You actually don't have to pull over, when they hit the lights you can slow down and put your hazards on so they understand you see them and expect them to pass to respond to the emergency that warranted the police lights in the first place. If you continue along, make 3 right hand turns and then that means they are in pursuit...which is illegal.
I have met Dave on several occasions, he is a beautiful, responsible, witty and wonderful man. A human being who is interested in what it is to be alive, and what is it to be free.I experience him as someone with a desire to live a full and genuine authentic existence as a man allowed to take responsibility's for himself. In my eyes he isn't after a 'free lunch' but a beautiful wholesome, friendly lunch, eaten somewhere with a nice view and some pals.
@bobbylostandfound So it may initially appear, but FMOTL is pushed by assorted conmen who are happy to take money in exchange for their literature that claim you can get out of all kinds of legal issues & the police & courts have no power over you.
There are always a few greedy & desperate peole who will fall for it & it appears Dave has been sucked in by the deception. It's such a pity, he appears so genuine & convincing.
The police officer entertained all his rhetoric knowing he has no power to let him violate the existing law. The officer obviously does not represent any tyrannical power or mindset. Maybe if he had been white he would have been drug out of the car. lol Agree driving is a right not a privilege but all this guy is doing i fucking with and wasting the time a very respectful officer.
WHAT A FUCKING ARSEHOLE!! I hate these smug smart arses who think they know anything. If he hates the police so much, let's tell the police not to intervene when he's being savaged to death in a burglary or when he has been kidnapped and helped to ransom.
And I would suggest to you sir that you are not thinking at all, rather you are parroting the words of a system designed to enslave you.
I pay for the roads whenever I use them because I have to use their overpriced petrol...
The roads belong to us, not governments and you and I have the natural right to move about upon them in any way we see fit, in the same way we have the right to breath.
@dmurphy25 We are all parroting words however under your world view I fear we would need to stick with goo goo gaa gaa in an effort to avoid being soiled by the system. I agree many laws, taxes, and processes are not just. You and I are under obligation as part of a society to at minimum identify and abide by the law. If you wish to make your own rules I suggest you look into an island of your own. Do you make up your own speed limit also? ......Dave as in opposition to Goliath ...Very good.
@dmurphy25 - with all due respect, you would never get away with this waste of time here in the states; our officers would NEVER have been as polite and as appropriate as those Constables were. I understand the "point" you're making...but really? What a waste of time and money! You seem like very nice and an intelligent "man" but in this video (going only off of your part 1, 2 & 3 of this topic), you came off as a "boy" :(( Sorry, just felt so frustrated by your lack of cooperation.
@dmurphy25 - Actually, I recant what I say above about "understanding your point." I do not. What IS/WAS the point of all of this. Clearly, I don't know the back story. What did "this" end up doing for you...what was the benefit that you gained from all of this? Seriously, I'm curious..?
@hhjklmc Then, with respect, it would appear that you are an ignorant libertarian, who doesn't know that the roads are paid for by taxes on petrol, the publicly owned roads are mine as much as they are yours and anyone has the choice to use them in their public or private capacity.
If you wish to continue being deceived into being a driver (which has benefits that many need) then be my guest, however those who do not want to be fooled any longer should be free to exercise their rights unhindered
@dmurphy25 If he was walking on the sidewalk I would be in complete agreement with his actions. Taxpayer dollars wether they be from petrol or not create the roadways that your privately owned vehicle requires for transport. Sorry you are just not thinking clearly.
I am a Libertarian and this is not how it works. The roadways are paid for by taxpayers and if this guy wants to travel on the taxpayer roadway he can follow the regulations or he can take his privately owned vehicle off the publicly owned roadway. Anyone who thinks this is cool is a moron.
I'm quite proud of him, and thank gim for standing up for Common Law. Police shouldn't waste our time collecting revenue for their criminal friends in courts.
@jdavz322 Waste our time? Are you suggesting that there should be no accredited system that monitors the behaviour of those behind the wheel of a machine capable of travelling at over 100mph?
No sir(or ma'am, as the case may or may not be). That suggestion is purely your own. My "suggestion", if any, is that if no one is harmed, there is no reason to take exception or issue penalties to the end of collecting revenue. Naturally, I can concede that there are, in fact, people, particularly the youth and those who've never grown out of it, who will abuse good sense, but I can also see that certain men and women are old enough to not need to be patronised.
@jdavz322 So you believe that controlling a motor vehicle should be all about feelings & not achieving a recognised standard of competence with documentary evidence to prove such?
If it pleases you to believe so, then by all means, believe it. I don't speak for everyone, nor do I care to. I speak for myself and those of similar thinking, who need not be harassed for their "papers" when there is no harm done. lol. Corralling people has a history of provoking them in the long term.
Now, before you go thinking I am thoroughly evil, I do appreciate the officer's manner in coducting himself. What truly grates on me are the ones who decide to get bully about any given issue when they've had a bad day. I salute both of them, to be perfectly honest, and "suggest" that we take steps as a society to know when dignity and decency are facades, and when they are not.
@jdavz322 I see, so you'd happily allow your children to be passengers in a motor vehicle controlled by someone who has just consumed a bottle of scotch?
I like that copper, he is a decent guy. We need more like him. Statute policies are deliberately misleading, and designed to trap the 'law enforcers' as much as they are designed to trap the general public. Also a 'citizen' is a subject of a republic, like France or the USA, so why are we called 'citizens' now. I used to be a subject of a realm.
Great video, great point. But I would love to know what the outcome of the court appearance was. Any update? Hope you got your car back and your £20,000!!
I will say those cops were at least very open to hearing what you had to say, in America, you would have been on the ground bloody before they would've listened to anything you had to say.
Thank you for trying to educate these policy officers who really know nothing about the situation they've come across,and consequently keep trying to enter into contract ;-)
i know its nerve racking in the heat of the moment but a couple thoughts... why do they wanna identify u as the owner of the vehicle? have they recieved reports that the make and model of your automobile have been stolen within the last 24 hours??? if not then what do they care??? Also when the peace officer quotes an ACT instead of arguing the words of the document argue that the constitution demands that act has no force and effect and the fact that acts and statutes only apply to them.
@Imfrombigginhill A Freeman On The Land is someone who very simply only recognises common law as being binding. Therefore any modern legislation can be ignored unless loss, harm or damage is caused. So unless you are prepared to enter into a contract with a police officer (seen as an agent for a corporate body), then they cannot interfere with your freedoms. They routinely can be found driving uninsured vehicles, have no driving licence, tax or MOT, cars being deregistered.
To Be honest these Policeman are doing there job and doing it well, they cant just go by what this guy is saying with a bit of paper "documentation" , otherwise there would be real criminals getting away with car theft and people on the road without car insurance getting away with it all the time. My opinion this guy has wasted valuable police time and thought he was all above the law with his automobile, who even says automobile anyway, its still a shitting car, What a Tit...
Note in commercial/civil law you can charge anyone with anything. The police officers are simply charging you with something that should not stand in a proper court.
Example I can charge someone for having a pink hat, it's another matter if I will win the case.
Also note a proper court is one with a jury of peers.
@PeekyBooo incorrect, at a Magistrates Court there are no jurors, just a lay Magistrate. The vast majority of cases (99%+) in the English legal system are dealt without a Jury. A Court may be 'proper' as you describe with or without a jury. It is the nature of the offense that determines the nature of the trial.
@Channel4Four You're are incorrect. The Judge would like the court to be without a jury but Public can demand a jury in any case(criminal or civil). It's another matter if they will get one without a battle.
I understand where you are coming from with your explanation, but your are basing your opinion on modern procedures that aren't always proper.
I accept and acknowledge your oath of office, and HOLD you to that oath in these matters, you are to protect and uphold my unalienable rights, bill of rights, habeus corpus, coronation oath etc
Anyone who blindly does not question and exercise their rights are very much part of the reason that this country is rapidly descending into a corrupt police state. Good work Dave.
Dave isn't the one wasting tax payers money here. Whoever sent the constables out on the road to extort stealth taxes from the traveling people on the roads, by use of acts of parliament, are the ones wasting the money that they are collecting.
what exactly are you trying to prove? All you have done is manage to waste taxpayers money and resources that could have been used effectively elsewhere.. well done dickhead!
So, what you're saying is, you can do whatever you like on the road, i.e (speed, drink drive etc) and you're just going to tell the police that because this is your private property there's nothing they can do? Don't take this as me having a go or being funny, I'm just interested in the point that's trying to be made, because you're saying you're not a driver you're a passenger (however you're driving the car), what you are putting accross, makes absolutely no sense to me whatsoever...
I think you're missing the point entirely, having paperwork that bonds you to the crown has nothing to do with your responsibility to travel safely without harming others.
The idea that having insurance and registration prevents you from driving under the influence is almost as absurd as not having paperwork premises you to cause harm in the first place. The problem is the deference of your liability and responsibility as a human being in the first place.
I didn't mention anything about harming others while travelling, so I think you're missing the point pal. My point is, this guy who's DRIVING his AUTOMOBILE, on a public highway, in which everyone in the country has to adhere by the rules of having insurance/MOT/having a driving licence, believes that he can simply say he does not adhere to the rules, of which then means he is saying the law does not apply to him.
@SurgamRex Furthermore, as he does not adhere to the law, to which you believe to have been manipulated, how can he then go to say that it is the police who are breaking the law, simply, is he not just contradicting himself? If he does not stand to the law, how can he then make an accusation the police are breaking the law and use that in his defence? Oh yeah, please expand on putting a plaster on a bullet wound....
I'm not sure if you understand what rights you actually have & how the "law" has been abused to manipulate & coerce the masses. He isn't saying that it's ok to cause harm or to have the intent to cause harm. Having paperwork & insurance does not preclude you from causing damage. This is about taking back YOUR personal responsibility, liability & humanity & not being a serf, besides this is about Acts which murder and negligence don't fall under. Words are important!
it must be remembered that these paid actors are not there to protect the flesh and blood men women of the land they and the commercial construct wich pays them to act on its behalf care not of right and wrong good or bad or any laws based on dictate and reason... what is written in the act is all the actor knows when he is perfoming. ....ive seen this stageplay before only the actors had a german accent.
up2 05.13 All these laws rules etc came about as there’s too many fools in charge of their own travelling whilst undertaking the responsibility of a dangerous lump of metal.
Exercising ones` right to travel is in common law, originally applied to the "human" being able to move around freely on foot.....a "gentleman of the road" had the right of freedom to move around without challenge or discourse.
@catspawo6 that would be your interpretation of it, law is all about interpretation, personally i interpret it to mean travel by any means.....in the 13th century they used horse and cart, that is not a human on foot as you put it, but a minimum of a ton that travels faster than a man on foot, yet no insurance was mandatory, nor was an mot
@catspawo6 so in a scenario where were talking about travel without challenge or discourse, and the relevance of insurance, you come back at me with toll taxes??
i would suggest to you that before you attempt to interpret ANYTHING you should have a full understanding of your OWN input :/
@whackitov Where would have modern day insurance of came from? Those taxes perhaps? being a starting point? You admit yourself "that it is reasonable to be insured" Are you reasonably sound financially where u could pay out in a criminal or civil case? Your efforts would be better devoted to protesting the high cost of insurance.Your futile attempt to exercise your rights exploits the freeman cause by your lack of understanding &confidence in applying that knowledge with in the system.
@catspawo6 i dont play within the system, that is the point...the system is there for you to interact with if you choose, i choose not to, its the difference between a child and an adult, one looks to the other for instruction on how they should do things, and generally do as they are told, the other makes their own decisions.
Ask if they know the difference between maritime law and common law and if they say an act is a law they committed legal negligence. That just put a few clamps on them and say that you don't stand under that statement.
I liked that note you added around 20:15. A man or woman IS NOT A PERSON. A "person" is a corporate fiction created to have control over by the corporation. They make us the corporate body or and exercise their public policies which are nothing more than corporate policies. They take every day words and apply THEIR terminology to it. They keep a second set of books that we're never aware of unless we wish to inform ourselves of said terms. Very good for standing your ground. :)
Right on my man... I have just submitted my documents, declaring sovereignty, with both state and federal gov. here in the states. Take back the power my brothers and sisters! The entire legal system is smoke and mirrors, enforced thru assumption and intimidation. Trust Law is a game changer for the 99.
@sweetl80 No legal loopholes necessary, I was exercising my right to travel by any means I see fit We all have that right but most do not know it, far less exercise it.
I have nothing more to prove, however the crown corporation will have to prove that it can arbitrarily remove our rights and that it has the authority to impose rules upon someone who has not waived that right and has not contracted with said rules.
I had no goal, I was merely travelling peacefully from one place to another
@dmurphy25 Ok. So, lets just put a scenario forward. Were a policeman to stop you for breaking a speed limit, or running a red light for example - how would you expect to have the punishment enforced upon yourself?
@dmurphy25 Are you not subject to another unwritten law, the law of your peers? If you were to have an accident (which was your fault) and wrote off a fellow drivers car, what would you be liable for, how would you cover yourself? Im interested in the big picture, not just wgether its actually possible to drive on the road without obligation to obey widely accepted standards.
@dmurphy25 brilliant, an name implies ownership and corporate title, at the tim e of your birth you could not have picked your mom from a lineup of one. It was alleged to you by another as it would be impossible for you to have and consciousness of the event and therefore what was told is hearsay and not credible or admissable in Law. Well done, perfect dialogue no joinder no contract with cop no jurisdiction. Simple.
@sweetl80 Don't be baffled. Just gather the knowledge of what various corporations are doing to tax everything you do. You see... there is a difference in the "right to travel" as opposed to a man or woman "conducting commerce" with a commercial vehicle. I did about a 7 min or so video explaining it on my channel. Learn a little something each day. :)
@chop98 I understand the terminology, and why exactly its true that acts aren't applicable to drivers, or an individual entity, not the person (or whatever). One could jump to the conclusion that the only reason why you'd do this is to avoid such inconveniences like speed limits, insurance, mot, and tax. Im guessing this isn't actually the reason, so I'd just like to know what the reason actually is.
@sweetl80 Ultimately, sweet, it is to let the corporations know that the jig is up. They've been found out. They'll get scared and start to call names such as "terrorist" or anything they can dream up to keep people's eyes from opening. Government is nothing more than contract where a very, very few benefit from this system. It is a system of tyranny. Of course, all this is being revealed as it was written. :)
@chop98 Ok, but lets just talk pragmatically for a moment - how does the road traffic act not applying to you (allowing such things as speeding, running a red light, or having your car safety checked yearly) - make that point to corporations? There are other, far more profited organisations through which this point could be made more effectively. You have to admit, teaching people how to avoid law (or the illusion of accepted law) will also lead to some who solely want to avoid punishment.
@sweetl80 Therein lies a problem, sweet, and why we are at odds. Those who want to avoid punishment have committed some sort of physical crime. There is no physical crime in most traffic acts. One may argue safety and such. However, ultimately it is up to the man or woman to hold responsibility themselves. This is why corporations have such power. It's a deep rabbit hole. :) Look at how society acts. Look at how the corp reacts to it. They lead us. Hard to explain in such a short spot
@chop98 Its fair to presume though that speed limits, mot for roadworthiness, and such things are widely accepted, not through blind following, but because people tend to agree? For example, if somebody runs past a school at 40mph at 8.30, id like him to have his wrists smacked, and I entirely consent that the police do that. Should that the person doesnt want to be punished matter? Surely not, because such exusability fosters irresponsibility.
@sweetl80 I understand your point here, sweet. There will always be those that have no respect for life or property of others. Those are the ones that must be dealt with. Not your average traveler going down the road to get groceries and minding their p's and q's. It's a fine line and the fraudsters are winning simply through lack of morals and principles in the public. Of course, the world has been led this way. The times will only be darker soon. Made so through fearful tactics.
@sweetl80 research Allocution being jailed is a benefit and must be consented to in order to access the benefit of being jailed and or fined. There are 3 ways to break the Common Law.1. Physically injure another intentionally or not, you're responsible.2. Cause pecuniary loss "financial loss" to property intentionally or not , you're responsible. 3. Act fraudulently in your contracts with others, or breach of agreement , you're responsible. That's it period.
@sweetl80 on a technical point, he isnt teaching anyone to avoid any law....the right to travel unhindered IS written in law, it is on the magna carta, by observing his right to travel he is upholding the law, not breaking it....the law states that loss,harm or injury, or a breach of the peace is a crime, they are the only instances in which he can be detained against his will, anything else is subject to consent, and as he has clearly committed no crime here, no law has been broken
@whackitov that doesn't answer my question - my question isn't one of legal definition or declaration - my question is much more of a moral question. I'm not asking 'is it illegal to run a red light', but i am asking 'is it morally responsible to run red lights'. I'm also being quite careful to not accuse anyone - but to ask goal and motive. An illustration: Lets say a freeman is responsible for a crash, so destroys someone else's private property. Without insurance, who picks up the bill?
@sweetl80 sorry, police do not deal with moral, that is the church's domain as far as im aware, police deal with law, which revolves around facts of the matter and not speculation. the precautionary principle is gambling, speculation, supposition....law deals with facts and evidence of facts.....lets suppose 2 non freemen where in a crash and both where insured, whose insurance bill gets deducted?? is it the guy whose fault it was? or is it the guy with more comprehensive insurance?
@whackitov The church deal with theological matters. Morality is a matter of human character. I'm not asking what the police's goal or motive is, I'm asking what your goal, or motive is, and supply a speculative situation (freeman vs individual still in the system, freeman is at fault) to give a basis from which illustrative answers can be given. Again, I'm accusing no-one of anything, I'm just asking a question.
@sweetl80 simply put, liability is liability, if the non insured freeman is at fault then he is liable, end of. how he pays depends on his ability to pay.....but i would like to ask a qustion of you also if i may?
does insurance make somebody less likely to have an accident? or more likely? will he take more risks knowing the cost of liability is covered by the insurance? or will he take more care knowing he isnt insured and the liability is his own?
@whackitov Not having insurance does not make it more likely that a person will have an accident. Nobody intends on having an accident, hence 'accident'. If an uninsured driver hits me, the only thing hit is not just the cost of the damage - no claims bonus is affected. This poses the moral question of if it is reasonable to have car insurance or not. We can all agree that its reasonable to be insured on the road. Upshot, wether it's a legal requirement or not becomes largely academic.
@sweetl80 i dont think it makes it academic really, as because it is a legal requirement (though not a lawful one) insurance companies have the monopoly of it, as it stand legalities say we HAVE to have it, so they can provide it with thumbscrews if they wish....i do agree that it is reasonable to be insured, yet as someone with 20 years driving history with no crashes nor offenses, it is ludicrous that this years bill is £1200, when ive never EVER claimed, but thats due to a legality
@whackitov ok, so the cost of it IS the issue... so it purely is a stand against corporation or commercial monopoly. You're happy to have insurance, in fact you're probably happy to comply by the law, but you think its entirely unfair to be fleeced for what is advertised as a legal requirement.
@sweetl80 i have no problem with being insured, i see it as a benefit IF that insurance premium accurately reflects the true risk factor....which increasingly is not the case when formulating a premium charge....when i last enquired why my premium had gone up yet again the response was 'due to the current economic climate'...NOTHING whatsoever to do with any element of risk...i wanted to insure my car, not repair the economy
@lollygaggle what do i mean? well i know of three cases where people have been 'hit' by other peoples cars, yet their own insurance bill goes up the next time its renewed because of the incident where the other party was at fault, because in order to avoid 'lengthy and costly litigation expenses' the insurance companies have paid out of the not at fault comprehensive insurance rather than the 'at fault' third party insurance'.
@whackitov Hi, reality is a matter of perspective, no two views of reality are the identical, so there are as many realities as there are human beings.
@lollygaggle in your opinion, which is merely just that.....the difference as i see it is you need somebody to make decisions on your behalf, because you do not feel competent or mature enough to make your own, whereas i am an adult human who fully accepts my responsibilities to myself, and therefore I determine my own policy.
@whackitov Hi, no not in my opinion, you have clearly evidenced the premise;
Quote '....the difference as i see it is....'.
You are free to do as you please up until the point that you are observed to be in contravention or breach of modern statute. At that point, your views, your opinions, your personal acceptance simply stop meaning anything & others implement their own policies.
@lollygaggle i am free to do as i please so long as i cause no loss harm nor injury nor breach of the peace, that is law, law trumps statute as statute is subject to consent, which is not blanket consent not consent by majority but individual, it is one of the control mechanisms laid down by magna carta, limiting the power of government....all facts in law, regardless of what you believe other people believe they can do.
@whackitov Hi, thanks for responding, but regardless of your agreement to consent or not, the existing system does not recognise the lack of motor insurance, licence, tax, MOT & it is unquestionable that failure the supply details will ultimately result in your loss of freedom & vehicle being removed to the pound.
Mr Murphy will confirm that fact that regardless what you believe, that will happen.
@lollygaggle correct, the system does not recognised the lack thereof, of vehicles that are registered. this mans conveyance is not registered, he realised 'registration' is described in legal dictionaries as 'transfer of ownership' then realised he could claim back ownership of it by de registering it, as it is deregistered and does not bear the mark of a dvla owned vehicle, it is not subject to dvla policy, which is to have tax,mot etc, they cannot take something they dont own.
@whackitov Then how do you explain how it ended up being taken to the pound & his freedoms terminated if they 'cannot' take something they do not own?
The intrinsic issue has clearly evaded you. Dave was stopped & presented his bits of paper, played all his vocal cards & activated his fee schedule. He got arrested, his vehicle impounded, have we heard anything about its fate?
He has no log book, no insurance etc, so how does he claim it back? How does he prove any connection, he even has no name? Is it now just a large German oxo cube?
@lollygaggle It's about standing up for your civil rights, or whatever you want to call them. Maybe he didn't change anything, but did you ever stop to think that if more people started doing this, things would change? Maybe he was trying to light a fire under the butts of people to start standing up for themselves. I have no idea, all I know is this man should be commended for standing up for his natural rights.
@MrMatthewRice Hi, 'natural rights'? You mean those bestowed by nature?
He is quoting the right to travel originating from man-made comman law, it has nothing to do with 'nature'.
Without an accepted system of accredited training & testing to a set standard, then we have human beings behind the wheel of boxes capable of moving at over 100mph who have based their competence on how good they think they are!
13th century man never envisaged such changes, things are different.
@lollygaggle You can sit behind you're keyboard and pretend to know everything, and cherry pick my comments like a cunt, I don't really care. You can sit on your ass all you want and do nothing to TRY and change something, while those of us who do care about our natuarl rights, fight for them. Natural rights means those rights wich can't be given or taken away by man,asshole. Law doesn't give me my right to travel, being born gives me my right to travel, wherever I want, however I want.
@MrMatthewRice Hi Matt, so what you are suggesting is that because your parents had sex, you were deposited on the surface of a cooling rock hanging in a vacuum, with finances permitting, you can purchase a passenger jet & because you feel capable, attempt to get it off the ground & take it anywhere of your choice, even through restricted airspace?
@lollygaggle No, I never said that, you, like a cunt, are putting words in my mouth. I think we can all agree that; A.Flying a passenger jet is different from driving a car, B.A retard can drive a car,C.A retard can't fly a passenger jet, D. Your comment doesn't require that amount of hyperbole to have this disscussion. The point is, that we,(humans), shouldn't need a license to travel in the general public, to get from point A to point B. We shouldn't need the scam of insurance ......
@MrMatthewRice and the scam of licenses and license fees,to help fund an overbearing nanny state. If an accident happens, then a claim should go to civil court, a case made for both parties, then guilty party pays for damages. But you obviously can't think for your self or take care of your own problems, you need a nanny making your decisions for you. If that's what you need then I feel sorry for you. Peace.
@MrMatthewRice Hi Matt, you misunderstand. No words have been put in your mouth, instead you are being questioned - look for these things = ?
John Travolta owns & flys a Boeing 707 on a private pilot's licence. I was very careful not to mention commerical usage. Anyone with the money can buy a car, a plane, a hot air balloon, a helicopter. You stated 'being born gives me my right to travel, wherever I want, however I want.'. This would include any aircraft you could afford.
@lollygaggle i agree on the part about people needing training. but if you learn how to drive, you shouldn't have to have a license, that you pay for every year and tags you pay for every year. waste of money. it would be like if they started charging to know how to ride a bike. lol.
Thanks dave. Do you need a wheelbarrow for your balls? LOL
These poor cops have not much idea - think of tomato or grape pickers - they have no idea of the law. Being the forerunner of what is to come (that's your bag) I congratulate you for your handling of this situation. It's all a game as has been said by better than me.
That other policy offficer "Paul looks and sounds incredibly like the bell end who harassed that kid in the "why do you keep stopping me and my son" youtube vid
When the policy enforcement officer is attempting to create joinder, why are you answering if your not obliged to? By not putting them on their oath and answering their questions you are standing under their authority no?
Whats the latest Dave....? Hats off to you, no you must've been nervous at the time, thats totally normal at first but (Really) would appreciate your updates when you get time. Llow the banter with others and get the facts up, that would silence most of them.
Are you on Facebook? I'd love to link with you some for some more info.
boy i wish i understood this kind of thing. i see that people in the united states are doing this as well. maybe if i can learn about it enough i will try it out myself... i always like sticking it to those who believe they have say over my life.
Give em Joinder the send any summons back "No Contract - Return to Sender" this has worked for me time after time after time, I once had a plain clothed police officer at the door wanting to speak to me about traffic offences and I told him I wasn't interested. He said "I'll summons you to court then." and I shut the door. I never did get one that time.
this police officers actually alright i dont no why he would keep going on
skwd11 19 hours ago
Surely it would be easier just to take a caution ?
pnepredictable 23 hours ago
i have no name
you have no name ??
TheGLIDDON 1 day ago
You actually don't have to pull over, when they hit the lights you can slow down and put your hazards on so they understand you see them and expect them to pass to respond to the emergency that warranted the police lights in the first place. If you continue along, make 3 right hand turns and then that means they are in pursuit...which is illegal.
AsbestosAlbatross 1 day ago
The police have every right to stop you when your driving your car!
ipswichcrazy 2 days ago
I don't get this. Finally a good cop and you're a cunt about it.
MarkCFC69 2 days ago 5
I do not perceive it like that.
I have met Dave on several occasions, he is a beautiful, responsible, witty and wonderful man. A human being who is interested in what it is to be alive, and what is it to be free.I experience him as someone with a desire to live a full and genuine authentic existence as a man allowed to take responsibility's for himself. In my eyes he isn't after a 'free lunch' but a beautiful wholesome, friendly lunch, eaten somewhere with a nice view and some pals.
bobbylostandfound 2 days ago
Dave your a fucking legend! :-)
bobbylostandfound 2 days ago
@bobbylostandfound So it may initially appear, but FMOTL is pushed by assorted conmen who are happy to take money in exchange for their literature that claim you can get out of all kinds of legal issues & the police & courts have no power over you.
There are always a few greedy & desperate peole who will fall for it & it appears Dave has been sucked in by the deception. It's such a pity, he appears so genuine & convincing.
lollygaggle 2 days ago
The police officer entertained all his rhetoric knowing he has no power to let him violate the existing law. The officer obviously does not represent any tyrannical power or mindset. Maybe if he had been white he would have been drug out of the car. lol Agree driving is a right not a privilege but all this guy is doing i fucking with and wasting the time a very respectful officer.
crazedNdiffused 3 days ago
'i do not have a name' what a freak :S
joee2k10 3 days ago
did they impound the car and have you got it back yet?
TJoKayaking 3 days ago
This video confused me :(
omgitsamilo 4 days ago
Comment removed
suthoner1 5 days ago
WHAT A FUCKING ARSEHOLE!! I hate these smug smart arses who think they know anything. If he hates the police so much, let's tell the police not to intervene when he's being savaged to death in a burglary or when he has been kidnapped and helped to ransom.
harrychown1989 6 days ago
@harrychown1989 totally agree. what a fucking arsehole
watfordman 3 days ago
@dmurphy25 well done good to see !!!
BIEmpireTrooper 1 week ago
got too much time on your hands.......daft cunt
eeeeeeeyaaaaaarrrrrr 1 week ago 2
@hhjklmc
And I would suggest to you sir that you are not thinking at all, rather you are parroting the words of a system designed to enslave you.
I pay for the roads whenever I use them because I have to use their overpriced petrol...
The roads belong to us, not governments and you and I have the natural right to move about upon them in any way we see fit, in the same way we have the right to breath.
Those were my actions and I stand by them.
dmurphy25 1 week ago
@dmurphy25 We are all parroting words however under your world view I fear we would need to stick with goo goo gaa gaa in an effort to avoid being soiled by the system. I agree many laws, taxes, and processes are not just. You and I are under obligation as part of a society to at minimum identify and abide by the law. If you wish to make your own rules I suggest you look into an island of your own. Do you make up your own speed limit also? ......Dave as in opposition to Goliath ...Very good.
hhjklmc 1 week ago
@dmurphy25 - with all due respect, you would never get away with this waste of time here in the states; our officers would NEVER have been as polite and as appropriate as those Constables were. I understand the "point" you're making...but really? What a waste of time and money! You seem like very nice and an intelligent "man" but in this video (going only off of your part 1, 2 & 3 of this topic), you came off as a "boy" :(( Sorry, just felt so frustrated by your lack of cooperation.
photobrattt 6 days ago
@dmurphy25 - Actually, I recant what I say above about "understanding your point." I do not. What IS/WAS the point of all of this. Clearly, I don't know the back story. What did "this" end up doing for you...what was the benefit that you gained from all of this? Seriously, I'm curious..?
photobrattt 6 days ago
@dmurphy25
so true, this man needs to vet a driving licence and some insurance, what a total CUNT
llan22 5 days ago
@hhjklmc Then, with respect, it would appear that you are an ignorant libertarian, who doesn't know that the roads are paid for by taxes on petrol, the publicly owned roads are mine as much as they are yours and anyone has the choice to use them in their public or private capacity.
If you wish to continue being deceived into being a driver (which has benefits that many need) then be my guest, however those who do not want to be fooled any longer should be free to exercise their rights unhindered
dmurphy25 1 week ago
@dmurphy25 If he was walking on the sidewalk I would be in complete agreement with his actions. Taxpayer dollars wether they be from petrol or not create the roadways that your privately owned vehicle requires for transport. Sorry you are just not thinking clearly.
hhjklmc 1 week ago
I am a Libertarian and this is not how it works. The roadways are paid for by taxpayers and if this guy wants to travel on the taxpayer roadway he can follow the regulations or he can take his privately owned vehicle off the publicly owned roadway. Anyone who thinks this is cool is a moron.
hhjklmc 1 week ago
did he get his car back or what?
TJoKayaking 1 week ago
This is a waste of Police time, I hope you are proud of yourself.
lamsd 1 week ago
@lamsd
I'm quite proud of him, and thank gim for standing up for Common Law. Police shouldn't waste our time collecting revenue for their criminal friends in courts.
jdavz322 1 week ago
@jdavz322 Waste our time? Are you suggesting that there should be no accredited system that monitors the behaviour of those behind the wheel of a machine capable of travelling at over 100mph?
lollygaggle 1 week ago
@lollygaggle
No sir(or ma'am, as the case may or may not be). That suggestion is purely your own. My "suggestion", if any, is that if no one is harmed, there is no reason to take exception or issue penalties to the end of collecting revenue. Naturally, I can concede that there are, in fact, people, particularly the youth and those who've never grown out of it, who will abuse good sense, but I can also see that certain men and women are old enough to not need to be patronised.
jdavz322 1 week ago
@jdavz322 So you believe that controlling a motor vehicle should be all about feelings & not achieving a recognised standard of competence with documentary evidence to prove such?
lollygaggle 1 week ago
@lollygaggle
If it pleases you to believe so, then by all means, believe it. I don't speak for everyone, nor do I care to. I speak for myself and those of similar thinking, who need not be harassed for their "papers" when there is no harm done. lol. Corralling people has a history of provoking them in the long term.
jdavz322 1 week ago
@lollygaggle
Now, before you go thinking I am thoroughly evil, I do appreciate the officer's manner in coducting himself. What truly grates on me are the ones who decide to get bully about any given issue when they've had a bad day. I salute both of them, to be perfectly honest, and "suggest" that we take steps as a society to know when dignity and decency are facades, and when they are not.
jdavz322 1 week ago
@jdavz322 I see, so you'd happily allow your children to be passengers in a motor vehicle controlled by someone who has just consumed a bottle of scotch?
lollygaggle 1 week ago
This is a hell of a way to explain leaving your license at home
baker5561 1 week ago
I like that copper, he is a decent guy. We need more like him. Statute policies are deliberately misleading, and designed to trap the 'law enforcers' as much as they are designed to trap the general public. Also a 'citizen' is a subject of a republic, like France or the USA, so why are we called 'citizens' now. I used to be a subject of a realm.
drabzz 1 week ago
In the USA you would have been torn out of the vehicle, called a terrorist, and probably never see the light of day again. Think im joiking?
Guitarhero1000 1 week ago
@Guitarhero1000 Yeah but we live in a civilised country!
drabzz 1 week ago
Great video, great point. But I would love to know what the outcome of the court appearance was. Any update? Hope you got your car back and your £20,000!!
Theophilus200 2 weeks ago
I will say those cops were at least very open to hearing what you had to say, in America, you would have been on the ground bloody before they would've listened to anything you had to say.
MrMatthewRice 2 weeks ago
police : where do you live
answer : everywhere, otherwise i'l be dead
Harv7340 2 weeks ago
dave, brill, but try answering a Q with a Q
Harv7340 2 weeks ago
i love you dave
UploadAdam 2 weeks ago
first dodger is a nice guy! dont have them anymore!
FAimpulsive 2 weeks ago
How is it honorable to drive a vehicle without insurance? How do you intend to pay for damage should you cause it to the property of a third party?
TheDirector17 2 weeks ago
@TheDirector17 it's called cash, dumbass!
MrMatthewRice 2 weeks ago
TO be fair the cop was a cool dude!
TheDarkVII 2 weeks ago 12
Thank you for trying to educate these policy officers who really know nothing about the situation they've come across,and consequently keep trying to enter into contract ;-)
theylive23 2 weeks ago
first name dave... dont have a surname..... youtube name dmurphy... hummmmmmmmm
roberts1711 3 weeks ago
also tell him that if he fails to distinguish between a law and a statute then he is negligent and commiting fraud.
nephthystv 3 weeks ago
i know its nerve racking in the heat of the moment but a couple thoughts... why do they wanna identify u as the owner of the vehicle? have they recieved reports that the make and model of your automobile have been stolen within the last 24 hours??? if not then what do they care??? Also when the peace officer quotes an ACT instead of arguing the words of the document argue that the constitution demands that act has no force and effect and the fact that acts and statutes only apply to them.
nephthystv 3 weeks ago
how did u get that notice sticker allowing you to say you're not using a motor vehicle?
LIGHTSxv 3 weeks ago
hi can some one please tell me what this is all about pls?
Imfrombigginhill 3 weeks ago
@Imfrombigginhill A Freeman On The Land is someone who very simply only recognises common law as being binding. Therefore any modern legislation can be ignored unless loss, harm or damage is caused. So unless you are prepared to enter into a contract with a police officer (seen as an agent for a corporate body), then they cannot interfere with your freedoms. They routinely can be found driving uninsured vehicles, have no driving licence, tax or MOT, cars being deregistered.
lollygaggle 3 weeks ago
To Be honest these Policeman are doing there job and doing it well, they cant just go by what this guy is saying with a bit of paper "documentation" , otherwise there would be real criminals getting away with car theft and people on the road without car insurance getting away with it all the time. My opinion this guy has wasted valuable police time and thought he was all above the law with his automobile, who even says automobile anyway, its still a shitting car, What a Tit...
BravoWesty 3 weeks ago
@BravoWesty You obviously don't understand the concept of civil liberties.
neebs1992 3 weeks ago 4
@BravoWesty and that's exactly why your're a sheep and he is not.
MrMatthewRice 2 weeks ago
in america you would be shot in the face!
Channel4Four 3 weeks ago in playlist More videos from dmurphy25
You need to assert that they check the legislation and see that it says it's a civil situation.
PeekyBooo 3 weeks ago in playlist Uploaded videos
The VIN could be a break in private ownership.
PeekyBooo 3 weeks ago in playlist Uploaded videos
Note in commercial/civil law you can charge anyone with anything. The police officers are simply charging you with something that should not stand in a proper court.
Example I can charge someone for having a pink hat, it's another matter if I will win the case.
Also note a proper court is one with a jury of peers.
PeekyBooo 3 weeks ago in playlist Uploaded videos
@PeekyBooo incorrect, at a Magistrates Court there are no jurors, just a lay Magistrate. The vast majority of cases (99%+) in the English legal system are dealt without a Jury. A Court may be 'proper' as you describe with or without a jury. It is the nature of the offense that determines the nature of the trial.
Channel4Four 3 weeks ago in playlist More videos from dmurphy25
@Channel4Four You're are incorrect. The Judge would like the court to be without a jury but Public can demand a jury in any case(criminal or civil). It's another matter if they will get one without a battle.
I understand where you are coming from with your explanation, but your are basing your opinion on modern procedures that aren't always proper.
PeekyBooo 3 weeks ago
@Channel4Four Not so, there are also district judges who can be found in Mags Courts.
lollygaggle 3 weeks ago
Clearly intimidation from the second car to arrive! btw, commenting as watching.
PeekyBooo 3 weeks ago in playlist Uploaded videos
lucky to get a decent bloke, some will break our bones and some, worse.
dunky3940 3 weeks ago
enforcing statutes without consent is enticement to slavery, failure to differentiate between statute and law is fraud
dunky3940 3 weeks ago
I accept and acknowledge your oath of office, and HOLD you to that oath in these matters, you are to protect and uphold my unalienable rights, bill of rights, habeus corpus, coronation oath etc
dunky3940 3 weeks ago
well done, brilliantly handled by both sides...Very Good work Dave, ps I hope the first PC reads the Notices Served.
WezKitikonti 3 weeks ago
Anyone who blindly does not question and exercise their rights are very much part of the reason that this country is rapidly descending into a corrupt police state. Good work Dave.
stoptherot1 3 weeks ago 2
Dave isn't the one wasting tax payers money here. Whoever sent the constables out on the road to extort stealth taxes from the traveling people on the roads, by use of acts of parliament, are the ones wasting the money that they are collecting.
stoptherot1 3 weeks ago 2
what exactly are you trying to prove? All you have done is manage to waste taxpayers money and resources that could have been used effectively elsewhere.. well done dickhead!
depth2009 3 weeks ago in playlist More videos from dmurphy25
You rule. Like, bigtime.
chunkmansss 3 weeks ago
So, what you're saying is, you can do whatever you like on the road, i.e (speed, drink drive etc) and you're just going to tell the police that because this is your private property there's nothing they can do? Don't take this as me having a go or being funny, I'm just interested in the point that's trying to be made, because you're saying you're not a driver you're a passenger (however you're driving the car), what you are putting accross, makes absolutely no sense to me whatsoever...
jackleelundy 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
SurgamRex 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@jackleelundy
I think you're missing the point entirely, having paperwork that bonds you to the crown has nothing to do with your responsibility to travel safely without harming others.
The idea that having insurance and registration prevents you from driving under the influence is almost as absurd as not having paperwork premises you to cause harm in the first place. The problem is the deference of your liability and responsibility as a human being in the first place.
SurgamRex 3 weeks ago
@SurgamRex
I didn't mention anything about harming others while travelling, so I think you're missing the point pal. My point is, this guy who's DRIVING his AUTOMOBILE, on a public highway, in which everyone in the country has to adhere by the rules of having insurance/MOT/having a driving licence, believes that he can simply say he does not adhere to the rules, of which then means he is saying the law does not apply to him.
jackleelundy 3 weeks ago
@SurgamRex Furthermore, as he does not adhere to the law, to which you believe to have been manipulated, how can he then go to say that it is the police who are breaking the law, simply, is he not just contradicting himself? If he does not stand to the law, how can he then make an accusation the police are breaking the law and use that in his defence? Oh yeah, please expand on putting a plaster on a bullet wound....
jackleelundy 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
SurgamRex 3 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@jackleelundy
I'm not sure if you understand what rights you actually have & how the "law" has been abused to manipulate & coerce the masses. He isn't saying that it's ok to cause harm or to have the intent to cause harm. Having paperwork & insurance does not preclude you from causing damage. This is about taking back YOUR personal responsibility, liability & humanity & not being a serf, besides this is about Acts which murder and negligence don't fall under. Words are important!
SurgamRex 3 weeks ago
it must be remembered that these paid actors are not there to protect the flesh and blood men women of the land they and the commercial construct wich pays them to act on its behalf care not of right and wrong good or bad or any laws based on dictate and reason... what is written in the act is all the actor knows when he is perfoming. ....ive seen this stageplay before only the actors had a german accent.
kacilee123 3 weeks ago
Comment removed
star3t 3 weeks ago
this police man needs punching in the nose well done keeping it cool :)
Johnandneon 4 weeks ago in playlist Uploaded videos
is there a part 3 to this scenario? very interesting.
my dad thinks you are a "hero".
Dxtrous 1 month ago
up2 05.13 All these laws rules etc came about as there’s too many fools in charge of their own travelling whilst undertaking the responsibility of a dangerous lump of metal.
Exercising ones` right to travel is in common law, originally applied to the "human" being able to move around freely on foot.....a "gentleman of the road" had the right of freedom to move around without challenge or discourse.
catspawo6 1 month ago in playlist More videos from dmurphy25
@catspawo6 that would be your interpretation of it, law is all about interpretation, personally i interpret it to mean travel by any means.....in the 13th century they used horse and cart, that is not a human on foot as you put it, but a minimum of a ton that travels faster than a man on foot, yet no insurance was mandatory, nor was an mot
whackitov 4 weeks ago
@whackitov What your inferring to would come under conveyance………Which was Taxed even as far back as the 13th centaury and more…........Toll taxes!
Interpretation is key best to read a dictionary 1st and understand `meaning of words with in a sentence.....before even attempting Law books
catspawo6 4 weeks ago
@catspawo6 so in a scenario where were talking about travel without challenge or discourse, and the relevance of insurance, you come back at me with toll taxes??
i would suggest to you that before you attempt to interpret ANYTHING you should have a full understanding of your OWN input :/
whackitov 4 weeks ago
@whackitov Where would have modern day insurance of came from? Those taxes perhaps? being a starting point? You admit yourself "that it is reasonable to be insured" Are you reasonably sound financially where u could pay out in a criminal or civil case? Your efforts would be better devoted to protesting the high cost of insurance.Your futile attempt to exercise your rights exploits the freeman cause by your lack of understanding &confidence in applying that knowledge with in the system.
catspawo6 4 weeks ago
@catspawo6 the system is just gangsterism applying goodwill to mafia ideals wil always produce complications
kacilee123 3 weeks ago
@catspawo6 i dont play within the system, that is the point...the system is there for you to interact with if you choose, i choose not to, its the difference between a child and an adult, one looks to the other for instruction on how they should do things, and generally do as they are told, the other makes their own decisions.
whackitov 3 weeks ago
"Do you have any ID to prove thats you uhhh?"
"I don't need some, this is me.....I don't need any"
BRILLIANT!
NZFRESH 1 month ago
Ask if they know the difference between maritime law and common law and if they say an act is a law they committed legal negligence. That just put a few clamps on them and say that you don't stand under that statement.
avelx 1 month ago
It's gonna be fun when we go to the next dimension, these others however, will be coming back to this one as sheep, if not plants..............
WONDOCTORJ 1 month ago in playlist Uploaded videos
Hi. Me again. What does the notice on your windscreen say? And where can I find a copy? Thanks
annunakijewel 1 month ago
EVERTHING ELES IS HEAR SAY !!! I LOVE IT . MUCH LOVE ALL
MrUfos2015 1 month ago
Did you tell the officer that he's wasting your time? lol.
jamezbond78 1 month ago
I liked that note you added around 20:15. A man or woman IS NOT A PERSON. A "person" is a corporate fiction created to have control over by the corporation. They make us the corporate body or and exercise their public policies which are nothing more than corporate policies. They take every day words and apply THEIR terminology to it. They keep a second set of books that we're never aware of unless we wish to inform ourselves of said terms. Very good for standing your ground. :)
chop98 1 month ago
Right on my man... I have just submitted my documents, declaring sovereignty, with both state and federal gov. here in the states. Take back the power my brothers and sisters! The entire legal system is smoke and mirrors, enforced thru assumption and intimidation. Trust Law is a game changer for the 99.
chunkafungus 1 month ago
@sweetl80 No legal loopholes necessary, I was exercising my right to travel by any means I see fit We all have that right but most do not know it, far less exercise it.
I have nothing more to prove, however the crown corporation will have to prove that it can arbitrarily remove our rights and that it has the authority to impose rules upon someone who has not waived that right and has not contracted with said rules.
I had no goal, I was merely travelling peacefully from one place to another
dmurphy25 1 month ago
@dmurphy25 Ok. So, lets just put a scenario forward. Were a policeman to stop you for breaking a speed limit, or running a red light for example - how would you expect to have the punishment enforced upon yourself?
sweetl80 1 month ago
@dmurphy25 Are you not subject to another unwritten law, the law of your peers? If you were to have an accident (which was your fault) and wrote off a fellow drivers car, what would you be liable for, how would you cover yourself? Im interested in the big picture, not just wgether its actually possible to drive on the road without obligation to obey widely accepted standards.
sweetl80 1 month ago
@dmurphy25 you are 100% correct in you application and understanding of this right. I am a Lawyer in Fact.
justaman6972 4 weeks ago
@dmurphy25 brilliant, an name implies ownership and corporate title, at the tim e of your birth you could not have picked your mom from a lineup of one. It was alleged to you by another as it would be impossible for you to have and consciousness of the event and therefore what was told is hearsay and not credible or admissable in Law. Well done, perfect dialogue no joinder no contract with cop no jurisdiction. Simple.
justaman6972 4 weeks ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@dmurphy25 Wow, congrats Mister Dave !
(or is Mister a fiction-in-law?)
Can i ask when was the last time U got some sleep..this stuff must keep U going?
No, No, disrespt , ( i am in the same boat) u are doing GREAT, But i have to ask
"What is making u, or made u get to this level?"
cheers
kldirectv2 3 weeks ago
I don't get what you're hoping for... you're hoping to point out legal loopholes... Or... Im baffled.
sweetl80 1 month ago
@sweetl80 Yeah, not being argumentative - but genuine question - what actually is the goal here?
sweetl80 1 month ago
@sweetl80 freedom
Dehzee 1 month ago
@sweetl80 Don't be baffled. Just gather the knowledge of what various corporations are doing to tax everything you do. You see... there is a difference in the "right to travel" as opposed to a man or woman "conducting commerce" with a commercial vehicle. I did about a 7 min or so video explaining it on my channel. Learn a little something each day. :)
chop98 1 month ago
@chop98 I understand the terminology, and why exactly its true that acts aren't applicable to drivers, or an individual entity, not the person (or whatever). One could jump to the conclusion that the only reason why you'd do this is to avoid such inconveniences like speed limits, insurance, mot, and tax. Im guessing this isn't actually the reason, so I'd just like to know what the reason actually is.
sweetl80 1 month ago
@sweetl80 Ultimately, sweet, it is to let the corporations know that the jig is up. They've been found out. They'll get scared and start to call names such as "terrorist" or anything they can dream up to keep people's eyes from opening. Government is nothing more than contract where a very, very few benefit from this system. It is a system of tyranny. Of course, all this is being revealed as it was written. :)
chop98 1 month ago
@chop98 Ok, but lets just talk pragmatically for a moment - how does the road traffic act not applying to you (allowing such things as speeding, running a red light, or having your car safety checked yearly) - make that point to corporations? There are other, far more profited organisations through which this point could be made more effectively. You have to admit, teaching people how to avoid law (or the illusion of accepted law) will also lead to some who solely want to avoid punishment.
sweetl80 1 month ago
@sweetl80 Therein lies a problem, sweet, and why we are at odds. Those who want to avoid punishment have committed some sort of physical crime. There is no physical crime in most traffic acts. One may argue safety and such. However, ultimately it is up to the man or woman to hold responsibility themselves. This is why corporations have such power. It's a deep rabbit hole. :) Look at how society acts. Look at how the corp reacts to it. They lead us. Hard to explain in such a short spot
chop98 1 month ago
@chop98 Its fair to presume though that speed limits, mot for roadworthiness, and such things are widely accepted, not through blind following, but because people tend to agree? For example, if somebody runs past a school at 40mph at 8.30, id like him to have his wrists smacked, and I entirely consent that the police do that. Should that the person doesnt want to be punished matter? Surely not, because such exusability fosters irresponsibility.
sweetl80 1 month ago
@sweetl80 I understand your point here, sweet. There will always be those that have no respect for life or property of others. Those are the ones that must be dealt with. Not your average traveler going down the road to get groceries and minding their p's and q's. It's a fine line and the fraudsters are winning simply through lack of morals and principles in the public. Of course, the world has been led this way. The times will only be darker soon. Made so through fearful tactics.
chop98 1 month ago
@chop98 Thanks very much for actually making reasonable conversation possible - a first for youtube!
sweetl80 1 month ago
@sweetl80 research Allocution being jailed is a benefit and must be consented to in order to access the benefit of being jailed and or fined. There are 3 ways to break the Common Law.1. Physically injure another intentionally or not, you're responsible.2. Cause pecuniary loss "financial loss" to property intentionally or not , you're responsible. 3. Act fraudulently in your contracts with others, or breach of agreement , you're responsible. That's it period.
justaman6972 4 weeks ago
@justaman6972 The question I raised was more of a moral one, and I already said I understood the terminology, but thanks.
sweetl80 4 weeks ago
@sweetl80 on a technical point, he isnt teaching anyone to avoid any law....the right to travel unhindered IS written in law, it is on the magna carta, by observing his right to travel he is upholding the law, not breaking it....the law states that loss,harm or injury, or a breach of the peace is a crime, they are the only instances in which he can be detained against his will, anything else is subject to consent, and as he has clearly committed no crime here, no law has been broken
whackitov 1 month ago
@whackitov that doesn't answer my question - my question isn't one of legal definition or declaration - my question is much more of a moral question. I'm not asking 'is it illegal to run a red light', but i am asking 'is it morally responsible to run red lights'. I'm also being quite careful to not accuse anyone - but to ask goal and motive. An illustration: Lets say a freeman is responsible for a crash, so destroys someone else's private property. Without insurance, who picks up the bill?
sweetl80 4 weeks ago
@sweetl80 sorry, police do not deal with moral, that is the church's domain as far as im aware, police deal with law, which revolves around facts of the matter and not speculation. the precautionary principle is gambling, speculation, supposition....law deals with facts and evidence of facts.....lets suppose 2 non freemen where in a crash and both where insured, whose insurance bill gets deducted?? is it the guy whose fault it was? or is it the guy with more comprehensive insurance?
whackitov 4 weeks ago
@whackitov The church deal with theological matters. Morality is a matter of human character. I'm not asking what the police's goal or motive is, I'm asking what your goal, or motive is, and supply a speculative situation (freeman vs individual still in the system, freeman is at fault) to give a basis from which illustrative answers can be given. Again, I'm accusing no-one of anything, I'm just asking a question.
sweetl80 4 weeks ago
@sweetl80 simply put, liability is liability, if the non insured freeman is at fault then he is liable, end of. how he pays depends on his ability to pay.....but i would like to ask a qustion of you also if i may?
does insurance make somebody less likely to have an accident? or more likely? will he take more risks knowing the cost of liability is covered by the insurance? or will he take more care knowing he isnt insured and the liability is his own?
whackitov 4 weeks ago
@whackitov Not having insurance does not make it more likely that a person will have an accident. Nobody intends on having an accident, hence 'accident'. If an uninsured driver hits me, the only thing hit is not just the cost of the damage - no claims bonus is affected. This poses the moral question of if it is reasonable to have car insurance or not. We can all agree that its reasonable to be insured on the road. Upshot, wether it's a legal requirement or not becomes largely academic.
sweetl80 4 weeks ago
@sweetl80 i dont think it makes it academic really, as because it is a legal requirement (though not a lawful one) insurance companies have the monopoly of it, as it stand legalities say we HAVE to have it, so they can provide it with thumbscrews if they wish....i do agree that it is reasonable to be insured, yet as someone with 20 years driving history with no crashes nor offenses, it is ludicrous that this years bill is £1200, when ive never EVER claimed, but thats due to a legality
whackitov 4 weeks ago
@whackitov ok, so the cost of it IS the issue... so it purely is a stand against corporation or commercial monopoly. You're happy to have insurance, in fact you're probably happy to comply by the law, but you think its entirely unfair to be fleeced for what is advertised as a legal requirement.
sweetl80 4 weeks ago
@sweetl80 i have no problem with being insured, i see it as a benefit IF that insurance premium accurately reflects the true risk factor....which increasingly is not the case when formulating a premium charge....when i last enquired why my premium had gone up yet again the response was 'due to the current economic climate'...NOTHING whatsoever to do with any element of risk...i wanted to insure my car, not repair the economy
whackitov 4 weeks ago
@whackitov I see yeah. Thanks again, for having sensible conversation!
sweetl80 4 weeks ago
@sweetl80 what it amounts to is another tax to buy the privilege to drive on the road
whackitov 4 weeks ago
@sweetl80 and also, does insurance change a fatal road incident one single iota for the deceased?
whackitov 4 weeks ago
@whackitov What do you mean by 'whose insurance bill gets deducted'?
lollygaggle 4 weeks ago in playlist Uploaded videos
@lollygaggle what do i mean? well i know of three cases where people have been 'hit' by other peoples cars, yet their own insurance bill goes up the next time its renewed because of the incident where the other party was at fault, because in order to avoid 'lengthy and costly litigation expenses' the insurance companies have paid out of the not at fault comprehensive insurance rather than the 'at fault' third party insurance'.
whackitov 4 weeks ago
@whackitov Hi, thanks for responding.
Can you detail how you know the 'why' the premium has been raised as the result of the non-blameworthy collision?
lollygaggle 4 weeks ago
@lollygaggle not within the limitations of youtube allotted space, no
whackitov 4 weeks ago
@whackitov Hi, acknowledged.
I guess playing the 'there's not enough space to answer your question' card was your only real option.
It's good to note that FMOTL are so easy to compromise.
lollygaggle 4 weeks ago
@lollygaggle yeah, delude yourself if you want to, i wont object.
whackitov 3 weeks ago
@whackitov Hi, there's obviously not enough literary space for you to object.
lollygaggle 3 weeks ago
@lollygaggle no, in the case of not objecting to you deluding yourself its more a case of not enough 'give a fuck'....
whackitov 3 weeks ago
@whackitov Hi, reality is a matter of perspective, no two views of reality are the identical, so there are as many realities as there are human beings.
Delusion is just pictures in your head.
lollygaggle 3 weeks ago
@lollygaggle in your opinion, which is merely just that.....the difference as i see it is you need somebody to make decisions on your behalf, because you do not feel competent or mature enough to make your own, whereas i am an adult human who fully accepts my responsibilities to myself, and therefore I determine my own policy.
whackitov 3 weeks ago
@whackitov Hi, no not in my opinion, you have clearly evidenced the premise;
Quote '....the difference as i see it is....'.
You are free to do as you please up until the point that you are observed to be in contravention or breach of modern statute. At that point, your views, your opinions, your personal acceptance simply stop meaning anything & others implement their own policies.
It has nothing to do with competence or maturity.
lollygaggle 3 weeks ago
@lollygaggle i am free to do as i please so long as i cause no loss harm nor injury nor breach of the peace, that is law, law trumps statute as statute is subject to consent, which is not blanket consent not consent by majority but individual, it is one of the control mechanisms laid down by magna carta, limiting the power of government....all facts in law, regardless of what you believe other people believe they can do.
whackitov 3 weeks ago
@whackitov Hi, thanks for responding, but regardless of your agreement to consent or not, the existing system does not recognise the lack of motor insurance, licence, tax, MOT & it is unquestionable that failure the supply details will ultimately result in your loss of freedom & vehicle being removed to the pound.
Mr Murphy will confirm that fact that regardless what you believe, that will happen.
lollygaggle 3 weeks ago
@lollygaggle correct, the system does not recognised the lack thereof, of vehicles that are registered. this mans conveyance is not registered, he realised 'registration' is described in legal dictionaries as 'transfer of ownership' then realised he could claim back ownership of it by de registering it, as it is deregistered and does not bear the mark of a dvla owned vehicle, it is not subject to dvla policy, which is to have tax,mot etc, they cannot take something they dont own.
whackitov 3 weeks ago
@whackitov Then how do you explain how it ended up being taken to the pound & his freedoms terminated if they 'cannot' take something they do not own?
lollygaggle 3 weeks ago
@lollygaggle so lets all sit on our thumbs and never try to change anything, right? fuck off cunt!
MrMatthewRice 2 weeks ago
@MrMatthewRice Hi Matt, thanks for responding.
The intrinsic issue has clearly evaded you. Dave was stopped & presented his bits of paper, played all his vocal cards & activated his fee schedule. He got arrested, his vehicle impounded, have we heard anything about its fate?
He has no log book, no insurance etc, so how does he claim it back? How does he prove any connection, he even has no name? Is it now just a large German oxo cube?
I am uncertain what has been changed?
lollygaggle 2 weeks ago
@lollygaggle It's about standing up for your civil rights, or whatever you want to call them. Maybe he didn't change anything, but did you ever stop to think that if more people started doing this, things would change? Maybe he was trying to light a fire under the butts of people to start standing up for themselves. I have no idea, all I know is this man should be commended for standing up for his natural rights.
MrMatthewRice 2 weeks ago
@MrMatthewRice Hi, 'natural rights'? You mean those bestowed by nature?
He is quoting the right to travel originating from man-made comman law, it has nothing to do with 'nature'.
Without an accepted system of accredited training & testing to a set standard, then we have human beings behind the wheel of boxes capable of moving at over 100mph who have based their competence on how good they think they are!
13th century man never envisaged such changes, things are different.
lollygaggle 1 week ago
@lollygaggle You can sit behind you're keyboard and pretend to know everything, and cherry pick my comments like a cunt, I don't really care. You can sit on your ass all you want and do nothing to TRY and change something, while those of us who do care about our natuarl rights, fight for them. Natural rights means those rights wich can't be given or taken away by man,asshole. Law doesn't give me my right to travel, being born gives me my right to travel, wherever I want, however I want.
MrMatthewRice 1 week ago
@MrMatthewRice Hi Matt, so what you are suggesting is that because your parents had sex, you were deposited on the surface of a cooling rock hanging in a vacuum, with finances permitting, you can purchase a passenger jet & because you feel capable, attempt to get it off the ground & take it anywhere of your choice, even through restricted airspace?
Is that the idea?
lollygaggle 1 week ago
@lollygaggle No, I never said that, you, like a cunt, are putting words in my mouth. I think we can all agree that; A.Flying a passenger jet is different from driving a car, B.A retard can drive a car,C.A retard can't fly a passenger jet, D. Your comment doesn't require that amount of hyperbole to have this disscussion. The point is, that we,(humans), shouldn't need a license to travel in the general public, to get from point A to point B. We shouldn't need the scam of insurance ......
MrMatthewRice 1 week ago
@MrMatthewRice and the scam of licenses and license fees,to help fund an overbearing nanny state. If an accident happens, then a claim should go to civil court, a case made for both parties, then guilty party pays for damages. But you obviously can't think for your self or take care of your own problems, you need a nanny making your decisions for you. If that's what you need then I feel sorry for you. Peace.
MrMatthewRice 1 week ago
@MrMatthewRice Hi Matt, you misunderstand. No words have been put in your mouth, instead you are being questioned - look for these things = ?
John Travolta owns & flys a Boeing 707 on a private pilot's licence. I was very careful not to mention commerical usage. Anyone with the money can buy a car, a plane, a hot air balloon, a helicopter. You stated 'being born gives me my right to travel, wherever I want, however I want.'. This would include any aircraft you could afford.
lollygaggle 1 week ago
@lollygaggle i agree on the part about people needing training. but if you learn how to drive, you shouldn't have to have a license, that you pay for every year and tags you pay for every year. waste of money. it would be like if they started charging to know how to ride a bike. lol.
WeComeOutAtNight1999 1 week ago
@WeComeOutAtNight1999 Hi, in the UK we don't pay annually for the driving licence. Many have had the same licence for decades only having paid once.
What are tags?
lollygaggle 1 week ago
@lollygaggle ahhh, ok. well that's lucky. lol. but tags are another term for a license plate.
WeComeOutAtNight1999 1 week ago
@WeComeOutAtNight1999 We don't pay annually for number plates either, road tax yes, number plates no.
lollygaggle 1 week ago
Thanks dave. Do you need a wheelbarrow for your balls? LOL
These poor cops have not much idea - think of tomato or grape pickers - they have no idea of the law. Being the forerunner of what is to come (that's your bag) I congratulate you for your handling of this situation. It's all a game as has been said by better than me.
truthwilloutallways 1 month ago
That other policy offficer "Paul looks and sounds incredibly like the bell end who harassed that kid in the "why do you keep stopping me and my son" youtube vid
h.t t p : // youtu . b e / z 3 a o H a K h J r 0
MrAfro0 1 month ago in playlist More videos from dmurphy25
When the policy enforcement officer is attempting to create joinder, why are you answering if your not obliged to? By not putting them on their oath and answering their questions you are standing under their authority no?
MrAfro0 1 month ago in playlist More videos from dmurphy25
Whats the latest Dave....? Hats off to you, no you must've been nervous at the time, thats totally normal at first but (Really) would appreciate your updates when you get time. Llow the banter with others and get the facts up, that would silence most of them.
Are you on Facebook? I'd love to link with you some for some more info.
Good work son!!
MrAfro0 1 month ago in playlist More videos from dmurphy25
boy i wish i understood this kind of thing. i see that people in the united states are doing this as well. maybe if i can learn about it enough i will try it out myself... i always like sticking it to those who believe they have say over my life.
moparmania74 1 month ago
Give em Joinder the send any summons back "No Contract - Return to Sender" this has worked for me time after time after time, I once had a plain clothed police officer at the door wanting to speak to me about traffic offences and I told him I wasn't interested. He said "I'll summons you to court then." and I shut the door. I never did get one that time.