How do I unregister my car?

[gwc1000]

Judgement was delivered today, and they lost, the winner being the Mayor of London.

 

Ah, but that will be deemed a success by the fotl. More proof that the oath swearing fraternity are corrupt and the fotl are getting nearer the truth;)

[nogard23]

I went to a rally where we had all de registered our cars and thrown the plates in a skip. Had a really good time but when i tried to leave i couldn't work out which was my car so i had to come home on the bus.

[Conniff]

God, they are breading, here comes another one.

 

Removing your number plate is not de registering your car.

 

If you had to come home on a bus it was because you were afraid to take the car on the road without number plates knowing you would get done and fined for it.

[Bookworm]

God, they are breading, here comes another one.

 

Removing your number plate is not de registering your car.

 

If you had to come home on a bus it was because you were afraid to take the car on the road without number plates knowing you would get done and fined for it.

Lighten up dear, I'm pretty sure Nogard is taking the proverbial with his post. ;-)

[nogard23]

God, they are breading

 

Oh crumbs! so they are!

[Conniff]

Sorry neogard, I just read you post through the email as I was busy on something else so just clicked and responded.

[borisbeaver]

A case of engaging finger before brain :o

[peace2k]

i've yet to have to prove anything to anyone. we have never made it past the oath question.

 

i've been in court 15 times when people have used freeman techniques, more times than i can remember without fotl.

 

i've been in a crown court where the defendant knew a little of fotl techniques but wasnt prepared to use it. he didnt think it would help him, even though there was no victim. following a demo at the israel embassy, several young men have gone to prison for violent disorder. we were told by the judge that there didnt need to be a victim, just that their behaviour might cause a reasonable 'person' to be scared.

 

i will be contacting the judiciary, mainly to see what they have to say about a judge refusing to honour his oath and banning me (a named defendant) from a court room for asking to enter with my unalienable rights, when he'd allowed it 2 days running. also the exclusion of the public following an outburst from one human at a very late stage in the case. behaviour had been surprisingly good for a rag-tag bunch of activists.

 

shrout's info has the potential to make you quite rich or at least save you a lot of money. as is often the case with niche products they can be expensive as the people who produce them sell relatively few. they also know that they will be copied and spread on the web. menard certainly gives away plenty for free. to some people that sort of money is small-change.

 

i know ray st clair is a con man, however, i agree that it can take a conman to catch a conman. i'd trust any of them far more than i'd trust the psychopathic corporations we trust to run much of our lives.

 

regards the council tax case, this is the problem when there's no obligation to attend and the order was granted before the hearing.

 

even if it were all myth, which i dont accept, if enough people like it we can adopt it as a much more simple way of living. cops could concentrate on catching people who do real harm, maybe even some corporate crooks, instead of enforcing government policy where no victim exists. the police are a relatively new thing. in the begininning there would have been few if any statutes for them to enforce. they would have been gradually introduced as sensible rules. however, over time we've forgotten to keep a check on what they do. they've got so many rules, many of which arent currently enforced, we can barely f*rt without a fine. most people would say that we've got too much legislation. they've over-regulated the individual and deregulated business. business can afford fancy lawyers, has no soul to save and no body to incarcarate.

 

what's the incentive for the judiciary to tell me the truth?

if the legal system is a huge con, what would be the incentive for anyone to spill the beans? if fotl are correct, then the system is so ingenious that it's going to be very difficult to prove. what concrete evidence do you really expect me to find? some obscure paragraph where it says 'btw, all those crazy fotl people are right'?

 

mightymouse, i dont wish to make any enemies and i apologise if i've caused offence. like all professions, i'm sure there's plenty of well meaning people. however i'd suggest they're misguided. the evil genius of the system is that most of those involved in the day2day administration have no idea what's going on. i dont know much but i know something aint right. i knew it before fotl, i just didnt have a way to express it properly.

 

you say 'common law has long since seen parliament as supreme'. is that not effectively the same as 'common law giving parliament power'? was common law was supreme before deciding to make parliament supreme?

 

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

 

it's true that i'm not that interested in legal advice. i live my life by my own moral code and i'd suggest the world would be a better place if more peaceful people did the same. people get so caught up in legal arguments that they forget about the victim(s), if there are any, which there often isnt.

 

the high court case didnt support fotl, but it certainly threw up some interesting points. we are wiser for it. a report will follow.

the alleged judge has given 'til friday for appeals.

 

only i tried fotl in court. as i did so for the 2nd time, someone else made an outburst, which he had also done the day before, which had the effect of excluding the public. whether or not that was the intention i cant say for certain. it certainly seemed suspicious.

 

i wasnt searching threads, i had posted in this thread a few months ago, probably after i'd followed a link on an fotl site. i'm interested in people who are actually trying fotl instead of just talking about it.

 

love to all and thanks for being mainly courteous.

[gwc1000]

peace, the reason you haven't offered any proof is because you can't. End of. FOTL is a myth, it has no basis in law, and will not work in court. The legal profession is beginning to experience the odd fotl attempt in court, and they without exception fail. It's a source of amusement among some in the profession, fotl are looked upon as nutcases.

I have challenged you to provide one case where the court's decision was that a fotl is exempt from statute law. You haven't, because put simply you can't. If you had an example you would post it up. But the truth is this stuff never works in court.

But, to tell you the truth the reason I have got involved in this thread is not to attempt to change your mind. I recognise by reading your posts that you are sucked well into this cult and truly believe everything you post. You are a lost cause. I wish you well, you will wake up one day. No, the reason I have posted here is to bounce off your remarks and to show other readers who may be considering taking an interest in FOTL that the whole concept is idiotic and by and large supported by gullible individuals who cannot back up their claims and when something is staring them in the face they still refuse to see it. My experience is that the more posts a fotl makes he begins to debunk himself, and the reader recognises that. So if my responses have made just one person think twice about becoming involved in this cult, I'm happy. As I have said your chosen path is of no concern to me.

 

Regarding Shrout, you must ask yourself if everything he sells is true, why has the man admitted himself that he has never accessed his own bond?

I assume you have read Shrout's disclaimer on his website?

 

And again allow me this caveat and warning, that nothing we have portrayed or provided is anything but educational. I don't give legal advice, obviously, because I am not an attorney. Please do not construe anything I have presented as legal advice. If you need legal advice by all means go search for a competent attorney.

So, please accept our humble offering in the spirit in which it has been given. To some it might only provide some entertainment. To others there may be some viable solutions in their commercial affairs. In either case our best wishes are to you in your quest to find peace in you life.

 

So, Shrout admits he does not offer legal advice, it may only be "entertainment".

But as they say a fool and his money...etc etc.

 

I don't know if you're aware but Menard's site is protected by copyright:

 

Copyright : World Freeman Society

 

That's right, Menard the man who claims statutes are not law and says any man may withdraw consent to statutes, protects himself by statute. So, as an experiement a few weeks ago a friend of mine set up an internet website and used the WFS logo on his own site to test Menard. We let Menard know what was happening. My friend told Menard he had withdrawn consent to statute law regarding copyright. Menard's response was to utilise statute law to get the logo removed. Menard along with all freemen want statutes when it suits them. He's a hypocrite who earns his living selling rubbish paper packeges to his flock.

In fact he even started a thread on Icke's a couple of days ago the sole purpose of which was so people could shower him with praise:

 

http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=122789

 

Ask yourself, why would anybody do that?

 

The problem for fotl is that to the majority it isn't attractive. Most people don't want motorists driving cars at 120mph without insurance or VRMs. Obviously with the removal of statutes there can be no minimum age for driving. So we could have ten year olds driving. One way streets would have to disappear, roundabouts would have to go likewise traffic lights. You could drive on the wrong side of the road or even the pavement, as long as no harm or loss occurred.

What about the laws regarding the storage of food? The preparation of food in restaurants? All would disappear. As long as no harm was caused a chef could wipe his arse on a slice of ham before serving it up in his restaurant without fear.

The list is endless, so it will never take off. But there will always be a few people on the fringe of society who will wish for it. Until of course they grow up.

Edited June 30, 2010 by gwc1000
grammar

[peace2k]

it is the case that fotl can choose which statutes they use. all persons, corporations (like restaurants) and members of the law society are bound by statutes. as most people believe they're persons, they're also bound by statute.

 

we'll have to enter a transition phase and getting rid of all statutes immediately would be unwise and impractical. they need to be redrafted to prioritise the rights of human beings and massively reduce the power of state and corporations.

 

kids driving or driving at 120mph doesnt sound very sensible. if all the money spent on cars was spent on a high tech transport system we'd be ordering up pods on our phones. yearly, 3000+ people die on uk roads and 300,000 seriously injured. think how many lives that damages.

 

one might ask why it's legal to make or sell road cars that break the speed limits. laws dont really stop people who steal cars and drive dangerously. laws dont really stop people committing crime. it may punish them if/when it's reported and if/when they get caught, but that is after the fact. one might ask why some people have such callous disregard for their fellow man? could it be a reflection of the callous disregard shown by the state whilst pretending to protect us?

 

i believe that the over-regulation of the individual, supposedly to keep us safe, actually creates an irresponsible population who need rules to keep them from killing or hurting each other. what happened to common sense? most people will agree that health and safety often goes too far and restricts community activity.

 

two solicitors, one an advocate, who work for environmental activists seemed very interested in my views, agreed that it was all about belief, interpretation and the meanings of words being used. they could 'see where i was coming from'. they couldnt explain why a judge wouldnt honour his oath.

 

as i've said numerous times (see above for more detail), my friend walked from a criminal charge after entering with his unalienable rights, asking for the judges oath twice and then dismissing the case himself.

[danielr]

only i tried fotl in court. as i did so for the 2nd time, someone else made an outburst, which he had also done the day before, which had the effect of excluding the public. whether or not that was the intention i cant say for certain. it certainly seemed suspicious.

To put it simply, if the judge was corrupt as you are alluding to, then why wouldn't he have just carried on regardless??

 

Your argument seems to be that the legal system carries on as is because they all speak a suspiciously english though not quite english language, that we can't understand...

 

If we can't understand it then why would it matter at all if the public were there in their own blissful ignorance?

 

Do you not think that a much more likely explanation is that the judge stopped the public attending as they were being disruptive, and after all your "yeah well the law doesn't apply to me man because I don't want it to" crap had already disrupted proceedings enough?

 

When I asked Menard exactly which statutes he ignores he told me he doesn't pay tax, he drinks alcohol in the park, smokes weed and he had an old car in his front garden that he was thinking of using without registration.

Somehow I knew when I started reading this thread and all this free-man-o-the land crap came up I knew it's all be some stupid excuse to smoke weed.

 

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.

VIN plates are a manufacturing mark, they are used in the registration of a vehicle, and are an identifying mark that could be traced back to the registration, but if it were possible un-registering a vehicle and then using it on the road unregistered would still be illegal.

On a bike there would not be a VIN number, but there would be a frame number and an engine number.

 

Off road bikes can be registered on the road, (indeed I have one) -with lights and all so I can ride it day or night, if you have a completely off road bike with no lights then you are still able to rid on the road, just only in the daytime...

 

if we had to prove everything in life how far would we get? nobody really knows how electricity works...

I do

...how many people know how a mobile phone works?...

I do

... to most it may as well be telepathy...

it's not

and maybe it is.

definitly not

it's just the only way we can accept it is with a phone in our hand.

I accept it after getting a degree in electronic engineering during which time we investigated how this things work, did practical experiments to back up the theory.

 

Perhaps if you really do believe in all this stuff then you should do a practical experiment to back up that theory...

 

go to a busy street with loads of police around, wander around obviously smoking weed there...

 

we could run a sweep stake on how long your "god given" rights to possess a "god given" herb on a "god given" bit of land last then?

[gwc1000]

Keep posting, peace2K, the more posts you make the more silly you appear.

[peace2k]

food regulations dont stop people being poisoned. they're essentially guidelines which food outlets choose to follow. breaches, if detected, are usually punished by fines. how does that help the victim(s)?

 

some perfectly legal food products are dangerous.

[danielr]

i've yet to have to prove anything to anyone. we have never made it past the oath question.

Can you explain this Oath and why this defense is supposed to work?

 

the oaths page that you linked to did very little to clear in my mind why this would be the case, not least because it says that the oath is "I, _________ , do swear by Almighty God that I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second, her heirs and successors, according to law. "

 

And also says something about how they are meant to protect you, yet the only oath that says anything about protecting anybody is the police oath, and you say you're trying to use this on a judge...

 

can you explain how/why this is supposed to work?

 

i will be contacting the judiciary, mainly to see what they have to say about a judge refusing to honour his oath and banning me (a named defendant) from a court room for asking to enter with my unalienable rights, when he'd allowed it 2 days running.

can you let me know what your unalienable rights are? I searched for the phrase and could not find anything in UK law that used the phrase.

 

i wasnt searching threads, i had posted in this thread a few months ago, probably after i'd followed a link on an fotl site. i'm interested in people who are actually trying fotl instead of just talking about it.

 

correct me if I'm wrong, but are you basically saying that you'll tell everyone about all of this, but are a bit shaky over whether it works, so you're looking for proof?

 

 

I believe all the proof you need that it doesn't work was posted earlier in that the thread starter ended up in prison.

[gwc1000]

food regulations dont stop people being poisoned. they're essentially guidelines which food outlets choose to follow. breaches, if detected, are usually punished by fines. how does that help the victim(s)?

I know you will have difficulty understanding this but, it is the knowledge that one may be fined for not complying with food regulations that makes most people adhere to them.

peace, what you and your fellow fotl always fail to recognise is that you are a very small minority and most of us don't want your system. If you wish to live your way, fine go off and do it. But don't drag us into it. Remove yourselves from society, get some land and live how you want. No one's stopping you. Set up your own water and electricity supply, grow your own food and have nothing more to do with the rest of us. Please go and do it.

[peace2k]

danielr, the judge did carry on regardless, after he left the room on all three occassions he was called on his oath. he then closed it to the public, all of whom had behaved impeccably, except one. he banned him from any of his courts until he got an apology. there was never any suggestion that i was out of line.

 

justice must be seen to be done. although few know the legal meanings, they can see when things are really fishy.

 

i had the court for all of 10mins overall, no longer and indeed much shorter than most of the other 19 defendants. one even had a barrister who waffled for 5 hours.

 

so i can legally ride an unregistered (no plates) off-road bike on the roads in daylight?

 

why shouldnt people smoke weed? what harm does it do? it's a plant which has been used for thousands of years and has 25,000 products besides smoking it.

 

congrats for coming up with a statute offence which causes no hrm, loss or injury. ie. a truly victimless crime.

the weed smoking experiment is in the pipeline. one could merely take a small piece of weed up to constable.

i think i remember a guy called 'free love cannabis' took a hemp plant to a police station and was told that he'd had his protest and should leave.

 

industrial hemp which has many uses and no practical drug use (according to the home office) still needs a license. if i dont have one i face prosecution for drug production. how does that work?

[gwc1000]

the weed smoking experiment is in the pipeline. one could merely take a small piece of weed up to constable.

No, make it a very large amount.

When are you going to do this peace? Will you let us know the time and place? I may be able to organise a TV crew, are you interested?

[gwc1000]

Bud the Oracle tried that one, didn't he? He said the police would never arrest him:

Freeman Activist Arrested For Public Pot Sales | Cannabis Culture Magazine

 

Even the Cannabis Culture magazine says:

 

Though Cannabis Culture wishes Bud and the Freemen the best of luck, we do not advise others activists to emulate their actions. Though you are undoubtedly Free to do what you please, selling marijuana openly (especially while in the streets, waving a bell) will probably get you arrested.

[peace2k]

danielr,

i think judges swear all 3 oaths and magistrates 2.

 

asking for an oath is not a defense. it's ensuring that the judge has the right to preside, will be impartial and that it's not a defacto [private] court.

 

i believe that it's supposed to appear as a law court to most people but is in fact a private court. hired to make money and get a job done, whilst giving the impression that some sort of justice is being done.

 

it's interesting that few legal people know what unalienable rights are. judges seem to know. it means they cant put a lien on me, it means they cant do much to me, unless i abandon my unalienable rights, which could be as little as answering a question or complying with a request. you have to be really careful here. one false move and it all turns berty, it's happened to me. although they dropped it because they knew i wouldnt make the same mistake.

 

liens comes from shipping. if you owe me money and have a boat in the dock, i can ask the chief lien officer to put a lien on it, 'til you pay up. i'm not a ship hence i'm una-lienable.

 

i know some of it works. i'm interested in other people's experiences as we all have different methods.

 

people end up in prison when they make mistakes. also, courts and police will act unlawfully. hundreds of years of the legal system isnt going to be overturned without casualties and it may get worse before it gets better.

 

i'm tinkering at the edges with minor offences until i get more confident. after my high court appearances i'm much more confident. i'll raise the stakes as i get more victories under my belt. when i've done it say 10 times, i'll start being a lay adviser for others.

 

gwc1000,

people shouldnt need rules to keep food safe. does a mum need rules to keep her kids food safe?

 

of course people should be free to keep to the existing system. however many seem intent on forcing it on those that want something different.

 

unfortunately there's plenty of people who would try to stop us living on our own land. the council planning dept for starters.

 

like most, i've spent my entire life being dependant on the system. i am trying to get out but it aint easy.

Edited June 30, 2010 by peace2k

[peace2k]

there's a group who supply medical dope for chronic conditions. when they sometimes get raided they take sick people to court and get let off.

 

gwc1000,

thanks for the offer, i'll consider it. it wont be a large amount first time. any amount is criminal. first timers with small amounts get an official street warning, if you give your details. i wont be so i'll likely get arrested after some negotiation. it either wont make it to court or will fail fairly quickly. it would have to be mon,tue,weds,thurs morning otherwise i risk spending the weekend in the police hotel.

 

i see cop-shops as cheap hotels which, like the nhs, are free at the point of use. you pay with your signature. they treat you badly so you dont want to return and are unlikely to complain as you want to forget about it.

[gwc1000]

 

i believe that it's supposed to appear as a law court to most people but is in fact a private court. hired to make money and get a job done, whilst giving the impression that some sort of justice is being done.

 

Give us your evidence that a court is "private" N.B. a listing in D&B is not proof of a corporation.

Are you seriously suggesting that magistrates' courts run at a profit? Are you guessing or do you have evidence? If so, post up the figures.

 

it's interesting that few legal people know what unalienable rights are. judges seem to know. it means they cant put a lien on me, it means they cant do much to me, unless i abandon my unalienable rights, which could be as little as answering a question or complying with a request. you have to be really careful here. one false move and it all turns berty, it's happened to me. although they dropped it because they knew i wouldnt make the same mistake.

Yeah, typical fotl woo. You have to say the magic words in the right order otherwise all is lost. Next time try clicking the heels of the ruby slippers when you spout your woo.

 

liens comes from shipping. if you owe me money and have a boat in the dock, i can ask the chief lien officer to put a lien on it, 'til you pay up. i'm not a ship hence i'm una-lienable.

 

Criminal Courts are not Admiralty Courts, or if they are somebody really should inform the legal profession.

 

i know some of it works. i'm interested in other people's experiences as we all have different methods.

 

I know none of it works;)

 

people end up in prison when they make mistakes. also, courts and police will act unlawfully. hundreds of years of the legal system isnt going to be overturned without casualties and it may get worse before it gets better.

 

Yup, people end up in prison performing this woo, and still more are queueing up to do it. It's hilarious.

 

i'm tinkering at the edges with minor offences until i get more confident. after my high court appearances i'm much more confident. i'll raise the stakes as i get more victories under my belt. when i've done it say 10 times, i'll start being a lay adviser for others.

 

Lay adviser? You know you cannot represent others in court don't you? Mind you, I would suggest you're failing at representing yourself on this forum. So far you have posted no proof.

 

gwc1000,

people shouldnt need rules to keep food safe

No they shouldn't, but it's a sad fact of life, some people don't give a ****. People shouldn't murder, but they do.

 

does a mum need rules to keep her kids food safe?

 

Some do. Some mothers don't even bother to feed their children. Some mothers beat their children to death.

 

of course people should be free to keep to the existing system. however many seem intent on forcing it on those that want something different.

In that case leave this system. But you don't want to do you? You want to continue reaping the benefits but contribute nothing.

 

unfortunately there's plenty of people who would try to stop us living on our own land. the council planning dept for starters.

 

So now you are saying you are not exempt from statutes. Make your mind up, will you?

 

like most, i've spent my entire life being dependant on the system.

That I do believe.

i am trying to get out ut it aint easy.

Yes it is. Go and live in the woods.

[mightymouse_69]

I would love to join in, but I am trying to stop my fiesta rusting away at present.

[peace2k]

gwc,

as i said, i believe that the court is private but acting in a public venue.

 

a small magistrates trial costs £10k. that money comes from somewhere and goes somewhere. somebody's making a profit.

 

if you get a small fine where does the rest of the money come from?

i believe it comes from your bond or is at least authorised by you contracting with the court.

 

criminal courts are admiralty and people do tell the legal people but they refuse to listen. it's not in their interests. why would they want to do themselves out of easy work? they're generally conformists and wouldnt dare to question the jurisdiction of the judge or court. can you imagine the ramifications? they'd likely be disbarred for starters and lose their career and some of their friends. their families wouldnt be too happy either. so many professionals are essentially forced to do things they dont want to because of their other commitments.

 

interesting that only members of a closed-shop trade union [law society] can represent in court. i represent my person, not myself.

 

i'm likely less reliant on the system than you. yes, even those with jobs are reliant on the system. how would you get food without the international food network? few countries are self sufficient. although most have the potential, it doesnt suit the corporations.

 

some people are irresponsible, it's always been so, although i think it's getting worse with all these rules. a proper loving education would likely sort most of it out. not the current programming system that pretends to be education. why should we all suffer because of a few bad apples? why should the few always spoil it for the many. because some people are idiots i have to adhere to all sorts of silly rules. i'm not prepared to take it any more.

 

planning is more statutes which dont apply to me, however do think that's going to stop them trying?

[peace2k]

dont legal people have to say the right words in the right order? isnt this why people prefer to be represented? i've seen people fluster and stumble when if they'd taken their time they could have got their point across. i've seen evidence disallowed because it wasnt presented correctly. isnt this heel-clicking?

 

courts will try to rush you. you have a perfect right to know what's happening and take your time to respond. take a minute to think about you next question if you have to.

[borisbeaver]

I know this sounds silly, but getting back on topic, there is an easy way to un-register a car. Scrap it then buy all of the bits back.