Namaste dear friends,
One of the intelligent and helpful questions Rhys (the young CID Officer who had a cup of tea and a chat with us) asked was, “How do you see this being resolved?” I answered that I couldn’t really see any way that would be palatable to TPTB (the powers that be) and, at the same time, compatible with our spiritual standpoint. At that time it appeared there were only two options, neither of which would be likely to be considered acceptable to TPTB:
One thing they could do is simply to return our motorhome, apologise profusely for the hardship and suffering their actions have caused us, and to promise to ‘turn a blind eye’ to the fact that we would not comply with their system; a way of admitting that the state is lawless and corrupt and that such a system cannot bind someone who is genuinely aspiring to lead a spiritual life. This would be difficult for TPTB because it would open the door to others who would take the same position we have: that the state is lawless and corrupt and therefore cannot bind anyone who chooses not to associate with it for ethical reasons.
Alternatively (and, by the way, positively the best outcome, in our opinion), TPTB could address the lawlessness and corruption, rounding up and disempowering the criminals who currently pervert and corrupt society. Once that is achieved we would hope to find this a society that we can take part in with a clear conscience. We are not such naïve optimists that we believe there is any realistic chance of this happening at this time.
After Rhys left, and following some contemplation on the subject, a solution that had filtered into my consciousness some time ago, near the beginning of this journey, resurfaced: if each person involved in the case simply declined to carry out their duties then, without setting any general precedent, no action would be taken to destroy our home. How could those involved at Autolift, in the police, council, DVLA justify such action (or, in this case, inaction)? It is easily justified by the fact that to destroy our home would be unlawful. Ever since the Nuremberg warcrimes trials “Only following orders” is no defence; many were hung for executing unlawful orders.
Isn’t it unlawful to drive on the roads without a valid vehicle excise licence? We have always been led to believe so but let’s examine what ‘lawful’ means: To be lawful a rule must apply to all equally. A rule that does not apply to everyone cannot bind anyone. We have been deceived into believing that the Acts and statutes imposed upon us are laws but they are not. Rather, they are legislative rules of society, given the force of law by the consent of the governed. To apply to you, you have to be a member of the society in which they are in effect and you have to consent to them. Some may argue that only the ‘society’ needs to consent as a whole and that when it does so, any such laws become binding upon all the members of that society.
Can a ‘society’ consent to anything? Is there, in fact, any such thing as a society? Society is a concept – in much the same way that a woodland appears to be an entity even though there is no such thing as a wood as such, ‘woodland’ is merely a collection of trees. If you doubt it, ask the following question: how many trees must there be growing together before they can collectively be referred to as a ‘wood’? One tree on its own will not warrant that description. Two trees together are unlikely to merit it. Three, four or five may justify the term ‘copse’, but for it to be a woodland, how many trees are necessary?
There are ‘laws’ we can recognise; gravity, for instance, is a law, since it applies equally to all, wherever you go in the universe. Not only that but it appears to be impossible to ‘break’ the law of gravity; we may be able to defy it to an extent by employing a stronger force in order to overcome its effects for a brief period but always the force of gravity is performing its role. Break any natural law and the reaction from nature is immediate; ‘instant karma’, you might say. For instance, if you are not paying attention some accident will result; knock over a cup and the just punishment is immediately imposed: you are presented with the necessity of cleaning up the mess.
What is promoted as ‘law’ in our society is in fact a body of conventions, agreements and codified rules; arbitrary at least to the extent that they vary from place to place, from society to society and even within individual society, depending upon artificial distinctions such as class or economic status. Anything that is arbitrary cannot be considered to be a law.
Some people insist that “If you don’t like our ‘laws’, why don’t you leave the country?” This was recited to Kazz by a policeman (who should know better) on the night our home was kidnapped. Pause for thought a little though: If you join the Boy Scouts then you become subject to all the rules that apply to boy scouts. If you find that those rules offend you ethically and spiritually then the remedy is simple: you resign from the scouts; you don’t have to leave the country. Indeed, if you did leave the country it would only be to discover that there are boy scouts in most other countries too. That is the situation here too: there must be a mechanism by which we can remain in the country but resign from the, currently lawless and corrupt, society. There was never informed consent for the so-called ‘social contract’ and any contact requires a meeting of minds; something that appears to be impossible when the party of the one part is leading a spiritual life and the party of the other part is lawless and corrupt.
There is a great deal of further explanation I could endeavour to convey here but this is in danger of becoming one of those tracts marked TLDR (too long, didn’t read). So I shall focus on the law and conventions that will provide justification for any agent of the DVLA to decline to follow orders with regard to our home:
1. Article 8 of the European Declaration of Human Rights affords us all protection of our home and privacy. You will be told that there are some weasel clauses in the declaration that have the affect of undermining the rights it professes to enshrine. This is very common with legislation that purports to protect your rights: it bestows rights upon you in the first clause and then whittles them away with the remaining ones; a disingenuous deception intended to leave you with the impression that the legislation is for your benefit when really it is entirely to your detriment.
If legislation is not for our benefit then what is it for and why should we be bound by it? If rules are created that merely recite a principle that is natural to you then what is the need of the rule? If a rule is applied that goes against your nature or, indeed, The Nature, then it cannot be in any way rational or just.
2. The Bill of Rights (1688) affords us free and unhindered travel on the highways and byways, and Wills J said, in Ex Parte Lewis, “The only ‘dedication’ in the legal sense that we are aware of is that of a public right of passage of which the legal description is ‘a right for all Her Majesty’s subjects at all seasons of the year freely and at their will to pass and re-pass without let or hindrance.’
Furthermore, Lord Irvine, in DPP v Jones and Anor said, “The law should not make unlawful what is commonplace and accepted.”
3. The Bill of Rights also offers protection from unreasonable fines and seizures, stating “We will not impose fines or forfeitures on any person without conviction.” and further, “We will not amerce (fine) anyone except in proportion to the offence.” and “We will not ammerce a merchant of his merchandise; nor will we amerce a workman of his tools.”
Plainly, to coerce a spiritual teacher into engaging with a criminal state forces him into hypocrisy, rendering his ability to provide any valuable spiritual insights null; the equivalent of amercing a merchant of his merchandise or an artisan of his tools.
4. Unquestionably, the seizure of our home without conviction is unlawful in the context of the Bill of Rights and, to quote Swift J in R v Donovan (1934), “If an act is unlawful in the sense of being in itself a criminal act, it is plain that it cannot be rendered lawful because the person to whose detriment it is done consents to it. No person can license another to commit a crime.”
To damage or dispose of our home, our motorhome, would be a most gross tort against us and damages under tort run to seven times the injury suffered. Limited liability does not protect someone from a Commercial Lien, since it is taken out personally on the individuals who cause the harm.
I’m sure there is more I could add but here we are making do in tents on the side of the busy A41, so researching and writing are difficult.
Currently we have Alan, Andy and his son Dean at the fire. Perhaps we will find time to post some more later but for now I beg patience so I can be with these friends.
Love peace, happiness and grace,
Prajna and Kazz
Beautifully written. There must be a way to get your message to the press to rally public support for your cause. If there was anything I could do to help make this happen I would do so. – Ian
ijgcompany@me.com
One thought that occurs to me, which is that your ‘home’ (as you call it) is in fact a motor vehicle, which was created by a corporation which is a product of the society which you claim to be separate from. So in that sense, you might argue that your home would not exist if it were not for that capitalist system which drives our materialistic world. So maybe there is a karmic connection between the autolift company, the police, and your motor-vehicle home, which is what has lead to it coming back into their possession and which in a way was never truly a part of your reality. The solution might be to create your own home (whether it be a mobile one or not, and if so then possibly it should be one which doesn’t rely on fossil fuels) which would be truly separate and free from ties to society.
Ian, what a convoluted pile of nonsense. Sorry bro, I don’t have time to dissect and answer all your points. Let me just demonstrate that your first ‘fact’ is not, in fact, a fact: Look up the definition of ‘vehicle’ in the 1988 Road Traffic Act. You will find that a Vehicle defined as ‘A mechanically propelled vehicle.’
When have you ever seen something defined in terms of itself? The above definition reduces to “A vehicle is a vehicle.” Anyone who has done the most perfunctory study of the art of logic will be aware that to define something in terms of itself is not to define it at all.
The control matrix has programmed you to delve so deep into concepts, ideas and beliefs that you can no longer go direct to the obvious. I’m not getting at you in particular, Ian, this is how they have programmed most people.
THEY define it as a vehicle when they want road tax and a home when they want council tax. We define it as a home whenever we stop and a conveyance whenever we want to convey ourselves and our few chattels from one place to another.
Take care that you do not fight the corner of your oppressors.
Namaste
I don’t see how merely expressing one’s thoughts and opinions can be seen as fighting for any side. I would think that you would welcome alternative views of the situation, in order to better understand what those around you may also think and feel. I would suggest that you be careful not to isolate yourself or to alienate others who are living in the ‘matrix’ but have sympathy to those folks such as yourself who are looking for a better way.
Because your energies should be focused on making sure you have a home and the last thing I want to do is take away from that, I will leave you to it without any more involvement. Fare thee well!
Prajna,
After reading this blog and speaking with you in person, i am left with only one conclusion. You have an amazing ability to avoid and ignore extensive amounts of facts and focus only upon the few opinions that match your beliefs.
To address a point made earlier by James your “home” is indeed a motor vehicle and your argument about the incorrect definition of a motor vehicle in the road traffic act 1988. The road traffic act defines a motor vehicle as ‘A mechanically propelled vehicle.’, this is correct as the word vehicle has it own definition ‘a conveyance used for transporting people or goods’. I found your rather aggressive response to somebody’s opinion quite amusing considering how vocal you are with your own views.
You claim to be a spiritual man that rejects this corrupt and criminal society in its entirety, yet you still wish to make use of its benefits without contributing towards them. How can you justify this factually or spiritually?
The whole “motor vehicle” or “home” argument is a moot point however as your problem does not lie with being taxed for owning it, but being taxed for using it on the roads that this society pays for. Why is handing over your GBP’s to this corrupt government an issue for yourself anyway, as this money itself is a representation of the society you do not deal with.
Finally you state that although you do not expect, you wish the system would be changed to fit with your beliefs. How does this work? when nobody pays because of “spiritual beliefs” or because “Gandhi once said” how do the hospitals, schools and roads stay open?. I can only assume that or civil servants are to work for free so that a favored few can go camping on the A41.
Please do not take this as a personal attack, its just me also exercising my right to free speech against what i feel is a criminal and corrupt element of my society.
Regards
Chris
Hi Chris, I have a few questions too: If you have spoken to me in person, why didn’t you address these questions to me then? I delight in doing my best to lift people out of their ignorance and slavery. It always amazes me that people should fight so hard for their oppressors.
Is Ian James, who also expressed opinions he had spent all of 2 seconds contemplating, a greek friend of yours or is he mearly your alter, coming to us live via a proxy in Nikala in Greece?
Quite frankly, if you have truely read this blog then you will already have come across several statements that answer many of your myopic assertions. I’m pleased you researched the definitions in the RTA 1988, or perhaps there was no need because this stuff is bread and butter to you.
If I had an intellect as acute and incisive as you, I would get myself a job as a donut; but better I surrender my disgust at your robotic parroting of unexamined programming and leave Kazz to put you right. You do have a point though: despite my efforts to lead a spiritual life, to foster understanding of others and forgiveness for the stupidity that I have also suffered prior to waking up, I do have little patience for those who can’t think deeper than clingfilm.
Over to you, my sweet Kazz. Sort him out:
Well hello Chris,
Let me begin by explaining a little of my own history as far as entering such discussions. I was a modorator on one of the most troll infested forums (TPUC), known to this movement for longer than I care to remember. So much for my credentials.
Let me go on to quote your very first point…
“You have an amazing ability to avoid and ignore extensive amounts of facts and focus only upon the few opinions that match your beliefs.”
If you had spent any real time with Prajna and I you would know that we don’t opperate on ‘beliefs’, rather, we live our truth. As Prajna says, a belief is something people settle for in place of truth… Belief really means ‘I don’t know’.
As for your assertions regarding the definition of ‘vehicle’ can you please provide reference (a link would be great) as you seem to be looking at some legislative act unknown to either of us.
That not withstanding, do you really concider it fair or right for somebody’s HOME to be destroyed for the want of £80 exice duty???
If you had been paying full atention to this blog or to the conversations you claim to have had with Prajna in person, you would know by now that the destruction of our home is unconstitutional – it goes agains the Magna Charta 1215, the Bill of Right 1688 and the Corronation Oath.
It may come as some surprise to you to know that, without a codified constitution there is NO Nation State in existance to impose such things as statutes and acts. None. Zero. Nadda. A Nation State is a legal fiction in exactly the same way as ‘person’, as defined in law dictionaries, is a legal fiction or a corporation is a legal fiction. These things exist only on paper. If you doubt me, next time you’re anywhere near the border of England and Scotland take a good long look for some physical division or separation between the two countries.
“You claim to be a spiritual man that rejects this corrupt and criminal society in its entirety, yet you still wish to make use of its benefits without contributing towards them. How can you justify this factually or spiritually?”
Oh deary, deary me, you really haven’t been paying attention have you!? Prajna’s ‘claim’ to be a spiritual man is not so much a ‘claim’ as a statement of fact, of truth no matter whether you accept it as truth or not. As for the ‘benefits’ we make use of, I assume you refer to the nicely surfaced roads which benefit us all..? Or are ou refering to the pittance of a war pention he recieved as a result of nearly loosing his life in service to this country?
No matter, your point is a weak one from any perspective. Prajna and I live in community, in service to others, wherever we are. We ask no-one for anything, we charge no-one for anything. We simply do whatever we see needs to be done in any situation, provide what skills and service we can to others for one reason only: Love.
As Prajna says, he taxes no-one, so how can anyone tax him?
Further, our HOME(!) was destroyed (or so we have been informed by PC Dave Walton) for want of the equivalent of one or two days work on the roads (six months road tax). We’re more than happy to do our bit to maintain the roads, but we WILL NOT sponser a criminal racket, no matter how much this costs us in terms of discomfort, hassle from the police, sharing our truth with any and all who care to listen or read, putting trolls and shills in their place, etc. These are taxes we are happy to pay for the betterment of all of our cercumstances.
“Why is handing over your GBP’s to this corrupt government an issue for yourself anyway, as this money itself is a representation of the society you do not deal with.”
Are you for real, Chris??? The entire monitary system is in place to create dependancy – something, thanks to the criminal banksters who developed and maintain it, which works very well indeed. All money is created as debt, all inflation (devaluation of the fiat in your pocket) is tax. All requirement for you to pay for your existential needs is slavery by another name.
Money does not represent anything other than extortion.
And with that, I think I’ve covered your final point.
Let me add a small description of this protection racket (as evidenced by the destruction of our home and the extortion of thousands upon thousands of pounds from the pockets of those who don’t know how to stand up to the state sponsord bullies and cheats they encounter) called ‘government’, for your enlightenment and edification.
We are governed by consent, or so we are told, yet nowhere is there any opportunity in place for anyone to remove or withold concent. Even not voting in their elections is classed by them as tacit consent. Even, the words ‘none of the above’ are prohibited from apearing on the ballot paper!
Trillions of pounds (unimaginable amounts of money) are handed over to the banksters in bail-outs. this money is then lent out, at interest, to those who funded the bail-outs in the first place… at least that part which is not pocketed by by those banksters is.
I’m going to leave it here for now as we have guests who I’m neglecting, but I hope you get the point.
I would ask that next time you pop round in person you have the good grace to address your points/arguments to us face to face as well as to make them here in our blog (no charge – we cover the hosting fees ourselfs, so you don’t have to).
Three, two, one… Wake Up! Time to overcome the programming.
Much love and compassion (which may in the context of this post, be hidden behind our frustration at having to respond to robotised repeaters),
For everyone else, we will return to our normal light and sun in the next post.
Kazz and Prajna.
Yet again you demonstrate you ability to focus only on the minute amount of information that supports your theory, before responding by blankly refusing to consider the view of others and im the one that “can’t think deeper than cling film.”.
Firstly lets address your many convoluted statements:
“I delight in doing my best to lift people out of their ignorance and slavery” Who am i a slave to? i do not work to only pay for life’s necessities but for the benefits on offer out there like a nice car, lovely home, meals out ect… If i was unable to pay for the necessities this government would provide them for me.
“It always amazes me that people should fight so hard for their oppressors.” Again who am i oppressed by? an oppressor is by definition ‘a person of authority who subjects others to undue pressures’. This apparently corrupt government provides services that actually releases me from many pressures by providing a health care system for my family, police force for our security and a schooling system for my daughters education.
“Is Ian James, who also expressed opinions he had spent all of 2 seconds contemplating, a greek friend of yours or is he mearly your alter, coming to us live via a proxy in Nikala in Greece?” I have never met or heard of this Ian James before but was not going to allow you to barrette the man for making a factually correct statement.
“I’m pleased you researched the definitions in the RTA 1988, or perhaps there was no need because this stuff is bread and butter to you.” I had no need to research extensively into the RTA 1988 to see your original argument was incorrect, I needed only employ basic logic to see this mistake. For example a perfectly apt definition for a land mammal is “a mammal that lives on land” as both the word mammal and land have individual definitions.
” I was a modorator on one of the most troll infested forums (TPUC)” this is completely irrelevant, Why waste time writing it? I can only assume your taking this as a attack upon yourself. It is not, my only gripe is with your actions and in my opinion false justifications.
“As Prajna says, a belief is something people settle for in place of truth” You are in no position to say that your way is correct, only that you believe its correct. You are not omniscient so your views on everything but the basic laws of physics are just what you guess is correct and not fact.
“That not withstanding, do you really consider it fair or right for somebody’s HOME to be destroyed for the want of £80 exice duty???” My opinion doesn’t even consider the fact that its £80 or indeed your home. Only that you were making use of the roads without contributing and in a vehicle that is most probably not been checked for its safety (this is only a speculation, but i would guess you were lacking the insurance & MOT in addition to tax). This action in its entirety demonstrates selfishness. Its Ok for you to use services paid for by others and possible but other legitimate road users at risk.
“As Prajna says, he taxes no-one, so how can anyone tax him?” this is also incorrect, if yourself and Prajna were to remove yourselves from society in it entirety (health care, roads ect…) you could say this without chagrin. As it stands you are drain upon society, plain and simple.
” Even, the words ‘none of the above’ are prohibited from apearing on the ballot paper!” This silly comment is a perfect example of you ignoring the big picture to pick the finite point that supports you, of course ‘none of the above’ is not on a ballot paper as why would society waste the time and money needed to count papers with no vote on them?
“What is promoted as ‘law’ in our society is in fact a body of conventions, agreements and codified rules; arbitrary at least to the extent that they vary from place to place, from society to society and even within individual society, depending upon artificial distinctions such as class or economic status. Anything that is arbitrary cannot be considered to be a law.” how can make statements such as this, then on the same page start quoting those very same agreements as your defense “destruction of our home is unconstitutional – it goes against the Magna Charta 1215, the Bill of Right 1688 and the Corronation Oath.” also the notice you offered Auto lift lacked the definitions required to be understood by a lay person
“We require compensation for the torts you have already inflicted upon us and we suggest a meeting at which we can negotiate a remedy” I thought “you do not negotiate with a lawless and corrupt society”
Can anyone else spot the hypocrite?
I am going to leave you to your misguided mission to avoid work.
LEGALLY STOP PAYING TAXES And YOU Can Stop The Genocide Now!
CAPS LOCK IS NOT YOUR FRIEND
and i think this whole experience has shown that not paying your taxes, isn’t a great idea.