. I can dispute the amendment to the contract made at a hearing in my absence without informing me that it was even going to bloody take place! Who ends up rich out of all this. Lawyers thats who...
There is a funny tune, being played on a fiddle somewhere...