How do I unregister my car?

[gwc1000]

 

I can only say that i find it amazing that anybody can believe what is really a load of tosh.

 

Such is the power of a cult.

[peace2k]

yes i may be up for a challenge.

 

i've yet to be convicted since i've known this stuff. i've been arrested, charged and taken to court several times. one was ruled unlawful arrest. another was discontinued after it made it to court and was adjourned for trial. two were nfa [no further action] after arrest. my friends try different tactics including pleading guilty and insisting on being punished to the full extent of the law, breaking bail conditions and court orders and refusing to pay fines. in the end the judge just issues conditional discharges or cancels fines for time spent in the police cells.

i've had a constable tell me he wont arrest me again. i've had another tell me he wouldnt use his warrant to arrest someone under socpa for holding a sign. another tell me he's not happy to be a "revenue generator for the eu superstate" and he wouldnt be happy to arrest someone for non-payment of council tax.

 

if you want to talk legal, one of my friends is one of the world's foremost experts on war law and has given 12 hrs of evidence to scotland yard anti-terrorist war crimes unit. they thought there was a case and handed it to the cps who squashed it. icca 2003 says that many mps, the military and even those who pay tax are acting illegally in iraq and afghanistan.

 

you can have a lot of fun when you cause no harm, loss or injury. i've been up buildings and cranes and seen parts of london you'd never normally see.

 

robert menard: 'bursting bubbles of government deception' and 'the magnificent deception' are the best things i found to get my head round it.

Edited June 26, 2010 by peace2k
addition

[Conniff]

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.

 

I have full justification to insult you. None of what you are gobbing off about is interesting and you sir are an demented.

Edited June 26, 2010 by Conniff

[peace2k]

I have full justification to insult you. None of what you are gobbing off about is interesting and you sir are an demented.

 

a bit like 'get a brain morans'

 

i think it said "you sir are an ar*ehole" previous to the edit.

 

a nice thought is 100s of times more powerful than a nasty one.

 

if i didnt find something interesting i wouldnt keep reading. how many threads do you read and rant on which you have no interest in?

[ukaviator]

As a result of complaints being received from other users of the forum, it would be a good idea for anyone involved in flaming, insulting behaviour, derailing of threads, confrontational or being argumentative to immediately discontinue such behavior.

[gwc1000]

yes i may be up for a challenge.

OK.

As you claim you are not a "person" in law and therefore you are exempt from statute law, how about proving it to all of us non believers?

Get a motor car, remove it's registration plates, you must have no insurance or tax, and drive it daily. Obviously as a FOTL you don't require a driving licence if you haven't got one already. A good start would be to travel down Oxford Street at 60mph. Now, as you are exempt from all aspects of the RTA you have nothing to fear do you?

When eventually you appear in court post up the court location and date and time and I will come along and witness the court's decision. When the court decides that you are not a person and indeed you are exempt from statute law and for that singular reason the prosecution fails I will readily admit you are right and I am wrong. We could get that story on the front pages.

Edited June 26, 2010 by gwc1000

[peace2k]

as i've said, i dont drive.

the suggestion of driving at 60mph down oxford st, even if it were possible when it's one long taxi-bus, shows why some people currently need legislation. it's not very sensible and is extremely likely to cause harm, loss and injury.

removing the reg plates isnt enough. it still has vin plates. it would have to be de-registered. foreign vehicles have an interesting status. a french car for example would legally have to be registered within 6months.

i have thought of getting an off-road motorbike. if you will put your money where your mouth is, you can buy me a bike or go halves.

 

what's likely to happen is that the court would rule in my absence. it's civil legislation and there's no lawful oblition to attend. if you dont appear as the person, it's assumed you havent appeared. same for council tax, immigration and others. it would have to be a criminal statute that doesnt cause harm, loss or injury.

[gwc1000]

as i've said, i dont drive.

Even better. Your lack of driving skills will attract the attention desired and you can tell the police you are exempt from statute law and you don't require a licence.

the suggestion of driving at 60mph down oxford st, even if it were possible when it's one long taxi-bus, shows why some people currently need legislation. it's not very sensible and is extremely likely to cause harm, loss and injury.

Do it a 4am. Perhaps you don't fully understand FOTL yet? FOTL say that speed limits do not apply and you may drive at any speed anywhere as long as no harm or loss occurs. They also say that drunk driving is ok as long as you cause no harm or loss.

removing the reg plates isnt enough. it still has vin plates.

Grind the vin number off. it's simple.

it would have to be de-registered.

No it doesn't. You're forgetting you are exempt from all statutes.

 

i have thought of getting an off-road motorbike. if you will put your money where your mouth is, you can buy me a bike or go halves.

Ha ha, a common theme we see with FOTL is they always want others to pay, that's why they are known as Freeloaders on the Land. Actually Freeloaders on the Dole is more accurate.

 

what's likely to happen is that the court would rule in my absence.

No, you would turn up and tell the magistrates that you are exempt from statute law and you claim your fee schedule.

it's civil legislation and there's no lawful oblition to attend. if you dont appear as the person, it's assumed you havent appeared. same for council tax, immigration and others.

it would have to be a criminal statute that doesnt cause harm, loss or injury.

I disagree with you regarding "civil legislation" but if you require a better one which will cause no harm, loss or distress to anybody, conceal a working loaded handgun within your clothing so nobody can see it, therefore causing no distress to anybody, walk down Oxford Street and the first policeman you see walk up to him and tell him what you are carrying and you are exempt from statute law. Or are you going to wriggle out of that one as well?

[Dearlove]

Dear Peace,

 

I appreciate your conviction and sincerity.

 

However, very respectfully, what you have been saying is not correct.

 

"Unlawful" refers to a civil wrong.

 

An example of this would be a breach of contract which could lead to an award of damages if proven.

 

"Illegal" refers to a criminal wrong.

 

An example of this would an assault which could lead to a fine or imprisonment if proven.

 

I do not understand why you would want to de-register your car.

 

If the idea is to save money, in my view it is possible to be overly principled and not sufficiently pragmatic.

 

Surely, the simplest and most elegant method of achieving this would be to pay the state whatever money they require for you to achieve authorisation and then find a way of getting that money back from the state.

 

If you are prosecuted for possible criminal offences, this will presumably cost you more than if you comply.

 

Best wishes

 

Dearlove

[crem]

highly unlikely i'm going to hit anything because i do so with due care and attention. police often ignore me as i do so safely. i dont just shoot across, i treat it like any other crossing with no lights. are you seriously suggesting that i should wait at a red when there's nothing coming?

 

Yes!

[Conniff]

As a result of complaints being received from other users of the forum, it would be a good idea for anyone involved in flaming, insulting behaviour, derailing of threads, confrontational or being argumentative to immediately discontinue such behavior.

 

It would be a better idea to either dump this rubbish in the Bear Garden or close it as it has nothing whatsoever to do with consumer issues.

 

Some nutter comes on here and makes claims that they have not in any way justified.

[crem]

It would be a better idea to either dump this rubbish in the Bear Garden or close it as it has nothing whatsoever to do with consumer issues.

 

Some nutter comes on here and makes claims that they have not in any way justified.

 

Agreed.

[mightymouse_69]

 

what's likely to happen is that the court would rule in my absence. it's civil legislation and there's no lawful oblition to attend. if you dont appear as the person, it's assumed you havent appeared. same for council tax, immigration and others. it would have to be a criminal statute that doesnt cause harm, loss or injury.

 

What? How is the Road Traffic Act a civil matter?

[borisbeaver]

i dont drive. i do jump red lights on my bike though.

.. and you'll make someone an interesting hood ornament.

[peace2k]

Gwc1000,

 

i'm well aware that i'm banging my head against the proverbial. i'll give it one last go.

 

my lack of driving skills means it wouldnt be very responsible to drive, except in an emergency. freemanism is about taking full responsibility for one's actions

 

in fact, that's a good example of lawful reason. if i was escaping from someone who'd just murdered my friend, do you think the cops or courts would be bothered about the illegality of my driving?

 

whilst i agree that speed limits dont apply to fotl, they are there for a reason. in that harm, loss and injury become much more likely at higher speeds.

 

grinding vin plates off would be evidence of a theft.

 

whilst i am exempt from all statutes, unless i consent, at this current stage any suggestion of a contract would be unhelpful. eg. a registered car.

 

regards the off-road bike, you made the challenge. since i dont claim dole, i feel more free.

 

are you suggesting that there's a requirement to attend court for civil offences like non-payment of council tax, non-payment of train fares, possession orders, most road traffic offences, etc. will a warrant be issued if you dont?

 

this is the difference, if you are bailed to appear then it becomes criminal.

 

again this is getting ridiculous. i agree that it's not unlawful to carry a gun, loaded or not. however in the current climate that sort of action is likely to cause harm, loss or injury and is not compatible with my mainly peaceful nature.

 

as there's so much legislation, it's quite easy to think of something which is harmless yet illegal. but i'm not going to make it easy for you.

 

as i've said before, my friend walked away from the charge of carrying a crowbar.

 

Dearlove,

thanks for remaining civil, even courteous.

 

i disagree regards legal/lawful. eg. my friend was asked to give lawful reason as to why he had a crowbar. eg. a locksmith or tradesman would have lawful right to carry all sorts of illegal things. eg. a chef has the lawful right to possess non-metalic knives, unlike the rest of us, even in our own homes! eg. a martial arts expert has the lawful right to possess a samuri sword. eg. if you've just bought something that would be illegal to carry normally. eg. if you're going for a picnic with a knife longer than 3inches.

 

this is more about the moral principals of right and wrong than getting away with things. most people would agree that there's too much legislation.

 

i recommend watching "the corporation" [google video] as it gives a good background to the principals involved. note that all public bodies are essentially private corps with more power and unlimited budgets.

 

peace&love to all.

 

Crem,

when there's cops about and i'm in a hurry, i hop off my bike and walk across. what's the difference? in america this would be illegal. would you be happy with uk jay-walking legislation?

 

Conniff & Crem,

cant you walk by a nutter without engaging?

 

Mightymouse,

speeding is not a criminal offence. you dont get a criminal record. i doubt it comes up on a crb check. it's the same with many other things.

 

boris beaver,

sure if i just race blindly across. not if i do it with due care and attention, like most london cyclists. it's actually been proven that it's safer to jump red lights than wait for a lorry to crush you as it corners.

 

peace&love to all

[borisbeaver]

Speeding is not normally classed as a criminal offence, unless you want to argue a fixed penalty and points and go to court. If convicted then this will show up on a CRB.

[mightymouse_69]

But Peace2k - Many Freemen state that they do not need a license to drive - since a bit of paper does not improve their driving skills...

 

Mightymouse,

speeding is not a criminal offence. you dont get a criminal record. i doubt it comes up on a crb check. it's the same with many other things

.

 

Oh, so I guess that should you wish to contest a speeding ticket you would be heading of to the county court then?

 

The status an offence gets on the CRB is irrelevant.

[peace2k]

more correctly you dont need a license to travel in your private conveyance. driving denotes commercial activity. eg. lorry driver, train driver, bus driver, coach driver, etc. having a passenger would denote commercial activity, a companion does not.

 

so we're agreed that there is a difference between most driving offences and say carrying a knife over 3 inches?

 

yet which is more likely to cause harm, loss or injury? bald tyres, speeding or carrying a pen knife or multi-tool for non-violent purposes?

[borisbeaver]

You are David Icke and I claim my £5.00!

[peace2k]

i doubt icke would think it worth the energy

[mightymouse_69]

 

so we're agreed that there is a difference between most driving offences and say carrying a knife over 3 inches?

 

 

No.

 

Both are criminal offences.

 

The only difference is that there are different punishments for each offence.

 

more correctly you dont need a license to travel in your private conveyance.

 

Says who?

[gwc1000]

 

Says who?

Oh, you're going to love this one.

Freemen have been brainwashed into believing some stuff that started in America years ago where some loonies interpreted the law that there is a difference between "driving" and "travelling". "Driving" is acting in commerce, whereas "travelling" is private. They also claim they have a "conveyance" and not a "vehicle". They believe only "driving a vehicle" (commerce) requires a licence, "travelling in your conveyance" (private) does not. But when you study the interpretation of law they rely on, it is incorrect, and what they fail to tell you many who have tried this in America have been successfully prosecuted and some have ended up with jail time. The problem is, as I have said before FOTL regard jail as a success as it strengthens their belief that they are right and the courts are corrupt.

This movement has it's roots in America and has evolved from the tax protestor movement such as the Montana Freemen and we all know what happened to them. The sad thing is with the internet many are being sucked into this mumbo jumbo and are all too ready to believe any pseudo-legal nonsense an anonymous poster puts on the internet. But, when you research it thoroughly as I have done you realise that it's all rubbish. None of their legal arguments stand up in court. But what they do is disrupt and prolong proceedings. If a freeman causes disarray in a courtroom that is viewed as success irrespective of the judgment.

But as the failures come, there are many more recruits signing up to the woo. Richard Harrison (pleasuredome) who started this thread ended up in jail. Mary Gye from the Liverpool area who posted on fotl forums as girlgye apparently had three succesful businesses before getting involved in this. She lost the lot, got her car crushed, and ended up in jail. Josh Novak, Mika and Terry Bouffard were all prosecuted. I know of one case where the defendant actually wrote to the judge telling him to view certain youtube videos so the judge would have a better understanding of law.

But when challenged freemen cannot back up their claims with anything of substance. They either point you to a youtube video or a fotl website.

Edited June 28, 2010 by gwc1000
spelling

[gwc1000]

peace2K wrote:

 

whilst i am exempt from all statutes, unless i consent,

 

That's twice you've said that now. After the first time you wrote it I challenged you (24th June) to provide a reference in law to substantiate that claim. I'm still waiting. Are you having difficulty finding a source that doesn't link to a FOTL website?

So, come on, peace2K show me where in law it states that an individual may withdraw consent from statute law. The clock is ticking.

[Conniff]

most people would agree that there's too much legislation.

 

I don't think there is enough legislation, we need more and it should include a total ban on nutters like you flogging your lies to others.

[Conniff]

So, come on, peace2K show me where in law it states that an individual may withdraw consent from statute law

 

Aw come on man, you know he can't show you anything like that, you have to do the research yourself