Re: Correspondence from the pole ice?

by **daveiron** Wed May 31, 2017 5:43 pm

As i understand it ,there was never a case as he was released without charges.He had them beat & they knew it.

by Guest Wed May 31, 2017 7:33 pm

Hi all

Hi SIASL - i'm sure joinder represents both. After all, what do the police themselves call it when they have to hear you claim a legal name, a d.o.b. and an address before they can deal with 'you' as officers rather than constables?

Meads v Meads has been de-bunked as an agrnda-driven judge passing off his opinion as fact. It'b.s.

Have yet to become link-savvy but if you type 'no tax, no insurance - released without charge' you should find it easy.

Cheers!

by man Wed May 31, 2017 8:06 pm

This video appears to be it.

by StrangerInAStrangeLand Wed May 31, 2017 9:21 pm

iamani wrote: Hi all

Hi SIASL - i'm sure joinder represents both. After all, what do the police themselves call it when they have to hear you claim a legal name, a d.o.b. and an address before they can deal with 'you' as officers rather than constables?

Meads v Meads has been de-bunked as an agrnda-driven judge passing off his opinion as fact. It'b.s.

Have yet to become link-savvy but if you type 'no tax, no insurance - released without charge' you should find it easy.

Cheers!

Please show me where Meads has been debunked. This would mean debunking all the cases Rooke cited in reaching his decision. Plus this case and others heard by Rooke continue to be cited in further cases, not only in Canada but also the UK, Ireland and Australia.
It sets precedence and is part of common law.
Someone repeating a personal anecdote full of unsubstantiated claims is not a verifiable case in law.

by StrangerInAStrangeLand Wed May 31, 2017 9:27 pm

daveiron wrote:As i understand it ,there was never a case as he was released without charges.He had them beat & they knew it.

So it's not verifiable?

by **daveiron** Wed May 31, 2017 9:32 pm

Hi S.I.A.S.L.
Watch the end of the vid posted by man

by Guest Wed May 31, 2017 10:09 pm

Hi all

Hi man - thanks for vid

Hi S.I.A.S.L. - Sorry friend, but i've no idea where i saw that, don't even remember if it was an article or vid. Don't remember what case was about or the outcome. i just remember how shocked i was that a judge could lie like that unchallenged and i remember the sense of validation i felt when i found someone who spelt out in detail exactly where the judge was wrong and how it's just propaganda.

So no, can't provide evidence. On the other hand i'm not trying to convince anyone, i'm just sharing opinion. Besides which your posts are there for balance, so people can look into it or not if they want to. As ever - d.y.o.r.

Cheers!

by toolapcblack Fri Jun 02, 2017 4:30 pm

many thanks for all the great advice.

But what about this just ignoring all the letters sent to the Person(just putting them all back in the post box), what is the worse thing that can happen? if they send the old bill as long as i keep it Buttoned and don't consent to their actions, surely they cannot get me ....the Man.

by man Fri Jun 02, 2017 4:58 pm

If you return their letters 'Unclaimed', 'Return to sender', then that is supposed to be an appropriate, honourable response of no consent, no binding agreement and no joinder with them.

However, with certain entities, they do the dishonourable thing of pretending you didn't respond to them and therefore wrongly claiming that you tacitly agreed with them and that you are in dishonour.

This means that they may pursue you as though there is an agreement with you and would give them a huge starting winning position in a 'court' room.

by **LionsShare** Fri Jun 02, 2017 5:17 pm

man wrote:If you return their letters 'Unclaimed', 'Return to sender', then that is supposed to be an appropriate, honourable response of no consent, no binding agreement and no joinder with them.

However, with certain entities, they do the dishonourable thing of pretending you didn't respond to them and therefore wrongly claiming that you tacitly agreed with them and that you are in dishonour.

This means that they may pursue you as though there is an agreement with you and would give them a huge starting winning position in a 'court' room.

If you ignore alltogether you I think receive 6 points & £1000 fine or at least it was the last I looked. There was something on the old site about this by putting at 45 degs, red ink, "legal notice refused for cause" was supposed to be enough to negate any perceived joinder & render further action null & void. Becareful though, as they WILL act dishonerably you may find 6 points & £1000 fine on the way.

Take alook at the vid link in my 1st post here, the results in that are based on experience, you could write a letter already described to try to challenge based on those very points, other wise fill out the paper work & send it in. Not sure if not signing is any good although they normally need a name & signiture (permission) before proceeding. What ever you do though BECAREFUL - dont lie that will get in to all sorts.

Good luck!

by Guest Fri Jun 02, 2017 5:39 pm

Hi all

Just a suggestion...

If you think they might pretend to have not received your 'return to sender etc' responses then put the r.t.s. labelled letter un-opened in another envelope. Put their address on it and send it special delivery (registered post - NOT recorded delivery). Print off and keep the receipt.

Remember - I KNOW nothing.

Cheers!

by Sponsored content