Edited to include Part 3.
Part One:
Part Two:
So far, both Dave and the police officer(s) have acted superbly. We all must know that on a different day, with a different cop, this could have gotten very ugly.
Watch how hard the cop works to get Dave to contract, to create joinder. And do remember that 99 times out of 100 we convict ourselves. The right to remain silent is one of the most important rights we have. Use it when you have to.
Of course, this post is not entirely unrelated to the current series. Once you hand back the name, they have.....nothing. (But please note that if you do hand back the government name, your roads will mostly be rocky. Not for the faint-hearted. More on that when I finish the piece).
Part Three:
Thanks TSL!
Meanwhile, well done Dave for having the sand to do this.
CR.
52 comments:
Part 3.
The half minute from ~18m25s is particularly illuminating.
Regards
TSL
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lFE7qpFq-G4
link for part .3
I have a lot of sympathy with Dave and freemen in general, but I think he is on a sticky wicket on this one. For a start he slipped up and referred to his "automobile" as a "motor vehicle" at one stage and secondly his car carried registration plates, which must be indicative of a contract.
When it comes down to it, unless he is a very very rich man and willing to compensate anyone who suffers injury or damage he might accidentely cause then he is, in my view, irresponsible.
Is it not possible to carry car insurance and be a freeman at the same time? I thought the whole idea is that you could contract-in to whatever you agreed with and to hell with the rest.
OMG
I'm...hooked...need...part...3.....N O W!!!
Am 'feeling' every minute of Dave's predicament.
Maybe there's no p3 cos Dave is incarcerated until he's forced to pay Baal by his unwitting servants the constables...
Thanks Cap'n...bites...nails...
Great stuff dave. Excellent footage.
Just something I came across a while back that people might find interesting. I am sure the 'driving licence' is a licence to act as power of attorney for the vehicle of commerce. Vehicle is a commercial instrument and the definition can be found in a commercial dictionary. An attorney must be competent and this is judged by deducting points from his competency when he transgresses rules. When his/her allotment of points is spent he/she is then deemed to be incompetent and the commercial licence is withdrawn.
Also 'address'.....there is no legal or lawful definition of the word address. If asked for your address ask for the other party to define what they are asking for. I have it confirmed in an FOI from Ministry of Justice that all we are obliged to provide is an area where we spend most of our time, described as accurately as we are able. Also the words 'live', 'reside', 'dwell', and 'domicile' have a specific meanings that we must ask the other party to define if used.
Is the Road Traffic Act relevant to non-residents??? There is some food for thought... Ask any foreign driver whether he is subject to the same rules and regulations as 'residents'.
Thanks TSL and Pitano.
CR.
Sean,
Have a heart. This was his first stop. I bet he learnt all sorts for the next time.
He informed DVLA that he was de-registering his auto-mobile and he must have told them his identifiers (I think he calls them insignia in the vids) so that's how the cops knew about the old plates.
I believe that the Peoples United Trust can arrange insurance cover, or underwrite it at least. But yes, Freemen choose what they want as they go. I have fully comp. I am not certain that I would want to give it up.
CR.
Suke,
Part Three is up now.
CR.
Well I hope Dave gets his jamjar back or attaches the earnings, pension and houses of the criminals who conspired to steal it, so he can get a gold plated replacement.
The gauntlet was thrown down here, towards the end the criminals were taking the p1ss and celebrating their exercise of power. The one doing the seizure was relishing telling Dave he could get his car back after producing documents he knew he didn't have. Clearly, during those little conferences they spoke to someonewho was aware of this stuff and the advice was go along sign anything it's all bs just get the job done - enjoy yourselves.
Freeman or not, seizing the car is criminal act of theft, charging for seizure and storage is extortion, you cannot have an unwillimg party to a contract.
The prat at the and loves doing the queen's work of killing and stealing. Nothing changes.
I think that copper who loves the Queen would have come across a bit better if he'd kept his fat, uninformed, ignorant gob shut!
Just goes to show how little he thinks for himself, must like being told what to do!!
What an absolute cockdribble!
TR,
I'm sure he will.
I'm not sure about anyone else but I definitely heard the police officer (Morris) agree to pay Dave 20 thousand pounds. A verbal contract was created, then he signed Dave's fee schedule, cementing the deal.
It will be interesting to see how that plays out in court. Only one party was under duress in all three films and it wasn't the cops.
CR.
Hadenuff,
Obviously no-one told him that the monarch abdicated in 1972.
All police officers, all judges, all soldiers, in fact anyone who has taken an oath in the monarchs name, are acting fraudulently.
The monarch has no more power than you or I.
CR.
Around 11:40 on the second vid:
"OK, Uhm, My name is Dave..."
I'm only up to that point, probably not a very important point either, I'm not a full bottle on these matters I admit, but it made me laugh and think of Spartacus. We're all Dave!
OK, back to the vid.
Well done - err Dave!
How that man kept his cool under those circumstances and with that fat gobshite is amazing.
I did have some sympathy for this first constable until he started extracting the urine in the third vid.
The copper who signed the fee schedule will be in for a good bollocking. Be nice to see the full outcome of this. Well done dave.
Edge of the seat stuff there! Keep us posted, Capt!
Compellin viewing. Balls of steel, Dave.
I do hope, Captain. that you will keep us in the loop on any updates.
...especially a copy of the cheque for £20,000 that Dave has coming to him.
A more basic question. How come the police can't intervene to remove squatters because it is a civil matter but can intervene over road tax?
Other than the obvious answer, because it suits them.
I have a lot of respect for dave; he is a very interesting guy. He may have stumbled on a few things, as we all would do, but he has 'DONE' it.
It is such as these pioneers that set the standard for us all, he is a pathfinder and it is that path we will all follow one day. He has forged the path to find where it goes, not knowing himself, only in theory, but he has / had the courage to go for it.
I take my hat off to him and wish him great success.
Anyone who says he is in the wrong or criticises him, having NOT done anything like it or done anything to put an end to this madness we call civilisation, needs to take a good long look at the size of their own berries. This guys has got man sized berries. :-)
Namaste, rev;
It's always been my policy never to have any dealings with the police. Never forget that you're taking on the biggest "gang" in the world.
They hold all the cards, and they're all stacked against you. I've found it's best to have nothing at all to do with the bastards, because ultimately,you cannot win.
Besides, there's nothing that pisses them off more than when they know they can't charge you with anything!
For some reason the bit where they tell he can't get his stuff inside the car back till after it's in the pound horrified me the most - does seizing the 'vehicle' mean they can automatically steal everything inside it - when there's no crime been committed?! Surely this should have been made clear before they made off.
"Freemen choose what they want as they go" says ranty.
i hope he chooses a roadworthy "automobile", i hope he chooses insurance, i hope he chooses to obey road traffic laws.
i hope dave loses the car for good, i don't want the country full of uninsured drivers with unroadworthy cars because they have exploited a loophole, you cant have driving laws and saftey gone in a flash because freemen choose as they go
remember freedom mongers your children drive on our roads... hippy fantasy sounds lovely and cheap, reality could be very nasty, call it what you like it can still kill loved ones.
i have sympathy for dave , his chip on his shoulder and his age probably means he has had more than his fair share of police stopping him because he is black.
good story though ranty and updates will be interesting, i suspect loopholes would soon be closed if they actually existed in the first place.
i thought daves performance got weaker as the story unfolded as reality of the seizure trumped fantasy, although the copper signing his name to a fee was a remarkable gaffe by him
Dickie, with so little information and little or no research on what the FMOTL is about I am surprised you comment at all.
Mentioning all the things that were not applicable here is not a clever idea.
I can guess that you are not a youth in today's society and have benefited in ways those of today CANNOT. Times have changed and the young today are being hemmed in faster than one can blink.
Back then we had an industry, jobs, benefits, cheap houses, youth clubs, pubs, and a whole raft of things they have been denied due to the governments grab for revenue.
Stop thinking of yourself for a change and start thinking what life is going to be like for your children in just a few short years.
My parents, like you, had there head in the sand and we are now getting royally screwed.
Namaste, rev;
DD- it seems you don't understand MOT's my friend, they only last the day, so your wheel could come off the next day, the MOT doesn't make cars road worthy for the whole year round, we are supposed to be responsible for that.
your having a dig a Dave for his car not being road worthy but I guarantee he checks his car more than you as you are suggesting to put your faith in a piece of paper, the MOT.
It is clear you are just a troll.
Mescalito: Not so!
The MOT as a certificate covers all facets of vehicle roadworthiness for the day of issue, but is also meant to cover such things as gross unfitness due to corrosion and condition of major components for longer periods, up to three months. So, if as you say, the wheel drops off the next day, you do actually have some comeback.
Also, unless you personally know Dave, your statement that he checks his car more thoroughly than an other person is pure speculation.
My objection to this (coloured admittedly by the fact that I walk with a stick because of an inattentive moron) is that in the event of an accident, I am entirely dependant on Daves honesty and goodwill rather than the impersonal approach of an insurance company, to whom it is a straightforward business transaction.
thank you for that Robert, but as you say its only up to 3 months and not the year, the responsibility lies with us for the rest of the time.
I do know Dave personally, he is an honourable man and will always take responsibility for his actions, and if this incident hasn't caused him to much of an inconvenience I will be seeing him next Thursday and will find out the outcome of this event.
Robert the Biker: Someone who is not insured should have the wherewithall and arrangements in place to provide remedy in the event of causing an accident, I agree. But who is likely to take more care on the road; someone who will suffer no loss whatsoever in the event of an accident and will be provided with a curtesy car delivered to their door by the insurance company the next day or someone who stands to lose everything?
absolutely robert the biker, (im a bike too and road saftey isnt something i would throw away in the name of freemen) my "big picture" comments about road saftey are aimed at those that follow dave on exploiting loopholes, or indeed dave if he "chooses" that his conveyance dosen't need the same saftey checks by independant experts once a year.
trusting honesty and goodwill of freemen who choose as they go with regards to road traffic laws and saftey could be turning the uk into mogadishu in somlali.
saving money on those pesky documentation as ranty mentions is a lure many will take with road saftey forgotten.
there is no trolling just common sense views, i can see a pain in the arse clever dick who has done his homework could well cause many problems and earn minor victories as i expect a you tube video wouldn't be put up without some success and only failure.
there is a big picture full of drawbacks , ignore it and enjoy coppers getting the runaround and making gaffes....i choose the big picture.
it is not a loophole my friend, it is you natural, god given and constitutional right to travel freely on the roads without let and hindrance, there is no loophole that anyone is trying to exploit, they are merely trying to exercise their rights.
Your agree with Robert, but he's saying it only lasts up to 3 months, what about the other 9 ?
insurance companies should insure freemen, instead of excluding them because their vehicle isn't registered with a private for profit company that is the DVLA.
I completely appreciate you wanting safe users on the roads, I do too, in my profession I spend up to half the working day on the road, its chaos out there at times, but having the licence, tax, MOT and insurance isn't making anyone a more responsible driver. That lies with the man/women, being respectful and considerate to your fellow motorists.
MOT's didn't start till 1960 and the test only applied to vehicles over ten years old.
The government have also been debating lengthening the time between MOT on new vehicles, so what does that say?
DD- if your so up for vehicle safety please explain the 9 months of the year that the vehicle isn't covered by the MOT my friend ?
I have to admit I am concerned by the insurance situation.
I would have thought that any responsible person engaging in an activity that could cause injury to others has a duty to ensure those others are protected, as well as possible, in case of error. That has nothing to do with law, but everything to do with personal responsibility.
However - I noticed Dave was very careful in his words. He did not say he wasn't insured, he said he had no documents available to demonstrate having it. So maybe he was insured, but considers he has no need to prove that to the police. I hope that is the case.
Woodsy,
I'm with you on this.
I have insurance because it protects me and it protects others.
The tax disc? A rip-off, pure and simple. The govt raise £42 billion a year from this scam and because the tax isn't hypothecated, only £11 billion is spent on the roads. The other £31 billion gets spunked up a wall somewhere...
MOT's? I know Freemen that have an Engineers Report done every year. This Report is far more stringent than some snot-nosed school leaver glancing at your conveyance and stamping the paperwork.
And I think we will find that Dave has insurance.
CR.
I absolutely admire people like Dave who stand up to the tyranny. But in my opinion, to do it properly and affectively requires 24/7 attention and practice. And even then, we're not only fighting the referee, but the originator of the sport. They're very much prepared for everything we can throw at them - far more prepared than we. The system is rotten to the core but powerful and there is no level playing field whatsoever. It will always be an uphill battle and some of us need more from life than an 80 year struggle.
I'm not knocking those who do it - they are perhaps greater men then I. But I maintain that my life path will be to educate others to the theory of all of this, so that when enough of us know how wrong things are we can more effectively, together, put that theory into practice.
an MOT test is better than nothing and keeps millions of dangerous vehicles of our roads...if there is a better compulsory system then lets hear it.
this where hippy freedom religion gets exposed as selfish and foolish, all this expemtion from paying for road saftey or council tax is all right if its just for dave and a handfull of other freedom mongers and the rest for for public services and road saftey
i wonder what dave thinks is a better idea for road saftey rather than a compulsory MOT check ...let me guess thats someone elses proble m "im all right jack" more money saved,the other 99.9% pay for road saftey benefits for me.
edit....the rest "of the slaves" pay for my road saftey and public services.
freedom is fine as long as everyone else isnt freeloading at the same time.
DD- if you want to come here and have a intelligent debate then fair enough but please provide facts and not just your opinions my friend.
as I asked before but you've avoided answering, the MOT only stands for 3 months, so what about the remaining 9 months of the year ?
give me proof that road tax gets used on the roads ?
Where are all these hippy's you keep talking about ?
Dave certainly doesn't fit the intentionally dividing definition of a hippy.
How about Dave thinks being responsible for his vehicle and it being road worthy is good enough?
i did answer by saying if there is a better compulsory system then lets hear it!
what about the other 9 months...if the test was stricter and it lasted for longer than 3 months then all the better.
im not in favour of scrapping the mot because its not perfect.
as for dave he might well be responsible enough for his vehicle..then again he might not, so i prefer independant testing which has maintained a good standard of vehicles on our roads.
i didn't mention road tax, road saftey has been paid for by other motorists by ensuring their cars are safe and which dave recieves the benefit from as well as everyone else
hippy freedom religion i think sort of covers this never ending angry about something or other cult who have anger about well everything a bit like rantys list, where everyone posts about their own chip on their shoulder in vague riddles without substance but find a collective answer in "freedom from slavery"....its like hippies on drugs talking in tongues with each other and not making sense
dickie doubleday
HA HA HA :)
again opinions no facts.
of course it would be better if it lasted longer than 3 months but the fact is it doesn't my friend.
so that would suggest its flawed, if the cars only road worthy for 3 months then we are all driving vehicles that are potentially unsafe for 9 months of the year.
just because you don't understand what's being said doesn't mean its hippy's on drugs, or that its wrong, im sorry if that's made you feel left out and angry but that's an issue in yourself and the fault of no-one else.
What your doing does fall under the definition of trolling, if your not, then please explain what you hope to achieve?
If we are all so wrong then why not let us get on with it and make our own mistakes?
what has any of it got to do with you?
My question is....
Assuming as he has no licence and refuses to give an address as he has stated he cannot get his car back.
If the only way to get compensation is through the courts how does one represent the case when they will not engage with the system??
We have seen cases of Freemen fighting charges through effectively non compliance - claiming the court has no jurisdiction over them. If that is the case how can they make a claim through a court.
I admire his stance but I fail to see how he can win - get his car back, enforce his £20k contract, make his case for compensation?
Any ideas?
lastmanjack- if your making the claim then its OK to give our details but if they are trying to get joinder with you, the best thing to do is withhold them.
I have heard of other freemen who have got their cars back without charge by asserting their rights and proving that they had no right to take it in the first place.
it should be easy to enforce the 20k as the cop signed it, its a binding contract at that point.
hope this helps my friend.
I can't begin to express how sad this whole episode makes me feel and how pleased I am that my decision to leave the UK permanently has been vindicated in less than twenty minutes of another mans life.
How sad there are only forty-one comments, the world is a bigger place than that, but perhaps humanity isn’t.
The real question is who actually owns a car?
The V5 records some entity called a 'registered keeper' which is not the same as 'owner of vehicle'.
There is no mention of the only document which 'proves' ownership, the Certificate of Origin, on the V5.
I have paid for seven motor vehicles in my fifty odd years and have never seen a certificate of origin. The vehicle I currently was imported from Japan by my good self and if I knew then what I know now I would be in possession of the Certificate of Origin and the vehicle not the DVLA.
As the DVLA and plod, both members of the same club, can remove the motor vehicle if I or anybody else doesn't pay their fees and destroy it it follows that I have never actually owned a motor vehicle. I simply pay for the hire, use and disposal of the DVLA's vehicles.
william- I made enquiries regarding the certificate of origin but was met with silence from anyone I asked, they did not want to enter into discussion on the matter.
Well done Dave!!!...A lot of people out there, including me, are doing the walk and the talk, as massive changes are needed. And I would say not one of us would want to put our lives and others in danger (Maxim Laws). We are all approaching this in a sensible manner, to benefit each and every one of the human race. Childish name calling and insults to something that has obviously not been researched,should be looked upon with a pity at the ignorance being displayed.....and by the way...I think Dave is gorgeous too :-)
Hi folks, came in for a look at the post as a good friend let me know about dave's adventure being posted in here.
I have met dave a few times now on various trips down south, first meet was at Birkinghead where unexpectedly I had a roll to play other than support but thats another story.
I have done the same as dave and dereg'd the motor, to say am on the front line with this is an understatement.In the legal world it is a three step process using thier rules, done correctly it's a binding contract, unfortunatly the police out on the beat are not trained in these matters and ACT accordingly but am preaching to those in the know.
On the day that dave got stopped word was spread, we do have thing set up for when this happens, police station phone number gets sent out so lots of interest'd folks can and do phone the station in question. Most of the time the ones phoning get athe preverbial brick wall, data blah blah cant tell you anything, but where theres a will there a way, i managed to get through by saying i was his brother, for those of you who dont know me am from the west coast of scotland with the accent to go with it, lololol,there is a recording kicking around.
Just let ous all know iv'e had my motor impounded more than once and had it returned free of charge, yes free of charge and soon i should be at the end of this road, its has taken a lot of reserch to do this, we all have the inherant right to travel without hindrance or levi, so to finish this wee post off the next paragraph is from the mmmm governments own records.
MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT BILL HL DEB 11TH AUGUST 1919 VOL 36 CC 661 758SS 22.
Lord Montagu of Bueaulieu moved to insert the following clause- Nothing in this ACT shall be deemed to predjudice or effect any existing rights of the public in relation to the use of roads or bridges or of veihicals or traffic thereon.
nala, respect to all
wee ps have spoken to dave and gave him the same info I used to get my motor back, hae'fun keep smilin folks.
Good stuff! :P
Well done Dave , they are beneath contempt, might does not equal right . For them to devote this much attention must mean the streets are safe from murder,rape and muggings. Wankers.
Adelaide Girl
Any updates yet?
Just for DD and any other such trolls, regarding the MOT issue, I take it upon myself to make sure my conveyance is in tip top condition, in fact a month before I took to the road I gave it a full service where I told the dealer to do everything and anything that may need doing... £2000 worth of work (bill available upon request)
For those bleating about insurance, should I cause an accident and damage someone's car through my own negligence then I would instruct them to take their car to the dealer and get it repaired and have them send me the bill, because that would be my responsibility
Finally thanks to all of you who have sent me messages of support, it is much appreciated... I will keep everyone updated as soon as there is anything to report :D
Thanks Dave.
The insurance "requirement" threw me. Now that you have explained I understand.
Please let us know what happens next.
CR.
Whats gets me is road tax. Some cars are £450 and others £20 and this is based on the emissions the vehicle produces. So theres a simple argument. I will pay road tax when its relevant to the road at the moment im paying an emissions tax. Unless me vehicles gases are physically melting the roads
Wow, thanks to Ranty for posting this, and huge thanks to Dave for being brave enough to take them on! I was so nervous just watching it! I know I have to man-up and get my act on, but it's damn scary being your own authority...
btw, I had a search for Nala's link to Lord Montagu reserving/protecting our rights on roads and found a transcript here: http://hansard.millbanksystems.com/lords/1919/aug/11/ministry-of-transport-bill#S5LV0036P0_19190811_HOL_329
Good work everyone, let's keep waking people up!
Redintheface
Post a Comment