speeding notice

[darkman]

i have just received a notice of speeding in a certain zone , now its says on the form its by photographic evidence , so should i ask for the evidence to be presented before comiting my authoritive signature that it was my vehicle involved , and then proceed after that , ( im presuming its just to make me go to a course and sit for 3 hrs to a bore talk ) but i like to see what i can do with it , any answers would be appriciated

[number_6]

( im presuming its just to make me go to a course and sit for 3 hrs to a bore talk )

That would depend on by how much you exceeded the limit.

[darkman]

from the info sheet i got with said notice , it excceded the speed limit with in 5mph if to say it was me and me driving the vehicle , and would be put to a deciding notice that i may go on the course

[the worm that turned]

from the info sheet i got with said notice , it excceded the speed limit with in 5mph if to say it was me and me driving the vehicle , and would be put to a deciding notice that i may go on the course

5 mph! How can they be sure their cameras are accurate and/or your speedometer is that accurate? 5 mph!!!! That's how fast we walk. Wooh. Really dangerous when you see police cars flying through town at about 60 mph in a 30 on their way to McDs :mad:

[darkman]

e: FIXED PENALTY NOTICE ______ - Issued --/--/--

Notice of Discharge of Outstanding Penalty Notice and Request for Clarification.

ticket reference NUMBER: _________


You have apparently made allegations of criminal conduct against me.
You have apparently made demands upon me.
I do not understand those apparent demands and therefore cannot lawfully fulfill them.

I seek clarification of your document so that I may act according to the law and maintain my entire body of God given Natural Rights.
Failure to accept this offer to clarify and to do so completely and in good faith within 7 days will be deemed by all parties to mean you and your principal or other parties abandon all demands upon me.

I conditionally accept your offer to agree that I am stephen McGuinness and that I owe £75.00 upon proof of claim of all of the following:

1. Upon proof of claim that I am a person and not a human being.
2. Upon proof of claim that you can provide the evidence that proves i was driving the vehicle in said offence
3. Upon proof of claim that you know what the difference between a ‘human being’ and a ‘person’ actually is, legally speaking.
4. Upon proof of claim that you will provide me with bill of recipt on payment of my owing

[tien an]

darkman, please correct me if I've misunderstood...but are you saying that you are being charged with driving 5mph over the speed limit?

1. Have you tried demanding the last (few) calibration reports?
2. Have you looked into what actually constitutes 'speeding'? (Where is the limit of tolerance above the speed limit?). If the threshold is 5mph (above the limit), find out if it is including 5mph ("5mph and above", for example).

I realise you are approaching this from one particular angle and I wish you well with that, but just for the sake of it, I'd arm myself with information in case you actually have to present your person in court.

tian an.

[girlgye]

Why are you choosing to make an argument out of a monster and slave?
Why are you choosing the person argument Darkman?

Suggest if you are really serious about doing this that you go through the threads. Mine, Pleasuredome, Darryl84 amongst others.

This is a speeding ticket what has it got to do with the person?

Oh I got 6 points and now it is up to a £13,151 fine for going 6 miles over the limit. It is how I got into thinkfreeforums.org. Alas a site now gone but there is plenty of data on WFS as well as here.

Perhaps you should consider the calibration argument. As you have a lot of study to do.

No.4 is the only thing worth keeping.
You might ask yourself what it is in your post. It is a DEMAND FOR MONEY WITH MENACES. Lets not say it's an invitation as some people are rather sensitive on this board.

So if someone DEMANDS MONEY WITH MENACES what do you do.

Ask them to prove their authority and that must be signed and you will be expecting their signature. Who are you though to expect their signature when you do not have free status. Never mind DECLARE YOUR FREE SOVEREIGN STATUS go and look at the NOUI's on a recent thread put up especially for that.

Then when you go into court as they DEMAND otherwise your fine will increase to £1000 you are going in on your terms which they will dishonour but you have to get them into dishonour before you do that.

Also do you know what you are going to do with the letter that they send you in response to your notice.

Get your tracks covered before you just jump in the sandbox and get swallowed up.

[darkman]

thanks for great replys and advice all, i was mearly just putting up a letter to ask for the evidence that a, it was me driving the said vehicle in the offence B, asking for a recipt of bill upon my payment of the fine ,i have been searching all the freeman stuff before i posted and my good man bones gave me some info, so thanks again girlgye and ti,an , if its not worth the hassle over the 5mph speeding offence in a 30 zone than i wont bother asking for the evidence and just go on there stupid course thing x and pay the fine , no points on license,

[number_6]

i was mearly just putting up a letter to ask for the evidence that a, it was me driving the said vehicle in the offence,

But the NIP asks you to identify the driver.

Failure to identify carries six points and a much larger fine.

[edward123]

i have just received a notice of speeding in a certain zone , now its says on the form its by photographic evidence , so should i ask for the evidence to be presented before comiting my authoritive signature that it was my vehicle involved , and then proceed after that , ( im presuming its just to make me go to a course and sit for 3 hrs to a bore talk ) but i like to see what i can do with it , any answers would be appriciated

Do you think you were speeding? From a personal point of view i feel that speed limits really do help keep the roads safer. I'm not sure of the fmotl ideas on speed limits however. If i were you i would definitely want proof that i was actually speeding though. We must all remember that we have a choice whether or not to exceed a speed limit that has been put in place for the safety of other road users.

[entheogen]

But the NIP asks you to identify the driver.

Failure to identify carries six points and a much larger fine.

The burden of proof lies with he who affirms

Have you learned nothing in all your time here ?

[edward123]

Wouldn't a photograph from the speed camera be proof?
Also entheogen, what is your general attitude towards speed limits?

[entheogen]

Wouldn't a photograph from the speed camera be proof?
Also entheogen, what is your general attitude towards speed limits?

Proof of what ?

If I provided you with a photo of me outside a courtroom with my hands in the air and a big cheesy grin - would you accept that as proof the freeman concepts work ?

Im guessing your answer to that will be no

So why accept a photo from the 'authorities' of a car - on a road ?

In answer to your question - I ignore them

Its much safer to keep your eyes on the road as appose to watching for signs and speed cameras

[edward123]

Its proof that your car was speeding. The driver has a choice not to speed. Fmotl should learn that.
Do you have a licence and insurance? Do you think that you should be able to drive as fast as you want?
I myself have an mot, car tax and insurance and a valid driving licence and keep within the speed limits, therefore i do not create a load of hassle for myself.

[edward123]

I just though i would add this about driving licenses. I beleive that the fmotl that do not posses a valid licence haven't got one for one of or some of the following reasons:
They are not good enough at driving to pass a test and therefore shouldn't be on the roads.
They cannot be bothered to pay for lessons like we with licenses have done.
Some have taken a test and failed and have become resentful to a system that at least assures that a driver had adequate knowledge of the highway code and was deemed to be a safe enough driver at the date of passing.
Many people have no licence because they are blindly following the advice put out by fmotl thinking that there will be no negative comebacks, when it fact there will be.The sad truth is that many of the fmotl that claim not to have a valid license or insurance or car tax etc, probably have.

[entheogen]

Its proof that your car was speeding. The driver has a choice not to speed. Fmotl should learn that.
Do you have a licence and insurance? Do you think that you should be able to drive as fast as you want?
I myself have an mot, car tax and insurance and a valid driving licence and keep within the speed limits, therefore i do not create a load of hassle for myself.

How does a photo of a car prove that car was speeding ?

You are relying on the heresay of somebody else as your proof - I didnt think you did that edward !

You must be one of those who believes the police/courts/MP's and governments are honest and trustworthy then - which makes me wonder how you managed to stumble onto the David Icke site

You say that FMOTL should learn that drivers have a choice not to speed :confused:

Thanks for that - I honestly thought they had all been forced into it :rolleyes:

I myself dont own a licence - I have borrowed one though just to make sure I dont break any rules :rolleyes:

The reality is edward - people can and will drive as fast as they like and no amount of signs and speed cameras will ever change that

Perhaps you should learn that its not speeding that causes accidents - its sudden changes in speed - you know like the ones when people slam on to prevent being caught by a camera

Speed cameras have not saved any lives my friend - dont fall for that one - all they have done is raise revenue for the government to pay off its debt

Do you believe you have committed a crime if you get caught speeding ?

[edward123]

If you think i trust the courts etc, then you are severely mistaken. My concern is the encouragement on here for people to behave recklessly with their freedom by being encouraged to put peoples lives at risk by ignoring speed limits, driving without a valid licence, insurance and mot. Your are far less likely to cause serious injury to someone if you observe the 30mph limit. Only a fool would say otherwise.

I just though i would add this about driving licenses. I beleive that the fmotl that do not posses a valid licence haven't got one for one of or some of the following reasons:
They are not good enough at driving to pass a test and therefore shouldn't be on the roads.
They cannot be bothered to pay for lessons like we with licenses have done.
Some have taken a test and failed and have become resentful to a system that at least assures that a driver had adequate knowledge of the highway code and was deemed to be a safe enough driver at the date of passing.
Many people have no licence because they are blindly following the advice put out by fmotl thinking that there will be no negative comebacks, when it fact there will be.The sad truth is that many of the fmotl that claim not to have a valid license or insurance or car tax etc, probably have.

[entheogen]

I just though i would add this about driving licenses. I beleive that the fmotl that do not posses a valid licence haven't got one for one of or some of the following reasons:
They are not good enough at driving to pass a test and therefore shouldn't be on the roads.
They cannot be bothered to pay for lessons like we with licenses have done.
Some have taken a test and failed and have become resentful to a system that at least assures that a driver had adequate knowledge of the highway code and was deemed to be a safe enough driver at the date of passing.
Many people have no licence because they are blindly following the advice put out by fmotl thinking that there will be no negative comebacks, when it fact there will be.The sad truth is that many of the fmotl that claim not to have a valid license or insurance or car tax etc, probably have.

Sorry - and you wonder why you get negative responses to your 'questions'

What you have written is the biggest load of tosh ive read in a long time

What has passing a test got to do with owning a license ?

You can 'own' a license without passing a test :o

..and I quote : "They cannot be bothered to pay for lessons" - :eek: - do you realise what a ridiculous statement that is :confused:

They have the money - they just "cant be bothered" - to reach into their wallets to pay the instructor :D

My advice - research fluoride instead - I think you have consumed waaaaay to much of it dude - its twisted your mellon !

You claim to be here to learn and ask questions to seek the 'proof' which you demand - and then you make statements like THAT

Its clear to see why you are here edward - its pointless keep pretending that you are just here to learn and gain answers to your questions

Drop the Act sunshine - you exposed yourself a long time ago and now you are stood here with your trousers round your ankles expecting me to humour you ?

Everybody can see - you need to go cover yourself up

-x-

[edward123]

Mate your paranoid, but that does not surprise me. I'm here for no other reason but to find this elusive proof. I stand by what i say. For your info mate i haven't used fluoride for over 2 years. The driving instructor is making a living by teaching others how to drive safely on the roads and how to observe the highway code, thus limiting your chances of causing harm to others. Like i said and you appear to have agreed, fmotl just don't want to pay for lessons.

[edward123]

Next it will be people on here telling others to fly planes without being qualified as they want to fly but can't be bothered to pay the instructor to share his knowledge and teach them.

[blue2]

Firstly is it in England or Scotland? because laws vary. I got my son off from an alleged Speeding offence in Scotland and believe me it was illegal the way it was conducted and i spoke with two Solicitors in Road Traffic Law who specialised in speeding. I followed the second one and a bit of the first one. There was third one who recommended cooperating with cops.

Firstly they have to issue the NIP within 14 days- my son's was issued 3 months after and to my address and not my son's! illegal and i was harrassed three times at my home. We went to local cop shop-never trust Police- in signing the form it does not as people think mean you were admitting being the Driver at that time it is not an admittance - i too was concerned with this and as my son relies on driving with his work and had clean license it was so important to get it correct. Ignoring the NIP is bad news-but more importantly we learned that as my son had not received his in a timely manner we had to find out where it had been sent to cos it is up to the Police to Prove they sent the (Original) NIP.

So i drafted a letter after learning nearly as much as lawyers know! in the vein of asking when and where original NIP was sent to and asking about named Officers ( when one has not been stopped at the time of alleged offence) also Calibrations used and what type of equipment used. Also requested was two sets of Photos cos there are always two sets, they often do not give a clear image of said driver-you could only see my son's hands-despite it was clearly his vehicle to us both we said nothing. They get annoyed a bit when they realise the game is up and you know what questions to ask,so in effect you know the law! It grates on them. Something to be said for 'private glass' or sunscreening glass.

So we learned my son's original NIP was foolishly sent to the Leasing Company he is buying his van from,not leasing but it is about 350 miles away and Police cannot send an NIP to a Leasing company-case would be lost in Scotland with Procurator Fiscal who is our equivalent to Crown Prosecution Service.

He had cooperated with police and sent in his signed- er- second NIP-worded in an intimidating way as if to say you ignored first one, some four months into the event-time running out-six months and case is thrown out-it takes 2-4 weeks to take it all to Court i learned from a generous Solicitor who had just done a case and he said that they do manipulate with fear in words on documents sent out and that as we had cooperated and time not on their side we could choose to ignore the Fine and 3 Penalty points suggestion, and or wait to see if it goes to Court cos the most it costed would be £40 Court costs on top of the £60 fine. Once you write a letter with questions as set out above it is noted as making effort and responsible attitude.

It all has to be done in a timely manner and knowing what to do first. It was worth the wait for us and now my son has no fine and no points on his license-still. Always keep an eye on your speed and do under the set amount-that is what Police recommend. You can buy equipment that legally assists with this and sometimes we have seen Police parked above on bridges or in out of sight areas hidden but that is so illegal-they seem very hell bent with this now- it is very important to them.

My son never heard anymore of it !! hurray. I immediately smelt a rat when two Officers called at my home absolutely fervently trying to locate my son in an immense hurry and one was most intimidating to me and calling at dark hours.I gave my son's mobile number so he could phone and speak to him,then he got called away and had cheek to call back at night. It was due to their knowledge of time running out-their hidden agenda. They run on thinking and hoping we are ignorant of facts of law.

( Oh and he was asked to go to Cop shop - i went with him- glad i did as there were once again two if them to intimidate-always have a witness-always in this at this stage/situation -add NO COMMENT.) He had to give name and address as owner of van, it is not an admittance of who was driving at the time-fortunately for my son the Leasing company keep the Log book until last payment paid!! I guess this was an unusual case and likely not one come across before.

My son was working and it's illegal to bother a person whilst working or expecting to speak on mobile whilst driving and this was early in the week and so my son would not be rushed and said he drove lots of miles and is tired when he gets in at night and needs his sleep plus meals and so agreed to see police on the Saturday-so that was another of their working week gone and more time on my son's side.

Do not admit to anything prior to court.

Do get to see copies of both sets of photos-often they send one lot and say we will not give anymore information until Court.

Of course these specialist road lawyers cost £2,000 for you to use them in Court to fight a case-only use if you have already accrued points on your license. If you had a decent Insurance you may be able to get it paid but rarely is this the case. Just search engine Roadside lawyers UK.

Police get more money out of this and also Government-and as they are supposedly bankrupt we need to be more self protective of giving in so easily.

About 3-4 yrs ago i got my son off from a Private Car Parking Fine that was also illegal and set up hiddenly via Council using private but i learned from the roadside lawyer it was illegal and he at that time drafted letters fro me to use via email-although it is now set up differently.

I also more recently last year got some Bank charges and Credit card debts wiped out! using Consumer Action Group.

I also got rid of a dodgy divan bed delivered to me in a damaged state by DHL from a shop in town whose Head Office was elsewhere-so they wouldn't give me a full refund ah most folks would just give up but not this one.

Consumer Action sent a letter drafted over the phone by them that i wrote- then as i had a less than professional letter sent by the Manager locally in response to it and refusing, i then re contacted Consumer Action who put me onto Trading Standards and again told me what to write and hey no more games this time Head Office gave me full refund and i had threatened with small claims court if they did not do it and it would cost them a lot more than giving me my refund back because they would have to hire a Lawyer but i would not have to and it would cost me only about £35-£40 to take to court.!

[bones]

I just though i would add this about driving licenses. I beleive that the fmotl that do not posses a valid licence haven't got one for one of or some of the following reasons:
They are not good enough at driving to pass a test and therefore shouldn't be on the roads.
They cannot be bothered to pay for lessons like we with licenses have done.
Some have taken a test and failed and have become resentful to a system that at least assures that a driver had adequate knowledge of the highway code and was deemed to be a safe enough driver at the date of passing.
Many people have no licence because they are blindly following the advice put out by fmotl thinking that there will be no negative comebacks, when it fact there will be.The sad truth is that many of the fmotl that claim not to have a valid license or insurance or car tax etc, probably have.

so anyone b4 1930 was good enough to drive? flawed argument from the start.

[bones]

im a long timed served fencing contractor ive no qualifications at all but im good at it.

if a chap went to college and got a certificate to say hes passed does that make him better at it than me?

of course not !!! driving is the same just cos you passed dont make you good at it. speed dont kill stupidity does, either being the padestrian or motorist.

[shepherdess]

We must all remember that we have a choice whether or not to exceed a speed limit that has been put in place for the safety of other road users.

This is most certainly not true. To put a speed camera in place, there must be four serious injuries on a particular spot. I know of a place in Southampton, where three of the four "serious accidents" were people throwing themselves off a bridge. But, it allowed for a speed camera. The point is, ANY accident counts toward the quota AND serious injuries can be anything from mild concussion to death. Speed cameras are also put up in places they KNOW they will reap an income, like on a hill where the engine sound is likely to mislead you or just off motorways where you a used to the higher engine sound which will mean you are more likely to speed. A simple flashing warning just an equally good job at slowing down those not intending to drive dangerously.

I do speed, or go faster than the signs say, where it is safe to do so. On occassion, when I come up to a busy junction and slow down, I get some pillock in an Audi (or similar penis enlarging car) flashing and beeping at me to let him past. I know he has a tax disc, I can bet he has insurance and has a license. He still drives like an agressive dick even though he's passed a test. Im sure you've seen plenty of these.

You still get people losing their licence when surely, if they have passed they are competent drivers and have a certificate to prove it.You cant say someone is competent and then not. What they do is just the equivalent of banning your kid from the gameboy for being naughty! Its about keeping you in check. It doesnt stop dangerous driving/drink driving/drug driving or coppers driving the morning after while speeding and texting in a rush to get to work to give tickets to people blowing their sn ot box.

I would like to point out clearly that a license means Jack Shit in relation to someones driving ability.

Also, you do not own a license, it only proves you passed a test and have agreed to abide by the rules of the corresponding act. You merely HOLD a license, it belongs to the DVLA for ever. Thats how they can take it away.

Thats how TPTB can take anything away. Its just another money spinner.

I also think it needs saying, that you are saying you are here for answers but you dont appear to be. If you were, you would take the answers and research them.

However, you want the answers and proof that is satifactory to you while trying to prove everyone else wrong. If you dont have the answers, you cant prove anyone wrong, you can only irritate.

If its not for you, dont bother with it. Go find something that is for you. No-one here is going to spoon feed you into it. Its about a personal choice and if you dont feel you are willing to take the risks, dont do it. Stop trying to get everyone else to give you the safety net.

And finally, its about being a freeman and rebelling. Consider skywalker and pals. They were rebels fighting the darkside. The point is, they are rebels fighting for a just cause. Some will fall, some wont (its a choice of risk).

The french resistance were rebels. They were too fighting for a just cause. They stood up to the dark systems and they made the change. Some of us are fighting for the good of all, fighting for positive change. We not only fight for our rights, but we fight for the freedoms God gave us, and you, even if you are not brave enough to fight for yourself!

Apologies for any errors, Im on the hop.

[entheogen]

. Like i said and you appear to have agreed, fmotl just don't want to pay for lessons.

Really - I dont recall ever agreeing with anything you have ever said ???

You are the one on here wanting all the knowledge - are you prepared to pay for your lessons ?

Would you ask an a flying instructor to prove its safe to fly a plane ?

[edward123]

Wow! This is incredible. I'll say again that the person who has taken driving lessons has been taught and therefore has learnt how to control and manoeuvre a car safely. He or she then takes a test to prove that they have significant knowledge of the highway code and that they can drive safely. Its real simple. However i share the roads with the fmotl who can't be bothered to pay for lessons and feels so superior to the rest of us he doesn't need to be taught to drive by someone who is qualified. The driving licence issue has nothing to do with fmotl thinking its unlawful, but is clearly a financial and ego issue. I want safe drivers on the roads that have safe vechiles because they are mot'd and they have valid insurance to cover the costs of any damage they may cause and most importantly they have passed a test to prove they have adequate knowledge of the road safety. Any sane person can see the plus to this. If you drive like a dickhead after then there are consequences to be paid, for example speeding fines. If you don't want to get fined, don't speed. If you drive without insurance and mot and licence and car tax then don't moan when you are heavily fined or thrown in prison as it is the individual who is giving their freedom away because of their actions. Your freedom is not being taken away, you are putting yourself in that position for the sake of a few pounds. Is that really how little you value your freedom? Is the price of driving lessons, insurance etc worth more than your freedom? You are not a fmotl if you get yourself put in nick for such trivial matters. You are the opposite.

[edward123]

so anyone b4 1930 was good enough to drive? flawed argument from the start.

The roads have changed a lot since 1930 lol! Thats why a test was deemed necessary.
There wasn't a real enforced drink driving law till the mid 1960's either. Do you think that people should be able to drink drive and risk the lives of others?

[edward123]

im a long timed served fencing contractor ive no qualifications at all but im good at it.

if a chap went to college and got a certificate to say hes passed does that make him better at it than me?

of course not !!! driving is the same just cos you passed dont make you good at it. speed dont kill stupidity does, either being the padestrian or motorist.

Mate this is a safety issue. I'm sure you were a good fence contractor, but that is entirely different than driving a lump of metal and glass at legal speeds of up to 70 mph on public roads. People that have bothered to obtain every document to make their driving legal have my respect.

[bones]

The roads have changed a lot since 1930 lol! Thats why a test was deemed necessary.
There wasn't a real enforced drink driving law till the mid 1960's either. Do you think that people should be able to drink drive and risk the lives of others?

no thats just about being responsible....

i dont need statutes to tell me im doing wrong, some ppl do but not me.

[bones]

Mate this is a safety issue. I'm sure you were a good fence contractor, but that is entirely different than driving a lump of metal and glass at legal speeds of up to 70 mph on public roads. People that have bothered to obtain every document to make their driving legal have my respect.

remember them days when the father taught the sons to drive tractors and combines? are they not good enough ?

what if the day comes when we need a licence to have children? is a woman without a licence not good enough to have a child?

what about me brewing booze at home? am i bad for selling it?

but ide be ok if i paid for a licence from the government?


just fishing here! :p;)

ok i have a question ! have you ever broken a statute legislation in your life?

[darkman]

im a long timed served fencing contractor ive no qualifications at all but im good at it.

if a chap went to college and got a certificate to say hes passed does that make him better at it than me?

of course not !!! driving is the same just cos you passed dont make you good at it. speed dont kill stupidity does, either being the padestrian or motorist.

true word there its incompitance aswell at speed that kills , im a very good driver never been caught speeding and i did see the camera coming into the villlage
and slowed down to the speed limit , so i must of just bin in range of the camera to get me 5mhp over the limit , but i want them to provide the evidence it was me in my van ... wich they havent by just send a yellow notice !

[edward123]

remember them days when the father taught the sons to drive tractors and combines? are they not good enough ?

what if the day comes when we need a licence to have children? is a woman without a licence not good enough to have a child?

what about me brewing booze at home? am i bad for selling it?

but ide be ok if i paid for a licence from the government?


just fishing here! :p;)

ok i have a question ! have you ever broken a statute legislation in your life?

Mate i have broken many laws. I'm amazed at this stand against driving licenses. The truth of the matter is that the people that drive without them do so as they are afraid they will fail the test. Like i said before its got nothing to do with fmotl thinking a driving licence is unlawful, its about ego and money. Your post is just full of paranoia. A woman will not need a licence to have children lmao!

[prajna]

ok i have a question ! have you ever broken a statute legislation in your life?

Given that there are circa 20 million of them in the UK, how could one avoid it?

[number_6]

The burden of proof lies with he who affirms

Have you learned nothing in all your time here ?

I have learnt that you have no understanding of law.

[number_6]

Mate i have broken many laws. I'm amazed at this stand against driving licenses

edward you have to bear in mind you are dealing with very brainwashed people on here. They will not listen to you. They have been sucked deeply into a cult and refuse to accept reality. Their eyes are closed. They are following "gurus" who are making money from this stuff. They are like lambs to the slaughter. Their "legal training" consists of a few youtube videos and websites such as this. Obviously of course they now think they know more than the whole legal profession put together, this is why their Court Hearings end in failure and many, especially in America land in prison. girlgye for instance admits her £60 fine now stands at over £13,000, but to FOTL this is a success as it confirms in their closed minds that the judiciary is corrupt, not that their theories have no basis in truth. Step back and let them make their mistakes, they really are beyond help.

[iq_145]

Mate this is a safety issue.

No, it's not a safety issue, it is a robbery by legislation issue.

Original poster - ask the police for a copy of the "videographic" evidence and offer to supply them with a list of possible drivers of the car on that day and at that time. They will ignore you and then you should request/offer again.

[entheogen]

I have learnt that you have no understanding of law.

The burden of proof lies with he affirms

The above is a MAXIM IN LAW

Yet you claim I have no understanding of the law :confused:

Do you claim that a maxim of law is not law

Tell you what to make it easy - the clue is in the word MAXIM

What does that tell you ?

If you cant contribute to a discussion without making yourself look an ass then best not to bother eh ?

You clearly are in well out of your depth here - best off you doggy paddle back to shore

[number_6]

You clearly are in well out of your depth here - best off you doggy paddle back to shore
Really?
So you disagree that a NIP requires the owner of a vehicle to identify the driver at the time of the offence?

[bones]

Mate i have broken many laws. I'm amazed at this stand against driving licenses. The truth of the matter is that the people that drive without them do so as they are afraid they will fail the test. Like i said before its got nothing to do with fmotl thinking a driving licence is unlawful, its about ego and money. Your post is just full of paranoia. A woman will not need a licence to have children lmao!

the question stands eddy, does a piece of paper make you better at sumthing?

it was a hypothetical situation regarding licences for women lol who knows what the elite will do in the future it would be stupid not to be aware of it.

[shepherdess]

a bike, a horse, a horse n trap, a scooter, a motorbike, a quadbike, a loader, a tractor and a digger.

My friends have been driving tractors since they were about 9 and are now in their 50's. They could adjust their watches with the loader on a tractor. Who would you rather pull your car from a ditch? One of them or the guy who just got his tractor license?

edward you have to bear in mind you are dealing with very brainwashed people on here. They will not listen to you. They have been sucked deeply into a cult and refuse to accept reality. Their eyes are closed. They are following "gurus" who are making money from this stuff. They are like lambs to the slaughter. Their "legal training" consists of a few youtube videos and websites such as this. Obviously of course they now think they know more than the whole legal profession put together, this is why their Court Hearings end in failure and many, especially in America land in prison. girlgye for instance admits her £60 fine now stands at over £13,000, but to FOTL this is a success as it confirms in their closed minds that the judiciary is corrupt, not that their theories have no basis in truth. Step back and let them make their mistakes, they really are beyond help.

Firstly, their is a difference between legal and lawful.

Maxims are based on the bible which is gods law and is supposed to be the basis for all future law.

Unfortunatly, the selfish egotistical theiving fraudsters, who are commonly known as tptb here, have corrupted the law and created their own systems and called them the legal system.

The bible said this would happen as it has before with mans corruption creating rules that were to be an impossible burden of men. It is happening again, and will again after that.

The judiciary is corrupt. I have a close friend who is a magistrate who still cannot accept the implication of "victim surcharge" when there is no victim!

My life's experience has PROVEN to ME that all government departments are corrupt. This is because they are run and operated by man and man will do anything to fill his pockets or save his own ass, with few exceptions who come up against a system where they are forced to obey for the same reasons.

You are now claiming that because I do not accept that TPTB are in it for the right reasons, that I am part of a brainwashed cult. I am not.


I would like to see PROOF. Actual signed evidence that I am a brainwashed cult member. If you cannot provide proof, then what you STATE about those who do not accept any MAN as being of a ruling authority is nothing more than slanderous and we must all think hard before encouraging such a damaged soul as yours.

You cannot claim to know what I am as you cannot know me more than I know myself.

[number_6]

Firstly, their is a difference between legal and lawful.


To a point. However FOTL mistakenly believe that lawful relates to common law and legal relates to statute law. That is an incorrect belief.

[shepherdess]

Lawful, in the freeman context, relates to natural law, which is different slightly to common law I believe.
But its title only becomes relevant if you use it to state a position to someone else and then need to defend that position.

Lawful is about unity, and is part of biblical scriptures. It is a righteous lawful path chosen by an individual (much like a buddist priest etc would take)
but which is difficult to accept in our culture.

It is impossible to follow a righteous lawful path if you follow a legal one as you are forced to be a part of, or support in some way, both unrightious and unlawful actions.

[number_6]

Lawful relates to natural law, which is different slightly to common law I believe.
.

Lawful relates to something that is permitted by law.

[girlgye]

To a point. However FOTL mistakenly believe that lawful relates to common law and legal relates to statute law. That is an incorrect belief.

When are the mods gonna do something about this 'Force'. This is a FMOL forum not the Police Forum.

Substantiate you facts. You pompously make assertions. As we know this is the philosophy of John arris. Der. Who incidently has never to my knowledge actually tested any of his theories himself in court merely implicated that if he did he would keep quiet about it. Yeah right. I'm a pink banana really.

This is a pathetic attempt to steer the burgeoning interest in this board yet again. You don't contribute to the debate. You are saturating and stifling the debate COMPLETLY AGAINST BOARD RULES.

Incidently where is your evidence. Oh there isn't any. [we've had this debate at least 20 times in the past 12 months. It will lead to the person argument and the circular logic that will not be reciprocated but will nevertheless drain all who wish to post meaningful dialogue.

And having WIPED MY COMPUTER FOR THE UMPTEENTH TIME NUMBER 6 STILL IS NOT COMING OFF WHEN I'VE ASKED FOR HIM TO BE ON IGNORE!!!!!!!!! I'm seriously pissed off with it.

[shepherdess]

Natural law was the foundation for common law, I believe.

Natural law is ...natural. All men are created equal etc. There are no discrepancys in natural law, only disatifaction when men do not get as much as they hope to recieve.

Natural law makes sense. But laws created by man (positive law) are accepted by the weaker members of this nameless society, at an alarming rate. And the more they make the further from what is right and natural we are.

Now, In many cases the rules and framework of "society" is in direct conflict with natural law. You can see that in the way everything runs, from the family courts to the police force and everywhere else.

If no-one stands up, then it will continue to break down. Sadly, because people like you do their damndest to overpower others for your own satisfaction, because somewhere in there there is a need to feel you have won, some of those who would have tried to stand up will be bullied into sitting again. Perhaps you can be happy knowing they werent strong enough to begin with, but as Pastor Martins Poem goes...First they came for the communists....

Your issues have an insatiable appetite you know. The more you feed them, the more they want. Its a game with yourself that you cannot win no matter how many others you suppress.

[girlgye]

oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooohhhhhhhhhhhh hhhhhhhhh.
YIPeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee eeeeeeeeeeE

TIS DONE!

THANK YOU SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOH MUCH TO THE PERSON WHO PM'D ME AND SHOWED ME HOW TO GET HIM ON IGNORE.

Eureka!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I've never felt like drinking so much in 6 years of being teetotal.

Oh the relief.


Number 6 is finally on ignore.

For the those of you not in the know.

It is number_6 not number 6.

I don't know why but he comes up as Number 6 on his avatar. Perhaps he's logged in 2 names but really his underscore should come up on his avatar.

Oh the joy and the relief. No more mind control bullshit.
If people cut and paste his negative crap I'm putting them on ignore too.
Can't bear it any longer.

Eternal Spirit who also comes up as Eternal Spirit is Eternal_spirit.

Thank you soo much. Bless you more.

mwah mwah mwah xxxxxx

Can of Tenants extra winging its way to you ;)

[shepherdess]

Lawful relates to something that is permitted by law.

Pedantic.

Read again.

[number_6]

It is number_6 not number 6.

I don't know why but he comes up as Number 6 on his avatar. Perhaps he's logged in 2 names but really his underscore should come up on his avatar.


I know you can't read this, girlgye, but for the benefit of anybody else who wishes to put me on ignore I am number_6, only the one ID. But if you look at all of the avatars displayed on here they are all underlined so the underscore is not visible.
Simples.

[number_6]

Pedantic.

Read again.
Perhaps you should read what I wrote again.
Lawful relates to something that is permitted by law. Common law or statute law.

[girlgye]

You're on ignore.
But I know you longer enough to know there won't be one shred of substantiation to your pompous comment.

ahhh THE SOUND OF SILENCE. :D :D :D

[number_6]

You're on ignore.


ahhh THE SOUND OF SILENCE. :D :D :D

Genuinely I am pleased for you.
X

[girlgye]

Pedantic.

Read again.

Telelogical. Her mantra is obey every single statute law do as you are told and sits here like boring school maam over and over telling us to do as nanny state tells us.

Yeah even if it means it leads to world domination. Complete control and microchips shoved in us for our good.

Makes me sick.

Yes the proof has been seen.

Just go and ask a traffic warden but then again number 6 would think it's a good idea that a bunch of thickos can come and smash open our doors and drag us out of our house because we dumped some dog shit on the road.

Still on second thoughts that might not be a bad idea. I hate people who leave dog shit lying around. :D

[number_6]

This is a FMOL forum not the Police Forum.


And you know full well I am not a member of the Police.
Oh, you can't see me:p

[shepherdess]

Perhaps you should read what I wrote again.
Lawful relates to something that is permitted by law. Common law or statute law.

Lawful, when in relation to FOTL, is natural law (although a fair few are mistaking that for common law)

You're pedant rubbish is getting neither of us anywhere. Neither of us is learning anything from the other and you fail to respond to any valid points, instead you are attempting to pick holes.

Please be constructive.

[number_6]

Please be constructive.

I am trying to be. However you refuse to see my point. FOTL have a quaint vision of what legal and lawful means, and they are wrong. Get yourself a few years of proper legal training and you will understand the flaws in their theories.

[shepherdess]

I am trying to be. However you refuse to see my point. FOTL have a quaint vision of what legal and lawful means, and they are wrong. Get yourself a few years of proper legal training and you will understand the flaws in their theories.


I am not refusing to see your point. Im not denying that there are quite a few people here who are following blindly here because they know that they dont fit in somewhere else. Many here though, are attempting to rebel but they are trying to rebel using a system that they think wont get them in the shit.

Some will grasp some loops correctly (the MP's even gave it a shot during the expenses scandal!!!), some will be lucky enough to get away with things due to others not wanting the hassle and some will end up in deep shit. Some will say they are right and some (like yourself) will insist everyone else is wrong. Both sides forget there is a middle ground and plenty of grey areas. But it doesnt need saying (well it does really) that there are others here who are on neither side and who are rebelling for their own reasons (mine is the exculating wrong doing.) But why are you here?

Rebelling doesnt come with brownie points (unless its an asbo)

[girlgye]

I am not refusing to see your point. Im not denying that there are quite a few people here who are following blindly here because they know that they dont fit in somewhere else. Many here though, are attempting to rebel but they are trying to rebel using a system that they think wont get them in the shit.

Some will grasp some loops correctly (the MP's even gave it a shot during the expenses scandal!!!), some will be lucky enough to get away with things due to others not wanting the hassle and some will end up in deep shit. Some will say they are right and some (like yourself) will insist everyone else is wrong. Both sides forget there is a middle ground and plenty of grey areas. But it doesnt need saying (well it does really) that there are others here who are on neither side and who are rebelling for their own reasons (mine is the exculating wrong doing.) But why are you here?

Rebelling doesnt come with brownie points (unless its an asbo)


Shepherdess. Being a professional your self you will know that it is really annoying when a lesser qualified person tells you your job. However, I marvel how people who think they have years of training in a profession think they are the elite and know more than the lay people practising the art. Any art this is.

Does a trained Architect know more than a brickie. May be. What I do know is now they are going to expect all teachers to be M level qualified yes and including those on the job. Now why is that do you think?

Most professions you could train a monkey to do it in half the time and I don't mean that in the sense that monkies really are supremely intelligent. I mean they are really simple and most of what one is taught is pure pure crap and soon forgotten once that fated qualification is in ones hands.

You can't beat education that is one thing but the law? No. Something is making an ass out of you and me.

If as she is intimating, and she so often does, that she is supremely educated on the law. SHe's a rat bag for she gives nothing away EVER. Except for rhetoric. Her former model used to go oooh or you'll go to prison. Hello? Her law understanding is that of a retired cop well that's what we see here.

You'll soon give up believe me.

They don't want to understand your point even though they do. Like I said ever heard of anyone going into court arguing the lawful/legal crap other the der simple innit brigade?

No law ain't simple. Saying NO is.

[shepherdess]

Thats why I ditched accounting. its the tax office vs the business and both are trying to bum the other....

I'll stick to farming. Its honest as it can be until the agencys and business get involved!

I have made a few valid points to number 6, but all are avoided and it instead trys to attempt to use my non-specifics against me as potential errors. I didnt think I needed to be so articulatly detailed as I thought it would get it. Instead it is used in one sided warfare.

Though I must give it points for derailing the thread, I suspect they will provide limited satiation and will not fill its appetite enough to fill the gap and damage created by its need for power and dominance.

[number_6]

Her former model used to go oooh or you'll go to prison.

And off you went.

Her law understanding is that of a retired cop well that's what we see here.


I have always considered defence more stimulating than prosecution.