A2. Test Freeman Remedies
2.2. Test Freeman Tactics
1. Discharge Fixed Penalty Notice - Parking (January - May 2009)
First, the theory! 'A Penalty Charge Notice' is actually an 'Offer To Contract'
Project Freeman's research shows that the PCN can also be considered to be a type of 'Requirements Contract'
A free man can see evidence of this on a typical PCN
They are promising to exclusively supply you with 'The Penalty Charge' at a 'Set Price' for a 'Specific Period'.
There's even a 'Special Offer', a "discount" if you pay within their 'Specific Period' - Aren't you lucky!
At this point let's remind ourselves of some of the terms of the contract agreed between free men and 'The Crown' viz. The Magna Carta
And in case you're wondering what 'Amercements' are
Under common law a free man is not required to be "at the mercy" of any fellow man, as long as he has not encroached upon or acted fraudulently against him.
These "fines" are unlawful and unconstitutional, especially "discretionary" ones "imposed" by a magistrate or other such 'De Facto' so called authority
Because of the learning gained from successfully using this remedy on 5 "parking tickets" during the course of the project, 'A Freeman' has now developed a template 'Discharge Notice' for all parking related Fixed Penalty/Penalty Charge Notices which includes the following elements
The 4th bullet point in the slide above is very important. 'A Freeman's' Notice states that the response MUST be addressed to 'A Freeman' NOT his 'Legal Fiction'
This is based on the learning from this test stage of the project. 'A Freeman' tried this with success every time.
This has not been found in any other templates on the internet, which are sent by the free man "... as agent for..." the 'Legal Fiction'. But then the free man receives replies addressed to the 'Legal Fiction' and himself and has to send further letters saying things like "...I am in receipt of a letter addressed to 'MR LEGAL FICTION' but this is not me..." etc.
'A Freeman' has found that if the instructions for the addressing and salutation of the reply are put in the Notice in the first place this will be adhered to, as you will see if you carry on reading. 'A Freeman' has received many replies from government agencies and the like, addressed to and saluted in his REAL name. They have to do this as they have been given lawful Notice of the terms up front, if they don't they are in 'dishonour'
Proof's of Claim
You can see the full details of the suggested Notice Contents in the final draft template below in the 'Outcome' section of this page
The Practice - The First Test!
One of the members of the project team received an unjust parking ticket on 15th February 2009, from a representative of their local 'Borough Council', just before we began this phase so 'A Freeman' used it to test the discharge theory
They were merely parked in a quite street outside a block of flats whilst unloading a lot of stuff as part of their son's (who has mental health problems) home move into the flats.
There was no parking provided for the block of flats, only the on street paid parking
They had put 2 or 3 one hour tickets on the car already that morning and a note in the window to say they were moving in.
However the last of these tickets expired by about 10 minutes whilst they were inside the premises, and they emerged to find a 'ticket' (actually a 'Notice' of course) under the windscreen wipers
Initially on Feb. 2nd, 'A Freeman' tried following the advised procedure and appealed against the ticket via email, based on the circumstances outlined above, but received a 'Rejection of Representations' notice soon after (Feb. 4th)
'A Freeman' downloaded a template from the internet to test it out on behalf of the 'victim'. This was modified slightly to include the relevant personal details and sent to the council on 16th February 2009 giving them 7 days to respond
Amazingly the council replied 2 days later!! (This was the first time anyone could remember a Council responding so quick to anything!)
'A Freeman' would suggest this is because:
(1) his (template) notice to them had alleged that they were charging the victim as a criminal, so they were obliged to "put the record straight", from their point of view, in the event that this matter ended up in a court - their reply made it clear that this was "...a civil matter..." which was an interesting piece of learning and confirmation in practice of the difference between common law, criminal law and civil law - and
(2) Because they had to respond within the 7 day notice period they had been given or go into 'dishonour'
Their notice also advised that a 'Notice to Owner' would be received and this duly arrived on Feb. 23rd giving another 28 day notice period
Below is a summary of the events which took place between 'The Council' and 'A Freeman'
Basically at each stage the offer to contract notice received from 'The Council' was conditionally accepted via a counter offer made
Here are the letters sent
1. Feb 16th
2. Mar 23rd
3. Apr 16th
You can see how the contents of 'A Freeman's' Notices changed as the learning increased. This resulted in the final draft in the 'Outcome' section below, which is now a proper NUICOR in effect. 'A Freeman' now uses this in all cases of unlawful claims made against him and has only shown all the letters above so that other free men can review the learning which led to the development of the final draft
(Sorry we cannot show you the correspondence from the council at this stage. Unfortunately 'A Freeman' does not have all the files or a scanner in his camper van! These will hopefully be uploaded at some point in the future, however free men will receive these types of correspondence if they are given a PCN so 'A Freeman' felt it was more important to show 'A Freeman's' responses)
Interestingly after the April 16th Notice had been sent advising of the 'No Tax For War' argument and the victim's 'Change of Address', the council attempted a very friendly contact, via the email address that the original appeal had been sent from. This was of course ignored and the email address deleted
Once the council had failed to respond within the 14 day notice period (at this stage they didn't even send a response to the previous address in the hope that it would be forwarded) a final notice of 'Estoppel' was sent
Later, in May, the council did attempt to send further letters via the previous address and these were forwarded, but they were incorrectly addressed (to the legal fiction) and therefore were lawfully sent back (in the first instance) and then ignored, as per the terms of 'A Freeman's' Notices
The council finally gave up...
The result of all this was that the claim was discharged and no funds exchanged hands
Any free man can see the final draft of 'A Freeman's' discharge notice here (and on the Letters & Notices page)
and also, the follow up 'Notice of Estoppel' which is now also sent sometimes by 'A Freeman'
These have been drafted based on all the learning from this phase of the project
NB. THE LETTERS & NOTICES PAGE ALSO CONTAINS .rtf (rich text format) VERSIONS OF THESE TEMPLATES WHICH ANY FREE MAN IS WELCOME TO DOWNLOAD
Since this early test 'A Freeman' has learned more about the parking issue having received a further 3 parking related charge notices under various circumstances
It has come to light that the type of 'Council' issuing the ticket, the 'person' it is issued to and where that 'person' 'resides', appears to have a baring on the amount and severity of follow up the council makes
This will be added as soon as possible, but in the meantime please see the 'Councils' page for more info
(This page last updated 27th May 2011)