It all started at the end of April 2008, when I received a forwarded speeding ticket for dring 46mph on a stretch of dual carriageway in Newcastle that usually has a limit of 70mph. It was on the approach to some long-term roadworks where the limit decreased to 30mph. I and most other people in this country usually start slowing down at the sign telling me its 800 yards to the roadworks. It turned out that a hidden camera car clocked me when the first 30mph sign was posted, almost 2 miles before the bollards. A clear case of entrapment for financial gain by the state.
I obviously began by sending a polite letter asking them to prove that it was me driving the car and that the camera hadn’t read the speed incorrectly. To my initial disappointment, they provided me with the evidence I had requested. By this time it was July, four months after I was clocked. I decided to accept the charge and sent a cheque along with my photographic driving license to the payment office, who returned the contents in tact two weeks later, informing me that I also needed to submit my paper license. I told them that I didn’t have one, since I had, until recently, lived in Holland and Spain, where a paper license wasn’t necessary.
I immediately got an application fast-tracked in ten days by sweet-talking the DVLC, but the Fixed Penalty Unit were having none of it. They told me that it was too late and that I should submit my excuses to the magistrates court. They were obviously looking to double their money from sixty to a hundred and twenty quid, as well as applying for legal expenses and court costs. After a discussion with my cousin (a high ranking police officer), I wrote another extremely polite letter, enclosing the cheque the had returned, explaining the lengths I had already gone to in the process of attempting to settle the fine, making my feelings known about the totally unnecessary waste of time and public money it would be, to go to court in order to resolve a matter in which no controversy existed. It was now early August.
A couple of weeks later I received another letter, this time informing me that in spite of my letters the Fixed Penalty Unit were refusing to back down. Displaying even more stubbornness than before, I presented the payment one more time, emphasizing the futility of taking me to court over a charge that I had already accepted liability for. This time they completely ignored my letter and the next thing I knew I was summonsed to appear in court on September 19th 2008.
I pleaded gulty to the facts and ticked the box not to appear in court, despite my newly discovered obsession with becoming a Freeman-on-the-Land. However, I chose not to fill out their financial statement of means, enclosing my latest bank statement instead, along with a letter explaining to the clerk to the justices just how many hoops of fire I had already jumped through, in a concerted effort to prevent wasting the court’s time and public money. I also recorded the assumption that the payment office of the Fixed Penalty Unit had passed my license (including the new paper bit) and the cheque for sixty quid on to the court, since they had not returned them to me.
Then, a few days later, I received a letter from the DVLA, informing me that I had been found guilty of speeding in my absence, but since I hadn’t produced the full license, they gave me a month to either return it to their office in Swansea or apply for another one, claiming they wouldn’t be able to fulfill their legal obligation to record the three points if I failed to do so. My intitial reaction was to assume that the court had taken offence at my maverick approach to the matter. Soon after I received a letter from HM Court Service, stating that the fine had been cancelled. Enclosed with it were the full driving license and the incashed cheque. The letter was 25th July 2008, almost seven weeks before the scheduled court date!
Why wasn’t I ever informed about it by the Fixed Penalty Unit? Surely that must represent concealment of the facts, which totally invalidates any claims the had against my STRAWMAN. So I wrote to them asking the following questions:
1. Why was the DVLA under the false impression that I had not sent my full license to the court, when it was in fact the court who returned it to me?
2. Why was I not informed earlier that the Fixed Penalty was cancelled two months before it was heard by the court?
3. How can I have been found guilty of an offence that has been cancelled?
I also wrote to the DVLA explaing the circumstances in detail (without enclosing my license), informing them that it was my sincere belief that the court had not ordered the endorsement of three points.
I then received a Further Steps Notice from the collection and enforcement agent for the Fixed Penalty Unit, which was based in a different borough. The letter bore no name or signature, but claimed that I owed £111.00 for an offence that was discharged by the magistrates court the month before, because the Fixed Penalty Unit refused to accept legal tender of payment, pursuant to section 43 of the Bills of Exchange Act 1882. Despite the fact that I had not been presented with any court order to do anything whatsoever, the Enforcement Unit aggressively threatened to do one or all of the following, if I refused to cough up the coin within ten days of their notice:
1. Issue a warrant of distress for the purposes of levying the sum due.
2. Register the account in the Register of Judgements, Orders and Fines, which COULD restrict future credit options.
3. Make an Attachment of Earnings Order.
4. Make a vehicle clamping order.
5. Refer the case to court (AGAIN).
6. Take any firther steps permitted under provisions of fine collection regulations which apply to any other enforcement power of a magistrate’s court.
Shortly after, I also recieved a letter from the DVLA, claiming that they did not receive my reply to their previous letter and that my license was revoked on October 27th 2008. However, I was also told that I could continue driving for 12 months, provided that I am not prevented from doing so by a court, or on age or health grounds. They threatened that if I chose not to respond to their letter the police will be asked to recover the license on the DVLA’s behalf.
Initially, I believed that I needed to establish whether or not the court had issued an order that I had not yet received. Nevertheless, my instinct suggested that the Fixed Penalty Unit incurred the liablity of the legal and court costs by refusing to accept my cheque, and that they were attempting to scare me into accepting the costs. It also seemed likely that the DVLA were just honouring their contract with the Department of Transport and its cash-grabbing agencies.
The mysterious Fines Officer with no name received the following notice by recorded delivery:
NOTICE SEEKING CLARIFICATION
Dear Sir / Madam,
Thank you for your Further steps notice dated 24th October 2008. As agent and administrator for the legal person, STRAWMAN, I hereby conditionally accept your offer upon receipt of proof of claim that STRAWMAN is liable for the amount that you claim is owed.
Since you have not made reference to any offence, true bill, court order or legal judgement, only Division: *** and the account number ************, of which I have no knowledge, there is currently no means available for me to verify your claim.
Therefore, in a genuine attempt to resolve this matter in the most expedient and honourable manner possible, please provide me with the following:
1. Proof of claim that STRAWMAN is liable to effect payment of £111.00.
2. Proof of claim that STRAWMAN is legally obliged to make payment/discharge/set-off the above amount.
3. Proof of claim that STRAWMAN has previously been directed to make payment/discharge/set-off the above amount and has subsequently failed to do so.
4. Proof of claim that STRAWMAN has created this liability, or voluntarily consented to be responsible for settlement of the account.
I look forward to receiving proof of this claim within ten working days of your receipt of this notice, in which case I will make arrangements to settle the account in the appropriate manner.
However, if the requested clarification is not received by mail within the stated time, it will be assumed that proof of claim cannot be provided and the matter will be considered resolved, without any further action required.
Without malice or mischief, in sincerity and honour,
The Freeman-on-the-Land commonly known as Michael
Without Prejudice – Without Recourse – Non-assumpsit
Then the DVLA were served with the following:
NOTICE SEEKING CLARIFICATION
Dear DVLA,
Re : ****************
With reference to your letter dated 24th October 2008, as the agent and administrator for the legal person, STRAWMAN, I hereby inform you that any and all claims that there was no response to your letter dated 24th September 2008 are factually incorrect. In truth, I replied with a letter dated 16th October 2008.
The court’s only instruction to me was to contact the Fixed Penalty Unit, which I did in a letter dated 16th October 2008 and as yet I have received no response. As I wrote in my letter to you, also dated 16th October 2008, the full license was returned enclosed with the letter from HM Court Service dated 25th July 2008, which also informed me that the fine had been cancelled.
Judging from your 24th October 2008 letter it seems that the reason for revoking the license is that you believe that I did not respond to your letter dated 24th September 2008. If necessary, I am willing to swear an affadavit stating that this was unequivocally not the case. Postal records can also be checked and the relevant documentation can be produced if required, but I genuinely hope that this notice will be enough to establish clarification of the facts.
It is my sincere belief that Section 99(3) does not apply in this case, as I was never instructed by the court, or the Fixed Penalty Unit for that matter, to return the license to the DVLA for endorsement, leading me to wonder if some sort of clerical error was made during the administration of the cancelled Fixed Penalty. Indeed, why did the court return it without any further instructions when it already had explicit consent to forward it to the DVLA for endorsement, in the event that was the order of the court?
I therefore seek clarification of the reason why the decision has been made to revoke the license as of 27th October 2008. I look forward to receiving clarification from you within ten working days of your receipt of this notice.
In a genuine attempt to expediate the resolution of this matter, if I do not receive the requested clarification from you within the stated time, it will be assumed that the DVLA does not dispute any of the contents contained herein, that the matter has been dealt with appropriately and that no further acton is required for the revocation to be reversed by the DVLA.
Without malice or mischief, in sincerity and honour,
The Freeman-on-the-Land commonly known as Michael
Without Prejudice – Without Recourse – Non-assumpsit
The DVLA replied to my notice seeking clarification after eight days. The matter has been passed to a different department (legal I presume, although they only give a code instead of a department name), who said that they have decided to “put the licence revocation on hold” after they recieved my notice, but they are still claiming that I need to return my licence for endorsement, in spite of the fact that they imply there might be a possibility that the court has neglected to inform them of the cancellation of the fine.
The Collection and Enforcement Unit dishonoured the notice I sent to them, so I assumed that the matter was settled. However, they presented an invalid claim and have contravened several sections of the OFT’s guidance for collecting debts and unfair business practice. Any further action on their part and I have ample amunition to successfully counterclaim.
It seemed clear that the DVLA had been falsely informed by the police that I didn’t provide my licence to the court for endorsement, even though I have proof that this was not the case. If I can get them to admit that in writing then I have evidence that the police are guilty of presenting a fraudulent claim, as well as harrassment and contempt of the court.
When I started dealing with this matter I was at the beginning of my Freeman Redemption learning curve, and if I could do it all again there are several things I would do differently. However, once I had served my NUICOR, my objective became establishing the distinction between the free man and the strawman in the public, which I have suceeded in doing with all the parties concerned, rather than just killing the fixed penalty and the endorsement. From what I have read of the experiences of others, this does not always prove to be so easy to establish.
On another level, staying in honour can be a lot of work, but the more work you create for those trying to steal your debt notes or revoke your license under false pretences, the less likely they will attempt to do the same in future. And I have a file full of correspondence from the state that does not dispute that I am who I say I am. For me, that could be much more important when dealing with any future claim.
3 January 2009
FINAL NOTICE
Dear DVLA Manager,
Re : 8080808080
Thank you for your letter dated 8th December 2008, in response to my notice dated 25th November 2008.
As I have already stated in a previous notice, I am willing to swear an affidavit attesting to the fact that, contrary to your claim that there was no reply to your letter dated 24th September 2008, resulting in your letter dated 24th October 2008, I did reply to the first letter. Should it prove necessary, I can also provide a sworn deposition from an eye-witness of good legal standing. The correspondence in question, however, is the only document I have sent in relation to this matter that was not sent by registered mail.
Whereas, it is my understanding that it is not my responsibility to contact the Magistrates Court in order to prove your claim that the driving license was not produced to the court for endorsement, especially since I received a letter from HM Court Service returning the said licence after the Fixed Penalty Notice was cancelled.
Furthermore, there is still no proof of claim that a driving licence can be endorsed if a Fixed Penalty Notice is cancelled, or that any statute, act or code has in fact been breached in this particular case.
Therefore, since I have not received the proof of claim that STRAWMAN has breached any section of the Road Traffic Act 1988, I hereby serve FINAL NOTICE that there is no evidence to suggest that the license needs to be returned for endorsement, or that the DVLA has the necessary justification to revoke the license.
Please be advised that the matter is now considered settled by STRAWMAN, without any further action or correspondence necessary, so please allow me to take this opportunity to wish you peace, love and happiness in the New Year.
Without malice or mischief, in sincerity and honour,
The Freeman-on-the-Land commonly known as Michael
Without Prejudice – Without Recourse – Non-assumpsit
6 March 2009
NOTICE OF CONDITIONAL ACCEPTANCE
Dear DVLA Manager,
RE: 808080808
Further to your letter dated 18 February 2009, I must respectfully decline your offer of corporate title, as I am a flesh and blood man, not a legal fiction, while simultaneously offering my wholehearted conditional acceptance of your latest request that MR STRAWMAN’s driving license be delivered to the DVLA for endorsement, upon receipt of the following:
1. Proof of claim that MR STRAWMAN failed to produce the license to the court for endorsement.
2. Proof of claim that MR STRAWMAN failed to respond to any correspondence received from the DVLA in relation to this matter.
3. Proof of claim that an endorsement can be made by the DVLA in the event that a Fixed Penalty Notice is cancelled by the court.
4. Proof of claim that the Magistrate’s Court did not return the full driving license to MR STRAWMAN, along with notification that the Fixed Penalty Notice had been cancelled and without any instructions to forward the license to the DVLA.
5. Proof of claim that the matter was not settled when the DVLA dishonoured MR STRAWMAN’s FINAL NOTICE dated 3 January 2009.
NOTICE TO THE PRINCIPAL IS NOTICE TO THE AGENT
NOTICE TO THE AGENT IS NOTICE TO THE PRINCIPAL
The appropriate response must be received at the mailing location below within seven days of your receipt of this notice, in which case I will immediately return the driving license for endorsement by 18 March 2009, as requested.
However, if proof of claim is not received by mail at the location below within the stated time and in the appropriate manner, said dishonour will constitute the agreement of the parties that proof of claim cannot be provided by the DVLA, that the license does not need to be returned for endorsement and the matter is now considered settled and closed, barring the bringing about of any and all further claims against MR STRAWMAN in relation to this matter.
Without malice or mischief, in sincerity and honour,
The Freeman-on-the-Land commonly known as Michael
Without Prejudice – Without Recourse – Non-assumpsit
17 March 2009
NOTICE OF DISHONOUR
NOTICE TO THE PRINCIPAL IS NOTICE TO THE AGENT
NOTICE TO THE AGENT IS NOTICE TO THE PRINCIPAL
Dear DVLA Manager,
RE: 8080808080
Further to the NOTICE OF CONDITIONAL ACCEPTANCE dated 6 March 2009, delivered to the DVLA by registered mail, I hereby serve notice that I have not received the following after repeated and reasonable requests:
1. Proof of claim that STRAWMAN failed to produce the license to the court for endorsement.
2. Proof of claim that STRAWMAN failed to respond to any correspondence received from the DVLA in relation to this matter.
3. Proof of claim that an endorsement can be made by the DVLA in the event that a Fixed Penalty Notice is cancelled by the court.
4. Proof of claim that the Magistrate’s Court did not return the full driving license to STRAWMAN, along with notification that the Fixed Penalty Notice had been cancelled and without any instructions to forward the license to the DVLA.
5. Proof of claim that the matter was not settled when the DVLA dishonoured STRAWMAN’s FINAL NOTICE, dated 3 January 2009.
Legal Maxim:
Silence comprises agreement in commerce, equity, admiralty, Lex Mercatoria and public policy.
Therefore, the DVLA’s dishonour of said NOTICES constitutes the agreement of the parties that proof of claim cannot be provided by the DVLA, that the license does not need to be returned for endorsement and the matter is now considered settled and closed, barring the bringing about of any and all further claims against STRAWMAN in relation to this matter.
Without malice or mischief, in sincerity and honour,
The Freeman-on-the-Land commonly known as Michael
Without Prejudice – Without Recourse – Non-assumpsit
Following the DVLA’s refusal to accept the facts, they finally sent another revocation of the STRAWMAN’S driving license, which meant I had no alternative remedy other than serving the Affidavit I had notarised three months earlier. Here is the sanitised version, as well as what happened next:
VERIFIED AFFIDAVIT OF FACTS BY SPECIFIC NEGATIVE AVERMENT
A verified plain statement of facts
NOTICE TO AGENT IS NOTICE TO PRINCIPAL
NOTICE TO PRINCIPAL IS NOTICE TO AGENT
I, the flesh and blood Freeman-on-the-Land, commonly known as Michael (“Declarant”), do hereby affirm and declare that I am of legal age and sound mind, and that I have first hand knowledge of the facts contained herein. Therefore, let it be known by all concerned and affected parties that I do hereby state that the following is, to the very best of my knowledge, true, correct and complete, presented in good faith, and not intended to mislead in any way.
1. Declarant has seen no evidence that STRAWMAN failed to produce the UK driving license ************ to ______________ Magistrates Court for endorsement in relation to Case Number ***********, and believes that no such evidence exists.
2. Declarant has seen no evidence that STRAWMAN failed to respond to any correspondence received from the DVLA in relation to this matter, and believes that no such evidence exists.
3. Declarant has seen no evidence that an endorsement can be made by the DVLA on a UK driving license in the event that a Fixed Penalty Notice is cancelled by a Magistrates Court, and believes that no such evidence exists.
4. Declarant has seen no evidence that HER MAJESTY’S COURT SERVICE did not return the full driving license to STRAWMAN in a letter dated __________, reference number //**, along with notification that the Fixed Penalty Notice *********** had been cancelled, and without any instructions to forward the license to the DVLA for endorsement, and believes that no such evidence exists.
5. Declarant has seen no evidence that the DVLA did not dishonour Declarant’s FINAL NOTICE, dated ___________, and believes that no such evidence exists.
6. Declarant has seen no evidence that this matter was not settled when the DVLA dishonoured said FINAL NOTICE, and believes that no such evidence exists.
7. Declarant has seen no evidence that notary certification of said dishonour would not comprise the DVLA’s stipulation that no facts are in dispute and no controversy exists in the above-noted matter, and believes that no such evidence exists.
8. Declarant has seen no evidence that notary certification of said dishonour would not comprise Administrative Default Judgment, binding the DVLA pursuant to voluntary agreement, and believes that no such evidence exists.
9. Declarant has seen no evidence that such notary certification would not create a permanent and irrevocable estoppel by acquiescence as an operation of law, barring the bringing about of any and all further judicial or administrative actions pertaining to this matter, whether against Declarant’s property, collateral, interests, freedom and liberty, and believes that no such evidence exists.
10. Declarant has seen no evidence that, upon such notary’s certification, the DVLA would not have waived for all time all rights, remedies and defences, in and at law, equity, commerce and admiralty, regarding the above-referenced matter, and any consequential actions which may be brought to cure the Respondent’s commercial dishonours, and such waiver of rights shall include, without limitation, waiver of the right to argue, raise a controversy or initiate litigation or arbitration in any venue or jurisdiction, whether foreign or domestic, and believes that no such evidence exists.
11. Declarant has seen no evidence that the dishonour of this Affidavit would not comprise Respondent’s agreement, by way of default, to the filing of such consequential actions, judicial or administrative, as Declarant may deem necessary, and believes that no such evidence exists.
12. Declarant has seen no evidence that the said dishonour would not comprise the DVLA’s tacit agreement to the facts expressed on all notices sent by Declarant in relation to this matter, and believes that no such evidence exists.
13. Declarant has seen no evidence contravening the maxim of law that silence comprises agreement in commerce, equity, admiralty, Lex Mercatoria and public policy, and believes that no such evidence exists.
14. Declarant has seen no evidence contravening the maxim of law that an Affidavit stands as truth in commerce, equity, admiralty, Lex Mercatoria and public policy, unless rebutted, point-by-point, by an Affidavit which is sworn to the same degree of commercial risk, and believes that no such evidence exists.
15. Declarant has seen no evidence that an answer indicating “NA”, “not applicable”, “inapposite” or similar dishonours, or failure to answer any point herein would not be unresponsive and comprise acceptance of all the facts expressed in this Affidavit, pursuant to the maxim that silence comprises agreement, and Declarant believes that no such evidence exists.
16. Declarant has seen no evidence that failure to respond to this Verified Affidavit of Facts, point-by-point, upon full commercial liability and under penalty of perjury, will not comprise the Respondent’s affirmation, attestation and agreement to all terms and statements contained herein, and believes that no such evidence exists.
COMMERCIAL AFFIDAVIT OATH AND VERIFICATION
“I, , the exclusively authorised representative for STRAWMAN, hereby certify upon my own commercial liability, that I have read this Affidavit in its entirety, and, to the very best of my knowledge, the facts contained herein are true, correct and complete, not misleading, and should be considered a verified plain statement of the facts as I perceive them.”
Use of a Notary Public is for attestation and verification purposes only and does not constitute a change in status or entrance or acceptance of foreign jurisdiction. Void where prohibited by law.
Sworn & Subscribed By: Right Thumbprint:
__________________________________________
Freeman-on-the-Land commonly known as Michael
Authorised Representative for STRAWMAN
WITHOUT PREJUDICE – WITHOUT RECOURSE – NON-ASSUMPSIT
Autographed & Sealed in the presence of:
Notary Public: Seal:
Dated: _____ Day of ______________________, 200___
Notary Public’s Signature:__________________________
Directions for Response
All responses to this affidavit must be made upon full commercial liability and under penalty of perjury, and received by mail at the above Notary Public’s office within 7 (seven) days of service. Failure to respond to this Affidavit in an appropriate and timely manner will result in an automatic default judgement, establishing permanent and irrevocable estoppel by acquiescence, forevermore barring the bringing of any charges, claims or liens under any statute, act, code and by-law against the Freeman-on-the-Land commonly known as Michael (Declarant).
No response of any description, so the the following notice was duly served:
NOTICE OF DISHONOUR WITH OPPORTUNITY TO CURE
Notice to the principal is notice to the agent,
Notice to the agent is notice to the principal.
Dear DVLA,
RE: VERIFIED AFFIDAVIT OF FACTS BY SPECIFIC NEGATIVE AVERMENT
I hereby serve notice that the DVLA have dishonoured the above VERIFIED AFFIDAVIT OF FACTS BY SPECIFIC NEGATIVE AVERMENT, which was delivered to the above mailing location by Post Office Recorded Delivery on Wednesday 6 May 2009.
Furthermore, I hereby present the DVLA with a further seven (7) days from receipt of this notice to make an appropriate response. This notice serves an opportunity to bring about the necessary cure for said dishonour, by delivering an Affidavit within the stated time to the response address stipulated on the VERIFIED AFFIDAVIT OF FACTS BY SPECIFIC NEGATIVE AVERMENT, which must be rebutted, point for point, sworn and subscribed upon full commercial liability and under penalty of perjury.
Without malice or mischief, in sincerity and honour,
By: The Freeman-on-the-Land commonly known as Michael
Authorised Representative for STRAWMAN
WITHOUT PREJUDICE – WITHOUT RECOURSE – NON-ASSUMPSIT
You guessed it – no response, so NOTICE OF NON-RESPONSE was the document of the day:
NOTICE OF NON-RESPONSE
Notice to the principal is notice to the agent,
Notice to the agent is notice to the principal.
Dear DVLA,
RE: VERIFIED AFFIDAVIT OF FACTS BY SPECIFIC NEGATIVE AVERMENT
I hereby serve notice that the DVLA and Drivers Customer Services have dishonoured the VERIFIED AFFIDAVIT OF FACTS BY SPECIFIC NEGATIVE AVERMENT, which was delivered to the above mailing location by Post Office Recorded Delivery ************** on Wednesday 6 May 2009, as well as the NOTICE OF DISHONOUR WITH OPPORTUNITY TO CURE, delivered by Post Office Recorded Delivery ************** on 19 May 2009.
Legal Maxims:
Silence comprises agreement in commerce, equity, admiralty, Lex Mercatoria and public policy.
An affidavit stands as truth in commerce, equity, admiralty, Lex Mercatoria and public policy, unless rebutted, point-by-point, by an affidavit which is sworn to the same degree of commercial risk.
The official recognition of the Respondent’s failure to deliver a timely and appropriate response to the notary’s office has resulted in an automatic default judgment, creating permanent and irrevocable estoppel by acquiescence, forevermore barring the bringing of any and all administrative and/or judicial actions pertaining to this matter, whether against Declarant’s property, collateral, interests, freedom or liberty, under any statute, act, code or by-law.
For the avoidance of doubt, pursuant to the terms set forth in the un-rebutted VERIFIED AFFIDAVIT OF FACTS BY SPECIFIC NEGATIVE AVERMENT, the DVLA and the Freeman-on-the-Land commonly known as Michael, the Authorised Representative for STRAWMAN, are now in agreement that:
1. No facts are in dispute between the parties and that no controversy exists.
2. The Respondent’s dishonour comprises Administrative Default Judgement, binding the Respondent to voluntary agreement.
3. Permanent and irrevocable estoppel by acquiescence, as an operation of law, has been created by the Respondent’ failure to deliver an appropriate and timely response to the notary’s office.
4. The Respondent has now waived, for all time, all rights, remedies and defences in and at law, equity, commerce and admiralty regarding the above-referenced matter, and consequential actions which may be brought to cure the Respondent’s commercial dishonours, and such waiver of rights shall include, without limitation, waiver of the right to argue, raise a controversy or initiate litigation or arbitration in any venue or jurisdiction, whether foreign or domestic.
5. The Respondent’s dishonour comprises the DVLA’s tacit agreement, jointly and severally, to the facts listed on all notices sent by Declarant in relation to this matter.
Without malice or mischief, in sincerity and honour,
By: The Freeman-on-the-Land commonly known as Michael
Authorised Representative for STRAWMAN
WITHOUT PREJUDICE – WITHOUT RECOURSE – NON-ASSUMPSIT
Having heard nothing for from the DVLA since the Affidavit was served, they finally responded several weeks later. Here is a santised version of their letter.
Dear Mr STRAWMAN,
I am (sic) receipt of your letter dated ____________ and note the contents. This response is to inform you that if you use or keep a motor vehicle in the United Kingdom you are obliged to comply with United Kingdom statue (sic) law.
I interpret your letter to imply that you refute ay such obligation. I would therefore advise you to consult a solicitor so that you properly understand the fit between your view of your obligations and the application of statute law requirements to you.
I will not engage in any discussion on this matter but confine myself to saying that any breach by you will be dealt with in exactly the same way as any other person resident in the United Kingdom. Among your obligations you must register and licence with the DVLA any vehicle kept by you and comply with the vehicle licensing requirements. Similarly, you must seek and keep up to date a driving license issued by this Agency if you intend to drive a motor vehicle on a public road. There are penalties provided for in statute law for breach of these obligations.
I write in such clear and stark terms in order to avoid any doubt. I can provide you with public notices setting out your obligations more fully and would welcome the opportunity to do so if you so require.
I hope this clarifies the situation and am enclosing a prepaid envelope for the return of your driving licence in order for it to be endorsed.
Yours sincerely
DVLA Court Section Representative
A few things immediately spring to mind. Firstly, without explicitly expressing it, the DVLA has, once again, reversed the cancellation of my STRAWMAN’S Driving License, which is another minor victory in itself, since this has been achieved without having to resort to a judicial process. Twice.
Secondly, the DVLA’s interpretation of the Affidavit (which they insist on calling a “letter”) is that I am attempting to refute any statutory obligation in keeping and using a motor vehicle in the United Kingdom. In spite of my perfected Notice of Understanding and Intent & Claim of Right, which lawfully freed me from all such restrictions and restraints, this does not apply to this case, since I conditionally accepted any and all obligations incurred by my STRAWMAN, upon receipt of proof of the DVLA’s claim that the license was not produced to the magistrates court upon request.
Lastly, the DVLA’s offer to provide me with “public notices” setting out said obligations “more fully”, as well as the fact that they would “welcome the opportunity to do so” (bless ‘em!), would seem to suggest that are attempting to cure their multiple dishonour by making a new offer of their original terms; let us endorse the license and we will say no more about it. This, I believe, is because the only other recourses of the DVLA are:
a. to explicitly confess that they cannot provide the requested proof of claim, thus implicating the Fixed Penalty Unit and themselves in a fraud
b. to initiate legal proceedings against my STRAWMAN for not producing the license to the court, when, in reality, I have material evidence to the contrary, along with an un-rebutted notarised Affidavit
c. to do nothing and risk a commercial injury claim
Therefore, the DVLA will receive appropriate notice in due course, informing them that any further invalid claims will create a commercial liablility that may be pursued through the county courts.
