Lawful travel in a motorised vehicle...

[willium_bob_cole]

Hey guys, I'm fairly new to this whole freeman thing, so I have a few thigns that I'd like to find out from you guys.

The thing which brought me here was my need to drive, as I live a fair distance from my local shop, and I am a full time student living on income support and housing benefit. I would work, however, any significant earnings would be docked from my income support and would not justify the hours put into working for almost the same money as I get not working. however, if I could use my car for transport, I have someone who would like me to do deliveries as an unofficial basis (cash in hand for providing my services, lawful, correct?), and considering I have little food (I spend more a week on bus fare to college than i would on petrol a week were I to drive!) and little money, I am kind of here for your help out of necessity. Paying for insurance goes against my moral values as I feel it should be a voluntary agreement, but I was going to go along with it if i could afford it. I cant. But I need to drive.

I have looked at this thread found via a google search http://www.davidicke.com/forum/archive/index.php/t-47257.html
which gave me some valuable information, but I think it might be best if i start this thread so I get specific advice tailored to my situation.

It is my understanding that i need to claim sole lawful ownership of my car which I have already purchased from the previous keeper, and I know I need to send various letters to various places (DVLA, local police, local papers etc.), but I am not so sure as to what to put in what documents and who to send them to if you get me...

I have saved a copy of the two documents which were posted in the aforementioned thread, being the notice of understanding and claim of right which i believe to be primarily for the DVLA, but also the police, made by the OP of that thread, but another user also posted a completely different NOU by 21stcenturypolitix. These are all very interesting, and I could probably use on of these for myself, though it is probably best if i make my own specifically.

Basically, I need help through the whole process as much as you can give, and also, I need to be sure it is absolutely watertight.

Also, I am not just trying to avoid paying money, I am trying to avoid paying money which I do not NEED to pay. I am an entirely honerable man, and should damages or injuries occur as a result of my actions, I would take responsibility for that and cover the costs of said event, however, I do not HAVE money, and wish to know how I can be covered, without takingout a car insurance policy.

As I gathered through my research, I am aware that I am not a DRIVER, but merely expressing my right to travel her majesty's roads using my own vehicle, and also, I am led to believe that I can use my national insurance, AS my insurance, is this correct, and if so, how do I go about doing so?

How much is my NI worth, and is that acceptable as payment to anyone if I cause them injury damage or loss?

So much to say, I don't think I've got it all out... but like I said, I started this thread because I want the information to be tailored to ME, I dont want to take someone else's experiences directly on board in case it is not applicable.

I could post the copy of the NOU I have if you'd like to read it here?

thank you in advance, you all seem like a lovely bunch =]

WBC

[rosix]

Hey guys, I'm fairly new to this whole freeman thing, so I have a few thigns that I'd like to find out from you guys.

The thing which brought me here was my need to drive, as I live a fair distance from my local shop, and I am a full time student living on income support and housing benefit. I would work, however, any significant earnings would be docked from my income support and would not justify the hours put into working for almost the same money as I get not working. however, if I could use my car for transport, I have someone who would like me to do deliveries as an unofficial basis (cash in hand for providing my services, lawful, correct?), and considering I have little food (I spend more a week on bus fare to college than i would on petrol a week were I to drive!) and little money, I am kind of here for your help out of necessity. Paying for insurance goes against my moral values as I feel it should be a voluntary agreement, but I was going to go along with it if i could afford it. I cant. But I need to drive.

I have looked at this thread found via a google search http://www.davidicke.com/forum/archive/index.php/t-47257.html
which gave me some valuable information, but I think it might be best if i start this thread so I get specific advice tailored to my situation.

It is my understanding that i need to claim sole lawful ownership of my car which I have already purchased from the previous keeper, and I know I need to send various letters to various places (DVLA, local police, local papers etc.), but I am not so sure as to what to put in what documents and who to send them to if you get me...

I have saved a copy of the two documents which were posted in the aforementioned thread, being the notice of understanding and claim of right which i believe to be primarily for the DVLA, but also the police, made by the OP of that thread, but another user also posted a completely different NOU by 21stcenturypolitix. These are all very interesting, and I could probably use on of these for myself, though it is probably best if i make my own specifically.

Basically, I need help through the whole process as much as you can give, and also, I need to be sure it is absolutely watertight.

Also, I am not just trying to avoid paying money, I am trying to avoid paying money which I do not NEED to pay. I am an entirely honerable man, and should damages or injuries occur as a result of my actions, I would take responsibility for that and cover the costs of said event, however, I do not HAVE money, and wish to know how I can be covered, without takingout a car insurance policy.

As I gathered through my research, I am aware that I am not a DRIVER, but merely expressing my right to travel her majesty's roads using my own vehicle, and also, I am led to believe that I can use my national insurance, AS my insurance, is this correct, and if so, how do I go about doing so?

How much is my NI worth, and is that acceptable as payment to anyone if I cause them injury damage or loss?

So much to say, I don't think I've got it all out... but like I said, I started this thread because I want the information to be tailored to ME, I dont want to take someone else's experiences directly on board in case it is not applicable.

I could post the copy of the NOU I have if you'd like to read it here?

thank you in advance, you all seem like a lovely bunch =]

WBC

vehicle is the legal word.. the one to avoid. The English Language has been raped beyond recognition through the ages..

[chemtrailhater]

few points.....working cash in hand whilst claiming benefits is a CRIME - obtaining a pecuniary advantage by deception under the fraud act - (punishable by upto 7 yrs in prison) - so I wouldnt advise that

also - lets say whilst you are driving your "uninsured" car you knock down and hit a young child causing massive irreparable brain damage.

You concede you have no money - so how on earth would you be able to pay for the child to have long term care etc? you see insurance isnt really designed to protect you that much but other people and property (assuming you go for 3rd party only cover).

Just because this thread is "entitled" FREEMAN - doesnt mean that everything in life is "free........man" - car insurance is one thing that I actually dont mind paying.

car tax, tv licence etc - fine I dont like paying them but if i stopped there is NO HARM - other than a financial harm to a government institution - but if everyone went around not paying for car insurance then pretty soon we'd be in trouble

A friend of mine got hit by an unisured car - car written off, time off work etc - none of it recompensed because someone was thinking along the lines of you.

My advice - dont do it!

[yozhik]

The root of all evil :)

The Motor Car Act 1903 (3 Edw.7, c. 36)


... and for those who enjoy smirking at sentences laden with legalese;
Section 2 of the Act made it mandatory for all motor cars to be registered with the county council or county borough council in which the driver was resident.

Go mad ... get your legal dictionaries around that beauty ...

[willium_bob_cole]

few points.....working cash in hand whilst claiming benefits is a CRIME - obtaining a pecuniary advantage by deception under the fraud act - (punishable by upto 7 yrs in prison) - so I wouldnt advise that

also - lets say whilst you are driving your "uninsured" car you knock down and hit a young child causing massive irreparable brain damage.

You concede you have no money - so how on earth would you be able to pay for the child to have long term care etc? you see insurance isnt really designed to protect you that much but other people and property (assuming you go for 3rd party only cover).

Just because this thread is "entitled" FREEMAN - doesnt mean that everything in life is "free........man" - car insurance is one thing that I actually dont mind paying.

car tax, tv licence etc - fine I dont like paying them but if i stopped there is NO HARM - other than a financial harm to a government institution - but if everyone went around not paying for car insurance then pretty soon we'd be in trouble

A friend of mine got hit by an unisured car - car written off, time off work etc - none of it recompensed because someone was thinking along the lines of you.

My advice - dont do it!

I fully appreciate that, however, until I DO, god forbid, hit somebody, I am not in breach of law, though IF I did, I wish for some way to repay that, hence why I wish to access my national insurance as suitable cover if possible. Paying for insurance goes against my moral values anyway, providing the cost IS covered IF an accident should occur, not to mention that I simply cannot afford to pay insurance out of my benefits.

Also, like I say, I'm not intending on working cash in hand, I'm intending on doing favours for friends, for which they give me a bit of their own money for. It's kind of one of those wink wink nudge nudge kind of things that needs nothing said about. I would not class it as income in the same way that I would not class a friend regularly buying me lunch as an income.

lol the motor car act. ACT?? I dont believe in acts just as I would not believe a play. It's something you can follow along to as a story of sorts, but does not apply to REAL life, to naturally existing humans.

As I have said before, my intentions are entirely honourable, and so I do wish to be able to repay damages caused by myself, providing that myself and the other(s) involved are in agreement that it IS my fault, in any way possible (not necessarily financially, if I did favours for them up to the 'value' of damges, this can be mutually acceptable). If injury is caused, then it would be my liability to discuss with the induvidual and/or the family of that induvidual, and come to an agreement that way. I am a genuinely nice bloke, I would sincerely hate myself for causing greif for any other human being if I was not able to compensate for it in anyway. I would respect thier every offer at repayment. IF (absolutely heaven forbid) a death is caused by myself, and that persons family are believers in a life for a life, then it would be appropriate, in my opinion, to oblige... (although I would try all means of other alternatives of course, hopefully, and my beliefs are, that other humans would have a heart and see the sincerity in me, and not wish upon me the same things. if then, they wish that I never travel in my own car again, THEN I would take that on board. but of course, these are all what ifs, and until then, my intentions are to travel in my own means, in a responsible manner. I would not be subject to speed limits, though I WOULD cohere to them as recommendations for safety. I don't want to BE limited, I want to limit myself.)

Also, instead of vehicle, what would be the word I use so that I am not DRIVING, but travelling. because let's face it, I'm not being payed to employ the use of a vehicle for any sense of the definition!

And I shall now look at yozhik's quote by legalese definitions... for teh lulz as they say :P

also, I will post the NOU from the link I provided in a moment, just so you can comment on which parts you feel I may need to look at in more detail, and just how watertight it would be to an officer if and when i inevitably get pulled over for claims of a stolen vehicle.

AND, would a fee schedule actually hold up against an officer taking up your time? I found the menu on this thread http://www.davidicke.com/forum/showthread.php?t=93427&page=2 highly amusing. If it was worded correctly, would such claims be payable by any institution, and if so, where would the money come from and how would it be claimed?

[the worm that turned]

The root of all evil :)

The Motor Car Act 1903 (3 Edw.7, c. 36)


... and for those who enjoy smirking at sentences laden with legalese;


Go mad ... get your legal dictionaries around that beauty ...

So did they give a definition of the "motor car" in that act?

Is this only referring to taxis (commercial vehicles) because they register with the council don't they?

On a separate note, my legal dictionary states that "Pre-amble" is the information at the beginning of a piece of legislation that describes what the legislation is intended for. I'm struggling to find any descriptions of the intentions of "Acts" in the Pre-amble in the UK. What's that all about?

[willium_bob_cole]

Section 2 of the statutory plan made it absolutely demanded or required for all motor cars to have recorded, or entered precisely in a designated place, certain information about them in the public records, as is mandated by statute, ie; the elected governing body of a county, or a borough administered independently of any higher tier of local government, in which the person who is in the service of another conducting a coach, carriage, wagon, or other vehicle, has a permanent dwelling.

this is my breakdown of it ;P

[willium_bob_cole]

and also, here is the NOU from the thread I linked to in my first post

NOTICE OF UNDERSTANDING AND CLAIM OF RIGHT


I ...... ....... of The family ....., do solemnly and sincerely declare that,

it is my understanding that any right that you may claim over my car is through my consent.

and it is my understanding that any statute by which you may claim to use to back any claim you may make on my car can only be valid if i consent to those statutes.

and it is my understanding that my purchase of my car, my possession of it, my upkeep and maintanence of it, proves that i am the lawful owner and have sole claim to it.

and it is my understanding that any claim that you have over myself to control whatever form of conveyance i may choose to operate on the roads and highways of my country is only done with my consent

and it is my understanding that any statute by which you may claim to use to back any claim you may make to control whatever form of conveyance i may choose to operate on the roads and highways of my country is only done so with my consent.


and it is my understanding that if you claim title to my car then you only do so with my consent.

I hereby serve notice and state clearly specifically and unequivocally that, under the common law of England, of which Her Majesty Queen Elizibeth II has sworn oath to protect, i make claim to what is rightly, justly and lawfully mine.

i claim full rights, title and lawfull ownership of of any form of conveyance in my possession and the use of it on roads and highways of my country or on private land.

i claim that any consent which may have been either expressed or implied by myself or my person in regard to or relation of operating any form of conveyance on the roads and highways of my country is withdrawn.

i claim that any registrations or licences with the dvla are now void.

i claim it is my lawful right to travel and use any form of conveyance on roads and highways of my country so long as i act with care and responsibilty to any third parties.

I claim my FEE SCHEDULE in regard to my lawful right to freely travel on the roads and highways of my country for any transgressions by police officers, government principals or agents or justice system participants is FIVE HUNDRED GB POUNDS PER HOUR if and from the moment on being stopped (with the exception of being stopped by the police to ascertain if the conveyance has been stolen), questioned, interrogated or in any way detained, harassed or otherwise regulated and FIVE THOUSAND GB POUNDS PER HOUR if and from the moment I am handcuffed, transported, incarcerated or subjected to any adjudication process without my express written and notarised consent. Also if violence be done to either me or those under my care and protection, or damage of loss to my privately owned, borrowed or hired conveyance the fee shall be FIFTEEN THOUSAND GB POUNDS in addition to any compensation that may be awarded.

I claim the right to convene a proper court de jure in order to address any potentially criminal actions of any police officers, government officials, principals or agents or justice system participants who, having been served notice of this claim fail to dispute or discuss or make lawful counterclaim and then interfere by act or omission with the lawful exercise of properly claimed and established rights and freedoms.

I claim the right to deal with any counterclaims or disputes publicly and in an open forum using discussion and negotiation and to capture both video and audio evidence of said discussion and negotiation for whatever lawful purpose as I see fit.

Affected parties wishing to dispute the claims made herein, or make their own counterclaims must respond appropriately within TEN (10) days of service of notice of this action. Responses must be under Oath or attestation, upon fullcommercial liability and penalty of perjury and received via registered mail to:



no later than TEN (10) days from the date of original service as dated by way of Royal Mail recorded delivery service.

Failure to register a dispute against the claims made herein will result in an automatic default judgement and permanent and irrevocable estoppels by acquiescence barring the bringing of charges under any statute, act or regulation against myself, ..... ...... of the family ....... for exercising these lawful and properly established rights, freedoms and duties.

[rosix]

this is my breakdown of it ;P

you have a lot of work to do if that is even reasonably close to your comprehension of it.

[willium_bob_cole]

Well I said in the beginning, I'm new to this, I gave it a try, please explain to me where I am at fault?

[rosix]

Well I said in the beginning, I'm new to this, I gave it a try, please explain to me where I am at fault?

Section 2 of the Act made it mandatory for all motor cars to be registered with the county council or county borough council in which the driver was resident.

Section 2 of the statute-law commands all legal-fictions driving a vehicle for commerce to transfer title of the vehicle to the incorporated private government body local to that of the registered address of business for the aforementioned legal-fiction.

[sofa king]

just want to clarify so I understand your position.

you wish to use your private vehicle to be a courier/delivery guy (being paid cash money)

the cash payment as to not affect your gov't support payments.



Okay, if this is accurate, just do it legal. Register the car and properly insure it. And then take on a few extra customers for extra cash to pay for the insurance, licesning etc


Working "under the table" is a separate argument.

[number_6]

Is this only referring to taxis (commercial vehicles) because they register with the council don't they?


No, this was in pre DVLA days. ALL vehicles were registered locally, there was no national database. Logbooks had spaces printed on them for many owners. When you purchased a vehicle, you put your name and address in the next available space, took it down the local council office, they stamped it, and you were off. The information was only held locally.

[the worm that turned]

No, this was in pre DVLA days. ALL vehicles were registered locally, there was no national database. Logbooks had spaces printed on them for many owners. When you purchased a vehicle, you put your name and address in the next available space, took it down the local council office, they stamped it, and you were off. The information was only held locally.

Cheers. Excuse my laziness but I assume the act is repealed/superceded/replaced

[willium_bob_cole]

Section 2 of the statute-law commands all legal-fictions driving a vehicle for commerce to transfer title of the vehicle to the incorporated private government body local to that of the registered address of business for the aforementioned legal-fiction.

ah, a much better rendition indeed. Though you realise I merely looked for the legal definitions via google, and literally copy/pasted my findings into a (barely) coherent sentence right? that's what the " ;P " face was about. ;P

and @ sofaking, this is all fine and well, i would if i could, but where do i get the initial payment? I need a £500 deposit, then need to continue paying (at least) £120 a month. Which, until I ever had an accident, is a gargantuan waste of money in my opinion.

I still have yet to hear about my national insurance, and whether i can access this as funding, should a claim need be made?

currently, my car IS registered, but I am pretty much set on the idea of claiming sole ownership of MY car, would there be (an affordable) insurance policy that would let me pay into an insurance fund, for potential damges caused by travelling in my lawful form of conveyance? I wish (and pretty much NEED) to travel, and frankly, buses are too expensive, inconsistent, and overall an unsuitable method for my personal needs.

I understand that you all have your own views, but instead of trying to talk me out of doing something you dont agree with, could you please provide the information i ask for and leave the decision making to me? No offence but I thought the whole idea of the freeman was suited to human beings who wanted to live peacefully, and so far, it has seemed that the majority of people here are looking to argue where possible, forgive me if I'm wrong, I just would like things to remain a little more friendly is all... =)

[willium_bob_cole]

just want to clarify so I understand your position.

you wish to use your private vehicle to be a courier/delivery guy (being paid cash money)

the cash payment as to not affect your gov't support payments.



Okay, if this is accurate, just do it legal. Register the car and properly insure it. And then take on a few extra customers for extra cash to pay for the insurance, licesning etc


Working "under the table" is a separate argument.

also, if i am an insured DRIVER, doesnt that mean I am not using a private vehicle, but instead a commercial one, meaning services performed IN said vehicle ARE applicable to "under the table" working as you put it? because that is not what I intend to do, and I cant see it working in such a way that I can be a legally insured driver, AND be a freeman travelling my country in my mode of conveyance?...

and, conveyence... that is the word i SHOULD use instead of vehicle then, right?

[yozhik]

I've seen conveyance used, but have not seen the premise/rationale/argument/justification for its use.

[willium_bob_cole]

this is what i found:

The transfer of ownership or interest in real property from one person to another by a document, such as a deed, lease, or mortgage.
West's Encyclopedia of American Law, edition 2.

so... perhaps not?

[yozhik]

other words I have seen used 'way back then' [pre 1903 Act] were 'automobile' and [my personal favourite] 'locomotives on highways'.

I have researched neither term comprehensively.

[number_6]

'locomotives on highways'.

A road locomotive is a traction engine or steamroller

[yozhik]

A road locomotive is a traction engine or steamroller

There was actually a Locomotives on Highways Act [18XX] ... which is where I remember the specific phrase from.
This was still at the time when someone had to walk in front with a red flag ... I think the maximum speed was 4 mph.

Regardless ... I would be most interested in the definition given in this Act for 'locomotives on highways'; I doubt it would be for a steamroller.
As I already mentioned; I haven't researched it [yet].

[willium_bob_cole]

I found this link interesting:
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/how_do_i_de_register_my_own_auto

Although he was unsuccessful, he did not use the legalese against them. It's all fine and well stating that you are aware you have human rights to claim your own property, but until you TELL them that you are taking what is lawfully yours, and not ask HOW to do it, you cant get very far.

I'm thinking of looking thouroughly through, and tidying up to meet my needs, that document which i posted earlier, and sending that as my notice of understanding, which I doubt they could just not aknowledge. They would have to admit defeat, surely?

I will post here my copy once i have made my changes. that is, if i need to make any.

but thankyou, this conversation is edging closer to how i intended it to pan out

I will call back for help if i get stuck :P

[sofa king]

also, if i am an insured DRIVER, doesnt that mean I am not using a private vehicle, but instead a commercial one, meaning services performed IN said vehicle ARE applicable to "under the table" working as you put it? because that is not what I intend to do, and I cant see it working in such a way that I can be a legally insured driver, AND be a freeman travelling my country in my mode of conveyance?...

and, conveyence... that is the word i SHOULD use instead of vehicle then, right?



you are a driver driving yourself around in your own car.

leave it at that. as soon as you talk commercial prposes, the tax man will want to know why. If your deliveries are to be undeclared cash transactions then keep that to yourself. Tell no one. Claim no revenue.

[willium_bob_cole]

hey, official I will not claim revenue. I am not being paid to transport myself around in my own car, anything else I do is my information that i can share with my peers but not make legal 'fact'. If pulled over to check if the vehicle is stolen, naturally i would not consent to a search taking place, and if I did allow for a search, I do not have to prove where such goods come from. For all they know, I have been up the takeaway to get me some lunch ;P

and so, for travel purposes, I am still confident that I should not fit the definition of a DRIVER.

[yozhik]

Tread carefully with accepting the term 'human being' as it pertains to you, the man.

[yozhik]

Question [for discussion purposes]:

Is the word 'car' a shortening of 'carriage', by which it could be argued would define 'car' as a 'vehicle'
in so far as its name would imply its primary purpose is for transportation of passengers; i.e. commerce.

[willium_bob_cole]

but I thought being a man, is completely different to being a PERSON. A human being is a naturally existing man or woman right? and a PERSON is a fictional entity.

which word would i use to describe myself as a non-person, if i cannot use human being?

[yozhik]

but I thought being a man, is completely different to being a PERSON. A human being is a naturally existing man or woman right? and a PERSON is a fictional entity.

which word would i use to describe myself as a non-person, if i cannot use human being?

man

Question;
IF 'human being' is a 'naturally existing man or woman' ... THEN how, in January 2009, did two hedge funds take a claim to the High Court against Northern Rock, arguing a breach of the Human Rights Act?

Oh really?
Human rights?? ... two hedge funds???
Still think 'human being' means 'naturally existing man or woman'?

[willium_bob_cole]

man

Question;
IF 'human being' is a 'naturally existing man or woman' ... THEN how, in January 2009, did two hedge funds take a claim to the High Court against Northern Rock, arguing a breach of the Human Rights Act?

Oh really?
Human rights?? ... two hedge funds???
Still think 'human being' means 'naturally existing man or woman'?

ah, I see your point there, ludacris but i suppose it's gotta happen sometime. that said, I am finding it difficult to impossible to find a legal definition for the term 'human being'. does anyone have acces to Black's to which they could refer?

[willium_bob_cole]

http://members.iphouse.com/fredg/detax_unmasked/person.html


The general rule of statutory interpretation is that words and sentences must be construed in their ordinary meaning or common or popular sense, unless the context requires some special or particular meaning to be given to them. Using this rule, in the absence of a definition of "human being" in "judicially accepted law dictionaries", the definition found in common or popular English dictionaries applies.

Webster's New World Dictionary (Third College Ed.) (1988) defines "human" as:

n. a person

Webster's also defines "being" as:

3. one who lives or exists, or is assumed to do so, as in "a human being"


As you have seen from the examination of the definitions of "person", "human", and "being" found in "judicially accepted law dictionaries" and in common or popular English dictionaries, the definition of "person" encompasses both a human being and a corporate entity. Black's contains a separate specific definition for each of these conditions.

Black's defines "artificial person" as:

An entity, such as a corporation, created by law and given certain legal rights and duties of a human being.

Black's defines "natural person" as:

A human being, as distinguished from an artificial person created by law.

well, that's that one cleared up...

[yozhik]

So 'person', 'artificial person', 'natural person' and 'human being' are ALL legal fictions that are GIVEN rights.
Anything that is given can be taken.

A 'man' HAS rights; unalienable rights.

[willium_bob_cole]

Black's defines "natural person" as:

A human being, as distinguished from an artificial person created by law.

does this not mean that....

no wait, human being STILL translates as person, so even if ditinguished from an artificial person, it still is, at the end of the day, a fiction person, i getchya.

now, i said i was going to work on my NOU... I might actually start doing that now...

LOL :P

[yozhik]

Just FYI and for your consideration - if you hadn't seen it already ...

Noun
human being (plural human beings)

1. A person; a large sapient, bipedal primate, with notably less hair than others of that order, of the species Homo sapiens.
1749, Henry Fielding, Tom Jones, volume III, VII xiv:
He began to reflect that in a few Minutes he might possibly deprive a human Being of Life, or might lose his own.
2. Another, extinct member of the genus Homo.

Source: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/human_being
[OK... so not the Mt Everest of sources ... but still VERY interesting info]

Extinct?
Really???

and ...

Just for cerebral chewing gum ... consider the term 'human being' as a shortening of the term 'human Being of Life', which would have been used in years gone by.

'Being of Life' was/is a significant term, which through time [and design?] has been pushed aside.

To throw another piece of kindling onto the fire, it [the pigeon holing of 'human being'] could be interpeted as the attempt to separate the indivisible duo of the earthly Being of Life and the spiritual Being of Life.

and ...

http://www.freeimagehosting.net/uploads/c0ff88443d.jpg (http://www.freeimagehosting.net/)

[willium_bob_cole]

Just FYI and for your consideration - if you hadn't seen it already ...



and ...



and ...

http://www.freeimagehosting.net/uploads/c0ff88443d.jpg (http://www.freeimagehosting.net/)

thanks for these, I had found an article on the hedge fund claiming human rights, but this summarises it a bit more clearly, and you are right, if human rights issues are granted to fictional entites, it is different to natural analienable rights of law as a man.

EDIT: and yes, your quotes are good 'cerebral chewing gum' ;P
i am fully aware of the wool which is being pulled over the eyes of the unsuspecting citizens slowly but surely (I am not 100% on the DEPTH to which we have been mislead, but I know enough to make me rage inside, wanting freedom)

[yozhik]

Do your own due diligence... I'm merely sharing my unqualified, non-professional opinion.

[willium_bob_cole]

Do your own due diligence... I'm merely sharing my unqualified, non-professional opinion.

which i completely accept and appreciate. I do not enforce any obligation on your part to give me your knowledge and/or opinions, but I would like you to do so within the boundries that you set yourself. Any information you provide is appreciated, and is not treated as advice, but a method of research for myself to advise my own actions and decisions.

to be honest, my uncle has been driving (for his business on which he does not pay income tax on as it doesn't 'exist') for several years now without road tax or insurance (he has an MOT for safety of course) and has not once been pulled over for it, I may go and ask him how he gets away with it...

[Ian2day]

I remember reading the phrase Human being of life before. So what is the Hu aspect. Is it as a PersonOC would perhaps refer, is refferance to a white man being of life. As in Hueman, which has led over time to the e being dropped. So its a racist descriptive legal term for a white man. As it bestows natural born rights upon a Hueman in detriment to a fictional POC. I'm beginning to dislike Freeman status if that is the natural conclusion to be drawn of it all. Can we expect the BNP et al to be fully for the Freeman-on-the-land status.

[h2pogo]

I remember reading the phrase Human being of life before. So what is the Hu aspect. Is it as a PersonOC would perhaps refer, is refferance to a white man being of life. As in Hueman, which has led over time to the e being dropped. So its a racist descriptive legal term for a white man. As it bestows natural born rights upon a Hueman in detriment to a fictional POC. I'm beginning to dislike Freeman status if that is the natural conclusion to be drawn of it all. Can we expect the BNP et al to be fully for the Freeman-on-the-land status.

intresting.. a man said to me the other day hu means colour.
not to use ..he said just be a man..:rolleyes:
i must look it up..

[girlgye]

hu means colour of man.
Ballatines dictionary of the 18th century as well as blacks early ones refer you to human being and first word is 'monster'. Thats what the sovs think of the human beings and still do. :(

[zhenshanren]

which i completely accept and appreciate. I do not enforce any obligation on your part to give me your knowledge and/or opinions, but I would like you to do so within the boundries that you set yourself. Any information you provide is appreciated, and is not treated as advice, but a method of research for myself to advise my own actions and decisions.

to be honest, my uncle has been driving (for his business on which he does not pay income tax on as it doesn't 'exist') for several years now without road tax or insurance (he has an MOT for safety of course) and has not once been pulled over for it, I may go and ask him how he gets away with it...

I'd like to remark that you may want to move extra slow on this issue so as to not overlook important loopholes, pitfalls, time bombs, trap doors and the like.

Don't judge a book by it's cover.

[yozhik]

etymology of human suggests hu-man means of the earthly beings, as opposed to gods.


human
c.1250, from M.Fr. humain "of or belonging to man," from L. humanus, probably related to homo (gen. hominis) "man," and to humus "earth," on notion of "earthly beings," as opposed to the gods (cf. Heb. adam "man," from adamah "ground"). Cognate with O.Lith. zmuo (acc. zmuni) "man, male person." Displaced its O.E. cognate guma (from P.Gmc. *guman-) which survives only in disguise in bridegroom. First record of humankind is from 1645. Humanoid (1918) is a hybrid of L. humanus and Gk. -oeides "like," from eidos "form, shape" (see -oid).

Source: http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=human&searchmode=none




Also interesting to note that apparently [have not researched] the term 'human being' is not mentioned in the Bible.

Not once.

[yozhik]

Wow ... just listened to the Anti-Terrorist interview ... it seems we have the same feeling about the definition of 'human being'.

:D

[number_6]

etymology of human suggests hu-man means of the earthly beings, as opposed to gods.


Exactly. The "hu" has nothing to do with colour.

[willium_bob_cole]

haha some interesting points, I am by no means racist, I am 100% for natural equality (unless you commit dishonourable offences which places you at a lower equality through your own fault), and as such, I do not want to be a hued man, but a man, one of equal lawful status to my brothers from accross the seas.

I do like racist jokes, but I also like jokes about fat people and diseases and birth defects and any number of things. What is comedy anyway? My view of it is to make light of a mutually terrible situation, and as such, I have respect for many comedians, the cruder the better, just providing that they do not GENUINELY have the views that they make jokes about (which is most of them).

Also, I will not rush. I fell asleep before i could do my NOU, but I will do it now and post it here so you guys can analyze how it would hold up.

the DVLA can not deny me of my property if i claim proof of purchase and ownership unless lawful reasoning is stated right? and that said, what lawful reasons could they possibly have? It is basically my vehicle until they sieze it for doing something they TELL me I cannot do, they do not contribute to upkeep of or travelling in my vehicle, and unless they want to do that, which i cannot see happening, what else could they do?

I will have the christmas holidays off so I have some time to get it sorted before I NEED my transport, so let's get this ball rolling hey?

=]

[yozhik]

number_6 and I am in agreement.
The 'hu' is not connected to 'hue'; colour, i.e. visible light spectrum.

Unless you interpret is as 'colour of man' as it is interpeted when expressing 'colour of law', meaning to look similar to but not the same.

[willium_bob_cole]

I cannot see how this document can be turned down, and so I will post it in sections, so that you may help me break it down and test for watertightness...

NOTICE OF UNDERSTANDING AND CLAIM OF RIGHT


I ...... ....... of The family ....., do solemnly and sincerely declare that,

it is my understanding that any right that you may claim over my car is through my consent.

and it is my understanding that any statute by which you may claim to use to back any claim you may make on my car can only be valid if i consent to those statutes.

and it is my understanding that my purchase of my car, my possession of it, my upkeep and maintanence of it, proves that i am the lawful owner and have sole claim to it.

and it is my understanding that any claim that you have over myself to control whatever form of conveyance i may choose to operate on the roads and highways of my country is only done with my consent

and it is my understanding that any statute by which you may claim to use to back any claim you may make to control whatever form of conveyance i may choose to operate on the roads and highways of my country is only done so with my consent.


and it is my understanding that if you claim title to my car then you only do so with my consent.


I hereby serve notice and state clearly specifically and unequivocally that, under the common law of England, of which Her Majesty Queen Elizibeth II has sworn oath to protect, i make claim to what is rightly, justly and lawfully mine.

i claim full rights, title and lawfull ownership of of any form of conveyance in my possession and the use of it on roads and highways of my country or on private land.

i claim that any consent which may have been either expressed or implied by myself or my person in regard to or relation of operating any form of conveyance on the roads and highways of my country is withdrawn.

i claim that any registrations or licences with the dvla are now void.

i claim it is my lawful right to travel and use any form of conveyance on roads and highways of my country so long as i act with care and responsibilty to any third parties.

I claim my FEE SCHEDULE in regard to my lawful right to freely travel on the roads and highways of my country for any transgressions by police officers, government principals or agents or justice system participants is FIVE HUNDRED GB POUNDS PER HOUR if and from the moment on being stopped (with the exception of being stopped by the police to ascertain if the conveyance has been stolen), questioned, interrogated or in any way detained, harassed or otherwise regulated and FIVE THOUSAND GB POUNDS PER HOUR if and from the moment I am handcuffed, transported, incarcerated or subjected to any adjudication process without my express written and notarised consent. Also if violence be done to either me or those under my care and protection, or damage of loss to my privately owned, borrowed or hired conveyance the fee shall be FIFTEEN THOUSAND GB POUNDS in addition to any compensation that may be awarded.

I claim the right to convene a proper court de jure in order to address any potentially criminal actions of any police officers, government officials, principals or agents or justice system participants who, having been served notice of this claim fail to dispute or discuss or make lawful counterclaim and then interfere by act or omission with the lawful exercise of properly claimed and established rights and freedoms.

I claim the right to deal with any counterclaims or disputes publicly and in an open forum using discussion and negotiation and to capture both video and audio evidence of said discussion and negotiation for whatever lawful purpose as I see fit.


Affected parties wishing to dispute the claims made herein, or make their own counterclaims must respond appropriately within TEN (10) days of service of notice of this action. Responses must be under Oath or attestation, upon fullcommercial liability and penalty of perjury and received via registered mail to:

[NAME]
[ADDRESS]

no later than TEN (10) days from the date of original service as dated by way of Royal Mail recorded delivery service.

Failure to register a dispute against the claims made herein will result in an automatic default judgement and permanent and irrevocable estoppels by acquiescence barring the bringing of charges under any statute, act or regulation against myself, ..... ...... of the family ....... for exercising these lawful and properly established rights, freedoms and duties.

notice how my correspondence name, legal title, and address, are in square brackets, which if I'm not mistaken, makes it only for reference purposes only and does not exist in the eyes of the law, meaning were I to show this to a police officer if I were stopped, I would not be automatically contracting with them right?

Also, is the FEE SCHEDULE really necessary? If I could actually claim for that on lawful grounds, then it would be nice to have in there were a police officer to detain me unlawfully...

What else in here needs going over, like, what needs changing or removing, where should I put an addition, and how would I go about proving my lawul claims made to DVLA to a police officer at the roadside, without contracting to statutory law?

All help is appreciated =D

[willium_bob_cole]

NOTICE OF UNDERSTANDING AND INTENT AND CLAIM OF RIGHT

Whereas it is my understanding tha the United Kingdom is a common law jurisdiction, and,

Whereas it is my understanding that equality before the law is paramount and mandatory, and,

Whereas it is my understanding that a statute is defined as a legislated rule of a society which has been given the force of law, and,

Whereas it is my understanding that a society is defined as a number of people joined by mutual consent to deliberate, determine and act for a common goal, and,

Whereas it is my understanding that the only form of government recognised as lawful in the United Kingdom is a representative one, and,

Whereas it is my understanding that representation requires mutual consent, and,

whereas it is my understanding that in the absence of mutual consent neither representation nor governance can exist, and,

Whereas it is my understanding that all Acts are statutes restricted in scope and applicability by the Constitution and/or Bill of Rights, and,

Whereas it is my understanding that said scope and applicability is limited to members and employees of government, and,

Whereas it is my understanding that those who have an NI number (National Insurance Number) are in fact employees of the UK government and thus are bound by the statutes created by the UK government, and,

Whereas it is my understanding that it is lawful to abandon one's NI number, and,

Whereas it is my understanding that human beings in the United Kingdom have a right to revoke or deny consent to be represented and thus governed, and,

Whereas it is my understanding that if anyone does revoke or deny consent they exist free of government control and statutory restraints, and,

Whereas a Freeman-on-the-Land has lawfully recoked consent and does exist free of statutory restrictions, obligations, and limitations, and,

Whereas I, [lawful name] am a Freeman-on-the-Land, and,

Whereas it is my understanding that acting peacefully within community standards does not breach the peace, and,

Whereas it is my understanding that any action for which one can apply for and recieve a license must itself be a fundamentally lawful action, and,

Whereas I am not a child, and,

Whereas I am a peaceful human being, and,

Whereas I am a Freeman-on-the-Land who operates with full responsibility, I do not see the need to ask permission to engage in lawful and peaceful activities, especially from those who claim limited liability, and

Whereas it is my understanding that a by-law is defined as a rule of a corporation, and,

Whereas it is my understanding that corporations are legal fictions and require contracts in order to claim authority or control over other parties, and,

Whereas it is my understanding that legal fictions lack a soul and cannot exert any control over those who are thus blessed and operate with respect to that knowledge as only a fool would allow soulless fictions to dictate ones actions, and,

Whereas it is my understanding that I have a right to use my property without having to par for the use or enjoyment of it, and,

Whereas I claim the right to collect a pension if I have paif into it and claim that said right is not affected if I abandon my National Insurance Number, and,

Whereas it is my understanding that a summons is merely an invitation to attend and creates no obligation or dishonour if ignored, and,

Whereas it is my understanding that peace officers have a duty to distinguish between statute and law and those who attempt to enforce statutes against a Freeman-on-the-Land are in fact breaking the law, and,

Whereas I have the power to refuse intercourse or interaction with peace officers who have not observed me breach the peace, and,

Whereas permanent estoppel by acquiescence barring and peace officer or prosecutor from bringing charges against a Freeman-on-the-Land under any Act is created if this claim is not responded to in the stated fashion and time,

Therefore be it now known to any and all concerned and affected parties, that I, [lawful name], a Freeman-on-the-Land do hereby state clearly specifically and unequivocally my intent to peacefully and lawfully exist free of all statutory obligations restrictions and maintain all rights at law to trade, exchange or barter.

Furthermore I claim the right to lawfully:
(1) Exercise my "common law right to travel", inhindered, unencumbered at my discretion in my private conveyance of the day, to wit, my private, unregistered, unlicensed automobile.

(2) Exercise my God given right to travel as stated in the Queen's Bible.

(3) Exercise my "common law right" to refuse to obtain by submission; any application for any government issued license, permit or seek permission to perform and fundamentally lawful action or, enter into any government contract under duress, threat and/or intimidation which would involve committing an act of fraud and/or theft, or any other crime, by way of deception by "I" and/or any involved government principal, employee or agent. (in compliance with my Common Law Rights, the Magna Carta etc.)

(4) Exercise my right to posses, cultivate or use medicinally and plant of the genus Cannabis.

(5) Exercise my right to possess unregistered, unlicensed firearms and ammunition and to use the same for target practice at a range or hunting for food and further swear under oath never to open fire on another human being unless as a last resort to protect human life.

I claim that pursuant to any action by any governement and/or and principal, member, employee, agent, servant, person thereof in Right of Great Britain, a province, or municipality:

"I reserve my right not to be compelled to perform under any contract or commercial agreement that I did not enter knowingly, voluntarily and intentionally and I do not accept the liability of the compelled benefit of any contract or commercial agreement not revealed to myself, which are my rights pursuant to Common Law".

Furthermore, I claim the right to engage in these actions and further claim that all property held by me under common law being; any and all intellectual property, real estate, trade tools, private automobile(s) and contents, firearms and ammunition, potted plants; contents at the private posted residence known as "[My address]" are held under claim of right.

Furthermore, I claim that, the Crowns claim of; "escheat to the Crown or the Duchy of Lancaster or the Duke of Cornwall or to a mesne lord for want of heirs", as referred to in the Administration of Estates Act 1925, stands as a lawful claim and whereas the UK is an insolvency, an estate, where everything is owned by God and currently held in trust under the Crown until a competent heir(s) appears and lays a lawful claim of jurisdiction.

Furthermore, I claim that the intentional blurring of the lines with smoke and mirrors, deception, outright lies and too numerous to mention false claims as to the well settled division, between the Crown created legal entity know as the "PERSON" and the fllesh and blood creation of the Creator known as a "man", is nothing short of theft, fraud, breach of trust and forced slavery, a heinous criminal activity of the most odious form.

Furthermore, I claim that "all persons, acting as, governments, principals, employees, agents and justice system participants claiming, "retained legal counsel" have, by virtue of thier own and/or their principals actions, claimed "total incompetence", in handling any of their own affairs in law and have become an instant ward of the court, hence, they are imprisoned by their own actions in hand or lack thereof.

Furthermore, I claim that due to the self evident facts in truth at hand, that all persons, the Crown, governments, principals, employees, agents and justice system participants claiming limited liability or immunity are doing so under the pretence of being in fact deemed totally incompetent and under law made instant wards of the crown and/or court and therefore, cannot claim good faith or colour of right over anyone who is thus blessed as being a competent heir.

Furthermore, I claim that, "Ignorance of the Law" is not a lawful or legal claim when used by the Crown, government principals, employees, agents and justice system participants at any and all levels to my harm or detriment, especially by those claiming limited liability.

Furthermore, I claim that these actions are not outside my communities' standards and will in fact support said community in our desire for truth and maximum freedom.

Furthermore, I claim that anyone who interferres with my lawful activities after having been served notice of this clai and who fails to properly dispute or make lawful counterclaim is breaking the law, cannot claim good faith or colour of right and that such transgressions will be dealt with in a properly convened court de jure.

Furthermore, I claim that the courts in the United Kingdom are de-facto and are in fact in the profitable business of conducting, witnessing and facilitating the transactions of security interests and I further claim that they require the consent of both parties prior to providing any such services.

Furthermore, I claim all transactions of security interests require the consent of both parties and I do hereby deny consent to any transacion of a security interest issuing under and Act for as herein stated as a Freeman-on-the-Land I am not subject to any Act.

Furthermore, I claim my FEE SCHEDULE for any transgressions by peace officers, government principals or agents or justice system participants is (GB £250.00) TWO HUNDRED AND FIFTY POUNDS PER HOUR or portion thereof if being questioned, interrogated or in any way detained, harassed, searched or otherwise regulated and (GB £2,500.00) TWO THOUSAND FIVE HUNDRED POUNDS PER HOUR or portion thereof if I am handcuffed, transported, incarcerated or subjected to any adjudication process without my express written and Notarised consent.

Furthermore, I claim the right to use a Notary Public to secure payment of the aforementioned FEE SCHEDULE against and transgressors who by their actions or omissions harm me or my interests, directly or by proxy in any way.

Furthermore, I claim the right to convene a proper court de jure in order to address any potentially criminal actions of any peace officers, government principals or agents or justice system participants who having been served notice of this claim fail to dispute or discuss or make lawful counterclaim and then interfere by act or omission with the lawful exercise of properly claimed and established rights and freedoms.

Furthermore, I claim that the law of agent and principal does not apply and that service upon one is equal to service upon both.

Furthermore, I claim the right to deal with any counterclaims or disputes publicly and in an open forum using discussion and negotiation and to capture on video tape sade discussion and negotiation for whatever lawful purpose I see fit.

Affected parties wishing to dispute the claims made herein or make their own counterclaims must respond appropriately within TEN (10) days of service of notice of this action.

Responses must be under Oath or assestation, upon full commercial liability and penalty of perjury and registered in the Notary Office herein provided no later than ten days from the date of original service as attested to by way of certificate of service.

Failure to register a dispute against the claims made herein will result in an automatice default judgment and permanent and irrevocable estoppel by acquiescence barring the bringing of charges under any statute or Act against My Self Freeman-on-the-Land [lawful name]


Notice of Understanding and Intent and Claim of right served to [address]
[dated]

Notice served by Freeman-on-the-land [lawful name]
Signed

[Name and address of my notary public]

[get it notarised and send it off]


I have just spent the last age typing by hand my transcript of the 3 videos on 21stCenturyPolitix's youtube channel, so that I feel sure I comprehend it in full which I believe now that I do.

The only issues I have regarding this matter now are, how do I get this NOU & COR notarised, and could you guys act as spell check whilst looking through for me please? ;P

The claiming my NI bonds is a seperate issue, and thus, I think I shall create a seperate thread for it, that is, if i cannot find the information through my own researching.

=]