How do I unregister my car?

[pleasuredome]

Yes there are times when authorities ask for, and require consent, but there are, equally times when consent is not required or asked and no amount of protestation that you do not consent will prevent that law being enforced upon you.

 

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

[flyingdoc]

I find your approach both nieve and endearing - dont forget that the person who appears to be championing the Freeman principle is David Icke - up to a couple of years ago he was declaring himself the new messiah....

 

That didnt go so well either

[Spunkymonkey]

One word of warning about your position, pleasuredome.

 

If you're not prepared to accept the established laws of the country (which, incidentally, are all effectively made "by consent" whether by statute or case law) then you can't rely on that law for protection when you feel you've been wronged.

 

For example, you're quite correct that you don't need to register your car if you don't accept the statutes saying you do. On the other hand, if you do that (on that basis) then you can have no recourse under that law when the DVLA (or anyone else for that matter) tows it away and crushes it

[pleasuredome]

 

For example, you're quite correct that you don't need to register your car if you don't accept the statutes saying you do. On the other hand, if you do that (on that basis) then you can have no recourse under that law when the DVLA (or anyone else for that matter) tows it away and crushes it

 

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.

[Spunkymonkey]

the dvla, cannot take from you a privately owned car because they have no right to it. it would be stealing

 

But stealing is defined by statute law (the Theft Act 1968 as amended). So, if you chose to renounce statute law and someone steals from you, you have no recourse against them. By all means try to pick and choose which laws you "consent" to - just be sure to keep us all up to date about how it works out.......

[gwc1000]

 

just like the social services can take your children because you registered them at birth.

 

I think you have been listening to John Harris too much.

Mind you, as he is such an expert, can he not advise how to un-register your car?

[flyingdoc]

e.g. there is no statute that says you cannot murder

 

I think you will find that the Human rights act 1989 might have one or two things to say on that point

 

social services can take ANY children into care if they feel that those children are at risk WHETHER OR NOT THEY WERE REGISTERED AT BIRTH, It is possible that non registered children will not come to the attention of social services but any children found to be at risk can be taken into care.

 

If your picture in your avatar is you - and particularly if you served in active conflict in the armed services then all credit to you and I hold you in the highest respect for doing so - but the theories and concepts you are putting forward are fatally flawed, not least because they originated in the US - which although its legal system was based on ours at least has a written constitution that the citizens can point to and try and enforce their own rights.

 

we have no such constitution - conventions will never outweigh statute and I dont care how much you stand and say you have to agree to be bound by statute it simply is not so.

 

Take for instance groups of travellers. Most of whom are not registered at birth. live a nomadic life, for the most part drive cars that are not registered,taxed or insured) and yet their cars are impounded and crushed if they are found to be breaking the laws.

[pleasuredome]

But stealing is defined by statute law (the Theft Act 1968 as amended). So, if you chose to renounce statute law and someone steals from you, you have no recourse against them. By all means try to pick and choose which laws you "consent" to - just be sure to keep us all up to date about how it works out.......

 

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

[Spunkymonkey]

Neither can individuals - with very good reasons.

 

If you want the full legal basis for that (based in common law as well as statute), I'll be happy to compile a summary but it may take a little time and research to pull references. This research will be provided under contract and will be chargable at £9.25 per hour, which I'll take you to have agreed if you ask me to proceed

[pleasuredome]

Neither can individuals - with very good reasons.

 

If you want the full legal basis for that (based in common law as well as statute), I'll be happy to compile a summary but it may take a little time and research to pull references. This research will be provided under contract and will be chargable at £9.25 per hour, which I'll take you to have agreed if you ask me to proceed

 

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

[pleasuredome]

I think you have been listening to John Harris too much.

Mind you, as he is such an expert, can he not advise how to un-register your car?

 

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.

[flyingdoc]

provide case law rather than preaching and maybe we would be prepared to take you a little more seriously

[pleasuredome]

provide case law rather than preaching and maybe we would be prepared to take you a little more seriously

 

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

 

 

Originally Posted by flyingdoc

so the DCA's issue and the matter ends up in court - and you stand up in front of a judge who knows what - he knows the law.... so you start trying to be cute with him and you will have your gonads handed to you as you are kicked out of court having to pay the dca the costs and probably a contempt fine as well...

 

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?

Edited January 5, 2009 by pleasuredome

[flyingdoc]

it is an offence under the Vehicle Excise and Registration act 1994

 

29 Penalty for using or keeping unlicensed vehicle

 

(1) If a person uses, or keeps, [a vehicle] which is unlicensed he is guilty of an offence.

[gwc1000]

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.

No, not at all. I too have always been anti authority, however, after listening to and reading items by John Harris, I am of the opinion that a fair proportion of the time he is spouting rubbish, or perhaps it is simply that he is just very bad at expressing himself.

[Mr lex]

btw, what happened to your signature text?

 

Just for info,

 

If you have a signature, it shows on your first post on any thread and again on any thread over 100 words. Otherwise we run out of 'bits, bytes or whatever their called

[crem]

unregistered vehicle insurance, unregistered vehicles

 

they do insurance for unregistered cars, although i think they dont do it for long periods of time

 

They offer insurance on (yet) unregistered cars and clearly aim it specifically at people/persons/or human beings who have imported a foreign car and have not yet registered it at the DVLA whilst still needing to insure it. You will note they specifically limit it to 30 days insurance which they no doubt consider is long enough for you to complete any registration.

 

(31) Cover for vehicles not yet registered in the UK Are you experiencing problems insuring a vehicle not yet registered in the UK? It can seem a vicious circle when trying to register an imported vehicle in the UK for the first time – the DVLA won’t register the vehicle without proof of insurance – most insurers won’t insure a vehicle until you have a UK registration number!

Here at AJ Insurance we have the answer! Our panel of insurers will allow us to arrange an annual policy for you where cover is issued on the basis of the chassis number of the vehicle for the first 30 days of your policy.

[MARTIN3030]

Pleasuredome I have to say that I too am as much intrigued as the rest,as to what the purpose of the thread actually IS ?

We are always interested to learn new things especially if we havent heard of them before,whilst no one should dismiss things out of hand without a valid arguement or some supporting evidence I just wondered if it was your belief that the things that you speak of here,have the remotest possibility of being acceptable or possible under current English statute law ?

Since it was you who asked the question originally as to how you unregister your car,then I take it you wasnt clear on the process to begin with ?

If you are to be taken seriously in this thread (or others) then is it to much to ask that you credit members here with a little more upstairs ?

If I am wrong in my assumptions that you have got the basis of some thoughts that CAN overturn/change or challenge current legislation and yet can be done so without breaking any existing laws,,then I will be the first to apologise.

However I am not anticipating that will be the case this side of 2009 .....if at all.

Edited January 6, 2009 by MARTIN3030

[Bookworm]

We are always interested to learn new things especially if we havent heard of them before,.

Ah, but there's the thing, Martin: We have. Under one form or another. It usually comes from the US, either in its pure form or mildly diluted to anglicise it a bit and make it appear more relevant. It will at some point argue a "god-given right" as a valid argument supposed to over-ride law. It will cherry-pick the good bits and leave out the ones that don't fit its purpose. And ultimately it relies on long complicated words to try and make it look valid even at its most absurd, and like all cons, relies on the mark to want to believe it works.

 

Cars, credit agreements, banking system, we've seen it all: elaborate sophistry meant to make you think: "oooh, that's clever", when really, it boils down to the usual thing: If it sounds too good to be true, it usually is. ;-)

[MARTIN3030]

Ah yes understood Bookie-how could I have forgotten ?

In acknowledging such,perhaps those who inform with such snippets of these gems,should be rewarded with one of Cags OWN 4 corners..........a little red box;)

[kiptower]

here we go made to order red with 4 corners,, :D

 

 

[crem]

Ah, but there's the thing, Martin: We have. Under one form or another. It usually comes from the US, either in its pure form or mildly diluted to anglicise it a bit and make it appear more relevant. It will at some point argue a "god-given right" as a valid argument supposed to over-ride law. It will cherry-pick the good bits and leave out the ones that don't fit its purpose. And ultimately it relies on long complicated words to try and make it look valid even at its most absurd, and like all cons, relies on the mark to want to believe it works.

 

Cars, credit agreements, banking system, we've seen it all: elaborate sophistry meant to make you think: "oooh, that's clever", when really, it boils down to the usual thing: If it sounds too good to be true, it usually is. ;-)

 

Isn't this along the same lines as the Americans that believe "USA income tax" is an illegal tax because of how/when it was introduced? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think this has been tested in the American courts and not been upheld, to which Wesley Snipes can testify (if you arrange visiting rights to see him in his current abode).

[MARTIN3030]

Ha Ha....the Cag special is considerably smaller than this-but good effort.

One other point worth mentioning-Can we have some clarity on whether the issue is about unregistering a car that has been SCRAPED or SCRAPPED ?

 

Theres a big difference......one can be sorted with a touch up aerosol - whilst the other requires a bit more work !!!

[gwc1000]

Pleasuredome I have to say that I too am as much intrigued as the rest,as to what the purpose of the thread actually IS ?

Just another airey-fairy scheme to attempt to buck out of a system but to always have the option to dip one's toes back into the system when it suits oneself.

[Spunkymonkey]

Just another airey-fairy scheme to attempt to buck out of a system but to always have the option to dip one's toes back into the system when it suits oneself.

 

Which is exactly the "wriggle out" attitude that leads to a lot of the over-restrictive legislation that we end up battling! If you're caught fair & square it is, as they say, a "fair cop". Wriggling just leads the Authorities to make it harder to enforce your rights even when the "cop" wasn't fair.