Private tenants can use human rights to prevent s21 (Pt 2)

[Guest]

Re: Private tenants can use human rights to prevent s21 (Pt 2)

What did parliament intend by article 8 (private life and home)?
A repeal is the removal or reversal of a law. There are two basic types of repeal, a repeal with re-enactment (or replacement) of the repealed law, or a repeal without replacement. The motion to rescind, repeal, or annul is used in parliamentary procedure to cancel or countermand an action or order previously adopted by the assembly.

Under the common law of England and Wales, the effect of repealing a statute was "to obliterate it completely from the records of Parliament as though it had never been passed."^[1]
This, however, is now subject to savings provisions within the Interpretation Act 1978.

A partial repeal occurs when a specified part or provision of a previous Act is repealed but other provisions remain in force.
A full repeal occurs where the entire Act in question is repealed.
A repeal without replacement is generally done when a law is no longer effective, or it is shown that a law is having far more negative consequences than were originally envisioned.
If a campaign for the repeal of a particular law gains particular moment, an advocate of the repeal might become known as a "repealer".
Express repeal occurs where express words are used in a statute to repeal an earlier statute.
Implied repeal occurs where two statutes are mutually inconsistent. The effect is that the later statute repeals the earlier statute pro tanto (in so far as it is inconsistent). ^[3] There is a presumption against implied repeal.^[4]

Repeals can be with or without savings. A repeal without savings eliminates the repealed statute completely. A repeal with savings preserves the effect of the repealed statute for limited purposes, such as acts already done or in hand, or regulations made under the repealed Act are continued in force. In England and Wales, sections 15 to 17, and section 19(2), of the Interpretation Act 1978 set out general savings and similar provisions exist in the law of Ireland and other common law countries.

The mischief rule^[1] is one of three rules of statutory construction traditionally applied by English courts.^[2] The other two are the “plain meaning rule” (also known as the “literal rule”) and the “golden rule.”
The main aim of the rule is to determine the "mischief and defect" that the statute in question has set out to remedy, and what ruling would effectively implement this remedy.

[Guest]

Re: Private tenants can use human rights to prevent s21 (Pt 2)

SHREDDING THE JUDGEMENT

UnitedFront, since you're a leading law student, perhaps you'd like to explain why I am not a "Freeman".
And why clause 29 remains in force?
Who does it apply to?

Because c 29 is about abuse of process.
Many people in this country (Shelter included) realise that abuse of process occurs in s21 evictions.
One of them is Lord Neuberger ("The judiciary should not fear the unsettling of housing cases by the spreading impact of the Human Rights Act").

This abuse can be carried out by the landlord AND the judge.
Leaving the tenant OUTLAWED.
Not something someone with your ideals would want to see happening, I'm sure.

(In case anyone thinks I'm being unkind, I'm a clairvoyant, as members have identified. I refer to UnitedFront's occupational status to ratify his input).
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The case under discussion is currently with a circuit judge and is of constitutional importance and public interest.
Land use policies are a fundamental part of human welfare and the economic underpinning of our country.

More than one tenth of our population are tenants.
The judiciary still believe half of these can be evicted for no reason; the other half, because some people are upset with them.
Social tenants can be evicted, in what can be an act of inhumanity, for 'anti-social behaviour'.
This can amount to a few incidents of anger.
This is the equivalent of saying people posting hatefully on this thread should be forcibly evicted from their homes.

The Human Rights Act was drawn up after the second world war to prevent further (atrocities and) acts of inhumanity.
This is one of many reasons why my case includes a declaration of incompatibility.
Whether it was my job to do this is irrelevant in practice (I believe it's up to the High Court).
The United Kingdom has a good record record of human rights - but not for tenants.
Even ECHR thinks s21 term is OK :okay: :sick: :hippie:

One sixtieth of our populace are unhoused.
There are as many empty dwellings as homeless.
The homeless are unable to contribute to the economic interests of the country.

Enormous resources could be spent on the forming of law by precedent due to the undifferentiated eviction sections of statute.
Commentators have been calling for differentiation for decades.
The government has yet to respond.
This is another reason why my case includes a declaration of incompatibility.

[Celestine]

Re: Private tenants can use human rights to prevent s21 (Pt 2)

UnitedFront, since you're a leading law student, perhaps you'd like to explain why I am not a "Freeman".
And why clause 29 remains in force?
Who does it apply to?

Because c 29 is about abuse of process.
Many people in this country (Shelter included) realise that abuse of process occurs in s21 evictions.
One of them is Lord Neuberger ("The judiciary should not fear the unsettling of housing cases by the spreading impact of the Human Rights Act").

This abuse can be carried out by the landlord AND the judge.
Leaving the tenant OUTLAWED.
Not something someone with your ideals would want to see happening, I'm sure.

(In case anyone thinks I'm being unkind, I'm a clairvoyant, as members have identified. I refer to UnitedFront's occupational status to ratify his input).

Did you not read my post? United Front has departed the debate and unless you want further arguments, it's unwise to bait him to return.

[Guest]

Re: Private tenants can use human rights to prevent s21 (Pt 2)

After many months of tolerating you and putting off the repairs that says to me that he was HOPING you would get sick of the conditions and leave of your own accord

That would be an offence, Ian.
Your comment has triggered my awareness of misrepresentation of the landlord.
This certainly could occur in state proceedings, where judges intervene in contracts and landlords don't show up.

[Guest]

Re: Private tenants can use human rights to prevent s21 (Pt 2)

Did you not read my post? United Front has departed the debate and unless you want further arguments, it's unwise to bait him to return.

Hello Celestine.
I read your post.
I am not baiting UnitedFront, I am asking his expert opinion.
As you can see, Celestine, I went to some considerable length to explain this in the post (later amended for unrelated reasons).
Thankyou.

[Guest]

Re: Private tenants can use human rights to prevent s21 (Pt 2)

Time and Money
I should warn the forum that I am working for much-needed money today.
The problems with s21 and legal system have proved very demanding of my resources.
Please refrain from posting unless it's brief, considered and informed.
Thankyou.

[Guest]

Re: Private tenants can use human rights to prevent s21 (Pt 2)

SHREDDING THE JUDGEMENT

What are 'Freemen' in the Magna Carta 1297? - from the British Library
"Free men formed only a small proportion of the population of 13th-century England. The distinction between the free and the unfree peasantry (the villeins) varied considerably across the country. Generally, though, in contrast to an unfree villein, a free man could leave his manor, could buy or sell land and owned his goods and chattels. He was not required to make numerous customary payments to his lord, nor to undertake onerous labour services for the cultivation of his lord's lands. Free men still had to attend their lord's court, but they also had access to the royal courts, which offered greater protection for their rights and property.

Here follows an ambiguation of the word free man:
(The following paragraph relates to clause 29):-
Although Magna Carta focused primarily on the interests of the barons, a significant proportion of its clauses dealt with all free men, from the barons, through the knights, down to the free peasantry. The most famous clause, providing protection against arbitrary imprisonment and the seizure of property by the king, applied to all free men"

So:-
1. A free man is not unlike a modern-day private tenant. Free to come and go, buy and sell, and access two court systems. In our times, the equivalent two-tier system would be our domestic courts and the ECHR.
2. Clause 29 applies to everyone. Thus, point 1 is not needed.
3. As such, it is indeed 'constitutional statute' as described by Lord Justice John Laws in 2002: it "(a) conditions the legal relationship between citizen and State in some general, overarching manner, and (b) enlarges or diminishes the scope of what we would now regard as fundamental constitutional rights"
4. It is thus incapable of implied repeal. It literally cannot be arbitrarily over-ridden by any later law.
5. It prohibits abuse of process in state involvement in land matters.
6. This prohibition has existed in our constitution since 1225 - i.e., for 788 years.

[Guest]

Re: Private tenants can use human rights to prevent s21 (Pt 2)

SHREDDING THE JUDGEMENT

Magna Carta 1297 (version still in force)

XXIX Imprisonment, &c. contrary to Law. Administration of Justice.
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 [X1condemn 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.

X1 Variant reading of the text noted in The Statutes of the Realm as follows: deal with him
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
1. NO Freeman: no person
The capitalisation in 'NO' serves as disambiguation from 'freemen' as opposed to 'free villeins', to all free men.
In my case, I was told that I would be treated differently because I was a private tenant, and not a social one.
I was then treated differently to social tenants, in that no human rights evaluation was made by DJ.
Modern-day case law was used to justify this omission.
The question may well be here which wins: precedent in Sup Ct v 788-year-old constitutional statute

2. shall be taken: shall be taken
In my case, I have been threatened with forcible eviction from my home.
The court did not stay the warrant on N244 request, pending appeal.
The court did not send the warrant to the appeal court.
The appeal court did not stay the warrant until I complained 9 days prior to execution.
My complaint was initially met with forcible resistance from the court clerk handling appeals.
He did later apologise, and give me much-needed advice.
That CJ wouldn't be available for oral hearing seeking permission to appeal, for a couple of months.

x.or imprisoned: or imprisoned
To put in or as if in prison; confine.
"Imprisonment is a legal term. It refers to the restraint of a person's liberty"
"Liberty is the value of individuals to have agency (control over their own actions). Different conceptions of liberty articulate the relationship of individuals to society in different ways—including some that relate to life under a social contract or to existence in a state of nature, and some that see the active exercise of freedom and rights as essential to liberty. Understanding liberty involves how we imagine the individual's roles and responsibilities in society in relation to concepts of free will and determinism, which involves the larger domain of metaphysics"
The AST with offending term of the s21 eviction process :crutch: has taken agency from me.
I am a business person - not a fly! :omg_a_spider_by_dut
In is not in the economic interests of the country (art 8(2)) to interfere with my business.
I have a number-one ranked Google domain name for the second biggest search term for my industry.
That industry is a multi-billion pound market in the UK, alone.
However, the vision I saw of my web platform in 2006, was a major international platform.
BRINGING MONEY INTO THE UK.

ENTER THE FOLs :kev:
(Not fools, except when it is taken that c61 MC is still in force. No crown would agree to such a contract)

"Freemen on the land" are people who claim that all statute law is contractual, and that such law is applicable only if an individual consents to be governed by it.

In political philosophy the social contract or political contract is a theory or model, originating during the Age of Enlightenment, that typically addresses the questions of the origin of society and the legitimacy of the authority of the state over the individual.^[1] Social contract arguments typically posit that individuals have consented, either explicitly or tacitly, to surrender some of their freedoms and submit to the authority of the ruler or magistrate (or to the decision of a majority), in exchange for protection of their remaining rights. The question of the relation between natural and legal rights, therefore, is often an aspect of social contract theory.
I did not, and will never agree to the terms of the assured shorthold tenancy.
They are forced on me by the state, and until it repudiates this contract, I am not free.
I do not consent to surrender my freedom to live free of the fear of eviction...
...and furthermore - in return for what rights - ????? 2 months' mandatory notice???? NO DEAL.
I claim housing benefit and working tax credit.
WHEN this stupid contract is off my back, I can GET OFF THEM.
Meantime, is it not reasonable the state should pay the cost of correcting its errors?
Particularly since this IS in the economic interests of the country.
Since I have made this information publicly available, there could be a few claims.
25 years of abuse of process. Currently, there are 7m tenants.
Should I mention the homeless? What protection are they receiving?
And in this instant case, the FOLs - ONE 'O' - may not have got it quite wrong.
THE STATE SHOULD CHANGE THE LAW
Let no man be left homeless

3. or be disseised: or be dispossessed

4. of his Freehold: of his freehold
"All nobles, knights and other tenants, termed vassals, merely "held" land from the king, who was thus at the top of the "feudal pyramid". Such feudal tenures were deemed freehold where of indeterminate duration and hereditable, and non-freehold where they for a fixed term and non-hereditable"
I am on a periodic tenancy, making it one of indeterminate duration.
[I'm not sure any tenancy is hereditable any more - I'll let others examine that issue].
Therefore, I have a freehold, in nearest matching to the terminology of the Magna Carta.
In my case, I have been dispossessed of my freehold.

5. or Liberties: or denied his civil liberties (rights and freedoms)
In my case, I have been dispossessed of some civil liberties (to follow).

6. or free Customs: or free customs
I have found no reasonable authority on the meaning of this yet. It's likely either:
a. contextual: the rules governing the feudal system, or perhaps
b. his usual way of life (drinking at the pub on Sandford Street, for example).
Either way, Pt I, article 8 - 'private life' would cover way of life.

7. or be outlawed: or be put outside the protection of the law
In my case, the judiciary have directly outlawed me, by not applying my rights and by denying me access to remedies.
This has been despite correct submissions procedurally, including full statement of case and attendant evidence.

8. or exiled: or exiled
In my case, I could be permanently exiled from my home.

9. or any other wise destroyed: or destroyed in any other way.
My relationship was destroyed by the eviction proceedings (2nd notice stage).
My finances have been hit hard by the work involved, triggering legal threats.
Because of my case, I am unable to continue my building online business and negotiating a television series.
In my case, the state would destroy my home, way of life and place of work, if I lost.
This would cause loss of personal integrity.
It would also destroy my social functioning as I know it presently.
The homeless can often be literally destroyed, in death, due to freezing temperatures.
10. nor will We not pass upon him: nor deal with his case

11. nor condemn him: nor condemn him
In my case, I have been condemned to serious and far-reaching losses.
nor condemn him: nor deal with him (variant reading)

12. but by lawful judgment of his Peers: except by jury
In my case, there has been no jury.
The initial order was made on paperwork. Then there were 2 hearings with just myself and DJ.

13. or by the Law of the land: or by the law of the land
Many laws in force were not applied by either judge in my case. I shall list them after seeing the transcript.
Most significant were the constitutional statutes, Magna Carta 1297 and HRA 1998.
There was no human rights evaluation, under proportionality and legitimate aim.

14. We will sell to no man...either Justice or Right: we will sell to no man either justice or right
In my case, 'justice' was sold to the landlord for £175, on paperwork exercise.
The landlord was thus sold the 'right' to evict for no reason, without consideration of my rights.
My rights were also thus sold to the landlord.
The landlord was sold my right to bring action under PEA 1977 and HA 1997.

15. we will not deny...any man either Justice or Right: we will not deny any man either justice or right
In my case, I was denied justice as none of my rights were applied by the judge (except at hardship hearing).
I was also denied justice by a bad judgement.
I was denied my rights as none were applied by the judge (except at hardship hearing).

16. we will not defer to any man either Justice or Right: we will not delay to any man either justice or right
My case has been in progress since 2nd November 2012 - for several months.
The longer the judiciary keep making errors in law, the more of my time it is taking.
I have been denied all costs and damages.

No man shall be forcibly evicted or dispossessed of his tenancy of indeterminate duration (periodic), denied his civil liberties or [free customs], be placed outside the protection of the law, exiled, or in any other way destroyed; nor will we condemn him, nor deal with him or his case, except by jury or by the law of the land (all English law). We will sell to no man either justice or right. We will not deny or delay to any man either justice or right.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IT'S NOT UP TO ANY JUDGE, BUT LEGAL HISTORY!
In eighteenth-century England, William Blackstone wrote that the law of the land "depends not upon the arbitrary will of any judge; but is permanent, fixed, and unchangeable, unless by authority of parliament.... Not only the substantial part, or judicial decisions, of the law, but also the formal part, or method of proceeding, cannot be altered but by parliament."
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
This document is a work in progress.
I lose the ability to edit it, it will be finished elsewhere.

[Guest]

Re: Private tenants can use human rights to prevent s21 (Pt 2)

SHREDDING THE JUDGEMENT
The Assured Shorthold Tenancy (points of contract law)

To be fair to the DJ, it was he who raised the issue of the AST contract, in obiter dicta (as did I).
The obiter dicta consisted of 'mere' description.
In the case of the AST, that's all it takes.
My clarification follows.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Walking possession refers to the legal practice in the United Kingdom under which a bailiff takes possession of the goods of a defaulting debtor, but does not remove the goods.

This leaves the person under threat of the bailiff returning and taking their possessions away.

An AST tenant's entire home is under similar threat from day one of a tenancy.
But in the AST tenant's case, he or she may have done nothing wrong.
Because the landlord can, presently and supposedly, take the tenure back at any time, for no reason.
This means the home may be utterly destroyed due to the lack of respect and/or humanity of the landlord, advisors and courts.

It is under these conditions that an AST tenant must start to build their 'home'.
1. Securing a premises: research, viewings, negotiation, examination of contract, moving.
2. Making the home: research, measuring, purchasing, delivering, assembling, painting, fitting and settling in.
3. Major re-orientation: of work, social integration and all personal organisation.
4. Power struggles: with new neighbours, landlord (repairs), agent - all of whose customs may be interrupted.
5. Power struggles: with the landlord over TENURE.
All habits and customs engrained in the home, any fondness for it, personal integrity and stability, are all under constant threat.
Whether that threat is acted upon or simply known by the tenant to be lurking in the background, really matters not.
The landlord can evict the tenant because he doesn't like the tenant!
6. Stress: Work and home could be lost. Belongings will not necessarily fit or look or 'feel' right in another property.
7. Mental strain: Tenant forced into constant decision-making every time a landlord behaves unlawfully.
8. Health: This excessive stress may impinge on the health of the tenant.
9. Duress: Moving to a new property would mean a forced signing of another AST.

This is the reason for declaration of incompatibility
There is no room for manoeuvre here.
Human rights and the supposed 'right' to evict for no reason are simply incompatible.
Human rights and the AST also have no meeting place.
So-said 6 months of tenure, no right even to stay that length while you furnish, heat, insure and possibly repair the place.
All whilst trying to settle in and establish a new life.
And all under threat, whether issued, or not.

Absolutely absurd, as the DJ in my case so rightly made clear to me - in his obiter dictum of mere description
The length of tenure is 24 HOURS
THE AST IS A HUMAN RIGHTS VIOLATION PAR GRANDE!
I: 1, 3, 8 and 14. II: 1.
Margaret Thatcher AIMED to limit the human rights of tenants, as method of 'securing' housing for them.
Ultra vires (?) - breach of article 17.
:lock1: THERE IS NO SECURITY OF TENURE, AND THEREFORE NO ADEQUATE HOUSING IN AN AST.
3 Degrading, 8 disprespectful, 14 discriminatory and II, 1 disruptive.
The tenure is neither terminate, nor indeterminate, leaving the tenant with nothing to rely on.
The feudal system was better!
All property was owned by the state.
Tenure terminate and non-hereditable, or indeterminate and heriditable.
Either way, it was predictable!
ASTs are unpredictable due to their structure, and the individual whims of the landlord!

The concept of private ownership has led to battles between landlords and tenants!
:fencing: This is because conflicting interests are set up in the same place.
This is contrary to the Convention, which was designed to keep the peace.
Margaret Thatcher could reasonably have foreseen this eventuality.

People's homes have been privitised!
Unjust enrichment (mistake of law, duress, ignorance, powerlessness, partial failure of consideration)
Unjust enrichment ( unconscionability*, consideration offered is so obviously inadequate)
This has made them unequals.
Unfair contract terms.
Walking invitation to hate crime.
No protection from harassment.
No protection from unlawful eviction.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Enforcability of contract - unconscionability
*Unconscionability is a term used in contract law to describe a defense against the enforcement of a contract based on the presence of terms that are excessively unfair to one party. Typically, such a contract is held to be unenforceable because the consideration offered is lacking or is so obviously inadequate that to enforce the contract would be unfair to the party seeking to escape the contract.

In and of itself, inadequate consideration is likely not enough to make a contract unenforceable. However, a court of law will consider evidence that one party to the contract took advantage of its superior bargaining power to insert provisions that make the agreement overwhelmingly favor the interests of that party.^{[citation needed]} Usually for a court to find a contract unconscionable the party claiming unconscionability will have to prove both that there was a problem with the substance of the contract and the process through which that contract was formed.^{[citation needed]} The substantive problem will usually be the consideration, but could also be the terms, interest payments, or other obligations the court finds unfair. Procedural issues that a court could consider include a party's lack of choice, superior bargaining position or knowledge, and other circumstances surrounding the bargaining process.

Upon finding unconscionability a court has a great deal of flexibility on how it remedies the situation. It may refuse to enforce the contract, refuse to enforce the offending clause, or take other measures it deems necessary to have a fair outcome. Damages are usually not awarded.

[IanM]

Re: Private tenants can use human rights to prevent s21 (Pt 2)

""The last time I saw a man with chicken in his rucksack, I had a romantic time with him.
It ended rather quickly, though, when I got a s21 notice, later.""


CP, is this when the landlord/tenant relationship broke down? :cancan:

[Guest]

Re: Private tenants can use human rights to prevent s21 (Pt 2)

HA HA HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA!

Nope. It was when claimant thought I had been doing perverse things to his wardrobes yer honour!

:behindsofa: .................... ffs


:bathbaby: ...........AMAZING, the life of an ass. shorthold tenant!

[Guest]

Re: Private tenants can use human rights to prevent s21 (Pt 2)

SHREDDING THE JUDGEMENT

Reasonableness
OK, now Ian's loosened me up I've realised it's only points of law or reasonableness of judgement :brushteeth:

1. Not even a stay of possession order - with unresolved, major complaint, and landlord not present at 2 hearings.
2. "...no breach of contract" - when the statement of case was 23 pages, with repair schedule and 1.5" of correspondence.
3. No order to draw up of the correct contract for the circumstances. Said I could 'assign the lease' (LTA 1954).
4. No technical defence in wrong contract for circs-wrong proceedings.
5. No appointment of new fiduciary (agent) despite severe breaches of terms of service ('managed let').
6. Couldn't see Magna Carta argument.
7. Human rights defences all knocked out on tenancy status. Despite SOC saying this would be breach of art 14.
8. No damages despite diary, no costs.
9. No time extension awarded for legal aid application.
10. No public and fair trial, per HRA 1998.
11. No permission to appeal would have been given, had I not withdrawn my application.
12. Burden of proof is merely balance of probabilities.
13. Natural justice (duty to act fairly).
14. Bias due to non-presence of landlord and error of law.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bias can take the form of actual bias, imputed bias or apparent bias. Actual bias is established where it is actually established that a decision-maker was prejudiced in favour of or against a party.
DJ told me 4 times at hardship hearing I wouldn't succeed/would be very unlikely to succeed on an HR defence.
He wasn't completely wrong. In my view, it's a contractual matter.
However, DJ's experience with at least one social housing case meant he wasn't looking deeper than article 8.
He also angrily demanded to know if I "felt the landlord had any rights at all" at the defence hearing,
despite refusing point-blank to apply any of mine.
I had clearly asked for a proportionality and legitimate aim test. This test DOES NOT deny a landlord's rights.
"Actual bias is very difficult to prove in practice while imputed bias, once shown, will result in a decision being void without the need for any investigation into the likelihood or suspicion of bias. Cases from different jurisdictions currently apply two tests for apparent bias: the "reasonable suspicion of bias" test and the "real likelihood of bias" test"

"The right to a fair hearing requires that individuals should not be penalized by decisions affecting their rights or legitimate expectations unless they have been given prior notice of the case, a fair opportunity to answer it, and the opportunity to present their own case. The mere fact that a decision affects rights or interests is sufficient to subject the decision to the procedures required by natural justice"
DJ said I had been 'badly advised', but did not allow time for legal aid application on 2 x N244 applications.
He did say he wasn't familiar with legal aid rules, but felt it wasn't available for these proceedings. This was wrong!

[Guest]

Re: Private tenants can use human rights to prevent s21 (Pt 2)

"a man with chicken in his rucksack"

Sometimes, I wonder what I'm saying.

[Guest]

Re: Private tenants can use human rights to prevent s21 (Pt 2)

SHREDDING THE LEGALITY OF THE AST
AST and s21 were drawn up ultra vires.
Breach of article 17 of the Convention: WAS aimed at limiting tenant's rights.
I: 3, 8, 14. II: 1.
Hmmm...mebbe AST, in all its glory, can be evicted :nerd: :target: :bounce::rofl:

(Here I reverted to #84).

[Guest]

Re: Private tenants can use human rights to prevent s21 (Pt 2)

My work on this case is nearly ended
Thanks to some good friends, I can go back to work for the first time since 29th November 2012.
That's 3 months on the job.
No automatic right to evict me.
MC 1297 and HRA 1998 beats HA 88 (#55, #58, #67, #76, #82, #83, #84, #87. Something like that).
Ahhhhhhhhhh..................

Nothing I've said on this thread should be taken to mean anything other than complete respect for DJ.
The power of his intellect was, imo, in the highlighting of the contractual matter.
DDJ I never met.

I'll get to Welcome later.