Gardai, Government, Privately owned Corporations. Enslavement

TalkieWalkie

Ok, is Dublin city Council, AKA Dublin Corporation, a Corporation ?

Of course, if we could prove the Gardai are a corporation there would be uproar !!

It takes a bit of common sense.

You don't pay road tax and you are stopped by the cops, they take you're car, then you go to court, then you get fined, possibly jailed. But they are not fining or jailing you, they do it to the "legal fiction entity" they have created for you, your birthcert. They can not do this to a free human being, so they create another entity. When you agreed to being that entity, you give them jurisdiction over you.

MR or MS CAPITAL LETTERS

Di0genes

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

Ok, is Dublin city Council, AKA Dublin Corporation, a Corporation ?

Of course, if we could prove the Gardai are a corporation there would be uproar !!

It takes a bit of common sense.

You don't pay road tax and you are stopped by the cops, they take you're car, then you go to court, then you get fined, possibly jailed. But they are not fining or jailing you, they do it to the "legal fiction entity" they have created for you, your birthcert. They can not do this to a free human being, so they create another entity. When you agreed to being that entity, you give them jurisdiction over you.

MR or MS CAPITAL LETTERS

Um, what?

Yitzhak Rabin

Brown Bomber wrote: »

I know this is Canada but who are the Police force representing here? Not the people anyhow.

Perhaps they are representing the 99.999% who didn't turn up to protest and disrupt that day?

Watch til the end

As for the video itself, its very difficult to see what the cops were actually trying to achieve. They did the one thing which is basically the golden rule of public order control. They gave the protesters no escape route. As I said in another post, the ultimate aim of riot platoons is not to cause harm, fight, or even arrest people. Its to disperse the crowd, and break up the mob, to prevent people taking on a mob mentality.

The only plausible explanation I can think of(from a tactical POV) is that they had identified people in that group as targets that they needed to arrest. While no crime was committed in this video, thats not to say some of the people weren't involved in earlier violence or crimes.

Or it could just be incompetence, negligence and over-aggressiveness by the police commander.

That said, the actual snatch squad's drills were slick. Them was some good drills!

studiorat

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

Ok, is Dublin city Council, AKA Dublin Corporation, a Corporation ?

You don't pay road tax and you are stopped by the cops, they take you're car, then you go to court, then you get fined, possibly jailed. But they are not fining or jailing you, they do it to the "legal fiction entity" they have created for you, your birthcert. They can not do this to a free human being, so they create another entity. When you agreed to being that entity, you give them jurisdiction over you.

MR or MS CAPITAL LETTERS

More myths... the contract! real christian fundie stuff there
It was only a matter of time before that came up. Redemption theory. Funny, all I can see is it being an excuse not to pay tax or motor insurance. I wonder how many sovereigns would happily use the health service and claim social welfare payments. This myth breeds selfishness and isolationist thinking.

I read with interest that that guy ended up getting a solicitor for himself after he had his day in court and failed miserably to stick it to the man. :rolleyes:
Caught driving with no insurance and deciding to use the court date to make a point, with a load of keyboard warriors egging him on. Laughable..

TalkieWalkie

studiorat wrote: »

More myths... the contract! real christian fundie stuff there
It was only a matter of time before that came up. Redemption theory. Funny, all I can see is it being an excuse not to pay tax or motor insurance. I wonder how many sovereigns would happily use the health service and claim social welfare payments. This myth breeds selfishness and isolationist thinking.

I read with interest that that guy ended up getting a solicitor for himself after he had his day in court and failed miserably to stick it to the man. :rolleyes:
Caught driving with no insurance and deciding to use the court date to make a point, with a load of keyboard warriors egging him on. Laughable..

And did you read with interest about the sovereign's who won in court or did you turn a blind eye to that because it doesn't support your arguement that the "contract" is a myth ?

Di0genes

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

And did you read with interest about the sovereign's who won in court or did you turn a blind eye to that because it doesn't support your arguement that the "contract" is a myth ?

Source and citation. Please cite examples of people using this interpretation of the law, and winning using it.

stevejazzx

Di0genes wrote: »

Source and citation. Please cite examples of people using this interpretation of the law, and winning using it.

Please note I do not support the conspiracy here but this link is interesting if you can get past the bizare Clint Eastwood style voicing at the begining!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=caQcx0H17fo&feature=related
I think it relates to what the OP is trying to get at; obivously UK and Irish Law are different.

TalkieWalkie

Here you go Diogenes, this is almost to a T what I was describing, enjoy. This is UK also, there are some Irish ones with bad audio.

Part 1

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LNhsRjsw4Yc

Part 2

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wQTPoTX8IAE

Apologies, same as last poster, still, embed is better :P

Dun & Bradstreet provide information about the financial position of companies, government entities, charities etc for businesses (and other entities) who want to do business with them so that they can judge their riskiness.

Traded as is a business term to say they (or part of them) had a different name in the past.

Scarab80

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

Here you go Diogenes, this is almost to a T what I was describing, enjoy. This is UK also, there are some Irish ones with bad audio.

Apologies, same as last poster, still, embed is better :P

And this is what eventually happens to "Freemen"....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QxgPFnFeXNI

Torakx

What was the case situation if anyone knows about it.
The sound quality wasnt great.Sounded like he was as far as he is concerned within the law.
Cant say much for the government, doing what they ussually do though.
It should be known by now that a "freeman of the land" will sometimes be targeted and unlawfully abused or held prisoner when the government view them to be disrupting their bussiness even if said bussiness is unlawful and sometimes even illegal..Just because they break the law doesnt mean they are right(the legal system/courts etc).
Just means a free man is abused while the rest of us "slaves" or whatever you like to call us are standing there watching our freedoms slowly be disregarded as an afterthought if we are lucky.
Oh wait till Lisbon really kicks in.The EU are going to be all over our a$$es.

TalkieWalkie

Scarab80 wrote: »

And this is what eventually happens to "Freemen"....

ugghh, Couldn't finish listening to that..

This is what actually happens freemen, the one who know how to defend themselves..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2E8zowJOtM8

robtri

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

ugghh, Couldn't finish listening to that..

This is what actually happens freemen, the one who know how to defend themselves..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2E8zowJOtM8

I am not denying it didnt happen, but that could be anything..
have you a case number we can look up on this???

TalkieWalkie

robtri wrote: »

I am not denying it didnt happen, but that could be anything..
have you a case number we can look up on this???

Nope, it's just a vid I came accross, im not familiar with the case.

Here is some more info on this stuff...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cH8-6JW-rUA

IrelandSpirit

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

ugghh, Couldn't finish listening to that..

This is what actually happens freemen, the one who know how to defend themselves..

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2E8zowJOtM8

Ha! Yep, is that the case where yer man then leaves the court, and a 'friendly' solicitor advises him (tricks him) to go back in? Could be thinking of another one, but it's always good to remember that 'he who leaves the battlefield first, loses'. Seen a few of these examples now ...

TalkieWalkie

Another one. No Contract, No subject Jurisdiction.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rYWHy54rtLw

And another. By not "understanding", he is not "standing under" their authority.
Looks like he's playing stupid but he knows exactly what he's doing. Gardai have no clue.
Part 1

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VICJJiApkmg

Part 2

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-dLJ_ARaRKg

IrelandSpirit

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

Another one. No Contract, No subject Jurisdiction.

Exactly. And no victim, no crime. The thing is, that particular police woman appears to be playing by the rules. She went from 'policy enforcer' to 'peace officer' in the instant she realised there was no contract, and didn't try to gain jurisdiction by other (often devious) means. Hard to tell if she realised this consciously or on some visceral level, but people are people and it's when you get some feckless muppet that things can go badly south.

robtri

I am very new to this sort of thing... and I dont really get it...

I dont like that no victim no crime nonsense...

May I ask Ireland spirit, if say your mother was attacked and told to keep her mouth shut afterward. Since she didnt report it to the gardai are you comfortable with the attackers getting of scot free??? or would you rather the gardai did there job.

Also in realtion to the guy in the polite gardai video's, since we dont know the outcome its impossible to tell if anything worked.
Also when he accpeted and applied for a licence to drive his car on the public roads is this not a form of contract????

TalkieWalkie

We don't know that he has a license or that he is the owner of the car or that it is registered to his address. One minute, "you will be arrested" the next, "you are free to go". Since the Garda never got his name or identification there is no-one to charge and since the Garda refused to take his oath on record.

uprising2

robtri wrote: »

I am very new to this sort of thing... and I dont really get it...

I dont like that no victim no crime nonsense...

May I ask Ireland spirit, if say your mother was attacked and told to keep her mouth shut afterward. Since she didnt report it to the gardai are you comfortable with the attackers getting of scot free??? or would you rather the gardai did there job.

That's not how it works, this man explains it best of all, John Harris.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V0IM7Hobd_k

EDIT:
This is england but more or less the exact same here.

Di0genes

Once again I'm left in awe of people who really should never be allowed sit near never mind in a jury box.

uprising2

Di0genes wrote: »

Once again I'm left in awe of people who really should never be allowed sit near never mind in a jury box.

Can you please try translate that into something that makes a bit of sense.

drkpower

:DThat makes perfect sense. Which kinda proves his point!:D

uprising2

drkpower wrote: »

:DThat makes perfect sense. Which kinda proves his point!:D

:D:DProves what point?:D:D:D

Di0genes

uprising2 wrote: »

Can you please try translate that into something that makes a bit of sense.

That the people who believe in this Freeman nonsense have absolutely no concept of how the judicial process works. The idea of someone who believes in this nonsense sitting in a jury is beyond terrifying.

If people like John Harris want to be judged by a jury of their peers I suggest we find 12 semi literate buffoons to comprise of his jury.

humanji

Is that "Polite Garda" clip not a perfect example of how the Freeman movement can abuse society? The guy was speeding in a built up area. A law was put in place to stop speeding to save lives and this c*nt breaks it just to prove a point?

I wonder if it was a Rockefeller who did it, would he be hailed as such a hero?

uprising2

humanji wrote: »

Is that "Polite Garda" clip not a perfect example of how the Freeman movement can abuse society? The guy was speeding in a built up area. A law was put in place to stop speeding to save lives and this c*nt breaks it just to prove a point?

I wonder if it was a Rockefeller who did it, would he be hailed as such a hero?

It was an act...

Sorry in one of them moods.

But you can use common sense when driving and break the limit very safely at certain times in certain places, such as lastweek at 1am I came up the dual carriageway in Finglas heading north under the bridge, a dual carriageway with a 60kh speed limit (money racket), and was pulled in for speeding doing 75kh, now I wasn't speeding or endangering anybody.
If I'd have been on a sh1t twisty backroad in the bog somewhere I could have went 5kh faster and stayed within the limit, the next day I was on a scaldy twisty road that 2 cars could barely pass each other and noticed that the limit was 80kh, it seem's they pull roads out of a hat and spin a wheel to determine speed limits.

TalkieWalkie

Di0genes wrote: »

That the people who believe in this Freeman nonsense have absolutely no concept of how the judicial process works. The idea of someone who believes in this nonsense sitting in a jury is beyond terrifying.

If people like John Harris want to be judged by a jury of their peers I suggest we find 12 semi literate buffoons to comprise of his jury.

Are you saying that what Harris is saying is wrong ? What he is saying is perfectly legaland above board and it is so for a reason. It is to protect you're rights as a soveriegn human being.
But because you are a skeptic, you are willing to throw your rights out the window just to make a point ?
That is some pretty pathetic stuff.

studiorat

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

It turns out that the Irish Government and the Gardai Siochana and all other Irish institutions are privately owned corporations who trade for profit on the stock exchange.

Still no proof of this statment...

uprising2

Office of the Executive Director ICT
Liam Kidd

http://www.garda.ie/Controller.aspx?Page=67&Lang=1

Di0genes

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

Are you saying that what Harris is saying is wrong ?

Yes profoundly and hopeless wrong.

What he is saying is perfectly legaland above board and it is so for a reason. It is to protect you're rights as a soveriegn human being.

I'm sorry as I understand it my rights, and obligations as a citizen of this state are clearly labelled and defined in the constitution. If I dispute these definitions or seek to change these what I am allowed to do, there are clearly defined processes such as referendums and court challenges in place. This system is ratified. If I move or travel to another country I am legally obliged to adhere to the ratified laws and constitution of that country.

Explain to me where my rights as a "soveriegn" (sic) human being are defined, and how they were ratified.

But because you are a skeptic, you are willing to throw your rights out the window just to make a point ?

WHAT RIGHTS? How do these "rights" override our constitution?

That is some pretty pathetic stuff.

Says the guy who can't spell sovereign.

digme

What law if any do the freeman obey?

Di0genes

uprising2 wrote: »

It was an act...

Sorry in one of them moods.

But you can use common sense when driving and break the limit very safely at certain times in certain places, such as lastweek at 1am I came up the dual carriageway in Finglas heading north under the bridge, a dual carriageway with a 60kh speed limit (money racket), and was pulled in for speeding doing 75kh, now I wasn't speeding or endangering anybody.

If the speed limit was 60kh and it was clearly labelled as such, and you were doing 75kh, despite being aware you were 15kh over the limit, then you clearly were speeding and have just admitted doing it themselves.

If I'd have been on a sh1t twisty backroad in the bog somewhere I could have went 5kh faster and stayed within the limit, the next day I was on a scaldy twisty road that 2 cars could barely pass each other and noticed that the limit was 80kh, it seem's they pull roads out of a hat and spin a wheel to determine speed limits.

I'm sorry this is puerile nonsense. You may as well be arguing that you should be allowed to drink over the drink driving limit because "you are more than capable of handled a car after five pints."

Yes they are arbitrary limits buts thats considered to be the best median speed for the road.

What alternative do you suggest we alternate speed limits on roads depending on time of day? Conditions of the roads? Traffic? Should we get a bunch of statisticians to work out the best speed on every mile of road in Ireland, and randomly change the speed limit to suit. Should we constantly monitor every road in the state, and have constantly altered speed limits altered to suit time of day, whether it's wet, or frosty, or traffic conditions.

You got a fine for speeding to create the above you'd have to pay an increase in national road tax that would make your fine pale into significance.

So how about this if the sign says 60, do 60. Don't bitch about getting a speeding ticket as "unfair". You knew the rules and broke the rules. Suck it up.

digme

Another question just came to mind.If i don't have a birth certificate,will I be able to buy a car and drive it?

Di0genes

digme wrote: »

What law if any do the freeman obey?

The law that says that things like road tax and insurance and driving licences are like totally unfair, when they're in the wrong.

And this wrong exposes a flaw in our legal system which undos the entire foundation of legal system, and this flaw has gone unnoticed by people generations of people who studied our law for decades and happened to completely miss this loophole that makes our entire legal system kaupt, and we've only found this out by the power of youtube.

digme

Di0genes wrote: »

The law that says that things like road tax and insurance and driving licences are like totally unfair, when they're in the wrong.

And this wrong exposes a flaw in our legal system which undos the entire foundation of legal system, and this flaw has gone unnoticed by people generations of people who studied our law for decades and happened to completely miss this loophole that makes our entire legal system kaupt, and we've only found this out by the power of youtube.

As opposed to being a small bit unfair?
Sorry i hate yanky lingo lol

Anyway,back on topic, is it maritime law or common law they want to use?
I'm a bit confused ,myself too.

Di0genes

digme wrote: »

As opposed to being a small bit unfair?
Sorry i hate yanky lingo lol

You missed the "like totally unfair" as a post modern reference to the film "Clueless" which these freeman jackasses are the definition of.

digme

Not into the old TV at all myself i'd watch the odd series all right like rescue me now and sopranos but if i used that term id be like so killed.

uprising2

digme wrote: »

What law if any do the freeman obey?

The law of the land. In court you are tried under maritime law.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Admiralty_law#In_individual_countries

digme wrote: »

Another question just came to mind.If i don't have a birth certificate,will I be able to buy a car and drive it?

You don't need your birthcert to buy a car, you don't need to show any licence either to buy a car, cash alone will do.

More info here.

http://freemanireland.ning.com/

digme

uprising2 wrote: »

The law of the land. In court you are tried under maritime law.



You don't need your birthcert to buy a car, you don't need to show any licence either to buy a car, cash alone will do.

More info here.

http://freemanireland.ning.com/

So our courts use maritime law,can there be another law working alongside this? Why does maritime law matter if your a free man? Why not have no laws? Does maritime law just do enough for a human without castrating him, is that it?

So i buy my car and drive down the road,am i allowed drive down that road even though i never payed tax for it?I can't pay tax if i don't have a berth cert?

uprising2

digme wrote: »

So our courts use maritime law,can there be another law working alongside this? Why does maritime law matter if your a free man? Why not have no laws? Does maritime law just do enough for a human without castrating him, is that it?

So i buy my car and drive down the road,am i allowed drive down that road even though i never payed tax for it?I can't pay tax if i don't have a berth cert?

Digme, what you do and don't do is down to you.
I added another link back there, here it is again http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Admiralty_law#In_individual_countries.

Basically you have a human right to transport your ass around, tax and insurance don't save lives (either does speeding).

You need to research this if your interested and decide what you are or aren't prepared to do.

Just to mention, about once a year I end up in mountjoy for unpaid fines, the last time I had about €2,500 in fines and I was taken to mountjoy at 2pm by 4:30pm I was walking up the North Circular Road, a FREEMAN and owed them nothing.

Di0genes

uprising2 wrote: »

The law of the land. In court you are tried under maritime law.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Admiralty_law#In_individual_countries

Um did you ead the link

(also referred to as maritime law) is a distinct body of law which governs maritime questions and offenses. It is a body of both domestic law governing maritime activities, and private international law governing the relationships between private entities which operate vessels on the oceans. It deals with matters including marine commerce, marine navigation, shipping, sailors, and the transportation of passengers and goods by sea. Admiralty law also covers many commercial activities, although land based or occurring wholly on land, that are maritime in character.

Um What on earth is your point.

You don't need your birthcert to buy a car, you don't need to show any licence either to buy a car, cash alone will do.

More info here.

http://freemanireland.ning.com/

Yes you can. However if you want to drive said vehicle on a public road you need a licence, insurance, and to tax said vehicle.

You can buy the car with cash, you can keep it in a garage, and not drive it. The problem is when you try and take it out on the road.

This is all again pretty simple stuff here.

Di0genes

uprising2 wrote: »

Digme, what you do and don't do is down to you.
I added another link back there, here it is again http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Admiralty_law#In_individual_countries.

Basically you have a human right to transport your ass around,

Really where is that written

tax and insurance don't save lives (either does speeding).

No but tax pays to keep the roads in working order.

Insurance ensures that if you crash into someone or someone crashes into you, you or they avoid an obscenely large medical and or legal bill.

You need to research this if your interested and decide what you are or aren't prepared to do.


Just to mention, about once a year I end up in mountjoy for unpaid fines, the last time I had about €2,500 in fines and I was taken to mountjoy at 2pm by 4:30pm I was walking up the North Circular Road, a FREEMAN and owed them nothing.

And the cost in court time an state legal fees in passed onto us via taxes. Or regular drivers having their premiums jacked up to pay for uninsured jackasses.

And you're proud of your criminal record? Your attitude? The fact that you're a parasite on other road users and taxpayers.

Never mind the 2.5k fines the direct and indirect costs your attitude costs the state, and you're actually boasting about this?

TalkieWalkie

Di0genes wrote: »

I'm sorry, as I understand it, my rights,(< no comma here) and obligations as a citizen of this state are clearly labelled and defined in the constitution. If I dispute these definitions or seek to change these, what I am allowed to do?.,(no comma here, full stop and capital T and question mark) There are clearly defined processes such as referendums and court challenges in place. This system is ratified. If I move or travel to another country, I am legally obliged to adhere to the ratified laws and constitution of that country.

Wew, lot's of big legal looking talk here. Although you tried you're best to make sure you didn't make any spelling errors after pulling up my error, you made a f*cking holy sham of this paragraph. What happened ? You're spell checker doesn't do grammar ? I have noted you're errors in red.

Just imagine how stupid all you're other paragraphs must look, and nobody has pulled you up on it yet.

Every man/woman has the right to claim common law.

I have lost what small bit of respect I had for you and wont be discussing this matter with you any further.[/QUOTE]

Undergod

The Freeman movement is utter, utter, utter bull****.

According to that wrodpress site, the Irish Freemans' Movement claims to desire a return to Brehon Law (a caste system) and holds God to be the ultimate authority. What a progressive step forward!

Di0genes

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

Wew, lot's of big legal looking talk here. Although you tried you're best to make sure you didn't make any spelling errors after pulling up my error, you made a f*cking holy sham of this paragraph. What happened ? You're spell checker doesn't do grammar ? I have noted you're errors in red.

Firstly there's a comma after "and", because it's a clause. I may have missed a question mark, but I didn't consistently mistake "You're" with what you wanted to use was "Your".

And getting into pedantry you ignored the entire thrust of the argument

Me wrote:

I'm sorry as I understand it my rights, and obligations as a citizen of this state are clearly labeled and defined in the constitution. If I dispute these definitions or seek to change these what I am allowed to do, there are clearly defined processes such as referendums and court challenges in place. This system is ratified. If I move or travel to another country I am legally obliged to adhere to the ratified laws and constitution of that country.

Care to answer the point?

Just imagine how stupid all you're other paragraphs must look, and nobody has pulled you up on it yet.

Every man/woman has the right to claim common law.

And you've yet to give a definition or citation of where the concept of common law comes from. Where and who it's defined from?

I have lost what small bit of respect I had for you and wont be discussing this matter with you any further.

RUN AWAY! RUN AWAY!

Torakx

robtri wrote: »

I am very new to this sort of thing... and I dont really get it...

I dont like that no victim no crime nonsense...


Also in realtion to the guy in the polite gardai video's, since we dont know the outcome its impossible to tell if anything worked.
Also when he accpeted and applied for a licence to drive his car on the public roads is this not a form of contract????

Its a little sad to hear a person(or human ) say "i dont like that no victim no crime nonsense..."
Surely if there is nobody victimized then why is there a crime?
If the state is a victim surely they would be able to lawfuly charge a human for a crime.... this is the key to lawfull rebellion,they cannot lawfuly charge people without turning it into a bussiness transaction/contract unless a crime has been commited.As it stand a freeman can still be charged with unlawful activities.

About the driving etc.You asked me before to supply my court case number in another thread related to driving tickets.Unfortunatly that would give you my personal information but have not gotten a reply when i asked how i can look it up myself and post the censored info for you to observe.
Id still like if you can help me on that if you could.
The man in that video in his car talking to the garda prossibly has signed for the person as the authorized signature(meaning the fictional entity/person owns the car and insurance and tax or whatever is under said name).What the garda was trying to do was find legal jurisdiction so they can do bussiness.
Since the car owners address and name(legal fiction again) will come up when the garda searched the in car database.That is who the letter will be addressed to when they process the fine or ticket.
The letter will be asking him to contract or represent that fictional name to do bussiness.It is up to each human if they will do bussiness.Unless they break the law.
Notice the Garda said "under the road traffic act".An act cannot be law unless you consent to do bussiness and enter into maritime/admiral law afaik.
If the guy actually had a victim i would appreciate the garda stopping him.What those garda where doing unbeknownst or not to them was just looking for a bussiness contract to create revenue.There was no victim so why should a free person have to do bussiness?
Logically it doesnt make sense to me in a land of free people.

K-9

uprising2 wrote: »

Digme, what you do and don't do is down to you.
I added another link back there, here it is again http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Admiralty_law#In_individual_countries.

Basically you have a human right to transport your ass around, tax and insurance don't save lives (either does speeding).

You need to research this if your interested and decide what you are or aren't prepared to do.

Just to mention, about once a year I end up in mountjoy for unpaid fines, the last time I had about €2,500 in fines and I was taken to mountjoy at 2pm by 4:30pm I was walking up the North Circular Road, a FREEMAN and owed them nothing.

The insurance comes in handy if you have a big accident though, you do have a point.

As for the fines, you must have been convicted though to be in Mountjoy in the first place, No?

uprising2

Di0genes wrote: »

Really where is that written

Not in that link, but it's a human right.

Di0genes wrote: »

No but tax pays to keep the roads in working order.

Insurance ensures that if you crash into someone or someone crashes into you, you or they avoid an obscenely large medical and or legal bill.



And the cost in court time an state legal fees in passed onto us via taxes. Or regular drivers having their premiums jacked up to pay for uninsured jackasses.

Listen, I have a car that I have fully comp insurance in, it's taxed and I have a full clean driving licence, stop assuming.

Di0genes wrote: »

And you're proud of your criminal record? Your attitude? The fact that you're a parasite on other road users and taxpayers.

Never mind the 2.5k fines the direct and indirect costs your attitude costs the state, and you're actually boasting about this?

It's not a criminal record, stop assuming.

I'm no parasite to anybody, I can afford to drive, but if I couldn't I wouldn't let rules made by high society prevent me from transporting myself or my loved one's around if I needed to.

The 2.5k fines were for parking, driving in bus lanes and other bullsh1t acts where I didn't actually cause harm or loss to anybody, the state took it upon themselves to try get money from me, they failed and you'd like me to feel guilty and remorseful, blame them for wasting your tax money not me.

uprising2

K-9 wrote: »

The insurance comes in handy if you have a big accident though, you do have a point.

As for the fines, you must have been convicted though to be in Mountjoy in the first place, No?

Road traffic offences aren't criminal offences.