This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?
7th August, 2009 (via Royal Mail Recorded Delivery Service) Mr Ian Aubrey, Policy and External Communications Directorate, Casework and Specialist Advice, D16, DVLA, Longview Road, Swansea. SA6 7JL
Dear Ian, Thank you for your reply to my Notice of Understanding and Intent and Claim of Right that was lawfully served on the Secretary of State for Transport, Mr. Geoff Hoon MP - and congratulations on being selected as my point of contact with Her Majesty’s Government Department of Transport in this matter. To quote from your ‘Specialist Advice’: The content of the 'Notice' you provided has been noted. Many thanks for acknowledging on behalf of Her Majesty’s Government the receipt of my Notice. I am not sure why you felt the need to put the word Notice in 'quotes' - maybe you were trying to imply that it isn’t a lawful Notice, and Claim of Right, at Common Law? Anyway, if, as you say, it had been truly 'noted' - you would have responded in the proscribed manner - namely by way of a lawful counterclaim in a sworn Afﬁdavit under penalty of perjury and full commercial liability. Did you consult with the DVLA's Legal Department before formulating your reply? - I'm sure they must have one that could research the Law of the Land: i.e. Common Law. You then went on to quote various Acts of Parliament regarding Drivers and Vehicles, but you could have saved yourself some time and effort by understanding the concepts of Lawful Rebellion and Freeman-on-the-Land at Common Law. The Acts that you so diligently summarised are not in fact Laws, but rather Statutes - and a Statute is a legislated Rule of a Society that is given the force of law by the consent of the governed. By lawfully serving Her Majesty The Queen with two sworn Afﬁdavits, and entering into Lawful Rebellion, I have explicitly removed my consent to be governed by these Statutes. Some concerns were raised by yourself regarding the licensing of Drivers - presumably, as some desire for proof of my competence to use the roads. To allay any fears you may have, I can assure you that I do indeed have a Full Licence that was issued in the UK in 1976, and my record for the last 33 years clearly demonstrates that I am capable of controlling my Private Automobile without placing other road users at any undue risk of harm, injury or loss. If you check the DVLA's records you will ﬁnd it under the number: KERSL 509128 N99MS and it is apparently valid until 11.09.2028 - the address on this document is out of date as I have been living and working abroad for more than 8 years - and your organisation would not allow me to record a change of address whilst outside of the UK - I did try! - and please don't bother telling that it is some sort of 'crime' under a Statute to have the wrong address recorded with the DVLA - for at Common Law: if there is no victim, then there is no crime - and now you have my address, you could simply update your records, if you feel that is appropriate.
Also, as a Freeman-on-the-Land at Common Law, I have absolutely no need of a 'Driving Licence', as ‘driving’ is deﬁned as using a vehicle on the Highways for commercial gain - an activity I will not be undertaking, as I will be simply exercising my ancient Common Law Right to travel without let or hindrance in my conveyance of the day, namely my Private Automobile. Furthermore, any activity that can be licensed, must by it's very nature be lawful, and only giving my consent to be governed by an Act of Parliament would require me to be licensed to perform a perfectly lawful activity - and as I have already stated: by entering into Lawful Rebellion, I have explicitly withdrawn my consent to every Statute; Rule; Regulation; Order; Tax; Fee or Charge of Her Majesty’s Government. Your main concerns seem to centre around the Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994, which you tell me: requires vehicles to be taxed ... The tax disc must be properly displayed on the vehicle and the vehicle must be properly registered with the DVLA. Well I'll take your word that it says all that, as again I don't need to read it - for it is yet another Statute that only 'Acts' as the Law if I consent to be governed by it (and I think we both know my position on that subject) - regardless of this, my Private Automobile has never been registered in the UK, and therefore doesn't fall under the jurisdiction of the DVLA (or indeed the Crown and/or Her Majesty’s Government). In fairness to yourself, you couldn't possibly have known that from the contents of my Notice - so please accept my sincere apologies for the time you wasted. Your expert knowledge of that Statute led you to conclude: Therefore, I am afraid that it will not be possible for you to remove the registration mark from the vehicle without ﬁrst notifying DVLA. If you had all the information regarding the current status of my Private Automobile, I am sure you would have arrived at a different conclusion - so once again, sorry my friend - and to avoid wasting any more of your valuable time, do please ask me what else you would like to know in order to make a more informed and appropriate response. I will however point out at this stage that I did in fact 'notify' the DVLA - you acknowledged that you received a 'Notice' - the contents of which you apparently 'noted'. You went on to say: Also, small vehicles over three years old must have a valid MoT certiﬁcate and the driver must have valid motor insurance. Luckily, I don't have a vehicle, but rather a Private Automobile - and as for the MoT certiﬁcate, it has the stricter German version - a TÜV that was issued at 16:04 on 19.03.2009 and is valid throughout the European Union until the end of February 2011 (a TÜV is €57 & runs for 2 years). I've enclosed a copy for your reference. As for Insurance, I indeed have that also - but that is for my own peace of mind, and not because of a desire on my part to comply with any Statute. To ﬁnally quote from your reply: The Notice you supplied, if it has any effect, does not provide for any exception or exemption from these requirements or any other requirements with regards the licensing of drivers and the registration and taxing of vehicles That is obviously your personal opinion, and thanks for taking the time to express it in writing - but you missed the quotes around the word Notice this time. Obviously, my opinion is diametrically opposed to yours - in that it certainly does have lawful effect and, in conjunction with my Afﬁdavits to Her Majesty The Queen, it speciﬁcally provides for exemption from the Statutes you mention. At the end of the day, the ultimate test of the lawful efﬁcacy of my Notice can only be decided in a Court de jure by a Jury of my peers - and to this end, should the need arise, I will of course call you as the duly authorised representative of the Secretary of State for Transport to testify under oath why you replied to my Notice without making a lawful counterclaim in the proscribed manner - and failed to make the important differentiation between the concepts of Lawful and Legal. As a gesture of good will on my part, I am now prepared to give you a further 10 days from receipt of this letter to correct your previous errors and reply in substance to my Notice by way of a lawful counterclaim in a sworn Afﬁdavit under penalty of perjury and full commercial liability.
Failure on your part to make an appropriate lawful counterclaim within this timeframe, will be taken as full and ﬁnal acquiescence by Her Majesty’s Government to my Claim of Right to use the Index Mark FREEMAN on my Private Automobile and to charge the Secretary of State for Transport a Fee Schedule of £500 per hour, or part thereof, if I am prevented from exercising my ancient Common Law Right to travel freely on the Highways and Byways of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. May I respectfully suggest that you seek advice on the Law before proceeding in this matter, as the failure of a public servant to differentiate between the concepts of Lawful and Legal is 'Misfeasance in Public Ofﬁce' - the equivalent of the serious criminal offence of Fraud at Common Law. The spirit of the legislation regarding the use of Index Marks is ultimately the eminently sensible and reasonable requirement for automobiles to be uniquely identiﬁed by the Police and other road users - and to this end, my lawful Claim of Right to the Index Mark FREEMAN more than fulﬁlls this purpose by making my Private Automobile one of the most readily identiﬁable in the Country. Absent a lawful counterclaim on your part, I will write to the Chief Constables of all the areas of the UK through which I travel regularly, to inform them of my use of this Index Mark and my Fee Schedule - so that their Ofﬁcers do not waste their extremely valuable time by interrupting my free travel because I have simply identiﬁed my vehicle with the Index Mark FREEMAN - and in so doing cause unnecessary expense to the Secretary of State for Transport. At this stage, may I make an observation regarding Index Marks? - The UK has a rich history of formats for identifying automobiles - all of which are still as valid as the day they were ﬁrst issued. To preserve them, the DVLA already engages in commerce, by operating a ‘Cherished Plate’ transfer service and it frequently auctions Index Marks (often raising large sums of money for a single Cherished Plate). Thus, I cannot see any reason why the Secretary of State for Transport couldn’t extend this to include the use of inoffensive words as Index Marks - for this would surely raise much needed revenue for the Department of Transport during these difﬁcult ﬁnancial times. Finally, if you would like to meet me at any location that is convenient to yourself, to discuss any of the issues raised herein, I would be more than happy to do so - on the understanding that, as a Filmmaker, I would record our discussions on audio and video for use in a Documentary Film I am making about the Freeman ethos: Love - Peace - Justice - for All Yours most sincerely, and without any ill-will, vexation and frivolity,
Neil, of the Kerslake family, Freeman-on-the-Land at Common Law, in Lawful Rebellion under Article 61 of the Magna Carta 1215. PS: I have enclosed another copy of my Notice of Understanding and Intent and Claim of Right that was lawfully served on the Secretary of State for Transport - in case the original has been lost in the mountain of paperwork that you, and the DVLA, have to deal with on a daily basis - and for your reference purposes, I have also included copies of the two Afﬁdavits that I served on Her Majesty The Queen to enter into Lawful Rebellion and assert my status of Freeman-on-the-Land. PPS: Please would you note that for the purposes of future correspondence, I am lawfully known as: Neil, of the Kerslake family - and as a Freeman-on-the-Land at Common Law, I respectfully request that you desist from continuing to associate me with the ﬁctitious legal title of Mr. Kerslake.
This action might not be possible to undo. Are you sure you want to continue?