We’ve all been there: you’re driving down the highway, perhaps singing to your favourite song, and your foot starts to rest a little too heavily on the accelerator. Next thing you know, you’re the proud owner of a £100 speeding fine.
Most of us would sigh, pay up, and call it a day. If one of our kids got the fine, we might give them a stern lecture on obeying the laws of the road, and then we’d insist that they dip into their own savings to pay for their error.
But not our Neelu!
No, no, no.
That’s telling ’em, Neelu! I’m 100% sure that scribbling ‘NO CONTRACT—revoked denied rejected Dishonoured UCC 3-503 3-504 3-505 without prejudic (sic) http://www.icj2.webs.comllien‘ in bright pink felt-tipped pen will totally convince Marston Holdings that they should back off and leave her boy alone. After all, collection companies are noted for paying attention to this sort of thing.
On her Facebook page, she comments further:
Bexley Magistrate was denied consent, contract and jurisdiction as there was no proof of loss, injury or harm in the alleged “speeding” – no proof is shown of a contract to take pictures of travelling vehicles or measure the speed – this service is denied, rejected, revoked and dishonoured as terrorism for profit by illegally trading third parties for extortion, profit, theft and robbery.
Good luck with that, Neelu.
Maybe when they come to take his car away, you can sic noted ‘Common Law’ lawyer Patrick Cullinane on them. That’ll really show them a thing or two.