Make and explore Freedom of Information requestsFollow this request
There are 2 people following this request
Act on what you've learnt
Similar requests
Information regarding removal from DVLC
To Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency by I am the agent for the fictional strawman that was created with the name Sarah Goldsmith 20 February 2010
PRECISELY who owns my land and property?
To Land Registry by I am the agent for the fictional strawman that was created with the name Sarah Goldsmith 18 February 2010
Evidence you have not defrauded me
To Her Majesty’s Treasury by I am the agent for the fictional strawman that was created with the name Sarah Goldsmith 21 February 2010
Do acts supercede Common Law?
To Ministry of Justice by I am the agent for the fictional strawman that was created with the name Sarah Goldsmith 24 February 2010
Evidence that Statute/Act supercedes Common LAW?
To Supreme Court of the United Kingdom by I am the agent for the fictional strawman that was created with the name Sarah Goldsmith 21 February 2010
Torbay Council share certificates
To Torbay Borough Council by I am the agent for the fictional strawman that was created with the name Sarah Goldsmith 18 February 2010
2011 Census & Lockheed Martin
To UK Statistics Authority by J Garratt 26 February 2011
Deaths related to use/abuse/misuse of canabis?
To Office for National Statistics by I am the agent for the fictional strawman that was created with the name Sarah Goldsmith 24 February 2010
Is it the job of Dyfed Powys Police to "assist" bailiffs and ignore crime?
To Dyfed Powys Police by angie of the elder family 22 June 2009
Statutory only - not LAWful?
I am the agent for the fictional strawman that was created with the name Sarah Goldsmith made this Freedom of Information request to Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency
Waiting for an internal review by Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency of their handling of this request.
From: I am the agent for the fictional strawman that was created with the name Sarah Goldsmith
19 February 2010
Dear Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency,
'I' below, refers to 'any man or woman' who wishes to avail
him/herself of the use of the made up roads of this land using any
motor vehicle privately, in a non-commercial nature whilst harming
no-one and not causing breach of the peace.
1) Is it LAWFULLY REQUIRED that I must have a drivers licence?
2) Is it LAWFULLY REQUIRED that I must take and pass a driving
test?
3) Is it LAWFULLY REQUIRED that I must register my own, paid-for
vehicle with the DVLA and therefore transfer its ownership to the
government and I only become the registered KEEPER?
4) Is it a LAWFUL REQUIREMENT that I must submit my vehicle for an
MOT test/certificate that is only valid for ONE DAY out of 365?
5) Is it a LAWFUL REQUIREMENT that I must annually pay tax (vehicle
licensing fee)?
6) Is it a LAWFUL REQUIREMENT that I must submit a SORN Notice to
you (or anyone else) under ANY circumstance WHATSOEVER?
7) Is it a LAWFUL REQUIREMENT that I must have 3rd party insurance?
8) Am I not already adequately and LAWFULLY insured via my own NI?
9) Is it a LAWFUL REQUIREMENT that my vehicle must have seatbelts
fitted?
10) Is it a LAWFUL requirement that I must wear seatbelts?
11) Is it a LAWFUL requirement that my vehicle must be fitted with
a catalytic converter?
12) Does the government or the DVLA have plans to make it a 'Legal'
requirement to have all cars fitted with SatNav in the forseeable
future?
13) If the answers to any/all of the above twelve (12) questions is
'no', why does the DVLA exist?
Yours faithfully,
Sarah: Goldsmith
From: FOI FOI
Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency
25 February 2010
Dear Sarah: Goldsmith,
Please refer to the attached response.
show quoted sections
name Sarah Goldsmith <[FOI #29338 email]> 19
February 2010 15:35 >>>
Dear Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency,
'I' below, refers to 'any man or woman' who wishes to avail
him/herself of the use of the made up roads of this land using
any
motor vehicle privately, in a non-commercial nature whilst
harming
no-one and not causing breach of the peace.
1) Is it LAWFULLY REQUIRED that I must have a drivers licence?
2) Is it LAWFULLY REQUIRED that I must take and pass a driving
test?
3) Is it LAWFULLY REQUIRED that I must register my own, paid-for
vehicle with the DVLA and therefore transfer its ownership to the
government and I only become the registered KEEPER?
4) Is it a LAWFUL REQUIREMENT that I must submit my vehicle for
an
MOT test/certificate that is only valid for ONE DAY out of 365?
5) Is it a LAWFUL REQUIREMENT that I must annually pay tax
(vehicle
licensing fee)?
6) Is it a LAWFUL REQUIREMENT that I must submit a SORN Notice to
you (or anyone else) under ANY circumstance WHATSOEVER?
7) Is it a LAWFUL REQUIREMENT that I must have 3rd party
insurance?
8) Am I not already adequately and LAWFULLY insured via my own
NI?
9) Is it a LAWFUL REQUIREMENT that my vehicle must have seatbelts
fitted?
10) Is it a LAWFUL requirement that I must wear seatbelts?
11) Is it a LAWFUL requirement that my vehicle must be fitted
with
a catalytic converter?
12) Does the government or the DVLA have plans to make it a
'Legal'
requirement to have all cars fitted with SatNav in the forseeable
future?
13) If the answers to any/all of the above twelve (12) questions
is
'no', why does the DVLA exist?
Yours faithfully,
Sarah: Goldsmith
show quoted sections
From: I am the agent for the fictional strawman that was created with the name Sarah Goldsmith
25 February 2010
Dear FOI FOI,
Thank you for your point-by-point reply dated 25 February 2001. I
appreciate this must have taken some time to compile so was
therefore disappointed to discover you have not answered one single
question!
You have quoted statutes, legislation and acts to me. These are
merely corporate policy. As you will see from my original FOI
request, I made it VERY CLEAR that I was asking about what is
LAWFUL (not what you call legal), in fact I wrote the words LAWFUL
and LAWFULLY very carefully in capital letters on every single
bullet point, to demonstrate uncategorically what my request was
about.
Therefore, under the FOI, and honouring the original timescale,
please would you reply to the questions I asked and not alter the
'language' therein?
Thank you.
Yours sincerely, and without ill will, vexation or frivolity,
Sarah: Goldsmith
From: FOI FOI
Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency
25 February 2010
Dear Sarah: Goldsmith
Please see the attached response.
show quoted sections
name Sarah Goldsmith <[FOI #29338 email]> 25
February 2010 12:18 >>>
Dear FOI FOI,
Thank you for your point-by-point reply dated 25 February 2001. I
appreciate this must have taken some time to compile so was
therefore disappointed to discover you have not answered one
single
question!
You have quoted statutes, legislation and acts to me. These are
merely corporate policy. As you will see from my original FOI
request, I made it VERY CLEAR that I was asking about what is
LAWFUL (not what you call legal), in fact I wrote the words
LAWFUL
and LAWFULLY very carefully in capital letters on every single
bullet point, to demonstrate uncategorically what my request was
about.
Therefore, under the FOI, and honouring the original timescale,
please would you reply to the questions I asked and not alter the
'language' therein?
Thank you.
Yours sincerely, and without ill will, vexation or frivolity,
Sarah: Goldsmith
show quoted sections
From: I am the agent for the fictional strawman that was created with the name Sarah Goldsmith
25 February 2010
Dear FOI FOI,
You state in your letter to me today "you may wish to
be aware that the word lawful is a synonym (equivalent) of legal".
IT IS NOT!!!
Your reply is vexatious and dishonourable.
As you refuse to answer ANY of my questions, and now say you will
not enter into any further correspondence, WHO will answer my FOI
questions....????
Yours sincerely, and without ill will, vexation or frivolity,
Sarah: Goldsmith
From: I am the agent for the fictional strawman that was created with the name Sarah Goldsmith
10 March 2010
Dear Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency,
Please pass this on to the person who conducts Freedom of
Information reviews.
I am writing to request an internal review of Driver and Vehicle
Licensing Agency's handling of my FOI request 'Statutory only - not
LAWful?'.
Your reply is vexatious and dishonourable.
As you refuse to answer ANY of my questions, and now say you will
not enter into any further orrespondence, WHO will answer my
questions....????
A full history of my FOI request and all correspondence is
available on the Internet at this address:
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/st...
Yours faithfully,
Sarah
Things to do with this request
- Add an annotation (to help the requester or others)
- Download a zip file of all correspondence
Mark left an annotation (13 June 2010)
I hope this shall help the ignorant person who replied to you and who, because they cannot answer your questions substantively without giving the 'game' away, will choose to discontinue all further correspondence. This, is fraudulent practice by the DVLA to obscure what is further fraudulent practice in what they are doing.
The terms lawful and legal differ in that the former contemplates the substance of law, whereas the latter alludes to the form of law. A lawful act is authorized, sanctioned, or not forbidden by law. A legal act is performed in accordance with the forms and usages of law, or in a technical manner. In this sense, illegal approaches the meaning of invalid. For example, a contract or will, executed without the required formalities, might be regarded as invalid or illegal, but could not be described as unlawful.
The term lawful more clearly suggests an ethical content than does the word legal. The latter merely denotes compliance with technical or formal rules, whereas the former usually signifies a moral substance or ethical permissibility. An additional distinction is that the word legal is used as the synonym of constructive, while lawful is not. Legal fraud is fraud implied by law, or made out by construction, but lawful fraud would be a contradiction in terms. Legal is also used as the antithesis of equitable, just. As a result, legal estate is the correct usage, instead of lawful estate. Under certain circumstances, however, the two words are used as exact equivalents. A lawful writ, warrant, or process is the same as a legal writ, warrant, or process.
“Lawful. The principal distinction between the terms “lawful” and “legal” is that the former contemplates the substance of law, the latter the form of law. To say of an act that it is “lawful” implies that it is authorized, sanctioned, or at any rate not forbidden, by law. To say that it is “legal” implies that it is done or performed in accordance with the forms and usages of law, or in a technical manner. In this sense “illegal” approaches the meaning of “invalid.” For example, a contract or will, executed without the required formalities, might be said to be invalid or illegal, but could not be described as unlawful. Further, the word “lawful” more clearly implies an ethical content than does “legal.” The latter goes no further than to denote compliance, with positive, technical, or formal rules; while the former usually imports a moral substance or ethical permissibility. A further distinction is that the word “legal” is used as the synonym of “constructive,” which “lawful” is not. Thus “legal fraud” is fraud implied or inferred by law, or made out by construction. “Lawful fraud” would be a contradiction of terms. Again, “legal” is used as the antithesis of “equitable,” thus, we speak of “legal assets,” “legal estate,” etc., but not of “lawful assets,” or “lawful estate.” But there are some connections in which the two words are used as exact equivalents. Thus, a “lawful” writ, warrant, or process is the same as a “legal” writ, warrant, or process.”
BLACK’S LAW DICTIONARY, Revised 4th Edition (1968), p. 1032.
Link to this