How do I unregister my car?

[gwc1000]

a QC barrister today confirmed that blacks is accurate. person has several definitions.

That's exactly what I have been saying. Remember? Not all persons are human beings.

one is a natural person or human being.

Exactly. All human beings are persons.

one is a corporate legal fiction.

And not all persons are human beings.

it depends on what definition is being used.

It depends whether the court is dealing with a corporation or a huiman being.

 

is an illegal immigrant a person?

Yes.

[peace2k]

i may have made a mistake.

blacks [law dictionary] certainly says natural person. i'm not sure if it says human being, those were my words.

 

there's also several other definitions.

 

acts, statutes and byelaws only apply to persons.

 

not all human beings are persons. i'm not for instance.

 

is the queen a person? does she have a birth certificate?

 

do you own your car and kids or are you the registered keeper or legal guardian?

Edited June 24, 2010 by peace2k
clarity

[Conniff]

i may have made a mistake.

blacks certainly says natural person. i'm not sure if it says human being, those were my words.

Yes they are your words and they are racist.

 

there's also several other definitions.

 

acts, statutes and byelaws only apply to persons.

No, they apply to people. Persons are people, Man, Woman, Child.

 

not all human beings are persons. i'm not for instance.

Definately your not human - your not even plankton

 

is the queen a person? does she have a birth certificate?

Yes the Queen is a person and has a birth certificate - can you prove otherwise?

 

do you own your car and kids or are you the registered keeper or legal guardian?

Yes I own my car. One person never owns another except a dictator like in North Korea.

 

Of course you won't respond to any of that because you can't.

[peace2k]

i'm not attacking anyone, although i feel slightly under attack.

 

i'm not sure how insults help anyone.

 

i'm just interesting in discussing the legal/lawful system in a sensible manner. i've had and heard of some pretty interesting and empowering experiences in the police and court systems.

 

i dont go in the dock for instance. there's no lawful obligation.

 

blacks is a reference to the blacks law dictionary and not any derogatory term.

 

i didnt say the queen didnt have a bc, you say she has, so the burden of proof is on you?

 

you are the registered keeper of your car and they can take it off you anytime. i suggest it's much the same with your kids. registration means transfer of title ownership. in germany and spain it's illegal to home educate.

Edited June 24, 2010 by peace2k
addition

[mightymouse_69]

 

 

i can provide a more detailed report on the high court case if anyone is interested.

 

Please do so.

[Conniff]

blacks is a reference to the blacks law dictionary and not any derogatory term.

 

Then make yourself clear - Blacks is also yankee crap and of no relevence in the United Kingdom.

 

I don't have to prove anything to some bubblehead.

[mightymouse_69]

 

I don't have to prove anything to some bubblehead.

 

Watch it! He'll set the Reptillians on you!!

[peace2k]

still the insults. and for what reason? what have i done to you? have i been rude or insulted you in some way?

 

if you read the thread or even the post properly you might have realised what i meant.

 

a uk barrister QC said blacks law was relevant and valid. most uk lawyers will have one. many countries, especially commonwealth are based on the uk legal system.

[mightymouse_69]

still the insults. and for what reason? what have i done to you? have i been rude or insulted you in some way?

 

if you read the thread or even the post properly you might have realised what i meant.

 

a uk barrister QC said blacks law was relevant and valid. most uk lawyers will have one. many countries, especially commonwealth are based on the uk legal system.

 

Blacks is an American range of books.

 

Blackstones - Now thats a range of books most people involved in the law will use. They can be very expensive too.

[peace2k]

so caggers think the banks are corrupt but not the legal system which protects the bankers? i dont get it.

 

what do you guys think about the documentary 'the corporation'?

[mightymouse_69]

so caggers think the banks are corrupt but not the legal system which protects the bankers? i dont get it.

 

what do you guys think about the documentary 'the corporation'?

 

Not sure.

 

Can you provide details on the High Court case like you said please.

[peace2k]

you'll have to wait. we should get a transcript or recording. i'll do a few reports which will go up on numerous sites.

[mightymouse_69]

You said you could supply the details.

 

If this is not possible - can you provide the party names - I.E "Smith v Jones"

[peace2k]

i will supply reports asap.

 

i think it was mayor of london vs brian haw and 19 other defendants regarding possession of parliament sq and an injunction.

[mightymouse_69]

There is no case before the High Court of that name today. It must be a different name.

 

I look forward to the report. How does it help your case?

[gwc1000]

i may have made a mistake.

blacks [law dictionary] certainly says natural person. i'm not sure if it says human being, those were my words.

A natural person is a human being. So a "person" in law is a human being.

 

However the law also recognises:

 

there's also several other definitions

.

As in the instance of corporations. They too are legal persons. But that doesn't remove the fact that all human beings are persons.

 

acts, statutes and byelaws only apply to persons.

Which means every human being.

not all human beings are persons.

Yes they are. I have already challenged you to provide a reference in law to back up this claim. I'm still waiting.

 

i'm not for instance.

Yes you are. You may wish the law was different but it isn't.

 

is the queen a person? does she have a birth certificate?

 

I have no idea if the queen has a birth certificate. Whether or not she does or does not, does not alter the fact that in law you are a person.

do you own your car and kids or are you the registered keeper or legal guardian?

This has been done to death on tpuc. Jargon Buster published correspondence from the DVLA where they admit they do not become the owner of registered vehicles. Look at DVLA's website it says normally the RK is the legal owner.

You are being brainwashed by the likes of John Harris. He has failed in his attempts at fotl. He has been made bankrupt by HMRC and there are rumours he is now being bankrolled by Ray St Clair an out and out con man.

FOTL is nothing more than a cult.

[gwc1000]

Here you go peace2K

The letter from DVLA. Click on the image to enlarge it.

 

Tpuc.org Forum • View topic - DVLA admittance of non ownership.

[peace2k]

GLA vs rebecca hall, brian haw, barbara tucker, etc.?

 

it shows that there's some odd business going on.

 

justice isnt even seen to be done. the court sat in chambers after one outburst towards the end of a 7 day trial. the previously well behaved public have been excluded.

 

some defendants have not been properly heard and excluded even though there has been no disrespect. whilst the judge has confirmed he has an oath, he has refused to say whether he is operating on it. preferring to leave the court when asked or put on his oath. he is dishonouring the queen and could be arrested.

 

it's a private 'de facto' commercial court held purely to generate revenue and get a job done whilst trying to give the impression that justice is served. pure theatre.

[gwc1000]

whilst the judge has confirmed he has an oath, he has refused to say whether he is operating on it. preferring to leave the court when asked or put on his oath.

You are especially aren't you?

How many more times? there is no requirement for a judge to provide evidence of his/her oath in court. You may not like that but that's how it is.

 

he is dishonouring the queen and could be arrested.

Well in that case arrest the judge and see how you get on.

[peace2k]

including this case, i've now seen a judge leave court on 7 separate occasions when asked for or put on their oath. it cant be because it's seen as disrespectful, because i've seen people violently removed for speaking out of turn and refusing to leave.

 

there may or may not be a requirement, but for the sake of expediency i cant see a problem with confirming their oaths.

 

we've tried to get a constable to attend so we'll see what happens when we do.

Edited June 25, 2010 by peace2k
addition

[gwc1000]

including this case, i've now seen a judge leave court on 7 separate occasions when asked for or put on their oath.

This is a claim that we see many times by fotl followers. They often describe a judge or magistrate "fleeing" the courtroom when asked a question which the fotl consider puts a member of the judiciary on the spot. But it isn't so. Why would a judge fear a defendant? If the judges are corrupt as the fotl suggest they would not "flee" the court, they would either tell the defendant to shut up as he's talking nonsense or put him in contempt. Judges have no fear of such questions. But they are not obliged to answer them either.

[Bookworm]

And of course therein the whole thing collapses: If there were a giant conspiracy, and they're all in it, etc... why should they fear being exposed by a few crackpot conspiracy theorists? Send in a few snipers, hack a few websites and the FOTL will soon be silenced, and nothing but a few distant memories will remain. It's been done with all kind of small ethnicities, animal species and political dissidents, it's not your average blogger who's going to terrify the system.

[peace2k]

If the judges are corrupt as the fotl suggest they would not "flee" the court, they would either tell the defendant to shut up as he's talking nonsense or put him in contempt. Judges have no fear of such questions. But they are not obliged to answer them either.

 

 

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.

[peace2k]

And of course therein the whole thing collapses: If there were a giant conspiracy, and they're all in it, etc... why should they fear being exposed by a few crackpot conspiracy theorists? Send in a few snipers, hack a few websites and the FOTL will soon be silenced, and nothing but a few distant memories will remain. It's been done with all kind of small ethnicities, animal species and political dissidents, it's not your average blogger who's going to terrify the system.

 

 

this isnt a few crackpots. it's the fastest growing movement i've ever seen. ordinary people with open minds instinctively know there's something fishy going on.

 

most previous campaigners have been fighting the legal system. this is questioning the validity of the legal system.

 

you cant deny that:

this is a common law jurisdiction, ask an policyman.

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

there's no lawful obligation to enter the dock.

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

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

[Bookworm]

this isnt a few crackpots. it's the fastest growing movement i've ever seen.

You haven't been round CAG long then. THAT, the bank charges revolt, was the fastest growing movement you've ever seen, and to date, it has some rather more spectacularly visible results than the FOTL delusional cultish behaviour. And, unlike the FOTL, we can show those results, and do.

 

At the risk of sounding conceited, when you end up on the Tonight programme with 8 million viewers to talk on how you defeated (at the time) 3 huge banking corporations, THEN you'll be able to talk down to me on "open minds".

 

A fast growing movement? Yeah, so were the conspiracy theorist movements on the 12th of September.