Driving without a licence

Re: Driving without a licence

Postby huntingross » Mon May 13, 2013 12:16 pm

Dreadlock wrote:Just logic.

People have been driving for millennia. The driving license was not introduced until 1944...


I will try to post more on this tonight, but the driving licence was introduced in the 1903 Motor Car Act.
Success nourishes hope
User avatar
huntingross
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 4324
Joined: Mon Mar 09, 2009 11:29 pm
Location: FIDACH, Near Edinburgh

Re: Driving without a licence

Postby musashi » Mon May 13, 2013 1:29 pm

You do not own the roads, They do, and your common law right of travel is not affected by Their conditions of use of the road. Their roads, and if they say you need certain things in order to use Their roads, well,,,,,,,,,

This is my home and if you want to be here, use the amenities here, then you must obey the conditions, implied or expressed, that I lay down for its use. Failure to abide by these conditions means that you will be turfed out and stay out until you do. I don't fine you, but I do apply sanctions.

i may invite you, or any constable, into my home, and you have a right to do certaion things while there. If I uninvite you and you do not leave then the implied or expressed right to be there becomes a trespass ab initio.

They own the roads and Their conditions of use are that you have a license, M.o.T, insurance, obey the Road Traffic Act and accept and abide by the duties assigned to you - including the duty of care.

They can do this because, through ownership, they have common law rights over Their property. Infractions of road traffic, parking etc etc, are trespasses ab intio when you convert your implied right of use (Gained by accepting and adhering to Their conditions of use)into a trespass when you fail to adhere to Their conditions of use. They just do not say it in that way. And there need be no actual damage committed - injuria sine damnus. Trespass is actionable per se, and there is no need to prove damage.

This why veronica could be threatened with arrest for trespass when she was in a "PUBLIC AREA". All public areas are priately owned and are subject to the laws of trespass, and you/we have only a conditional right of use.

If you are there for an unlawful purpose (Vagrancy Act) then your presence is an act of trespass.

So, if you want to run around in Their yard, you gotta stick to Their rules.

I am willing to be corrected on this.

M
It's still fucked, isn't it?
User avatar
musashi
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 1154
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 6:21 pm

Re: Driving without a licence

Postby Dreadlock » Mon May 13, 2013 3:26 pm

Not sure where I got 1944 from. :thinks: Anyway, the year is largely irrelevant, the point is that the license "requirement" is relatively recent.

I have not paid "road tax" correctly called "vehicle excise duty" for over two years. I have standard registration plates because not having them causes too much grief from ignorant police officers. I do not display a tax disc. I do not have an MOT but service the car regularly. I lost my driver's license years ago. I have not been stopped once in this period. I do not pay parking tickets or speeding tickets, not that I drive at an unreasonable speed anyway or park in stupid places.

I get away with it because I understand how the system works and I made it perfectly clear to the DVLA that I understand it. I have informed them that I do not use the highways under title or license or as an agent of government, but as a man of inherent jurisdiction. They threatened me with debt collectors for non payment of excise duty bla bla bla - I threatened them with an extortion case if they sent debt collectors without first proving their claim. Their threats stopped and now they refuse to correspond with me. Cry me a river. :giggle:

Look up the legal definitions for "Vehicle, Excise, Duty, Driver and Passenger" then check schedule 2 part 3 of the VERA (vehicle excise registration act 1994). All should become clear. If people would simply read the legislation and understand what it says the DVLA would loose millions in revenue.
Dreadlock
 
Posts: 453
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2011 9:08 am

Re: Driving without a licence

Postby Dreadlock » Mon May 13, 2013 4:10 pm

They are not "their" roads they are "our" roads. They are the "Queen's highways" meaning they are under her protection, for our use. Many roads in this country predate the country itself, the Icknield Way for example.

As people we have a common law right to use the highways without let or hindrance. It is a god-given right, a natural law right and is even protected in our constitution via the Union with Scotland Act.

The right to travel is very nearly synonymous with the right to live. Try living without moving, pretty difficult. Do animals need a license to travel? So why should we? Certain animals have public highways too... we call them trails.

The government assumes we are driving on their behalf at all times. If you want to drive for the government you need a government driver's license. Not unreasonable. Registration plates mean the vehicle is registered to be used in government service. When you get pulled for speeding or not displaying a tax disc this assumption is at play. The police see a registered vehicle and ask you for your license. Both the registration plates and license are evidence for their assumption that you are driving on behalf of the state.

They are EVIDENCE not PROOF.

If you do not rebut their assumption you are liable for any penalties you may incur for breaking their rules. You could however say, "Yes the car is registered but is not currently being used in government service." and, "Yes I have a license, but I am not currently using it." Their assumption is now rebutted and you are no longer liable for breaking their rules. You are outside their jurisdiction.

I've used this argument to fight PCNs numerous times. I have 100% success rate even when they produce photographic evidence. You can not photograph jurisdiction.
Dreadlock
 
Posts: 453
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2011 9:08 am

Re: Driving without a licence

Postby musashi » Mon May 13, 2013 4:25 pm

DVLA is an executive agency of the Ministry of Transport whose sole responsibility is to mainatin a database of all vehicles.

The DVLA is incorrectly assumed to endorse driving licences with penalty points. DVLA has no legal power to convict a motorist of a driving offence. If the licence is surrendered to the police for an endorsable offence, it is sent to the magistrates court in the county the offence was committed in, endorsed, and returned to the driver.

DVLA's database is updated electronically by the magistrates court and will only request the licence if the driver has failed to produce it to the magistrates, either through the police, a fixed penalty ticket, or summons.

A driving licence is an official document which states that a person may operate a motorised vehicle, such as a motorcycle, car, truck or a bus, on a public roadway.

I am still willing to be corrected on laws of, and rights over, property. Or, alternatively, that roads adopted, built, maintained by the counci,l cannot be subjected to council conditions of use. The very fact that they have to take us to court to have the "contractual" payment (as the coucil man from Scarbourough called it) of the parking "fine" made a legal order, tells us that it is a civil debt. The term "fine" is misleading in this context.

Honesty would call it a penalty clause enactment for contractual default. In this connection, be glad that you are in equity and have a strawman, for contractual default in common law is brutal, it rapes you, whereas equity allows only the recovery of the immediate loss. No-one may gain more than he has lost, in equity. The loss here is the designated value they place on you being licenced to 'cause an obstruction on another's property' (the highway) when you remain stationary for 'a time'.

If there is a remedy for these fines then it is probably in the right to pas and re-pass and, as my little brother Prajna said, to hang about for a while. I paraphrase, of course,and would add "For legitimate purposes". This hanging about is necessary to conduct legitimate business, and is recognised in law.
The questions are, then,
"How Long is legitimate hanging around?" Perhaps some case law research in loitering prosecutions would help in establishing a 'reasonable time'. Then, perhaps, councils could be made to withhold charges until motorists had, say, half an hour to conduct legitimate business and move on. After that reasonable time then they may enact penalty clause payments.

"Have the council handily by-passed this equitable right of the common man and now charge payment for what was, and possibly still is, a (necessary) right common to all men?

Answers to the above may lead to a successful legal challenge on the councils' right to meter equitable rights and remove ancient custom, tradition and the necessary hanging around so vital to commerce. Have we not heard local shopkeeepers complain that business dropped when charges are introduced, or raised? Restraint of trade.

It's entirely likely that the brains who came up with meter charges etc knew nothing about this right and inadvertantly overturned it.

To prevent 'hanging around'' would be in restraint of trade and could never be implemented, but we could kid people on that they now have to pay for it! They do not now the laws of their fathers. They have been neglectful and sel-obsessed. We shall meter their rights and charge them accordingly.

M
It's still fucked, isn't it?
User avatar
musashi
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 1154
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 6:21 pm

Re: Driving without a licence

Postby Dreadlock » Mon May 13, 2013 4:55 pm

A driving licence is an official document which states that a person may operate a motorised vehicle, such as a motorcycle, car, truck or a bus, on a public roadway.


If you added "on behalf of the government (or state)" to the end of your sentence I would agree. No one needs permission to use a a vehicle, motorised or not, on the public highway for their own purposes.
A driving licence should properly be called a "government or state driving licence" but then that would be giving the game away.

I am still willing to be corrected on laws of, and rights over, property. Or, alternatively, that roads adopted, built, maintained by the counci,l cannot be subjected to council conditions of use.


The question is, to whom do the conditions apply? They apply to persons acting under title or licence or as agents or employees of the state. Such persons are subject to statute.
They do not apply to people who are simply being people. People are subject to the Law of the Land which is the common law. The councils have used OUR land to build/maintain the highways. We owe them nothing.

It's all about jurisdiction.
Dreadlock
 
Posts: 453
Joined: Sat Oct 01, 2011 9:08 am

Re: Driving without a licence

Postby huntingross » Mon May 13, 2013 10:01 pm

I won’t attempt to assemble these quotes into some fancy stream of consciousness, suffice to say the notion of government or other authority ownership of the land as a higher claim than those indigineous inhabitants is a prposition without foundation.

Pulling someone off the streets for tresspass is just another example of rule by force, to which all governments have a monopoly, it does not define or prove property ownership of the public place.

A traveller is entitled to stop on the King's Highway for so long as is necessary for the purposes of his journey. [Rodgers v Ministry of Transport [1952] 1 All ER 634.]


Acts of Union Articles 4 and 25

“all the Subjects of the United Kingdom of Great Britain shall……have full Freedom…… to and from any port or place within the said United Kingdom……”

“all Laws and Statutes in either Kingdom so far as they are contrary to or inconsistent with the Terms of these Articles ……shall from and after the Union cease and become void”



Wills J. said in regard to public right of passage "The only 'dedication' in the legal sense that we are aware of is that of a public right of passage, of which the legal
description is a 'right for all Her Majesty's subjects at all seasons of the year freely
and at their will to pass and re-pass without let or hindrance.' ". Ex parte Lewis
(1888) 21 Q.B.D. 191.


Lord Slynn reiterated Ex parte Lewis (1888) 21 Q.B.D. 191 Wills J. said that a public right of passage is a "right for all Her Majesty's subjects at all seasons of the year freely and at their will to pass and re-pass without let or hindrance.". DPP v. Jones and Another [1999].


Lord Evershed M.R. said, at p. 259: "The rights of members of the public to use the highway are, prima facie, rights of passage to and from places which the highway adjoins;”. Randall v. Tarrant [1955] 1 W.L.R. 255.


The Law of Nations or the Principles of Natural Law (Emmerich de Vattel. 1758) Book 1 – Chapter 9.
104. For the division of lands, and their becoming private property, could never deprive any man of the right of passage, when not the least injury is done to the person through whose territory he passes. Every man inherits this right from nature, and cannot justly be forced to purchase it.


Performance – Public Policy Doctrine.
The social contract is an intellectual device intended to explain the appropriate relationship between individuals and their governments. Social contract arguments assert that individuals unite into political societies by a process of mutual consent, agreeing to abide by common rules and accept corresponding duties to protect themselves and one another from violence and other kinds of harm. (Refer also The Law of Nations)

The theory of an implicit social contract holds that by remaining in the territory controlled by some society, which usually has a government, people give consent to join that society and be governed by its government, if any. This consent is what gives legitimacy to such government. Philosopher Roderick Long argues that this is a case of “question begging”, because the argument has to presuppose its conclusion:

I think that the person who makes this argument is already assuming that the government has some legitimate jurisdiction over this territory. And then they say, well, now, anyone who is in the territory is therefore agreeing to the prevailing rules. But they’re assuming the very thing they're trying to prove – namely that this jurisdiction over the territory is legitimate. If it's not, then the government is just one more group of people living in this broad general geographical territory. But I've got my property, and exactly what their arrangements are I don't know, but here I am in my property and they don't own it – at least they haven't given me any argument that they do – and so, the fact that I am living in "this country" means I am living in a certain geographical region that they have certain pretensions over – but the question is whether those pretensions are legitimate. You can’t assume it as a means to proving it.


Licensing, Permits, Registration and Certification.
It is the Crowns’ contention that the act of driving can only be lawful when done with the appropriate crown issued ‘licences and certificates’ – that the act of driving without these crown issued ‘licences and certificates’ is criminal – that driving is “in itself a criminal act”.

In delivering the judgment of the Court of Criminal Appeal Swift J, said “If an act is unlawful in the sense of being in itself a criminal act, it is plain that it cannot be rendered lawful because the person to whose detriment it is done consents to it. No person can license another to commit a crime.” Regina v Donovan [1934] 2 KB 498 at 507, [1934] All ER Rep 207 at 210.


The very fact that the Crown licences people to exercise their right of passage to pass and re-pass is prima facie that the act can not ‘in itself’ be a criminal act. It is merely a prohibited act ‘mallum prohibitum’.

“Thoughtful political and legal scholars have long recognized that jurisdiction requires much more than brute force assertion: it requires some kind of consent of the governed. Legal scholar Lysander Spooner long ago debunked the idea that government is a "social contract" that you and I actually agreed to abide by. Neither you nor I have ever agreed to any such thing by any process resembling that of formation in contract law.”

Spooner argued that men and women have 'natural rights' that can not be taken away by one person or a group -just because they happen to win an election. This applies regardless of whether the usurpation is 'committed by one man, calling himself a robber ... or by millions, calling themselves a government'

Success nourishes hope
User avatar
huntingross
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 4324
Joined: Mon Mar 09, 2009 11:29 pm
Location: FIDACH, Near Edinburgh

Re: Driving without a licencepublic roads.

Postby musashi » Tue May 14, 2013 12:00 pm

I give up. Just not getting through. It is not about your right to travel. That is not, and never has been the issue. Can we leave that behind? You may have a right to eat food - but not at my table unless I say so.
The issue is about ownership of the roads. If they own them they can issue any terms&conditions they like.

Show me your proof that they do not own the roads. Please do not rely on "Just logic" for your answer.

My conention that they own the roads is supported by records of public roads being adopted by local councils. This involves the transfer of property. Posession and title equals ownership.

The first license to drive a motor vehicle was issued to Karl Benz, in 1888. Because the noise and smell of his Motorwagen resulted in complaints by the citizens of Mannheim. Compaints of trespass. His right to travel was not the issue, but the trespass on public highways by reseason of the noise, the smoke and the smell was - all acts of trespass. And public nuisance.
Benz requested and received written permission by the Grand Ducal authorities to operate his car on public roads.

It is the very common law you cry for that requires us to have a license to drive a mechanically powered vehicle on public roads. Terms & conditions - terms & conditions of use.


M
It's still fucked, isn't it?
User avatar
musashi
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 1154
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2009 6:21 pm

Re: Driving without a licence

Postby huntingross » Tue May 14, 2013 9:19 pm

When the people transferred their property into the public body trust for their communal benefit, I doubt they wanted or expected the trustees to punish them for using the public property as they wanted to. It's not an argument of logic, it's fact. Local Authorities were created to administer for the common good. The trust owns the property (which is your point) but they do not have the right to punish the beneficiaries of the trust for enjoying the benefits provided under the trust. This I believe expresses the trust.

Local Authorities 'adopt' roads is a telling phrase. Mum and Dad have a child which is then adopted by 'others' to care for....it's not an exact analogy, but close enough.

Oh, and the requirement for a licence was by an Act not common law (at least in the UK). The Swift J quote above couldn't make it clearer. THEY can not licence an act which is of itself criminal....travelling by what ever means prior to 1903 was not criminal and can not be made criminal by the requirement to hold a licence. Once applied and given the licence ties you to ALL the things you say. This I do not dispute.
Success nourishes hope
User avatar
huntingross
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 4324
Joined: Mon Mar 09, 2009 11:29 pm
Location: FIDACH, Near Edinburgh

Re: Driving without a licence

Postby pedawson » Tue May 14, 2013 9:35 pm

Hi guys,
A good debate and one that I think is of importance. Ownership of roads may be able to be proven but do the records show that it was done with full consent and were the benefactors remunerated or rewarded for the transfer, if in deed it was a transfer.

I see things in simple terms and in this it we we the people who provided the funding, the manpower and the materials, we also fund the management and the authority of those who, presumably, give us permission. Without OUR funding there would be no authority, save gangs of thugs, having said that ...

Laws as we all know are not laws to prevent crime or prevent road use they are there to punish. There are no laws that state one will get an award for being a good traveller or road user, just ones that state if you get caught doing something the law says you shouldn't do you will be punished.

They do however document highway etiquette, AND there are more laws than just the RTA many more and ALL are by far better and more sensible than the RTA.

Namaste, rev phil;
Don't be surprised to discover that luck favours those who are prepared
User avatar
pedawson
Moderator
Moderator
 
Posts: 1124
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 6:17 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Frequently Asked Questions

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests