Unsafe passing - any leg to stand on?

[jasonu]

Return the notice to the sender after crossing it "CANCELLED. NO CONTRACT".

Return the remittance advice after crossing it "CANCELLED. NO CONTRACT".

IF they are stupid enough to call a hearing, go to the hearing and ;

Explain to them you have no contract with any person to obey these statutes, since they are statutes and not law.

Tell them your full name is your copyrighted trademark and they are using it without permission and demand the officers full name so you may begin breach of copyright proceedings against him, and then place a huge lien on his family home.

Tell them that you were interviewed without your specific consent, and you explained to the officer at the time that all implied consent was revoked and that you declined to be interviewed but he proceeded anyway, and therefore what h announces to be his "evidence" (or rather lack of it) is inadmissible as it was acquired illegally.

They require your specific consent to proceed in that jurisdiction, so take great care to not inadvertently consent to it - tell him outright "no consent in this jurisdiction", fold your arms, and go silent. No matter what they say after that, reply with "no consent".

They have no choice but to hand it to a higher court or throw it out. They won't hand it up to a higher court because they know you will revoke consent in the court also and they will be forced to hand it to the High Court, which will throw it out since it is not a common law matter.

Yeah so basically you are telling them to get fucked, so either stick to your guns or give in early, but any show of weakness will result in a severe trampling.

Remind yourself that you read this on the internet and its probably smarter to go pay the fine, or just maybe stand up for yourself for once and be part of the solution.

Good luck.

I thought this post was 'toung in cheek' ie a piss take.

Jasonu wasn't the OP and was taking the piss, me thinks.

Correct

[QUOTE=Grubber;1130017280]You are right. My sincerest appologies Jasonu.
QUOTE]
No worries

[steve_t]

edit: btw, lawyers wont help you. Their sworn duty is to uphold statute law, and it's what butters their bread. Why would they tell you the truth?

Oooh... lawyers are secretly conspiring to steal our butter

[Spearfish]

You're an idiot.

I had a debtor pull the copyrighted name bullshit with me when I used to do collections. Stated he was sueing me for half a million for using his name on a business document. I took great pleasure in pointing out the fair use clauses in the relevant legislation and asking him if he was willing to test his claim in court.

He got very meek at that point.

People with no legal knowledge using pseudo-legal speak and big words they don't understand will generally just gaurantee that the responder will open up with both barrells.

It was nice to have you not around spouting your inane bullshit for a few months.

Speaking of big words....
Taumata­whakatangihanga­koauau­o­tamatea­turi­puka kapiki­maunga­horo­nuku­pokai­whenua­kitanatahu

[Ferkletastic]

No its not the same. The example you make is a matter of Common Law. That is, imposing my will upon someone else to their detriment causes actual harm to some person. The effect would be similar if I stole their property or otherwise injured them or caused some other loss.

The example I make is about statute law - a made-up rule of a corporation concerning what you or I may or may not DO, and if we did break some rule, its about what financial penalty may be imposed. These are almost always more about the kings' income than about some real matter at law.

It is implied consent, which is why you should revoke it in writing. Unfortunately, the po-po arent used to this, and will pull out a big stick and swing it at you.

The whole concept of statute law is based on the idea that YOU AGREE to be bound by a set of rules and guidelines. If you state outright from the beginning that you DO NOT AGREE then they have no say in the matter. All that is left is The Common Law - matters concerning injury to other parties (and matters of contract). There is only one court in the land that can proceed to discuss and make orders on any matter without your consent or even your presence, and that is The High Court, but the High Court is a Common Law Court bound by those principles, and therefore they cannot order payment to be made without the basic Common Law principles - those of Contract and Tort, and Contract and Tort is not related to some statute law fine.

edit: btw, lawyers wont help you. Their sworn duty is to uphold statute law, and it's what butters their bread. Why would they tell you the truth?

You're either a complete idiot or trolling so hard your fingers are bleeding. I vote idiot.

Statutory law isn't 'made up by a corporation' it's based on decisions of government. Case law is law based on decisions by a court of law. Statute can over turn or modify case law in certain circumstances. All citizens (and other legal entities) are bound by these statues.

Seriously Steve, go back to selling ice cream and leave the grown up conversation to those who have a vague idea what the hell they're talking about.

[Jantar]

... I vote idiot.....

Sorry, Facts can't be voted on.

[jellywrestler]

Sorry, Facts can't be voted on.

yep you've got a leg to stand on, this time, a few more clown passing acts like this and you may not have!

[pritch]

Mostly the law as it relates to us is comprised of Acts and Regulations.
You can read about that stuff here: http://www.legislation.govt.nz/

That's how it's done in this country anyway.
What they do on DBs' planet I couldn't guess.

[Jantar]

yep you've got a leg to stand on, this time, a few more clown passing acts like this and you may not have!

I don't understand. Or maybe you don't. I wasn't the one who engaged in the passing manouver, try reading the thread again.