there's a very good reason why i dont, and the reason is touched upon by happyfeet24 on the four corners thread. i dont want to irresponsible people doing this, its for people who act responsibly to find out and do for themselves with their own understanding. i think its a bit of cheek to ask me why i do something, which i dont have tell why, i then explain, you then argue with me saying that my opinion is rubbish, and then say that im preaching! no wonder judges are giving you your gonads on a plate lol so the judge looks in his file, sees a default judgment made by a notary public in your favour. the DCA are in contempt of court, and you say the judges order you to pay? there's either something seriously wrong in what you are doing, or there is something seriously wrong with the judges. btw, what happened to your signature text?

i think you've been listening to the 'authorities' too much. you know, the corporations you're very happy to give your power away too.

so the judge looks in his file, sees a default judgment made by a notary public in your favour. the DCA are in contempt of court, and you say the judges order you to pay? there's either something seriously wrong in what you are doing, or there is something seriously wrong with the judges. btw, what happened to your signature text?

tell me how it can go to court when she has accepted to pay on proof of a contract?

i hope website owners have insurance then. ok, so the information i gave to happyfeet24 in regard to the DCA demands for money how much is it going to cost her if she decides to use it? £1 for recorded delivery? lets say she didnt do anything and just ignored the demands, how much will it cost her when she's taken to court?

individual is a person. you'd be better to try researching whether human beings can.

im not here to give legal advice, im here to share info. are you here to give legal advice? i've already posted links. thats not what i asked. so did you and the team or whoever else on here support them in going into court in dishonour(if there was any) and raising controversy?

refusing to inform is a bit different to claiming to have no knowledge of who drove. how can you inform on something you dont know? on the EU ruling, yes who can argue that a DRIVER forfeits rights. a driver is someone who acts in commerce on the roads.

would you like to explain, or am i to assume that its a ****take? if it is ****take, is it a usual habit of the site team to do so, particulary with new members? i take it this case didnt go to well. did you support the defendants going into court in dishonour(if there was any) and controversy?

so what happens if they do not know who drove the car? they are prosectued for not knowing?

corporations cannot get out of statute law. thanks for the sarcastic emoticon btw.

the one above is to be sent to the DCA. that particular situation, and with other driving offences could be very difficult to get out of as the car is registered in your person. you could claim that you dont know who was driving, which would mean they would try to get you to pay the fine. at that point you would send that notice. a funny story that a policeman told my bro-in-law was that, to put it in a nutshell, the police went chasing after 3 lads in a car, the car had gained some distance on police, but the police eventually caught them when the car had stopped. they went to the car and all three lads were sat on the backseat. the police asked who was driving and they said they didnt know, none of them gave their name and there was nothing the police could do. im not condoning irresponsible behaviour, but these days the 'authorities' are acting that way all the time and are screwing the people for as much as they can get.

statute law and common law are seperate. e.g. there is no statute that says you cannot murder. and there is no common law that says are required to income tax. you are always under common law, until you consent to a statute which then overides it. the dvla, cannot take from you a privately owned car because they have no right to it. it would be stealing. but they can take a registered vehicle because they have right to it. just like the social services can take your children because you registered them at birth.

ok. lets see if we can use our creative imagination to come up with notice that you can send them. [ADDRESS] [DATE] Re: NOTICE (ok here put in the title of the notice they sent you, demand for payment etc) - Issued [date] Notice of Discharge of... (Demand of Payment) To [address] You have apparently made allegations of that I owe you money. You have apparently made demands upon me to pay the money allegedly owed. I do not understand those apparent demands and therefore cannot lawfully fulfil them. I seek clarification of your document so that I may act according to the law. Failure to accept this offer to clarify and to do so completely and in good faith within 10 days will be deemed by all parties to mean you and your principal or other parties abandon all demands upon me. I conditionally accept your offer to agree that I am [your NAME in capitals] and that I owe £......., upon proof of claim that there exists a signed two party contract between us, and that if you can prove that said contract exists, you make presentation of a bill of exchange for the aforementioned amount. Proof and presentation must be sent via registered mail to: [ADDRESS] no later than TEN (10) days from the date of original service as dated by way of Royal Mail recorded delivery service. Further demands for payment thereafter by you or any third parties will be seen as a breach of Section 1 of The Protection from Harassment Act 1997 if you fall into dishonour by failing to respond within the ten days. Sincerely and without ill will, vexation or frivolity [signature] so basically, its quite simple. all you are doing is disharging their offer for you to pay them by making a counter-offer to pay on condition. its just negotiation, which any judge will have assumed to have been undertaken by the 2 parties before entering court. DCA's have no contracts with the persons they demand money from and cannot enforce those demands if you conditionally accept. if you receive no reply, you can then go to a public notary and get him to send a copy of your notice with his own. if that is ignored, the PN will send the same one last time. if it ignored again, the PN will make a default judgment in your favour, an estoppel. if the DCA take you to court, you can file the estoppel into the evidence file of the judge, and it all goes tits up for the DCA

then i can only say that 'lunacy' is working for people using it, not just in this country, but those countries England gave the common law to. finding loopholes is an area that is very legit and i applaud all who use that method, hence i why i started this thread. imo, the signature box is a loophole that probably could never be filled.

yes it is. let me try to enable understanding for you. statute is not law unless you contract to it. all corporations are governed by statute law (they cannot get out of it), a human being is not. hence why you can use a statute against a corporation. this is why a policeman needs evidence of the person for a breach of any statute, because the person (your name in capital letters) is a corporation. if a common law is broken then the policeman does not require evidence of the person. the courts, police forces, fire brigades, hospitals, the government, the councils, social services, are all corporations and can be found listed in databases such as Dunn & Bradstreet, creditgate.com etc there are people who have used these types of notices of discharge successfully and corporations cannot get around them. there is plenty of information on the web, examples and cases where people are using this avenue re-claim back their common law rights. some sites to go to are: www.tpuc.org | News for positive people Think Free Be Free - Welcome to ThinkFree.ca some videos: Think Free : Bursting Bubbles of Government Deception DemockeryWEB.mov you can shout and scream 'rubbish' as much as you want. its just information and you can make of it what you will. i realise this route isnt for everyone. im not trying to convince anyone that this is ultimate truth and the only way, all im saying is it is an avenue that people can try if they want to. i didnt join this DB to argue over opinions and who's right and who's wrong, or try to get personal with people. all im here for is to share info.

if you believe that, then that is your reality. the proof is in the pudding. i'll definately keep this thread updated with my progress

here's something called a notice of discharge. you can use this for parking tickets, speed camera fines etc. when someone sends you a notice saying that you owe them something, it is an offer. you cannot refuse their offer. to do so will put you in dishonour. ignoring it is agreement by aquiesence. you have to accept conditionally, which is a counter-offer. if they do not respond to your offer the original is void. this is basically how its done (this is for a parking ticket, you can alter this to suit you circumstances. but do a bit of research first so you understand what you are doing. you can change proof of claims to 'proof of claim that a contract exists between [YOUR NAME] and [their company name]): [ADDRESS] [DATE] Re: FIXED PENALTY NOTICE AB12345678 - Issued [date] Notice of Discharge of Outstanding Penalty Notice and Request for Clarification. To [address] You have apparently made allegations of illegal conduct against me. You have apparently made demands upon me. I do not understand those apparent demands and therefore cannot lawfully fulfil them. I seek clarification of your document so that I may act according to the law and maintain my entire body of God given Natural Rights. Failure to accept this offer to clarify and to do so completely and in good faith within 10 days will be deemed by all parties to mean you and your principal or other parties abandon all demands upon me. I conditionally accept your offer to agree that I am [NAME] and that I owe £......., upon proof of claim of all of the following: 1. Upon proof of claim that I am a person and not a human being. 2. Upon proof of claim that you know what a ‘person’ actually is, legally speaking. 3. Upon proof of claim that you know what the difference between a ‘human being’ and a ‘person’ actually is, legally speaking. 4. Upon proof of claim that I am NAME[all capitals] and not Name[upper and lower case] 5. Upon proof of claim that the charge was the result of a lawful investigation unmarred by prejudice. 6. Upon proof of claim that I am a member of the society whose statutes and subsisting regulations you are enforcing. 7. Upon proof of claim that I showed you some sort of identification. 8 Upon proof of claim that there is a nameable society that I belong to and that the laws covered within this alleged transgression state that they apply to me within that named society Answers to these questions must be under Oath or attestation, upon full commercial liability and penalty of perjury and received via registered mail to: [ADDRESS] no later than TEN (10) days from the date of original service as dated by way of Royal Mail recorded delivery service. Further Notices issued or demands for payment thereafter by you or any third parties will be seen as a breach of Section 1 of The Protection from Harassment Act 1997 if you fall into dishonour by failing to respond within the ten days. Sincerely and without ill will, vexation or frivolity [signature]

thanks. does anyone on here have a DCA demanding money from them? if so, do they have a contract with the DCA?

interesting that i keep witnessing this exostentialism in reality because they keep asking for my consent. a PERSON is not a Human, its not anything that exits except on paper. thats fiction. pardon me, but was it not you who took the thread off topic by asking me WHY i was doing this? the statute needs to be consented to. if there is no consent how can it possibly be enforced? the court's authority doesnt come from statute, it comes from common law and the soveriegn. ANYONE choosing to live in the England comes under the law and customs of england as sworn to by the soveriegn... anything else, they contract to. statutes are not laws, that are really coporation rules empowered by law through consent. its starts off as a BILL and then becomes a statutory INSTRUMENT. its commerce! again, you took the thread off topic asking me why. and if it were all so easliy rubbished as nonsense why havent you answered any of the questions i raised on consent? do you believe those in 'authority' ask you out politeness? lol imo, the reason why you dont address this is because you cant. you have belief system to defend and you prefer to keep that intact than realise gravity of what it all means. thats your philosophy, and good luck to you with it. you cannot beat a system in which you empower it by your consent.

sorry, can you tell me what DCA stands for?

a statute is a legisaltive rule of society which is empowered by law. a society is a group of people joined together by mutual consent to deliberate, determine and act for a common goal. do you belong to 'society'? do you know the name of that 'society'? were you obligated to join that 'society'? are you free to leave that 'society'? statutes act on the PERSON. a PERSON is a legal fiction, a coporate entity. do you believe yourself to be a PERSON or a Human? do you have an obligation to act on behalf of the PERSON? why does the policman ask you 'do you understand?'. why does he need evidence of the PERSON? why does the customs officer ask for your permission to search through your luggage at the airport, to take swobs, to smash items if they believe it to be concealing drugs? if it was the law and mandatory there would be no reason to ask.

the police can seize vehicles because the vehicles were registered. the dvla have rights to that vehicle because of registration, and the owner gave the dvla those rights by applying and subbmiting volunterily, although the owner believing he was obligated to do so at the time on the basis of hearsay or someone in 'authority' saying that he 'must'. i'm not using any statute, i'm using the common law. statute law overides common only when you consent to it, in other words its a contract, which is the reason why the police will ask you if you 'understand'. so i have to be particular about if and when i use statutes. edited to add: everything the policeman said was true in the quote. imo, this article is being used as propaganda to intimidate people into applying for vehicle registration. the police could seize a private car, but they will know they are running a huge risk in doing so.

thats quite suprising the way the dvla are acting in order to screw out every penny they can from joe public. if they made you an offer to settle out of court, then it makes me think they are not happy to go into court. is it possible that you can scan the notice they sent you demanding payment and post it on here? i wish i had come on this DB sooner. i may have been able to help you discharge their notice. its very important to enter into negotiation with the other party before they take you to court. please keep us informed of your progress

officers who seize privately owned cars are acting unlawfully. what they will try to do is get the owners to consent to statute law, which if the owners do, will mean they will have to go down the route of registration, licences etc. if the owners fail to consent, the police will have no choice but to give the cars back. if they ever tried to take my private car, i'd sue them. but i would inform the police and the dvla from the start what the status of my car is and myself in regard to it, so that there would be no problems.