DEALING WITH POLICE, REGISTRATION, DRIVER'S LICENSE

Dealing With The Police   Years ago, a policeman was your friend and defender.   Things have changed now that Police Forces have become commercial organisations, dedicated to producing a profit by taking money from you in the form of Fixed Penalty Notices, Speeding Fines, Parking Fines and any number of other charges.   It was stated on national TV this morning that in the last thirteen years, three thousand additional offences have been invented.

As each individual Police Force is a commercial company, in a way, not unlike a McDonalds Restaurant in strategy, it has no authority to enforce anything, any more than a McDonalds has.   The men and women who work under the banner of their local Police Force have two separate roles.   When they take up their occupation, they take an oath of office, pledging to uphold the law.   That oath, and nothing else, gives them the authority to act to enforce Common Law - that is, the few things which are listed near the start of the "Legalese" section of this web site.   It does not authorise them to do anything connected with so-called "government" statutes and so they have been trained to use Legalese to entrap uninformed members of the public.   To be fair, it is highly likely that members of the police force are not aware of what they are doing and do not understand the difference between "legal" statutes (which are optional) and the "lawful" Common Law requirements which apply to everyone and are not optional.

Please don't get me wrong.   Most policemen and policewomen do a great job and assist members of the public, often above and beyond the requirements of their job - opposing bullying, intimidation, fraud, etc. and comforting in cases of bereavement or injury.   Admittedly, the commercial companies who control the Police Forces are working hard to end this sort of positive behaviour, using ridiculous "Health and Safety" regulations as an excuse, even to the extent that police officers are instructed to stand by and watch somebody drown and not attempt to save them.   This is not the choice of the officer but the instructions of the owners of the company.

Because these thousands of invented offences don't apply to anybody unless they agree to be bound by them, it becomes essential for a police officer to (possibly inadvertently) persuade a member of the public to agree to subject himself to these unnecessary restrictions and agree to pay invented cash penalties to the local commercial company called the "Police Force" or "Constabulary".   The normal first attempt to establish this spurious dominance of the police officer is by him asking for your name.   This is not an innocent question and it is essential that you are very careful in what you say as there are verbal Legalese booby traps all over the place.

One suitable reply is "The law does not require me to provide that information" which is entirely correct and avoids pitfall number one, and no matter how often the question is asked, the answer is always the same.   It is also vitally important not to argue with a police officer as that is another Legalese booby trap which makes you subject to the thousands of hateful regulations designed to part you from your money.   So, only answer questions (ideally with a non-aggressive question) and don't volunteer any information at all.

If the police officer says "You were exceeding the speed limit", you could say "Was I?" as you don't argue, nor do you point out that Common Law does not require anyone to keep to speed limits, obey road signs, park only where directed, etc. even though that is perfectly true.

As mentioned before, if the police officer says "Do you understand?" then your response should be "No!   I do NOT stand under you in this matter".   As before, the question is a Legalese trapand has nothing whatsoever to do with understanding anything which has been said.

Under Common Law, an offence has only been committed if there is a victim (somebody who has been killed or injured, had possessions damaged or stolen or who has been defrauded).   So, if the police officer keeps pushing you to agree to pay his company money when you don't need to, then a good question to ask 

might be "Who is the victim?".   An alternative is to ask "What is the charge, or am I free to go?".   If you stick to these things, then the police officer has nothing to work on as you have not agreed to be bound by statutes, you have not provided a name and address for him to write on an Invoice (or "Fixed Penalty Notice" as they like to call it) and you have not entered into a "controversy" by arguing with him or into "dishonour" by refusing him point blank.

There is one other thing, and that is, without being aggressive or offensive in any way, you must not do anything which he tells you to do because if you do, then those charming Legalese people can see that as you agreeing to "stand under" him and become subject to his "legal" (not "lawful") authority, and so become liable to those thousands of cunning plans called "statutes", carefully crafted in order to rob you in a perfectly "legal" way. 

One thing which any police officer needs to become aware of is the fact that they do not have any security provided by the Police Force which employs them.   In any situation which does not involve Common Law, the police officer is on his own, acting as an individual and as such is wide open to action against him either under Common Law if he is acting unlawfully or by civil court action if his actions warrant it.   If there is failure to establish "Joinder" or more aptly named “pretensive joinder”, (which is where a human agrees voluntarily to represent the strawman and so become subject to statutes), then the presumed authority of a police officer does not exist in any respect and he is acting solely as an individual whose only authority is to enforce Common Law and nothing else.
Registration   Most people believe that when they buy a new car that they have to register it (in Britain, with the commercial company known as the "Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency").   What very few people are aware of is the fact that the act of applying for registration actually transfers the physical ownership of the vehicle from you the purchaser who paid the money, to the Licensing Authority who licenced the vehicle.   That is, you have just given the vehicle away to a commercial company who has done nothing at all for you and which does not have your best interests at heart.   As it is unlawful to swindle anyone, I would be most interested to hear any reason whatsoever as to why this registration should not be deemed to be unlawful as I can't think of any reason or basis why this should not be considered blatant and obvious fraud, and there has certainly not been full disclosure of the terms of the contract.

The change of ownership is shown by the fact that you, the previous owner, are now sent a document stating that you are now "the Registered Keeper" of the vehicle which you have just bought.   You are left to pay for maintaining the vehicle which you do not own, and the actual owner can, and will, destroy the vehicle (which cost the owner nothing) if you, the 'Registered Keeper' do not keep on paying for the use of the vehicle.   Destroying the vehicle would be unlawful if the vehicle did not belong to the company doing the destroying.

The vehicle will be crushed if the "Road Tax" is not paid.That 'tax' is substantial and was originally introduced as a fund contributed to by the drivers of vehicles, in order to build new roads for those vehicles to drive on, and to maintain all existing roads.   That was a very reasonable idea, and it means that all the roads in the country belong to the people who paid the money for them to be built and repaired. 

That Road Tax Fund has been hi-jacked and I have seen reports that state that 85% of that money is taken for other things which are in no way related to roads or driving.   Local Authorities say that they can't maintain roads properly as they do not have sufficient funds to do the work.   The 'Road Tax' is increased for vehicles with large engines on the laughable excuse that they burn more fuel and so contribute more to global warming.   The real reason for the increase is, as ever, just a method of taking more money from people who have no idea what is going on.   There is even a proposal now, that motorists be charged for every mile that they drive along the roads which they paid for and own.

That, of course, is not the only stream of income from vehicles.   A major source of income is from the massive 'tax' on fuel for vehicles, and it has been stated that an incredible 85% of the selling price is the proportion which is not needed for the location, extraction, processing and delivery of the actual fuel.   In passing it can be remarked that vehicles can be run on water, compressed air, energy direct from the environment, permanent magnets, and even on gravity.   It, no doubt, will come as a great shock to you that the inventors who have done this have disappeared suddenly as soon as they started testing their prototypes.   Far fetched?   I personally know five people who have been told to "cease and desist - or else".   When you understand the billions and billions in profit which are made through selling oil products, actions like that become very understandable, especially since the people who do these things own the police forces and courts and so they know that there will be no comeback no matter what they do.

You would think that there could be no further money to be squeezed out of the person who buys a car, but that is not the case. There are two further major charges. The first is an import duty on vehicles brought into the country from outside and that can be a substantial amount. The second is a most damaging charge called "Value Added Tax" in Britain and "Sales Tax" elsewhere. That tax is at present, 17.5% and forms a major increase in the selling price of almost everything. No matter how much your earned income is taxed, the remainder will be used to make purchases, almost all of which will be taxed themselves and the components used in their manufacture, transport and advertising are themselves taxed, raising the price even further. When these things are taken into account, it has been estimated that 80% of a person's earnings is taken away by the various taxes and other unnecessary charges. Professional economists have stated that the supposedly-free people living in 'democratic' Britain are actually substantially worse off than the 'serf' slaves of earlier times -Dealing With The Police   Years ago, a policeman was your friend and defender. Things have changed now that Police Forces have become commercial organisations, dedicated to producing a profit by taking money from you in the form of Fixed Penalty Notices, Speeding Fines, Parking Fines and any number of other charges.   It was stated on national TV this morning that in the last thirteen years, three thousand additional offences have been invented. 

As each individual Police Force is a commercial company, in a way, not unlike a McDonalds Restaurant in strategy, it has no authority to enforce anything, any more than a McDonalds has.   The men and women who work under the banner of their local Police Force have two separate roles. When they take up their occupation, they take an oath of office, pledging to uphold the law. That oath, and nothing else, gives them the authority to act to enforce Common Law - that is, the few things which are listed near the start of the "Legalese" section of this web site.   It does not authorise them to do anything connected with so-called "government" statutes and so they have been trained to use Legalese to entrap uninformed members of the public.   To be fair, it is highly likely that members of the police force are not aware of what they are doing and do not understand the difference between "legal" statutes (which are optional) and the "lawful" Common Law requirements which apply to everyone and are not optional.

Please don't get me wrong.   Most policemen and policewomen do a great job and assist members of the public, often above and beyond the requirements of their job - opposing bullying, intimidation, fraud, etc. and comforting in cases of bereavement or injury.   Admittedly, the commercial companies who control the Police Forces are working hard to end this sort of positive behaviour, using ridiculous "Health and Safety" regulations as an excuse, even to the extent that police officers are instructed to stand by and watch somebody drown and not attempt to save them.   This is not the choice of the officer but the instructions of the owners of the company.

Because these thousands of invented offences don't apply to anybody unless they agree to be bound by them, it becomes essential for a police officer to (possibly inadvertently) persuade a member of the public to agree to subject himself to these unnecessary restrictions and agree to pay invented cash penalties to the local commercial company called the "Police Force" or "Constabulary".   The normal first attempt to establish this spurious dominance of the police officer is by him asking for your name.   This is not an innocent question and it is essential that you are very careful in what you say as there are verbal Legalese booby traps all over the place.

One suitable reply is "The law does not require me to provide that information" which is entirely correct and avoids pitfall number one, and no matter how often the question is asked, the answer is always the same.   It is also vitally important not to argue with a police officer as that is another Legalese booby trap which makes you subject to the thousands of hateful regulations designed to part you from your money.   So, only answer questions (ideally with a non-aggressive question) and don't volunteer any information at all.

If the police officer says "You were exceeding the speed limit", you could say "Was I?" as you don't argue, nor do you point out that Common Law does not require anyone to keep to speed limits, obey road signs, park only where directed, etc. even though that is perfectly true.

As mentioned before, if the police officer says "Do you understand?" then your response should be "No!   I do NOT stand under you in this matter".   As before, the question is a Legalese trapand has nothing whatsoever to do with understanding anything which has been said.

Under Common Law, an offence has only been committed if there is a victim (somebody who has been killed or injured, had possessions damaged or stolen or who has been defrauded).   So, if the police officer keeps pushing you to agree to pay his company money when you don't need to, then a good question to ask might be "Who is the victim?".   An alternative is to ask "What is the charge, or am I free to go?".   If you stick to these things, then the police officer has nothing to work on as you have not agreed to be bound by statutes, you have not provided a name and address for him to write on an Invoice (or "Fixed Penalty Notice" as they like to call it) and you have not entered into a "controversy" by arguing with him or into "dishonour" by refusing him point blank.

There is one other thing, and that is, without being aggressive or offensive in any way, you must not do anything which he tells you to do because if you do, then those charming Legalese people can see that as you agreeing to "stand under" him and become subject to his "legal" (not "lawful") authority, and so become liable to those thousands of cunning plans called "statutes", carefully crafted in order to rob you in a perfectly "legal" way.

One thing which any police officer needs to become aware of is the fact that they do not have any security provided by the Police Force which employs them.   In any situation which does not involve Common Law, the police officer is on his own, acting as an individual and as such is wide open to action against him either under Common Law if he is acting unlawfully or by civil court action if his actions warrant it.   If there is failure to establish "Joinder" or more aptly named “pretensive joinder”, (which is where a human agrees voluntarily to represent the strawman and so become subject to statutes), then the presumed authority of a police officer does not exist in any respect and he is acting solely as an individual whose only authority is to enforce Common Law and nothing else.
Registration   Most people believe that when they buy a new car that they have to register it (in Britain, with the commercial company known as the "Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency").   What very few people are aware of is the fact that the act of applying for registration actually transfers the physical ownership of the vehicle from you the purchaser who paid the money, to the Licensing Authority who licenced the vehicle.   That is, you have just given the vehicle away to a commercial company who has done nothing at all for you and which does not have your best interests at heart.   As it is unlawful to swindle anyone, I would be most interested to hear any reason whatsoever as to why this registration should not be deemed to be unlawful as I can't think of any reason or basis why this should not be considered blatant and obvious fraud, and there has certainly not been full disclosure of the terms of the contract.

The change of ownership is shown by the fact that you, the previous owner, are now sent a document stating that you are now "the Registered Keeper" of the vehicle which you have just bought.   You are left to pay for maintaining the vehicle which you do not own, and the actual owner can, and will, destroy the vehicle (which cost the owner nothing) if you, the 'Registered Keeper' do not keep on paying for the use of the vehicle.   Destroying the vehicle would be unlawful if the vehicle did not belong to the company doing the destroying.

The vehicle will be crushed if the "Road Tax" is not paid.   That 'tax' is substantial and was originally introduced as a fund contributed to by the drivers of vehicles, in order to build new roads for those vehicles to drive on, and to maintain all existing roads.   That was a very reasonable idea, and it means that all the roads in the country belong to the people who paid the money for them to be built and repaired.

That Road Tax Fund has been hi-jacked and I have seen reports that state that 85% of that money is taken for other things which are in no way related to roads or driving.   Local Authorities say that they can't maintain roads properly as they do not have sufficient funds to do the work.   The 'Road Tax' is increased for vehicles with large engines on the laughable excuse that they burn more fuel and so contribute more to global warming.   The real reason for the increase is, as ever, just a method of taking more money from people who have no idea what is going on.   There is even a proposal now, that motorists be charged for every mile that they drive along the roads which they paid for and own.

That, of course, is not the only stream of income from vehicles.   A major source of income is from the massive 'tax' on fuel for vehicles, and it has been stated that an incredible 85% of the selling price is the proportion which is not needed for the location, extraction, processing and delivery of the actual fuel.   In passing it can be remarked that vehicles can be run on water, compressed air, energy direct from the environment, permanent magnets, and even on gravity.   It, no doubt, will come as a great shock to you that the inventors who have done this have disappeared suddenly as soon as they started testing their prototypes.   Far fetched?   I personally know five people who have been told to "cease and desist - or else".   When you understand the billions and billions in profit which are made through selling oil products, actions like that become very understandable, especially since the people who do these things own the police forces and courts and so they know that there will be no comeback no matter what they do.

You would think that there could be no further money to be squeezed out of the person who buys a car, but that is not the case.   There are two further major charges.   The first is an import duty on vehicles brought into the country from outside and that can be a substantial amount.   The second is a most damaging charge called "Value Added Tax" in Britain and "Sales Tax" elsewhere.   That tax is at present, 17.5% and forms a major increase in the selling price of almost everything.   No matter how much your earned income is taxed, the remainder will be used to make purchases, almost all of which will be taxed themselves and the components used in their manufacture, transport and advertising are themselves taxed, raising the price even further.   When these things are taken into account, it has been estimated that 80% of a person's earnings is taken away by the various taxes and other unnecessary charges.   Professional economists have stated that the supposedly-free people living in 'democratic' Britain are actually substantially worse off than the 'serf' slaves of earlier times - so much for 'freedom' !


So, what about the Driving Licence or in America, the Driver's Licence?   Under Common Law, humans have the right to travel freely and these days, that includes using a vehicle when travelling.   The Legalese people want to persuade you that you are no longer a "Traveller" under Common Law, but instead, you are a "Driver" subject to their statutes, and they demand that a "Driver" must have a driving licence, car tax, car insurance, and anything else that they can think up.   If you wish to live in freedom and somebody asks to see your licence (which would have been issued by your 'begging' for the supply of one and so subjecting yourself voluntarily to their authority by doing so), then the question is "Why would I want one of those?".

A driving licence is only needed for the driver of a vehicle which is taking part in commerce.   It can be argued that transporting a strawman is a commercial undertaking, so it would be advisable not to have anything related to a strawman with you It is also very important not to give your name, address or (supposed) date of birth or to show any form of ID as that places you in a position of voluntary submission by:
(a) Obeying the command of another human being (who is of equal standing to you) and/or
(b) Associating yourself with, and consequently representing, a strawman who is automatically subject to all statutes, being itself, a legal fiction and part of that fictional world.

So, if you are not carrying a passenger who is paying for the journey and you are not stopping off on the journey to sell things and you are not transporting a strawman, then you are not a "Driver" with a "Passenger", but instead, you are a "Traveller" with a "Guest" if you are accompanied by a human who is not a "person" and who is not carrying a strawman around with him.   Travellers do not need a driving licence.

Consent   All men are born equal and so nobody has the right to command you, make demands of you or force you to do anything.   The most that anyone can do is to make you an offer. Even though they may say that it is an "Order" or a "Demand" or a "Summons", it is in reality, an offer which you are free to accept, or not accept, as you choose. This is why they keep using "Applications", "Registrations" and "Submissions" as those things give them power over you through your (unwitting) consent. They are hoping that you will break the law by the way that you deal with their offer. If you just ignore the offer, you are stepping into what is called "dishonour" so the only effective way of dealing with the offer is 'conditional acceptance' as already mentioned.   If you accept their offer without imposing any conditions, then you are accepting that they have the power to order you around, and that places you under their authority, because you have just chosen to accept their offer (even though you may not understand that you are accepting their offer for them to have authority over you).They are also very keen to get you arguing with them as that also places you in "dishonour" and if there is a court case, the judge just looks to see who is in dishonour.   Remember, in civil cases the court is a commercial operation where the judge doesn't care who is right or wrong, just who will pay the court.   So, we accept all offers but with our conditions attached to each offer and that prevents them taking us to court - remember, courts only deal with disputes and if you accept (conditionally) each offer, there can't be any dispute and so there can't be any kind of court involvement.   Some offers are "Notices" and a Notice has to be clear, concise and unequivocal.   You can discharge a Notice by seeking clarification, that is by writing back, asking the meaning of a word, stating that you don't understand the word. They were hoping that you would just ignore the Notice and so go into dishonour and become liable.A Parking Ticket is a "Notice", and please be aware that a Parking Ticket is not a bill, but instead it is a Notice telling you that there is something to which you should pay attention. So you write back saying that you have noticed their Notice and that as they appear to think that you owe them money, you are happy to pay, but first you need some verification before payment is made.   "First, there is a need to verify the debt, so please send me a bill with a signature on it.   Also, I need to see the lawful, two-party contract supporting that bill". As they can't supply either of those things, it kills the claim stone dead, so just keep insisting that they either supply those things or else stop bothering you.

An interesting alternative is that if they send you a final notice marked "Remittance", then that piece of paper actually has the value of the money amount written on it.   The really silly thing is that you have the option to write "Accepted for value" on that piece of paper, sign it with your name and post it back to them, and technically, that concludes the matter by paying the amount demanded.   Who was it that said "it's a mad, mad, mad, mad world"?   Actually, the payment comes out of the vast amount of money which your strawman has accumulated over the years, and your signing the document as "Accepted for value", authorises them to take the payment from your strawman account and that suits them as well as suiting you.   There is a web site for checking how much you strawman is worth - where the presenter discovers that his strawman has $224,440,000 as it's current balance and the web site also states who is currently managing the strawman account for him.   Your writing "Accepted for Value" means that you are authorising them to take the amount they want out of the strawman account which has such a large amount in it that the balance will hardly be affected at all.