How do I unregister my car?

[Bookworm]

Who says that I haven't got any evidence?? Who says that i'm not already practicing what I am preaching??

Fair enough. Go on, then, show me. Show me cases that you have won, show me proof. I'd love it. And I'm not being sarky.

Your the sort of person that will say that they are taking away your rights.

Nope, I am the sort of person who stand up for my rights, not quite the same thing. And I know how to spell "you're".

How can they take away what you don't know you've got??

"they", whoever "they" may be, can. If the H bomb lands on my head tomorrow, it will take away everything I had, have or would have had, everything loved, everything rejected, cherished, forgotten or yet to come. I would never know that I had all of it, in the past, present and future, yet would have it all taken away. Your argument (and I use the word loosely) is nothing but sophistry, best illustrated by: "Lettuces have curly heads, my aunt has a curly head, therefore my aunt is a lettuce".

Rights are rights, & wrongs are wrongs.

That's just another sophism. If you don't know the difference between a legal right and what's morally right, you're in trouble and the fact they're homonyms doesn't make them synonyms, merely polysemous.

I know my rights, do you?

Like you wouldn't believe, honey. And what's more, when I use them, I win. I have yet to see proof that the pompous rethoric you have been spouting does, in any form or shape. ;-)

[Conniff]

WE have a Dave Icke on another forum and I am going to 'plagerise' one of your sentences BW, it's great.

[nogard23]

What is the real truth Mr Know It ALL!!!!

Why do you assume that i'm a "Mr" ?

 

ps

I notice that you havn't denied that you are a reptilian shapeshifter. Very suspicious.

[bridmna]

Bookworm may be able to spell "you're" but I'm not sure what a "rethoric" is

[stressbot]

golly, what a lot of venom directed at an interesting question and topic.

 

so is this whole 'freeman on the land' complete rubbish then? that would be a bit of a shame, no?

 

also, i was under the impression that a statute was a legislative rule of society given the force of law by consent of the governed.

if a statute is a law, why then is it not called a law?

if an act is a law, again, why is it not called a law?

 

i dont wish to poke a sleeping bear or anything, just curious.

[stressbot]

so there is nobody out there with a reply for me?

if my understanding is correct then, staututes are not law.

acts are not law.

so if neither acts nor staute have a force of law over me, i do not stand under them...unless i give consent.

unless i give consent?

so if i do not stand under, or under-stand a stautute, it has no legal/lawful power over me?

unlesss i have allowed that to happen.

for many of the court processes to have legality, surely one has to acknowledge their legitimacy?

has this forum been so perverted that free speech is dishonoured while the debunkers roam free?

whatever happened to freethinking? or is this a truly barren subject?

[Conniff]

I can reply.

 

Stop gobbing off with quotations from Grimes Fairy Tales and rip up the reg documents and send them back to the DVLA.

Put your money where your mouth is and see what happens.

[kiptower]

i think the problem here is his reg no is NODDY 1 , straight out of the land of "make belive" like most of the quotes

 

"im not going to live by the laws of the land because i dont agree with them" and just who would listen to anyone saying that,

[Bookworm]

By the way, have I mentioned that I have decided to reject the laws of nature?

 

From now on, I am immortal, will no longer age (just in time!) etc.

 

Who's with me?

[rippedoffagain]

John Harris video.

 

Here

 

I found it very interesting and thought provoking, however the reference to "understand" as "stand under" caused me to examine his statement. I could not substantiate his claim.

 

understand Look up understand at Dictionary.com

O.E. understandan "comprehend, grasp the idea of," probably lit. "stand in the midst of," from under + standan "to stand" (see stand). If this is the meaning, the under is not the usual word meaning "beneath," but from O.E. under, from PIE *nter- "between, among" (cf. Skt. antar "among, between," L. inter "between, among," Gk. entera "intestines;" see inter-). But the exact notion is unclear. Perhaps the ult. sense is "be close to," cf. Gk. epistamai "I know how, I know," lit. "I stand upon." Similar formations are found in O.Fris. (understonda), M.Dan. (understande), while other Gmc. languages use compounds meaning "stand before" (cf. Ger. verstehen, represented in O.E. by forstanden ). For this concept, most I.E. languages use fig. extensions of compounds that lit. mean "put together," or "separate," or "take, grasp."

[eurospoofer]

Export it or scrap it. The whole idea of continuous registration is that a car can't be "lost" from the database as long as it exists in the UK.

 

this isn't my experience of registration.

you can declare a vehicle as no longer a road vehicle.

 

l used to race motorbikes. when I purchased a new bike to race, the dealer

had already registered it (It's how they maintain sales figures or something)

I called dvla to establish my position on SORN to be told I had to renew this every year!

I pointed out the bike would never be on the road & in effect was no longer a road vehicle but they were insistent. After speaking to a Pro race team i discovered I was allowed to de-register the bike with dvla, which i eventually managed to do.

[gwc1000]

After speaking to a Pro race team i discovered I was allowed to de-register the bike with dvla, which i eventually managed to do.

Can you explain fully the process?

[peace2k]

Hi everybody!

 

i've just joined. i came across this thread whilst searching for how to unregister a car. i've read most of this thread.

 

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

i'd like to discuss this issue in a sensible manner. this info is spreading like wildfire and not just in conspircay circles. just because it happens to be discussed on the icke forum, why use that to discredit something that has little to do with his theories?

 

people know the system is corrupt and deceptive and that's why you're getting refunds on bank charges, etc. why is it so hard to believe that the corruption goes right to the heart of the system?

 

this is about being a responsible human as opposed to an irresponsible person. driving like maniacs isnt responsible because persons have limited liability. if you accidently kill or injure someone on the road in your legally registered car, your insurance company, nhs and police will pick up the pieces. if you knock someone down while running round a corner you arent responsible for their healthcare. just like a ltd company, you have limited liability. we're seen as children of the state who need increasing levels of nannying. thanks to the corporate institution we've been persuaded to behave as lazy, selfish, greedy and irresponsible corporations. they keep making offers of service which we invariably accept, because we see no easy alternative. like corps we like to externalise everything. eg. we buy a lot of junk and then expect someone else to dispose of it. we expect food in the supermarket without any knowledge of how it got there. we have some problem or other and the police, council, nhs, etc will deal with it.

 

'the corporation' documentary explains that corps became persons using anti-slavery legislation. before this they couldnt own property or other corps because it was known how dangerous they could be. the doc analyses corps as persons and finds them to tick all the boxes of a psychopath. see 'the world according to monsanto' doc if you have any doubts. we're told gmo is safe but it has contaminated the world's food to the point where we no longer have any choice. how is that safe?

 

the world freeman society was started in canada. comedian robert menard gives an entertaining explanation in the docs 'bursting bubbles of government deception' and 'the magnificent deception'.

 

the centre of the world's legal profession is in temple bar, city of london.

 

the law society has it's own rules (statutes or acts) and it's own language (legalease). it looks and sounds like english but key words have their definitions changed. eg. register (transfer of title ownership), apply (beg), submit (waive all rights), must (may). we arent members and therefore cant write or challenge the rules.

 

persons are legal fictions (black's law dictionary) and therefore subject to statutes.

 

i currently have a person like i have a bank account. i wouldnt say that i'm a bank account, likewise i wouldnt say i'm a person.

 

the distinction between lawful and legal is thus.

you cant get a licence for unlawful activity (eg. rape, murder). you can get a licence for illegal activity (eg. driving, tv, gun, fishing, hemp, cannabis).

 

all courts, gov depts, councils, police services are corps. the ministry of justice has a county court judgement against it. the labour party was trading as alistair darling. the boe was trading as the old lady of threadneadle st.

 

re:admiralty law. look at the terms used: dock (in court), passPORT, airPORT and the many words that end in 'ship'.

 

it's all commerce. the police service is like the nhs except that the paramedics dont generally say 'oh you look sick, you're coming with us'. the police will say 'oh you've committed a thought crime, you're coming with us' and they make you stay at their hotel. unbeknownst to them, when you contract, by giving your details, you authorise payment for the service they provide. you dont complain because it's free at the point of use and they treat you like sh*t.

 

i've used this knowledge to a limited extent on the street and in court. i refuse to go in the dock or accuse myself by acting as my person. at first the court staff were a bit flustered, but now i go in with my full inalianable rights intact and bill the judge when he gives me an order. bills follow orders (commerce). if you go into a shop and make an order what do you get? a bill. when i asked 'is that another order' the district judge said 'yes, add it to the bill'. careful though as this must all be done with questions. answering a question or even phsyically moving (for the accused) is enough to contract with them. they will rush you but you can keep asking the same question until you get a proper answer. you can have anyone as 'mckenzie friend' who you can bounce their questions off to give you time to prepare yours. i recommend 'the anti-terrorist' on youtube. his 'standing in court' is brilliant.

 

police often seem to get it. they know their primary role is peace officer.

they are familiar with the language i use, as they use it everyday. they just dont know what it really means as they're generally not law society members. that's why this system is so ingenious because most of those who administer it and submit to it have no idea what's really going on.

 

it's not in the interests of law society members to clarify this as they are probably breaking some oath and their business is in making things as complicated as possible.

 

peace and goodwill to all.

Edited September 29, 2009 by peace2k

[Conniff]

Can I take it your one of those that chant at 'G' meetings and an anti globalist if not anti everything establishment person?

[peace2k]

i'm not a person and i dont chant at G meetings. those puppets have no power and chanting is pretty pointless. if it were up to me we'd ignore them completely and get on with the alternatives. anyway, what's that got to do with the debate on common law vs statutes? i'm not anti anything. i accept all that is. i also accept that things can be changed in the blink of an eye when people realise the extent of the lies.

 

how can we trust the greedy politicians to get us out of another mess they got us into? alistair darling said yesterday [summary] 'the economy was on the brink of collapse but we saved it'. nobody dared to ask 'why is the economy so flimsy that it can come to the brink of collapse because of some bad loans?'

 

is it inherantly weak because it's based on nothing of substance? it's elaborate monopoly money which is only worth what someone is silly enough to give you for it, which is increasingly less. why are private banks allowed to create money out of thin air, in terms of fractional reserve banking and the interest charged on loans? they aren't lending you anything, there is never enough money in the system to service the loans and the banks dont have your money.

 

loans are illegal contracts. the bank had no condsideration for the loan (ie. they lent you nothing and lost nothing in the deal) and they didnt sign the contract because that would be fraud. in america someone has cancelled a mortgage using such arguments.

 

telegraph online:compulsory microchips for dogs

all media: 14 yr old girl dies from faulty vaccine.

 

fluoride: poison in our water.

 

how long before it's compulsory vaccines, id cards and then microchips for us?

there are places in the world where all these things have happened already.

there's a pilot scheme in certain american states where homeless people are compulsory microchipped! nice

Edited September 29, 2009 by peace2k

[Conniff]

how can we trust the greedy politicians to get us out of another mess they got us into? alistair darling said yesterday [summary] 'the economy was on the brink of collapse but we saved it'. nobody dared to ask 'why is the economy so flimsy that it can come to the brink of collapse because of some bad loans?'.

 

It was on the brink of collapse because they made it like it to start with.

 

Now you have my admiration for being only the second person to notice that.

[peace2k]

i'm honoured, honestly!

 

there's actually quite a few people who know it was set up that way.

 

of course, it's not over yet. 'pumping' or 'injecting' in billions more (debt) has the effect of further inflation. i liken it to a car going off a cliff. some can see the ground and are thinking of ways to avoid the inevitable impact or lessen the damage. many are saying 'oh, this is a smooth road and my, arent we going fast'. many more are asleep in the back.

[gwc1000]

Hi, peace2k. You say that police,government,courts etc. are corporations, but i have studied this greatly and can find no evidence to support this. Dunn and Bradstreet is only a credit reference source, not a list of corporations. I have listened to John Harris many times chanting the same old stuff over and over again, but when you go and research what he says, I find that most of it is untrue. Harris tells you to go off and do the research but, it is obvious that he hasn't checked it out himself. I have been a prolific poster on Icke's site as well as tpuc, believing it all to begin with but as I say, I can find no evidence. I am of the opinion that the "person" and "human" argument is just fantasy.

[peace2k]

hi gwc1000,

thank you for engaging in sensible debate. i'm sure we all just want to get to the bottom of this.

 

nobody is 100% correct and there's a lot of guess work. dunn & bradstreet is a reputable credit ref agency and if it gives a credit rating for a company i'd say the company probably existed. obviously many of those records have been removed or changed now, but they have been captured. and it's not going to be easy to find hard proof.

 

when i first looked at common law, i thought "that's nice, but it'll never work". then it kept coming to my attention. i seriously recommend robert menard as he is good at conveying the concepts. i've now seen so much to confirm that there's definitely something to it.

 

the way these gov organisations operate is very corporate. i think it's called the internal market. eg. a council dept will have to pay the printing dept for printing leaflets. many depts are outsourced to serco, sita, etc. everything appears to be commercial activity and is structured that way. there used to be an apparent seperation between public and private but now the gov own rbs and lloyds tsb and we have ppp and lend-lease.

[gwc1000]

I haven't written it off completely yet. But some proof would be nice.

 

Interestingly, I assume that "pleasuredome" who started this thread is the same pleasuredome from David Icke's site who claimed on there that he had successfully de-registered his car and was running around with no tax, no insurance and no reg plates until the time the police confiscated his vehicle. It didn't seem to work for him, and he does seem to have gone quiet.

[Bookworm]

Shocking.

[peace2k]

like a lot of things, it's all about convention. conventionally everyone believes everyone is a person and that you need a passport, applications, submissions, licences, registrations, etc. it takes a few brave souls to test the water and change convention. there's been some success and some failure. if many people refused to cooperate in some way, things would soon change. eg. if everyone stopped paying tv licence, how long would it last? it's likely you'll end up in court sooner or later but that's when things should start to go your way if you know what you're doing. that means, at the least, NEVER answering a question.

 

lets face it most cops dont know the law very well. they tend to act now, think later. i've had one arrest ruled unlawful because they just dont expect you to push them to the point of arrest, especially for minor offences. they often fold at the slightest question. eg. "excuse me sir that's illegal", "ah, but is it unlawful?", "what do you mean sir?", "are you telling me that you dont know the difference?", "are you operating under the false assumption that i am a legal person?", "am i free to go?, "have i caused harm or loss to a human being?"

 

if you think about it, how can a soul-less corporation have more rights than a human being? but that's the situation we appear to be in. corps are more powerful than govs. when they are guilty of some horrific crimes, for which you or i would go to jail, they pay fines which are written-off as a business expense. do we crb check our employers? the govs deregulate big business and over regulate the individual and sme.

 

it's time to change! most of us rarely cause, or wish to cause harm or loss to other humans. therefore we could dispense with all the unnecessary statutes and let the peace officers get on with keeping the peace. as that's what many of them joined to do.

 

many good people leave the services (police, nhs, etc) when they realise they cant do what they joined to do. they're caught up in bureaucracy most of the time. most legislation is bureaucratic in nature because it's commercial contracts generating revenue. it's much more obvious in the states where police forces benefit directly from proceeds of crime. and private corps build prisons and then lobby for legislation to fill them, like three strikes (or joints) and you go to jail. see 'the war on drugs:the prison industrial complex'.

[Guest Chris Sovereign]

I guess this site is heavily censored.

 

Later

[gwc1000]

I guess this site is heavily censored.

 

Later

Apparently so.

However, I note in your post you wrote:

 

A person is not a human being.

 

could you provide a reference in law for that claim?

Edited June 23, 2010 by gwc1000
spelling

[peace2k]

you will find such a definition in blacks law dictionary.

 

corporations are legal persons.

 

does it not follow that persons are corporations?

 

you may have a bank account but you are not your bank account.

 

likewise, you have a person but you are not your person.

 

acts, statutes and byelaws only apply to the person, unless you consent.

 

consent has been given so readily that it is now assumed and confirmed by fulfilling requests including answering questions.