The Devil and the DVLA

Discuss all of your private conveyance issues here. DVLA, Fixed Penalty Notices (FPNs), MOT, Tax, Insurance, Wheelclampers and any other related topics.

The Devil and the DVLA

Postby Oshun » Fri Jan 15, 2010 3:34 pm

The Devil and the DVLA…

What follows is a series of (sanitized) Affidavits and Notices building up to and including a Commercial Lien, which was served on Noel Shanahan, the CEO of DVLA in December, ’09. The affidavit details the events up to, including and following the theft, in broad daylight, under the noses of six police officers, of a private, deregistered automobile on 16th July last year. I offer it as an example of how one Freeman-on-the-Land has gone about claiming his remedy and, of course, I offer it up for entertainment and educational purposes too.

Peace, Oshun.

Notice of Request for Proof of Contract
cc. Julia Hodson, Chief Police Constable, Snottinghamshire Police.


X XXXX Rd
Snottingham
Near [SNG XX]
17th July, 2009.

Dear Mr Khan,

Yesterday at 8.00 am, agents operating on behalf of DVLA, came and, without my consent, took away my automobile. They gave me no warning, no notification and provided me with no paperwork. By refusing to answer my questions and look at the documents that prove my Claim of Right, they caused an affray in the street and the automobile was forcibly taken and my friend assaulted by the crane operating agent of DVLA. All of which was witnessed by several of my neighbours.

As this automobile has been deregistered – the terms of which were acquiesced to by your predecessor, Geoff Hoon and a Notice of Estoppel subsequently served, I am at a loss as to how and why this happened. As a man living peacefully under Common Law I am disappointed to report that the six (6) police officers who turned up at the request of the DVLA agents, ignored my request for help. By not stopping the action, it is my understanding that they were aiding and abetting the theft.

I am writing to you in your role as Minister of State for Transport as this is a gross infringement of my Human Rights : specifically my inalienable right to travel freely, by whatever form of transport I choose.

As the automobile was taken under protest and duress and without my consent, I would like to see the contract that authorises them to do it.

If there is no response within three (3) days of this Notice being served, then I will issue my own terms and conditions.


Please find enclosed a copy of the courtesy letter to Geoff Hoon and the perfected Claim of Right.

Kindly note too that the law of agent and principal applies to this notice and that service upon one is equal to service upon both.

Autograph:



Oshun RisingWITHOUT PREJUDICE, i.e. all Natural Inalienable Rights Reserved. Non-assumpsit.


Notice of Acceptance of Contract: Terms and Conditions.
X XXXX Rd
Snottingham
Near [SNG XX]
22nd July, 2009.
The Ministry of Transport,
Transport House,
London
SW1P 4DR.


Dear Sadiq Khan,

Good day to you. You will recall I sent you a Notice of Request for Proof of Contract (dated 17th July, 2009) via Royal Mail Recorded Delivery.

As you will kindly note, the automobile in question is my own private property (held under a claim of right) and it was taken under force and without my notarised consent. These are the facts, as they appear to me.

By failing to provide me with the requested contract and terms and conditions, I hereby claim the right to issue my own. Here are the terms and conditions:

My consideration is my private automobile (valued by me at £3000) which you are keeping in your pound.
Your consideration will be Five Hundred Pounds Sterling (£500) per day the automobile is impounded.
Charge per paperwork generated by contract: Three Hundred Pounds Sterling (£300) per hour.
Alternatively, DVLA may choose to release the automobile within three (3) days of receipt of this notice and return it in pristine condition to me, the owner.
Should the automobile not be returned or a response be sent, then the clock starts ticking and the consideration of £500 per day will be the charge from the day it was taken (16th July, 2009).

All more than reasonable considering the inconvenience this distasteful affair has created, I’m sure you’ll agree.

Directions for response: Affected parties wishing to dispute the claims made herein or make their own counterclaims must respond appropriately within Three (3) days of service of notice of this action. Responses must be under Oath or attestation, upon full commercial liability and penalty of perjury and registered at the address herein provided no later than three days from the date of original service as attested to by way of certificate of service. Failure to respond within Three (3) days will be taken as acceptance of these terms and conditions.


May I take this opportunity to remind you of the Maxim, “All are equal under the Law”
(God’s Law—Ethical and Natural Law). (Exodus 21:23-25;
Lev. 24:17-21; Deut. 1:17, 19:21; Matt., 22:36-40; Luke 10:17; Col. 3:25. Legal maxims: “No one is above the law.”; “Commerce, by the law of nations, ought to be common, and not to be converted into a monopoly and the private gain of a few.”).


Kindly note too that the law of agent and principal applies to this notice and that service upon one is equal to service upon both.

Autograph:



Oshun RisingWITHOUT PREJUDICE, i.e. all Natural Inalienable Rights Reserved. Non-assumpsit.





Notice and Demand.


In care of: X XXXX Rd 
Firey Fields
Snottingham 
Near: [SNG XX] 


Sadiq Khan,
The Minister of State for Transport
Transport House
London
SW1P 4DR

Noel Shanahan
CEO
DVLA, SA6 7JL.

10th August 2009.

To Sadiq Khan and Noel Shanahan,

NOTICE TO AGENT IS NOTICE TO PRINCIPAL AND NOTICE TO PRINCIPAL IS NOTICE TO AGENT.

Legal maxims:
All are equal under the Law
A matter must be expressed to be resolved
Claims made without accountability are void
Might does not make right
Force, perjury or subornation of perjury, voids all
Thou shalt not steal
Truth is expressed in the form of an affidavit
An unrebutted affidavit stands as the truth
An affidavit must be rebutted point for point
Ignorance is no respecter, it affects all without regard to position or title
We cannot give to anyone or anything any power or authority we do not have

As the Divine Creator of all that is in the Universe is my witness, I, Oshun Rising hereby state these to be the facts as they appear to me and so I therefore claim this to be my truth:

(01) The Department of Transport and DVLA has received and accepted the following claims as detailed in previous correspondence, all via Royal Mail’s Recorded Delivery service:

Affidavit: Notice of Non-response, Understanding and Claim of Right. 5th March, 2009.
Courtesy letter to Geoff Hoon, and Notice of Deregistration of Automobile and Claim of Right. 27th April, 2009.
Notice of Default Judgement and irrevocable Estoppel by Acquiescence. 13th May, 2009.
Notice of Request for Proof of Contract, 17th July, 2009
Notice of Acceptance of Contract: Terms and Conditions, 22nd July, 2009

(01.1) By not responding to Notice d. within the time given, Sadiq Khan and Noel Shanahan have acquiesced to the terms and conditions of said notice.

(02) Furthermore, a perfected Claim of Right (as acquiesced to by Elizabeth Alexandra Mary Windsor, the woman acting as the Queen and James Gordon Brown, the man acting as Prime Minister of the United Kingdom on 5th June, 2009) is now in place and, naturally applies to this matter. These sections from said Claim of Right are of particular relevance and I include them for your information. All Rights are Reserved.

(03) -section-
Therefore be it now known to any and all interested, concerned or affected parties, that I, Oshun: Rising am a Freeman-on-the-Land and do hereby serve notice and state clearly, specifically and unequivocally my intent to peacefully and lawfully exist free of all statutory obligations and restrictions and that I maintain all rights at law to trade, exchange or barter; to exist without deceptive governance and to do so without limitations, restrictions or regulations created by others and without my consent.

(04)Furthermore, I claim that these actions are not outside my communities’ standards and will in fact support said communities in our desire for truth and maximum freedom.

(05)Furthermore, I claim the right to engage in these actions and further claim that all property held by me is held under a Claim of Right and cannot be seized, confiscated or inspected without my written and notarised consent.

(06)Furthermore, I claim the right to use all necessary force to protect my physical body in all circumstances, thus preventing any legal entity or agent claiming the right to use force or violence in regard to my physical body.

(07)Furthermore, I claim the right to travel peacefully and lawfully within the geographical area commonly referred to as the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth by whatever means I deem necessary.

(08) Furthermore, I claim the right not to be compelled to perform under any contract or commercial agreement that I did not enter knowingly, voluntarily and intentionally and I do not accept the liability of the compelled benefit of any contract or commercial agreement not revealed to myself, which are my rights pursuant to Common Law

(09) Furthermore, I claim that anyone who interferes with my lawful activities after having been served notice of this claim and who fails to properly dispute or make lawful counterclaim is breaking the law, cannot claim good faith or colour of right and that such transgressions will be dealt with in a properly convened court de jure.

(10) Furthermore, I claim it is my right and solemn duty not only to keep the peace My Self but also to intervene wherever may be necessary to ensure that the peace is kept in a situation where peace officers are not present or are unwilling for whatever reason to uphold their sworn and solemn duty so to do.

(11) Furthermore, I claim the right to travel freely and unmolested throughout the geographical area commonly referred to as the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth realms and that evidenced perfection of this Claim will act as sufficient documentation for entry and travel to and in the United Kingdom and the Commonwealth realms.

(12) Furthermore, I claim the right to free use of my own private property.

(13) Furthermore, I claim the right to use all necessary force to protect my property thus preventing any other legal entity claiming the right to use force or violence in regard to my property.

(15) Furthermore, I claim the right to generate Lawful Excuse, which is a general term, which includes all of the defenses which the common law considers sufficient reason to excuse a human being from criminal liability.

(16) Furthermore, I claim the right to deregister anything that has been registered by me.

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

(18) I claim my FEE SCHEDULE for any transgressions by peace officers, government principals or agents or justice system participants is (GB £500.00) FIVE HUNDRED POUNDS STERLING PER HOUR or portion thereof if being questioned, interrogated or in any way detained, harassed, searched or otherwise regulated and (GB £5000.00) FIVE THOUSAND POUNDS STERLING PER HOUR or portion thereof if I am handcuffed, transported, incarcerated or subjected to any adjudication process without my expressed written and Notarised consent. And a minimum of (GB £5,000,000) FIVE MILLION POUNDS STERLING if I am tasered, injured, subjected to violence in any way or my biological property (DNA, blood, urine, fingerprints) is taken without my expressed written and Notarised consent, and,

(19) Furthermore, I claim the right to choose a lawful method of payment upon demand.

(20.a) Furthermore, I claim the right to use a declaratory judgement or administrative processes, Notary Public, Commissioner or any two (2) people not related to me by blood or marriage to secure payment of the aforementioned FEE SCHEDULE against any transgressors who by their actions or omissions harm me anyone or anyone under my care or my interests, directly or by proxy in any way.

(20.b) Furthermore, I claim the right to engage the services of a Notary Public, Commissioner for taking affidavits and/or any two (2) people not related to me by blood or marriage to attest to my signature for verification purposes and does not constitute adhesion, contract or change in status in any manner. 

(20.c) Furthermore, I claim the right to convene a proper court de jure in order to address any potentially criminal actions of any peace officers, government principals or agents or justice system participants who having been served notice of this claim fail to dispute or discuss or make lawful counterclaim and then interfere by act or omission with the lawful exercise of properly claimed and established rights and freedoms.

-section ends-

(21) As you will note, due process has been followed. The law of agent and principal applies and service upon one is equal to service upon both. I have never been presented with any sworn affidavits that would provide validity to your assessment of the contract forced on me by DVLA. It is my best and considered judgment that no such paperwork or affidavit exists.

(22) As a peaceful man, operating under Common Law, I have been completely honourable throughout in all my communications with everyone in public office, including the former Minister of State for Transport and consequently, I am appalled at the behaviour of the agents as detailed below.

(23) Legal Maxim: The government cannot confer a favour which occasions injury and loss to others.

(24) Geoff Hoon, the previous Minister of State for Transport, was after some investigative work, notified of the de-registration of an automobile by me, Oshun: Rising™, a living, breathing, blessed soul and Sovereign Freeman. A Claim of Right was served, the Minister’s agents failed to rebut the claims and an estoppel by acquiesence duly served. This was over three months ago (27th April, 2009).

(25) On Wednesday 16th July at 08.00 I was disturbed by the incessant rattle of a diesel engine in the street. When I heard some chains being rattled, I went to investigate. This was the sound of a DVLA agent clamping the wheel of the deregistered automobile. I invited the two female agents in to show them my proof of claim over their target and made it clear that this automobile is my own private property. They were shown the Notices of Deregistration and Estoppel, they photographed them and the clamp was taken off.

(26) The following morning, just before 07.30, I hear a lorry pull up outside. Looking out, I see the lorry has a crane, a ‘ DVLA’ logo and that it is accompanied by two white DVLA vans. There is a total of 4 agents. Joined by my friend, I go out on the street, requesting the Crane Operator (CO) and the agents come and look at my Proof of Claim, I say to the agents, “Hold on – before you go any further, I have a perfected claim of right on this my private property. This automobile has been deregistered, and I have the documents to prove DVLA have no claim on it.”

(27) The CO refuses to stop, saying, “Yeah, I’ve seen photographs of them yesterday, mate.” So, even though he has seen the proof of claim, he is still prepared to carry out his orders. Presumably, under full commercial liability.

(28) “Look,” I say, “if you continue, there will be a charge. Please come and look.” He ignores this polite request and fits a lift girdle to a wheel arch of the private automobile.
“Look, I have the proof – here are the documents.”
“I’ve already seen the photos.”
“Can I see your ID please?”
The CO pulls out some plastic ID but deliberately refuses to hold it still so the details can be seen.

(29) I recognise one of the female agents from the previous morning and I remind her, “This automobile has been deregistered – you’ve seen the proof of claim. This has nothing to do with DVLA.”

(30) I then turn my attention to the Crane Operating agent who is continuing in his attempt to steal the automobile. “This is theft. I am a man living peacefully under Common Law and claim my right to travel freely anywhere in this country I choose and by whatever form of transport I choose,” I inform him.


(31) Now, at this point, with the CO agent refusing to view the Proof of Claim, I climb barefoot onto the roof of my private property: namely my deregistered and unlicenced automobile (remember: a licence is simply proof that you have begged for permission to do that which is an inalienable right – you, he she, we, me, everyone is free to travel when and wherever we wish. This is our human right – we are living under Common Law jurisdiction).

(32) Legal Maxim: “He who does not claim his rights has none.”

(33) Standing on the roof of my private and deregistered automobile, I state clearly, “This is my private property and I claim my right to travel freely. There is no contract here between DVLA and me.”

(33) Where the tax disc used to be in the windscreen, it now reads,



Any attempt to seize, clamp, tow or impound
This automobile without the expressed Notarised
Consent of the owner will be deemed unlawful
And will incur a high charge. If in doubt, contact
The Minister of State for Transport or the
Chief Constable
(SNOTTINGHAMSHIRE POLICE FORCE).
DVLA notified. All Rights Reserved.


(34) I claim that as the automobile was parked on the street and because this is our land and these are our streets, this is clearly a public notice.

(35) Furthermore, I offered every opportunity for the agents to discuss, negotiate and come to some resolution of the matter. They consistently refused this offer.

(36) Meanwhile, the CO is getting jumpy as I continue to stand and then sit on the roof, paperwork in hand, “You’ll put dents in the roof!” says the CO who is attempting to steal the automobile. I reply, “Yeah? As if I’m bothered about that right now!”

(37) The friend, Paul, is filming the attempted theft with his camera phone, “You shouldn’t be doing this: he is a free man and he’s not subject to your rules.”
George, a neighbour, has turned up to lend his weight to the protest. By now, the CO climbs onto the back of his truck so he’s level with me in whose face he is wagging his gloved finger, “You’re living on cloud cuckoo land!” he says. I claim this is verbal and physical intimidation rolled into one. I sit down on the roof and reply, “This is theft. I do not acquiesce to this. I’m living under Common Law and it is my right as a human to be free to travel where and whenever I like.”
“Why are you filming this?” asks the CO who is now back down from the back of the lorry.
“A theft is being carried out and I’m recording the evidence,” replies Paul.
“Stop it!” says the CO (crane operator).
“No. I have the right to. You don’t have any right to stop me.”

(38) I then witness the CO seize my friend Paul’s wrist and, using both hands, violently snatch the camera-phone from his grip. He hurls it through the open front door of the house and the camera breaks apart as it hits a radiator.

(39) At this point, I am still on the roof, despite the CO’s best attempts to scare me down. He begins to lower the crane’s large steal grab hand over me, so it hangs menacingly closer to my head. A DVLA agent calls the police who arrive in a force of three (3) squad cars. Six (6) officers pile out.
(40) “Ah, officer! I’m glad you’re here. This agent is attempting to steal my automobile. And he’s behaving aggressively.” I say, leaping down from the roof, “Look,” I volunteer the documents to the senior officer,
(41) “No. I’m not looking at that. He’s here to do his job.” This is the response of the police officer. So, I get back on the roof of my private property. The CO cranks the crane down some more, seemingly intent on knocking me from the roof of the automobile. At which point, and in full view of the police officers and the DVLA agents, I , fearing for my safety, leap from the roof.
(42) “This is a theft and it’s your duty to stop it,” I point out to the police officers. And guess what? Not one of them does a thing.
“He’s only doing his job,” the senior police officer repeats his mantra.
(43) So, it is my understanding here is that by failing to act on his oath and preserve the peace, these officers are in dereliction of their duty. They are actually – through ignorance, which of course is no defence in the eyes of the law – aiding and abetting the theft of my private property.
(44) Equally disturbing is the fact that when Paul informs said officer that he would like to report a crime – namely the assault, the intimidation and criminal damage – the officer refuses to listen. “No. I won’t do that.” This, correct me if I am wrong, and you have every opportunity to do so, is attempting to pervert the course of justice.
(45) So, these are the facts as they appear to me:

(45.01) Proof of Claim has been established by means of an unrebutted Notice of Deregistration, Understanding and Claim of Right received and acquiesced to by the Ministry of Transport and DVLA.
(45.02) DVLA has no claim over the automobile and the perfected Claim of Right (as received and acquiesced to by the Queen and the Prime Minister) makes it clear that I will defend my private property by whatever force is necessary. The law of principal and agent states “service to principal is service to agent and service to agent is service to principal,” therefore, the Department of Transport and its agents have been doubly informed.
(45.03) By sending round agents in this manner to seize the automobile, DVLA is acting in a way likely to cause a breach of the peace as the affiant has previously claimed the right to possess and defend his property by any means necessary.
(45.04) The DVLA through the actions of a rogue agent has used physical violence, verbal intimidation, menacing behaviour and behaviour likely to cause grievous bodily harm.
(45.05) Furthermore, said agents and those aiding and abetting him have committed a theft, right under the noses of the police, assaulted someone and committed an act of criminal damage.
(45.06) By snatching and throwing the camera phone, said agent has tampered with the evidence.

(46) As DVLA have forced me into contract with them, and have my private automobile as my consideration, I have reserved the right to add my own terms and conditions to said contract and pursue with prejudice any charge that accrues. Said Terms and Conditions have been acquiesced to by the Minister of State for Transport, Sadiq Khan and are now in force.
(47) By behaving in this way, the DVLA and its agents have caused actual bodily harm, committed an act of theft in broad daylight and endangered a life (the action of lowering the crane grab onto a man peacefully attempting to protect his property from theft).
(48) I claim that this renders the contract void abinitio on the Maxim that “A contract cannot arise out of an act radically vicious and illegal.”  - HYPERLINK "http://www.giga-usa.com/quotes/authors/legal_maxim_a001.htm" Legal Maxim, Broom's Legal Maxims (max. 734)
(49.1) There was a public notice on the automobile clearly stating that a charge will be generated if the vehicle is towed away, impounded or disposed of in any way. This further establishes the claim of right for it has now been isssued directly to the Minister of State for Transport (and as the law of agent and principal applies, so were the agents ) and the public.
(49.2) There are several witnesses and photographic evidence to support the claims made in this affidavit


(50) Secondly, and of equal concern to me are the facts that,

(50.1) The six (6) police officers have clearly broken their oaths: by failing to prevent the theft when asked to do so, they are aiding and abetting the crime.
(50.2) By refusing to deal with two (2) on-the-spot complaints about the behaviour of the Crane Operator towards them, the police officers are in dereliction of their sworn duties. Remember, “Ignorance is no defence in the eyes of the law.”


(51) Fee Schedule Addendum: I CLAIM THE RIGHT TO THE FOLLOWING (see accompanying invoice):

Charge for paperwork generated by the incident: £300 per hour .
Charge for inconvenience of transport deprivation theft: £500 per day the automobile is impounded.
Charge for imposition of contract under protest and duress: £1000
Charge for criminal actions as detailed in paragraphs 45.03, 45.04, 45.05, 45.06 and 47 – Ten (10) Thousand pounds sterling (£10,000) per offence.

(52) Vigilantibus et non dormientibus serviunt leges; ‘The laws serve the vigilant, not those who sleep upon their rights.” 2 Bouv. Inst. n. 2327

(53) Directions for response:

Should the automobile be returned by DVLA in pristine condition within FIVE (5) DAYS, I will be willing to listen to offers of settlement. If not, then I will pursue this further through a COMMERCIAL LIEN, to be served on the named principals.

Affected parties wishing to dispute the claims made herein or make their own counterclaims must respond appropriately within TEN (10) DAYS of service of notice of this action. Responses must be under Oath or attestation, upon full commercial liability and penalty of perjury and registered at the address herein provided no later than TEN days from the date of original service as attested to by way of certificate of service.

Use of two (2) witnesses is for attestation and verification purposes only and does not constitute a change in status or entrance or acceptance of foreign jurisdiction.

The place of Claim of Right: Snottingham, England.

Signed and witnessed this 11th day of August, 2009


Affiant: Oshun Rising


Autograph: _______________


WITNESSES: 

On this 11th day of August, 2009, I, the undersigned, as a man of good standing acting in my Common Law capacity as an independent witness to this Affidavit, hereby verify Oshun: Rising personally appeared, known to me, (or satisfactorily proven) to be, the party named as “Affiant” in this Affidavit, and acknowledge that he executed the same for the purpose herein contained.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I HERE UNTO SET MY HAND: 

NAME OF WITNESS 1 ____________________

ADDRESS:

Signature:____________________Dated: _____



NAME OF WITNESS 2 ____________________

ADDRESS:


Signature:____________________Dated: _____




NOTICE OF DISHONOUR & OPPORTUNITY TO CURE

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


Ref: CED/27657 (In care of)X XXXX Rd
Snottingham
Near [SNG XX]
11th September, 2009.


Dear Sadiq Khan and Noel Shanahan,


Following DVLA and the Ministry of Transport's dishonour of the NOTICE AND DEMAND dated August 10th 2009, I hereby serve this NOTICE OF DISHONOUR & OPPORTUNITY TO CURE.
Legal maxims:
All are equal under the Law
A matter must be expressed to be resolved
Claims made without accountability are void
Might does not make right
Force, perjury or subornation of perjury, voids all
Thou shalt not steal
Truth is expressed in the form of an affidavit
An unrebutted affidavit stands as the truth
An affidavit must be rebutted point for point
Ignorance is no respecter, it affects all without regard to position or title
We cannot give to anyone or anything any power or authority we do not have

To recap, the Minister and the Principal Agent for DVLA have now received the following:
Notice of Request for Proof of Contract, 17th July, 2009
Notice of Acceptance of Contract: terms and conditions, 22nd July, 2009
Notice and Demand (Affidavit), 10th August, 2009

The terms and conditions have been acquiesced to and the contract is now in place. A response from an agent named Dave Warren was received at this address but as it was not under oath/attestation, under penalty of perjury and upon full commercial liability, fails to rebut any of the claims of the affidavit and, as such, it changes nothing. May I respectfully draw your attention to the maxims listed above with regard to this.

Therefore, I am hereby serving Notice of Dishonour and Opportunity to cure:

Should the automobile be returned by DVLA in pristine condition within FIVE (5) DAYS, I will be willing to listen to offers of settlement. If not, then one will be left with no alternative than to pursue this further through a COMMERCIAL INJURY CLAIM, to be served on the named principals.

Affected parties wishing to dispute the claims made herein or make their own counterclaims must respond appropriately within TEN (10) DAYS of service of notice of this action. Responses must be under Oath or attestation, upon full commercial liability and penalty of perjury and registered at the address herein provided no later than TEN days from the date of original service as attested to by way of certificate of service.




By: Oshun: Rising 
Authorised Representative for STRAWMAN™

All Rights Reserved - Without Prejudice - Without Recourse - Non-Assumpsit
Errors & Omissions Excepted





Ref: CED/27657
Noel Shanahan, CEO
Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency
DVLA
Swansea
SA6 7JL
9th October, 2009.

NOTICE OF DISHONOUR 

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



Dear Noel Shanahan,


Following your and the DVLA’s dishonour of the NOTICE OF DISHONOUR & OPPORTUNITY TO CURE dated 11th September 2009, and served on 21st September 2009, via Royal Mail Recorded Delivery, I hereby serve this NOTICE OF DISHONOUR.
Legal Maxims:
1. All are equal under the law (God’s Law-Moral and Natural Law).  Authorities: Exodus 21:23-25; Lev. 24:17-21; Deut. 1:17, 19:21; Matt. 22:36-40; Luke 10:17; Col. 3:25.  Legal maxims: “No one is above the law.”; “Commerce, by the law of nations, ought to be common, and not to be converted into a monopoly and the private gain of a few.”
2.        In commerce, truth is sovereign.  See Exodus 20:16; Psalms 117:2; John 8:32; II Cor. 13:8.  Legal maxim:  “To lie is to go against the mind.”  Oriental proverb:  “Of all that is good, sublimity is supreme.”
3.        Truth is expressed in the form of an Affidavit.  See Lev. 5:4-5; Lev. 6:3-5; Lev. 19:11-13; Num. 30:2; Matt. 5:33; James 5:12.
4.        A matter must be expressed to be resolved.   See Heb. 4:16; Phil. 4:5; Eph. 6:19-21.  Legal maxim:  “He who fails to assert his rights has none.”
5.        An unrebutted affidavit stands as truth in commerce.  See 1 Pet. 1:25; Heb. 6:13-15.  Legal maxim: “He who does not deny, admits.”
6.        An unrebutted affidavit becomes a judgment in commerce.  See Heb. 6:16-17.  Any proceeding in court, tribunal, or arbitration forum consists of a contest, or “duel,” of commercial affidavits wherein the points remaining unrebutted in the end stand as the truth and the matters to which the judgment of the law is applied.
7.        He who leaves the field of battle first (does not respond to Affidavit) loses by default.  See Book of Job; Matt 10:22.  Legal maxim:  “He who does not repel a wrong when he can occasions it.”
8.        Sacrifice is the measure of credibility.  One who is not damaged, put at risk, or willing to swear an oath on his commercial liability for the truth of his statements and legitimacy of his actions has no basis to assert claims or charges and forfeits all credibility and right to claim authority.  See Acts 7, life/death of Stephen.  Legal maxim:  “He who bears the burden ought also to derive the benefit.”
9.     A lien or claim, under commercial law, can only be satisfied by one of the following actions.  See Gen. 2-3; Matt 4; Revelation.  Legal maxim:  “If the plaintiff does not prove his case , the defendant is absolved.”
9.1.            A rebuttal Affidavit of Truth, supported by evidence, point-by-point.
9.2.            Payment.
9.3.            Agreement.
9.4.            Resolution by a jury according to the rules of common law.
10. Vigilantibus et non dormientibus serviunt leges; ‘The laws serve the vigilant, not those who sleep upon their rights.” 2 Bouv. Inst. n. 2327


For the avoidance of doubt, pursuant to the terms set out in the NOTICE OF ACCEPTANCE OF CONTRACT: TERMS AND CONDITIONS, dated 22nd July, 2009 and the NOTICE AND DEMAND (Affidavit) dated 10th August, 2009, NOEL SHANAHAN and DVLA and STRAWMAN™ are now in agreement that:
1. Proof of Claim that the automobile is private property has been established by means of an unrebutted Notice of Deregistration, Understanding and Claim of Right received and acquiesced to by the Ministry of Transport and DVLA.
2. DVLA has no claim over the automobile.
3. By sending round agents in the manner outlined in the Notice and Demand (Affidavit) to seize the automobile, DVLA has caused a breach of the peace as the affiant had previously claimed the right to possess and defend his property by any means necessary.
4. The DVLA through the actions of a rogue agent has used physical violence, verbal intimidation, menacing behaviour and behaviour likely to cause grievous bodily harm.
5. Furthermore, said agents and those aiding and abetting the crane operator have committed a theft, assaulted a member of the public and committed an act of criminal damage.
6. By snatching and throwing the camera phone, said the DVLA agent has tampered with the evidence.
7 As DVLA forced me into contract with them, and have my private automobile as consideration, I duly reserved the right to add my own terms and conditions to said contract and pursue with prejudice any charge that accrues. Said Terms and Conditions have been acquiesced to by DVLA are now in force.
8. By behaving in this way, the DVLA and its agents have caused actual bodily harm, committed an act of theft and endangered a life (the action of lowering the crane grab onto a man peacefully attempting to protect his property from theft).
9. This renders the contract void abinitio on the basis of the Maxim “A contract cannot arise out of an act radically vicious and illegal.”  - HYPERLINK "http://www.giga-usa.com/quotes/authors/legal_maxim_a001.htm" Legal Maxim, Broom's Legal Maxims (max. 734)
10. There was a public notice on the automobile clearly stating that a charge will be generated if the vehicle is towed away, impounded or disposed of in any way. This further establishes the claim of right as it was isssued directly to the Minister of State for Transport (and as the law of agent and principal applies, Noel Shanahan and other agents of DVLA ) and the public.

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




By: Oshun: Rising
Authorised Representative for STRAWMAN™
All Rights Reserved – Without Prejudice – Without Recourse – Non-Assumpsit
Errors & Omissions Excepted

All correspondence should be mailed to:

X XXXX Rd, SNOTTINGHAM NG7 6LP




STRAWMAN™
Registered in the County Borough of Buddersfield on the 4th day of November, 1864

Our Ref: BR2XXX3606GB

Noel Shanahan
CEO of DVLA (Debtor)
SA6 7JL


19th October, 2009.
Notice of Lien Interest.

Private and Confidential

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

To Noel Shanahan,

Legal Maxims:
1. All are equal under the law (God’s Law-Moral and Natural Law).  Authorities: Exodus 21:23-25; Lev. 24:17-21; Deut. 1:17, 19:21; Matt. 22:36-40; Luke 10:17; Col. 3:25.  Legal maxims: “No one is above the law.”; “Commerce, by the law of nations, ought to be common, and not to be converted into a monopoly and the private gain of a few.”
2.        In commerce, truth is sovereign.  See Exodus 20:16; Psalms 117:2; John 8:32; II Cor. 13:8.  Legal maxim:  “To lie is to go against the mind.”  Oriental proverb:  “Of all that is good, sublimity is supreme.”
3.        Truth is expressed in the form of an Affidavit.  See Lev. 5:4-5; Lev. 6:3-5; Lev. 19:11-13; Num. 30:2; Matt. 5:33; James 5:12.
4.        A matter must be expressed to be resolved.   See Heb. 4:16; Phil. 4:5; Eph. 6:19-21.  Legal maxim:  “He who fails to assert his rights has none.”
5.        An unrebutted affidavit stands as truth in commerce.  See 1 Pet. 1:25; Heb. 6:13-15.  Legal maxim: “He who does not deny, admits.”
6.        An unrebutted affidavit becomes a judgment in commerce.  See Heb. 6:16-17.  Any proceeding in court, tribunal, or arbitration forum consists of a contest, or “duel,” of commercial affidavits wherein the points remaining unrebutted in the end stand as the truth and the matters to which the judgment of the law is applied.
7.        He who leaves the field of battle first (does not respond to Affidavit) loses by default.  See Book of Job; Matt 10:22.  Legal maxim:  “He who does not repel a wrong when he can occasions it.”
8.        Sacrifice is the measure of credibility.  One who is not damaged, put at risk, or willing to swear an oath on his commercial liability for the truth of his statements and legitimacy of his actions has no basis to assert claims or charges and forfeits all credibility and right to claim authority.  See Acts 7, life/death of Stephen.  Legal maxim:  “He who bears the burden ought also to derive the benefit.”
9.     A lien or claim, under commercial law, can only be satisfied by one of the following actions.  See Gen. 2-3; Matt 4; Revelation.  Legal maxim:  “If the plaintiff does not prove his case , the defendant is absolved.”
9.1.            A rebuttal Affidavit of Truth, supported by evidence, point-by-point.
9.2.            Payment.
9.3.            Agreement.
9.4.            Resolution by a jury according to the rules of common law.
10. Vigilantibus et non dormientibus serviunt leges; ‘The laws serve the vigilant, not those who sleep upon their rights.” 2 Bouv. Inst. n. 2327


Pursuant to the clearly expressed terms of your and DVLA’s dishonour of the NOTICE AND DEMAND (AFFIDAVIT) dated 10th August 2009; NOTICE OF DISHONOUR & OPPORTUNITY TO CURE , served and received via Royal Mail Recorded Delivery on 21st September, 2009, and the NOTICE OF DISHONOUR served on 13th October, 2009 you are hereby served NOTICE OF LIEN INTEREST.

For the avoidance of doubt, STRAWMAN™ has a Commercial Injury Claim against Noel Shanahan and DVLA valued at GBP £107,760.00 (ONE HUNDRED AND SEVEN THOUSAND POUNDS STERLING), which is the total payable under the terms and conditions of the mutually agreed contract dated 22nd July 2009 (as of 19th October, 2009).

The DEBTOR has seven (7) days from service of this notice to raise any issues, disputes or counterclaims pertaining to this matter.

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


By: Oshun: Rising
Authorised Representative for STRAWMAN™


All Rights Reserved – Without Prejudice – Without Recourse – Non-Assumpsit
Errors & Omissions Excepted

All correspondence should be mailed to:

X XXXX Rd, SNOTTINGHAM NG7 6LP





More to follow :sun:
Oshun
 
Posts: 97
Joined: Fri Jul 24, 2009 4:26 pm

Re: The Devil and the DVLA

Postby Oshun » Fri Jan 15, 2010 3:52 pm

Affidavit of Obligation

A Commercial Lien


A Verified Plain Statement of Fact


The Parties:

Lien Claimant:

Oshun: Rising
Authorised Representative for
STRAWMAN™
(In care of) XX XXXXr Road
Snottingham
Near [NXX XX]

Hereinafter known as “Lien Claimant”


Lien Debtor:

Noel Shanahan, CEO,
for and on behalf of DVLA, the
Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency
Swansea
SA6 7JL


Hereinafter known as “Lien Debtor”

Applicable to Nominees, Successors, Heirs, Accessories and Assigns

The Laws of Commerce
1. All are equal under the law (God’s Law-Moral and Natural Law).  Authorities: Exodus 21:23-25; Lev. 24:17-21; Deut. 1:17, 19:21; Matt. 22:36-40; Luke 10:17; Col. 3:25.  Legal maxims: “No one is above the law.”; “Commerce, by the law of nations, ought to be common, and not to be converted into a monopoly and the private gain of a few.”
2.        In commerce, truth is sovereign.  See Exodus 20:16; Psalms 117:2; John 8:32; II Cor. 13:8.  Legal maxim:  “To lie is to go against the mind.”  Oriental proverb:  “Of all that is good, sublimity is supreme.”
3.        Truth is expressed in the form of an Affidavit.  See Lev. 5:4-5; Lev. 6:3-5; Lev. 19:11-13; Num. 30:2; Matt. 5:33; James 5:12.
4.        A matter must be expressed to be resolved.   See Heb. 4:16; Phil. 4:5; Eph. 6:19-21.  Legal maxim:  “He who fails to assert his rights has none.”
5.        An unrebutted affidavit stands as truth in commerce.  See 1 Pet. 1:25; Heb. 6:13-15.  Legal maxim: “He who does not deny, admits.”
6.        An unrebutted affidavit becomes a judgment in commerce.  See Heb. 6:16-17.  Any proceeding in court, tribunal, or arbitration forum consists of a contest, or “duel,” of commercial affidavits wherein the points remaining unrebutted in the end stand as the truth and the matters to which the judgment of the law is applied.
7.        He who leaves the field of battle first (does not respond to Affidavit) loses by default.  See Book of Job; Matt 10:22.  Legal maxim:  “He who does not repel a wrong when he can occasions it.”
8.        Sacrifice is the measure of credibility.  One who is not damaged, put at risk, or willing to swear an oath on his commercial liability for the truth of his statements and legitimacy of his actions has no basis to assert claims or charges and forfeits all credibility and right to claim authority.  See Acts 7, life/death of Stephen.  Legal maxim:  “He who bears the burden ought also to derive the benefit.”
9.     A lien or claim, under commercial law, can only be satisfied by one of the following actions.  See Gen. 2-3; Matt 4; Revelation.  Legal maxim:  “If the plaintiff does not prove his case , the defendant is absolved.”
9.1.            A rebuttal Affidavit of Truth, supported by evidence, point-by-point.
9.2.            Payment.
9.3.            Agreement.
9.4.            Resolution by a jury according to the rules of common law.
10. Vigilantibus et non dormientibus serviunt leges; ‘The laws serve the vigilant, not those who sleep upon their rights.” 2 Bouv. Inst. n. 2327

Bouvier’s Maxims

(i)Culpa lata aequiparatur dolo. A concealed fault is equal to a deceit.
(ii) Ei incumbit probatio qui dicit, non qui negat. The burden of the proof lies upon him who affirms, not he who denies. Dig. 22, 3, 2; Tait on Ev. 1; 1 Phil. Ev. 194; 1 Greenl. Ev. 74; 3 Louis. R. 83; 2 Dan. Pr. 408; 4 Bouv Inst. n. 4411.
(iii) Error fucatus nud veritate in multis est probabilior; et saepenumero rationibus vincit veritatem error. Error artfully colored is in many things more probable than naked truth; and frequently error conquers truth and reasoning. 2 Co. 73.
(iv) Error qui non resistitur, approbatur. An error not resisted is approved. Doct. & Stud. c. 70.
(v) Error scribentis nocere non debet. An error made by a clerk ought not to injure; a clerical error may be corrected.
(vi) Contractus legem ex conventione accipiunt. The agreement of the parties makes the law of hte contract. Dig. 16, 3, 1, 6.
(vii) Jurato creditur in judicio. He who makes oath is to be believed in judgment.
(viii) Jus et fraudem numquam cohabitant. Right and fraud never go together.
(ix) Les fictions naissent de la loi, et non la loi des fictions. Fictions arise from the law, and not law from fictions.
(x) Manga negligentia culpa est, magna culpa dolus est. Gross negligence is a fault, gross fault is a fraud. Dig 50, 16, 226.
(xi) Peccatum peccato addit qui culpae quam facit patrocinium defensionis adjungit. He adds one offence to another, who, when he commits a crime, joins to it the protection of a defence. 5 Co. 49.
(xii) Qui melius probat, melius habet. He who proves most, recovers most. 9 Vin. Ab. 235
(xiii) Quod initio vitiosum est, non potest tractu temporis convalescere. Time cannot render valid an act void in its origin. Dig. 50, 17, 29.
(xiv) Veritas nihil veretur nisi abscondi. Truth fears nothing but concealment. 9 co. 20.
(xv) In maleficio ratihabitio mandato comparatur. He who ratifies a bad action is considered as having ordered it. Dig. 50, 17, 152, 2.
(xvi) In omnibus contractibus, sive nominatis sive innominatis, permutatio continetur. In every contract, whether nominate or innominate, there is implied a consideration.



Private & International Law



UNIDROIT PRINCIPLES OF INTERNATIONAL COMMERCIAL CONTRACTS

Article 3.8 – Fraud

A party may avoid the contract when it has been led to conclude the contract by the other party’s fraudulent representation, including language, practices, or fraudulent nondisclosure of circumstances which, according to reasonable standards of fair dealing, the latter party should have disclosed.

Article 5.1.3 – Cooperation between the parties

Each party shall cooperate with the other party when such c-operation may reasonably be expected for the performance of that party’s obligations.

Article 7.3.4 – Adequate Assurance of Due Performance

A party who reasonably believes that there will be a fundamental non-performance by the other party may meanwhile withhold its performance. Where this assurance is not provided within a reasonable time the party demanding it may terminate the contract.

Article 7.4.1 – Right to damages

Any non-performance gives the aggrieved party a right to damages either exclusively or in conjunction with any other remedies except where the non-performance is excused under these principles.

Article 7.4.2 – Full compensation

(1) The aggrieved party is entitled to full compensation for harm sustained as a result of the non-performance. Such harm includes both any loss which it suffered and any gain of which it was deprived, taking into account any gain to the aggrieved party resulting from its avoidance of cost or harm

(2) Such harm may be nonpecuniary and includes, for instance, physical suffering and emotional distress.

English Law

FRAUD ACT 2006

1 Fraud

(1) A person is guilty of fraud if he is in breach of any of the sections listed on subsection (2) (which provide for different ways of committing the offence).

(2) The sections are –

(a) section 2 (fraud by false representation),
(b) section 3 (fraud by failing to disclose information), and
(c) section 4 (fraud by abuse of position).

Allegations:

The following allegations arise from the conduct of Lien Debtor & the Agents of, indirectly and directly, in relation to any alleged agreements between the parties, having regard to the various criminal actions and public theft of the privately owned, de-registered automobile, plate number 101 FMOTL by Lien Debtor, DVLA and the Agents of said agency.

1. There is no evidence to suggest that Proof of Claim that the automobile is private property has not been established by means of an unrebutted Notice of Deregistration, Understanding and Claim of Right served and acquiesced to by Lien Debtor and DVLA on 27th April 2009 and Lien Claimant believes that no such evidence exists.
2. There is no evidence to suggest that Lien Debtor has any claim over the automobile whose plate number is 101FMOTL and Lien Claimant believes that no such evidence exists.
3. There is no evidence to suggest that by sending round agents in the manner outlined in the Notice and Demand (Affidavit) dated 10th August, 2009 to seize the automobile, Lien Debtor has not caused a breach of the peace as the Lien Claimant had previously claimed the right to possess and defend his property by any means necessary through a Notice of Understanding and Claim of Right, served and acquiesced to by the Minister of State for Transport and Lien Debtor on 27th April 2009 and Lien Claimant believes that no such evidence exists.
4. There is no evidence to suggest that Lien Debtor, through the actions of a rogue agent, has not sanctioned the use of physical violence, verbal intimidation, menacing behaviour and behaviour likely to cause grievous bodily harm and Lien Claimant believes that no such evidence exists.
5. There is no evidence to suggest that Lien Debtor has, through the actions of said agent and those aiding and abetting the crane operator, not committed a theft, assaulted a member of the public and committed an act of criminal damage and Lien Claimant believes that no such evidence exists.
6. There is no evidence to suggest that by snatching and throwing the camera phone, Lien Debtor and his agent has not tampered with the video evidence of a series of criminal actions and Lien Claimant believes that no such evidence exists.
7. There is no evidence to suggest that Lien Debtor has not forced Lien Claimant into contract and that Lien Debtor does not have the private automobile as Lien Claimant’s valuable consideration and Lien Claimant believes that no such evidence exists.
8. There is no evidence to suggest that Lien Claimant did not duly reserve the right to add his own terms and conditions to said contract and claim the right to pursue with prejudice any charge that accrues and Lien Claimant believes that no such evidence exists.
9. There is no evidence to suggest that said Terms and Conditions have not been acquiesced to by Lien Debtor are not now in force, nunc pro tunc and Lien Claimant believes that no such evidence exists.
10. There is no evidence to suggest that by behaving in this way, the Lien Debtor and his agents have not caused actual bodily harm, committed an act of theft and endangered a life (the action of lowering the crane grab onto a man peacefully attempting to protect his property from theft) and Lien Claimant believes that no such evidence exists.
11. There is no evidence to suggest that said behaviour does not render any claim by Lien Debtor void abinitio on the basis of the Maxim “A contract cannot arise out of an act radically vicious and illegal.”  - HYPERLINK "http://www.giga-usa.com/quotes/authors/legal_maxim_a001.htm" Legal Maxim, Broom's Legal Maxims (max. 734) and Lien Claimant believes that no such evidence exists.
12. There is no evidence to suggest that there was not a public notice on the automobile clearly stating that a charge would be generated if said automobile was towed away, impounded or disposed of in any way without the written expressed and Notarised consent of Lien Claimant and Lien Claimant believes that no such evidence exists.
13. There is no evidence to suggest that said notice does not further establish the Claim of Right as served directly to the Minister of State for Transport (and as the law of agent and principal applies, Lien Debtor and his agents) and the public and Lien Claimant believes that no such evidence exists.
14. There is no evidence to suggest that Lien Debtor has presented any sworn affidavits that would provide validity to his claim of the contract with Lien Claimant and it is Lien Claimant’s best and considered belief that no such evidence exists.
15. Furthermore, there are several witnesses and photographic evidence to support the claims made in this affidavit
16. There is no evidence to suggest that Lien Debtor and his agents were not offered every opportunity to discuss, negotiate and come to some resolution of the matter and that said agents did not consistently refuse this offer and Lien Claimant believes that no such evidence exists.
17 There is no evidence to suggest that the Lien Debtor’s Crane Operating agent did not lower the crane onto Lien Claimant, with the seeming and dangerous intent of intimidating Lien Claimant from the roof of the automobile and that said action is not a breach of the peace and behaviour likely to cause harm to Lien Claimant and Lien Claimant believes that no such evidence exists.
18. There is no evidence to suggest that the facts of the matter have not already been established in an Affidavit (Notice and Demand) dated 11th August 2009 and served on Lien Debtor and Lien Claimant believes that no such evidence exists.
19. There is no evidence to suggest that Lien Claimant has not claimed the right to engage in these actions and established a further claim that all property held by Lien Claimant is held under a Claim of Right and cannot be seized, confiscated or inspected without Lien Claimant’s written and notarised consent and Lien Claimant believes that no such evidence exists.
20. There is no evidence to suggest that Lien Debtor’s failure to record the information of the private automobile numbered 101 FMOTL is not an act of malfeasance in public office, and that this is not akin to fraud by false representation and Lien Claimant believes that no such evidence exists.

Proof of Allegations:

1. Lien Debtor affirms that Proof of Claim that the automobile is private property has been established by means of an unrebutted Notice of Deregistration, Understanding and Claim of Right served and acquiesced to by Lien Debtor on 27th April 2009. If no timely rebuttal it is AFFIRMED.
2. Lien Debtor affirms that he has no claim over the privately owned automobile whose plate number is 101 FMOTL. If no timely rebuttal it is AFFIRMED.
3. Lien Debtor affirms that by sending round agents in the manner outlined in the Notice and Demand (Affidavit) to seize the automobile, Lien Debtor has knowingly caused a breach of the peace as the Lien Claimant had previously claimed the right to possess and defend his property by any means necessary through a Notice of Understanding and Claim of Right, dated 27th April 2009, served and acquiesced to by Lien Debtor. If no timely rebuttal it is AFFIRMED.
4. Lien Debtor affirms that Lien Debtor, through the actions of a rogue agent, has sanctioned the use of physical violence, verbal intimidation, menacing behaviour and behaviour likely to cause grievous bodily harm. If no timely rebuttal it is AFFIRMED.
5. Lien Debtor affirms that through the actions of said agent and those aiding and abetting the crane operator, Lien Debtor has committed a theft, assaulted a member of the public and committed an act of criminal damage. If no timely rebuttal it is AFFIRMED.
6. Lien Debtor affirms that through the actions of snatching and throwing the camera phone, Lien Debtor and his agent has tampered with the video evidence of a series of criminal actions. If no timely rebuttal it is AFFIRMED.
7. Lien Debtor affirms that Lien Debtor has forced Lien Claimant into contract and that Lien Debtor has the private automobile as Lien Claimant’s valuable consideration. If no timely rebuttal it is AFFIRMED.
8. Lien Debtor affirms that Lien Claimant did duly reserve the right to add his own terms and conditions to said contract and claim the right to pursue with prejudice any charge that accrues. If no timely rebuttal it is AFFIRMED.
9. Lien Debtor affirms that said Terms and Conditions have been acquiesced to by Lien Debtor are now in force, nunc pro tunc. If no timely rebuttal it is AFFIRMED.
10. Lien Debtor affirms that by behaving in this way, the Lien Debtor and his agents have caused actual bodily harm, committed an act of theft and endangered a life (the action of lowering the crane grab onto a man peacefully attempting to protect his property from theft). If no timely rebuttal it is AFFIRMED.
11. Lien Debtor affirms that said behaviour renders any claim by Lien Debtor void abinitio on the basis of the Maxim “A contract cannot arise out of an act radically vicious and illegal.”  - HYPERLINK "http://www.giga-usa.com/quotes/authors/legal_maxim_a001.htm" Legal Maxim, Broom's Legal Maxims (max. 734). If no timely rebuttal it is AFFIRMED.
12. Lien Debtor affirms that there was a public notice on the automobile clearly stating that a charge would be generated if said automobile was towed away, impounded or disposed of in any way without the written and Notarised consent of Lien Claimant. If no timely rebuttal it is AFFIRMED.
13. Lien Debtor affirms that said notice further establishes the claim of right as served directly to the Minister of State for Transport (and as the law of agent and principal applies, Lien Debtor and his agents). If no timely rebuttal it is AFFIRMED.
14. Lien Debtor affirms that he has not presented any sworn affidavits that would provide validity to his claim of contract with Lien Claimant. If no timely rebuttal it is AFFIRMED.
15. Lien Debtor affirms that there are several witnesses and photographic evidence to support the claims made in this affidavit. If no timely rebuttal it is AFFIRMED.
16. Lien Debtor affirms that Lien Debtor and his agents were offered every opportunity to discuss, negotiate and come to some resolution of the matter and that said agents did consistently refuse this offer. If no timely rebuttal it is AFFIRMED.
17. Lien Debtor affirms that Lien Debtor’s Crane Operating agent did lower the crane onto Lien Claimant, with the seeming and dangerous intent of intimidating Lien Claimant from the roof of the automobile and that said action is a breach of the peace and behaviour likely to cause harm to Lien Claimant. If no timely rebuttal it is AFFIRMED.
18. Lien Debtor affirms that the facts of the matter have been further established in an Affidavit (Notice and Demand) dated 11th August 2009 and served on Lien Debtor. If no timely rebuttal it is AFFIRMED.
19. Lien Debtor affirms that Lien Claimant has claimed the right to engage in these actions and established a further claim that all property held by Lien Claimant is held under a Claim of Right and cannot be seized, confiscated or inspected without Lien Claimant’s written and notarised consent and that through his actions and the actions of his agents, Lien Debtor has caused loss and harm to Lien Claimant. If no timely rebuttal it is AFFIRMED.
20. Lien Debtor affirms that Lien Debtor’s failure to record the information about the private automobile numbered 101 FMOTL is an act of malfeasance in public office, and that this is akin to fraud by false representation. If no timely rebuttal it is AFFIRMED.

Ledgering:

The value of this Commercial Injury Claim against Noel Shanahan and DVLA is valued at GBP £135,460.00 (ONE HUNDRED AND THIRTY FIVE THOUSAND POUNDS STERLING) which is the total payable under the terms and conditions of the mutually agreed contract dated 22nd July 2009 up to and including the 7th December, 2009). The current administrative charge for the paperwork generated by the incident is GBP £12,000. Lien Debtor’s current consideration for impounding the automobile is GBP £55,000 which is £500 for 134 days, nunc pro tunc. The charge for the criminal actions is GBP£50,000 (£10,000 per action); the charge for transgressions by Lien Debtor and Agents is GBP £500; the charge for the imposition of the contract is GBP £5,000 and the charge for replacement vehicle hire is GBP £760.00.


Surety:

Surety for the value of this Commercial Lien is Noel Shanahan, for and on behalf of DVLA, including, without limitation, any and all of its property, products, proceeds, fittings and fixtures. If payment of GBP £135,460.00 is not received in full by Lien Claimant from Lien Debtor within the stipulated time, the public liability insurance policy of Lien Debtor will be claimed in order to satisfy any remaining value.




DECLARATION

I, Oshun: Rising, Authorised Representative for STRAWMAN™ (Lien Claimant), hereby certify upon my own unlimited commercial liability and under penalty of perjury, that I have read all of the contents of pages 1-7 of this Affidavit of Obligation, and to the very best of my knowledge, I believe that the facts expressed herein are true, correct and complete.



________________________________________________________
(Autographed in blue ink & sealed with a right thumbprint in red ink)

By: Oshun: Rising, Authorised Representative for STRAWMAN™

All Rights Reserved - Without Prejudice – Without Recourse - Non-Assumpsit
Errors & Omissions Excepted






VERIFICATION

Declared, autographed and sealed before me, _________________ , on the _______ day of the month of ________, in the year two thousand and nine.

Notary Public: Notary Seal:



Notary Public’s office location to receive responses:


Signed & Sealed By: __________________________________________


NOTICE is hereby given that the Lien Debtor has seven (7) days after receipt of this Affidavit of Obligation to rebut, deny, or otherwise prove invalid the allegations contained herein. Failure to rebut, deny or otherwise disprove any of the allegations contained herein will be construed as Lien Debtor’s affirmation that said allegations have been proven to be true, correct and complete.

Void where prohibited by law.















.




.


.

STRAWMAN™
Registered in the County Borough of Buddersfield on the 4th day of November, 1864

Our Ref: BR193422752GB

Noel Shanahan
CEO of DVLA (Debtor)
SA6 7JL


17th December, 2009.

NOTICE OF FAULT AND OPPORTUNITY TO CURE

Private and Confidential

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




TO: Noel Shanahan,

For and behalf of DVLA, you have failed to respond to to the AFFIDAVIT OF OBLIGATION served on you on 9th December, 2009 by certified Royal Mail delivery. Therefore, I hereby serve NOTICE OF FAULT & OPPORTUNITY TO CURE. For the avoidance of doubt, Noel Shanahan and DVLA has five (5) days from receipt of this document in which to deliver an appropriate response to said affidavit.

Clarification of ledgering : please refer to the enclosed invoice.

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


By: The Freeman on the land commonly known as Oshun: Rising
Authorised Representative for STRAWMAN™


All Rights Reserved – Without Prejudice – Without Recourse – Non-Assumpsit
Errors & Omissions Excepted

All correspondence should be mailed to:

c/o XX XXXXr Road, SNOTTINGHAM NG7 6LP



STRAWMAN™
Registered in the County Borough of Buddersfield on the 4th day of November, 1864

Our Ref: AG193422868GB

Noel Shanahan
CEO of DVLA (Debtor)
SA6 7JL
11th January, 2010.

NOTICE OF DEFAULT

Private and Confidential

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

TO: Noel Shanahan, For and on behalf of DVLA,

YOU ARE HEREBY NOTICED that you are in default of an opportunity to respond to the notarised AFFIDAVIT OF OBLIGATION sent to you on 9th December, 2009 by Royal Mail Recorded Delivery. You were given a further opportunity in the NOTICE OF FAULT AND OPPORTUNITY TO CURE sent to you on 17th December, 2009 and you similarly remained silent.

In ABSENCE of a response, you are hereby served this NOTICE OF DEFAULT.
WHEREAS such actions now shall be taken in accordance to the procedures set forth in the AFFIDAVIT OF OBLIGATION defaulted, I, Oshun: Rising, have personal knowledge of the above facts, am competent to testify to the above facts, and declare that the foregoing is true, correct and complete under penalty of perjury.

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


By: The Freeman on the land commonly known as Oshun: Rising
Authorised Representative for STRAWMAN™


All Rights Reserved – Without Prejudice – Without Recourse – Non-Assumpsit
Errors & Omissions Excepted

All correspondence should be mailed to:

c/o XX XXXXr Road, SNOTTINGHAM nr[NXX XX]
Oshun
 
Posts: 97
Joined: Fri Jul 24, 2009 4:26 pm

Re: The Devil and the DVLA

Postby MikeThomas » Fri Jan 15, 2010 6:05 pm

Beautifully written Oshun :yes: I wish you the very best of luck with this. BTW: Encourage your friend to pursue charges of Criminal Damage for the phone :yes:

This is another example of THEM -V- US. Looks like the gloves are off and the battle is about to begin.
We are the people our parents told us NOT TO PLAY WITH
User avatar
MikeThomas
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 1628
Joined: Sat Apr 11, 2009 1:17 pm
Location: Llanharan, South Wales

Re: The Devil and the DVLA

Postby treeman » Fri Jan 15, 2010 7:06 pm

I wish you all the best in your quest, oshun. If your ever back in your old town, look me up, it would be a pleasure to meet you.
I'll make no subscription to their paradise.

All Rights Reserved - Without Prejudice - Without Recourse - Non-Assumpsit
Errors & Omissions Excepted
User avatar
treeman
 
Posts: 2821
Joined: Sat Apr 25, 2009 2:33 pm
Location: On the Land

Re: The Devil and the DVLA

Postby mr100 » Sat Jan 16, 2010 8:42 am

inspiring my friend. and i will echo treemans comments about hooking up with you if you return to hudds. keep us all informed. good luck.
question everything, accept nothing
mr100
 
Posts: 17
Joined: Wed Jan 13, 2010 4:28 pm

Re: The Devil and the DVLA

Postby huntingross » Sat Jan 16, 2010 9:40 am

Best of luck Oshun, the Non Response will be issued shortly ??
Success nourishes hope
User avatar
huntingross
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 4324
Joined: Mon Mar 09, 2009 11:29 pm
Location: FIDACH, Near Edinburgh

Re: The Devil and the DVLA

Postby Oshun » Sun Jan 17, 2010 5:40 pm

BTW: Encourage your friend to pursue charges of Criminal Damage for the phone

Rest assured, steps are being taken to find the remedy for that particular encounter :grin: .

Looks like the gloves are off and the battle is about to begin.
I see it more as a game, albeit it one with high stakes - the fundamental freedom to travel by whatever form of transport we choose, when and wherever we like is the principle we need to focus on. Transportation and our right to travel may well be something of a 'battle' but only until we sort out the teleportation machines, eh? Maybe it's more of a game of chess than a battle?


he Non Response will be issued shortly ??
- yes indeed, HR - another visit to the notary beckons this week.

To my brothers in hudders - thank you . Good luck? The truth is the truth.

peace

Oshun :sun:

"Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law"
Oshun
 
Posts: 97
Joined: Fri Jul 24, 2009 4:26 pm

Re: The Devil and the DVLA

Postby Oshun » Thu Jan 28, 2010 6:13 pm

Hi everyone -

these are the next two of the process:

To Noel Shanahan, CEO,
for and on behalf of DVLA, the
Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency
Swansea SA6 7JL 19th January, 2010.

AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE
A Verified Plain Statement of the Facts

I, Oshun: Rising, an adult flesh and blood man of sound mind, do state unequivocally that I served the following documents on Respondent Noel Shanahan, CEO, for and on behalf of DVLA, each by Royal Mail Recorded Delivery:

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

The Respondent has subsequently failed to deliver appropriate and timely responses to any of the documents listed above, and so,

I, Oshun: Rising, competent to witness and with firsthand knowledge do say that on the 8th day of December, 2009, I did cause to be mailed via Royal Mail Recorded Delivery, postage prepaid (Ref. ZW258183166GB) to the above recipient, Noel Shanahan, the Affidavit of Obligation (Commercial Lien), bearing a duty to respond, all of which sought a stipulation in respect of the contents therein.

On my own unlimited commercial liability, I do affirm and say that there has been no response to the Affidavit of Obligation (Commercial Lien) and believe there is no evidence that a lawful rebuttal exists.

Whereas in the Affidavit of Obligation it clearly states:

“NOTICE is hereby given that the Lien Debtor has seven (7) days after receipt of this Affidavit of Obligation to rebut, deny, or otherwise prove invalid the allegations contained herein. Failure to rebut, deny or otherwise disprove any of the allegations contained herein will be construed as Lien Debtor’s affirmation that said allegations have been proven to be true, correct and complete.”

There is no evidence that a lawful dispute of claims as described has been entered into and that the agreement of all parties has not been acquired by acquiescence and I believe none exists.

AFFIRMATION I hereby affirm and declare upon my own unlimited commercial liability and under penalty of perjury, that the foregoing is true, complete and correct, and not misleading.

____________ _____________________________

By: Oshun: Rising [Seal] (note - thumbprint in red ink)
Secured Party Creditor to & Authorised Representative for (Lien Claimant)
STRAWMAN™ (& all derivatives thereof)

All Rights Reserved – Without Recourse – Non-Assumpsit - Errors & Omissions Excepted

c/o XX XXX ROAD, SNOTTINGHAM nr[NGX XXX]
Oshun
 
Posts: 97
Joined: Fri Jul 24, 2009 4:26 pm

Re: The Devil and the DVLA

Postby Oshun » Thu Jan 28, 2010 6:17 pm

CERTIFICATE OF NON-RESPONSE.
Notice to agent is notice to principal
Notice to principal is notice to agent

VERIFICATION

To the best of my knowledge, on the 8th day of December, 2009 , Noel Shanahan, CEO of DVLA(RESPONDENT), was sent an AFFIDAVIT OF OBLIGATION (COMMERCIAL LIEN) by Royal Mail Special Delivery (Ref. ZW258183166GB). My records show that no response has been forthcoming from RESPONDENT or any of its principals, agents and the like, thereby comprising the tacit procuration of RESPONDENT’S agreement that none of the facts contained therein are in dispute.

Therefore, pursuant to RESPONDENT’S failure to rebut the claims made in the AFFIDAVIT OF OBLIGATION, the allegations contained therein are sustained on the grounds that RESPONDENT had a duty to respond and elected not to.

This CERTIFICATE OF NON-RESPONSE reflects the verity that I have first hand knowledge of the facts pertaining to this matter; to wit, that RESPONDENT failed to respond to AFFIDAVIT OF OBLIGATION, thereby affirming the facts and/or allegations contained therein.

Wherefore, I now witness this CERTIFICATE OF NON-RESPONSE.

Affirmed, autographed and sealed before me, _________________, on the ___day of the month of January, in the year two thousand and ten.


Signed: _______ NOTARY PUBLIC SEAL




Notary Public Name & Office Address:






Use of a Notary Public is for attestation and verification purposes only and does not constitute a change in the true nature, character and standing of Claimant. This document may be used in a Judicial Proceeding.


Namaste

Oshun :sun:

"If you look into the eye of the Buddha, be prepared to find everything and at ONCE nothing."
Oshun
 
Posts: 97
Joined: Fri Jul 24, 2009 4:26 pm

Re: The Devil and the DVLA

Postby madscotbiker » Thu Feb 11, 2010 1:01 am

Hi Oshun, respect to you and yours, thoughts on what has happened, firstly have you reported the Hiab operator to the Heath and Safety Executive for his dangerous working habits around the general public, i have an operators cert he was way out of order, H+S at work ACT act and omissions, secondly as i have done the same as many on these sites i have d'reg'd my conveyance from the DVLA, did you still have minimum third party insurance cover on your conveyance, the reason i am asking is, i have had no problems to date with any police traffic or local, been tailed by both and not been pulled to date and i am wondering if the reason is i have insurance full comp, still had 6 months cover when i started this, informed DVLA, goverment and insurance to amend the prefix plates so they would be detailed on ins cover, insuance man was very interested and took notes on my explanation to him, and as pleasuredome's thread mentioned he only has to show insu cover to get his conveyance returned, so I'm wondering if conveyances have insurance cover will PTB leave be, just had a thought as i have full comp will they supply legal cover when and if the PTB steal my conveyance mmmmmmmm
madscotbiker
 
Posts: 17
Joined: Mon Jan 04, 2010 11:27 am

Next

Return to Motoring issues

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron