"practical lawful dissent" fmotl advisory group

[exiledscouser]

So let me get this straight.

He lived in his truck. He saw the light and deregistered it and the cops caught up with him. He didn't pay any fines but no longer uses the truck, presumably because every cop around Glastonbury would have homed straight in on him.

And another point, he was in receipt of a range of state benefits but through LR he cunningly managed to avoid receiving them. That'll learn 'em!

Then he "seized" his local town hall which he, err, gave back.

That's a blueprint for total success then, fantastic result, where do I sign up.

[aesmith]

Member Tom Newton has a summons for driving while disqualified, and driving without insurance.
Got me a postal requisition..

Both offences have a starting point of 6 points and a healthy fine, but driving while disqualified is much more likely to result in extended disqualification period, and possibly even time inside.

Egged on by the group, nobody sees this as a problem. He's not even planning to attend ..

Robert White
Can't see any problem there Tom. Penalty points and a fine then the process starts with the fine.

David Robinson
Yea they will deal with it in your absence anyway probably...usually do.

Tom Newton
Good cause I'm in Spain and I'm not letting these interfere with my plans hahaha
Be interesting to see if they extend my ban or not though!!

Robert White
Good move lol.

Tom Newton
They can't expect me to come running with my tail between my legs, they wouldn't for me eh??
I'm not a criminal and I've done no harm so there is no crime in my book silly acts and statutes

[Footloose52]

There is a slight flaw in his tale - you cannot de-register a vehicle in the UK, George Tsigarides has drawn a blank on trying to do that (he has his own thread on here). You can stop taxing and insuring it and declare it as 'off road'. That means it is not being used on the public roads.

So far this would seem to accord with what he is trying to say but, as soon as you then use it on the road you are at risk of being caught and fined for using an unlicensed vehicle. And it gets worse as it needs an MOT (certificate of fitness or warranty in other countries). Not having an MOT is a fine as well.

There is a pretty widespread network of cameras that are used to read numberplates across the UK, if he still has numberplates on the vehicle (UK ones are issued to the vehicle normally for the life of that vehicle) then it will 'ping' up on the police database. If he has removed the numberplates then the first police car to see him will normally make enquiries - i.e. stop him.

Just to add to his woes Glastonbury is one of the areas that attracts 'hippies' in the UK so the police are probably quite hot around there on unlicensed motors ....

[arayder]

One might wonder why these guys don't cut out all the messing about and decide before all the drama starts to live without cars, trucks, homes and apartments.

My guess is that the crew so loves the fantasy that they're dealing a death blow to "the system" that they'll give up their abodes and their transportation to just to keep that imagining alive.

It's also a pretty good bet that family and or friends are helping to prop up some of these folks with free lodging and meals from time to time. I figure a few of these folks are still on the dole and just don't make that known so as to fit into the group.

[rumpelstilzchen]

Was he a new age traveller?

Whatever happen to new age travellers? I haven't seen a convoy of their trucks for a few years.

[JimUk1]

So let me get this straight.

He lived in his truck. He saw the light and deregistered it and the cops caught up with him. He didn't pay any fines but no longer uses the truck, presumably because every cop around Glastonbury would have homed straight in on him.

And another point, he was in receipt of a range of state benefits but through LR he cunningly managed to avoid receiving them. That'll learn 'em!

Then he "seized" his local town hall which he, err, gave back.

That's a blueprint for total success then, fantastic result, where do I sign up.

I especially like the last sentence. They took them anyway.

More than likely to pay for the fines and what ever other misdemeanours he was in.

Good old Dave. I still can't get my head around why he thought that worked?

My only conclusion is this; they didn't drag me back to court, so they underhanded took my benefits and the judges and police are part of that conspiracy, because no government has the right to simply take benefits.

That's the only idea I can draw.

[longdog]

Wawful webbel Alan Woodward's employer receives an attachment of earnings order and legal genius and guru David 'spare change guv' Robinson declares it illegal... But there's nothing he can do about it except wait for the imminent creation of 'real' courts... Then they'll be in trouble... Oh yes... Big BIG trouble...

David Robinson

Attachments to earnings are difficult to remedy as they just do it reegardless but it is theft. What do we do with thefts?...yep...report it to the police. You should put all concerned on Ntice of your standing but not your employer if you are likely to be 'let go'...you could always have a chat with them explaing that its illegal to pay it mind you but do so with the evidence we use (in the files)...this is one of the ways they have us over a barrel but by putting them all on notice and reporting it as a theft (or also putting the cops on notice when they tell you to 'move along') YOU WILL BE CREATING A CASE FILE FOR A CLAIM IN FUTURE WHEN WE FINALLY GET OUR COURTS BACK...SORRY CANT BE MORE HELP..And for using caps..lol

Yes indeed folks... A61 definitely works... But not in this specific case....

David Robinson

I would suggest in your circumstances not to put your job in jeopardy...find out what its all about and pay under duress with a payement plan you can afford perhaps...

In all cases lawful rebellion is the answer... But not with council tax, rent or attachment of earnings orders... Other than that it's 100% successful... Oh... And untaxed, uninsured, untested vehicles... They can take them but other than that...

[ArthurWankspittle]

One side effect of an attachment of earnings is that you just put your employer on notice that he's got a twat for an employee. Said idiot must have not paid up or made arrangements to pay at several earlier opportunities and now their employer has to admin deducting the money.

[aesmith]

Another case of minor road traffic offences about to be turned into something more serious ...

Mark Abbott
Sounds good to me, have u sent anything before the final demand for court, ive got 3 speeding tickets all no more than 4/5 miles over, and £100 fine for no mot . I've ignored all letters so far. Would this help me or should I wait until they send for court, as of tomorrow I will of finally sent my oath off.

So three ignored speeding tickets will turn into three prosecutions for failure to supply driver details, 6 points and say £500 for each offence. Then licence revoked for not surrendering it, pursuit for £1500 of unpaid magistrate court fines. Instead of one speed awareness course and two fixed penalties. Another win for the process coming up.

[arayder]

If teachers ask non-readers to read orally before the class some children will do anything necessary to get out of displaying there inability including cussing the teacher or striking the child sitting next to them.

In their minds it's better to get suspended from school than to let it be known they can't read.

I suspect the lawful dissent crew responds the same way when confronted with the challenge of making their way in the world. In their minds it's better to be thought of as unorthodox freedom seekers than to have displayed their inability to function in the 21st century.

[Arthur Rubin]

In their minds it's better to be thought of as unorthodox freedom seekers than to have displayed their inability to function in the 21st century.

My theory would be that most are unaware of their inability to function in the 21st (or, for that matter, 20th) century.

[SteveUK]

Houston , we have a problem!!!1!!

It seems poor old Lord Strathcarron is no longer playing ball.
Strangely , the rebels aren't quite sure why he's no longer responding to their garbage.Answers on a postcard?

[If any of you rebels are contemplating sending your oath to Lord Strathcarron, do not send it to the address in the Laymens Guide. DO NOT send it to
Lord Strathcarron
3 Elizabeth Court, Milmans Street, London SW10 0DA. I will post a picture later of the reply a fellow rebel received using this address. The oath was sent back to the rebel, it may be for a number of reasons, he no longer lives there, is fed up receiving them or the royal mail could not deliver it.

[littleFred]

On PLD FB, Albert Burgess has pointed out that no barons have declared they are in Lawful Rebellion. Nor have they issued any order to anyone to distress the monarch. Therefore, taking an oath "to obey the orders of the said twenty-five barons for the execution of all the aforesaid matters" is entirely meaningless, and isn't an escape clause for anyone.

In an attempted answer:

Well, the barons had already used the right to diffidation before anyone else, if not they couldn't have firmed the original quorum of 68 peers.

Also, if you read the bottom of the actual petition, the barons stated "We have the honour to be Your Majesty’s loyal and obedient subjects." which also hints their allegiance was with the constitution, not the law breaker claiming office of Sovereign.

No, Connor. The baron's didn't use "the right to diffidation". Yes, they signed both the 2001 petition and the letter of amplification as Her Majesty's "loyal and obedient subjects". So the barons' allegiance remains with Her Majesty.

By contrast, the LR idiots "now transfer my allegiance" from the Sovereign and "swear upon my Oath to obey the lords of the barons' committee", even though there is no committee, and the barons haven't asked anyone to do anything like distressing the Crown or Her Majesty or anyone else.

If the idiots just said "I ain't gonna pay taxes or obey laws", I could understand that. But their attempts to justify it on the grounds of the 2001 petition fall down at every hurdle.

[rumpelstilzchen]

In an attempted answer:

They are conspiring to "seize the park" at 1pm!!!!1!!!!................oh, hang on a minute...........it finishes at 4pm
Perhaps his mum has told him that his tea will be ready at 4.30pm and he had better not be late because she is doing his favourite.
So, once "seized" their evil cunning dastardly plan is to go home after three hours? I guess Her Maj can heave a sigh of relief.

[JimUk1]

https://m.facebook.com/groups/388605611 ... n__=%2C%3B

To make matters worse, No phone credit Dave, is going to give the Daily Express a piece of his mind! And write them a notice!

[rumpelstilzchen]

It is a diversion tactic. He is attepting to focus all of his followers attention towards what he considers to be inaccuracies in the newspaper article rather than them spending time thinking that he has been proven wrong. While the idiots are mouthing off against a corrupt newspaper it draws their attention away from the fact that Robinson's hypothesis does not work.

[JimUk1]

It is a diversion tactic. He is attepting to focus all of his followers attention towards what he considers to be inaccuracies in the newspaper article rather than them spending time thinking that he has been proven wrong. While the idiots are mouthing off against a corrupt newspaper it draws their attention away from the fact that Robinson's hypothesis does not work.

As per- Mark Haning and Tom against the Nottingham Post.

Infact most freemen attack the corrupt news papers!

Papers are sometimes bad for inaccurate information sometimes, I myself had a bad experience with a local paper, it wasn't the information was incorrect just purely insensitive for the situation. However, technicalities aside, it's still the fact of the matter; refuse to pay- go to jail!

[rumpelstilzchen]

Yes because even if everything in that newspaper article is an outright lie it does not alter the fact that Robinson's method does not work.

[JimUk1]

Yes because even if everything in that newspaper article is an outright lie it does not alter the fact that Robinson's method does not work.

Sorry, I didn't mean to appear to support PLD, nor did I mean to infer it is a lie. Simply highlighting some newspapers do report inaccurate information- see the sun on page 2 almost everyday.

[rumpelstilzchen]

Yes, I did understand your post. I was agreeing with you but perhaps I did not make that clear enough