Correspondence from the pole ice?

Hi
so i received some nonsense about me driving through a red stop light(not me as i only travel lol), should i just ignore all this correspondence as it was all caps glossed? is it still worth annrts it or just ignore the whole stupid game they are trying to play to get joinder with me? even when they send court docs etc? as no all caps glossed name aint me
thanks
J

possibly learn to counter offer, "you (plaintiff) work for a private corp, do you have authority over me the man  etc."

How to beat UK speeding tickets (2014)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dNxvlr_OKyg

even though the "laws" have changed its all about making MONEY & nothing else! the above link should still apply: namely how statutes & acts apply to me the MAN & do I have to OBEY? come on Judiciary PROVE IT!

Hi toolapcblack

If you click on the yt link LionsShare kindly left and watch it, read the comments underneath as someone has put up a link to a loophole for speeding. If the letter they sent is asking you to name the 'driver' just fill out the form - BUT DON'T SIGN IT! The court apparently can't use it without a signature. Best d.y o. r. though as this article is at least two years old. Good luck!

LionsShare - good one! Thanks

Cheers!

If the vehicle is registered and carries a registration plate you have already contracted to play their game by their rules.

Hi assassin

Good point - but not necessarily a game end-er. Same as everything else you just need to know who you are and aren't, and play T.H.E.M. at their own game. (i suspect i'm teaching grandma how to suck eggs...?)

Out of interest, what if the travel-room isn't registered to a 'person' but still bearing the reg plate? Is the traveller still contracted?

Cheers!

Whether you call it driving or travelling or proceeding in a certain direction is irrelevant. You were in charge of/operating a motor vehicle on a public road so you are bound by the Road Traffic Act. This "I wasn't driving" defence has a zero record of success in court.
I think you also need to look up the meaning of "joinder". It doesn't mean what fmotl gurus on the web tell it means.

iamani wrote:Hi toolapcblack

  If you click on the yt link LionsShare kindly left and watch it, read the comments underneath as someone has put up a link to a loophole for speeding. If the letter they sent is asking you to name the 'driver' just fill out the form  -  BUT DON'T SIGN IT! The court apparently can't use it without a signature. Best d.y o. r. though as this article is at least two years old. Good luck!

  LionsShare - good one! Thanks

  Cheers!

If you don't sign it, the court will treat it as you having failed to provide the information.

just a had a look were this allegedly happened and guess what ...the lights were out that morning i remember it was chaos...at the end of the M32 into Bristol(A4032) around 9am... i bet there is no way of proving this? 27th March.
just sent something to the council see if they can come up with something...

Could try a F.O.I. to the council / highways agency .(can be done by email)

Hi StrangerInAStrangeLand

That's an interesting theory you have there. It's true that if 'you' are driving then 'you' are indeed bound by the RTA. It is also true that if the case makes it to a courtroom then one's chances of success are greatly diminished. But i know that 'i' am not 'you' and i suspect that the distinction between 'driving' and 'travelling' only comes into play when one has rebutted certain presumptions of the court.

Might i impose further on your indulgence and ask that you reveal to all the true meaning of joinder? i'm sure i'm not the only one who would like to know....

Oh, and all the info is filled out right there on the form, so the 'offender' has provided everything they've asked for - he has complied. Nobody can be forced to sign anything, would render it void. So do T.H.E.Y. risk exposure, or throw it out?

Cheers!

probably would be a good idea to do a F.O.I.A to ask them whether they would ever recognise that a motor vehicle could be used for a non commercial use

Hi man

i believe people have used foia for similar questions (whatdotheyknow) but meaningful answers seem thin on the ground unfortunately.

Also 'vehicle' is a commercial term, would have to use 'car'. There actually used to be an exemption but it was repealed in '97. (Drat!).

Cheers!

iamani wrote:Hi assassin

  Good point  -  but not necessarily a game end-er. Same as everything else you just need to know who you are and aren't, and play T.H.E.M. at their own game. (i suspect i'm teaching grandma how to suck eggs...?)

 Out of interest, what if the travel-room isn't registered to a 'person' but still bearing the reg plate? Is the traveller still contracted?

  Cheers!

A vehicle can be registered, and it can be registered to many things, A.K.A. a trust for example, but if it is registered you or the trust is bound by their rules.

If it isn't registered then the wording changes, you aren't driving, you're travelling, and as long as its not for commercial purposes you don't need tax, MOT, insurance, or even a driving license; but you have to accept liability for any harm or loss you cause, hence why insurance or a bond is a good thing.

StrangerInAStrangeLand wrote:Whether you call it driving or travelling or proceeding in a certain direction is irrelevant.  You were in charge of/operating a motor vehicle on a public road so you are bound by the Road Traffic Act.  This "I wasn't driving" defence has a zero record of success in court.  
I think you also need to look up the meaning of "joinder".  It doesn't mean what fmotl gurus on the web tell it means.

I think you need to look up the difference between driving and travelling, then understand the difference.

iamani wrote:Hi man

  i believe people have used foia for similar questions (whatdotheyknow) but meaningful answers seem thin on the ground unfortunately.

  Also 'vehicle' is a commercial term, would have to use 'car'. There actually used to be an exemption but it was repealed in '97. (Drat!).

  Cheers!

Its not a motor vehicle as a motor vehicle is a term recongnised under their acts and statutes, it is not a car as the word car is a generic term; its a PRIVATE CONVEYANCE and this is the only term which should ever be used of its not registered.

The point i was making is similar to; if you hold a driving license, can they ever recognise that there maybe a time that you are in the steering wheel seat in a private conveyance and not be engaging in commercial activity?

After reading all the comments on this post there is a lot of good opinion on how to attack this. Just like the 3 letter process send the 1st letter (only) as a Conditional Offer Of Acceptance. Demand of the plaintiff the full name, address, DOB, signature, utility bill to sort of prove where they may live (remember bills only prove that ? is paid in the name of at an address not necessary they live there), photo ID , & indeed anything else to personally identify them under penalty of purgery of unlimited liability.

Demand the plaintiff prove beyond reasonable doubt they have authority over you (remind them they work for a private corp – police or council), ask if they are legally trained (does not really matter if they are), are they making any legal determinations about the case/evidence. Demand they prove their evidence is proof of an infraction/crime or is it simply a private conveyance travelling on the land (even if the photo/video shows you 100% behind the wheel). The word car may also be legalese so becareful. By almeans say it is a private conveyance and is not used/insured for commercial work.

Demand the plaintiff prove as per my last post here “namely how statutes & acts apply to me the MAN & do I have to OBEY? come on Judiciary PROVE IT!”

Possibly finish off by saying you can have the info but ONLY if my demands are met 1st. What I have written here comes from that video link I posted earlier, to me it makes sense, as per the video though the best outcome 1 can hope for is a dismissal due to some technical error (or something like that). Just like Gas Water Electric Are Free

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-B_5dux56Fk

the crown does not want to lose in their own courts so you will I think never get real justice & win. Also this process as per vid takes along time – I think 9 months here, when I had mine in 2008 it took a year but then lost BIG TIME & did not know then what I do now!

Good Luck!

could also add at the bottom - “implied admission absent a response & compliance creates a legal record"

Also from white rabbit vids “this legal notice adds to the Record Of The Parties”

Using the Private Record of the Parties - White Rabbit Trust

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7gcBPzBWnYs

This can all done in correspondence without having to go to court so long as they remain honourably, should get a reply quckly as to what they will do next so there will proberbly be no need to send letters 2 & 3.

many thanks lionshare.
two points the only letter i have received is a reminder the so say original(original) never arrived.
(strange as a similar thing happened with a non insurance issue i had last year....no original ever arrived, i tried to contest that i never received any warning i needed to insure which was true but they would not have it)

also " (even if the photo/video shows you 100% behind the wheel)"....they would have trouble proving this as i was travelling by motorcycle

Cheers
J

toolapcblack wrote:many thanks lionshare.
two points the only letter i have received is a reminder the so say original(original) never arrived.
(strange as a similar thing happened with a non insurance issue i had last year....no original ever arrived, i tried to contest that i never received any warning i needed to insure which was true but they would not have it)

also " (even if the photo/video shows you 100% behind the wheel)"....they would have trouble proving this as i was travelling by motorcycle

Cheers
J

WARNING:

"i have received is a reminder the so say original(original) never arrived."

I tried that & ended up trousers down... FAILED BIG TIME! The post mark would literally I think have to be the day before the time limit so a justification about not receiving in time would be plausable.

As you were on a bike with a helmet on then GREAT that should put things firmly in their park.

Also all that should have to deal with is reality, ie., over this there not/may be court action & further consequences as I stated let them prove the fakery of all of this, - get them to prove ? you deal with the reality & fellow man (collective for men & women alike) because that is all any of us have to deal with - REALITY & MAN!

Good luck!

assassin wrote:

StrangerInAStrangeLand wrote:Whether you call it driving or travelling or proceeding in a certain direction is irrelevant.  You were in charge of/operating a motor vehicle on a public road so you are bound by the Road Traffic Act.  This "I wasn't driving" defence has a zero record of success in court.  
I think you also need to look up the meaning of "joinder".  It doesn't mean what fmotl gurus on the web tell it means.

I think you need to look up the difference between driving and travelling, then understand the difference.

I am well aware of the difference. I also know fmotl type gurus play words games to convince their gullible followers that they can use motor vehicles(or automobiles, conveyances, ecclesiastical pursuit chariots etc) on a public road without a license, registration, tax or insurance. Problem is it has no effect when you get stopped by police. Just look at Dave Murphy, Ben Lowery etc etc who lost their vehicles (whatever they chose to call them).
Or perhaps you can cite one verifiable case where the "I'm not driving, I'm travelling" defence has ever worked. Just one, please.

Hi S.I.A.S.L.

All the freemen (god bless 'em!) who stuck their necks out to try theories and then let us learn from their experience are heroes in my book. We now know a few more angles than they did eg commerce, the 'name' game, everything being a corporaton, and it is not a time for sitting back waiting for others to do it for us.

Look up Dave Gowan (or Goyan?) Kent Freedom Movement. That's one. i'm sure there are others....

Btw any chance you could explain what 'joinder' really means? If we're wrong (i'm not the only one who needs to know) then help out instead of being the dark horse please.

Cheers!

Hi man

That depends on 'you' and 'i'. One has to rebut certain presumptions of the court. One has to make one's correspondence count. One has to know the rules they play by. Watch Troy's presentations on ceylon's yt, helped me a lot.

Cheers!

Hi assassin

Thanks for the response. i was of the mind that 'private conveyance' was the term to use, but when i found out conveyance means 'transport' (commercial term) it made me re-think. i used 'car' as there is no legal definition for that term, though i actually prefer the term 'travel-room' or 'travel-chair'. If it's private property then i say the owner is entitled to call it what he wants!

So we are on safe ground using 'private conveyance' then?

Cheers!

iamani wrote:Hi S.I.A.S.L.

  All the freemen (god bless 'em!) who stuck their necks out to try theories and then let us learn from their experience are heroes in my book. We now know a few more angles than they did eg commerce, the 'name' game, everything being a corporaton, and it is not a time for sitting  back waiting for others to do it for us.

  Look up Dave Gowan (or Goyan?) Kent Freedom Movement. That's one. i'm sure there are others....

  Btw any chance you could explain what 'joinder' really means? If we're wrong  (i'm not the only one who needs to know) then help out instead of being the dark horse please.

  Cheers!

Joinder means joining multiple issues or parties together in one case to avoid separate trials where much of the evidence and witnesses overlap. It has nothing to do with joining an individual to a "legal fiction strawman", which is how it tends to be used in fmotl, sovcit etc circles. See Meads V Meads, 2012. https://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abqb/doc/2012/2012abqb571/2012abqb571.html
Do you have a link to Dave Gowan's verifiable proof of how he won a case?