Well if they ban me from driving then I will have a problem, since the court is about 30 miles from my house and I'm planning to drive myself alone to the hearing.
Since I don't have a car anymore, (I think they've probably crushed it by now) I'm going to be driving my mum's car, and I'm named driver on her insurance... which is quite a nice covert setup because as far as they can see from the outside that car is perfectly legal and they would have to actually pull me over for some reason and identify me in order to determine that I had been banned.
This raises something of a moral dilemma, if they do ban me, should I tell my Mum about it?
If I do, then she's not going to let me drive her car until my ban is over for obvious reasons.
If I don't and I do get randomly pulled over in it then She's gonna be pissed off at me!
BTW, I've been thinking about how to handle the trial, and I think I'm going to go for what I'm calling to myself a "full disclosure" tactic; prior to the date of the trial I'm planning to file a bunch of papers at the court which include print outs of the telegraph "peers petition queen" article, and John's Affidavit. The intention being that if I make sure they have all the information and a complete argument then I can be more accurately sure of their stance and attitude when they pass judgement on me I will in effect simultaneously be able to judge them.
As far as I can see you are technically correct froggy, the problem is that the police either through ignorance or on purpose will fail to differentiate between a driver and a DRIVER, which technically is fraud on their part.
Hi. Albert Burgess says you go and place a complaint against a police officer at the station if they do not do their duty as they should - so if they commit fraud, you make a complaint which will go through the channels - you can also go to another police force and complain to them about the offending police force if they have not responded correctly to your claims with evidence. You can find stuff on Albert Burgess' web site
Well the officer who did the seizure (PC M Williams) was a proper gentleman, one of the few good guys left imho. I respect him and I won't act against him.
Chief Constable Polin of North Wales Police is a different matter, the paper work indicates that this has gone to court because he has accused me of the offences against legislation. I have not met this man so my only source of information on him is his reaction to the letters I sent him, and a Google Image search.
Now it was made clear at the time and confirmation appears on the statement by PC Williams, that I informed them that I am not an agent of government.
Now there are limited possibilities here.
1) The agent of government / performing a function of government argument by Dean Clifford is bogus.
- if so then we live in a parliamentary dictatorship.
2) That argument is correct and Polin is ignorant of the law and so has thrown me to the magistrates and had my car destroyed because he's just ignorantly following procedures he believes are correct.
- if so then we are not in a dictatorship and the problem is systemic ignorance of the law
3) Polin knows full well what he's done, but had no choice.
- once again this indicates we live under dictatorship
4) Polin knows full well what he's done, could of stopped this matter in it's tracks but chose not to.
- if this is the case, then Polin needs taking down.
As I mentioned before, at the first hearing they asked me if I was a "FREEMAN ON THE LAND" and told me that I wasn't seeing the magistrates as normal because "they are just ordinary people who sometimes get confused".
This indicates to me that they were afraid that if they just stuck me through the regular proceedure that I would win the case using FMOTL knowledge, and thus they decided to shore up their defences by doing things a little differently.
Now when they asked that I confirmed knowing about the FMOTL stuff but I also said that I wasn't claiming any sort of defence based on any of that stuff. I believe this tactic has put them at their ease, which is exactly where I want them to be, because now I'm going to see a regular magistrate and bring the full weight of everything I've learned over the last couple of years to bear on the argument, which is precisely what they clearly hoped to avoid in the first place.
They mentioned the word "criminal" during the initial hearing, and that has really got my back up.
In preparation I'm thinking about everything a lot, and I've just started reading "The Art of the Loophole" by "MR LOOPHOLE" Nick Freeman.
So far (page 114) it hasn't really given me any new or useful information, however last night after reading it last thing before going to sleep I had a very interesting dream.
As I was falling asleep I was feeling a tingling in the front of my head, a feeling I normally associate with having been doing some Zen Meditation practice, and I recall thinking that I'm about to have a lucid dream as a result of the picture of courts and battles that is being painted by Mr Freeman.
Anyway, I can't recall many of the details of the dream but it was to do with courts and I saw Dean Clifford's triangle and then found myself sitting next to the judge looking at the prosecution and defence from his perspective. He was talking to me but I can't remember what he said.
Then another part of the dream I recall elucidating an argument to do with duty and the law, and how ultimately because of my family birthright, it is infact my duty to act on the information I have received and failing to do so would make me a traitor. At this point I was then sent into another room with some television screens showing some sort of cartoons, somehow connected with David Icke, I went back to where I was before and said that I think David Icke is a nutcase, and I was about to explain that I think he has a lot of really good information but his conclusions (like the royals are lizards) are totally whack, but I woke up at that point.
I don't know what it all means, but I do recognise that my sub-concious mind is using a large fraction of it's computing power working on this problem and will continue to do so until the day of the trial.
Right at the start of all this I posted copies of the letters I sent to North Wales Police to South Wales Police, addressed to the Chief Constable of South Wales Police, Mr Peter Vaughan. He did not receive the letters however, they were intercepted and re-routed to North Wales Police by his subordinate Mr Patrick Joyce, he said in his opinion North Wales Police were the best people to deal with the matter.
I'm sure re-routing letters marked for a specific recipient is some sort of crime. I have the letters from Mr Joyce here to prove what he has done, and incidentally it also proves that North Wales Police received my letters which also contained a fee schedule.
What I didn't tell either North or South Wales Police, was that I also sent copies of everything I had sent to both of them, to Clarence House, and I have a very interesting response letter from them which is marked private and confidential. I think it will be OK to use that response letter as part of my evidence at the magistrates court, however I don't think it is right to publish it on-line.
Suffice to say I didn't get myself suicided, and it's my opinion based upon the information I have that a large number of the Lords and the Royals themselves are on our side.
That would also explain why the house of commons is pushing through the agenda to reform the house of lords and turn it into an elected position, the rhetoric being that it will be more democratic, the reality being that they can then position people in there who they can control.
Where I would go is to notify them you have deregistered the vehicle, so you own the vehicle and not the DVLA, by opting out and not having a registered vehicle, you are not bound by the contractual conditions imposed by signing the V5. These are that you don't have to tax the vehicle, you don't have to insure the vehicle, and you don't have to MOT the vehicle.
Inform them that by impounding your vehicle they are causing you harm or loss under Common Law, and they have no valid reason for crushing your property, if they do you will pursue them through the UK and European Courts and cause such a stink and expense to the Police force concerned, it will have wide ranging implications. The expense should be enough.
Smshogun When you try explaining this to the courts they just keep repeating that under the road traffic act section whatever you need to have third party insurance, a road licence fund disc and a valid driving licence plus MOT if the vehicle requires one. They are just robots who like the policy officers repeat this like a mantra. I know that for an act or statute to be given the force of law requires the consent of the governed, but again the courts and the policy officers are immune to this statement. Another way of approaching this is with the Universal Declaration of Human Rights section 13 (1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each State. You could argue that by being forced to pay for road tax and insurance you are being denied the right to freedom of movement and that the act of travelling is being made a privilege. What do you think?
There are no strangers on this planet, just friends we haven't met yet.
As far as I can tell, the situation is like this :
They don't care about the consent issue because they believe that you have a duty as a subject of Her Majesty to give your consent, and if you don't that makes you a "criminal", an enemy of HM who is opposed to what is right and true.
They hold their position as being right and true because of the system of Oaths which if you examine their structure are supposed to uphold the law and the rights of the citizens of any given commonwealth nation.
This is where the decision of the Barons comes into play.
By the words of the Magna Carta it is clear that they have inverted duty from obedience to disobedience to HM, in order that the structure will collapse and HM will fall from the position of power.
The wording is somewhat medieval and talks of rising up and seizing lands and castles, which is not really applicable in this day and age, but the message is clear; if the Sovereign has not upheld their oath then it is the duty of the people to stand under the authority of Lord Ashbourne and Co and distress the Sovereign and the Government until the matter has been resolved.
Since the Barons did this in order to block our integration with the EU, and our integration is still proceeding, it is clear that redress has not yet been achieved.
My contention is that it is more appropriate and in keeping with the spirit of the law to simply withhold consent to being governed, rather than 'seizing lands and castles' by force through battles.. aka Civil War.
Therefore I intend to show that not only has my consent been withheld, but also that I not only have no duty to offer it, but that it is actually my duty to withhold it, and thus legislation created by parliament has no jurisdiction over me and no lawful basis to compel my actions.
When they ask me at the start of the trial, do I believe in God, I'm hoping I have enough balls to manage to say;
Yes, and I am here today to do the LORD'S work.
Belief / Non belief in God is a tricky one for me since when I was younger I was very much an ardent atheist and even today I absolutely believe in the scientific process to determine the truth of how the physical universe works, however as I've grown up I have come to realise that certain situations require the application of faith.
This is one such situation.
I've investigated all these matters as far as I can, I see a picture and an argument, but I cannot know if I have not been misled by false information. I also cannot know, even if all the information I have is 100% accurate, that they will not simply break the law themselves rather than admit I'm right.
To me, this is the reason my family crest has the colour red in it, symbolic of martyrdom, since simply following my family tradition in times like these leads naturally to a high level of risk that my efforts will get me fined, jailed or even shot.
I must have faith.
I must believe in the system, my birthright and the law.
I must believe in the principle that is the family motto; PRO PATRIA INVICTUS.
Believe me, I'd really rather not get myself martyr'd, but if I can't carve a path through this muck, with all this information and the history of my family name to aid me, then I doubt anyone can and we have a choice, accept our new identity as subjects of the European Super state, vote UKIP and hope for the best, or engage in the second British Civil War.
It's kind of Ironic, the first ever rock / metal track I got into was G'N'R, Civil War :