How do I unregister my car?

[peace2k]

i'm not denying your successes or suggesting that you dont have open minds. why does everyone take everything so personally? i dont even know you guys and wouldnt presume to call you close-minded.

 

i'm just saying that ordinary people who wouldnt normally be into conspiracy theories are getting interested in fotl. they instinctively know the system is corrupt. they see it everyday without knowing how or why it happens. as per usual, some people have been particularly forceful with their ideas and it's been associated with the conspiracy movement, as there is some overlap.

 

i dont see what the problem is. i have a great relationship with many cops and court staff. when they get over their initial resistance they can see that it will free them up to do what they joined to do. keep the peace and apprehend people and corps[e] who cause harm, loss or injury.

Edited June 25, 2010 by peace2k
grammar

[Bookworm]

i'm not denying your successes or suggesting that you dont have open minds. why does everyone take everything so personally? i dont even know you guys and i wouldnt presume to call you closed minded.

ordinary people with open minds instinctively know there's something fishy going on.

Errr, this maybe?

 

Never mind. I do have an open mind, and so far I have seen nothing to convince me that there is anything valid in the FOTL ideas. Until I do, I stand by my opinion. Which is my right as a free-thinking woman. ;-)

[mightymouse_69]

so why are they leaving?

 

why arent they telling us to shut up or holding us in contempt?

 

i've been in tens of cases and i've never heard contempt mentioned by the judge. we are usually perfectly respectful and the judge often seems to have an increased respect for us because we stand our ground and refuse to be intimidated.

 

I've seen Judges leave the court room when the defendant started yelling "I f**king shouldn't be here, you b*stard."

 

In a similar fashion, when a Judge is faced with the defendant saying "Swear your oath" it is hardly surprising that they leave.

[peace2k]

bookworm, apologies for any ambiguity in my words.

 

what i meant was, when i talk to ordinary people, people who have little active interest in the systems of politics, money and law, (ie. non-activists), i find that the more open-minded amongst them instinctively know there's some sort of deception in those systems which they cant quite put their finger on.

 

regards it all being rubbish.

 

you cant deny that:

this is a common law jurisdiction, ask an policyman.

you accuse yourself when entering court as the defendant, ask any lawyer.

there's no lawful obligation to enter the dock, ask any judge.

like policymen, judges have oaths which they often refuse to honour and prefer to leave court.

members of the law society are bound to deny that which questions their existence.

 

mightymouse, sensible people who use fotl methods do not shout about it and remain perfectly polite even calling the judge 'sir' or 'madam'. why would a judge confirm that he has an oath but refuse to say that he's operating on it? even previously skeptical people knew something was amiss when they witnessed what happened.

 

they didnt just leave, they left after closing court early. yet with other interruptions they are having people ejected, violently if they dont go quietly. on 7 separate occasions there has been no suggestion that i am dishonouring the judge. even after i've told them that they are dishonouring me by calling me 'mr...'. they apologise and call me by my common name.

[mightymouse_69]

you accuse yourself when entering court as the defendant, ask any lawyer.

 

No. This is incorrect.

 

there's no lawful obligation to enter the dock, ask any judge.

.

 

Well, this all rather depends.

 

this is a common law jurisdiction, ask an policyman.

 

Yes. So?

 

Are you saying that if I came and took your wallet of you, you would not bother reporting me for theft... because of course theft is defined by the Theft Act, which you say is meaningless!?

[mightymouse_69]

 

mightymouse, sensible people who use fotl methods do not shout about it and remain perfectly polite even calling the judge 'sir' or 'madam'.

 

So what?

 

You do not have higher rights of audience?

 

In court you show respect by staying quiet unless asked to speak. And when asked to speak you answer the question you were asked.

[peace2k]

i've asked several lawyers including a scivener notary [3rd and oldest branch of the legal profession with some judge-like powers] and they confirm that you accuse yourself when entering court as the defendant.

 

the theft act allegedly supersedes the common-law crime of theft.

theft is unlawfully depriving someone of their lawful property.

 

the theft act makes it illegal and no doubt adds protection for corporations.

 

rape, murder and assault are common-law crimes.

 

you can get a license for most, if not all, illegal activity. however, you cannot get a license for any unlawful activity. that's the difference between legal and lawful.

[mightymouse_69]

i've asked several lawyers including a scivener notary [3rd and oldest branch of the legal profession with some judge-like powers] and they confirm that you accuse yourself when entering court as the defendant.

 

Explain this in more detail. Your saying that as you enter the court, you accuse yourself? So when the Jury returns a not guilty verdict, should you be locked up anyway because you have apparently "confessed" to the crime by walking into court?!

 

 

the theft act allegedly supersedes the common-law crime of theft.

theft is unlawfully depriving someone of their lawful property.

 

Yes that's correct -the act must be a dishonest one.

 

rape, murder and assault are common-law crimes.

 

So you fail to recognise the Sexual Offences Act 2003?

 

Please tell me where in the common law rape is defined? What are the elements of rape according to common law?

 

Please tell me where in the common law theft is defined? What are the elements? Answer this - what 'property' can be subject to a theft according to the common law?

 

Also - please consider this. Parliament was given its power by the Common Law. Judges respected its supremacy. Therefore Common law establishes that Parliament is supreme!

[peace2k]

So what?

 

You do not have higher rights of audience?

 

In court you show respect by staying quiet unless asked to speak. And when asked to speak you answer the question you were asked.

 

equality before and under the law is paramount.

 

there's no lawful obligation on you to answer any question.

in fact, when you do you accept jurisdiction.

 

the master asks the questions, the servant answers.

 

the reason judges have the powers they do is because they are acting on behalf of the queen, to whom they've sworn an oath. by refusing to honour their oath they are dishonouring the queen and possibly committing treason.

 

i've been a defendant in 2 cases where i've asked if there's any lawful obligation to enter the dock. no judge has said there is. one dj started shouting 'it's my court and you'll go in the dock'. i asked again if there was any lawful obligation. he said he'd adjourn 'til the end of the day. i returned and was not asked to enter the dock. instead he asked me to move forward, which i did without question. my mistake, i had moved for the defense, a plea was entered on my behalf and the case was adjourned for trial.

the case was dropped. i tried to reopen, as was my right. they've since lost the paperwork.

[peace2k]

confession and accusation may be evidence of a crime but they are not absolute proof. plenty of innocent people confess and plead guilty to crimes they didnt commit.

 

common law crimes are basically those that cause harm, loss or injury to a human being.

 

acts are fictional works created by parliament to generate revenue and keep control. parliament is a corporation, like most other allegedly public bodies including police services. the ministry of justice has a ccj against it.

 

the police are like the nhs, where service is free at the point of use and you authorise payment by providing our details. see how mental the police go when you fail to provide details.

 

we are employees of uk plc employment agency. like agency employees we have a number (ni), we pay commission (tax), we pay for and receive pensions, healthcare, sickness and unemployment benefit (ni), there are rules that we agree to obey (acts, statutes and byelaws).

 

i'm not sure how the sex offences act protects us anymore than common law. as has been shown by safer driving where road markings have been removed, it's true that all these rules have encouraged an almost totally irresponsible population who now need rules to prevent mayhem, chaos and anarchy. just look at the way people drive. most traffic offences have been decriminalised. a group of lawyers were asked how they would kill someone and they all said 'in a car'. if you kill someone in a car you're unlikely to go to jail. if you do, it wont be for very long, unless they can prove intent.

 

how did common law give parliament power?

rape and murder are still common law offences.

judges use parliamentary acts because they create more crimes, more revenue and because nobody knows or dares to question it.

Edited June 25, 2010 by peace2k
correction and addition

[Conniff]

they apologise and call me by my common name.

 

I can imagine what that name is, it's two syllables, starts with an 'f' and ends in a 'g'

[mightymouse_69]

How did common law give parliament power?

 

The Judges chose to respect the supremacy of parliament. There are many cases were the Judges state that Parliament is supreme and dramatic changes in the law is something for Parliament to do. Judges are there to interpret the law.

 

Common law really is the dregs left behind after attempts to create a uniform legal system around the 1300's

 

rape and murder are still common law offences.

 

Granted. Even Murder has some statutory provisions - especially when we look at partial defences etc.

 

Rape - I asked you some questions on that above. Please answer.

 

most traffic offences have been decriminalised.

 

Such as?

 

common law crimes are basically those that cause harm, loss or injury to a human being.

 

What is Harm?

 

Peace2k:

 

This whole freeman stuff sounds pretty good. Law only applies to you if you consent to it. And you can withdraw consent by becoming a "freeman". Once you have done this you never had to tax or insure you car again!

 

Come on... its all rather silly isn't it?

[peace2k]

legislation only applies when you consent. you can withdraw consent by not contracting. it's not all a free ride. you have to accept full liability which is why i havent done my paperwork.

 

persons have limited liability especially when driving cars. if you knock someone over while driving or running down the street, the state picks up the bill.

 

most road traffic, immigration and byelaw offenses are civil, ie. not criminal.

trespass, non-payment of council tax, fare evasion, drinking or smoking where it's illegal are civil offences.

Edited June 25, 2010 by peace2k
addition

[mightymouse_69]

Im Sorry Peace2k - you have failed to answer my questions to a satisfactory level.

 

I can therefore only conclude that this freeman business is nothing other than a stupid cult which preys on the vulnerable.

 

Tell me what traffic offences?

[Conniff]

If you have a look at any of the 3 threads that this ****** yank has started on here mm, you will not see one single answer to any questions asked.

[mightymouse_69]

If you have a look at any of the 3 threads that this ****** yank has started on here mm, you will not see one single answer to any questions asked.

 

I imagined as much.

 

That's the problem with these people - they seem so brainwashed.

 

Sad really.

[Conniff]

What really is sad is that he probably uses the tool he suggested Bookie use because there is obviously no one else in his demented life.

[peace2k]

Originally Posted by peace2k

how can we trust the greedy politicians to get us out of another mess they got us into? alistair darling said yesterday [summary] 'the economy was on the brink of collapse but we saved it'. nobody dared to ask 'why is the economy so flimsy that it can come to the brink of collapse because of some bad loans?'.

 

It was on the brink of collapse because they made it like it to start with.

 

Now you have my admiration for being only the second person to notice that.

 

i'm not a yank and admit i dont have all the answers. legalese is a language which looks and sounds like english but key words have changed definitions. it's a bit like being in a dark room with a box of matches.

 

my beliefs arent hurting anyone and you're all entitled to your own beliefs. i'm merely sharing my experiences and beliefs with people who arent on the fotl forums.

Edited June 25, 2010 by peace2k
addition

[mightymouse_69]

Peace2k,

 

Do you understand that it is the Common law that gave Parliament it's power. Common law identifies Parliament as being supreme.

 

Therefore, how can (as you claim) common law be applicable over statutory provisions?

[Conniff]

my beliefs arent hurting anyone and you're all entitled to your own beliefs. i'm merely sharing my experiences and beliefs with people who arent on the fotl forums.

 

But that's just it, you aren't sharing 'anything' with anyone, just waffling on in your own sad little world and not making any sense whatsoever.

You have never answered a single question asked of you.

[peace2k]

it's not about supremacy, it's about jurisdiction. acts apply where jurisdiction can be shown. jurisdiction is shown by evidence of a person. if common law gave parliament power it can take it away.

 

 

whlst i cause no harm, loss or injury to another human i've done nothing wrong. love, peace and the spiritual evolution of the human race are my primary objectives.

[mightymouse_69]

it's not about supremacy, it's about jurisdiction. acts apply where jurisdiction can be shown. jurisdiction is shown by evidence of a person. if common law gave parliament power it can take it away.

 

 

whlst i cause no harm, loss or injury to another human i've done nothing wrong. love, peace and the spiritual evolution of the human race are my primary objectives.

 

Its is. Parliament is supreme. Parliament makes law that is binding on all of us. The common law recognises this.

 

I can give at least one example, right now, where a Judge states that it is for Parliament to make changes in the law.

 

Again - What is Harm?

 

A question I asked a while ago but am yet to get an answer.

[peace2k]

i've answered what i can. i can waffle, you dont have to listen.

 

why is my world sad and why do you have to keep insulting me? have i offended you in some way? last time i posted here you said i had your admiration (see above).

 

surely it's interesting that we dont have to go in the silly box (dock) in court?

surely it's interesting that we dont have to be pushed around by people who often have questionable morality. the high court judge had been rather lenient with a child abuser.

surely it's interesting that we dont have to pushed around by jobsworth policymen? a peace constable can be very kind, helpful and useful. a policyman is more interested in busting you for some weed, standing or holding a sign in the 'wrong' place and various other ridiculous things.

[mightymouse_69]

Do you mean Policemen rather than policymen?

 

Can you also answer the questions above.

[peace2k]

harm is hurting a human being.

 

parliament makes legislation. legislation only has force of law with consent of the governed. laws to protect people have been around for centuries.