MAN’S FREEDOM TO TRAVEL CRIMINALLY CURTAILED

PROLOGUE.

To NOEL SHANAHAN, CEO, for and on behalf of DVLA, Swansea SAX 7XX Our reference:

Notice of  Rescission & De-registration.
Notice to principal is notice to agent and notice to agent is notice to principal.

Dear Sir,

I hereby serve notice on the Ministry of Transport and the DVLA by way of service upon the CEO of DVLA, NOEL SHANAHAN, that I rescind and revoke, ab initio, all actual and presumed contractual obligations with said commercially operated Agency, known as DVLA.

For the avoidance of doubt, this matter is independent of and without prejudice to any and all claims arising from the dishonour of the Affidavit of Obligation and perfected Lien as detailed in the NOTICE OF CERTIFICATE OF NON-RESPONSE & FURTHER CHARGES and THE NOTARISED CERTIFICATE OF NON-RESPONSE, of June 9 2010 and duly served by way of Royal Mail Recorded Delivery Ref. no. XXXXXXXXGB on NOEL SHANAHAN, for and on behalf of DVLA, on 18 June 2010.

In accord with my Claim of Right as served by way of Recorded Delivery in May 2009, on the woman acting as the Queen of England and the Commonwealth, I hereby reiterate my right to travel by whatever form of conveyance I choose without having to enter into any contractual obligations with the DVLA.
I also claim the right to revoke the unlawful contract formed by the enclosed Driver’s Licence – it has been and is of no use to me – why would a man need a licence to perform an action that is his lawful right? It is taken as unlawful on the grounds that I was not given full disclosure of the terms and conditions embedded within said contract/licence.

Given that it is a logical fallacy to claim that a licence is required to carry out a lawful action, I claim the right to rescind the licence on the illogical basis for its existence. For the avoidance of doubt, I do not ‘drive’ in a DVLA registered vehicle – I travel in my own private conveyance. I am not a DRIVER, which I understand to mean one who is travelling on the highways and engaging in commercial activity thereupon and politely decline any and all future attempts at persuading me or falsely asserting otherwise.

I no longer wish to contract with an organisation that is based on a deception and one that uses force, coercion and theft to enforce falsely represented contractual obligations on people.
I claim the right not to be bound by the statutory requirements of any and all motor vehicle acts of a parliament I have no allegiance to. I am not a citizen, a subject or the trustee for the legal entity/trust account/fictional person known as TRUST ACCOUNT STRAWMAN. Therefore, I hereby claim the right to travel freely along any highway, water or sky way without limitation and without constraint of any nature whatsoever across the land mass or by way of water around what is commonly known as the British Isles by whatever choice of conveyance is available to me.

Indeed, this right is factually supported by the following which states,

Most of the offences committed under the Highways Act 1980 are designed to punish those who endanger or interfere with users of a ‘highway’ or who damage or obstruct a ‘highway’. There is no statutory definition of a highway, only a common law one. That definition is quite clear: a highway is a way over which all members of the public have the right to pass and repass. Their use of the way must be as of right, not on sufferance or by licence”.

[From: Sweet & Maxwell, Encyclopaedia of Highway Law and Practice, March 2002, para 2-335]

As a Free Man, indigenous to this land mass known since ancient time as Albien, it is my understanding that the right to freedom of travel for all who are such is enshrined in the Union with Scotland Act, 1706, ARTICLE IV which unequivocally guarantees the right to safe and unhindered passage,

Trade and Navigation and other Rights. That all the Subjects of the United Kingdom of Great Britain shall from and after the Union have full freedom and Intercourse of Trade and Navigation to and from any port or place within the said United Kingdom and the Dominions and Plantations thereunto belonging And that there be a Communication of all other Rights Privileges and Advantages which do or may belong to the Subjects of either Kingdom except where it is otherwise expressly agreed in these Articles.”

And, Article 25 of the 1706 Act states –

That all Laws and Statutes in either Kingdom so far as they are contrary to or inconsistent with the Terms of these Articles or any of them shall from and after the Union cease and become void and shall be so declared to be by the respective Parliaments of the said Kingdoms”

Furthermore, any and all attempts, ab initio, to pre-fine someone are contrary to the Bill of Rights Act 1688,

And severall Grants and Promises made of Fines and Forfeitures before any Conviction or Judgement against the Persons upon whome the same were to be levyed.All which are utterly directly contrary to the knowne Lawes and Statutes and Freedome of this Realme”.

You are hereby informed that ANY Act  which prevents me from enjoying my right to travel anywhere within the UK is “contrary and inconsistent” with the Acts of Union 1706 and the Bill of Rights of 1688. These are Constitutional Acts and remain paramount.

In accord with my right to revoke all contractual obligations with the DVLA, you are also served notice that the vehicle that once carried the DVLA registration plate XXXX AYE is now deregistered with immediate effect and will display a PRIVATE mark bearing the word ‘NAMASTE’.

In recognition of this, the previous plates and the paperwork previously associated with the automobile are returned to DVLA.  Please amend your records accordingly.

Furthermore, I claim the right to establish a FEE SCHEDULE for any transgression(s) against me that is or are perpetrated by peace officers, government principals, agents of DVLA or justice system participants.

I claim my FEE SCHEDULE for any transgressions by peace officers, government principals or agents of DVLA or justice system participants is (GB £500.00) FIVE HUNDRED POUNDS STERLING PER HOUR or portion thereof if being questioned, interrogated or in any way detained, harassed, searched or otherwise regulated and (GB £5000.00) FIVE THOUSAND POUNDS STERLING PER HOUR or portion thereof if I am handcuffed, transported, incarcerated or subjected to any adjudication process without my expressed written and Notarised consent.

And  a minimum of (GB £5,000,000) FIVE MILLION POUNDS STERLING if I am tasered, injured, subjected to violence in any way or my biological property (DNA, blood, urine, fingerprints) is taken without my expressed written and Notarised consent.

You are hereby requested to respond within FIVE working days of this Notice being served. Should you fail to suggest or provide me with an alternative means of exercising my birthright within this time, then for want of an alternative, you will have to accept my version.

DECLARATION: I declare that whilst in charge of any conveyance upon the public highway, I will be at all times exercising due caution, awareness and travelling at speeds deemed safe for the conditions.
Naturally, I will not be engaging in actions which would endanger another’s life. I will be posting a bond with the Secretary of State to the value of FIVE HUNDRED THOUSAND POUNDS STERLING for indemnification purposes and in accord with the SECTION 144(1) OF THE ROAD TRAFFIC ACT 1988 .

Without malice, mischief, ill will, vexation or frivolity, in sincerity and honour,
By: The Free Man-on-the-Land commonly known as Rogue Male [Seal]

The Occasional Authorised Representative to TRUST ACCOUNT STRAWMAN™ (& all derivatives thereof)
All Rights Reserved – Without Recourse – Non-Assumpsit – Errors & OmissionsExcepted
Mailing address: C/O: XX Letsbee Avenue  Mercia.
_______________________________________________________

So, within the 5 working days, a reply was received from DVLA – not from NOEL SHANAHAN, the CEO but from a woman working in the ‘Corporate Affairs Directorate’, Nicola Virdee…. Notice the condescending attitude, the grammatical errors and the liberal use of phrases she appears to have gleaned from the internet. . .

Dear Strawman,
Thank you for your recent correspondence addressed to Noel Shanahan at the DVLA. I have been asked to reply. The content of the ‘Notice’ you provided has been noted. However, I should point out a number of points. The Notice you supplied, if it has any effect, does not provide for any exception or exemption from the legislative requirements of the Road Traffic Act 1988 and the Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994, or any other requirements with regards the licensing of drivers and the registration and taxing of vehicles.
If you are stopped by the Police and found to be in breach of the law regarding your driving licence and/or vehicle  then they will have no option but to report you for the offence. Similarly, if DVLA receive any notification of such a breach then we will have no option but to take the necessary actions to enforce the law.
Your defaced driving licence, vehicle registration document and number plates has been received at DVLA (sic). Further information on how to ensure that you may drive legally in on UK roads and on obtaining documents to replace your defaced documents can be found at www. Direct. Govt. Uk . Motoring.  There is a charge for replacement of defaced documents. Should you question the legality and definitions of the Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994 (as amended) and the Road Traffic Act 1988 (sic).
You may wish to seek independent legal advice so that you properly understand the fit between your view of your obligations and the application of statute law requirements to you. (sic). No further correspondence will be entered into on this matter.
Yours sincerely
Nicola Virdee Corporate Affairs Directorate”

This document has been returned to DVLA as a breach of constitutional law along with the following legal Notice.
To NOEL SHANAHAN, CEO, for and on behalf of DVLA, Swansick SAX 7XX Our reference:

Notice of Documents Returned for Breach of Constitutional Law.

Dear NOEL SHANAHAN,
1. Please find enclosed the response dated April 2011. Said document is returned herein, without dishonour and without recourse, as it is a breach of Constitutional Law. This is on the basis that:

2. The writer’s attempt to make a legal determination of the matter is entirely frivolous. Her references to the statutory requirements of the 1988 Act and the 1994 Act demonstrate this point clearly. For the avoidance of doubt, said references have no basis in English Law as they are to be taken as a fatally flawed misrepresentation of the matter.

3.Her citations of said Acts are irrelevant as the Bill of Rights and the Act of Union remain in full force and effect, their validity reiterated by Lord Justice Laws, in the Divisional Court in the case of the “Metric Martyrs” (sections 62 and 63). He said:

“The special status of constitutional statutes follows the special status of constitutional rights. Examples are the Magna Carta, the Bill of Rights 1689, the Act of Union, the Reform Acts which distributed and enlarged the franchise, the HRA, the Scotland Act 1998 and the Government of Wales Act 1998. Ordinary statutes may be impliedly repealed. Constitutional statutes may not.

For the repeal of a constitutional Act or the abrogation of a fundamental right to be effected by statute, the court would apply this test: is it shown that the legislature’s actual – not imputed, constructive or presumed – intention was to effect the repeal or abrogation? I think the test could only be met by express words in the later statute, or by words so specific that the inference of an actual determination to effect the result contended for was irresistible.

The ordinary rule of implied repeal does not satisfy this test. Accordingly, it has no application to constitutional statutes. I should add that in my judgment general words could not be supplemented, so as to effect a repeal or significant amendment to a constitutional statute, by reference to what was said in Parliament by the minister promoting the Bill pursuant to Pepper v Hart [1993] AC 593. A constitutional statute can only be repealed, or amended in a way which significantly affects its provisions touching fundamental rights or otherwise the relation between citizen and State, by unambiguous words on the face of the later statute.”

4. In the event that DVLA is unable to provide material evidence demonstrating the legislation that repealed the referenced Constitutional Statutes, then DVLA will be deemed to be acting in flagrant disregard of the law.

5. I will be exercising my common and ancient of travel, which is the
right for all……at all seasons of the year freely” and my “will to pass and repass without let or hindrance, and without charge.

All the Subjects of the United Kingdom of Great Britain shall……have full Freedom…… to and from any port or place within the said United Kingdom……” Union with Scotland Act 1706 Article 4. 6.
All Laws and Statutes in either Kingdom so far as they are contrary to or inconsistent with the Terms of these Articles ……shall from and after the Union cease and become void” Union with Scotland Act 1706 Article 25. 7.

Therefore, contrary to the assertions of the referenced letter, the Notice of  Rescission, as served on DVLA on 8 April 2011 by way of Royal Mail Recorded Delivery, stands in law. Unless you are able to provide material evidence, supported by relevant case law which demonstrates that any and all statutory ‘laws’ DVLA and its agents may seek to enforce, under the apparent consent of the public, are not void for being inconsistent and contrary to the Articles of the Union and any fine DVLA may attempt to extort is not contrary to the Bill of Rights, then the lawful presumption will be that all parties are in agreement, in which case, any and all correspondence will also be deemed frivolous, may be copied for use as evidence in court and/or refused for cause and returned accordingly.
DVLA is also served notice that in the event DVLA sends any more erroneous correspondence to the fictional legal entity known as “STRAWMAN™”, each item will incur a ONE THOUSAND & FIVE HUNDRED POUNDS STERLING administrative charge – ab initio.
Any and all accepted invitations to attend at one of Her Majesty’s Courts, will be deemed by all parties to be  made under “Special Appearance” and will incur a charge of ONE THOUSAND & FIVE HUNDRED POUNDS STERLING  per appearance.

For the avoidance of doubt, the returned driver’s licence and DVLA form were not “defaced” – they are rescinded -which is what was written on them.
i) “Rescind verb: Revoke, cancel, or repeal (a law, order, or agreement)” from Webster’s Dictionary.
“RESCISSION OF A CONTRACT. The destruction or annulling of a contract.
2. The right to rescind a contract seems to suppose not that the contract has existed only in appearance; but that it has never had a real existence on account of the defects which accompanied it; or which prevented its actual execution. 7 Toul. n. 551 17 Id. n. 114.” ii) “DRIVER. One employed in conducting a coach, carriage, wagon, or other vehicle, with horses, mules, or other animals.”  From Bouvier’s Law Dictionary, Revised 6th Ed (1856),
As I am not and will not be employed as a ‘Driver”, there is no requirement for a licence.
10.  Given said documents may be taken in some quarters to provide possible evidence of a contractual obligation unwittingly entered into with DVLA, one has simply rescinded them, as is one’s lawful entitlement. It is an act of Law, not one of defacement.

Without malice, mischief, ill will, vexation or frivolity, in sincerity and honour,

By: The Free Man-on-the-Land commonly known as Me, The Occasional Authorised Representative to TRUST ACCOUNT STRAWMAN™ (& all derivatives thereof)

All Rights Reserved – Without Recourse – Non-Assumpsit – Errors & Omissions Excepted
Mailing address: C/O: XX Letsbee Avenue Forest Fields Snottingham Mercia.
______________________________________________________

So, within five working days, a reply to the NOTICE OF DOCUMENTS RETURNED… was received from DVLA. It purports to be from some department called “Corporate Affairs Directorate”. Addressed to the STRAWMAN, it reads,

27 April 2011 Our ref ACTS 48236
Dear  Mr Strawman,

Thank you for your letter of 19 April 2011 to Noel Shanahan.

Mr Simon Tse is acting Chief Executive of the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency.

Your letter is receiving immediate attention and you will receive a full reply as soon as possible.

Mrs Sars Dafydd. Ministerial Gateway Team

This lead to the question, ‘what’s happened to Noel Shanahan, erstwhile Chief Executive Officer of DVLA? The answer was found here http://www.familylaw.co.uk/articles/CMEC22032011-985. Since March 22, he has been head of Child Maintenance. From CEO of DVLA to Child maintenance? Would that be a side step, a step down or an upstep – or some other kind of step as yet unimagined? And, what could the “Ministerial Gateway Team” be?
_____________________________________________________________

A letter has been received from the Corporate Affairs Directorate. It reads:

4 May 2011

Dear Strawman,

Thank you for your letter of 21 April. I acknowledge receipt of this. As previously advised no further correspondence will be entered into on this matter.

yours sincerely Jean Valley Team Leader Corporate Affairs Directorate

So, it appears DVLA are denying due process of the law by refusing to engage in any meaningful attempt to resolve the matter, which of course, means they are failing to apply constitutional law to the issue and any action taken against me will be in breach of said law.  In effect, they will be attempting to force a contractual obligation on one (which renders it null and void ab inititio.

Let us be clear about this – our freedom to travel is enshrined in Law: it cannot be revoked. DVLA will be acting unlawfully if it attempts to prevent anyone going about his travels in a vehicle which has been deregistered, notwithstanding the fact that all contractual obligations have been rescinded by the return of the driving licence, the DVLA registration plate and the v5 document (unsigned).
_________________________________________________________________

Friday 13 May 2011 was day 666 of the impoundment of the deregistered auto stolen by DVLA.  It seemed appropriate to send a demand for payment under the terms of the Lien served on the CEO of said agency,

PRIVATE & CONFIDENTIAL

NOTICE TO AGENT IS NOTICE TO PRINCIPAL NOTICE TO PRINCIPAL IS NOTICE TO AGENT

Notice applicable to Nominees, Successors, Heirs, Accessories and Assigns

To Mr Simon TSE, acting CEO, for and on behalf of DVLA, the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency Swansea SA6 7JL

13th May, 2011. Your ref: BLAHBLAH Our ref: AG12345

STATUTORY DEMAND.

TO:  Simon TSE, acting CEO, for and on behalf of DVLA, pursuant to your predecessor  Ole Bananaman & DVLA’s dishonour of the legal notices and affidavit herein listed, each served by way of Royal Mail Recorded Delivery,

1. NOTICE OF REQUEST FOR PROOF OF CONTRACT, DATED 17th July, 2009.
2. NOTICE OF ACCEPTANCE OF CONTRACT: TERMS & CONDITIONS, DATED 22nd July, 2009.
3. NOTICE & DEMAND (AFFIDAVIT),  DATED 10th August, 2009
4. NOTICE OF DISHONOUR & OPPORTUNITY TO CURE, DATED 11th September, 2009.
5. NOTICE OF DISHONOUR,  DATED 9th October, 2009.
6. NOTICE OF LIEN INTEREST, DATED 19th October, 2009
7. AFFIDAVIT OF OBLIGATION (COMMERCIAL LIEN) , DATED 7th December, 2009.
9. NOTICE OF FAULT & OPPORTUNITY TO CURE, DATED 17th December, 2009.
10. NOTICE OF DEFAULT, DATED 11th January, 2010.
11. NOTICE OF EXEMPLARY CHARGES AND DEMAND, 12 April, 2010 12. NOTARISED AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE,DATED 9th June, 2010

You are hereby served this STATUTORY DEMAND for payment.
Ledgering:

1. As Noel Shanhahan, for and on behalf of DVLA, failed to settle the outstanding amount of ONE HUNDRED AND THIRTY FIVE THOUSAND POUNDS as per the terms of the lien, you, Mr Simon SET, for and on behalf of DVLA, are hereby and herein notified that the charge of FIVE HUNDRED POUNDS STERLING PER DAY DVLA unlawfully impound the automobile is still in FULL CAUSE AND EFFECT and has been added to the total owed. In total, it is now 666 days since the private automobile was stolen by DVLA.

2. THE CHARGE OF FIVE HUNDRED POUNDS STERLING PER DAY FROM 12th April 2010 to 13th May 2011inclusive is ONE HUNDRED AND NINETY SEVEN THOUSAND AND FIVE HUNDRED POUNDS STERLING (GBP£197,500).

3. EXEMPLARY CHARGES: For the avoidance of doubt, DVLA’s failure to settle the agreed sum owed under the terms of said Commercial Lien of GBP£197,960 in full within thirty (30) days of service of notice of 12 April 2010 incurred a charge of three times (X3) the amount owed which was £593,000. The failure to settle after another thirty (30) day period incurred a further charge of ten times (X10) the balance owed which amounted to  £5, 930, 800.  With the added total of £197,500, this makes the THE TOTAL OWED AS OF 13th May 2011,  SIX MILLION, ONE HUNDRED AND TWENTY-EIGHT THOUSAND AND THREE HUNDRED POUNDS STERLING ( £6,128,300)

4. If the Lien Debtor is willing to settle this account within the next 30 (THIRTY) days, then a 50% discount will be offered. You are asked to take note that, given the well-documented various dishonourable, unlawful and overly-aggressive actions of those agents acting for and on behalf of the DVLA, including, without limitation, the failure of Noel Shanhahan’s duty of care to apply due diligence to the matter,  the unlawful and violent theft of the LAWFULLY de-registered automobile at X Xcellent Road, Snottingham on the morning of 16th July 2009, and the subsequent commercial injuries to STRAWMAN™ we consider this to be a legitimate sum.

You are requested to remit a cheque for the full amount in order to prevent the initiation of any and all further administrative and/or judicial proceedings deemed necessary in order to cure the commercial injuries caused by your company. Cheques or banker’s drafts should be made payable to STRAWMAN™ and are payable upon receipt of this legal notice.
Without malice, mischief, ill will, frivolity or vexation, in sincerity and honour,

By: Every Man of Everywhere Authorised Agent in Commerce to  STRAWMAN™

All Rights Reserved –Without Recourse – Non-Assumpsit
The full details of this can be viewed here – http://forum.fmotl.com/viewtopic.php?f=25&t=4085
__________________________________________________________

 CHAPTER TWO: AN ACT OF HIGHWAY ROBBERY COMMITTED BY A MAN CALLED ‘CANT’

A Breach of Constitutional Law

Imagine, if you will, the following scenario. You are peacefully travelling along an ancient roadway in a private form of transport, observing the road conditions, taking it easy and being mindful of other users of the highway. The sun is shining over the Pennines as you approach the outskirts of a town called Huddersfield, an enclave in the region once known as Elmet.

All is well and the journey almost complete when a flashing blue light and a wailing siren alert you to the fact that the (already observed) commercial driver behind you wishes to pull over. You choose to pull over, switch on your video camera and prepare for the inevitable encounter. He is with a woman and both are in the costume of the corporation whose interests they evidently represent.

The male of the specie begins to press you for an explanation of a plate on the vehicle which reads, ‘NAMASTE’. The documentation you present provides an explanation, a declaration of your right to travel freely, a name you go by and an address for any mail to be sent to. The Declaration contains a fee schedule, which informs said officer of one’s charges in the event that a corporate entity seeks to enforce its services upon one without consent.

Unfortunately, as is so often the case with those employed as agents of the state, this man is somewhat bound up in the role of his ego and his costumed status and his power of perception is dimmed by this. He knows not what he is doing, is unwilling to act as a public servant and refuses to spend some time reading through something that is outside his reality tunnel. So it goes, so it goes.

Dissatisfied with one’s paperwork, and one’s repeated mantra that one is travelling privately and not performing any function in a public capacity, he grabs the camera, handcuffs you and forces you into the back of his car. The private car is then stolen – along with all its contents – and carried to a commercial company’s premises. The officer, whose name is PC CANT [real name] then informs you that there will be an extortion charge should you wish to get it back.

Next, the man called Cant kidnaps you, taking you to a dungeon where you are held without your consent, subjected to all manner of (failed) attempts to contract by way of one’s signature, forced into providing specimens of one’s biological property and locked in a cell for the next 6 hours. You are unable to make a phone call as your mobile phone has been stolen with the car.

The head dungeon master, who refers to himself as the ‘desk sergeant’ informs you that because the agents were unable to find the vehicle identification number on the chasis (it was removed when the car was deregistered), they are investigating to see if it is stolen.

Eventually, you are let out onto the street. It’s a chilly August evening and there are 4 amoured vehicles and a gang of men on the pavement, dressing up in costumes that incorporate knee pads, elbow pads, body armour, cudgels, gas sprays, electronic stun guns, visored helmets and big shields.

One asks one of the dramatis personae what they are doing and he informs you that they are off to protect some corporate interests (a supermarket) which is under some kind of attack from a cadre of presumably disgruntled local people. In this instant the role of the police is clear – the common law crimes listed below have been committed against one and all those minions out on the streets around the country as the engineered ‘riots’ unfolded are there as the private corporate enforcers and protectors of the elite and their assets.

In spite of it all – the theft, kidnap, false imprisonment, attempted extortion, the perjury of an officer who falsely claimed you had not provided him with the requested information and a list of statutory offences as long as the stunted arm of the ‘law’, you begin to chuckle for you know, deep within, that all is pantomime, all is play and all is unfolding just as it should in these apocalyptic times. You gotta smile, you just gotta smile.
Were it not for the mechanised transport and other technologies, the scenario that is depicted here could be easily applied to other, more distant eras when highway robbery, extortion and injury were similarly practised just like this – we’re living in a gangsters’ paradise and it’s been going on for millennia. . .

Many will see this as comeuppance, indeed, many were the people who said it would end thus, that one would eventually be arrested, a perfectly workable car stolen and finally crushed. However, they miss the point – readers of this thread will see the validity of the claims against this aggressive CROWN entity and will instantly appreciate the truth of said claims. We are free to roam this earth when, wherever and by whatever form of transportation we may choose and no one can deny us that unalienable right. This is supported by the constitution, by the timeless understanding of the people of their divine freedoms and, way before it was written down, the ancient customs of these lands which were passed on by way of mouth from generation to generation.

This is my understanding and it has been expressed by way of Claim of Right and by way of one’s actions and I will not cave into accepting any form of contract with an entity whose ethic is based on the ‘might is right’ enforcement of unlawful contracts which, in any event, are rendered void by way of their procuration without full disclosure and under duress. And yet there has to be a light side to all of this. One readily acknowledges that, and, of course, there is a certain comedic element to it (and, at least as far as this traveller is concerned, it is divine comedy) which may serve to en-lighten us should we choose to see it thus.

One’s legal person was charged with some nine counts ~ an act of fraud, given one has revoked one’s citizenship and said statutory ‘offences’ do not apply to him. The charges were returned – unsigned, “refused for cause” to the ‘CEO’ of the regional constabulary. There will, doubtless, be more to follow as new remedies emerge but in the meantime, there is the small matter of sending a bill to the extortionists for charges accrued under the Fee Schedule with which the other party has been served. I read with interest others’ comments on this and it occurs to me that a representative action against DVLA may be something we could focus on collectively – feel free to pm me if you would be interested in joining such an action should you have experienced similar unlawful actions at the hands of the corporate entities referenced herein.

________________________________________________________________

CHAPTER THREE: WHOSE HIGHWAYS ARE THEY ANYWAY?

Who the feck is anyone to claim a Man does not have the right to travel upon the ancient highways of these lands without paying a TAX to the usurpers known as the CROWN?

In addition to being one of the founders of British Legislation, Dyvnwal designed and partly made the Royal British Military Roads through the Island. These were nine in number,—

1. The Sarn Gwyddelin (corrupted into Watling street), or Irish Road, in two branches, from Dover to Mona and Penvro.
2. The Sam Iken (Iknield street), the road from Caer Troia, Northward through the Eastern districts.
3. Sam Ucha (Iknield street), from the mouth of the Tyne to the present St. David’s.
4. Sam Ermyn, from Anderida (Peven sey) to Caer Edin (Edinburgh).
5. Sam Achmaen, from Caer Troia to Menevia (St. David’s).
6. Sam Halen, from the Salt Mines of Cheshire to the mouth of the Humber.
7 Sam Hàlen, from the Salt Mines to Llongborth (Portsmouth).
8. The Secnd Samo Ermyn, from Torbay to Dunbreton on the Clyde.
9. The Sam ar y Môr, or military road following the coast around the Island.

These roads were pitched and paved, and ran sometimes in a straight, sometimes a sinuous line, at a moderate elevation above the ground, forming a network of communication between the Cities of Britain. Being completed by Belinus, they are known as the Belinian roads of Britain.

The Romans followed these lines in their first and second invasions, and subsequently laid down in great measure their own military roads upon them. Hence the Belinian and Roman roads are found constantly running in and out of each other.”

Now that should get some of the old juices flowing … Source: http://www.scribd.com/doc/49474709/History-of-Britain
______________________________________________________________

CHAPTER FOUR: INSURANCE BY WAY OF DEPOSIT OF PROMISSORY NOTE ~ CORRESPONDENCE WITH THE SECRETARY OF STATE FOR TRANSPORT.

This is a sanitised version of a missive that the Secretary of State for Transport (UK) received:

STRAWMAN™ Administrator in Commerce & Equity
To: Rt Hon Theresa Villier, Minister of State, Department for Transport House of Commons, London, SW1A 0AA. 16 May 2012

NOTICE OF  REQUEST FOR CONFIRMATION OF RIGHT TO DEPOSIT SECURITY

Dear Theresa Villier, Minister of State for Transport,

RE: ROAD TRAFFIC ACT 1988, ss 143 & 144

1. Pursuant to the above referenced sections which state:
“Compulsory insurance or security against third-party risks” 143 Users of motor vehicles to be insured or secured against third-party risks. (1)Subject to the provisions of this Part of this Act— (a) a person must not use a motor vehicle on a road [F1or other public place] unless there is in force in relation to the use of the vehicle by that person such a policy of insurance or such a security in respect of third party risks as complies with the requirements of this Part of this Act, and (b) a person must not cause or permit any other person to use a motor vehicle on a road [F2or other public place] unless there is in force in relation to the use of the vehicle by that other person such a policy of insurance or such a security in respect of third party risks as complies with the requirements of this Part of this Act,” and, “144 Exceptions from requirement of third-party insurance or security. (1)Section 143 of this Act does not apply to a vehicle owned by a person who has deposited and keeps deposited with the Accountant General of the [F3 Senior Courts] the sum of [F4£500,000], at a time when the vehicle is being driven under the owner’s control.”  source:  http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1988/52/part/VI/crossheading/compulsory-insurance-or-security-against-thirdparty-risks ,

2. Could you kindly confirm that in accord with the foregoing, my person has indeed the statutory right to deposit a Security in the form of a promissory note made payable to bearer to the value as stated above with the Accountant General of the Senior Courts?

3. Please find attached a scanned copy of the Security.  It is requested that if there any apparent defects in the instrument and/or any reason why it would not be acceptable as a security then you point them out in order that any adjustments can be made.

Many thanks for your time and consideration of this matter, Without malice, mischief, ill-will, frivolity or vexation; in sincerity and honour,

By:      Man of Elmet, Duly Authorised Administrator to STRAWMAN™

MAILING LOCATION: C/0 XX XXXXX AVENUE, NOTTINGHAM

All Rights Reserved – Without Recourse – Non-Assumpsit.
We await the Minister of State for Tranport’s considered response… A scanned Promissory Note was attached to the email…
____________________________________________________________

This is the reply to the correspondence originally sent to the minister of transport.

Zone 3/21 Department for Transport Great Minster House 33 Horseferry Road London SW1P 4DR Tel: 0300 330 3000
Web Site: www.dft.gov.uk
Our Ref: TO 43181 Your Ref:
26 June 2012

Dear Sir,

DEPOSITS UNDER SECTION 144 OF THE ROAD TRAFFIC ACT 1988

Thank you for your e-mail of 17 May to the Minister of State for Transport, in which you asked for information on the procedure for making a deposit under section 144 of the Road Traffic Act 1988. Section 144(1) allows a vehicle owner to make a deposit of £500,000 to the Supreme Court as an alternative to compulsory motor insurance as required by Section 143 of the Road Traffic Act 1988.

However; The vehicle must be driven at all times under the owner’s control. The Depositor must meet the full costs of any insurance claim awarded against it (This is unlimited in the case of personal injury). The £500,000 cannot be used to meet these claims unless the depositor is declared bankrupt and then the deposit is used to meet their liabilities. The exemption only applies when the vehicles are driven in Great Britain and does not cover social, domestic or pleasure purposes under this section. A depositor must make a formal application to the Department for consideration.

If the application is agreed the Department authorises the Courts Funds Office to issue the necessary paperwork. Every company, partnership or sole trader, even one which is a wholly owned subsidiary of another, is considered a legal entity in its own right and is therefore responsible for those vehicles. A deposit would therefore be necessary for each company if a Warrant is required to be issued.

I mentioned above the need for the vehicle to be driven at all times under the owner’s control. A definition of “owner” is given in Section 192 of the act and further in section 161(1). You may wish to seek legal advice on whether vehicles used under a long term lease contract would be covered by such an arrangement. In respect of the sum to be placed with the Supreme Court, the regulation allows the following: provided that in lieu, wholly or in part, of the deposit of money the depositor may deposit an equivalent amount of securities in which cash under the control of or subject to the order of the Court may for the time being be invested.

The requirements are set out in the Motor Vehicles (Third Party Risks Deposits) Regulations 1992 (Statutory Instrument 1992 No. 1284).  A bank guarantee or a promissory note is not an acceptable alternative. If you are in any doubt as to whether you meet all of the requirements you should consult those Regulations and or section 144 of the Road Traffic Act 1988.

Additionally you should be aware that there are regulations (Statutory Instrument 2003/37) which make it a formal requirement that motor Insurers and motor policy holders notify the Motor Insurers Bureau (MIB) of certain information about the policies and vehicles covered by such policies.  If your client should decide to become a depositor it would be required to set up a notification system direct with the MIB to ensure that details of your vehicles are recorded on the Motor Insurance Database. The Motor Vehicles (Third Party Risks) Regulations 1972 – as amended) set out certain requirements. Amongst these is the form of certificates to be used by depositors as evidence of an acceptable alternative to insurance.

You will see that the certificate is one that the depositor completes. If the police or any other authority have a valid query then we will confirm to them the validity (or otherwise) of any such certificate. If you wish to progress with the scheme then the first requirement is to write formally to this Department naming the company (or other entity), giving the address and stating that you wish to become a depositor under section 144(1) of the Road Traffic Act 1988. The letter must be from the company and signed by a duly authorised Director (or in the case of a partnership a partner; and in the case of a sole trader the sole trader himself).

Yours faithfully Chris Curson

Licensing and Insurance Team Road User Licensing Insurance and Safety Division

Notice the final sentence, and you will realise that it is all a commercial offer ~ NONE OF THIS APPLIES TO THE REAL MAN ONLY THE CORPORATE/BUSINESS ENTITY/LEGAL PERSON…

You are a sojourner – in this world but not of it – and, by definition you are here to travel in your avatar for the edification of your individual and blessed soul.

The whole DVLA/MINISTRY TRANSPORT exists for the taxation of COMMERCIAL transportation ~ the scam is that people are fooled into believing the lie that they are a legal person. The offer is made and accepted when you pass the ‘Driving test’ and apply for a ‘Full’ licence, whereupon you are deemed to have agreed to become – effectively – an agent of the state who is engaging in commercial activity because he has agreed by way of his application that he is a ‘Driver’. An individual who simply travels cannot partake in this scam [not ‘scheme’ as the civil servant would have you believe] ~ it is exclusively for the corporate fiction:

If you wish to progress with the scheme then the first requirement is to write formally to this Department naming the company (or other entity), giving the address and stating that you wish to become a depositor under section 144(1) of the Road Traffic Act 1988. The letter must be from the company and signed by a duly authorised Director (or in the case of a partnership a partner; and in the case of a sole trader the sole trader himself).

Let those with the eyes see, let those with the ears, hear  ~ none of the DVLA bullshit applies to anyone who has rescinded his licence and de-registered his form of transport as he is, in legal terms, not a Commercial Driver ~ he is not engaging in any commercial activity. [Unless, of course, he is a taxi driver, haulage driver or the driver of any vehicle which is using the public highway with the intent of charging for his services].
__________________________________________________________________
CHAPTER FIVE IN WHICH LEGAL TERMS, ETYMOLOGY AND DEFINTIONS ARE EXAMINED.

License: In the law of contracts, is a permission, accorded by a competent authority, conferring the right to do some act which without such authorization would be illegal, or would be a trespass or tort.” Blacks Law Dictionary, 2nd Ed. (1910).

“The license means to confer on a person the right to do something which otherwise he would not have the right to do.” City of Louisville v. Sebree, 214 S.W. 2D 248; 308 Ky. 420.

“The object of a license is to confer a right or power which does not exist without it.” Pavne v. Massev, 196 S.W. 2D 493; 145 Tex. 273; Shuman v. City of Ft. Wayne, 127 Indiana 109; 26 NE 560, 561 (1891); 194 So 569 (1940).

“A license is a mere permit to do something that without it would be unlawful.” Littleton v. Buress, 82 P. 864, 866; 14 Wyo.173. “A license, pure and simple, is a mere personal privilege…” River Development Corp. V. Liberty Corp., 133 A. 2d 373, 385; 45 N.J. Super. 445.

“A license is merely a permit or privilege to do what otherwise would be unlawful, and is not a contract between the authority, federal, state or municipal granting it and the person to whom it is granted…”American States Water Services Co. Of Calif. V. Johnson, 88 P.2d 770, 774; 31 Cal. App.2d 606.

“A license when granting a privilege, may not, as the terms to its possession, impose conditions which require the abandonment of constitutional rights.” Frost Trucking Co. V. Railroad Commission, 271 US 583, 589 (1924); Terral v. Burke Construction Company, 257 US 529, 532 (1922).

“The word privilege is defined as a particular benefit, favor, or advantage, a right or immunity not enjoyed by all, or it may be enjoyed only under special conditions.” Knoll Gold Club v. U.S., 179 Fed Supp. 377, 380.

“…those things which are considered as inalienable rights which all citizens possess cannot be licensed since those acts are not held to be a privilege.” City of Chicago v. Collins, 51 N.E. 907, 910  http://realitybloger.wordpress.com/

____________________________________________________________

Here’s an interesting question: is ignorance of these laws an excuse for such acts by officials?

If we are to follow the letter of the law, (as we are sworn to do), this places officials who involve themselves in such unlawful acts in an unfavorable legal situation. For it is a felony and federal crime to violate or deprive citizens of their constitutionally protected rights. Our system of law dictates that there are only two ways to legally remove a right belonging to the people. These are: 1) by lawfully amending the constitution, or 2) by a person knowingly waiving a particular right. Some of the confusion on our present system has arisen because many millions of people have waived their right to travel unrestricted and volunteered into the jurisdiction of the state. Those who have knowingly given up these rights are now legally regulated by state law and must acquire the proper permits and registrations. There are basically two groups of people in this category: Citizens who involve themselves in commerce upon the highways of the state. Here is what the courts have said about this:

…For while a citizen has the right to travel upon the public highways and to transport his property thereon, that right does not extend to the use of the highways…as a place for private gain. For the latter purpose, no person has a vested right to use the highways of this state, but it is a privilege…which the (state) may grant or withhold at its discretion…” State v. Johnson, 245 P 1073.

There are many court cases that confirm and point out the difference between the right of the citizen to travel and a government privilege and there are numerous other court decisions that spell out the jurisdiction issue in these two distinctly different activities. However, because of space restrictions, we will leave it to officers to research it further for themselves.” The second group of citizens that is legally under the jurisdiction of the state are those citizens who have voluntarily and knowingly waived their right to travel unregulated and unrestricted by requesting placement under such jurisdiction through the acquisition of a state driver’s license, vehicle registration, mandatory insurance, etc. (In other words, by contract.)

We should remember what makes this legal and not a violation of the common law right to travel is that they knowingly volunteer by contract to waive their rights. If they were forced, coerced or unknowingly placed under the state’s powers, the courts have said it is a clear violation of their rights. This in itself raises a very interesting question. What percentage of the people in each state have applied for and received licenses, registrations and obtained insurance after erroneously being advised by their government that it was mandatory?

Many of our courts, attorneys and police officials are just becoming informed about this important issue and the difference between privileges and rights. We can assume that the majority of those Americans carrying state licenses and vehicle registrations have no knowledge of the rights they waived in obeying laws such as these that the U.S. Constitution clearly states are unlawful, i.e. laws of no effect – laws that are not laws at all.

An area of serious consideration for every police officer is to understand that the most important law in our land which he has taken an oath to protect, defend, and enforce, is not state laws and city or county ordinances, but the law that supersedes all other laws — the U.S. Constitution. (or, as in the case of the issues being dealt with here, the British Constitution as referenced in the foregoing posts of this thread)

If laws in a particular state or local community conflict with the supreme law of our nation, there is no question that the officer’s duty is to uphold the U.S. (UK) Constitution.

Every police officer should keep the following U.S. court ruling — discussed earlier — in mind before issuing citations concerning licensing, registration, and insurance: “The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime.” Miller v. US, 230 F 486, 489. And as we have seen, traveling freely, going about one’s daily activities, is the exercise of a most basic right.

http://www.land.netonecom.net/tlp/ref/right2travel.shtml

__________________________________________________

So, if you have applied for a licence you are deemed to be operating in a commercial capacity  … this video has further information on the matter…

“Motor vehicle … drawn by mechanical power and used for commercial purposes on the highways in the transportation of passengers and property” Title 18 USC 31 …

Ipso facto, MOTOR VEHICLES ARE USED TO MAKE PROFIT, IE FOR COMMERCIAL PURPOSES LINK

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nsxnM0fWReU

____________________________________________________________

CHAPTER SIX: MORE ON THE LICENCE DECEPTION: WE HAVE FREEDOM TO TRAVEL, SO WHY WOULD YOU NEED ONE?

THE TERM LICENCE (American Spelling – ‘LICENSE’), as defined by Black’s Second Edition and the Courts:
“License: In the law of contracts, is a permission, accorded by a competent authority, conferring the right to do some act which without such authorization would be illegal, or would be a trespass or tort.” Blacks Law Dictionary, 2nd Ed. (1910).

“The license means to confer on a person the right to do something which otherwise he would not have the right to do.” City of Louisville v. Sebree, 214 S.W. 2D 248; 308 Ky. 420.

“The object of a license is to confer a right or power which does not exist without it.” Pavne v. Massev, 196 S.W. 2D 493; 145 Tex. 273; Shuman v. City of Ft. Wayne, 127 Indiana 109; 26 NE 560, 561 (1891); 194 So 569 (1940).

“A license is a mere permit to do something that without it would be unlawful.” Littleton v. Buress, 82 P. 864, 866; 14 Wyo.173.

“A license, pure and simple, is a mere personal privilege…” River Development Corp. V. Liberty Corp., 133 A. 2d 373, 385; 45 N.J. Super. 445.

“A license is merely a permit or privilege to do what otherwise would be unlawful, and is not a contract between the authority, federal, state or municipal granting it and the person to whom it is granted…”American States Water Services Co. Of Calif. V. Johnson, 88 P.2d 770, 774; 31 Cal. App.2d 606.

“A license when granting a privilege, may not, as the terms to its possession, impose conditions which require the abandonment of constitutional rights.” Frost Trucking Co. V. Railroad Commission, 271 US 583, 589 (1924); Terral v. Burke Construction Company, 257 US 529, 532 (1922).

“The word privilege is defined as a particular benefit, favor, or advantage, a right or immunity not enjoyed by all, or it may be enjoyed only under special conditions.” Knoll Gold Club v. U.S., 179 Fed Supp. 377, 380.

“…those things which are considered as inalienable rights which all citizens possess cannot be licensed since those acts are not held to be a privilege.” City of Chicago v. Collins, 51 N.E. 907, 910

“Illegitimate and unconstitutional practices get their first footing in that way, by silent approaches and slight deviations from legal modes of procedure. This can only be obviated by adhering to the rule that constitutional provisions for the security of persons and property should be liberally construed.” Boyd v. United States, 116 U.S. 616, 635 (1884); Exparte Rhodes, 202Ala. 68 71.

“The State cannot diminish rights of the people.” Hertado v. California, 110 U.S. 516

“Statutes that violate the plain and obvious principles of common right and common reason are null and void.” Bennett v. Boggs, 1 Baldw 60.

“Under our system of government upon the individuality and intelligence of the citizen, the state does not claim to control him/her, except as his/her conduct to others, leaving him/her the sole judge as to all that affects himself/herself.” Mugler v. Kansas 123 U.S. 623, 659-60.

“The assertion of federal rights, when plainly and reasonably made, is not to be defeated under the name of local practice.”- Davis v. Wechsler, 263 U.S. 22, 24.

“Where rights secured by the constitution are involved, there can be no rule making or legislation which would abrogate them.” – Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 491.

“The claim and exercise of a constitutional right cannot be converted into a crime.” – Miller v. U.S., 230 F 2d 486, 489.

“For a crime to exist, there must be an injured party. There can be no sanction or penalty imposed upon one because of this exercise of Constitutional rights.”- Sherar v. Cullen, 481 F. 945.

Link: http://thecountyguard.org/right-2-drive-handout.html

In summary, why would anyone require a ‘iicense’ or, indeed, a ‘passport’ in order to travel around a realm in which he is sojourner?

Are both items not contracts for permission to travel?  Agreements with those who would rule him and does the acceptance of them not place him under the jurisdiction of the false agents of the fake god?

…TO BE CONTINUED…