Getting rid of bad loans

[hank_scorpio]

I want to get rid of my car loan which came in the form of a PROMISSARY NOTE. I am going to call the bank next week and tell them I read the contract and determined it is not a legal contract because there is no consideration and they will not be recieving any more money from me. The contract doesnt even mention the word consideration once. If they don't like the sounds of that I will remind them consideration is what makes a contract legal. I don't think the staff will know what it means. They probably don't even know how the bank works. I went over 80 days without paying, at 50 days i got threats they were going to take the car. NOTHING HAPPENED. My father was conned by the bank into catching up the loan for me. He knows the banks scam but he thinks hes powerless.

After this im going to be sending my claim of right and once I fix the car ill be driving it with no license, no insurance or no plates. I've already dealt with the cops recently driving another vehicle I had no license on me and when I was asked for my license, registration and insurance I asked him some questions and if I did anything wrong. He said no and I asked if I was free to go, and I was. I did not answer any of his questions.:D

[spoonogsback]

Hi Hank, be carefull my friend the contract you signed more than likley is to repay only and you have agreed to do that.......so to get into a better position perhaps you should consider offering them everything they are due plus three times more if they can provide to you with validation verification and lawful terms. If they cannot then when you send them a contract/notice you in addition put in your counterclaim of three times the alledged amount by return.
Also you must keep in mind that if you accept for value their offer for value then both of you are in agreement and you can then return the doccument to them with instruction to close the account on this matter and return to Principal a statement of zero ballance,after all ledgers have been satisfied in accordance with public policy and with regard to the nature of the commercial legal bankruptcy state that exists within but not without the UK.(corp)

[merlincove]

getting rid of your loan sounds like a cool idea, although i wonder if you're taking full responsability for your actions in doing so. Self responsability, ie affecting your own life through your own / self actions is an important factor in morality of being.

i'm not judging you or the way you want to live, and to be honest i'm all for stuffing the banks and the fat cats with big bonuses, so fair play to you there :D and good luck mate

Driving without a licence or insurance - that's another story. Having such a total dissregard for the safety of others on the road is appauling, and i'd hope that you were aware enough to be able to concieve that, and if so, then that makes your actions even worse still.

Driving without insurance is bad enough, driving without passing the relative test and without insurance shows a total dissrespect to other human beings, and whatever your conception of freemanship, without such a basic grasp of common decency to other people and a grasp of personal responsability shines a poor light on it, imo.

But whatever rocks your boat man, and if you're doing it without hurting or abusing anyone else then fair play

peace

:D

[hank_scorpio]

getting rid of your loan sounds like a cool idea, although i wonder if you're taking full responsability for your actions in doing so. Self responsability, ie affecting your own life through your own / self actions is an important factor in morality of being.

i'm not judging you or the way you want to live, and to be honest i'm all for stuffing the banks and the fat cats with big bonuses, so fair play to you there :D and good luck mate

Driving without a licence or insurance - that's another story. Having such a total dissregard for the safety of others on the road is appauling, and i'd hope that you were aware enough to be able to concieve that, and if so, then that makes your actions even worse still.

Driving without insurance is bad enough, driving without passing the relative test and without insurance shows a total dissrespect to other human beings, and whatever your conception of freemanship, without such a basic grasp of common decency to other people and a grasp of personal responsability shines a poor light on it, imo.

But whatever rocks your boat man, and if you're doing it without hurting or abusing anyone else then fair play

peace

:D
My uncle walked from 40k in debt 15 years ago :) How is not having insurance bad? Its a scam! And if you haven't noticed most people are NOT PAYING ATTENTION TO THEIR SURROUNDINGS. Those are the people who are dangerous not me. I got hit by somebody who had no insurance it sucks so I fix it myself and cost me $100 in supplies. Insurance is completely voluntary. I had insurance and they wouldn't fix it...Fuck it.;) If you feel you need it go ahead they just want $.

I am not going into this uneducated on what im doing.

[the nine]

getting rid of your loan sounds like a cool idea, although i wonder if you're taking full responsability for your actions in doing so. Self responsability, ie affecting your own life through your own / self actions is an important factor in morality of being.

i'm not judging you or the way you want to live, and to be honest i'm all for stuffing the banks and the fat cats with big bonuses, so fair play to you there :D and good luck mate

Driving without a licence or insurance - that's another story. Having such a total dissregard for the safety of others on the road is appauling, and i'd hope that you were aware enough to be able to concieve that, and if so, then that makes your actions even worse still.

Driving without insurance is bad enough, driving without passing the relative test and without insurance shows a total dissrespect to other human beings, and whatever your conception of freemanship, without such a basic grasp of common decency to other people and a grasp of personal responsability shines a poor light on it, imo.

But whatever rocks your boat man, and if you're doing it without hurting or abusing anyone else then fair play

peace

:D

there is a public purse for drivers involved in accidents with no insurance,

why those powerful elites would not pay for the repair of their Bentleys should it get dented by the 'mob' :rolleyes:

also driving licenses were not mandatory for years, then when they were, you simply applied for one..
the test came much later.. there a people still driving who only applied for their driving license, some have quite possibly could have never even had an accident, where as there a many people who have accidents who have passed their driving tests..
the whole thing is geared up around revenue, the driving examiners have a set number to pass each week, if you are unlucky enough to take you test when the quota has been achieved you, fail. the opposite also applies, they will be extremely lenient if the numbers are low..

[number_6]

there is a public purse for drivers involved in accidents with no insurance,

But this fund is paid for by those that do pay motor insurance. Every insurer that underwrites motor insurance has to (under the RTA 1988)contribute to this fund. It therefore follows that if nobody paid for insurance there would be no fund.

[cruise4]

"Driving without a licence or insurance - that's another story. Having such a total dissregard for the safety of others on the road is appauling, and i'd hope that you were aware enough to be able to concieve that, and if so, then that makes your actions even worse still.

Driving without insurance is bad enough, driving without passing the relative test and without insurance shows a total dissrespect to other human beings, and whatever your conception of freemanship, without such a basic grasp of common decency to other people and a grasp of personal responsability shines a poor light on it, imo."

Yeah... let's fight for 'the system'. That'll show em! Nothing like a bit of bad planning, strategic location, social engineering and congestion to get them all singing from our hymnsheet.


I hope you apply the same rules to 'voting' which is even more dangerous.

[merlincove]

:D

don't vote, myself. I don't really see the point, it's the same guy with a doifferent suit on who ever we vote for... Avoid the council tax as much as i can too lol

i'm all for screwing with the system, i just have some moral values also, like respect for someone i don't know, if i crash into them inadvertently, through whatever reason then i'd hope that i could walk away from that and say sorry and not f*** with the guys life or cause him financial hardship.

To survive in a society we need, imo, to be socially aware - that isn't fighting for or against the system, it is having respect for each other as we would a brother or sister. I'm sorry if that offends anyone, or if you can't see where i'm coming from.

it isn't about rucking a system and neither is it about compliance, it is about seeing how our actions affect others. And yeah, i can see the insurance companies are hammering their clients with ever increasing charges, and that all those who don't pay equate to an excess that is paid by those who do.

Same with the council tax. i think that it is totally unjust and has been for the last god knows how many years.

The only way to fight the council tax it is to defy it, but then if no one paid we'd have issue. But it is about Self Responsability, being responsable for the effects we each have. i recycle everything, i create very little waste. What else does the C tax p[ay for? nothin, tis why i don't pay it and wont.

I use my car on the road and i pay the road tax, i have a business, i pay business tax, i pay vat, i try not to pay income tax but i'm sure that they'll f*** me with that some time, d'oh.

To survive in a society you have to work as a society. If i crash into a car without insurance can i pay for the other guys car? Can i pay for any hospital bills he may incur? Can i re-inburse that guy for any time off work? If he suffers how can i possably begin to make it right?

If i have no insurance and this guy is out of work for twelve months, in and out of hospital for six months, this surgey and that surgey through actions that were my fault, how is me not having insurance and the means to ease his hardship a good thing? How is that making society work?

i used to ride around with no licence and hense no insurance, i did that back in the day, when i was in my early twenties, when the checks were a lot less hostile, been there and done that.

It's a tempting attraction, why go to the expense of passing the test, yeah there are still some guys who got their licences back when they were giving licences away, and there are some sh!te drivers who wouldn't know a safe stopping distance if they were hit by one, drivers straight out of the school, with the ink still wet on their licence who can't drive for jack. It'll always be that way.

All i am saying is taking responsability for yourself and your own actions is a moral condition that is different to every person. I'm not sucking up to the system in paying my insurance, i don't enjoy paying out £300+ a year for having the security of knowing that if i cause
sh!t my financiual obligations will be covered. But i do it because i want to put the appropriate cover in place to know if i f*** someone over by driving into them, their car can be fixed up without it costing me thousands of pounds and causing the guy unnecersary hassles is all :D

tis my choice

peace

[Ian2day]

Most home insurance policy's will have personal liability insurance included which will cover you upto £1 million pounds. Don't take my word for it, check it for yourself before you leave yourself liable. I would expect that even a Freeman would want to have his home covered in case of fire or theft etc. So would of taken out a suitable policy which contains cover for your possessions, even when away from the home. I would include your mode of transport under this. As long as you word it so as to not disqualify it from the policy itself. Most policy's cover your property as long as another policy is not in force at the time of any loss being incurred. So a good home insurance policy is in my opinion all that is needed to cover the various family members listed as living with you.

[merlincove]

^^^ good point ian, i'd forgotten about the home insurance thing :cool:

[pinnochio]

No affence merlincove but wot does a license and insurance physically have to do with safety

But then i read the rest of the post. And your right everyone else has the common decency to do these things for eachother, to ultimatly look out for eachother :)

[merlincove]

No affence merlincove but wot does a license and insurance physically have to do with safety

But then i read the rest of the post. And your right everyone else has the common decency to do these things for eachother, to ultimatly look out for eachother :)

:Di think ultimately no matter what society, whether it is an anarchistic society or one 'governed' by a 'chosen elite' lol there will always be a need for measure. i think that society does need some laws for it to function safely, whether those laws are written down or just understood, implimented by the Self or by the State, we can not exist without working together as a team, and as such there has to be a certain amount of weight pulling from each member of that team.

i am all for freedom of speech and freedom of expression, every one's word is as mighty as another one's, humankind can not begin to hold one word president above another.

We can argue to point of pandering to state where we apply the states rule to our life, in this instance having a driving licence. But, having said that, whether anyone has a driving licence isn't requisite to their driving saftey / ability. It simply says that the person in Q has the ability to drive to a standard. And i think that that standard is an important one. Because any society needs a standard to survive.

And in not applying that standard, a standard commonly agreed upon, to ourselves is a step away from common decency and shows a dissregard to others. imo.

:D

Respect

[number_6]

:We can argue to point of pandering to state where we apply the states rule to our life, in this instance having a driving licence. But, having said that, whether anyone has a driving licence isn't requisite to their driving saftey / ability. It simply says that the person in Q has the ability to drive to a standard. And i think that that standard is an important one. Because any society needs a standard to survive.

Exactly. You only have to follow a learner driver under tuition for half a mile to realise that if that same person was just let loose in a car without tuition, it is more likely than not to lead to problems.

[john white]

:D

don't vote, myself. I don't really see the point, it's the same guy with a doifferent suit on who ever we vote for... Avoid the council tax as much as i can too lol

i'm all for screwing with the system, i just have some moral values also, like respect for someone i don't know, if i crash into them inadvertently, through whatever reason then i'd hope that i could walk away from that and say sorry and not f*** with the guys life or cause him financial hardship.

To survive in a society we need, imo, to be socially aware - that isn't fighting for or against the system, it is having respect for each other as we would a brother or sister. I'm sorry if that offends anyone, or if you can't see where i'm coming from.

it isn't about rucking a system and neither is it about compliance, it is about seeing how our actions affect others. And yeah, i can see the insurance companies are hammering their clients with ever increasing charges, and that all those who don't pay equate to an excess that is paid by those who do.

Same with the council tax. i think that it is totally unjust and has been for the last god knows how many years.

The only way to fight the council tax it is to defy it, but then if no one paid we'd have issue. But it is about Self Responsability, being responsable for the effects we each have. i recycle everything, i create very little waste. What else does the C tax p[ay for? nothin, tis why i don't pay it and wont.

I use my car on the road and i pay the road tax, i have a business, i pay business tax, i pay vat, i try not to pay income tax but i'm sure that they'll f*** me with that some time, d'oh.

To survive in a society you have to work as a society. If i crash into a car without insurance can i pay for the other guys car? Can i pay for any hospital bills he may incur? Can i re-inburse that guy for any time off work? If he suffers how can i possably begin to make it right?

If i have no insurance and this guy is out of work for twelve months, in and out of hospital for six months, this surgey and that surgey through actions that were my fault, how is me not having insurance and the means to ease his hardship a good thing? How is that making society work?

i used to ride around with no licence and hense no insurance, i did that back in the day, when i was in my early twenties, when the checks were a lot less hostile, been there and done that.

It's a tempting attraction, why go to the expense of passing the test, yeah there are still some guys who got their licences back when they were giving licences away, and there are some sh!te drivers who wouldn't know a safe stopping distance if they were hit by one, drivers straight out of the school, with the ink still wet on their licence who can't drive for jack. It'll always be that way.

All i am saying is taking responsability for yourself and your own actions is a moral condition that is different to every person. I'm not sucking up to the system in paying my insurance, i don't enjoy paying out £300+ a year for having the security of knowing that if i cause
sh!t my financiual obligations will be covered. But i do it because i want to put the appropriate cover in place to know if i f*** someone over by driving into them, their car can be fixed up without it costing me thousands of pounds and causing the guy unnecersary hassles is all :D

tis my choice

peace

I get you completely :)

If your harming others your harming freedom, seems to me the awake way of seeing this

[yozhik]

Exactly. You only have to follow a learner driver under tuition for half a mile to realise that if that same person was just let loose in a car without tuition, it is more likely than not to lead to problems.

Whilst I agree with the simplicity of this logic, I disagree with its application.

The false argument usually goes something like; licenses are for our safety ... without a licence you would get unskilled drivers on the road.
... and amongst its banal simplicity, there appears to be a scrap of logic which most people just apathetically shrug to and give tacit agreement.

However, it is completely flawed and erroneous.
The programming is almost total.

Right now, if you drive down any road, lane, street, motorway or avenue; you have NO IDEA who has a licence and who doesn't.
It is only on the random chance that this information is discovered.

Noone has ever been able to show me any factual evidence that having a licence prevents accidents.
In fact, more people with licenses have accidents than people without.
A licence is no guarantee of increased driving skills.

But lets get to the real core of this issue - the one we are NOT discussing.
RESPONSIBILITY ... and behaving as an adult.

I would not get behind the wheel of a car without the necessary skills.
Period.
This has nothing to do with me having a licence.
It has everything to do with me making a rational, adult decision.

A learner driver, as referred to in the original post, undergoing tuition ... has nothing to do with the licence.
Some would argue that it is a forced process BECAUSE of the licence procedure.
Again, I do not agree.

As a RESPONSIBLE ADULT, could I undertake tuition without the forced licence process?
Absolutely.

Some would then argue that the learner drivers are usually not adults.
True; but they have parents who are.
The responsible ADULT decision would be to put your child through the tuition.
Government/DVLA insistence is not necessary, IF we all behave and act as responsible adults.

Anyone can behave for short periods of time ... specifically when it comes to sitting a driving test.
This newly licenced driver can then revert to their normal state of irresponsible child and create mayhem.
A licence is no guarantee of safe driving.

The only guarantee of safe driving is individual responsibility ... and no government department can licence THAT!


.

[bsmurph83]

Driving without a licence or insurance - that's another story. Having such a total dissregard for the safety of others on the road is appauling, and i'd hope that you were aware enough to be able to concieve that, and if so, then that makes your actions even worse still.

Driving without insurance is bad enough, driving without passing the relative test and without insurance shows a total dissrespect to other human beings, and whatever your conception of freemanship, without such a basic grasp of common decency to other people and a grasp of personal responsability shines a poor light on it, imo.

But whatever rocks your boat man, and if you're doing it without hurting or abusing anyone else then fair play

peace

:D

hi merlincove, I like you and you're pretty cluey in general, but you seem to have missed something rather major here (I'm not sure if anyone's really pulled you up on it because I haven't read all posts..): We are free to journey in our private cars on the King's byways and highways WITHOUT needing to have a license or registration (or pay tolls, etc, etc).

All these things are about control and revenue raising, not protecting humans beings. One of the major rights (and duties) we have under Common Law is to travel in our private conveyance WITHOUT interference from the state and its affiliates. Doing so requires one DOES in fact take responsibility for oneself and stay alert and aware in order that noone is injured as we go about our business. Obviously the freeman wants noone to be harmed by his actions and exercises due diligence as a responsible adult, as opposed to having a license and basically being a ward of the state or a child, in terms of legal standing.

Drivers licenses are for corporate endeavours. Freemen on the land need no such thing!

[oghene]

hi merlincove, I like you and you're pretty cluey in general, but you seem to have missed something rather major here (I'm not sure if anyone's really pulled you up on it because I haven't read all posts..): We are free to journey in our private cars on the King's byways and highways WITHOUT needing to have a license or registration (or pay tolls, etc, etc).

All these things are about control and revenue raising, not protecting humans beings. One of the major rights (and duties) we have under Common Law is to travel in our private conveyance WITHOUT interference from the state and its affiliates. Doing so requires one DOES in fact take responsibility for oneself and stay alert and aware in order that noone is injured as we go about our business. Obviously the freeman wants noone to be harmed by his actions and exercises due diligence as a responsible adult, as opposed to having a license and basically being a ward of the state or a child, in terms of legal standing.

Drivers licenses are for corporate endeavours. Freemen on the land need no such thing!

Bsmurph,

I have been searching for case law or proof that travelling without a license is our common law right, but I haven't found it. I live in the UK/England/Gt Britain, so I want something as proof.

Could you help me out if you can? Could anyone reading the post help out?

Thanks in advance

[bsmurph83]

Rob Menard rang a law society and asked if any of them would be prepared to sign/swear under their full commercial liability that we do NOT have a Common Law right to travel freely without a license, rego, etc.

The lawyer said "NO". So you could try that. Also, the Bible is what this is all based on, so you could flick through that and look to see where 'Jesus' or 'God' makes relevant comments about the right to travel on the highways/roads, etc. God knows I'm not about to go reading the Bible looking for such comments, as it's not the shortest of stories. Besides, it's well known (amongst researchers/freemen) that we have these rights. The onus is on the government to prove that we DON'T. All we need to is claim the right and when they cannot rebut it, our right is legally confirmed. Also remember that SILENCE is AGREEMENT, so if the relevant agency does NOT respond, they are tacitly agreeing that you DO have the rights you have claimed.

Check out examples of people's Notice of Understanding and Intent and Claim of Right to see how to go about this stuff. Rob Menard has some examples of Notices like this in his books (go to www.thinkfree.ca)

[merlincove]

hi merlincove, I like you and you're pretty cluey in general, but you seem to have missed something rather major here (I'm not sure if anyone's really pulled you up on it because I haven't read all posts..): We are free to journey in our private cars on the King's byways and highways WITHOUT needing to have a license or registration (or pay tolls, etc, etc).

All these things are about control and revenue raising, not protecting humans beings. One of the major rights (and duties) we have under Common Law is to travel in our private conveyance WITHOUT interference from the state and its affiliates. Doing so requires one DOES in fact take responsibility for oneself and stay alert and aware in order that noone is injured as we go about our business. Obviously the freeman wants noone to be harmed by his actions and exercises due diligence as a responsible adult, as opposed to having a license and basically being a ward of the state or a child, in terms of legal standing.

Drivers licenses are for corporate endeavours. Freemen on the land need no such thing!

hi bsmurph, yeah i know where you are coming from.

i spoke about this to pleasuredome a few weeks ago, and as a freeman it is a god given right that we are allowed to travel and move about freely, holding dear to the concepts that in doing so we do not bring harm or danger to anyone.

there has to be a rule of thumb though, somewhere there has to be a middle ground, between driving with tuition to a set standard of safety and breaking away from the 'corporate endevours' that we are put under to attain a licence.

Any ruling that results from a freeman driving without a licence who causes danger and or (God forbid) harm to another will leave us all in a possition that can do nothing but damage the reputation of all freeman.

We have, as freema, great responsability that sheapes itself into many arena's. Not least we have responsability to ourselves and to others, we have a responsability to other freeman, that we do not in our actions tar another - in short it is a responsability of respect for our kindred, how we deal with and interact with other people, whether they are awakend freemen or otherwise. And for my own part i feel that that respect is a duty to uphold our own sense of respect and attain a licence of safety, which unfortunately we can only do at this present time by taking a driving test. I know there is a great irony in that, to say that to uphold a part of our freedom we need to pander to the machine that we have a heart felt need to break away from. But if that way is the only safe way then it is the only way. Untiul a better way comes. IMO.

BTW i wasn't fuly aware of the issues that you have raised in my earlier posts, though have become more aware, thanks to PD and others since then.

There is an issue here of lawlessness, driving without licence and without taxation, i see the BS of it and i also see the lack of respect for others safety where anyone who chooses to pilot a moving contrivance without due care (without having a licence) and without due respect (without having adequate 3rd party liabilty insurance).

i would not doctor anyones freedom to do these things, though i would question the validity of their actions when they are overtly putting other in danger of loss.

ok, so any of us could be the cause of an accident, whether we have a driving licence or not. But having the abliity to correct that damage and make recompense for our actions is a paramount contract of respect as we move through the journey of life as human beings.

Sorry for banging on....

at the end of the day, we are all just trying to get through as best we can, each to their own, and i in my part am learning to be a little less judgemental, becaus emy idea's arem't for everyone, but they are for me, right now and right here thet are for me. And it is important that we shape our reality around us, primarily. Maybe i was a little heavy in my previous posts. But in holding the greatest concept of all, that we should not cause harm or danger to others remains a prime concept in my belief :D

and thanks bsmurph83 for the encoraging words :cool:

peace all

[merlincove]

Bsmurph,

I have been searching for case law or proof that travelling without a license is our common law right, but I haven't found it. I live in the UK/England/Gt Britain, so I want something as proof.

Could you help me out if you can? Could anyone reading the post help out?

Thanks in advance

i think bsmurph83 covered it in the last post, but basically the right to travel freely is God given, and no one on the face of earth can question such an authority - not even God's representatives on earth, the queen and the pope, let alone members of the law society.

Oghene, if you argue that God gave you the right to be free, that you were born a freeman and enslaved without your concent, then you have solid undeniable ground to stand upon.

Engage Homer Simpson mode: Homer Simpson mode engaed. "Hmm, nice ground...."

:D

[fishingforthoughts]

I just signed up a couple of days ago and have nomade many posts, but I Have been reading all night-ish and I have just a small problem with some of the things merlincove is saying.

Firstly I understand where you are coming from merlincove but you need to let go of the fear friend. Be free. I am referring to your insistence of having car insurance in case of other victims, there is a legal alternative to insurance that means you do not pay a yearly fee to an insurance broker, I am not certain of the terms but you can put a few grand in an account and give your word that should you injure somebody they can access that account for immediate relief, and you can work out later how much extra you will owe them when you pu a financial price on parts and workings of human bodies.

if you injure no-one or their property in say ten years thats 10 years of insurance premiums that you didnt pay but was legal all the same. Secondly make that an account that accrues interest, you may have to wait a while for that one!

thirdly you said if you get insurance then at least you know you and any victim are covered...................... seriously ?

I mean really, do you seriously believe that, when most insurance firms have many clever lawyers looking for ways to NOT pay out?

Perhaps this is a shit comparison, but anyone buying car insurance today because they have a job and can afford it, might not be able to afford it next week if they suddenly become an unemployed statistic....

well cheers anyway, first real comment I have made ;)

[yozhik]

I just signed up a couple of days ago and have nomade many posts, but I Have been reading all night-ish and I have just a small problem with some of the things merlincove is saying.

Firstly I understand where you are coming from merlincove but you need to let go of the fear friend. Be free. I am referring to your insistence of having car insurance in case of other victims, there is a legal alternative to insurance that means you do not pay a yearly fee to an insurance broker, I am not certain of the terms but you can put a few grand in an account and give your word that should you injure somebody they can access that account for immediate relief, and you can work out later how much extra you will owe them when you pu a financial price on parts and workings of human bodies.

if you injure no-one or their property in say ten years thats 10 years of insurance premiums that you didnt pay but was legal all the same. Secondly make that an account that accrues interest, you may have to wait a while for that one!

thirdly you said if you get insurance then at least you know you and any victim are covered...................... seriously ?

I mean really, do you seriously believe that, when most insurance firms have many clever lawyers looking for ways to NOT pay out?

Perhaps this is a shit comparison, but anyone buying car insurance today because they have a job and can afford it, might not be able to afford it next week if they suddenly become an unemployed statistic....

well cheers anyway, first real comment I have made ;)

The small amount you refer to is £500,000.
But yes, this options exists.

[fishingforthoughts]

The small amount you refer to is £500,000.
But yes, this options exists.

HI yozhik,

can you tell us a bit more about it then, like where you got that figure, what is the 'policy' called etc?

please

[yozhik]

From this post;
http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showpost.php?p=750759&postcount=22

Securities (From Police Law, page 380, 10th edition)

A security, rather than a policy of insurance, can satisfy the provisions of Part VI of the Act if it satisfies certain conditions of the RTA 1988, s 146.
The security must consist of an undertaking by the giver of the security (who must be an authorised insurer OR some body of persons
in the business of giving securities which has deposited with the Accountant General of the Supreme Court.............the sum of £500,000 in respect of that business). The undertaking mus be to make good, subject any conditions specified thereein, any failure by the person covered by the security duly to discharge any third-party liability for which insurance would otherwise be required under Part VI of the act. Use of securities is frequently made by large undertakings, such as bus companies which would experience unnecessary difficulties in negotiating separate insurance in respect of a large fleet of vehicles.

[merlincove]

I just signed up a couple of days ago and have nomade many posts, but I Have been reading all night-ish and I have just a small problem with some of the things merlincove is saying.

Firstly I understand where you are coming from merlincove but you need to let go of the fear friend. Be free. I am referring to your insistence of having car insurance in case of other victims, there is a legal alternative to insurance that means you do not pay a yearly fee to an insurance broker, I am not certain of the terms but you can put a few grand in an account and give your word that should you injure somebody they can access that account for immediate relief, and you can work out later how much extra you will owe them when you pu a financial price on parts and workings of human bodies.

if you injure no-one or their property in say ten years thats 10 years of insurance premiums that you didnt pay but was legal all the same. Secondly make that an account that accrues interest, you may have to wait a while for that one!

thirdly you said if you get insurance then at least you know you and any victim are covered...................... seriously ?

I mean really, do you seriously believe that, when most insurance firms have many clever lawyers looking for ways to NOT pay out?

Perhaps this is a shit comparison, but anyone buying car insurance today because they have a job and can afford it, might not be able to afford it next week if they suddenly become an unemployed statistic....

well cheers anyway, first real comment I have made ;)

i'm not entering into the fear factor, fishingfor :cool:

thank you for your comments, and like many other people i am still learning to swin in this new pool, and my answers and reasoning are simply expressions of my own understanding, whether they are correct for others or not.

i can't afford the public indemnity thing at half a million quid. if i had that kind of money then i would be a l;ot freer than i am and would work it toward freedom from bills and mortgages etc ;)

But yes there is a policy for third party liabilty that every business needs in order to operate, that if a 3rd party injures themselves on business premises the insurance covers, usually up to a few milion quid as standard. We have one for our business. I'm looking into that as a policy to cover a none registered vehicle.

Also National insurance covers us. I'm not sure of all the inns and outs of that, but right now i'm not paying NI contrabutions lol.

My concepts of having insurance are purely my own and i wouldn't want to force my opinion onto others in this respect - but i do feel strongly that it is important to have some cover to cover all the eventualities. And right now the 'best' option for me is to stick with the insurance company. I am looking for a better option that will gift more freedom into my life :p

Thanks for your comments, my friend

and welcome to the forums - good on you for taking the plunge ;)

[candygirl]

I want to get rid of my car loan which came in the form of a PROMISSARY NOTE. I am going to call the bank next week and tell them I read the contract and determined it is not a legal contract because there is no consideration and they will not be recieving any more money from me. The contract doesnt even mention the word consideration once. If they don't like the sounds of that I will remind them consideration is what makes a contract legal. I don't think the staff will know what it means. They probably don't even know how the bank works. I went over 80 days without paying, at 50 days i got threats they were going to take the car. NOTHING HAPPENED. My father was conned by the bank into catching up the loan for me. He knows the banks scam but he thinks hes powerless.

After this im going to be sending my claim of right and once I fix the car ill be driving it with no license, no insurance or no plates. I've already dealt with the cops recently driving another vehicle I had no license on me and when I was asked for my license, registration and insurance I asked him some questions and if I did anything wrong. He said no and I asked if I was free to go, and I was. I did not answer any of his questions.:D
Hi,
Please go to FMOTL website cos there are ways of writing letters and giving notice to the bank about your loan and any debt it's Veronica: of the chapman familiy website.
Really helpful.
Best wishes
CG

[candygirl]

http://fmotl.com/

CG

[fishingforthoughts]

i'm not entering into the fear factor, fishingfor :cool:

thank you for your comments, and like many other people i am still learning to swin in this new pool, and my answers and reasoning are simply expressions of my own understanding, whether they are correct for others or not.

i can't afford the public indemnity thing at half a million quid. if i had that kind of money then i would be a l;ot freer than i am and would work it toward freedom from bills and mortgages etc ;)

But yes there is a policy for third party liabilty that every business needs in order to operate, that if a 3rd party injures themselves on business premises the insurance covers, usually up to a few milion quid as standard. We have one for our business. I'm looking into that as a policy to cover a none registered vehicle.

Also National insurance covers us. I'm not sure of all the inns and outs of that, but right now i'm not paying NI contrabutions lol.

My concepts of having insurance are purely my own and i wouldn't want to force my opinion onto others in this respect - but i do feel strongly that it is important to have some cover to cover all the eventualities. And right now the 'best' option for me is to stick with the insurance company. I am looking for a better option that will gift more freedom into my life :p

Thanks for your comments, my friend

and welcome to the forums - good on you for taking the plunge ;)

Hey thanks for the welcome and apologies for not answering sooner and for dragging an old thread up,

a small case of internet access denied but nothing to concern us now.

I support you in your best option mc, its always better to act on the safe side eh!

I did want to point out alternatives and we have discussed that now, awareness of more options can sometimes be confusing but also help to iron out any... er .. confusion :)
:rolleyes:


thank you for your comments, and like many other people i am still learning to swim in this new pool, and my answers and reasoning are simply expressions of my own understanding, whether they are correct for others or not.


I appreciate your fishy like indulgence and I couldn't let that one slip thru the net ;)

When preparing your notice of understanding perhaps an alternative can be worked out that satisfies you fully and of course offers practical remedy for any third party.... I am also quite new to this deep deep pool, and hope the use of the word remedy is appropriate there.

[broccoligarden]

In New Zealand driving with insurance is not compulsory, i lived there for a while and never had insurance and it didn't make my driving more dangerous!

:)

[fishingforthoughts]

Bsmurph,

I have been searching for case law or proof that travelling without a license is our common law right, but I haven't found it. I live in the UK/England/Gt Britain, so I want something as proof.

Could you help me out if you can? Could anyone reading the post help out?

Thanks in advance

HI,

From what I can gather it has been referred to as the queens bible.

The right to travel freely as in the queens bible.

If my memory serves me correctly,

If you do a search for UK notice of understanding on google video or youtube, it should give you the correct reference that you can then use to look it up, it is 3 ten minute films that give you UK based conclusions.

[burnttoast]

I want to get rid of my car loan which came in the form of a PROMISSARY NOTE. I am going to call the bank next week and tell them I read the contract and determined it is not a legal contract because there is no consideration and they will not be recieving any more money from me. The contract doesnt even mention the word consideration once. If they don't like the sounds of that I will remind them consideration is what makes a contract legal. I don't think the staff will know what it means. They probably don't even know how the bank works. I went over 80 days without paying, at 50 days i got threats they were going to take the car. NOTHING HAPPENED. My father was conned by the bank into catching up the loan for me. He knows the banks scam but he thinks hes powerless.

...if your looking for Remedy on your car loan...get your exemption ID#..for Canada it's BIrth Certificate... for States its Back of Social Security card...brief explanation... the Letter at the beginning signifies which branch has your Credit is housed with (Fed Reserve) Transit Branch routing and the following numbers is the account associated with you....Ask the bank for a Payoff statement on your car...it SHOULD come with the Statement of amount owing and a Voucher...use your exemption # to Credit your Account associated with your car loan....

Here's a link to get you started if you so choose...

Creditors in Commerce (http://www.creditorsincommerce.com/)

Go to either the Audio or Video Section and download Session 15 Accepted for Value Lecture...amazing info there!

The video is a 10 buck download and audio of the same lecture is free (no I'm not affliated with them) but will witness that I have viewed it and the info is credible....actually using this remedy with a Credit remmitance voucher right now...I'll keep you posted....



Peace