Think Free

CRITICAL THINKING => ACHIEVING SOVEREIGNTY => Topic started by: M O'D on April 03, 2011, 12:11:06 PM

Title: Notice of Rescission & De-registration to DVLA
Post by: M O'D on April 03, 2011, 12:11:06 PM
This may be of interest to all those who are considering revoking all contractual arrangements with the Crown Agency known as DVLA:
QuoteTo MOLE BANANAMAN, CEO,
for and on behalf of DEVILAIR,
Swansick SAX 7XX
Our reference:
                                     
Notice of  Rescission & De-registration.    
                                           
Notice to principal is notice to agent and notice to agent is notice to principal.
Dear Sir,
I hereby serve notice on the Ministry of Transport and the DEVILAIR by way of service upon the CEO of DEVILAIR, MOLE BANANAMAN, that I rescind and revoke, ab initio, all actual and presumed contractual obligations with said commercially operated Agency, known as DEVILAIR.
For the avoidance of doubt, this matter is independent of and without prejudice to any and all claims arising from the dishonour of the Affidavit of Obligation and perfected Lien as detailed in the NOTICE OF CERTIFICATE OF NON-RESPONSE & FURTHER CHARGES and THE NOTARISED CERTIFICATE OF NON-RESPONSE, of June 9 2010 and duly served by way of Royal Mail Recorded Delivery Ref. no. XXXXXXXXGB on MOLE BANANAMAN, for and on behalf of DEVILAIR, on 18 June 2010.

In accord with my Claim of Right as served by way of Recorded Delivery in May 2009, on the woman acting as the Queen of England and the Commonwealth, I hereby reiterate my right to travel by whatever form of conveyance I choose without having to enter into any contractual obligations with the DEVILAIR.

I also claim the right to revoke the unlawful contract formed by the enclosed Driver's Licence - it has been and is of no use to me - why would a man need a licence to perform an action that is his lawful right? It is taken as unlawful on the grounds that I was not given full disclosure of the terms and conditions embedded within said contract/licence. Given that it is a logical fallacy to claim that a licence is required to carry out a lawful action, I claim the right to rescind the licence on the illogical basis for its existence.

For the avoidance of doubt, I do not 'drive' in a DEVILAIR registered vehicle - I travel in my own private conveyance. I am not a DRIVER, which I understand to mean one who is travelling on the highways and engaging in commercial activity thereupon and politely decline any and all future attempts at persuading me or falsely asserting otherwise. I no longer wish to contract with an organisation that is based on a deception and one that uses force, coercion and theft to enforce falsely represented contractual obligations on people.

I claim the right not to be bound by the statutory requirements of any and all motor vehicle acts of a parliament I have no allegiance to. I am not a citizen, a subject or the trustee for the legal entity/trust account/fictional person known as TRUST ACCOUNT STRAWMAN.

Therefore, I hereby claim the right to travel freely along any highway, water or sky way without limitation and without constraint of any nature whatsoever across the land mass or by way of water around what is commonly known as the British Isles by whatever choice of conveyance is available to me. Indeed, this right is factually supported by the following which states,  "Most of the offences committed under the Highways Act 1980 are designed to punish those who endanger or interfere with users of a 'highway' or who damage or obstruct a 'highway'. There is no statutory definition of a highway, only a common law one. That definition is quite clear: a "highway is a way over which all members of the public have the right to pass and repass. Their use of the way must be as of right, not on sufferance or by licence". From: Sweet & Maxwell, Encyclopaedia of Highway Law and Practice, March 2002, para 2-335

As a Free Man, indigenous to this land mass known since ancient time as Albien, it is my understanding that the right to freedom of travel for all who are such is enshrined in the Union with Scotland Act, 1706, ARTICLE IV which unequivocally guarantees the right to safe and unhindered passage. "Trade and Navigation and other Rights. That all the Subjects of the United Kingdom of Great Britain shall from and after the Union have full freedom and Intercourse of Trade and Navigation to and from any port or place within the said United Kingdom and the Dominions and Plantations thereunto belonging And that there be a Communication of all other Rights Privileges and Advantages which do or may belong to the Subjects of either Kingdom except where it is otherwise expressly agreed in these Articles."

And, Article 25 of the 1706 Act states - "That all Laws and Statutes in either Kingdom so far as they are contrary to or inconsistent with the Terms of these Articles or any of them shall from and after the Union cease and become void and shall be so declared to be by the respective Parliaments of the said Kingdoms"

Furthermore, any and all attempts, ab initio, to pre-fine someone are contrary to the Bill of Rights Act 1688, "And severall Grants and Promises made of Fines and Forfeitures before any Conviction or Judgement against the Persons upon whome the same were to be levyed.All which are utterly directly contrary to the knowne Lawes and Statutes and Freedome of this Realme".

You are hereby informed that ANY Act  which prevents me from enjoying my right to travel anywhere within the UK is "contrary and inconsistent" with the Acts of Union 1706 and the Bill of Rights of 1688. These are Constitutional Acts and remain paramount.

In accord with my right to revoke all contractual obligations with the DEVILAIR, you are also served notice that the vehicle that once carried the DEVILAIR registration plate XXXX AYE is now deregistered with immediate effect and will display a PRIVATE mark bearing the word 'NAMASTE'. In recognition of this, the previous plates and the paperwork previously associated with the automobile are returned to DEVILAIR.  Please amend your records accordingly.

Furthermore, I claim the right to establish a FEE SCHEDULE for any transgression(s) against me that is or are perpetrated by peace officers, government principals, agents of DEVILAIR or justice system participants. I claim my FEE SCHEDULE for any transgressions by peace officers, government principals or agents of DEVILAIR or justice system participants is (GB £500.00) FIVE HUNDRED POUNDS STERLING PER HOUR or portion thereof if being questioned, interrogated or in any way detained, harassed, searched or otherwise regulated and (GB £5000.00) FIVE THOUSAND POUNDS STERLING PER HOUR or portion thereof if I am handcuffed, transported, incarcerated or subjected to any adjudication process without my expressed written and Notarised consent. And  a minimum of (GB £5,000,000) FIVE MILLION POUNDS STERLING if I am tasered, injured, subjected to violence in any way or my biological property (DNA, blood, urine, fingerprints) is taken without my expressed written and Notarised consent.

You are hereby requested to respond within FIVE working days of this Notice being served. Should you fail to suggest or provide me with an alternative means of exercising my birthright within this time, then for want of an alternative, you will have to accept my version.

DECLARATION: I declare that whilst in charge of any conveyance upon the public highway, I will be at all times exercising due caution, awareness and travelling at speeds deemed safe for the conditions. Naturally, I will not be engaging in actions which would endanger another's life.

I will be posting a bond with the Secretary of State to the value of FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND POUNDS STERLING for indemnification purposes and in accord with the SECTION 144(1) OF THE ROAD TRAFFIC ACT 1988 .

Without malice, mischief, ill will, vexation or frivolity, in sincerity and honour,

                                  By: The Free Man-on-the-Land commonly known as michael of elmet   
                                                                  [Seal] 
 
The Occasional Authorised Representative to
TRUST ACCOUNT STRAWMAN™ (& all derivatives thereof)

All Rights Reserved – Without Recourse – Non-Assumpsit - Errors & Omissions Excepted

Mailing address: C/O: XX Letsbee Avenue  Mercia.

Title: Re: Notice of Rescission & De-registration to DVLA
Post by: mescalito on April 04, 2011, 12:06:25 AM
where did this come from, or is it your notice?
Title: Re: Notice of Rescission & De-registration to DVLA
Post by: M O'D on April 04, 2011, 02:10:41 PM
Hi Mescalito,

in answer to the question -  it is notice 1 has been working on, and crafted using the research of learned friends and 1's previous experiences with DVLA...


peace
;)
Title: Re: Notice of Rescission & De-registration to DVLA
Post by: mescalito on April 04, 2011, 07:46:49 PM
its brilliant, could you link the source of :  the Union with Scotland Act, 1706, ARTICLE IV which unequivocally guarantees the right to safe and unhindered passage. "Trade and Navigation and other Rights. That all the Subjects of the United Kingdom of Great Britain shall from and after the Union have full freedom and Intercourse of Trade and Navigation to and from any port or place within the said United Kingdom and the Dominions and Plantations thereunto belonging And that there be a Communication of all other Rights Privileges and Advantages which do or may belong to the Subjects of either Kingdom except where it is otherwise expressly agreed in these Articles."

And, Article 25 of the 1706 Act states - "That all Laws and Statutes in either Kingdom so far as they are contrary to or inconsistent with the Terms of these Articles or any of them shall from and after the Union cease and become void and shall be so declared to be by the respective Parliaments of the said Kingdoms"

please and thank you :)
Title: Re: Notice of Rescission & De-registration to DVLA
Post by: mescalito on April 05, 2011, 09:02:42 AM
Thank you :)
Title: Re: Notice of Rescission & De-registration to DVLA
Post by: M O'D on April 26, 2011, 09:14:52 PM
Hi one and all,

So, within the 5 working days, a reply was received from DEVILAIR - not from MOLE BANANAMAN, the CEO but from a woman working in the 'Corporate Affairs Directorate', Nicola Virdee.... Notice the condescending attitude, the grammatical errors and the liberal use of phrases she appears to have gleaned from the internet. . .

QuoteDear Strawman,

Thank you for your recent correspondence addressed to Noel Shanahan at the DVLA. I have been asked to reply. The content of the 'Notice' you provided has been noted. However, I should point out a number of points.

The Notice you supplied, if it has any effect, does not provide for any exception or exemption from the legislative requirements of the Road Traffic Act 1988 and the Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994, or any other requirements with regards the licensing of drivers and the registration and taxing of vehicles. If you are stopped by the Police and found to be in breach of the law regarding your driving licence and/or vehicle  then they will have no option but to report you for the offence. Similarly, if DVLA receive any notification of such a breach then we will have no option but to take the necessary actions to enforce the law.

Your defaced driving licence, vehicle registration document and number plates has been received at DVLA (sic). Further information on how to ensure that you may drive legally in on UK roads and on obtaining documents to replace your defaced documents can be found at www. Direct. Govt. Uk . Motoring.  There is a charge for replacement of defaced documents.

Should you question the legality and definitions of the Vehicle Excise and Reegistration Act 1994 (as amended) and the Road Traffic Act 1988 (sic). You may wish to seek independent legal advice so that you properly understand the fit between your view of your obligations and the application of statute law requirements to you. (sic). No further correspondence will be entered into on this matter.

Yours sincerely

Nicola Virdee

Corporate Affairs Directorate"

This document has been returned to DEVILAIR as a breach of constitutional law along with the following legal Notice.


QuoteTo MOLE BANANAMAN, CEO,
for and on behalf of DEVILAIR,
Swansick SAX 7XX
Our reference:

                   
Notice of Documents Returned for Breach of Constitutional Law.
                                                                Notice to principal is notice to agent and notice to agent is notice to principal.


Dear MOLE BANANAMAN,

1. Please find enclosed the response dated April 2011. Said document is returned herein, without dishonour and without recourse, as it is a breach of Constitutional Law. This is on the basis that:

2. The writer's attempt to make a legal determination of the matter is entirely frivolous. Her references to the statutory requirements of the 1988 Act and the 1994 Act demonstrate this point clearly. For the avoidance of doubt, said references have no basis in English Law as they are to be taken as a fatally flawed misrepresentation of the matter.

3.Her citations of said Acts are irrelevant as the Bill of Rights and the Act of Union remain in full force and effect, their validity reiterated by Lord Justice Laws, in the Divisional Court in the case of the "Metric Martyrs" (sections 62 and 63). He said:
"The special status of constitutional statutes follows the special status of constitutional rights. Examples are the Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights 1689, the Act of Union, the Reform Acts which distributed and enlarged the franchise, the HRA, the Scotland Act 1998 and the Government of Wales Act 1998. Ordinary statutes may be impliedly repealed. Constitutional statutes may not. For the repeal of a constitutional Act or the abrogation of a fundamental right to be effected by statute, the court would apply this test: is it shown that the legislature's actual – not imputed, constructive or presumed – intention was to effect the repeal or abrogation? I think the test could only be met by express words in the later statute, or by words so specific that the inference of an actual determination to effect the result contended for was irresistible. The ordinary rule of implied repeal does not satisfy this test. Accordingly, it has no application to constitutional statutes. I should add that in my judgment general words could not be supplemented, so as to effect a repeal or significant amendment to a constitutional statute, by reference to what was said in Parliament by the minister promoting the Bill pursuant to Pepper v Hart [1993] AC 593. A constitutional statute can only be repealed, or amended in a way which significantly affects its provisions touching fundamental rights or otherwise the relation between citizen and State, by unambiguous words on the face of the later statute."

4. In the event that DEVILAIR is unable to provide material evidence demonstrating the legislation that repealed the referenced Constitutional Statutes, then DVLA will be deemed to be acting in flagrant disregard of the law.

5. I will be exercising my common and ancient of travel, which is the "right for all......at all seasons of the year freely" and my "will to pass and repass without let or hindrance, and without charge."
"All the Subjects of the United Kingdom of Great Britain shall......have full Freedom...... to and from any port or place within the said United Kingdom......" Union with Scotland Act 1706 Article 4.

6. "All Laws and Statutes in either Kingdom so far as they are contrary to or inconsistent with the Terms of these Articles ......shall from and after the Union cease and become void" Union with Scotland Act 1706 Article 25.

7.Therefore, contrary to the assertions of the referenced letter, the Notice of  Rescission, as served on DEVILAIR on 8 April 2011 by way of Royal Mail Recorded Delivery, stands in law. Unless you are able to provide material evidence, supported by relevant case law which demonstrates that any and all statutory 'laws' DEVILAIR and its agents may seek to enforce, under the apparent consent of the public, are not void for being inconsistent and contrary to the Articles of the Union and any fine DEVILAIR may attempt to extort is not contrary to the Bill of Rights, then the lawful presumption will be that all parties are in agreement, in which case, any and all correspondence will also be deemed frivolous, may be copied for use as evidence in court and/or refused for cause and returned accordingly.
DEVILAIR is also served notice that in the event DVLA sends any more erroneous correspondence to the fictional legal entity known as "STRAWMAN™", each item will incur a ONE THOUSAND & FIVE HUNDRED POUNDS STERLING administrative charge - ab initio. Any and all accepted invitations to attend at one of Her Majesty's Courts, will be deemed by all parties to be  made under "Special Appearance" and will incur a charge of ONE THOUSAND & FIVE HUNDRED POUNDS STERLING  per appearance.
For the avoidance of doubt, the returned driver's licence and DEVILAIR form were not "defaced" - they are rescinded -which is what was written on them.

i) "Rescind verb: Revoke, cancel, or repeal (a law, order, or agreement)" from Webster's Dictionary."RESCISSION OF A CONTRACT. The destruction or annulling of a contract. 2. The right to rescind a contract seems to suppose not that the contract has existed only in appearance; but that it has never had a real existence on account of the defects which accompanied it; or which prevented its actual execution. 7 Toul. n. 551 17 Id. n. 114."

ii) "DRIVER. One employed in conducting a coach, carriage, wagon, or other vehicle, with horses, mules, or other animals."  From Bouvier's Law Dictionary, Revised 6th Ed (1856),  As I am not and will not be employed as a 'Driver", there is no requirement for a licence.

10.  Given said documents may be taken in some quarters to provide possible evidence of a contractual obligation unwittingly entered into with DEVILAIR, one has simply rescinded them, as is one's lawful entitlement. It is an act of Law, not one of defacement.

                                                   
Without malice, mischief, ill will, vexation or frivolity, in sincerity and honour,

                                                              By: The Free Man-on-the-Land commonly known as Me 
                                                                   
 
                                                                      The Occasional Authorised Representative to
                                                            TRUST ACCOUNT STRAWMAN™ (& all derivatives thereof)

                                 All Rights Reserved – Without Recourse – Non-Assumpsit - Errors & Omissions Excepted

                                              Mailing address: C/O: XX Letsbee Avenue Forest Fields Snottingham Mercia.

One wonders if/how DEVILAIR will respond - you'll note the agent has already said they will not be getting into any further discussion. . . 

much love, much love

namaste
:D


Title: Re: Notice of Rescission & De-registration to DVLA
Post by: mescalito on April 27, 2011, 10:30:48 AM
nice one, yeah it was quick of them to say that aye, you must have scared them.
Title: Re: Notice of Rescission & De-registration to DVLA
Post by: M O'D on April 30, 2011, 10:28:32 PM
Hi 1 and All, Aye n Eye.

So, within five working days, a reply to the NOTICE OF DOCUMENTS RETURNED... was received from DVLA. It purports to be from some department called "Corporate Affairs Directorate".

Addressed, to the STRAWMAN, it reads,

Quote27 April 2011
Our ref ACTS 48236

Dear  Mr Strawman,

Thank you for your letter of 19 April 2011 to Noel Shanahan. Mr Simon Tse is acting Chief Executive of the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency.

Your letter is receiving immediate attention and you will receive a full reply as soon as possible.

Mrs Sars Dafydd.
Ministerial Gateway Team


This lead to the question, 'what's happened to Noel Shanahan, erstwhile Chief Executive Officer of DEVILAIR?

The answer was found here http://www.familylaw.co.uk/articles/CMEC22032011-985.
Since March 22, he has been head of Child Maintenance. From CEO of DVLA to Child maintenance? Would that be a side step, a step down or an upstep - or some other kind of step as yet unimagined? And, what could the "Ministerial Gateway Team" be?

We await their response with interest.

Namaste

ThinkFree, BeFree

:-*
Title: Re: Notice of Rescission & De-registration to DVLA
Post by: M O'D on May 07, 2011, 09:23:26 PM
A letter has been received from the Corporate Affairs Directorate. It reads:

Quote4 May 2011

Dear Strawman,

Thank you for your letter of 21 April. I acknowledge receipt of this.

As previously advised no further correspondence will be entered into on this matter.

yours sincerely

Jean Valley

Team Leader

Corporate Affairs Directorate

So, it appears DVLA are denying due process of the law by refusing to engage in any meaningful attempt to resolve the matter, which of course, means they are failing to apply constitutional law to the issue and any action taken against me will be in breach of said law.  In effect, they will be attempting to force a contractual obligation on one (which renders it null and void ab inititio.

Let us be clear about this - our freedom to travel is enshrined in Law: it cannot be revoked. DVLA will be acting unlawfully if it attempts to prevent anyone going about his travels in a vehicle which has been deregistered, notwithstanding the fact that all contractual obligations have been rescinded by the return of the driving licence, the DVLA registration plate and the v5 document (unsigned).

Further developments will be posted.

Happy Travels to One and All,

Namaste
:)




Title: Re: Notice of Rescission & De-registration to DVLA
Post by: mescalito on May 08, 2011, 10:10:18 AM
good work, it all seems solid its just they are a bunch of corrupt jokers who have no consideration for the law.

what's you next step?
Title: Re: Notice of Rescission & De-registration to DVLA
Post by: M O'D on May 08, 2011, 01:33:09 PM
Quotewhat's you next step?

The Minister of State for transport will be receiving some form of documentation on this matter and we will take it from there.
More posts will follow - especially when we unveil our new web pages.

namaste
:)
Title: Re: Notice of Rescission & De-registration to DVLA
Post by: GiGie on May 08, 2011, 02:27:50 PM
When I get to this remedy or rather if they get to me first I shall be taking mine to the Attorney General and not the Minister for Transport.
Title: Re: Notice of Rescission & De-registration to DVLA
Post by: M O'D on May 25, 2011, 09:12:11 PM
Friday 13 May was day 666 of the impoundment of the deregistered auto stolen by DEVILAIR.  It seemed appropriate to send a demand for payment under the terms of the Lien served on the CEO of said agency,

Quote
PRIVATE & CONFIDENTIAL
                                                                       
NOTICE TO AGENT IS NOTICE TO PRINCIPAL
                                                                        NOTICE TO PRINCIPAL IS NOTICE TO AGENT

Notice applicable to Nominees, Successors, Heirs, Accessories and Assigns

To Mr Simon SET, acting CEO,
for and on behalf of DEVILAIR, the
Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency
Swansea SA6 7JL                                                                                                                               13th May, 2011.
Your ref: BLAHBLAH
Our ref: AG12345
STATUTORY DEMAND.

TO:  Simon SET, acting CEO, for and on behalf of DEVILAIR, pursuant to your predecessor  Ole Bananaman & DEVILAIR's dishonour of the legal notices and affidavit herein listed, each served by way of Royal Mail Recorded Delivery,

1. NOTICE OF REQUEST FOR PROOF OF CONTRACT, DATED 17th July, 2009.
2. NOTICE OF ACCEPTANCE OF CONTRACT: TERMS & CONDITIONS, DATED 22nd July, 2009.
3. NOTICE & DEMAND (AFFIDAVIT),  DATED 10th August, 2009
4. NOTICE OF DISHONOUR & OPPORTIUNITY TO CURE, DATED 11th September, 2009.
5. NOTICE OF DISHONOUR,  DATED 9th October, 2009.
6. NOTICE OF LIEN INTEREST, DATED 19th October, 2009
7. AFFIDAVIT OF OBLIGATION (COMMERCIAL LIEN) , DATED 7th December, 2009.
9. NOTICE OF FAULT & OPPORTIUNITY TO CURE, DATED 17th December, 2009.
10. NOTICE OF DEFAULT, DATED 11th January, 2010.
11. NOTICE OF EXEMPLARY CHARGES AND DEMAND, 12 April, 2010
12. NOTARISED AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE, DATED 9th June, 2010

You are hereby served this STATUTORY DEMAND for payment.

Ledgering:
1. As Ole Bananaman, for and on behalf of DEVILAIR, failed to settle the outstanding amount of ONE HUNDRED AND THIRTY FIVE THOUSAND POUNDS as per the terms of the lien, you, Mr Simon SET, for and on behalf of DEVILAIR, are hereby and herein notified that the charge of FIVE HUNDRED POUNDS STERLING PER DAY DEVILAIR unlawfully impound the automobile is still in FULL CAUSE AND EFFECT and has been added to the total owed. 

In total, it is now 666 days since the private automobile was stolen by DEVILAIR.

2. THE CHARGE OF FIVE HUNDRED POUNDS STERLING PER DAY FROM 12th April 2010 to 13th May 2011inclusive is ONE HUNDRED AND NINETY SEVEN THOUSAND AND FIVE HUNDRED POUNDS STERLING (GBP£197,500).

3. EXEMPLARY CHARGES: For the avoidance of doubt, DEVILAIR's failure to settle the agreed sum owed under the terms of said Commercial Lien of GBP£197,960 in full within thirty (30) days of service of notice of 12 April 2010 incurred a charge of three times (X3) the amount owed which was £593,000.
The failure to settle after another thirty (30) day period incurred a further charge of ten times (X10) the balance owed which amounted to  £5, 930, 800.  With the added total of £197,500, this makes the THE TOTAL OWED AS OF 13th May 2011,  SIX MILLION, ONE HUNDRED AND TWENTY-EIGHT THOUSAND AND THREE HUNDRED POUNDS STERLING ( £6,128,300)

4. If the Lien Debtor is willing to settle this account within the next 30 (THIRTY) days, then a 50% discount will be offered. You are asked to take note that, given the well-documented various dishonourable, unlawful and overly-aggressive actions of those agents acting for and on behalf of the DEVILAIR, including, without limitation, the failure of Ole Bananaman's duty of care to apply due diligence to the matter,  the unlawful and violent theft of the LAWFULLY de-registered automobile at X Xcellent Road, Snottingham on the morning of 16th July 2009, and the subsequent commercial injuries to STRAWMAN™ we consider this to be a legitimate sum.  You are requested to remit a cheque for the full amount in order to prevent the initiation of any and all further administrative and/or judicial proceedings deemed necessary in order to cure the commercial injuries caused by your company. Cheques or banker's drafts should be made payable to STRAWMAN™ and are payable upon receipt of this legal notice.

Without malice, mischief, ill will, frivolity or vexation, in sincerity and honour,
                                                                By: Every Man of Everywhere
Authorised Agent in Commerce to  STRAWMAN™
All Rights Reserved –Without Recourse – Non-Assumpsit
[/right]

The full details of this can be viewed here - http://forum.fmotl.com/viewtopic.php?f=25&t=4085 (http://forum.fmotl.com/viewtopic.php?f=25&t=4085)

namaste
:-*
Title: do you need a licence to drive?
Post by: ceylon on May 28, 2011, 06:40:40 PM
licence to drive

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=grf71VnO8so
Title: Re: Notice of Rescission & De-registration to DVLA
Post by: M O'D on May 31, 2011, 08:46:10 PM
If you read the notices above, then this question is answered. I am not a driver. Are you? I travel - I do not drive. Look at the definition of a 'driver' as provided in the above notice:

Quote"DRIVER. One employed in conducting a coach, carriage, wagon, or other vehicle, with horses, mules, or other animals."  From Bouvier's Law Dictionary, Revised 6th Ed (1856),  As I am not and will not be employed as a 'Driver", there is no requirement for a licence.

namaste 8)


Title: Re: Notice of Rescission & De-registration to DVLA
Post by: ceylon on June 03, 2011, 10:57:59 AM
http://www.wowt.com/mcknightinvestigates/headlines/No_Drivers_License_No_Plates_112164734.html?storySection=story

guy no licence or plates found not guilty
Title: Amended documentation
Post by: M O'D on July 18, 2011, 04:45:49 PM
Hi I and I,

with no further correspondence from DevilAir, and after an interesting and enlightening conversation with our friend in the North, I decided to redraft the previous document to be used in the event that a Policy Enforcement Officer chooses to attempt to engage with me whilst I am exercising my freedom to travel. This one, drops the biblical references but still establishes the universal right we have to travel freely, without levy or hindrance of any kind. I like the idea of having something in writing for him to peruse whilst I maintain my right to remain silent. If DevilAir originated as a way of identifying vehicles involved in 'hit and run' accidents, then it is a fact that said agency have been provided with all that they may need - an identifiable plate, a name and a mailing location.  Note - this has not been tried and tested yet: feel free to adapt it to your needs and take note that I don't think it would work if you have a licence. Having issued that disclaimer, it is worth noting that the more who start to do this sort of thing, the better.

QuoteDeclaration of Constitutional Right to Travel and Deregistration.

1. You have indicated to me that you wish to speak with me. I will be pleased to speak with you upon condition that you first read and sign the content of this document in order for me to satisfy my self that we have common grounds for discussion. If you do not accept my offer I will not be able to speak with you on this occasion. Please apply due diligence to the following facts:
2. DVLA have been furnished with the name of the keeper of the vehicle, a current contact address and  the plate details as displayed.
3. Said Agency has acquiesced - albeit grudgingly - that any and all contracts my person may have had with DVLA have been rescinded as an action at LAW and have acknowledged my Constitutional right to travel. I can furnish you with the documentary proof of this, if required.
4. For the avoidance of doubt, there is no contractual obligation between oneself and the Ministry of Transport/ DVLA as any and all actual and presumed contractual obligations with said commercially operated Agency, known as DVLA have been lawfully rescinded and revoked, ab initio.
5. CONSTABLE'S OATH OF OFFICE: It is my belief that your declaration of allegiance binds you to serve the Queen in the office of constable, with fairness, integrity, diligence and impartiality, upholding fundamental human rights and according equal respect to all people; and that you will, to the best of your power, cause the peace to be kept and preserved and prevent all offences against people and property; and that while you continue to hold the said office you will, to the best of your skill and knowledge, discharge all the duties thereof faithfully according to law.
7. Please note: I am not a PERSON. I am man created as male/female by God. As you appear to be ACTing as an OFFICER and therefore the role of a CHARACTER, then you are not real and it is a fact that I hold dominion over you under Natural Law. Therefore unless you can prove to me that you are God/Allah/the Divine Creator et al, or stand between my self and said creator, it is my wish that you give me free passage without let or hindrance.
9. In accord with my Claim of Right as served by way of Recorded Delivery in May 2009, on the woman acting as the Queen of England and the Commonwealth, I hereby reiterate my ancient and unalienable right to travel by whatever form of conveyance I choose without having to enter into any contractual obligations with the DVLA and/or any Police Officer who does not have reasonable grounds for stopping me.

10. For the avoidance of doubt, I do not 'drive' in a DVLA registered vehicle - I travel in my own private conveyance. I am not a  "DRIVER" - "One employed in conducting a coach, carriage, wagon, or other vehicle, with horses, mules, or other animals."  From Bouvier's Law Dictionary, Revised 6th Ed (1856),  As I am not and will not be employed as a 'Driver", there is no requirement for a licence.

11. I claim the right not to be bound by the statutory requirements of any and all motor vehicle acts of a parliament that are subservient to Constitutional Law.

12. Therefore, I simply exercising my right to travel freely along any highway, water or sky way without limitation and without constraint of any nature whatsoever across the land mass or by way of water around what is commonly known as the British Isles by whatever choice of conveyance is available to me. Indeed, this right is factually supported by the following which states,  "Most of the offences committed under the Highways Act 1980 are designed to punish those who endanger or interfere with users of a 'highway' or who damage or obstruct a 'highway'. There is no statutory definition of a highway, only a common law one. That definition is quite clear: a "highway is a way over which all members of the public have the right to pass and repass. Their use of the way must be as of right, not on sufferance or by licence". From: Sweet & Maxwell, Encyclopaedia of Highway Law and Practice, March 2002, para 2-335

13. As a Free Man, indigenous to this land mass known since ancient time as Albien, it is my understanding that the ancient custom and right to freedom of travel for all has and remains established since time immemorial and is enshrined in the UNION WITH SCOTLAND ACT, 1706, ARTICLE IV which unequivocally guarantees the right to safe and unhindered passage. "Trade and Navigation and other Rights. That all the Subjects of the United Kingdom of Great Britain shall from and after the Union have full freedom and Intercourse of Trade and Navigation to and from any port or place within the said United Kingdom and the Dominions and Plantations thereunto belonging And that there be a Communication of all other Rights Privileges and Advantages which do or may belong to the Subjects of either Kingdom except where it is otherwise expressly agreed in these Articles."

14.  ARTICLE 25 of the 1706 Act states - "That all Laws and Statutes in either Kingdom so far as they are contrary to or inconsistent with the Terms of these Articles or any of them shall from and after the Union cease and become void and shall be so declared to be by the respective Parliaments of the said Kingdoms"

15. Furthermore, any and all attempts, ab initio, to pre-fine someone are contrary to the BILL OF RIGHTS ACT 1689, which states, "And severall Grants and Promises made of Fines and Forfeitures before any Conviction or Judgement against the Persons upon whome the same were to be levyed. All which are utterly directly contrary to the knowne Lawes and Statutes and Freedome of this Realme".

16. You are hereby informed that ANY Act  which prevents me from enjoying my right to travel anywhere within the UK is "contrary and inconsistent" with the Acts of Union 1706 and the Bill of Rights of 1689 is deemed to be a breach of my Constitutional rights which remain paramount.

17. TERMS AND CONDITIONS: for any transgression(s) against me that is/are perpetrated by peace officers, government principals, agents of DVLA or justice system participants. I claim my FEE SCHEDULE for any transgressions by peace officers, government principals or agents of DVLA or justice system participants is (GB £500.00) FIVE HUNDRED POUNDS STERLING PER HOUR or portion thereof if being questioned, interrogated or in any way detained, harassed, searched or otherwise regulated and (GB £5000.00) FIVE THOUSAND POUNDS STERLING PER HOUR or portion thereof if I am handcuffed, transported, incarcerated or subjected to any adjudication process without my expressed written and Notarised consent. And  a minimum of (GB £5,000,000) FIVE MILLION POUNDS STERLING if I am tasered, injured, subjected to violence in any way or my biological property (DNA, blood, urine, fingerprints) is taken without my expressed written and Notarised consent. Charge for impounding the private automobile without consent: FIVE HUNDRED POUNDS PER DAY. I also claim the right to be paid in whatever form of functional currency I choose.

18. If you wish to impede me further in my unalienable right to roam upon the earth and my constitutional right to travel freely, as enshrined in the MAGNA CARTA, the BILLS OF RIGHTS (1689) and the UNION WITH SCOTLAND ACT (1706), please affirm this by means of your signature on this document that you agree to the points made herein and that you accept the facts stated. If you do not agree to the facts stated herein I may decline your invitation while reserving all my rights not to be bound to perform in any contracts revealed or unrevealed. I do not accept your paperwork and cannot sign it. However, I am willing to consider any written requests you may wish to make.
19. Note. By signing this document, you are personally affirming that you legally qualified to make a lawful determination of the matter and are willing to enter into a contract, the terms of which are detailed herein. Please note: in the event that any of my rights are transgressed upon, I reserve the right to pursue whatever course of commercial remedy is necessary against the Police Force you are employed by and/or you personally under said terms and conditions. 

(i) Full NAME of OFFICER: _______________________________________
(ii) NUMBER: _______________
(iii) BAR Card Number:_____________
(If making a legal determination)
(iv) PUBLIC LIABILITY/INSURANCE/BOND NUMBER
(v) CAUSE OF ACTION ie on what grounds have you chosen to deny my ancient right to and custom of "full freedom and Intercourse of Trade and Navigation to and from any port or place within the said United Kingdom?" 
Please state: ____________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________
________________________________________________________________________

Signature______________________________-___

Without malice, mischief, ill will, vexation or frivolity, in sincerity and honour,

                                 
By: The Free Man-on-the-Land commonly known as Freeman 
                                                                  [Seal] 
 
All Rights Reserved – Without Recourse – Non-Assumpsit
Errors & Omissions Excepted


Happy travelling, my friends

Namaste
Title: Re: Notice of Rescission & De-registration to DVLA
Post by: M O'D on July 22, 2011, 07:36:44 PM
Readers are encouraged to note the alterations to the above post.

peace
;D
Title: A Breach of Constitutional Law
Post by: M O'D on September 03, 2011, 12:05:20 PM
(https://scontent-a-lhr.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-prn1/q71/s720x720/941529_596938127028544_1207776472_n.jpg)

Imagine, if you will, the following scenario. You are peacefully travelling along an ancient roadway in a private form of transport, observing the road conditions, taking it easy and being mindful of other users of the highway. The sun is shining over the Pennines as you approach the outskirts of a town called Buddhasfield, an enclave in the region known as Elmet.

All is well and the journey almost complete when a flashing blue light and a wailing siren alert you to the fact that the (already observed) commercial driver behind you wishes to pull over.

You choose to pull over, switch on your video camera and prepare for the inevitable encounter. He is with a woman and both are in the costume of the corporation whose interests they evidently represent. The male of the specie begins to press you for an explanation of a plate on the vehicle which reads, 'NAMASTE'. The documentation you present provides an explanation, a declaration of your right to travel freely, a name you go by and an address for any mail to be sent to. The Declaration contains a fee schedule, which informs said officer of one's charges in the event that a corporate entity seeks to enforce its services upon one without consent.

Unfortunately, as is so often the case with those employed as agents of the state, this man is somewhat bound up in the role of his ego and his costumed status and his power of perception is dimmed by this. He knows not what he is doing, is unwilling to act as a public servant and refuses to spend some time reading through something that is outside his reality tunnel. So it goes, so it goes.

Dissatisfied with one's paperwork, and one's repeated mantra that one is travelling privately and not performing any function in a public capacity, he grabs the camera, handcuffs you and forces you into the back of his car.

The private car is then stolen - along with all its contents - and carried to a commercial company's premises. The officer then informs you that there will be an extortion charge should you wish to get it back.

Next, he kidnaps you, taking you to a dungeon where you are held without your consent, subjected to all manner of (failed) attempts to contract by way of one's signature, forced into providing specimens of one's biological property and locked in a cell for the next 6 hours. You are unable to make a phone call as your mobile phone has been stolen with the car. The head dungeon master, who refers to himself as the 'desk sergeant' informs you that because the agents were unable to find the vehicle identification number on the chasis (it was removed when the car was deregistered), they are investigating to see if it is stolen.

Eventually, you are let out onto the street. It's a chilly August evening and there are 4 amoured vehicles and a gang of men on the pavement, dressing up in costumes that incorporate knee pads, elbow pads, body armour, cudgels, gas sprays, electronic stun guns, visored helmets and big shields. One asks one of the dramatis personae what they are doing and he informs you that they are off to protect some corporate interests (a supermarket) which is under some kind of attack from a cadre of presumably disgruntled local people. In this instant the role of the police is clear - the common law crimes listed below have been committed against one and all those minions out on the streets around the country as the engineered 'riots' unfolded are there as the private corporate enforcers and protectors of the elite and their assets.

In spite of it all - the theft, kidnap, false imprisonment, attempted extortion, the perjury of an officer who falsely claimed you had not provided him with the requested information and a list of statutory offences as long as the stunted arm of the 'law', you begin to chuckle for you know, deep within, that all is pantomine, all is play and all is unfolding just as it should in these apocalyptic times. You gotta smile, you just gotta smile.

Were it not for the mechanised transport and other technologies, the scenario that is depicted here could be easily applied to other, more distant eras when highway robbery, extortion and injury were similarly practised just like this - we're living in a gangsters' paradise and it's been going on for millennia. . .

Many will see this as comeuppance, indeed, many were the people who said it would end thus, that one would eventually be arrested, a perfectly workable car stolen and finally crushed. However, they miss the point - readers of this thread will see the validity of the claims against this aggressive CROWN entity and will instantly appreciate the truth of said claims. We are free to roam this earth when, wherever and by whatever form of transportation we may choose and no one can deny us that unalienable right. This is supported by the constitution, by the timeless understanding of the people of their divine freedoms and, way before it was written down, the ancient customs of these lands which were passed on by way of mouth from generation to generation. This is my understanding and it has been expressed by way of Claim of Right and by way of one's actions and I will not cave into accepting any form of contract with an entity whose ethic is based on the 'might is right' enforcement of unlawful contracts which, in any event, are rendered void by way of their procuration without full disclosure and under duress.

And yet there has to be a light side to all of this. One readily acknowledges that, and, of course, there is a certain comedic element to it (and, at least as far as this traveller is concerned, it is divine comedy) which may serve to en-lighten us should we choose to see it thus.   

One's legal person was charged with some nine counts. The charges were returned - unsigned, "refused for cause" to the 'CEO' of the regional constabulary. There will, doubtless, be more to follow as new remedies emerge but in the meantime, there is the small matter of sending a bill to the extortionists for charges accrued under the Fee Schedule with which the other party has been served.

I read with interest others' comments on this and it occurs to me that a representative action against DEVILAIR may be something we could focus on collectively - feel free to pm me if you would be interested in joining such an action should you have experienced similar unlawful actions at the hands of the corporate entities referenced herein.

Namaste.
;)
Title: Whose Highways are they anyway?
Post by: M O'D on January 19, 2012, 05:34:40 PM
Who the feck is anyone to claim a Man does not have the right to travel upon the ancient highways of these lands without paying a TAX to the usurpers known as the CROWN?
QuoteIn addition to being one of the founders of British Legislation, Dyvnwal designed and partly made the Royal British Military Roads through the Island. These were nine in number,—



1. The Sarn Gwyddelin (corrupted into Watling street), or Irish Road, in two branches, from Dover to Mona and Penvro.

2. The Sam Iken (Iknield street), the road from Caer Troia, Northward through the Eastern districts.

3. Sam Ucha (Iknield street), from the mouth of the Tyne to the present St. David's.

4. Sam Ermyn, from Anderida (Peven sey) to Caer Edin (Edinburgh).

5. Sam Achmaen, from Caer Troia to Menevia (St. David's).

6. Sam Halen, from the Salt Mines of Cheshire to the mouth of the Humber.

7 Sam Hàlen, from the Salt Mines to Llongborth (Portsmouth).

8. The Second Sam Ermyn, from Torbay to Dunbreton on the Clyde.

9. The Sam ar y Môr, or military road following the coast around the Island.



These roads were pitched and paved, and ran sometimes in a straight, sometimes a sinuous line, at a moderate elevation above the ground, forming a network of communication between the Cities of Britain. Being completed by Belinus, they are known as the Belinian roads of Britain. The Romans followed these lines in their first and second invasions, and subsequently laid down in great measure their own military roads upon them. Hence the Belinian and Roman roads are found constantly running in and out of each other."
[19/01/2012 17:21:14] Michael of Elmet: Now that should get some of the old juices flowing   (h)


Source: http://www.scribd.com/doc/49474709/History-of-Britain (http://www.scribd.com/doc/49474709/History-of-Britain)


Namaste

mOe
Title: Re: Notice of Rescission & De-registration to DVLA
Post by: FreeMuslimOnTheLand on February 12, 2012, 12:57:21 AM
Here is something I made earlier... they are to be placed on the windscreen instead of tax discs.

http://www.mediafire.com/?prpkjwouvr28esm


Opinions/Feedback appreciated.
Title: Re: Notice of Rescission & De-registration to DVLA
Post by: M O'D on May 16, 2012, 10:00:40 PM
Salutations One and One,

This is a sanitised version of a missive that the Secretary of State for Transport (UK) will be shortly receiving. It is posted here for your consideration:

QuoteSTRAWMAN™
                                                  Administrator in Commerce & Equity


To: Rt Hon Trees R Billowing, Minister of State, Department for Transport
House of Commons, London, SW1A 0AA.
16 May 2012

NOTICE OF  REQUEST FOR CONFIRMATION OF RIGHT TO DEPOSIT SECURITY

NOTICE TO AGENTS IS NOTICE TO PRINCIPAL
NOTICE TO PRINCIPAL IS NOTICE TO AGENTS

Dear Treesa Billious, Minister of State for Transport,           

RE: ROAD TRAFFIC ACT 1988, ss 143 & 144

1. Pursuant to the above referenced sections which state:

"Compulsory insurance or security against third-party risks"

143 Users of motor vehicles to be insured or secured against third-party risks.

(1)Subject to the provisions of this Part of this Act—
(a) a person must not use a motor vehicle on a road [F1or other public place] unless there is in force in relation to the use of the vehicle by that person such a policy of insurance or such a security in respect of third party risks as complies with the requirements of this Part of this Act, and
(b) a person must not cause or permit any other person to use a motor vehicle on a road [F2or other public place] unless there is in force in relation to the use of the vehicle by that other person such a policy of insurance or such a security in respect of third party risks as complies with the requirements of this Part of this Act," and,

"144 Exceptions from requirement of third-party insurance or security.
(1)Section 143 of this Act does not apply to a vehicle owned by a person who has deposited and keeps deposited with the Accountant General of the [F3 Senior Courts] the sum of [F4£500,000], at a time when the vehicle is being driven under the owner's control."  source:  http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/part/VI/crossheading/compulsory-insurance-or-security-against-thirdparty-risks ,

2. Could you kindly confirm that in accord with the foregoing, my person has indeed the statutory right to deposit a Security in the form of a promissory note made payable to bearer to the value as stated above with the Accountant General of the Senior Courts?

3. Please find attached a scanned copy of the Security.  It is requested that if there any apparent defects in the instrument and/or any reason why it would not be acceptable as a security then you point them out in order that any adjustments can be made.

Many thanks for your time and consideration of this matter,

                       Without malice, mischief, ill-will, frivolity or vexation; in sincerity and honour,

              By:      Man of Elmet, Duly Authorised Administrator to STRAWMAN™
? ?
                                 MAILING LOCATION: C/0 XX XXXXX AVENUE, SNOTTINGHAM

                            All Rights Reserved - Without Recourse - Non-Assumpsit.

We await the Minister of State for Tranport's considered response... Scanned Promissory Note attached to the email...

Namaste,

man of elmet   :)

Title: Re: Notice of Rescission & De-registration to DVLA
Post by: M O'D on September 30, 2012, 01:35:47 PM
Hi,

This is the reply to the correspondence originally sent to the minister of transport. 

QuoteZone 3/21
Department for Transport
Great Minster House
33 Horseferry Road
London
SW1P 4DR
Tel: 0300 330 3000

Web Site: www.dft.gov.uk

Our Ref: TO 43181
Your Ref:

26 June 2012







Dear Sir,

DEPOSITS UNDER SECTION 144 OF THE ROAD TRAFFIC ACT 1988

Thank you for your e-mail of 17 May to the Minister of State for Transport, in which you asked for information on the procedure for making a deposit under section 144 of the Road Traffic Act 1988.

Section 144(1) allows a vehicle owner to make a deposit of £500,000 to the Supreme Court as an alternative to compulsory motor insurance as required by Section 143 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. However;

The vehicle must be driven at all times under the owner's control.
The Depositor must meet the full costs of any insurance claim awarded against it (This is unlimited in the case of personal injury).
The £500,000 cannot be used to meet these claims unless the depositor is declared bankrupt and then the deposit is used to meet their liabilities.
The exemption only applies when the vehicles are driven in Great Britain and does not cover social, domestic or pleasure purposes under this section.
A depositor must make a formal application to the Department for consideration. If the application is agreed the Department authorises the Courts Funds Office to issue the necessary paperwork.
Every company, partnership or sole trader, even one which is a wholly owned subsidiary of another, is considered a legal entity in its own right and is therefore responsible for those vehicles. A deposit would therefore be necessary for each company if a Warrant is required to be issued.

I mentioned above the need for the vehicle to be driven at all times under the owner's control. A definition of "owner" is given in Section 192 of the act and further in section 161(1). You may wish to seek legal advice on whether vehicles used under a long term lease contract would be covered by such an arrangement.

In respect of the sum to be placed with the Supreme Court, the regulation allows the following: provided that in lieu, wholly or in part, of the deposit of money the depositor may deposit an equivalent amount of securities in which cash under the control of or subject to the order of the Court may for the time being be invested. The requirements are set out in the Motor Vehicles (Third Party Risks Deposits) Regulations 1992 (Statutory Instrument 1992 No. 1284).  A bank guarantee or a promissory note is not an acceptable alternative. If you are in any doubt as to whether you meet all of the requirements you should consult those Regulations and or section 144 of the Road Traffic Act 1988.
Additionally you should be aware that there are regulations (Statutory Instrument 2003/37) which make it a formal requirement that motor Insurers and motor policy holders notify the Motor Insurers Bureau (MIB) of certain information about the policies and vehicles covered by such policies.  If your client should decide to become a depositor it would be required to set up a notification system direct with the MIB to ensure that details of your vehicles are recorded on the Motor Insurance Database. 

The Motor Vehicles (Third Party Risks) Regulations 1972 – as amended) set out certain requirements. Amongst these is the form of certificates to be used by depositors as evidence of an acceptable alternative to insurance. You will see that the certificate is one that the depositor completes. If the police or any other authority have a valid query then we will confirm to them the validity (or otherwise) of any such certificate.

If you wish to progress with the scheme then the first requirement is to write formally to this Department naming the company (or other entity), giving the address and stating that you wish to become a depositor under section 144(1) of the Road Traffic Act 1988. The letter must be from the company and signed by a duly authorised Director (or in the case of a partnership a partner; and in the case of a sole trader the sole trader himself).

Yours faithfully




Chris Curson
Licensing and Insurance Team
Road User Licensing Insurance and Safety Division


Notice the final sentence, and you will realise that it is all a commercial offer ~ NONE OF THIS APPLIES TO THE REAL MAN ONLY THE CORPORATE/BUSINESS ENTITY/LEGAL PERSON...

The whole DVLA/MINISTRY TRANSPORT exists for the taxation of COMMERCIAL transportation ~ the scam is that people are fooled into believing the lie that they are a legal person. The offer is made and accepted when you pass the 'Driving test' and apply for a 'Full' licence, whereupon you are deemed to have agreed to become - effectively - an agent of the state who is engaging in commercial activity because he has agreed by way of his application that he is a 'Driver'. An individual who simply travels cannot partake in this scam [not 'scheme' as the civil servant would have you believe] ~ it is exclusively for the corporate fiction. 

QuoteIf you wish to progress with the scheme then the first requirement is to write formally to this Department naming the company (or other entity), giving the address and stating that you wish to become a depositor under section 144(1) of the Road Traffic Act 1988. The letter must be from the company and signed by a duly authorised Director (or in the case of a partnership a partner; and in the case of a sole trader the sole trader himself).

Let those with the eyes see, let those with the ears, hear  ~ none of the DVLA bullshit applies to anyone who has rescinded his licence and de-registered his form of transport as he is, in legal terms, not a Commercial Driver ~ he is not engaging in any commercial activity. [Unless, of course, he is a taxi driver, haulage driver or the driver of any vehicle which is using the public highway with the intent of charging for his services].

Happy days  :D

Love and blessings to all fellow travellers

namaste

:)
Title: Re: Notice of Rescission & De-registration to DVLA
Post by: RSK on December 26, 2012, 10:36:56 PM
I'd be willing to join a joint action Michael.  Something similar happened to me and my car was stolen and sold off by the criminals before any adjudication process had taken place.

Peace
Title: Re: Notice of Rescission & De-registration to DVLA
Post by: spirit on December 31, 2012, 08:40:48 PM
A bizarre incident happened to me of May this year. I had a car with the engine removed on my own land. I did not bother to cash the tax disk in and let it run but I did cancel the insurance in february seeing as I could not drive the car.

I received a £100 fine and I contested it. I was told that I should  have SORN'd the vehicle. I said I didn't need to because I left a valid tax disk on. I informed them the vehicle was on my own land. They told me that from october 2011 the SORN rules changed and that If my car could not drive I should SORN it or insure it. I told them I asked 20 people (which I had) whether they knew of these new rules and none of them did. I was told that it had been advertised in newspapers, TV and radio - yet nobody seemed to know about it.

They told me that as long as it was taxed I could potentially drive it. I asked as to why there was a presumption that I would commit a crime and fine me "just in case" - these are Stupid Statutes - just like the seat belt statute - ie motorbikes can drive in wet slippery weather. but I, in the safety of my car cage, must wear a seatbelt - SS - stupid statutes.
Title: Re: Notice of Rescission & De-registration to DVLA
Post by: RSK on January 01, 2013, 10:09:56 PM
it is declared in the "English Bill of Rights 1689" that all grants and promises of fines and forfeitures of particular persons before conviction are illegal and void. Before conviction means that no fine can be imposed until and unless the individual is convicted in a court of law. 
Title: Re: Notice of Rescission & De-registration to DVLA
Post by: plugnplay on February 26, 2013, 12:25:24 AM
Quote from: Man Of Elmet on September 30, 2012, 01:35:47 PM

Let those with the eyes see

My eyes see, awesome thread, thank you.

Love & Gratitude

A of D'
Title: WHY WOULD ANYONE NEED A LICENCE?
Post by: M O'D on May 10, 2013, 12:19:35 PM
Quote 

"License: In the law of contracts, is a permission, accorded by a competent authority, conferring the right to do some act which without such authorization would be illegal, or would be a trespass or tort." Blacks Law Dictionary, 2nd Ed. (1910).

"The license means to confer on a person the right to do something which otherwise he would not have the right to do." City of Louisville v. Sebree, 214 S.W. 2D 248; 308 Ky. 420.

"The object of a license is to confer a right or power which does not exist without it." Pavne v. Massev, 196 S.W. 2D 493; 145 Tex. 273; Shuman v. City of Ft. Wayne, 127 Indiana 109; 26 NE 560, 561 (1891); 194 So 569 (1940).

"A license is a mere permit to do something that without it would be unlawful." Littleton v. Buress, 82 P. 864, 866; 14 Wyo.173.

"A license, pure and simple, is a mere personal privilege..." River Development Corp. V. Liberty Corp., 133 A. 2d 373, 385; 45 N.J. Super. 445.

"A license is merely a permit or privilege to do what otherwise would be unlawful, and is not a contract between the authority, federal, state or municipal granting it and the person to whom it is granted..."American States Water Services Co. Of Calif. V. Johnson, 88 P.2d 770, 774; 31 Cal. App.2d 606.

"A license when granting a privilege, may not, as the terms to its possession, impose conditions which require the abandonment of constitutional rights." Frost Trucking Co. V. Railroad Commission, 271 US 583, 589 (1924); Terral v. Burke Construction Company, 257 US 529, 532 (1922).

"The word privilege is defined as a particular benefit, favor, or advantage, a right or immunity not enjoyed by all, or it may be enjoyed only under special conditions." Knoll Gold Club v. U.S., 179 Fed Supp. 377, 380.

"...those things which are considered as inalienable rights which all citizens possess cannot be licensed since those acts are not held to be a privilege." City of Chicago v. Collins, 51 N.E. 907, 910
http://realitybloger.wordpress.com/ (http://realitybloger.wordpress.com/)
Title: Re: Notice of Rescission & De-registration to DVLA
Post by: M O'D on May 10, 2013, 02:40:07 PM
Quote Here's an interesting question. Is ignorance of these laws an excuse for such acts by officials?

If we are to follow the letter of the law, (as we are sworn to do), this places officials who involve themselves in such unlawful acts in an unfavorable legal situation. For it is a felony and federal crime to violate or deprive citizens of their constitutionally protected rights. Our system of law dictates that there are only two ways to legally remove a right belonging to the people. These are:

1) by lawfully amending the constitution, or

2) by a person knowingly waiving a particular right.

Some of the confusion on our present system has arisen because many millions of people have waived their right to travel unrestricted and volunteered into the jurisdiction of the state. Those who have knowingly given up these rights are now legally regulated by state law and must acquire the proper permits and registrations. There are basically two groups of people in this category:

Citizens who involve themselves in commerce upon the highways of the state. Here is what the courts have said about this:
Quote"...For while a citizen has the right to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, that right does not extend to the use of the highways...as a place for private gain. For the latter purpose, no person has a vested right to use the highways of this state, but it is a privilege...which the (state) may grant or withhold at its discretion..." State v. Johnson, 245 P 1073.

QuoteThere are many court cases that confirm and point out the difference between the right of the citizen to travel and a government privilege and there are numerous other court decisions that spell out the jurisdiction issue in these two distinctly different activities. However, because of space restrictions, we will leave it to officers to research it further for themselves.

The second group of citizens that is legally under the jurisdiction of the state are those citizens who have voluntarily and knowingly waived their right to travel unregulated and unrestricted by requesting placement under such jurisdiction through the acquisition of a state driver's license, vehicle registration, mandatory insurance, etc. (In other words, by contract.) We should remember what makes this legal and not a violation of the common law right to travel is that they knowingly volunteer by contract to waive their rights. If they were forced, coerced or unknowingly placed under the state's powers, the courts have said it is a clear violation of their rights. This in itself raises a very interesting question. What percentage of the people in each state have applied for and received licenses, registrations and obtained insurance after erroneously being advised by their government that it was mandatory?

Many of our courts, attorneys and police officials are just becoming informed about this important issue and the difference between privileges and rights. We can assume that the majority of those Americans carrying state licenses and vehicle registrations have no knowledge of the rights they waived in obeying laws such as these that the U.S. Constitution clearly states are unlawful, i.e. laws of no effect - laws that are not laws at all. An area of serious consideration for every police officer is to understand that the most important law in our land which he has taken an oath to protect, defend, and enforce, is not state laws and city or county ordinances, but the law that supersedes all other laws -- the U.S. Constitution. (or, as in the case of the issues being dealt with here, the British Constitution as referenced in the foregoing posts of this thread)

If laws in a particular state or local community conflict with the supreme law of our nation, there is no question that the officer's duty is to uphold the U.S. (UK) Constitution.

Every police officer should keep the following U.S. court ruling -- discussed earlier -- in mind before issuing citations concerning licensing, registration, and insurance:

"The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime." Miller v. US, 230 F 486, 489.

And as we have seen, traveling freely, going about one's daily activities, is the exercise of a most basic right.

http://www.land.netonecom.net/tlp/ref/right2travel.shtml (http://www.land.netonecom.net/tlp/ref/right2travel.shtml)
Title: Re: Notice of Rescission & De-registration to DVLA
Post by: M O'D on May 15, 2013, 10:46:40 AM
So, if you have applied for a licence you are deemed to be operating in a commercial capacity  ... this video has further information on the matter... 


Quote"Motor vehicle ... drawn by mechanical power and used for commercial purposes on the highways in the transportation of passengers and property" Title 18 USC 31 ...

Ipso facto, MOTOR VEHICLES ARE USED TO MAKE PROFIT, IE FOR COMMERCIAL PURPOSES

LINK http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nsxnM0fWReU (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nsxnM0fWReU)
Title: Re: Notice of Rescission & De-registration to DVLA
Post by: milk on May 17, 2013, 03:51:10 AM
I thought that response from Chris Curson was a good response.

Particularly interesting to read that they make exceptions for themselves, you may deposit 500-1-honeys, nice, but in the event of personal injury unless bankrupt you may not use the deposit for personal injury liability.

Although the National Insurance covers everything in the Country, if it could not settle a personal claim of death say of a famous & valuable singer, then what business does the National Insurance have of meeting the demands upon it of the claims that must have been assessed before its introduction.

With ref to a group action, i heard Rob Freeman i think, comment on this recently and I tend toward his suggestion that a 'representative action' might not be the best thing. That the power of the people rests in our numbers, and a representative action would consolidate, therefore another blow collectively in gloominated hands, using its small minority to combat the Large Throng, as Larkin Rose puts it, in his vid 'the tiny dot.'

I realize your post on that was a time back.

I got a fine last year Spirit for not doing a sworn, I thought the same thing as you, wtf, My automobile was on private land.

Some great quotes on the law regards license, but that they are quite old, 100 yrs, which would indicate they should be very well known within the institutions holding responsibility to communicate such to the officers & agents operating such institutions.

Is there anything over this side of the Atlantic ocean? (the Atlantis ocean)

I immediately thought, with the term 'license,' Lye Sense. Lye to your sense, common sense deception.



Title: Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005
Post by: M O'D on May 27, 2013, 08:44:09 PM
Q: On what grounds do the police attempt to seize vehicles?
A: On the grounds they are acting as highway robbers?
Q: Funny. No, what act do they believe gives them the authority to seize vehicles?
A: The Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005
Q: Serious Crime and Police Act! You're joking, right?
A: If I am, then it's in a tragicomedic way.

As we read through this, it becomes clear just how the statutory regulations apply to the PERSON ~ see how many times it gets repeated... this is powerful mind programming, most effective on those goons who know not what they are.. most of the population, a cynic might say. I'm just dumping the info here for now, to be revisited at a later stage when I intend to apply some critical thinking to examine the basis of the wrongful arrest of the Man and theft of his de-registered vehicle by West Porkshire Police Force back in August 2011. I will also reveal how said 'force' committed fraud by way of misrepresentation in a blatant attempt to gain further from the Man's loss by means of their highway robbery. 


Quote150 Offence in respect of incorrectly registered vehicles

(1)After section 43B of the Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994 (c. 22) insert—
"Offence in respect of incorrectly registered vehicles

43C Offence of using an incorrectly registered vehicle

(1)A person is guilty of an offence if, on a public road or in a public place, he uses a vehicle to which subsection (2) applies and in respect of which—
(a)the name and address of the keeper are not recorded in the register, or
(b)any of the particulars recorded in the register are incorrect.

(2)This subsection applies to a vehicle if—
(a)vehicle excise duty is chargeable in respect of it, or
(b)it is an exempt vehicle in respect of which regulations under this Act require a nil licence to be in force.

(3)It is a defence for a person charged with an offence under subsection (1) to show (as the case may be)—
(a)that there was no reasonable opportunity, before the material time, to furnish the name and address of the keeper of the vehicle, or
(b)that there was no reasonable opportunity, before the material time, to furnish particulars correcting the incorrect particulars.

(4)It is also a defence for a person charged with an offence under subsection (1) to show—
(a)that he had reasonable grounds for believing, or that it was reasonable for him to expect, that the name and address of the keeper or the other particulars of registration (as the case may be) were correctly recorded in the register, or
(b)that any exception prescribed in regulations under this section is met.

(5)A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.

(6)The Secretary of State may make regulations prescribing, varying or revoking exceptions for the purposes of subsection (4)(b).

(7)In this section—
"keeper", in relation to a vehicle, means the person by whom it is kept at the material time;
"the register" means the register kept by the Secretary of State under Part 2."

(2)In Schedule 3 to the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988 (c. 53) (fixed penalty offences) after the entry relating to section 43 of the Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994 insert—

Quote151 Power of constables etc. to require production of registration documents in respect of a vehicle

After section 28 of the Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994 (c. 22) insert— "Power of constables etc. to require production of documents

28A Power of constables etc. to require production of registration documents

(1)A person using a vehicle in respect of which a registration document has been issued must produce the document for inspection on being so required by—
(a)a constable, or
(b)a person authorised by the Secretary of State for the purposes of this section (an "authorised person").

(2)An authorised person exercising the power conferred by subsection (1) must, if so requested, produce evidence of his authority to exercise the power.

(3)A person is guilty of an offence if he fails to comply with subsection (1).

(4)Subsection (3) does not apply if any of the following conditions is satisfied.

(5)The first condition is that—
(a)the person produces the registration document, in person, at a police station specified by him at the time of the request, and
(b)he does so within 7 days after the date on which the request was made or as soon as is reasonably practicable.
(6)The second condition is that—
(a)the vehicle is subject to a lease or hire agreement,
(b)the vehicle is not registered in the name of the lessee or hirer under that agreement and is not required to be so registered,
(c)the person produces appropriate evidence of the agreement to the constable or authorised person at the time of the request or he produces such evidence in person, at a police station specified by him at the time of the request—
(i)within 7 days after the date of the request, or
(ii)as soon as is reasonably practicable, and
(d)the person has reasonable grounds for believing, or it is reasonable for him to expect, that the person from whom the vehicle has been leased or hired is able to produce, or require the production of, the registration document.

(7)In subsection (6)(c) "appropriate evidence" means—
(a)a copy of the agreement, or
(b)such other documentary evidence of the agreement as is prescribed in regulations under this section.

(8)The third condition is that any exception prescribed in regulations under this section is met.

(9)Where a requirement is imposed under subsection (1) by an authorised person, a testing station provided under section 52(2) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 may be specified under subsection (5)(a) or (6)(c) instead of a police station.

(10)A person accused of an offence under this section is not entitled to the benefit of an exception conferred by or under this section unless evidence is adduced that is sufficient to raise an issue with respect to that exception, but where evidence is so adduced it is for the prosecution to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the exception does not apply.

(11)A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding level 2 on the standard scale.

(12)The Secretary of State may make regulations—
(a)prescribing descriptions of evidence for the purposes of subsection (7);
(b)prescribing, varying or revoking exceptions for the purposes of subsection

(13)In this section "registration document" means a registration document issued in accordance with regulations under section 22(1)(e)."


Quote152 Power to seize etc. vehicles driven without licence or insurance

After section 165 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 (c. 52) insert—

"165APower to seize vehicles driven without licence or insurance

(1)Subsection (5) applies if any of the following conditions is satisfied.

(2)The first condition is that—
(a)a constable in uniform requires, under section 164, a person to produce his licence and its counterpart for examination,

(b)the person fails to produce them, and

(c)the constable has reasonable grounds for believing that a motor vehicle is or was being driven by the person in contravention of section 87(1).

(3)The second condition is that—

(a)a constable in uniform requires, under section 165, a person to produce evidence that a motor vehicle is not or was not being driven in contravention of section 143,

(b)the person fails to produce such evidence, and

(c)the constable has reasonable grounds for believing that the vehicle is or was being so driven.

(4)The third condition is that—

(a)a constable in uniform requires, under section 163, a person driving a motor vehicle to stop the vehicle,

(b)the person fails to stop the vehicle, or to stop the vehicle long enough, for the constable to make such lawful enquiries as he considers appropriate, and

c)the constable has reasonable grounds for believing that the vehicle is or was being driven in contravention of section 87(1) or 143.

(5)Where this subsection applies, the constable may—

(a)seize the vehicle in accordance with subsections (6) and (7) and remove it;

(b)enter, for the purpose of exercising a power falling within paragraph (a), any premises (other than a private dwelling house) on which he has reasonable grounds for believing the vehicle to be;

(c)use reasonable force, if necessary, in the exercise of any power conferred by paragraph (a) or (b).

(6)Before seizing the motor vehicle, the constable must warn the person by whom it appears that the vehicle is or was being driven in contravention of section 87(1) or 143 that he will seize it—

(a)in a section 87(1) case, if the person does not produce his licence and its counterpart immediately;

(b)in a section 143 case, if the person does not provide him immediately with evidence that the vehicle is not or was not being driven in contravention of that section. But the constable is not required to give such a warning if the circumstances make it impracticable for him to do so.

(7)If the constable is unable to seize the vehicle immediately because the person driving the vehicle has failed to stop as requested or has driven off, he may seize it at any time within the period of 24 hours beginning with the time at which the condition in question is first satisfied.

(8)The powers conferred on a constable by this section are exercisable only at a time when regulations under section 165B are in force.

(9)In this section—

(a)a reference to a motor vehicle does not include an invalid carriage;

(b)a reference to evidence that a motor vehicle is not or was not being driven in contravention of section 143 is a reference to a document or other evidence within section 165(2)(a);

(c)"counterpart" and "licence" have the same meanings as in section 164;

(d)"private dwelling house" does not include any garage or other structure occupied with the dwelling house, or any land appurtenant to the dwelling house.

165B Retention etc. of vehicles seized under section 165A

(1)The Secretary of State may by regulations make provision as to—

(a)the removal and retention of motor vehicles seized under section 165A; and

(b)the release or disposal of such motor vehicles.

(2)Regulations under subsection (1) may, in particular, make provision—

(a)for the giving of notice of the seizure of a motor vehicle under section 165A to a person who is the registered keeper, the owner or the driver of that vehicle;

(b)for the procedure by which a person who claims to be the registered keeper or the owner of a motor vehicle seized under section 165A may seek to have it released;

(c)for requiring the payment, by the registered keeper, owner or driver of the vehicle, of fees, charges or costs in relation to the removal and retention of such a motor vehicle and to any application for its release;

(d)as to the circumstances in which a motor vehicle seized under section 165A may be disposed of;

(e)as to the destination—

(i)of any fees or charges payable in accordance with the regulations;

(ii)of the proceeds (if any) arising from the disposal of a motor vehicle seized under section 165A;

(f)for the delivery to a local authority, in circumstances prescribed by or determined in accordance with the regulations, of any motor vehicle seized under section 165A.

(3)Regulations under subsection (1) must provide that a person who would otherwise be liable to pay any fee or charge under the regulations is not liable to pay it if—

(a)he was not driving the motor vehicle at the time in question, and

(b)he did not know that the vehicle was being driven at that time, had not consented to its being driven and could not, by the taking of reasonable steps, have prevented it from being driven.

(4)Regulations under subsection (1) may make different provision for different cases.

(5)In this section—
"local authority"—
(a)in relation to England, means—

(a)(i)a county council,

(ii)the council of a district comprised in an area for which there is no county council,
(iii)a London borough council,
(iv)the Common Council of the City of London, or
(v)Transport for London;
(b)in relation to Wales, means the council of a county or county borough; and
(c)in relation to Scotland, means a council constituted under section 2 of the Local Government etc. (Scotland) Act 1994;

"registered keeper", in relation to a motor vehicle, means the person in whose name the vehicle is registered under the Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994."


http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2005/15/contents (http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2005/15/contents)
Title: DEFINED: HOW THE COPS ARE HIGHWAYMEN ENGAGING IN ROBBERY BY EXTORTION
Post by: M O'D on September 01, 2013, 10:47:28 AM
Hi. Here is a link to an interesting podcast from Gnostic Media which adds further to the knowledge and information of this thread:

http://www.gnosticmedia.com/Highwaymen (http://www.gnosticmedia.com/Highwaymen)


"An Interview with Freeman Burt and Bob – The Highwaymen" – #172

QuoteAugust 28, 2013

By Jan Irvin

This episode is an interview with Freeman Burt and Bob, titled "Highwaymen" and is being released on Friday, August 28, 2013. This interview with Burt and Bob was recorded today, Aug 28, 2013.

Excuse the delay on this episode. Burt and I had recorded this show 5 days ago but both of us had our recordings fail. So we've re-recorded the entire show.

In this episode Freeman Burt is back to discuss the "highwaymen", or highway robbers – those code enforcement officers who use tricks on us and strip our consent for their commerce codes and statutes – that don't actually apply to us.

In old times the highwayman was the robber who held you at gun point or threat of violence on the highway to extort money and goods from you – one of the most heinous crimes – a crime punishable by death. With Burt is "Bob" who scored a recent victory in California to tell us how he managed to escape the highwaymen.

What can you do in the face of extortion on the side of the highway? Should you defend your rights there on the side of the highway, or in the courts?

Bouvier's Law Dictionary:
http://www.constitution.org/bouv/bouvier.htm

HIGHWAYMAN. A robber on the highway.
http://www.constitution.org/bouv/bouvier_h.htm


HIGHWAY. A passage or road through the country, or some parts of it, for the use of the people. 1 Bouv. Inst. n. 442. The term highway is said to be a generic name for all kinds of public ways. 6 Mod R, 255.

2. Highways are universally laid out by public authority and repaired at the public expense, by direction of law. 4 Burr. Rep. 2511.

3. The public have an easement over a highway, of which the owner of the land cannot deprive them; but the soil and freehold still remain in the owner, and he may use the land above and below consistently with the easement. He may, therefore, work a mine, sink a drain or water course, under the highway, if the easement remains unimpaired. Vide Road; Street; Way; and 4 Vin. Ab. 502; Bac. Ab. h. t.; Com. Dig. Chemin; Dane's Ab. Index, h. t.; Egremont on Highways; Wellbeloved on Highways; Woolrych on Ways; 1 N. H. Rep. 16; 1 Conn. R. 103; 1 Pick. R. 122; 1 M'Cord's R. 67; 2 Mass. R. 127; 1 Pick. R. 122; 3 Rawle, R. 495; 15 John. R. 483; 16 Mass. R.33; 1 Shepl. R. 250; 4 Day, R. 330; 2 Bail. R. 271; 1 Yeates, Rep. 167.

4. The owners of lots on opposite sides of a highway, are prima facie owners, each of one half of the highway,, 9 Serg. & Rawle, 33; Ham. Parties, 275; Bro. Abr. Nuisance, pl. 18 and the owner may recover the possession in ejectment, and have it delivered to him, subject to the public easement. Adams on Eject. 19, 18; 2 Johns. Rep. 357; 15 Johns. Rep.447; 6 Mass. 454; 2 Mass. 125.

5. If the highway is impassable, the public have the right to pass over the adjacent soil; but this rule does not extend to private ways, without an express grant. Morg. Vad. Mec. 456-7; 1 Tho. Co. Lit. 275; note 1 Barton, Elem. Conv. 271; Yelv. 142, note 1.

- See more at: http://www.gnosticmedia.com/Highwaymen#sthash.8QTcKvup.dpuf (http://www.gnosticmedia.com/Highwaymen#sthash.8QTcKvup.dpuf)

Title: FACT OVER FICTION WINS ~ TRAVELLING FREE BEATS 'DRIVING' FOR THE STATE
Post by: M O'D on September 07, 2013, 09:03:20 PM
"THE RIGHT TO TRAVEL: Freeman Wins in Court- No License Plate" 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JfUYVn6RBiI

QuoteRandy Stroud (owner of Sovereign Tactics)  stopped at a restaurant at 9:30pm, August 8th 2013, Nashville, Tn,  on gallatin pike going south bound, when he was stopped by a police car for not having government tags.  Stroud noticed that a squad car, with it's lights turned off had been following him, (or atleast it appeared to be so.) Back up was called once stroud did not provide a drivers license and twelve squad cars showed up. Approximately 15-20 officers appeared to be on scene. Was this routine for a traffic stop with no plates, or was it political targeting?  I had never seen anything like it. It was a first.  I suppose preaching about the non-aggression principle and making youtube videos about Voluntaryism makes you unpopular with government employees. Additionally, the extra units that were called out, refused to ID them upon request by stroud and his spouse. Stroud (myself) attempted to hand documents to the arresting officer, Robert Ruiz, stating his rights and his affirmations, however, he would not touch them, citing implied contract. These officers had done their homework on me.

                ( Stroud was parked in front of this establishment during time of arrest)

Randy reminded the officers that the Declaration of Independence requires consent to be governed, he preached to them for 30 minutes, to no avail.  The more Mr.Stroud preached, the more officers arrived on scene. Stroud made no threats of any kind. Even Mr.Ruiz himself admitted that he had no priors or outstanding warrants. Mr. Stroud reminded them that they had no standing, whereas there was no evidence of a breach of contract, no victim, nor any property that had been damaged or stolen. One officer actually tilted a firearm towards his direction. The officers were going to take him to jail, but they will instead made a deal and agreed to have him booked on september 4th where he will be printed then receive a trial for a class C misdemeanor.

Stroud is a "right to travel" activist. During the stop, I ( Randy Stroud), reminded the officers that I had been paying the gasoline tax, I contributed towards the roads construction, and began to read several supreme court cases. The officers smirked, and began to film myself, and my passenger.   I had been recording the event, however, my camera suddenly died, and once I attempted to turn it back on, it had a blue screen of death. Interesting.....

The interesting part of the night was the fact that the restaurant was owned by two muslim men from Egypt, whom took me in after the incident, fed men, and consoled me, while the 20 plus American, mostly white police force, were intimidating me and my spouse with a show of force, and demanded extortion fees for causing no victims. The fact that the US government has implemented the NDAA, patriot Act, and has made just about every human behavior regulated or possibly illegal in some way or another, it should not surprise me.

Randy has a personal stake in the matter. In 2003, stroud's father, "Ronald Stroud" was involved in an accident, where he was sitting in the turning lane, when he was suddenly struck by another car. The officers determined it was his fault due to "skid mark" evidence, (even though I witnessed the act) , and it resulted in him losing his license. Because he was a carprenter, he needed a work truck to continue his work, and ignored the revoking of his license, as riding the bus was not practical. This eventually lead to multiple arrests and losing his business. Such a shame..........for a victimless crime of not having a piece of plastic.

I now seek immunity, counsel, and support from DA Torry Johnson, Officer Robert Ruiz, and Governor Haslam. I will reach out to them, and ask them to protect my inherent rights. Included is letters below. If this matter can be dissolved outside of court, and we can come to a human understanding of personal self-ownership and liberty, I think it will be best for all parties. I am not at "war" with government.  I see this as a peaceful opportunity to educate these men on "natural" rights.

http://sovereigntactics.org/?p=1516 (http://sovereigntactics.org/?p=1516)


QuoteFreeman Wins in Court- No License Plate- Randy Stroud

     
Published on Sep 4, 2013
http://sovereigntactics.org/?p=1516
No license, no license plate. Check my home page to see copies of the letters.
http://sovereigntactics.org/?p=1538 (article 1)
http://sovereigntactics.org/?p=1548 (article 2)
http://sovereigntactics.org/?p=1545 (article 3)
Title: THE LICENCE DECEPTION: WE HAVE FREEDOM TO TRAVEL, SO WHY WOULD YOU NEED 1?
Post by: M O'D on September 27, 2013, 01:36:56 PM
THE TERM LICENCE (American Spelling - 'LICENSE'), as defined by Black's Second Edition and the Courts:


Quote

Quote"License: In the law of contracts, is a permission, accorded by a competent authority, conferring the right to do some act which without such authorization would be illegal, or would be a trespass or tort." Blacks Law Dictionary, 2nd Ed. (1910).
"The license means to confer on a person the right to do something which otherwise he would not have the right to do." City of Louisville v. Sebree, 214 S.W. 2D 248; 308 Ky. 420.

"The object of a license is to confer a right or power which does not exist without it." Pavne v. Massev, 196 S.W. 2D 493; 145 Tex. 273; Shuman v. City of Ft. Wayne, 127 Indiana 109; 26 NE 560, 561 (1891); 194 So 569 (1940).

"A license is a mere permit to do something that without it would be unlawful." Littleton v. Buress, 82 P. 864, 866; 14 Wyo.173.

"A license, pure and simple, is a mere personal privilege..." River Development Corp. V. Liberty Corp., 133 A. 2d 373, 385; 45 N.J. Super. 445.

"A license is merely a permit or privilege to do what otherwise would be unlawful, and is not a contract between the authority, federal, state or municipal granting it and the person to whom it is granted..."American States Water Services Co. Of Calif. V. Johnson, 88 P.2d 770, 774; 31 Cal. App.2d 606.

Quote"A license when granting a privilege, may not, as the terms to its possession, impose conditions which require the abandonment of constitutional rights." Frost Trucking Co. V. Railroad Commission, 271 US 583, 589 (1924); Terral v. Burke Construction Company, 257 US 529, 532 (1922).

"The word privilege is defined as a particular benefit, favor, or advantage, a right or immunity not enjoyed by all, or it may be enjoyed only under special conditions." Knoll Gold Club v. U.S., 179 Fed Supp. 377, 380.

Quote"...those things which are considered as inalienable rights which all citizens possess cannot be licensed since those acts are not held to be a privilege." City of Chicago v. Collins, 51 N.E. 907, 910

Quote"Illegitimate and unconstitutional practices get their first footing in that way, by silent approaches and slight deviations from legal modes of procedure. This can only be obviated by adhering to the rule that constitutional provisions for the security of persons and property should be liberally construed." Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616, 635 (1884); Exparte Rhodes, 202Ala. 68 71.

"The State cannot diminish rights of the people." Hertado v. California, 110 U.S. 516

Quote"Statutes that violate the plain and obvious principles of common right and common reason are null and void." Bennett v. Boggs, 1 Baldw 60.

"Under our system of government upon the individuality and intelligence of the citizen, the state does not claim to control him/her, except as his/her conduct to others, leaving him/her the sole judge as to all that affects himself/herself." Mugler v. Kansas 123 U.S. 623, 659-60.

"The assertion of federal rights, when plainly and reasonably made, is not to be defeated under the name of local practice."- Davis v. Wechsler, 263 U.S. 22, 24.

"Where rights secured by the constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them." – Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 491.

"The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime." – Miller v. U.S., 230 F 2d 486, 489.

Quote"For a crime to exist, there must be an injured party. There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this exercise of Constitutional rights."- Sherar v. Cullen, 481 F. 945.

Link: http://thecountyguard.org/right-2-drive-handout.html[/size][/font]
Title: Re: Notice of Rescission & De-registration to DVLA
Post by: gerbil on October 18, 2013, 08:09:17 AM
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-birmingham-24571342

Man admits driving without licence for 40 years

A man stopped by motorway police told them he has been driving without a licence for the past 40 years.

He was pulled over in the Nechells area of Birmingham at 09:45 BST, a police spokesman said.

The unlicensed driver also had no insurance and his car has been seized and impounded.

"He has committed a criminal offence, and the matter will proceed to the courts," a West Midlands Police spokesman said.

"We don't know whether the driver had even passed his test," he added.

The DVLA has been notified about today's driver, Central Motorway Police confirmed.

Penalties for driving without the appropriate licence include a fine of £1,000, a driving ban, and being prevented from obtaining a licence for a period of years.
Title: Re: Notice of Rescission & De-registration to DVLA
Post by: M-P:A on October 18, 2013, 01:56:04 PM
If he's not got a driving licence, how on earth can he be called a 'driver'?
Title: Re: Notice of Rescission & De-registration to DVLA
Post by: M O'D on October 19, 2013, 10:56:22 AM
I wonder if he would benefit from reading this thread?   ;D
Title: Re: Notice of Rescission & De-registration to DVLA
Post by: AnnaSvan on April 02, 2022, 05:43:33 PM
Given that this was 11 years ago is there an update?  :)

How did it go? Is there a more succinct process now or mor eknowledge or experience?
Title: Re: Notice of Rescission & De-registration to DVLA
Post by: M O'D on November 06, 2022, 03:39:28 PM
It can be read here, Anna. HIGHWAY ROBBERY: MAN'S FREEDOM TO TRAVEL CRIMINALLY CURTAILED (https://roguemale.org/2013/12/17/highway-robbery-mans-freedom-to-travel-curtailed/)