FIRST RED CAR SEIZED

[HVYMTL]

They'll never take me alive!

But seriously though, I believe they will have a significantly harder time jailing me than they did with Pleasuredome, but only because I have certain advantages over him. First off, and this is not meant to be any form of offence to the guy because I have huge amounts of respect for him, but I am quite a lot smarter than he is and I've also spent a lot more time researching the law than he did. I can therefore write notices which are much more clearer and to the point, and much harder for them to ignore.

I'm not quite sure how Pleasuredome managed to make things so bad for himself tbh, check out this guy for contrast;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g0OcPDzvL4k

The video above is hugely slanted and biased, but as far as I can see they tried to scare us all by making an example of Pleasuredome way above and beyond what normally happens.

Another point I just wanted to make here in criticism of the video is that having all the paperwork in order does NOT make driving safe. For example, one time a while back I was driving the hyundai in a terraced housing estate in Bolton, the car's paperwork was 100% correct (it had MOT, Tax and Insurance), when I turned a corner and happened to spot out of the corner of my eye a kid on a bike just as he disappeared behind a parked van on my right. I was turning left and about to go down an incline, and ordinarily would of been accelerating, but because I had spotted the kid I went slower. The next thing is the kid comes flying out in front of me from the other side of the van. If I had accelerated as normal I would of hit him at about 20mph, instead I was able to stop and give him a telling off with my horn.

Point is, no amount of paperwork would of raised the kid from the dead or alleviated my guilt had I collided with him. Driving is dangerous no matter what paperwork bullshit we wrap around it. If anything the cushy feeling you get from having your car all completely legit serves to make the driver relax and become more dangerous, because I know speaking from experience that if you drive around without the papers being in order, and in full knowledge that your taking the action upon your own full liability as an adult, it focusses your attention on the task at hand extremely strongly, the way that everyone should be focussed on their driving anyway.

Paperwork cannot make road use safe, there are only two things that can make our roads safer; better equipment and better training, everything else is bullshit designed to syphon money off the public by exploiting their belief that it is for their own good.

I protest the driving laws in this country not because I'm a tightwad and don't want to pay my dues, but because I firmly believe that the law regarding motoring as it stands right now is fundamentally broken, a scam on the public purse and is actually dangerous and costing lives because it provides a false sense of security when undertaking an inherently dangerous act.

[mfarmes]

Truly an amazing read.You are an inspiration to others who may have not had the confidence to go down this road.
I only wish this had happened 5 years ago when my work van was siezed from my drive for no tax.(two wheels were on the pavement). Van crushed and all contents gone.
What was the final outcome?

[HVYMTL]

It's coming up on the 5 month mark and I've had no response to the last response I sent. I think they are planning on burying their heads in the sand and sticking with the claim that I have disclaimed all rights to the car based on the copy of the document they sent me which I signed.

As far as I know they have up to 6 months to investigate any matter, so on the 12th of June this year, should they have failed, as they appear to be going to, to take any action such as issuing a Summons, then I will be a lot more confident in the information I have used to fight them this time, and next time I certainly won't be signing any disclaimer forms!

I'll post again next month when I know the score, all I can say is so far so good, it looks like the information presented on youtube by Dean Clifford is well worth studying.

[HVYMTL]

UPDATE
-----------

Just this morning I finally received a summons about 5 months and 1 week after the event.

On the summons it says that Mark Polin (the chief constable of north wales police) says I've committed the offence of driving without insurance.

The seizing officers statement is whole and accurate including my mention that I am not an agent of the government.

I'm currently planning to plead guilty by post and in the bit where it says mitigating circumstances re-iterate that I am not an employee/agent of the government and it is my understanding therefore that the seizure and possible destruction of my private property was in fact unlawful and Mr Polin may of committed fraud by falsely asserting that I have committed offences after he has been provably notified of that fact.

Another interesting thing about it is that on page two at the top it says that the offence can be tried by magistrates court only, which I guess means that the crown prosecution service won't touch the case because they know that the case would not stand up in crown court.

[chris_m]

I've just read this thread from start to finish and what can i say other than respect!
What you have shown here i think is a massive amount of courage. You've been very persistent and have to admit, might have given up before now if it was me. If more of us were like yourself i don't think we'd be in this mess.
Revolution, 'Lets av it'!

[HVYMTL]

Update
---------

So when I first got the summons, I was like "oh yeh, here we go...", but now looking at it there are a few facts which strike me as being somewhat odd about it.

First off they have got my name wrong, secondly they have got my driving license number wrong, and also it says on the second page that the offences can be tried by magistrates court only.

Hrm.

So if I just ignore them and they find me guilty they are going to convict someone who doesn't exist and add points to a license which doesn't exist.

I was thinking to plead guilty by post but then I looked at the forms and you know what I f***in hate filling in forms.. so I think I'm just going to go down there on the 14th of June talk to them direct and see what happens.

[HVYMTL]

Update
---------

Well I've been losing plenty of sleep lately thinking about all this and the upcoming court date.

I've found myself frequently daydreaming about what might be said, a hundred different ways, always feeling like a bug stuck to a bit of card, not wanting to be a coward and just give in but not believing at all that there is any chance of them saying anything other than guilty, regardless of whether it's right and true or not, whether their legislations require consent or not. etc. etc.

The fact that they have put on there that the case can only be dealt with by magistrates, does this mean I cannot appeal to crown if they just steam roll me?

The mistakes they have made on my paperwork.

It's all been going around and around in my head for ages.

So anyway just now I decided to have a look a the Road Traffic Act itself.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/introduction

I'm charged with : QUOTE :

"used a motor vehicle, namely a Hyundai Accent HVY MTL, on a road or other public place, namely A470, Maenan, when there was not in force in relation to that use such a policy of insurance or such a security in respect to third party risks as complied with the requirements of Part VI of the Road Traffic Act 1988. Contrary to section 143 of the Road Traffic Act 1988 and Schedule 2 to the Road Traffic Offenders Act 1988.

So I looked up section 143 of the RTA 1988

143 Users of motor vehicles to be insured or secured against third-party risks.

(1)Subject to the provisions of this Part of this Act—

(a)a person must not use a motor vehicle on a road [F1or other public place] unless there is in force in relation to
the use of the vehicle by that person such a policy of insurance or such a security in respect of third party risks as
complies with the requirements of this Part of this Act, and

(b)a person must not cause or permit any other person to use a motor vehicle on a road [F2or other public place]
unless there is in force in relation to the use of the vehicle by that other person such a policy of insurance or such a
security in respect of third party risks as complies with the requirements of this Part of this Act.

(2) If a person acts in contravention of subsection (1) above he is guilty of an offence.

(3) A person charged with using a motor vehicle in contravention of this section shall not be convicted if he proves—

(a)that the vehicle did not belong to him and was not in his possession under a contract of hiring or of loan,
(b)that he was using the vehicle in the course of his employment, and
(c)that he neither knew nor had reason to believe that there was not in force in relation to the vehicle such a policy
of insurance or security as is mentioned in subsection (1) above.

(4)This Part of this Act does not apply to invalid carriages.

So that appears to be that.... but wait... there is more. Let's have a look at section 144 :

144 Exceptions from requirement of third-party insurance or security.

---- snip ----

(2)Section 143 does not apply—

---- snip ----

(c)to a vehicle at a time when it is being driven on a journey to or from any place undertaken for salvage purposes pursuant to Part IX of the [F12Merchant Shipping Act 1995],

Since the officers own statement proves that I was merely taking the car to the scrapyard, it proves that I am not guilty of the offence which they are attempting to charge me with.

I wonder if they will let me have my car back?

[enegiss]

sounds good to me looks clear enough

[neilblockhead]

HVYMTL,
I greatly commend you for your actions, and send you encouragement.
Is there any more news?

[HVYMTL]

UPDATE
---------

So I went to Llandudno magistrates court the other day, waited about an hour an a half before going in to court 1, where I was told that I wasn't seeing the regular magistrates because "they are just ordinary people and sometimes get confused". They then asked me if I was a "FREEMAN ON THE LAND".

I told them that I had been aware of that for about 2 years now, that it had awoken something in me and I had felt a call to duty, however I wasn't claiming a defence based on any of that stuff.

They seemed a little disappointed!

Anyway it was adjourned for 6 weeks, the new hearing being on the 6th of August.

It was agreed at the time that I would have to prove that I was taking the car to the scrapyard.

I'm thinking it's time to find out how to file an affidavit with the court.

I Make Oath and say as follows;

(1) I was not on duty, wearing a uniform, acting as an agent of, or performing any function of, Government at the time of the seizure.

(2) The journey was undertaken to deliver the car to the scrapyard.


Nice and simple.

As far as I understand it they have to rebut the affi point for point, meaning that they will have to show that I was an agent / employee of the government, and was on duty at the time and that I was doing the journey for some other reason.

This is basically a two pronged defence, even if the first point is irrelevant (thus proving Dean Clifford incorrect at least as far as the UK is concerned), the second point is directly relevant as per section 144 (2) (c) of the Road Traffic Act.

I have heard that using an affidavit can land someone in very serious trouble, long jail time trouble, if it is shown that they have knowingly told a falsehood upon it, so be warned if your planning to use a similar method in your own cases.


Oh yeh, P.S... the magistrate that I would of seen was sat at the back glaring at me, now I don't want to offend Brian Gerrish at all because I have tons of respect for him, but the magistrate guy looked like a cross between Brian and Count Dracula... not a pretty picture!

P.P.S, methinks he got his legs towel-whipped a few times as a schoolboy...