Court Summons from DVLA

Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency.

Re: Court Summons from DVLA

Postby Veronica » Tue Sep 01, 2009 8:16 am

Yes Jono ... that's correct.

Returning to Kent B:

KentB wrote:Magistrate "If you are not Mr B this Court cannot hear you. A new date will be assigned or the matter will be dealt with in abscence"

... "In that case you have declared that I ... the Human Being ... am not Mr. B ... and thus - should anything untoward happen to myself or my property I can hold you - personally - responsible ... can't I? After all, it is YOUR determination, YOUR declaration, isn't it? So can I have your names please ... and that of the Clerk of the Court?"
Freedom's just another word for: "Nothing left to lose" (Janis Joplin)
"There is no path to peace, peace IS the path" (Mahatma Ghandi)
"There is no path to freedom, freedom IS the path" (Veronica Chapman)
User avatar
Posts: 4537
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2009 1:28 pm
Location: Feltham, Sovereign Republic of England

Re: Court Summons from DVLA

Postby KentB » Tue Sep 01, 2009 10:05 am

Yes Jono,

Good point, I could not think of anything at that moment, so decided to retreat and regroup.
I should have done a lot differently in this matter and done more homework.

I guess it is about getting the balance right between "Just do it!" and "Must know more before I dare act". Then again, it was not as if it was a hugely serious matter, and I thought, the worst that can happen is that I get a bigger fine.

Now I have a bigger fine, does not matter much, since I do not intened to pay this one any more than I intended to pay the first one. If they do not give up, I can always use this to test A4V.

Did you see my Notice and Affidavit (on previous page)? Any critique or suggestions?
The Price of Freedom: Constant alertness and willingness to fight back! L. Ron Hubbard
Posts: 38
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 11:40 pm

Re: Court Summons from DVLA

Postby Jono » Tue Sep 01, 2009 10:46 am

Hello, Kent , veronica and all....

Kent I can imagine trying to think on ones feet is not always easy to do. Preparation is key, as people will be going to negotiations with others who have much more experience and general comfort of being on their home ground I'd imagine. I doubt I would of thought of what I typed at the time unless i had already prepped prior to arriving.

I think one should know what the opponents next move or way of thinking is likely to be next, and be even ready for that response.

Now with my " no legal person is capable of representing itself, as it is unable to speak, it being a creature of statute n all.. etc etc... " What the magistrates are likely to of said next would be probably this, depending on their experience and I guess if they are being nudge by any legal advisor or if they disappear for any meeting to consider whoever it is has just said what, anyhow I think they would get to the point that... this as a wriggle out..

"yes, I see, but legal persons and juristic persons are separate entities from "natural-persons" the former being recognised in law as artificial in nature but the latter "implies" in statute that a person is a "natural-person" and a natural person is a human being.

It is this natural-person comeback which , I think, needs to be examined very deeply, to be ready and prepared for that anticipated response down the line.

Now this is where I am at, looking at that opponents next likely / predictable move.

DVLA = Artificial Person, likely, body corporate, as are Councils Commissioned in statute as Body Corporates.

now I have come across this recently which I think warrants examination as it brings up, Actors, and 2 kinds of Authors . It may have relevance for being able to deal with the natural-person debate. I'll put this into its own thread too, to save this leading off the path here too much....

(Edit link to discussion thread on Legal persons, natural persons, actors, and authors thread here viewtopic.php?f=45&t=2382 )

Old English Quotation:

The following are Excerpts from Chapter XVI - Of PERSONS, AUTHORS, and things Personated from Leviathan, 1651 A.D., by Thomas Hobbes:

'A person, is he, whose words or action are considered, either as his own, or as representing the words or actions of an other man, or any other thing to whom they are attributed, whether Truly or by Fiction.'

'When they are considered as his owne, then is he called a Naturall Person: And when they are considered as representing the words and action of an other, then is he a Feigned or Artificiall person.'

'Of Persons Artificiall, some have their words and actions Owned by those whom they represent. And then the Person is the Actor; and he that owneth his words and actions, is the AUTHOR.'

'And therefore he that maketh a Covenant with the Actor, or the Representer, not knowing the Authority he hath, doth it at his own perill.'

'An Idol, or meer Figment of the brain, may be Personated; as were the Gods of Heathen; which by such Officers as the State appointed, were Personated, and held Possessions, and other Goods, and Rights, which men from time to time dedicated, and consecrated unto them. But Idols cannot be Authors: for an Idol is nothing.'

'Of Authors there be two sorts. The first is simply so called; which I have before defined be him, that owneth the Action of another simply. The second is he, that owneth an Action, or Covenant of another conditionally; that is to say, he undertaketh to do it, if the other doth it not, at, or before a certain time. And these Authors conditionall, are generally called SURETYES, in Latine Fidejussores, and Sponsores; and particularly for Debt, Proedes; and for Appearance before Judge, or Magistrate, Vades.'

Posts: 69
Joined: Wed Feb 18, 2009 10:21 am

Re: Court Summons from DVLA

Postby KentB » Tue Sep 01, 2009 2:52 pm

Thanks Jono,

A bit much to take in on short notice. Is this text a law text?

The prosecutor at DVLA tried to say that "Person" referred to a living human being, so I asked her for an Affidavit where she swears on her full commercial liability that this definition is the one meant in the Vehicle Registration act, as there is no mention of things like "Limited Companies" "Partnerships" "Non-profit organizations" etc.. in the Act - Just the Person. I could sell the information to these corporations that their vehicles are not covered by the Act.

She never replied to that.

If the Magistrate tells me that "Person" implies "Natural Person" could one not just ask for the proof of that?

I also often come accross the staement in Freeman circles, that a Living Being cannot interact with a fiction directly, and the strawman is needed as a go between. Does anyone know where this is stated in law?
The Price of Freedom: Constant alertness and willingness to fight back! L. Ron Hubbard
Posts: 38
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 11:40 pm

Re: Court Summons from DVLA

Postby Veronica » Tue Sep 01, 2009 4:41 pm

KentB wrote:I also often come accross the staement in Freeman circles, that a Living Being cannot interact with a fiction directly, and the strawman is needed as a go between. Does anyone know where this is stated in law?

I think you'll find it's just an obvious fact of the Universe. Reality can only interact with Reality. When Reality interacts with Fiction ... Fiction is always going to LOSE ... is it not?

To my mind a simplistic situation is best. For example:

1. Stand in Public Gallery.
2. Say: "I am x: of the y family ... can I help you?"
3. Whatever their response ... IGNORE it ... and say "I'm standing here on dry land ... is this area ... (point to the court itself) ... considered also to be on dry land?"
4. Silence.
5. Then they will say "That's not relevant"
6. Then you say: "The answer was a simple Yes or a No. By your answer you are implying ... very strongly ... that it most certainly IS relevant ... otherwise you would have answered Yes or No"
7. Silence.
8. If they say "No ... it is considered to be on dry land" (FUCKING LIARS!) ... you can say "Are you sure it is not considered to be a SHIP ... in dry dock?"
9. Silence.
10. Then they will "Hmmmph"
11. Then go for the jugular: "Do you have Common Law jurisdiction ... and will CREATE A VERDICT in accordance with the Law of the Land?"
12. Please ... please ... please ... would it get this far??????
13. A Yes would provoke "How is that possible? Where is the Jury?"
14. Silence.
15. The answer would be (pointing to the 3 magistrates) "That's the Jury".
16. Which provokes "But I can only see three people ... where are the other nine?"
... and so on ... and so on ... and so on.

Just simple questions ... bang ... bang .. bang.

Whether Moderator Spudy has published his latest Court escapades, or not - in the public part of this Board ... I can tell you that ... through gritted teeth ... a Clerk of the Court (aka "Miss Ice Queen, 2009") ... was FORCED to admit - at one point - that THEY DID NEED HIS CONSENT!

(And we all know what that means)

(That's my two penn'orth)
Freedom's just another word for: "Nothing left to lose" (Janis Joplin)
"There is no path to peace, peace IS the path" (Mahatma Ghandi)
"There is no path to freedom, freedom IS the path" (Veronica Chapman)
User avatar
Posts: 4537
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2009 1:28 pm
Location: Feltham, Sovereign Republic of England

Re: Court Summons from DVLA

Postby KentB » Tue Sep 01, 2009 6:44 pm

Thanks Veronica,

Of course it makes sense that the fiction is junior to the Real thing, just wanted to know if they also agree on this point. I use the line "How can the creation be senior to the Creator", when I try to relate these things to people that never heard of what we do before. Most people can see the truth in that.

I really like the approach you outline. Have copied and saved it for some day when I might need it. Knowing the Rebel in me there is a good likelyhood of me being in Court again.

Thanks again
The Price of Freedom: Constant alertness and willingness to fight back! L. Ron Hubbard
Posts: 38
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 11:40 pm

Re: Court Summons from DVLA

Postby KentB » Sat Nov 07, 2009 12:40 am

Latest update on this saga.

Since I sent the Notice and Affidavit and insisting that they do not ignore it, I have heard nothing from the Court of the Collections office.

So I sent off this Notice:




Dear Central Fines Unit,

You are receiving this Notice, since you have not replied to my notice and affidavit of 4 August 2009 in substance, although I have proof of delivery and a letter from your office where you acknowledge the receipt. In it you were given 31 days to respond. This has long since expired.

It is My Understanding that it was lawful for me to send you the previous Notice.

It is My Understanding that I could and did provide, within that Notice, time for objections to be resolved honourably on both sides – a generous 31 days.

It is My Understanding that it is lawful for me to assume that, since you have not responded in substance (to the best of my knowledge), I have your tacit consent (by acquiescence) that the Proofs of Claim I requested do not exist, and that the statements I made in my Affidavit of same date, now stand as My Truth, in Law.

It is My Understanding that it is now possible for me to assume that, since the proper time for your objections has expired, I have gained a lawful estoppel by your acquiescence.

It is My Understanding that I have acted in honour at all times, since you have not objected to what I said.

It is My Understanding that it is now possible for me to point out that you must henceforth cease and desist from all and any activity regarding this current matter, or that any further communications from you will be considered to be unlawful harassment, and can be disregarded by My Self without dishonour.

The matter is finally and totally Settled

Yours Faithfully, Reserving Rights, Powers and Privileges


:Kent-Erik: of the Bengtsson family, a living breathing man.


I have a feeling that they have given up now, but are unwilling to acknowledge that I am in any way right, so they just do not contact me any more on this.

Just as an additional comment here. I got a letter asking me to fill in a form to incriminate myself for driving by a speed camera 6 mph faster than they thought I should. I did not do this, but sent them a Notice instead.
Got a letter back that they would not respond to it as it was irrelevant to the matter at hand, and threatened with Court action if I did not fill out the form.

I wrote back and expalined that I considered it highly relevant wether I am the party addressed in the letter or not, and asked the lady who wrote the letter to send me an affidavit in which she swears on her full commercial liability (i.e. she will take full responsibility for any consequences to myself, financial or otherwise) that I Kent-Erik: of the Bengtsson family is one and the same as MR. KENT BENGTSSON who the correspondence is addressed to. Not heard anything back yet. I find these people are not willing to take that much responsibility, and this approach has worked well when confronted by some jobsworth.
The Price of Freedom: Constant alertness and willingness to fight back! L. Ron Hubbard
Posts: 38
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 11:40 pm

Re: Court Summons from DVLA

Postby Freesam on the land » Thu Apr 01, 2010 7:16 pm

I like the sounds of that approach as it simply asking for a human to swear down and it appear that no one wants to touch it with such risk involved. Ill use this approach too, i have recieved a penalty type notice from dvla so just gathering some data for my first notice. Peace.
Freesam on the land
Posts: 13
Joined: Sat Dec 05, 2009 8:15 pm

Re: Court Summons from DVLA

Postby nameless » Thu Apr 01, 2010 8:59 pm



Dear Central Fines Unit, .......... etc

KentB - have you received any response to your Notice of Lawful Estoppel referred to on 7 November?
“Whoever may be guilty of abuse of power, be it Government, State, Employer, Trade Union or whoever, the law must provide a speedy remedy. Otherwise the victims will find their own remedy."

Lord Denning
Posts: 341
Joined: Sat Jul 18, 2009 4:55 pm

Re: Court Summons from DVLA

Postby KentB » Thu Apr 01, 2010 10:13 pm

To be honest there have been no recognition from the Court or affiliated offices, to any of my notices.

I now believe this is because I have been trying to communicate with "the public" as a private individual. I have had mentioned from a few sources that the Public cannot see the private. The same sources also claim that a Judge can see the private when in Chambers, but not in a public court hearing, so I believe the way to get any recognition for these private notices is to have a complete process where 3 offers have been made to reply to your questions, and then followed by a notice of default. Preferably all via a Notary Public or third party witness, and then get it to the Judge and somehow get the matter to be seen in chambers. I would like a bit more familiarity with this before attempting this.

The whole matter has actually continued. For every letter of demand I got, I attached my previous letters and asked them to prove that this did not settle the matter permanently.

Then I started getting letters from Marston Group, the Bailiffs. I accepted their demand for Value and sent it to their CFO for processing with a Notice:


To: Chief Financial Officer,

I am in receipt of a computer generated letter from your company making demands upon the fictitious legal entity KENT BENGTSSON.

I have throughout the progression of this matter made clear to everyone concerned with Notices and Affidavits, that I AM NOT the charged entity.

Until proof that I, the living breathing sentient man that I am, is one and the same as the legal fiction (ens legis) KENT BENGTSSON has been presented to me I am not going to deal with any agents of your Company. Nor part with the few personal belongings I have.

I am however going to offer you a means of settling this account, and I believe you as a CFO know how to do this. Therefore I have attached you letter with instructions that I believe will see to it that all concerned will be compensated.

As far as any collection attempts at the above address are concerned, please be advised that there are two more people sharing this house and our belongings are spread throughout the place. If one of your employees takes anything that is not the property of said entity KENT BENGTSSON, I will see to it that all responsible will be prosecuted for theft.

I do not consent to any representative or employee of Marston Group entering the property of 20 Bricklands in Crawley Down for ANY purpose. Since I have informed you of this, any violation will be treated as trespassing.

If Marston Group contacts me for any other purpose than to provide me me with proof that I am the entity KENT BENGTSSON or that I have signed a contract where I willingly, knowingly and voluntarily agreed to settle any demands upon this entity, or a communication that informs me that this matter has been settled and closed, Marston Group, have voluntarily agreed to pay me £1000.00 for my letter writing services – per letter, and will be invoiced for this amount.


I got no reply to this. A second letter came and I answered it and attached an invoice for £1000.00.
Then a notice in the letterbox from someone that wanted to loot the house. Replied and invoiced. Now I had a name, so I sent him this:

"Dear Mr. Nash,

Thank you for the Notice you left at my door.

Since I have had no replies in substance to my Notices sent to your CFO regarding this matter, and you have stepped up as a responsible party in this matter, I am appointing you the appellate officer in this matter. If there is another terminal in your company that ordinarily holds this function, you have my permission to forward all the contents of this letter to that person to handle the appellate proceeding.

I have enclosed copies of previous communications between your company and myself.

I have also enclosed a copy of an affidavit of True Name, that should clarify my stance in this matter (witnessed by a Commissioner of Oats).
If you do not agree with this affidavit, feel free to rebut it in a sworn affidavit of your own where you state under penalty of perjury and under your full private commercial liability, what you believe to be the truth. “An affidavit can only be rebutted by another affidavit.”
“An unrebutted Affidavit stands as truth in Commerce.” Are we not dealing with a commercial matter here?

I expect you to look into and come to an unbiased and lawful conclusion on the following points:

1.Is it not true that in contract law, if one party does not object or submits a counter offer to a proposal within 3 days of receipt, this comprises an agreement?

2. Is it not true that I provided your CFO with a financial instrument with the intention of settling the alleged debt?

3.Is it not true that by not objecting or sending that instrument back within 3 days of receipt, the instrument has been accepted as payment, and the account is settled? It is now over two months later and no objection have been received. Hasn't the time window for rejecting the payment long since expired?

4.Is it not true that by not providing the proof asked for in my Notice of 16 December 2009 your CFO have agreed to my offer to invoice your company for my letter writing services to the tune of £1000.00 per letter? Is it not therefore true that Marston Group now owes me more than you are claiming that Mr. KENT BENGTSSON owes you?

5.Since I have notified your company in my first Notice, that I do not consent to any representative of your company to enter the property of 20 Bricklands in Crawley Down, West Sussex, and this again has not been disputed or rebutted in a timely manner, your CFO have again agreed with my claim that any such entry will in fact constitute Trespassing? And is it not true that you entered said property to deliver your Notice? Could I not therefore lay charges against you for trespassing?

This is a private matter between your CFO, yourself and also your partner Mr. Symmons as well as Marston Group, and I hold you responsible jointly and severally for your actions. As a private sovereign man I stand under Common Law, not under statutory regulations. It is my belief that you and your company trough your actions and inactions have violated my rights, have accepted a payment from me and and are through threats trying to extract further payments.

Your company have already been billed £1000.00 for the last communication I received from you which was not a reply to my Notice of 16 December. You are getting a second invoice with this letter and your obligation to me now stands at £2000.00. Since I am a reasonable man, I will allow you to deduct the £685.00 you claim Mr. KENT BENGTSSON owe, from these £2000.00 and send me the balance.

Any acceptable response to this letter will have to address in full each of the points 1 – 5 above and be received by myself, in writing, within 14 days of the delivery of this registered letter. Should you require more time, you can apply for this in writing.

Failure to deal with this matter in the way outlined in this letter and previous Notices to your company may result in a commercial lien of £50,000.00 being filed against the property of Marston Group as well as the CFO and Mr. Nash and Mr. Symmons and any other employee or representative of your company with whom I have to deal, jointly and severally, as damages for trespassing, harassment and extortion attempts.

Now please review this matter as an appeal and get back to me within the given time limit.

Looking forward to your reply.


A couple of days later another slip trough the letterbox threatening to bring a locksmith next time. I replied and invoiced.

And I posted this by each entrance to the property:


A Mr Nash from MARSTON Group has threatened to gain entry to this property using a locksmith in order to confiscate belongings to Mr. KENT BENGTSSON.

I have responded promptly to any letter or presentment from MARSTON Group, sadly MARSTON Group has not responded to my Notices or letters in substance, and this places MARSTON Group in Dishonour in this matter.

The CFO of MARSTON Group has by his/her actions or lack of actions agreed to the following by tacit acquiescence:
That any unauthorized entry to this property by any MARSTON Group employee or agent will constitute TREASPASSING.
That the entity (legal fiction/ens legis – something existing only by name or decree, not a creation of nature, but a creation of the minds of men) being charged with the alleged debt (Mr. KENT BENGTSSON) is not the same as undersigned.
That the alleged debt has been paid by the financial instrument forwarded by undersigned. Since the payment has not been rejected, queried or in any way refused, does this not constitute acceptance under contract law?

Any Collection Agent, please beware of the following:
There are three men sharing this dwelling (none of whom is the legal fiction Mr KENT BENGTSSON). If you take anything that you can not prove belongs to Mr. KENT BENGTSSON you are committing theft and will be charged with theft and burglary.
Some of the items in this house also belongs to Meryl Bengtsson, although she does not dwell here.
You do not have the permission of any of the men living here to enter this property.

If you decide to enter this property without the express verbal or written approval from any and all of its dwellers, you, any accomplice and MARSTON Group, jointly and severally, have agreed to pay undersigned £5000.00.
If you remove any items that you do not have proof of being the property of the legal fiction Mr. KENT BENGTSSON, from this property, you have agreed to pay the actual owner of the item £500.00 per item taken – applies jointly and severally to you, any accomplice and to MARSTON Group. You also agree to return any such item in the condition it was found.
If you enter this property without the express approval verbally or in writing from any of it's dwellers and/or if you remove any items for which you have no proof that Mr. KENT BENGTSSON is the true owner, you have agreed to have a lien placed on your personal property for the recovery of the payments you have committed yourself and MARSTON Group to.

If you do not agree with the conditions put forward in this Notice, you are welcome to rebut them in a written statement where you swear under penalty of perjury and on your full private commercial liability that the above is not true and/or unlawful. No other form of counteroffer or statement is an acceptable response and will be met with the £1000.00 invoice as per already established agreement with the CFO of MARSTON Group.


Yesterday I got a short letter from Marston Group saying:

"Thank you for your recent letter. According to our records the distress warrant(s) in respect of this matter has been returned to our client..."
This means they backed off. I still think I will ask for the amount I invoiced them for and see where that goes. Had they been nicer I might have skipped this. But they feel no compassion for the people they plunder, so why should I show them any. Might be a good experience for them to taste their own medicine.

I will have to do something about the Court though. As long as their books have not been balanced, I have a feeling this matter is going to keep popping up.
The Price of Freedom: Constant alertness and willingness to fight back! L. Ron Hubbard
Posts: 38
Joined: Thu Apr 02, 2009 11:40 pm


Return to DVLA

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests