# Parking ticket "Freeman" agrument (No Contract - Return to Sender) just nonsense?



## MossFerguson (24 Jul 2010)

Friends

I have lurked long and now post in the hope of help. 

I have received a parking ticket on my car. 

Now I was sent a link to freeman and would like the opinion of you fine folks as you seem well learned in law. 

I cannot post it because i have not enough posts so will suggest you fine folks at AAM google freeman simon-ian parking ticket

[broken link removed] 

[broken link removed] 

[broken link removed] 

MossyFerguson


----------



## d2x2 (24 Jul 2010)

Was the ticket made out to the wrong reg? 
Did you deserve the ticket because you parked where you shouldn't have or failed to display?


----------



## Moral Ethos (24 Jul 2010)

Was this a council issued ticket or some private outfit?


----------



## MossFerguson (24 Jul 2010)

What i am asking is, what do folk here think of thefreeman argument that one is not bound by statute one has not agreed to. Is that all nonsense?

The freeman say they one be given a bill of exchange for claim for money with the words ' bill' and 'value' on it and if this is not furnished one is are not legally obliged to pay. 

My question is as to the right/wrong of this view and if it can be challenged on this ground or is the freeman agrument nonsense?


----------



## Moral Ethos (24 Jul 2010)

> is the freeman agrument nonsense.


Yes it is. It won't work.


----------



## ajapale (24 Jul 2010)

Is this question about the validity of a parking ticket or is it a posting promoting a strange libertarian forum called [broken link removed] ?
aj
moderator


----------



## MossFerguson (24 Jul 2010)

ajapale said:


> Is this question about the validity of a parking ticket or is it a posting promoting a strange libertarian forum called Tir Na Saor


I am interested in whether their[tir na saor] methods can successfuly challenge the ticket. whether they are correct. I am not promoting them. I cannot link to it but there is a case where one guy says he successfully used the methods. He was Simon 


> Was this a council issued ticket or some private outfit?


council. if it will not work how did this Simon guy and others succeed. And is there any truth in what they claim about one being entitled to a bill of exchange if a payment for traffic fine is claimed?If one is entitled to such a bill why do the councils not supply it on request

@ajapale I had to remove your link from the quote because links won't post for me


----------



## Moral Ethos (24 Jul 2010)

Tír na saor are a bunch of nutters and anyone following their advice is likely to find themselves in loads of trouble.


----------



## MossFerguson (24 Jul 2010)

They may be nutters 

But is there any truth in what they claim about one being entitled to a bill of  exchange if a payment for traffic fine is claimed?If one is entitled to  such a bill why do the councils not supply it on request?


----------



## Moral Ethos (24 Jul 2010)

They are wrong in my opinion. Similar arguments have been tried in the UK and things have ended badly for anyone attempting them. They even suggest sending the Queen affidavits stating they do not recognise her rule.

Just after [broken link removed]. Words fail me.


----------



## Setanta12 (24 Jul 2010)

Plain wrong.

In a similar vein, I see the actor Wesley Snipes get 3 years in jail for similar arguments re (not ) paying tax.


----------



## Chocks away (24 Jul 2010)

" 'Vivre libre ou mourir' , as they say in Greece". Del Boy!


----------



## MossFerguson (24 Jul 2010)

What is a notice and what legal power has it. the reminder says it is a *notice to the regd owner* etc


----------



## csirl (26 Jul 2010)

> What i am asking is, what do folk here think of thefreeman argument that one is not bound by statute one has not agreed to. Is that all nonsense?


 
Argument has no merit. The State does not have to get every individual to agree to every individual law that is introduced. Laws are introduced by a majority vote in the Dail. If you vote against the law or dont agree with it, it still applies to you. 

The argument also falls down on another point - the President personally signs all laws. The President is our representative with delegated authority to sign laws on behalf of every citizen. So you have agreed to every statute - your representative even personally signed them on your behalf.


----------



## Hoagy (26 Jul 2010)

*Brian:* Look, you've got it all wrong! You don't _need_ to follow me. You don't _need_ to follow _anybody_! You've got to think for yourselves! You're _all_ individuals!
*Crowd:* _[in unison]_ Yes! We're all individuals!
*Brian:* You're all different!
*Crowd:* _[in unison]_ Yes, we _are_ all different!
*Man in crowd:* I'm not...


----------



## Padraigb (26 Jul 2010)

Nice one, Hoagy.

To put it more kindly than it merits, that Tír na Saor website is bizarre.


----------



## redbhoy (27 Jul 2010)

At least the Tír na Saor website is questioning the status quo. They mightnt be right but whats wrong with interesting debate? 
The system stinks and everyone whinges about it. It looks like these guys are trying to instigate change. Good luck to them.


----------



## MossFerguson (27 Jul 2010)

....that is true but you will find some do not want debate as it threatens their view of things and their nice careers. They seek to make fun of things as a way to remove any truth therein. I have looked up the freeman and do not promote them but I suspect, like a stopped watch, they may be be right some of the time. This thing about whether one can be forced to pay a parking ticket without a bill of exchange being issued is interesting..........


----------



## mf1 (27 Jul 2010)

"This thing about whether one can be forced to pay a parking ticket without a bill of exchange being issued is interesting..."

No. Its not. It is just lunatic, crazed rambling. 

mf


----------



## Carey (27 Jul 2010)

The problem is what little merit that may be in their arguments the courts here will not accept any of it. Yer man in Leitrim is likely to get a jail sentence for continuing his charade of not acknowledging he is the person subject to the proceedings. 

It is my opinion they would be better off protesting outside the Dáil or by voting for someone else at elections. Their intentions may be laudable but is it worth making a laughing stock of yourself in court and getting jail as a result?


----------



## redbhoy (27 Jul 2010)

Carey said:


> Their intentions may be laudable but is it worth making a laughing stock of yourself in court and getting jail as a result?


 
A few men and women did that in 1916 and look what happened


----------



## MossFerguson (27 Jul 2010)

Carey said:


> The problem is what little merit that may be in their arguments the courts here will not accept any of it.* Yer man in Leitrim is likely to get a jail sentence for continuing his charade of not acknowledging he is the person subject to the proceedings. *


which guy is that

that is a bit much playing law with a judge like a local snooker player taking on the late AH RIP and expecting to win


----------



## MossFerguson (27 Jul 2010)

mf1 said:


> "This thing about whether one can be forced to pay a parking ticket without a bill of exchange being issued is interesting..."
> 
> No. Its not. It is just lunatic, crazed rambling.
> 
> mf


they say one cannot be fined without a conviction and that local authorities have backed down when bill requested


----------



## Padraigb (27 Jul 2010)

MossFerguson said:


> they say one cannot be fined without a conviction and that local authorities have backed down when bill requested



They can say anything. What matters is whether what they say is true. I don't believe that it is. 

It seems that they do not even know what a bill of exchange is.


----------



## Hoagy (27 Jul 2010)

MossFerguson said:


> I suspect, like a stopped watch, they may be be right some of the time.


 
And about as much use.


----------



## MossFerguson (27 Jul 2010)

Padraigb said:


> They can say anything. What matters is whether what they say is true. I don't believe that it is.


they have posted copies of letters where tickets were cancelled when they asked for one and other what they call proofs. Could be the parking people did not want to bother with the hassle or it could be they are afraid to open the pandora box

It seems that they do not even know what a bill of exchange is.[/quote]do you know what it is? enlighten us? I do not believe a parking ticket is one anyway. Could be wrong though

I am seriously thinking of asking for one to see what is happen. But i would not tell a judge my name is not my name ot i am the natural man not the legal person etc. That is bringing a knife to a gun fight


----------



## Padraigb (27 Jul 2010)

MossFerguson said:


> ...
> do you know what [a bill of exchange] is?



Yes.



> enlighten us?





> I do not believe a parking ticket is one anyway. Could be wrong though



Neither is a parking ticket a mushroom or a red setter. A parking ticket is just that: a parking ticket (or fixed penalty notice). It's not invalid just because it's not something else that you or anybody else chooses to mention. The effect of a parking ticket is that you have the option of paying a fixed penalty rather than face prosecution for an offence. If you choose not to pay the fixed penalty, you can be prosecuted for the parking offence.


----------



## MossFerguson (27 Jul 2010)

test no urls


----------



## MossFerguson (28 Jul 2010)

excuse the test post problems with urls

seen that definition though not on that page. i did not say red setter is a bill. i said a parking ticket is not a bill

Freeman say it, the ticket is a notice not a bill. You can argue just becasue they say it does not make it so.Correct but just because you say something does not make it so either.


Ths is on a freeman site i cannot link it not enough posts" The following is an extract from the Bill of Rights Act 1689, enacted and formally entered into Statute following the Declaration of Rights 1689:

“That all grants and promises of fines and forfeitures of particular persons before conviction are illegal and void”

This states that a conviction is necessary before a fine or forfeit can be imposed."So if one is not convicted how can he be fined? I am yet to be convinced one can be fined on foot of a notice or prosecuted for looking for a proper bill


----------



## MossFerguson (28 Jul 2010)

see www dot stop the robbery dot com \ parkingticketremedy dot html


----------



## Padraigb (28 Jul 2010)

I explained the idea of a fixed penalty notice.

I don't know why you seem obsessed with the idea of a bill or a bill of exchange. You have been reading claptrap and, at this stage, I believe that you are not posting here in a genuine spirit of enquiry.


----------



## MossFerguson (28 Jul 2010)

Padraigb said:


> I explained the idea of a fixed penalty notice.
> 
> I don't know why you seem obsessed with the idea of a bill or a bill of exchange. You have been reading claptrap and, at this stage, *I believe that you are not posting here in a genuine spirit of enqu*iry.


i read some of your posts and you do not know much about law. just cos you believe it does not make it so. Not responding any more to this as you are wasting my time


----------



## Leo (28 Jul 2010)

And reading all this is wasting mine... thread closed.


----------

