"practical lawful dissent" fmotl advisory group

[notorial dissent]

That is truly an idiot's idiot. I don't know how they do it in the UK, but here that would net said idiot a felony car theft charge, and most likely conviction, the rest depending on the situation and prior history could go either way. I do think this fool is looking to do some serious jail time though, and I also think he needs to. I would suspect the car is gone as well regardless.

[ArthurWankspittle]

Theft Act 1968 section 12:
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1968/60/section/12

So I guess they have that covered.

Certainly does.

...the owner or other lawful authority...

[ArthurWankspittle]

... I don't know how they do it in the UK, but here that would net said idiot a felony car theft charge...

The UK is pretty lenient on car theft as the law regarding theft requires intent to permanently deprive the owner of the vehicle. If I nick a car and drive it somewhere then abandon it, I don't meet the "permanently deprive" element of theft. Besides it has a number (license) plate and VIN numbers on it so it is easy to trace back to the owner. If I have nicked it and removed all the ID numbers and put it in a container marked permanent export to Bananaland, any queries phone Arthur Wankspittle, I'll get charged with theft. Hence the UK has "Taking Without the Owner's Consent" (TWOC) as a lesser crime. Regular car nicking scumbags were known as TWOCers (hard "c" like a "k") and the crime known as TWOCing.

[SteveUK]

Can they get an arrest warrant for me ?

Answers on a postcard (addressed to 25 Barons)

[TheNewSaint]

The UK is pretty lenient on car theft as the law regarding theft requires intent to permanently deprive the owner of the vehicle.

It seems to me that this would qualify as theft. The bailiff is the rightful owner in this scenario, and I think it would be easy to prove that the car's former owner intends to permanently deprive them of it. Especially when they've posted their motivations to the Internet.

[ArthurWankspittle]

The UK is pretty lenient on car theft as the law regarding theft requires intent to permanently deprive the owner of the vehicle.

It seems to me that this would qualify as theft. The bailiff is the rightful owner in this scenario, and I think it would be easy to prove that the car's former owner intends to permanently deprive them of it. Especially when they've posted their motivations to the Internet.

You would think so but it is so much easier to prove TWOCing than theft.

[exiledscouser]

And another lot of no ins tax or MOT, like shelling peas for the traffic plods.

The op who thinks LR is the answer to the Road Traffic and theft acts is encouraged by this lot, after all, like, cars weren't about when the MC was drafted so it's all corrupt innit.

Call me a radical thinker but I don't want to be stuck with a 13th century feudal legal system forever without the law being able to adapt and evolve to suit the zeitgeist.

I've read through the posts over there: Dave R (if you believe him) goes from strength to strength, winning on all fronts both personally and for his 'clients'.

Then there's the rest who all fail because - well - it's their own fault - they're doing it wrong. Anyway, all courts are fake and corrupt and can't do shit to you. Even if they do we'll pay them back, oh yes.

Yeah you lot - do your research!

Sadly our Baltic Beauty seems likely to join the latter camp along with our pot smoking road rebel and Crab Bait, no stranger to C wing himself it seems.

My advice? Cut out this crap unless you wish to become intimately acquainted with Big Bubba whilst you serve your 28 days for CT rebellion, disqual driving or TWOC, outcomes that ultimately serve no purpose other than entertainment value.

Dave Robinson poses an open letter to TC to the effect that, if he had gone down the LR route at the outset, did he think he'd still be in his bungalow right now.

Answers on a postcard please.

[AndyPandy]

This is the reply when someone suggests he try tax and insurance

Steven Garth
Try getting tax and insurance ?
LikeHide · Today at 01:37

Alan Stanley
Why ? theres two laws in this country one common law one Admiralty law. Common everybody stands under "crown court" now theres admiralty law "Magistrates Court" civil etc.. crown court was put in place for the rite reasons. Magistrates are there to extract money from you and you are governed by consent. In common law an don't take my word for it go look it up yourself. No law can be placed over common law "basically my terms" but what have there done placed admiralty law over the top which is high treason in itself. So that's why it's governed by consent. So if you consent you're committing treason and plus Play paying fines taxes points on your licence etc. This is a quick break down for you. You need to do your own research. So back to your question try getting tax and insurance.... lol Edited · LikeHide · 1 hour ago

Who's putting money on jail time for this joker??

[longdog]

Somebody really should tell these losers that treason is and always has been a statute offence. There's no common-law offence of treason and therefore, by their standards, there's no such thing.

[exiledscouser]

Somebody really should tell these losers that treason is and always has been a statute offence. There's no common-law offence of treason and therefore, by their standards, there's no such thing.

Ah but! The Treason Act 1795 section 6 allows Treason to be tried at Common Law! Hurray!!!

Repeat ad nauseum.

Bad news - the Act was repealed in 1998. Boo!

But all Acts are in and of themselves treasonous. Hurray!!!11!!!

David Robinson admits that he was a long time mod on FMOTL, the now largely defunct site started by Veronica Chapman. Claims to have flogged a grands worth of her tedious book from the back of a lorry (what is it with footle types and 7.5 tonners?). He jumped ship and took with him the next development on essentially the same thing: LR. Their aims are much the same tho - Wolfie Smith stoner revolutionaries more bothered about dodging taxes, running up debt on credit cards they've no intention of repaying and driving about uninsured.

There's a line in a song by the Jam comes to mind:

"What a catalyst you turned out to be, loaded the guns then run off home for your tea".

[ArthurWankspittle]

Who's putting money on jail time for this joker??

Not jail time but he should be good for several car seizings.

[JimUk1]

Today on PLD, they are showcasing their wins in an act of defiance for the doubters!

Ladies and gentlemen I give you documented proof that article 61 means you er, don't have to pay for a tv license?

https://m.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=4 ... 8&__tn__=R

[longdog]

Today on PLD, they are showcasing their wins in an act of defiance for the doubters!

Ladies and gentlemen I give you documented proof that article 61 means you er, don't have to pay for a tv license?

https://m.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=4 ... 8&__tn__=R

Hmmm... Looks like he made a phone call... What a waste of time. I just throw TVL letters straight in the bin and that works just as well.

[SteveUK]

Now the rebels are considering if the whack jobs at Cocoa Interspace are the way forward. Of course, David doesn't like any competing woo woo remedies.




For anyone not familiar with Cocoa Interspace, linky below. The bankrupting of IDS is quite amusing.

http://www.cocoainterspace.com

[longdog]

For anyone not familiar with Cocoa Interspace, linky below. The bankrupting of IDS is quite amusing.

http://www.cocoainterspace.com

ARRRRRGH!!!! MY EYES!!!!

[SteveUK]

Sorry, I perhaps should've added a warning.

Once you've seen that website it can never be unseen.

[NYGman]

Absolutely horrid. Looked at the site content through the pain, and it seems to embrace some amazing amount of the woo, including fake courts and fake cases, with fake jurors convicting everyone.

I do however like all the common law jury convictions touted by the site. It got me thinking, would there ever not be a common law jury conviction. If all these jurors believe in all the common law woo, lawful dissent, Magna Carter, legal name fraud, etc., Would they ever fall to win in their make believe common law court? Be it jurors, Grand juries, common law courts, and even common law judge opinions, rulings, and decrees, they are never conflicting or support the defendant. Seems to me a big flaw in the whole fake courts/judges LARPing adventure. Governments always lose, big corporations lose, bill collectors, banks, bailiffs, the list goes on. They never win, 100% loss rate. That alone is a statistical anomaly. Why bother with a trial, if the outcome is a foregone conclusion. One more thing, appeals? Where are you supposed to do this? Where is the case law recorded, which is an important part of common law, least we forget.

Probably straying a bit of topic, but bringing it back, is there anything lawful dissent can't do? Seems they believe article 61 to be the magic that can make the invincible.

[JimUk1]

Today on PLD, they are showcasing their wins in an act of defiance for the doubters!

Ladies and gentlemen I give you documented proof that article 61 means you er, don't have to pay for a tv license?

https://m.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=4 ... 8&__tn__=R

Hmmm... Looks like he made a phone call... What a waste of time. I just throw TVL letters straight in the bin and that works just as well.

Too little effort. These people get off on the fantasy that A.61 is a powerful tool that means every person must bow to their superior mind.

I think that page is inherently dangerous as it promotes a line of thinking consistent with cults and extremism.

[AndyPandy]

I think that page is inherently dangerous as it promotes a line of thinking consistent with cults and extremism.

Without a doubt, there was one woman stating they should all get together and 'storm parliament' and 'hang a few' so that they'd soon come around to 'our way of thinking'.

This is after the recent terrorist attack at Parliament.

Open sedition.

What it needs is for these Barons to write back and confirm their allegiance has always been and remains with Her Majesty the Queen.

[littleFred]

Seems they believe article 61 to be the magic that can make the[m] invincible.

Yes. Article 61 didn't work in 1215, and doesn't work now.

David Robinson claims that legal battles have been won when a61 arguments have been used. That may be true, but I expect the cause of the victory was something entirely different, and a61 was merely coincidental.

David receives cash benefits from the state, but claims paying taxes to the state is illegal.

David perpetuates a myth. He incites criminal behaviour, claiming immunity from prosecution based on pseudo-law that was never effective. His disciples stretch his argument to say that making payments to anyone who hasn't sworn allegiance to the barons is illegal.

This won't work. Jail for council tax evaders seems likely.