How do I unregister my car?

[mightymouse_69]

So, what have we established?

 

We now know that FOTL is a group that cannot prove anything it says.

 

We know that some people that have tried FOTL tactics in court have failed, some ending up in the clink.

 

We know that FOTL confuses common law with natural law.

[peace2k]

it's the same with many professions. if they tried to use english it would take an age to get anything done. they have to use jargon.

 

the difference with the law society is that it directly affects our everyday lives and yet most know little of how it works.

[gwc1000]

likewise

That's great.

How do you think you're doing?

Do you feel that your lack of evidence may deter somebody who may chance across this thread from believing you, or do you feel they will have no choice but to accept everything you've said?

[gwc1000]

Here's an example of a failed fotl defence witnessed by a member of the randi forum:

FMOTL trial continued

 

The trial that went part heard a couple of weeks ago resumed this week. Even more supporters turned up this time (prompting several of my colleagues to enquire whether the common law forbids soap and water).

The defendant began this time by standing in the doorway and demanding to know whether his inalienable rights would be preserved if he entered the courtroom. The chair (thoroughly fed up after last time) told him he would get a fair trial and his human rights would be upheld. This didn't satisfy chummy who didn't want his human rights he wanted his inalienable rights (even if he couldn't pronounce them).

Magistrates tell him that if he doesn't come in and get on with it the case will proceed in his absence.

He decides to come in and gets a bit theatrical about where he's going to stand. The usher not standing for any nonsense tells him to stand where anyone else would.

The police officer is still waiting patiently to be cross examined.

The prosecutor says "I presume there are no questions for this officer?"

This provokes a long spiel where the defendant tells the court that if they prove the case in his absence they will be acting ultra vires and appeals to his claque as witnesses. He then says he wants to read the Fraud Act 2006 into the record.

The usher calls security and the chair tells him he is in contempt.

"Is that civil or criminal contempt?"

Defendant is handcuffed and physically removed from the courtroom. The claque shout "Shame on you" and "Court of injustice".

Most of them surge outside to argue. One remains declaring that "You can't be arrested for contempt!"

And "The court aren't flesh and blood.

The defendant is let back in and apologises.

He is asked again if he wants to engage with the court and says he doesn't fully understand and wants to ask a few questions. He starts spouting the courts written policy on being nice to people. Court tell him no more dialogue.

However he again starts asking if he can claim common law jurisdiction.

Then he demands to know if this is a private court and begins reading out a definition of jurisdiction. Basically he is told politely to shut up.

Then he starts demanding the magistrates oath of office and declaring that the magistrates have committed fraud under the Fraud Act and should be removed.

Security are called. The audience start screaming "Assault" and insults at the Bench. Police enter and remove most of them.

Those remaining start trying to get the police to arrest the magistrates for fraud. They refuse to do so. One tells them bluntly that in order to arrest someone they need reasonable suspicion that an offence has been committed. One harpy in particular gets really upset about the heavy emphasis he puts on the word "reasonable" and threatens to report him.

Since the defendant isn't there officer number one is released and number two is called.

During his evidence the defendant is let back in.

Asked if he wants to ask this officer any questions he says he does have a few questions. But first he needs to ask about all the other things he has already asked about. Told firmly "No".

Demands the magistrates' oath of office, demands to know "for and on the record" if they are refusing to answer questions.

[While this is going on the rest of the court gets on with the trial the officer is released and the prosecution case concludes]

The defendant is interrupted and asked if he wishes to give or call any evidence. He replies that if all persons present don't answer questions they are in commercial liability.

 

The prosecutor points out that the defendant is not entitled to try and impose conditions on the court.

 

The defendant asks if the magistrates have something to hide.

Chair "Do you wish to give evidence?"

Yes... But before I proceed I want to ask questions.. Does the Court recognise the Fraud Act 2006?

Legal Advisor : Yes

Are all parties standing under the Fraud Act 2006?

Chair "We are not here to be judged"

Defendant "The Judge has just acted ultra vires!"

Defendant is temporarily removed again (this time by the usher telling hin to get out)

When he's let back in the prosecutor invites the court to retire and consider their verdict.

The defendant calls into question the prosecutor's competence and is removed again.

The magistrates retire and consider their verdict.

 

The gallery decide that the magistrates will have to dismiss the case as they haven't got jurisdiction.

 

The magistrates return find him guilty and impose a largish fine and grant a huge application for costs.

 

The defendant claims that he hasn't been given any kind of opportunity to address the court and calls the chair corrupt. Objects to everything.

As I left he was borrowing a red pen to write a promissory note...

[peace2k]

we know we're going round in circles.

 

sure, i cant prove most of what i say. it's mainly philosophy. however there are certain undeniable facts and limited explanations for odd incidents.

 

as i keep saying, some havent failed. i and a few others havent ended up in jail when using this knowledge sensibly, politely, courteously even compassionately.

 

i know of one major victory which you find questionable due to the circumstances and someone even used the old 'i wasnt there' brush off. the cops use that one all the time. they dont usually let anyone get away with going equipped with an offensive weapon. there's a few minor victories and some interesting knowledge. this is only the beginning.

[gwc1000]

this is only the beginning.

They've been saying that for thirty years now.

You're going to have to convince millions of people, not just a few people that hide behind a keyboard all day long.

[peace2k]

That's great.

How do you think you're doing?

Do you feel that your lack of evidence may deter somebody who may chance across this thread from believing you, or do you feel they will have no choice but to accept everything you've said?

 

that's so simplistic. my lack of knowledge doesnt stop me questioning things, thinking new ideas and sharing them with others. if people like them then that's great, if people dont that's fine too.

 

we're all free to express our opinions.

[peace2k]

They've been saying that for thirty years now.

You're going to have to convince millions of people, not just a few people that hide behind a keyboard all day long.

 

i dont have to convince anyone of anything. we're all free to believe whatever we like.

[mightymouse_69]

There we have it,

 

Peace2K on FOTL:

 

i cant prove most of what i say. it's mainly philosophy.

 

Its not fact, its not law - It is a myth.

[gwc1000]

peace, why not join up on the randi forum and post on this thread:

 

The Freeman Movement and England - JREF Forum

 

I guarantee we'd love to hear from you.

[silverfox1961]

I have been watching this thread from a very long distance away and I have found myself drawn into the debate but firstly.....

If it looks like sh*t, smells like sh*t, it's fair to assume it is sh*t.

While I don't pretend to understand all that has gone before, my overriding opinion is that it's bo**ocks.

As to which side I believe, just check the amount of posts.

 

One other thought occurred to me. If a freeman doesn't believe in contracts and terms and conditions, how could they register with a forum such as this?

[mightymouse_69]

If a freeman doesn't believe in contracts and terms and conditions, how could they register with a forum such as this?

 

Ignorance is bliss old chap ;-)

[mightymouse_69]

Peace2k (who now appears to have left the building) said they would get a report on the High Court case.

 

They failed to do so.

 

Read the Judgement here should you wish to do so:

 

The Mayor of London v Hall & Ors [2010] EWHC 1613 (QB) (29 June 2010)

[gwc1000]

 

Read the Judgement here should you wish to do so:

 

The Mayor of London v Hall & Ors [2010] EWHC 1613 (QB) (29 June 2010)

 

Isn't it a relief for us that are foolish enough to pay tax that the cost of the proceedings will be covered by the defendants' birth certificate bonds?

Phew!

[fredddi]

this thread was just plain hilarious:lol::lol::lol:

 

like talking to a creationist question any points and they continually return to the same point and repeat the same carp

[peace2k]

that case on the randi forum sounds great. i'd love to meet those guys. obviously mistakes were made but they seem to know quite a lot.

 

a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. eg. if i try to fly when i only know how to start the engine i wont go far. even if i can take off it wont be much better.

 

that's why i'm starting with really simple stuff. when you learn to read you dont start with big books of big words.

[peace2k]

One other thought occurred to me. If a freeman doesn't believe in contracts and terms and conditions, how could they register with a forum such as this?

 

thanks for making me laugh. it's very good for you.

 

as to who registered. that would be my naughty person. what's he been up to now?

 

there's actually nobody typing here, it's an advanced birth certificate.

[peace2k]

this thread was just plain hilarious:lol::lol::lol:

 

like talking to a creationist question any points and they continually return to the same point and repeat the same carp

 

i quite agree, always asking the same carp questions and refusing to acknowledge anything that challenges their religion [law society] of which most are not even members.

[peace2k]

Isn't it a relief for us that are foolish enough to pay tax that the cost of the proceedings will be covered by the defendants' birth certificate bonds?

Phew!

 

very interesting. plenty of revenue for the law society and associated industries. a couple of people got out of the injunction because they're too nice.

 

i'm glad you realise it's foolish to pay tax. you're right that the costs will be covered by their bonds. it's the only thing that has any value in this bankrupt country. the value is our sweat equity. everyone is expected to do a certain amount of work over their lifetime. obviously some dont and some do more than most. it all averages out.

 

can anyone prove any link between tax revenue and public services? did you trust alistair darling? do you trust the new one, is it osbourne and vince cable (isnt he an ex-oil man)?

 

osbourne hangs out with billionaire crooks and once told us he was 'only the finance spokesman' when we quizzed him about the euro. he was shadow chancellor at the time.

 

do you think they'd ever not have enough money to bail out the banks, car firms, police, army, courts, prisons, etc.

 

governments can print money at zero interest, however they prefer to borrow it on our behalves, at interest that our children's children will still be paying off. the country is bankrupt again and this time they're flogging off the family silver [brown did the gold at a very low price, just before the bubble burst], asset stripping, car boot sale, euro & imf here we come begging.

Edited June 30, 2010 by peace2k

[mightymouse_69]

Im sorry Peace2k.... But you come to this forum and stated that:

 

 

i have some knowledge of common law and some practical experience.

 

When challenged over this it became clear that you had NO knowledge about common law whatsoever. In fact, it became clear that the FOTL cult has got it wrong and is instead talking about natural law - a completely different thing. You conceeded this when you said, at page 13:

 

maybe the phrase common law is a sticking point, maybe natural law would be more correct.

 

It also became clear that any practical experience you have had is insignificant, ranging from disrupting magistrates courts to escorting a 'friend' to a youth court.

 

You were able to provide NO evidence that you are exempt from statutory law.

 

You made various claims throughout this thread. At one point you claimed that the criminal courts are instead admiralty courts. In your initial posts you claimed evidence of this was the language used... the term "dock" and the number of words that end in "ship".

 

Apart from this, you stated that there was no other evidence of your claims.

 

You also stated that, as a Freeman, you may pick and choose which statutes you use. You did not answer, to a good enough degree, how you can justify utilising statutes whilst at the same time claiming exemption from them.

 

You were also asked how new laws would be made under the FOTL system. You choose not to answer this question.

 

You stated a few times that driving offences were civil matters. When asked which offences, you failed to list any.

 

There are many more things that you have claimed here. We can see that you have not been able to provide evidence of any claims. In fact, you admit:

 

i cant prove most of what i say. it's mainly philosophy

 

At page 18. I would go further and suggest that you cannot prove anything you say.

 

You have turned your back on reality and by regurgitating the rubbish spread about by the FOTL, you are at risk of getting other people into trouble.

 

As the High Court Judge said in Yesterdays case (the one that said we are all bound by the laws of England and Wales), you are:

 

"displaying "the kind of arrogance" which they believe puts them above the law."

[gwc1000]

 

i'm glad you realise it's foolish to pay tax.

Yep, we are being conned. We're being conned by the lazy deadbeats who have no intention of contributing but hold out their greedy paws to fleece everything they can from us whilst at the same time calling us slaves. We keep those people alive. Hopefully that will change. We're busy working on that one.

you're right that the costs will be covered by their bonds.

Would that be the bond that you have not provided one shred of evidence for? Oh, hang on you haven't provided one shred of evidence for anything you've posted have you?

it's the only thing that has any value in this bankrupt country. the value is our sweat equity.

That'll count you out then. I should imagine the holder of your bond is sitting in negative equity.

everyone is expected to do a certain amount of work over their lifetime. obviously some dont and some do more than most. it all averages out.

.

peace, who do you believe originally puts money in a bond?

[gwc1000]

Here you go, peace some information for you on the bond:

 

Redemption

 

Some more here:

 

http://home.hiwaay.net/~becraft/NewRedemption.html

[mightymouse_69]

Deleted..... for some reason something I posted ages ago reposted itself :S

Edited July 1, 2010 by mightymouse_69

[borisbeaver]

This thread is like a game from I'm Sorry, I haven't a clue. All we need is Samantha sucking on a large neopolitan;)

[peace2k]

i'm happy. i think some of you guys take yourselves and life too seriously.

 

do you believe that you are just a bag of bones and meat? do you believe that this life is the only one? are we just a cosmic accident? or is there something else going on that we cant really comprehend? and no i dont have any proof. we dont need proof of everything we believe, that would make life so boring.

coinciding with cosmic changes, i believe we're moving into a new phase where people follow their hearts and not their minds. following the mind has such a limited perspective and often ends in conflict.

 

i believe we're immortal souls having a human experience. we're connected to everything and everyone is a reflection of everyone else. we can learn most from those who challenge us, if only how to deal with the emotions it throws up. nobody else can be held responsible for the way we feel. the same event may produce totally different reactions in other people. something that makes me cry may make you laugh.

 

this isnt about right or wrong. i'm not saying you're wrong, goodness most people would agree with you. i'm just giving people the opportunity to look at things from a different perspective.

 

some keep harping on about how wrong i am on various points, determined to discredit anything i say. when there's agreement or an interesting point raised, it's quickly buried beneath more 'you're wrong, wrong, wrong'.

 

have i raised not one interesting point? has there been no agreement? why focus on what we disagree about? why not start from some points of agreement? why does it have to be an intellectual battle?

 

i confess i know relatively little about anything but i'm open to suggestion, some may say too open. all you're peddling is the status quo which, if you'll forgive me, is rather boring. what about some new ideas for change? we're currently destroying our home, the earth, so i cant see what we've got to lose. corporate power must be reigned in soon if we are to survive much longer.

 

There's not a single scientific, peer-reviewed paper published in the last 25 years that would contradict this scenario:

Every living system of earth is in decline, every life support system of earth is in decline, and these together constitute the biosphere, the biosphere that supports and nurtures all of life and not just our life, but perhaps 30,000,000 other species that share this planet with us.

The typical company of the 20th century: extractive, wasteful, abusive, linear in all of its processes, taking from the earth, making, wasting sending its products back to the biosphere, waste to a landfill…

 

what is proof? something written on an official website? no, that's just something written on a certain website which most people hold in high esteem?

 

you keep saying i could get people into trouble, yet it's people on your team who've suggested:

making a cop think i deal cannabis,

taking heroin up to a cop,

carrying a loaded gun up to a cop,

driving at 60mph down oxford st

 

you attempt to belittle the youth court incident. the fact is he walked away from a criminal charge. i've appeared in a youth court several times. they never let me off. i dont think they're in the habit of letting people off if they cause scene.

 

i'm hardly likely to be able to provide the sort of evidence you require. all i ask is that people keep an open mind and try not to trash people with different ideas, just because they have different ideas. everything isnt always so black & white. there are shades of grey and in fact many colours. what a boring world if everyone thought the same way. i'm happy that there's increasing numbers who think and feel a bit like me. live and let live. i accept that people hold different views and once we all accept our differences we can move forward to a bright future.

 

is that the same high court judge who's soft on child abuse? he could easily be involved in it himself.

 

do you non-'lazy deadbeats' ever stop to consider the damage we're doing to the planet through consumerism? why do you think that earning fiat money for something that may or may not be that useful and paying tax makes you some sort of martyr? i'd say it can make you unimmaginative. why not work for yourself and choose what tax you pay? so many jobs are completely pointless and destructive. tax and money are purely control mechanisms for the lower levels of the pyramid.

 

how do you keep people alive? do you work in a soup kitchen? do you feed the homeless? do you grow food for them? or do you just go to work for 40hrs a week and have tax stolen from you at the end of the month? that's not keeping anything alive except the psychopathic genocidal system.

 

you're being conned by the system that you support.

 

fortunately for me, unfortunately for you, i think the bonds are linked, so they're all worth the same. although i could be wrong, it has been known.

 

afaik the birth cert bond is used as collateral for loans from the central banks. ie. when the gov asks the BOE for dosh it hands over more bonds to guarantee they get some of their sweat.

 

it is the people who are the real wealth and power of any country and the sooner people realise that the better.