Hi Eileen. Interesting thread this one. Good for me as revision/swatting as I have a similar thing on-going. I was travelling with no tax, insurance or license. It went to magistrates court. I stood as a Man not fiction and they would not let me speak. So I sat in the public gallery and listened as they perjured themselves by saying the summons was not responded to. They completely ignored all the paperwork I had sent in. There was a 700 quid fine and six points.
I did an appeal, which has not been replied to yet. I have established that the Police and CPS have seen my paperwork but have ignored it. The appeal form is easy. Out of time appeal just needs a reasonable reason I imagine. Once appeal is made its like the case is blanked, restarted from scratch so enforcement/collection on the earlier decision should stop (maybe a letter needed (it is ready to send in my case)) I wrote to the license people too about points.
I’m reading peoples comments on your case and I think you have done pretty good. Heck, just causing them to break their stride for a moment, wonder about what they are doing, just a chink in the armour can open up to defeat for them and a win for our rights.
Dreadlock says maybe use a solicitor. No, no, no. It’s a trap. REPRESENTING? I’m not even going to represent myself, let alone have someone else do it. I AM GOING AS ME! In the flesh! I AM HERE NOW PRESENT AS A MAN, EQUAL TO ALL OTHERS AND UNDER ONLY GOD, nothing less than that!
I say SIMPLE, write it down, not too much stuff but stuff that counts. I’m not a Fiction. I am a Man. I don’t consent, am not an employee or trustee, have no contract, don’t understand, accept no liability for the Crowns fiction but full liability for myself. I am competent (maybe ignorant ( of THE (your)SYSTEM, but so what , it’s yours not mine) and not a ward of the court. Why did you take my car? Do you hold title to it? Why did you not respond to my paperwork and instead insist on meeting here? This act you refer to, do you believe I am a PARTY to that agreement?
I LIKE THIS A LOT! “You have to make it clear that at the time of the incident you were acting
as a natural person of inherent jurisdiction availing yourself of the rights you have in that capacity i.e to use the public highways as you see fit and without causing harm or hindrance to anyone.”
PUBLIC HIGHWAY! RIGHT OF WAY!!
I had a problem with the name thing (ie. are you MR SQUARKETY SQUARK) I am liking “Yes Sir, that’s the name my Mother unconditionally gave to me. I believe THE CROWN has created a Trust with the same name and fear an error has occurred. I am not a Trustee or any kind of fiction. I am a Man, the flesh lives and the blood flows. Indeed I believe I may be the beneficiary of that Trust and an ANNUITY has been ACCRUING which is now overdue and owing. “ See, now I have a counter claim, a reason for me to be there and keen to question them. (It’s not my only one. My counter is TWOCing and Fraudulent contract or please pay me now for the hire of my car ($1000 per day*100 +days)ha ha).
Dreadlock said Keep it simple!
1. You were using your common law right to use the public highways. Search the net for cases where this right has been upheld.
2. You have a driving license which you were not using. Can they prove otherwise?
3. You were not driving under title. I.e you were using the road as <christian name> <family name> with no preceding title such as "Miss" or "Mrs". Can they prove otherwise?
4. You are not an employee or agent of government - if they say you are, can they produce a payroll with your name on or some other evidence?
5. You are not a UK citizen. Should they ask, you are an English woman or a woman of England (Scotland, Wales, wherever).
I would add that you are
not a ward of the court. I read somewhere that they assume we are all incompetent, paupers and need a guardian figure and assume that is their role. Rebut that!
And then….” It looks like I'm going to have to appeal, which is a contradiction in terms to this particular Freeman. This surely means I must willingly stand under their jurisdiction when they have no such jurisdiction over me. I also will have to plead not guilty and then fight it out on their terms and on their ground.”
My appeal I think is De Novo (that’s what they implied, completely new hearing), from Wikipedia
In law, an appeal is a process for requesting a formal change to an official decision. The decision maker to whom the appeal is made may be a court, a board, a tribunal or even a single official. Generally, only the party
aggrieved below has standing to appeal.[1] A court is used in the examples below.
De novo vs. on the record
Very broadly speaking there are appeals on the record and de novo appeals. In de novo appeals, the new decision maker re-hears the case without any reference to the rulings of the prior decision maker, or limits on the evidence presented
And Aggrieved is
1. wronged, offended, or injured: He felt himself aggrieved.
2. Law . deprived of legal rights or claims.
3. troubled; worried; disturbed; unhappy.
Deprived of legal rights! So go be defendant! Defend yours and our Rights! Thats your DUTY!
I believe that the magistrates court (magistrates are just business people, teachers etc not Law experts!) just rubber stamp, regardless. They are to weed out the weak. We perceive an added layer of “difficulty” as we climb the Authority tree. In fact the same arguments presented to the next court up are just as relevant and just as difficult for them. I pictured simply saying I’m a man not a fiction, this one argument, and going through all the courts right up to House of Lords before meeting some Law Lord who just says “Quite right too. Drop all charges. He has every right!”
The vast majority drop out, scared, intimidated, ruled! And there is no crime in asking. And if you truly believe it is your right, there can be no “criminal intent”. And “fighting for the right” has always gone on and “defending the right “ has always been a duty.
Lastly
“I don't mean to be negative at all but I'm not at all certain that I'm competent to do that.”
Its been said just knowing who you are is enough, better in fact than trying the legal jargon. Its their system for FICTIONAL PERSONs, all but irrelevant to men/women! How can you be INCOMPETENT at being YOURSELF?
If you speak and write so an average person can understand, they have no excuse, its good enough for the law. If they claim they don’t “get your meaning” dismiss them as incompetent! And if you get threatened with contempt or the like, ask what that means and what the consequence would be. If the judge says drop that line of questioning or else, tell him” OK under THREAT and DURESS over my PROTEST I will say whatever you tell me to say. How do you wish me to proceed?” Its all irrelevant as anything done under duress is void.
Stay polite, ask questions, expect answers, stick to your point, keep it simple. The system is complicated, their system, men and women are generally fairly simple. Prima Facia evidence that their system is not meant for us! Confident and competent hand in hand! JUST BE YOURSELF!
If there is still a fine at the end of it all.....its to teach you a lesson....educate you.....education is a benefit....you can waive a benefit!
