Page 4 of 6

Re: De-registering car nonsense...

PostPosted: Thu Mar 16, 2017 12:00 am
by Dreadlock
Hi iamani,

No complement was intended, it was simply a statement of facts as I determine them. Likewise I in no way intended to illicit an egoic response from you. How you
choose to respond to another's post is entirely up to you and completely beyond my control - though your presumption that I was complementing you does seem a child born of ego.

I wish your response to my post, dated Mon Mar 13, had been an honest one. Instead, having failed in your deception, you chose to bring the topic to
an end by agreeing to disagree and thereby keeping the deception intact for those without the discernment to see it. An honest and intelligent man would have accepted the truth put before him and admitted he was wrong. Unfortunately only one of the aforementioned characteristics applies to you.

I truly wish you the best of luck with your development - though you really should try another path. The one you currently follow leads to a light that blinds.

Re: De-registering car nonsense...

PostPosted: Sun Mar 19, 2017 1:50 pm
by cassandra
iamani wrote:Hi dreadlock

Logically, everything is at least two things simultaneously. If you prefer an established physics theory, check out Schroedinger’s cat....


This is incorrect.
In quantum physics a particle has the capacity to be two things, but not simultaneously. It was observed that if an observer looked for a wave - he found a wave. If he looked for a particle - he found a particle. It was either or - not both at the same time. Hence they conceived the term WAVICLE to describe the inchoate form of the potential.
In the matter of Schroedinger's cat - an idea he took from Wittgenstein, by the way, who talked about a beetle in a box and which was itself taken by Wittgenstein from Descartes - the hypothetical cat had the capacity, or possibility, of being either alive or dead. This was the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle - the observer affects the observed - we don't know for certain until we look, and it's only when we look that the fixed state comes into being. Until we look, there is no fixed state, only a possibility of one. When it was a particle it was a particle. When it was a wave it was a wave. It never was, and cannot ever be, both simultaneously.

As Tennyson said
The hills are shadows, and they flow
From form to form, and nothing stands;
They melt like mist, the solid lands,
Like clouds they shape themselves and go.

Re: De-registering car nonsense...

PostPosted: Sun Mar 19, 2017 4:32 pm
by iamani
Hi cassandra

You may not believe this but - no s#!t - i'm glad to see you back. i was starting to miss your contributions.

Thanks for the well-reasoned rebuttal to my statement. i won't argue with what you've written as i believe it to be truth as best we know it, although i will point out that i was actually thinking of the conclusion they reached with that experiment.

My take on the conclusion is that they were saying the cat must be one or the other (ie. alive or dead), and that as it was impossible to reasonably assume it was neither, and that they could not correctly assume one state over the other (would only be a guess at best - unscientific assumption) the only possibly correct assumption they could make is that it is BOTH simultaneously. If i am verifiably incorrect in my view, i hope you will accept it is offered in good faith and not an attempt to deceive my fellow man, and maybe you can offer correction in the same good faith.

To be honest though i am starting to question the validity of quantum theory (which is a shame as i have enjoyed it) for several reasons, one of which is that it seems like a face-saving cop-out on the part of the scientists.

i also wrote 'logically everything is at least two things simultaneously'. As it is my view that in this realm of 3D existence we find ourselves in we exist in 'duality'. Again, opinion, but it seems to stand under logic as far as i can tell.


Re: De-registering car nonsense...

PostPosted: Mon Mar 20, 2017 1:18 pm
by cassandra
I'm not back - not as such. I'm far too busy. I just popped in to look for a moment and saw the physics and I wanted to comment.
Naseem Haramein. You tube his Black Whole.

Einstein hated Quantum physics but it was his work which created the possibility of the theory being produced. His own work - The General Theory of Relativity is fundamentally flawed. His theory requires that the speed of light be constant. If it isn't then the theory fails. In his theory, light is affected by gravity - which demonstrates that light has mass - and a thing affected by gravity is subject to changes in velocity. The speed of light, according to his own theory, cannot therefore be constant. He knew this, but his theory demanded a constant speed for light so he ignored himself and gave it it. One thing cannot be two things simultaneously. Light has mass - or light-speed is constant.
The Doppler Effect demonstrates conclusively that light has mass, experiences velocity changes and that the fundamentals of Einstein's GTR are flawed. Look at the Red Shift in astronomy. Light coming to us is blue. Light going away is red. The Red Shift tells us which way a distant star is rotating and whether it is travelling away or towards us.
The movement creates a change in light-wave frequency.

Re: De-registering car nonsense...

PostPosted: Tue Apr 25, 2017 12:14 pm
by iamani

Firstly a response re light speed. It is my belief that light is an expression of mass rather than a mass-bearing entity in its own right. i believe light is induced rather than propagated. Light has no mass. If it appears to be affected by the theoretical force of gravity it is actually the medium which is being affected. The speed of light is constant according to the medium it is travelling through. Change the medium you may change the speed.

The term 'speed of light' is itself fallacious as it is not being propagated but induced - the correct term in that instance would be 'rate of induction'. So how fast does light express? It expresses at the same rate as 'now' does, impossible to do otherwise. ..


So... i have found two possible ways of de-registering a car. We all know the plod will still harass you and probably steal it, but i was wondering if there was ANY specific legislation they could use to LEGALLY bother you or defend themselves with once they have bothered you?

How is a car without a registered keeper viewed? Presumably they can't prosecute a man who refuses to claim personhood. Nobody is accepting liability for the 'legals' so no 'person' to ticket and charge. No-one to send demands for VED to. If it is not registered to a person, then presumably the state/crown has no claim to ownership over it. So what legislation do they use to stop you? When the ANPR spots the car, they know it's not registered.

Also, has anyone successfully reclaimed their car (without submitting to their system/payment demands)? i never did find out how Peter of england got his camper back, nor if prajna and kaz got theirs. i don't think allegedly dave got his car back.

Is anyone prepared to post a success story?

i'm hoping someone might enlighten me on any of this - don't be shy!


Re: De-registering car nonsense...

PostPosted: Wed Apr 26, 2017 8:52 am
by Dreadlock
I've posted on this many times in the past. The driver's licencse is not permission to drive - everyone has the right to drive. It is permission to drive on behalf of the UK government.

Vehicle registration names the person, for which you work as master or mistress, as the keeper of the vehicle. As the person is the property of the UK government, specifically the Crown Corporation, the government has the right to remove the vehicle if the person violates government policy.

If you attempt to de-register your vehicle, while remaining an employee of the person (and by extension the government), you're simply going to get in trouble because as an employee you are, voluntarily, subject to UK rules - which require you to register your vehicle.

If you wish to de-register your vehicle successfully you must stop acting as a government employee. There are consequences. If you are not aware of them - particularly the negative ones - don't do it!

Re: De-registering car nonsense...

PostPosted: Wed Apr 26, 2017 9:55 pm
by iamani
Hi dreadlock

Thanks for your reply, i agree with everything in it.

So if the car has been lawfully de-registered and T.H.E.Y. come across it is there any specific legislation they can use to justify interfering with it given that there is no 'person' attached to it?


Re: De-registering car nonsense...

PostPosted: Thu Apr 27, 2017 7:04 am
by Dreadlock
I have no idea. Any laws concerning dangerous driving, causing traffic congestion by inconsiderate parking etc. would still apply.

Re: De-registering car nonsense...

PostPosted: Fri Apr 28, 2017 1:36 pm
by iamani
Hi dreadlock

OK, thanks anyway.


Re: De-registering car nonsense...

PostPosted: Wed May 17, 2017 2:43 pm
by iamani

Just a summary of my current thinking on this subject and some questions...

Living man (john-james:doe) works, converts labour into owning a car, owns a car. He then signs (as settler/grantor) a unilateral contract (a la V5) by which he transfers ownership of car to his Crown-created (and therefore Crown-owned) Estate made up in a name (JOHN JAMES DOE) that looks enough like his own name that he thinks it is the same. He no longer owns car.

The V5 instructs the living man to fill in the details in a very specific way. T.H.E.Y. are telling you without actually telling you that this is to be seen as a legally-binding document aka contract/trust/agreement. A trust if i'm seeing it right, a Universal Constructive Contract sort of trust (i'm guessing). You are told to use black ink (contract) in ALL CAPS (person-al business contract).

At the same time on the same form with the same (unqualified) signature, still acting as settler/grantor, he also appoints his 'person' (Mr Doe) as trustee, the DVLA (corporation responsible for registry and title transfers of 'vehicles') as Executor and the Crown as beneficiary.

See what can happen when you sign in ignorance? He voluntarily handed over ownership of his car to become an un-compensated trustee, holding legal title (liability) with no rights.

Is there a way to circumvent this situation, or extricate yourself from it? i don't know, but....

What if you fill in the V5 in blue ink? In proper English (not ALL CAPS)? With a qualified signature?
ie Without prejudice, UCC 1-308
john-james:Doe A.R.
All rights reserved

Photocopied, photographed, (maybe even notarised?) and sent registered post (special delivery - vital!). Perhaps a covering Notice too.

Will this protect you from statutes? i don't know anyone who's tried it yet, so i can't say. Maybe rob sproule (yt rob:ess) would like to try it with his camper? Hope he does and i wish him luck, he's a good man.

So what if you have already registered yourself, sorry, your 'person' as keeper? All you have to remember is.....