You actually own your car

[asky]

Do you know the DVLA doesnt actually own your car as is the general consensus of opinion on here.

asky

[yozhik]

It would appear you do not own your car if you are in the U.S.

http://www.abovetopsecret.com/forum/thread512968/pg1

[spiritual melody]

Until they come along and crush it... :D

[asky]

Evidence from a conspiracy site?
Thats brilliant.

asky

[yozhik]

Evidence from a conspiracy site?
Thats brilliant.

asky

Are you debating the site?
Or the information?

So you've already [dismissively] labelled it as a conspiracy site; does that mean the info is worthless??

Dont you know you never learn anything from people who always agree with you?

asky

The words 'heed one's own advice' come to mind.
:rolleyes:

[asky]

Your very good at drifting threads on here when you sense danger arnt you

Back to the OP please its the DVLA we should be talking about

asky

[malvern]

.....they care not for ownership but the registered keeper in prossession ,,,,,the holder of the contract with them ......in thier fuck you pay me system.


standard dvla quote below

Having checked our records I can confirm that you are still shown as the registered keeper of this vehicle.

It is the registered keepers legal obligation to notify DVLA of disposal when a vehicle is passed on/scrapped/sold. Until confirmation of disposal is received the registered keeper remains responsible for licensing the vehicle even though it may no longer be in their possession.




freedom is the grandchildren we are the caretakers

[girlgye]

Sounds like another junior solicitor/policeman who can't be bothered to use the search button to me.

[malvern]

Sounds like another junior solicitor/policeman who can't be bothered to use the search button to me.

reminds me of some PERSON from anothersite ............... same style ...lol

[girlgye]

yeah wonder he's not calling himself jah! :D

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fS43EIQQ7ak&feature=related

[malvern]

:D

[merlincove]

Do you know the DVLA doesnt actually own your car as is the general consensus of opinion on here.

asky

If the DVLA do not own people's car's then:

1) how or why do they have the power to forcibly remove a vehicle that they have no ownership of

2) how or why do they have the power to crush a vehicle that does not belong to them

3) how can they force the registered keeper to obey certain regulations such as is implemented by the Road Traffic Act

4) how is it that when a bailiff calls for monies owed they are legally entitled to remove your car without your agreeance

5) how can the DVLA, a private limited company, tell none employees how to attend to their own chattel and enforce Company Policy (Road Traffic Act) on those not employed by the company


One would expect that for the DVLA to attend to such measures as removal of good without consent, crushing of goods that do not comply with their directives and the issuing order given to bailiffs and chartered debt collectors would reflect that the ‘registered keeper’ does not actually own the car even though they paid for it.

OK, now let me state that it is my belief that the DVLA do not own our vehicles. But they do own them indirectly.

The DVLA own the registration of the vehicle. And wherein the registration is affixed to a vehicle, they own the vehicle. Removal of the registration mark, is an effect to remove any jurisdiction that private corporations (DVLA) have over your mode of transport.

Here’s a few questions for you then asky, as you seem quite keen on askying…

If someone stole my wallet then they are guilty of theft, yes? The only reasons, as far as I can see, where they would not be guilty of theft are:

A) if I consented for them to take my wallet,

B) If the wallet belonged to them in the first place

Other than that, whoever took my wallet is guilty of a crime? Would you agree?

If they take something that doesn’t belong to them, and without the consent of the owner, they have committed a crime. The wallet, in this case is my wallet, I have not given consent for anyone to take it, and should someone then take it I can call upon the power of the law to come to my aid and prosecute the perpetrators of the crime.

To take that to the next level then

In the same way that I earned the money to buy my wallet, I earned the money to buy a car. A sum total of accrued sweat and labour. I buy a car, the car is mine by sheer dint of purchase of goods, to all intents and purposes I own the vehicle.

Then why if a third party chooses to steel my car / remove it from my safe keeping and crush it do I not have the call and safety net of the law to bring to bear the crime of theft against those people?

Why is it that the DVLA steel hundreds of people’s car’s every year, impound them and crush them and no criminal charges are ever bought against them?

Might it be because the DVLA aren’t actually steeling those cars, they are simply re-affirming their ownership?

So, asky, I put it to you. You prove to me that the DVLA do not own registered vehicles, as I believe I have shown that they do

[girlgye]

I don't think that they do own your car.
Who owns is it a moot point.
The point is what did you allow yourself to do in the first place when you applied for a driver's licence?

[merlincove]

cheers, GG ;)

when you apply for your drivers licence you contract to abide by the laws of the DVLA corporation, and as such the Raod Traffic Act and the instraments used to enforce it.

You contract into a none negotiable clause that gives them roght over your property, and coupled with the registration and registartion document (because these are thin gs that the DVLA do own) they have tacit ownership of your vehicle.

This is how i have come to see it. Is that not right?

[girlgye]

No you become the Beneficiary of a Trust. You are the beneficiary only. I don't buy that crap that you can be the Trustee. No the Police are the Trustee. Who is the Grantor of the Trust?

[willys girl]

I still find this gob smacking.I paid for a car I dont own.When I tell people about this nice set up the dvla have going I always get "are you sure about that" so I advise them to check it out for themselves.All of this freeman on the land is new to me and im enjoying learning.

[girlgye]

What's more you pay for a house you don't own. Yeah. You know, 100% interest over a lifetime of blood sweat and tears. Yeah. You don't own your home/land either.
In fact. You don't even own you're own BODY!!!!:eek:

[Ian2day]

Is it not the Crown which owns all property by defacto of being the highest land authority in England and Wales. I'm not on about Great Britain or the United Kingdom. That may give some indication of the limits of the travel across borders unempeded that the Freeman-on-the-Land can do.

(Perhaps FOTL's unrestructed travel without passport/visa documents is limited to the countrys within the UK's borders. Just another spanner in the works! Of course the reason that such annomolys exist is becasue these processes are not all passed as acts of parliament together. Therefore they can hide loopholes which they exploit as members of the club. Meanwhile the serfs have to maintain their upkeep.)

When a car is new it is registered in the proposed keepers name before it can be driven, used or kept on the public highway. This is to cover such instances as company vehicles/cars. So that any fines can be sent direct to the likely driver at the time of the motorised automobile or vehicle. As ever it is the meaning of the various words in ittalics which matters as well as the interpretation given by the heads of various bodies. Wear the right tie and I dare say that movement is not restricted in any way, shape or form. As a nod is supposed to be as good as a wink. Or was that a bonk is supposed to be as good as a wank! :eek: lol

[number_6]

I still find this gob smacking.I paid for a car I dont own.When I tell people about this nice set up the dvla have going I always get "are you sure about that" so I advise them to check it out for themselves.All of this freeman on the land is new to me and im enjoying learning.

Stop telling them. It's a myth. You own the car, DVLA don't.

[asky]

So merlincove and girlgye have sorted this myth out without my input ;)

The DVLA dont own your car.
You have a reciept which says paid in full that makes you the owner its the same with any purchase of goods.

if your still interested how the police can take it without it being classed as stealing read the Road Traffic Act and the Police Reform Act (Do your own research:)

asky

[malvern]

what is keeper ........

keeper;


1. One that keeps, especially:
a. An attendant, a guard, or a warden.
b. One that has the charge or care of something: a lion keeper; the keeper of the budget.
c. Sports A goalkeeper.
2. Football A play made by the quarterback who keeps the ball after it is snapped and then runs with it.
3. Informal One that is worth keeping, especially a fish large enough to be legally caught.


as i state earlier

.....they care not for ownership but the registered keeper in prossession ,,,,,the holder of the contract with them ......in thier fuck you pay me system.


standard dvla quote below


Quote:
Having checked our records I can confirm that you are still shown as the registered keeper of this vehicle.

It is the registered keepers legal obligation to notify DVLA of disposal when a vehicle is passed on/scrapped/sold. Until confirmation of disposal is received the registered keeper remains responsible for licensing the vehicle even though it may no longer be in their possession.



freedom is the grandchildren we are the caretakers






your contract with the dvla ......... is your contract ..... the fact that the seller pass on the batton of possession to remove themself from the contract and you sign the return form as the new keeper is the point that you register your person to the dvla with referance to that number plate ...
they carenot of type or owner just the keeper's of that number plate
the number plate is the important part, for it is that which creates the BILLS .................



freedom is the grandchildren we are the caretakers

[asky]

Good Post Malvern

Further proof the DVLA doesnt own your car.

asky

[malvern]

The DVLA dont own your car.
You have a reciept which says paid in full that makes you the owner its the same with any purchase of goods.

if your still interested how the police can take it without it being classed as stealing read the Road Traffic Act and the Police Reform Act (Do your own research



you do not have to be the owner to be the keeper

and as for the ACT's ....we have come to consent of the governed and the right to contest contracts. i know the dvla will accept notice to this fact.


freedom is the grandchildren we are the caretakers

[asky]

Correct the DVLA are only interested who is the keeper (thats who they send any fines too)

I dont really want to get into the consent of the governed at the moment because the thread will surely drift

asky

[yozhik]

No you become the Beneficiary of a Trust. You are the beneficiary only. I don't buy that crap that you can be the Trustee. No the Police are the Trustee. Who is the Grantor of the Trust?

I agree.

My current opinion [not set in concrete] is that the DVLA is merely the registration agent for the trust; I do not believe nor do I hold the opinion that the DVLA is the owner.

girlgye is spot on ... in my opinion.
As the 'registered keeper', you are the beneficiary of the trust.
A person who registers a vehicle is neither the trustee nor the grantor ...

[willys girl]

Stop telling them. It's a myth. You own the car, DVLA don't..Taken what you said on board and will re read all the info I have again.

[number_6]

.Taken what you said on board and will re read all the info I have again.

There is a letter from DVLA posted on tpuc where DVLA admit in writing that they never own the vehicle that you register with them. But it doesn't stop the myth being kept alive by some. I am pleased to see that even girlgye now accepts that DVLA don't own your car.

[asky]

http://tpuc.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=5147&hilit=+dvla

Here the link willys girl

asky

[yozhik]

The DVLA is not the owner; they are the agents to the register.
You are not the owner; you are the 'registered keeper'. The beneficiary.


This is where my current opinion is positioned.
It wasn't where it started; it might not be where it ends.
Its where it is currently.

[asky]

yozhik wrote
You are not the owner;

Wrong you are the owner its the same principle as anything you "own" what proof do you have that you own your clothes , your washing machine,anything you possess.

Its a recipt saying that you paid and possession being 9/10ths of the law.

Thats why when you buy something in a shop you get a reciept its so if they stop you walking out you can say "look its mine I paid for it"

As Bill Hicks used to say it makes sense......... when you just talk it through.........

asky

[yozhik]

A receipt is proof of delivery.
It is not proof of ownership.

Proof of ownership is title and even then, there are various forms of title.
Compare fee simple to allodial.

Possession being 9/10th's of the law is absolutely applicable to the beneficiary/trust parallel.

As 'registered keeper' [beneficiary] I am in 'possession' of the vehicle ... ergo ... 9/10th's of the law will apply to that possession.

Despite not being the owner.

[asky]

So by your reasoning we own nothing?

asky

[yozhik]

So by your reasoning we own nothing?

asky

If I truly owned something, it could not be taken from me without my consent, without a crime being committed.

Taking an item I own from me without my consent is theft.

The only way you or anyone else can lawfully tke something from me or have the authority to take it from me, is if i do not own it.

Possession versus ownership.
Beneficiary versus owner.

[merlincove]

Taking an item I own from me without my consent is theft.



Maxim of law.

If you own something and it is taken away none consensually, then the crime of theft is applicable.

However, as we are well aware, a vehicle can be taken away and disposed of, and yet this is not theft.

Visa-ve: the vehicle does not belong to the registered keeper even if they have a receipt for it through sale of goods.

So let us cut to the chase and stop fucking about.

The DVLA say that they are not concerned with ownership / they do not own the vehicle.

The registered keeper does not own the vehicle.

So who owns the vehicle?

Somewhere along the line the right of ownership has been removed, as can be evidenced by the maxim above and the transgressions of vehicle removal.

We either lost possession of the vehicle and all rights to it through vehicle registration, or licence application, or both. There may be other factors involved also, but either way, neither the registered keeper or the purchaser own the vehicle that has been purchased.

I’d like to know who does own it then, please.

[pleasuredome]

Maxim of law.

If you own something and it is taken away none consensually, then the crime of theft is applicable.

However, as we are well aware, a vehicle can be taken away and disposed of, and yet this is not theft.

Visa-ve: the vehicle does not belong to the registered keeper even if they have a receipt for it through sale of goods.

So let us cut to the chase and stop fucking about.

The DVLA say that they are not concerned with ownership / they do not own the vehicle.

The registered keeper does not own the vehicle.

So who owns the vehicle?

Somewhere along the line the right of ownership has been removed, as can be evidenced by the maxim above and the transgressions of vehicle removal.

We either lost possession of the vehicle and all rights to it through vehicle registration, or licence application, or both. There may be other factors involved also, but either way, neither the registered keeper or the purchaser own the vehicle that has been purchased.

I’d like to know who does own it then, please.

... and then there is the common definition and their definitions of "owner" :D

[merlincove]

... and then there is the common definition and their definitions of "owner" :D

:D

[number_6]

Somewhere along the line the right of ownership has been removed, as can be evidenced by the maxim above and the transgressions of vehicle removal.
.

I would disagree with that. An uninsured vehicle that is parked or being used on private land that is not maintained at public expense cannot be removed. If TPTB DVLA or whoever truly owned the vehicle they could. In fact, if they really owned the vehicle they could take a taxed and insured vehicle off the highway at any time for no reason without the keeper's consent and keep it for themselves.

[phildee3]

So by your reasoning we own nothing?



That hits the nail on the head!

All land that is "owned" was taken by force at some point.

All money that we use to "buy" things was created by fraud.

[asky]

merloncove wrote
The DVLA say that they are not concerned with ownership / they do not own the vehicle.

The registered keeper does not own the vehicle.

So who owns the vehicle?

The person who paid for it of course.

The DVLA seek the keeper because thats who is responsible for its use on the road.
I can buy a car for my son he can be the keeper and he is responsible for racking up points.
Its still my car as I have proof of payment.

asky

[asky]

phildee3 wrote
That hits the nail on the head!

All land that is "owned" was taken by force at some point.

All money that we use to "buy" things was created by fraud.

OK then if we cant own anything why bother rattling on about the DVLA all the time.

Talk about wasting time :rolleyes: I have said many times the DVLA thing is a Red Herring.

asky

[phildee3]

Its still my car as I have proof of payment.



But what if I could provide proof that the money that you "bought" it with was stolen?

[asky]

If "ifs and ands" were pots and pans we would all be cooks and chefs

asky

[phildee3]

If "ifs and ands" were pots and pans we would all be cooks and chefs



But they're not.
So you don't own anything.

[number_6]

But what if I could provide proof that the money that you "bought" it with was stolen?

Are you suggesting that none of us own anything?

[merlincove]

what did you purchase your car with asky? I'm assuming that you have a car ;)

And i might equally assume that you paid for said car with either a loan agreement or hard currency.

If the former then what exchange took place? You agreed to depart with promissory notes, whose worth is at best negotiable.

If the later then i refer the right honourable gentleman to the answer i gave a moment ago.

How can anything be bought with a promise? And yet this is how the commercial world works, it revolves around promises and promissory notes. Where is the currency? The currency is the favour you give of your time in employment, the currency is your time, your sweat. The currency is you.

A receipt is just a bit of paper that decrees the acceptance of promissory concepts.

You are right we can never own anything, but the time decreed to us.

I keep dropping the hints, will you pick them up and examine them?

[merlincove]

Are you suggesting that none of us own anything?

What do you own number 6? given my post above, what do we trully own?

We own only that which can not be taken away from us, ultimately.

;)

[yozhik]

Are you suggesting that none of us own anything?

Comes back to ...

If I truly owned something, it could not be taken from me without my consent, without a crime being committed.

Taking an item I own from me without my consent is theft.

The only way you or anyone else can lawfully tke something from me or have the authority to take it from me, is if i do not own it.

[yozhik]

So who owns the vehicle?

Somewhere along the line the right of ownership has been removed, as can be evidenced by the maxim above and the transgressions of vehicle removal.

We either lost possession of the vehicle and all rights to it through vehicle registration, or licence application, or both. There may be other factors involved also, but either way, neither the registered keeper or the purchaser own the vehicle that has been purchased.

I’d like to know who does own it then, please.

You can purchase the use of an asset, as you do with leasehold.
You do not own it - you possess the right to use it.

Ownership does not have to be removed, it can simply be transferred.

Many of the 'high and mighty' own very little ... but they do benefit from very fat offshore trusts, which hold assets, for which they are the beneficiary.

Consider the following ...

Options:
1. you can own it.
2. you can control it.
3. you can enjoy the use of it.

Pick two.

[girlgye]

There is a letter from DVLA posted on tpuc where DVLA admit in writing that they never own the vehicle that you register with them. But it doesn't stop the myth being kept alive by some. I am pleased to see that even girlgye now accepts that DVLA don't own your car.

cut and paste where I ever said that they did.

[girlgye]

Maxim of law.

If you own something and it is taken away none consensually, then the crime of theft is applicable.

However, as we are well aware, a vehicle can be taken away and disposed of, and yet this is not theft.

Visa-ve: the vehicle does not belong to the registered keeper even if they have a receipt for it through sale of goods.

So let us cut to the chase and stop fucking about.

The DVLA say that they are not concerned with ownership / they do not own the vehicle.

The registered keeper does not own the vehicle.

So who owns the vehicle?

Somewhere along the line the right of ownership has been removed, as can be evidenced by the maxim above and the transgressions of vehicle removal.

We either lost possession of the vehicle and all rights to it through vehicle registration, or licence application, or both. There may be other factors involved also, but either way, neither the registered keeper or the purchaser own the vehicle that has been purchased.

I’d like to know who does own it then, please.


Oh yes it is theft. Prove to me that it isn't. Or are you just gonna cut and paste the tpuc troll's stuff and tell me that it is?

[girlgye]

I would disagree with that. An uninsured vehicle that is parked or being used on private land that is not maintained at public expense cannot be removed. If TPTB DVLA or whoever truly owned the vehicle they could. In fact, if they really owned the vehicle they could take a taxed and insured vehicle off the highway at any time for no reason without the keeper's consent and keep it for themselves.

No they couldn't because they have invented contracts which specify why they (as Trust agents) can take the car off the road. 1. when it's a car operating in commerce and driver violates any of their codes. 2.when it isn't insured. 3. when it isn't taxed. 4. If it is deemed unroadworthy ie it doesn't have a valid MOT Certificate.

[asky]

merlincove wrote
what did you purchase your car with asky? I'm assuming that you have a car

And i might equally assume that you paid for said car with either a loan agreement or hard currency.

If the former then what exchange took place? You agreed to depart with promissory notes, whose worth is at best negotiable.

I paid for my car with my "labour" which my employer and I had previously agreed that would be exchanged for a fixed number of promissary notes for each hour I laboured for them.
I then used the said promissary notes in exchange for a motor vehicle which had been produced from the labour of others whose labour needed to be rewarded.

Its called society ;)

asky

[merlincove]

Oh yes it is theft. Prove to me that it isn't. Or are you just gonna cut and paste the tpuc troll's stuff and tell me that it is?

i agree with you, it is theft:

Maxim of law.

If you own something and it is taken away none consensually, then the crime of theft is applicable.

:D

i never said it wasn't.

[merlincove]

merlincove wrote


I paid for my car with my "labour" which my employer and I had previously agreed that would be exchanged for a fixed number of promissary notes for each hour I laboured for them.
I then used the said promissary notes in exchange for a motor vehicle which had been produced from the labour of others whose labour needed to be rewarded.

Its called society ;)

asky

so you bought your car with the exchange of promissory notes. So how can a promissory note have any value, get it yet?

[asky]

girlgye wrote
No they couldn't because they have invented contracts

err..........

The laws which you hold dear were all "invented" at some point.

You cant really hope that because you dont agree with something you can say "its all made up"

asky

[girlgye]

No. He won't get it. No neurons working in the brain. With most skeptics you will see comparison and reason not with this one. Personally, I've found it best to ignore him completely. You might have to get an iggy facility so you can totally ignore his posts.

[merlincove]

Oh yes it is theft. Prove to me that it isn't. Or are you just gonna cut and paste the tpuc troll's stuff and tell me that it is?

i ment, it is not theft as far as they (the DVLA) are concearned, but argue that it is theft by maxim of law.

my fault, i didn't word that sentance as good as i should have :rolleyes:

If you own something and it is taken away none consensually, then the crime of theft is applicable.

However, as we are well aware, a vehicle can be taken away and disposed of, and yet this is not theft.

"However, as we are well aware, a vehicle can be taken away and disposed of, and yet this is not considerd as theft"

would have been better :D

[girlgye]

Yes. However, in PD and in my case we declared and noterised COR and NOUI and told them to shove it where the sun don't shine. they just ignored the questions as per and as I have put on the our laws on travel thread. So we have re-written the law and told them that our autos are ours which means fuck off thieving asswipe.

Still no response from them. going to default it this week.

[merlincove]

Lke rob says though Mary, when we are faced with a force of law that has tazers, truncheons, guns and cs gas, we will always be under their duress.

[asky]

merlincove wrote
So how can a promissory note have any value, get it yet?

Oh Ive got it all right a promissary note is a medium of exchange it has the value that society deems it to have.

If you believe promissary notes have no value I can send you details of an empty bank account and you can transfer all yours into it for me ;)

I find it strange that you believe promissary notes have no value but you keep going into shops passing them over and getting goods in return thats tantamount to fraud isnt it?

Not very honourable of you is it?

asky

[girlgye]

Lke rob says though Mary, when we are faced with a force of law that has tazers, truncheons, guns and cs gas, we will always be under their duress.

yeah I got threatened with that when I started my proceedings against the judge. And?

[merlincove]

i have not said that promissory notes have no value, but i have questioned their worth as to what can trully be owned through their exchange.

Please don't alter what i have said into what i haven't to further your own cause, it is against forum guidelines :D

[merlincove]

yeah I got threatened with that when I started my proceedings against the judge. And?

:D

and, more power to you girl :D

[girlgye]

He said.
We don't need a warrant to drag you into court.
We don't need a warrant to come to your house. We can tazer you, we can spray you, we can come armed.
Yeah?
Under what Authority.
PACE.
What section.
I don't know look it up on the internet. Snigger Snigger. Swagger. Swagger. I can assure you they don't assess personality when they interview for recruits for police.

[merlincove]

Well, Mary, they do have to bring PACE with them when they come. and then you ask to see the relevant sections, and just tell them that you do not understand the section, and read the whole fucking thing. From page one. and until you understand it they can not enforce any part of it.

Of course they can tazer you while you are reading it. :p

[phildee3]

Are you suggesting that none of us own anything?



Correct.
We exercise control over things by force, threat or deception (inherently).

We are allowed custody of things by consensus, which may be withdrawn at any time.

[yozhik]

I paid for my car with my "labour" which my employer and I had previously agreed that would be exchanged for a fixed number of promissary notes for each hour I laboured for them.

Promissory note?

Promise to pay what exactly?
When?
How?

[asky]

merlincove wrote in post 54
So how can a promissory note have any value, get it yet?

Then wrote
i have not said that promissory notes have no value, but i have questioned their worth as to what can trully be owned through their exchange.

Please don't alter what i have said into what i haven't to further your own cause, it is against forum guidelines

Now who is gulity of breaking forum guide lines?

Are you deliberatly trying to get me banned or are you confused as to your understanding of the subject at hand?

Its one or the other

asky

[asky]

yozhick wrote

Promise to pay what exactly?
Pounds which is an accepted meaning for the currency we use.

When?
When ever I decide, they are mine after all.

How?
By passing them to a human being who realises that they represent value.

asky

[theoneandonly]

how can a promissory note have any value

i have questioned their worth

Asky... how are these different :confused:... asking how can a promissory note have any value is questioning their worth!

[girlgye]

Well, Mary, they do have to bring PACE with them when they come. and then you ask to see the relevant sections, and just tell them that you do not understand the section, and read the whole fucking thing. From page one. and until you understand it they can not enforce any part of it.

Of course they can tazer you while you are reading it. :p

No they get it out and read the section. Cute you see coz the section that they are getting me on they couldn't really make wash which is why they don't read it.
they just go Section (I haven't got my file) but the section that is obstruction of a police officer
This constitutes not giving him evidence when he needs it.
Such as you saw a burgler but you refuse to say who you are so he can't use as witness

In fact it's so decidedly vague it's hard to know what the fuck it says.
However, this is the only criminal bit they can get me on. They are itching to put me in jail again. They tried the last time I went to court. Now I am talking about the car! I know so many remedies going on with me. It's hard to keep up.

I'm going to do another one to the Chief actually for Harrassment.

[yozhik]

Pounds which is an accepted meaning for the currency we use.
pounds of what?


By passing them to a human being who realises that they represent value.

asky

What value do they re-present?

You know the history of the 'notes' I am going to assume.
The 'note' used to re-present a pound of silver and could be exchanged for such at the holders fancy.

So the promissory notes that are being used now ... given to us in exchange for our sweat equity ... other than other denominations of promissory notes ... what value do they have?

What is supporting them other than the faith and credit [and ignorance] of the people?

Where did the silver [or gold] disappear to?

... and what exactly is the 'credit of the people'?
Sounds a bit like 'security of the person' ...
:rolleyes:

[merlincove]

Now you are just being facetious asky ;)

you and i both know that a promissory note has no value other than is atributed to it by commonly agreed acceptance.



Now who is gulity of breaking forum guide lines?

Are you deliberatly trying to get me banned or are you confused as to your understanding of the subject at hand?

Its one or the other

asky

[merlincove]

yozhick wrote


Pounds which is an accepted meaning for the currency we use.


When ever I decide, they are mine after all.


By passing them to a human being who realises that they represent value.

asky

Pounds of what?

Exactly.

1) Pounds of silver (Stirling),
2) Pounds of gold,
3) Pounds of paper
4) Pounds of sweat
5) Pounds of fresh air.

choose one, or add your own.*






* i think i know what you will do ;)

EDIT: sorry Yoz, just seen your post asking the same thing.

[asky]

Pound is a word like rupee or dracma it is the name of a unit of currency its not a pound weight of anything.

what value does it represent.

it represents what you can exchange it for
one pound = a loaf of bread

What do you suggest we use instead of money
a barter society by any chance??

asky

[yozhik]

Pound is a word like rupee or dracma it is the name of a unit of currency its not a pound weight of anything.

what value does it represent.

it represents what you can exchange it for
one pound = a loaf of bread

What do you suggest we use instead of money
a barter society by any chance??

asky

That's not historically correct though, is it?

The English Pound DID denote a pound of something of value ... a pound of silver.
That is historical fact.



EDIT
Look ... this is both a cyclic and redundant argument which has done the rounds for years in a multitude of fora, on and off line.

It's all part of the Central Bank system [organised crime syndicate] and although connected, is a separate thread/forum to the FOTL.

The FACT of the matter is that 'money' does not exist anymore.
What we have circulating in the economy are promissory notes, which will be perceived as valuable, only whilst they have the con-fidence of those who use them.

Key Words;
perceived
con-fidence

[asky]

Not any more though.

Its what is accepted as fact now that matters.

Its an "historical fact" that people thought the earth was flat in the middle ages but the ancient Greeks knew the earth was round.

asky

[yozhik]

Not any more though.

Its what is accepted as fact now that matters.

Its an "historical fact" that people thought the earth was flat in the middle ages but the ancient Greeks knew the earth was round.

asky

... and if I don't accept it?

Oh wait ... I know the answer ... I'm labelled as a woo, possibly tasered or sectioned under the Mental Health Act ... right?

Which really just amounts to bullying.

Ironic ... you and number_6 bang on ad nauseum about the lack of tolerance for dissenting views ... and yet thats exactly what the system you support advocates violence to enforce.

:D

[sigh] ... you have to laugh ... its so farcical that if you couldn't laugh, you'd be heading to the draw with sharp knives.

[phildee3]

Pound is a word like rupee or dracma it is the name of a unit of currency its not a pound weight of anything.

what value does it represent.

it represents what you can exchange it for
one pound = a loaf of bread




It's true value is a negative value!
It is based on the exploitation and suffering of people in the "third world."

The only reason why someone will give you a loaf a bread for a pound is because they've been conned into thinking it has that much positive value by the market manipulators.

[merlincove]

:D

[sigh] ... you have to laugh ... its so farcical that if you couldn't laugh, you'd be heading to the draw with sharp knives.


i really think it is now well passed asky's bed time :rolleyes:

and i would respectfully ask:

4656

:D

[theoneandonly]

i really think it is now well passed asky's bed time :rolleyes:

and i would respectfully ask:

4656

:D

Hahaaa :D

[ekim]

So merlincove and girlgye have sorted this myth out without my input ;)

The DVLA dont own your car.
You have a reciept which says paid in full that makes you the owner its the same with any purchase of goods.

if your still interested how the police can take it without it being classed as stealing read the Road Traffic Act and the Police Reform Act (Do your own research:)

asky

An ACT is not a law and has no way to be enforced eccept by breaking the rights and freedoms of others.

[yozhik]

The DVLA dont own your car.
They are the agent for the register.

You have a reciept which says paid in full that makes you the owner its the same with any purchase of goods.
A receipt is NOT proof of ownership.
This has already been posted.
You have tried to ignore it.

A receipt [look at the word ... its a big clue] is proof the goods have been received or proof of delivery.

N-O-T-H-I-N-G to do with ownership.

Your continued attempts to obfuscate this FACT is intentional spreading of disinformation.

if your still interested how the police can take it without it being classed as stealing read the Road Traffic Act and the Police Reform Act (Do your own research:)

asky

Ahhh ... statutes and acts.
Of course asky ... when backed in to a corner, whip out the tool of deception ... the statutes and acts.

Classic.
:D

[girlgye]

He's having a sulk because he knows PD and I are talking on here at present whilst ignoring him on there so he's resurrecting TPUc threads which are trite and boring for us.

[asky]

merlincove wrote
Now you are just being facetious asky

you and i both know that a promissory note has no value other than is atributed to it by commonly agreed acceptance.

I wasnt being facetious at all I was pointing out that you posted two different opinions and then tried to make it appear that I was mis-quoting you.

if you want to turn it into a joke thats up to you but you could have at least admitted your mistake first.

You see when people spout other peoples opinions rather than their own they always trip themselves up.

Just be honest and speak from the heart and not a script and you will be fine.

asky

[mossdog]

A receipt is NOT proof of ownership.
This has already been posted.
You have tried to ignore it.

A receipt [look at the word ... its a big clue] is proof the goods have been received or proof of delivery.

N-O-T-H-I-N-G to do with ownership.

dont be silly

a receipt is proof of payment being received by the seller

thats why the person who paid has it and not the seller

[merlincove]

I wasnt being facetious at all I was pointing out that you posted two different opinions and then tried to make it appear that I was mis-quoting you.

if you want to turn it into a joke thats up to you but you could have at least admitted your mistake first.

You see when people spout other peoples opinions rather than their own they always trip themselves up.

Just be honest and speak from the heart and not a script and you will be fine.

asky

asky, this is getting a little tedious now. my quotes are given in full context below:

so you bought your car with the exchange of promissory notes. So how can a promissory note have any value, get it yet?

I was asking you a question, hense the question mark, hense the narratical tone and inclussion of 'so how,' rather than giving an account of my own factual concept of said promissory note. my post below, in response to your own is as follows:

i have not said that promissory notes have no value, but i have questioned their worth as to what can trully be owned through their exchange.


You continue to misquote me in an attempt to debunk my quotes, i have stated my possition time and time again and yet you choose to derail your own thread by arguing the toss betwixt your conception and mine.

i state again, because you conveniently choose to avoid this point:



you and i both know that a promissory note has no value other than is atributed to it by commonly agreed acceptance.

all other values to it are illusionary.

This is the point i have made, and if i did not make that clear enough for you to grasp, i am sorry, but there you have it, i don't think i can be any more clear on the fact. It is my view, which you choose to sidestep in favour of the offerance of taunts and miscontruences. That, of course is your perogative, though such may be construed as trolling.

I will not further this discussion with my energy, it is going around in circles and now shows little effort toward achieving any worthwhiole goal.

[yozhik]

dont be silly

a receipt is proof of payment being received by the seller

thats why the person who paid has it and not the seller

I disagree with none of that.

So where exactly have you mentioned the word ownership?

[asky]

We can just agree to differ then;)

Im sure we will do it again:)

asky

[mossdog]

I disagree with none of that.

So where exactly have you mentioned the word ownership?

the one who paid the money and therefore has the receipt is the legal owner ?????

[yozhik]

the one who paid the money and therefore has the receipt is the legal owner ?????

Example;

You make payment on a leasehold property.
You receive a receipt.
You do NOT own the property.

Payment made, receipt given, property not 'owned'.
You own the lease, but not the property.
You have bought the right to use the property, but you do not own it.

payment + receipt does NOT equate to ownership.



EDIT
In the 'ownership' papers to a house ... if you outright 'owned' the property [i.e. had clear, allodial title], why are you referred to as the 'tenant'?

[phildee3]

a receipt is proof of payment being received by the seller



Correct, but what has been paid has no value (or has negative value).

What would you do if I paid you for something with forged notes
and you didn't find out until after you gave me a receipt and I took possession of the goods?

Who would be the owner of the goods?

[asky]

You would until it was finally decided in a court of law.

The person with the notes would have to prove you gave them to him.

Please dont come up with any more "what ifs" please.

asky

[yozhik]

You would until it was finally decided in a court of law.

The person with the notes would have to prove you gave them to him.

Please dont come up with any more "what ifs" please.

asky

LOL ... I'm calling you out on this one.
This is pure fiction.

You would be in possession of the goods.
You would be in receipt of the goods.
You would NOT be the owner.

Fuck me ... there really is some drivel being posted now, just for the sake of being contrary.

[mossdog]

Example;

You make payment on a leasehold property.
You receive a receipt.
You do NOT own the property.

Payment made, receipt given, property not 'owned'.
You own the lease, but not the property.
You have bought the right to use the property, but you do not own it.

payment + receipt does NOT equate to ownership.



EDIT
In the 'ownership' papers to a house ... if you outright 'owned' the property [i.e. had clear, allodial title], why are you referred to as the 'tenant'?


your mixing up two legal concepts one is property ie bricks and mortar which you own and land, which as leaseholder you dont

you do of course have the right to buy the leasehold and become freehold

its like arguing you dont own a mobile home because it parked on farmer jims field and you pay 10 pounds a month for the privilege

[asky]

Calling me out?

OK lets walk through the sceanario

A gives B £3000 in dud notes
B gives A the car+ a reciept for said amount paid.

still with me

A drives away with car
B goes to bank with notes finds out they are duds.
B phones police
Police interview A
A says I gave him genuine money.

OK What happens next yoz?

[number_6]

Does B beat A up?

[yozhik]

your mixing up two legal concepts one is property ie bricks and mortar which you own and land, which as leaseholder you dont

you do of course have the right to buy the leasehold and become freehold

its like arguing you dont own a mobile home because it parked on farmer jims field and you pay 10 pounds a month for the privilege

Huh?
That makes no sense.

let's keep this nice and simple.

A receipt is not proof of ownership.
Please - show me something - ANYTHING that equates a receipt as being proof of ownership and I will be happy to change my opinion.

I'll start the ball rolling;

RECEIPT. A receipt that is the written acknowledgement of the receipt of money, or a thing of value, without containing any affirmative obligation upon either party to it; a mere admission of a fact, in writing.
Black's Law, 2nd edition, page 995
No mention of ownership.

receipt
n. a written and signed acknowledgment by the recipient of payment for goods, money in payment of a debt or receiving assets from the estate of someone who has died.
http://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=1740
No mention of ownership.

Receipt
A document which acknowledges the delivery of a thing or the payment of money.

In Bowes v Foster, Justice Pollock noted that:
"A receipt is an admission.... (and) only evidence of payment.... (I)f proof be that no payment was made, it cannot operate as evidence of payment against such proof."

In Commissioner of Stamp Duties, Justice McTiernan of the High Court of Australia wrote:
"A document is not a receipt unless it is an acknowledgment to somebody, presumably the payer, for money received or paid. It is sufficient if the acknowledgment is express or tacit."

In AG v Northwood, Justice Greene wrote:
"One of the objects of a receipt ... is that it can be produced as evidence in a court of law.... (T)he use of such a document in a court of law as being one of the things one would expect the holder of a receipt to enjoy normally.

"Unquestionably, if you say a person has given you a receipt for something, what you mean is he has given you something which you can keep as your own and produce on all occasions that it is required, particularly in a court of law.

"In order to be a receipt, it must be a document whereby the receipt or deposit or payment of money is expressed and acknowledged."

In People of the State of New York v Fusaro, Justice De Luca adopted these words:
"A receipt (is) a written acknowledgment by one person of his having received money or property from another as will be prima facie evidence of that fact in a court of law.

"(A receipt is) also an admission of fact in writing or an act of acceptance for something delivered."

Source (http://duhaime.org/LegalDictionary/R/Receipt.aspx)
No mention of ownership.

[yozhik]

Calling me out?

OK lets walk through the sceanario

A gives B £3000 in dud notes
B gives A the car+ a reciept for said amount paid.

still with me

A drives away with car
B goes to bank with notes finds out they are duds.
B phones police
Police interview A
A says I gave him genuine money.

OK What happens next yoz?

Ummm ... a police investigation?

asky ... I believe your words earlier were;
'possession is 9/10th's of the law'

Funny how that maxim isn't;
'ownership is 9/10th's of the law'

[asky]

And who keeps the car whilst it is going on?

Come on yoz you know where this will end up bow out gracefully.

asky

[number_6]

Hang on a minute, yozhik. Going down the receipt route is a trifle misleading. When selling something, it would be normal to provide a bill of sale. That would transfer ownership.

[yozhik]

And who keeps the car whilst it is going on?

Come on yoz you know where this will end up bow out gracefully.

asky

bow out?
asky ... you know in your heart of hearts where this would go.

1. B would make police complaint.
2. police would investigate
3. it may end up in court, in which case legal representatives would then play their game of probabilities.
4. both A and B would probably attest to their version of 'the truth'

If the ruling was in favour of A, who could [and would] produce a receipt, he may be awarded POSSESSION of the vehicle and legally earn the ability to register it as the 'registered keeper'.


All such ruling would do is validate the transaction between A and B.
The court case would be nothing more than that.
Did a valid transaction take place; i.e. payment for delivery.

A would show a receipt.
B would claim the notes were duds.

The case and both the arguments would be focused on validity of payment.
Not ownership.

Possession post ruling is the desired outcome.
Proof of ownership isn't.
NONE of this is about title of 'ownership'.
It is about the validity of the transaction and the payment/non-payment for delivery of goods.

[asky]

Everything you just wrote was true

Except the last sentence:D

asky

[yozhik]

Hang on a minute, yozhik. Going down the receipt route is a trifle misleading. When selling something, it would be normal to provide a bill of sale. That would transfer ownership.

I wasn't the source of the 'receipt route'.
You're the first one to even mention a Bill of Sale.

[number_6]

yozhik, it would not be a receipt, it would be a bill of sale.

[yozhik]

Everything you just wrote was true

Except the last sentence:D

asky

Calling you out again asky.
That's bullshit.

B's claims were based on faulty notes.
A's defense was based on having a receipt as proof of payment.

faulty notes versus proof of payment.

i.e. payment/non-payment

Legal possession is a consequence of the ruling, not a factor.

[yozhik]

yozhik, it would not be a receipt, it would be a bill of sale.

number_6 ... please comprehend... I didn't introduce the topic of 'receipt'.

All I am debating is the claim that a receipt is proof of ownership.
You're trying to pin an argument that isn't mine, to my shirt tail. :)

[number_6]

So would you agree that a bill of sale does transfer ownership?

[yozhik]

So would you agree that a bill of sale does transfer ownership?

According to some definitions I am aware of; yes.

HOWEVER ... as I earlier stated, 'ownership' comes in different forms.
Simple example... fee simple versus allodial.

I haven't researched it enough to be comfortable answering it with any confidence.

[but I'm sure this direct honesty will not prevent some on here jumping on me like hyenas picking over old bones ...]


EDIT
Hmmm ... demands some research.
A quick grab of Black's 2nd [page 134] gave me;

Bill of sale. In contracts. A written agreement under seal, by which one person assigns or transfers his right to or interest in goods and personal chattels to another. An instrument by which, in particular, the property in ships and vessels is conveyed.

I need to look further; there's no specific mention of ownership.
Transfer of rights and/or interest, but not ownership.
As I said, I haven't done enough research on this subject to offer any response with confidence.

[asky]

yozhik wrote
B's claims were based on faulty notes.
A's defense was based on having a receipt as proof of payment.

faulty notes versus proof of payment.

i.e. payment/non-payment

Legal possession is a consequence of the ruling, not a factor.

Up to the judge to decide after hearing the evidence.

But I know who my money would be on based on what we have up to now :D

asky

[number_6]

I haven't researched it enough to be comfortable answering it with any confidence.[/B]


I respect that honesty.

[asky]

Yozick wrote

I haven't researched it enough to be comfortable answering it with any confidence.

[but I'm sure this direct honesty will not prevent some on here jumping on me like hyenas picking over old bones ...]

I dont want to be accused of "picking over bones" but have you answered the same question in the past and been fully confident of your statement?

You see thats one of my issues with the freeman movement statements are made as fact when the person is not sure if its true or not hence its misinformation.

Im not accusing you of deliberate misinformation by the way

asky

[yozhik]

yozhik wrote


Up to the judge to decide after hearing the evidence.

But I know who my money would be on based on what we have up to now :D

asky

Again, you're lured by your penchance to games of probability.
Still doesn't advance the issue of 'ownership' though.

:rolleyes:

[yozhik]

Yozick wrote



I dont want to be accused of "picking over bones" but have you answered the same question in the past and been fully confident of your statement?

You see thats one of my issues with the freeman movement statements are made as fact when the person is not sure if its true or not hence its misinformation.

Im not accusing you of deliberate misinformation by the way

asky

I'm specifically referring to the term 'Bill of sale'.
It has come up so seldom that I'm not confident of its definition and its application.

The very first definition I looked at had the word 'ownership' in it.
However, given it was simply an online dictionary, I'm not going to give it much weight.

Black's and Bouvier's do not mention ownership.
They both specify transfer of property; not ownership.

But ... how long have I been researching it? 15 minutes?
Hardly enough time to become an authority on the matter.
:)

However, so far with Black's and Bouvier's against online dictionary... I'm leaning towards the Black's and Bouvier's.

[asky]

own⋅er⋅ship
  /ˈoʊnərˌʃɪp/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [oh-ner-ship] Show
–noun
1. the state or fact of being an owner.
2. legal right of possession; proprietorship.

A is the owner if the court decides there is not enough evidence to prove he passed dud notes and find in his favour.
B is the owner if the court decides A passed dud notes and they find in his favour.

simple

asky

[number_6]

yozhik, why is Blacks your point of reference considering it is American?

[yozhik]

own⋅er⋅ship
  /ˈoʊnərˌʃɪp/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [oh-ner-ship] Show
–noun
1. the state or fact of being an owner.
2. legal right of possession; proprietorship.

A is the owner if the court decides there is not enough evidence to prove he passed dud notes and find in his favour.
B is the owner if the court decides A passed dud notes and they find in his favour.

simple

asky

Source please?

[yozhik]

yozhik, why is Blacks your point of reference considering it is American?

Because even in the UK, Black's is known.
It is reputable afterall.
I comprehend where you're coming from ... but my budget can only afford one dictionary at a time :)

[number_6]

Because even in the UK, Black's is known.
It is reputable afterall.
I comprehend where you're coming from ... but my budget can only afford one dictionary at a time :)

Best to get an English Law dictionary.

[asky]

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/OWNERSHIP

asky

[theoneandonly]

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/OWNERSHIP

asky

That is not a law dictionary...

[yozhik]

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/OWNERSHIP

asky

Can you refer to any cases where that definition might have been used in a law context?

Hypothetically ... in your A versus B dispute?
Could you envisage the legal representatives for A or B, in their legal argument, citing http://dictionary.reference.com ?

[phildee3]

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/OWNERSHIP

asky

Ownership:
the legal right of possession.

But we don't have the legal right of posession to something we've bought with fake money,
and even if you legally traded your labour for goods, those goods were probably bought with fake money so were not legally owned by the seller.

The only things we can legally own are those things that were never bought or sold for money!

[asky]

yozhick wrote
Can you refer to any cases where that definition might have been used in a law context?

Hypothetically ... in your A versus B dispute?
Could you envisage the legal representatives for A or B, in their legal argument, citing http://dictionary.reference.com ?

I dont think it is likely that they are there to discusss the meaning of a word.

And it would probably be in a civil court anyway wouldnt it?

Do you think the CPS would be interested in a dispute between two people over a car?

For it to be in a criminal court one would have to be charged with a crime would they not?

asky

[yozhik]

yozhick wrote


I dont think it is likely that they are there to discusss the meaning of a word.

And it would probably be in a civil court anyway wouldnt it?

Do you think the CPS would be interested in a dispute between two people over a car?

For it to be in a criminal court one would have to be charged with a crime would they not?

asky

asky ... you can dance and hide all you like; you know an online dictionary definition is frivilous in 'legal' disputes.

[asky]

Im not dancing
Do you really think people in court sit there pouring over dictionaries looking up the meaning of words?

They get on with the case at hand.

Anyway seeing as your so fond of Blacks Law heres 2nd edition definition
OWNERSHIP. The complete dominion,
title, or proprietary right in a thing or cllllm.
S~e PROPERTY.
rl'he ownershIp of a thing is the right ot
one or more persons to possess ond use it to
othe exclusion of others. In this O>de, the thing of which there may be ownershIp is
cfllled "property." Civ. Code Cal. § 654.
Ownership is the right by whiclJ a thing
belongs to some one in particular, to the exclusion
of aU other persons.

And Owner
He who has dominion of a thing. r('al or personal,
corporeal or incorporeal ,,·bicb he has
a right to enjoy and do with as 'he pleases, even
to spoil or destroy it, as fa1' as the law penuits,
unless he be prevented by BODle agrl'ement or
covenant which restrains his right. BoU\"ier.


They could use these if they get stuck

asky

[yozhik]

asky ... not trying to be funny ... but I can't make sense of those definitions.

Is it the font set up on my laptop?
There are some crazy ass character symbols which I'm just not getting.

Source?
Maybe I can see the original for myself?


EDIT
Shit ...OK ... source is Black's 2nd.
Cool - I have that.

[yozhik]

asky ... you have cited Black's 2nd edition for the definitions of 'ownership' and 'owner'.
In both of these definitions, specific reference is made to 'property'.

PROPERTY. Rightful dominion over external objects; ownership; the unrestricted and exclusive right to a thing; the right to dispose of the substance of a thing in every legal way, to possess it, to use it, and to exclude every one else from interfering with it. Mackeld. Rom. Law, 265

Property is the highest right a man can have to anything; being used for that right which one has to lands or tenements, goods or chattels, which noway depends on another man's courtesy. Jackson ex dem. Pearson v. House;, 17 Johns. 281, 283.

Discuss ...