Neil, of the Kerslake family,

XXXXXXXXXXXXX
Barry,
Vale of Glamorgan,
CF62 XXX

7th August, 2009 (via Royal Mail Recorded Delivery Service)

Mr Ian Aubrey,
Policy and External Communications Directorate,
Casework and Specialist Advice,
D16,
DVLA,
Longview Road,
Swansea.
SA6 7JL

Dear Ian,

Thank you for your reply to my Notice of Understanding and Intent and Claim of Right that was
lawfully served on the Secretary of State for Transport, Mr. Geoff Hoon MP - and congratulations
on being selected as my point of contact with Her Majesty’s Government Department of Transport
in this matter.

To quote from your ‘Specialist Advice’: The content of the 'Notice' you provided has been noted.

Many thanks for acknowledging on behalf of Her Majesty’s Government the receipt of my Notice. I
am not sure why you felt the need to put the word Notice in 'quotes' - maybe you were trying to
imply that it isn’t a lawful Notice, and Claim of Right, at Common Law?

Anyway, if, as you say, it had been truly 'noted' - you would have responded in the proscribed
manner - namely by way of a lawful counterclaim in a sworn Affidavit under penalty of perjury and
full commercial liability. Did you consult with the DVLA's Legal Department before formulating your
reply? - I'm sure they must have one that could research the Law of the Land: i.e. Common Law.

You then went on to quote various Acts of Parliament regarding Drivers and Vehicles, but you
could have saved yourself some time and effort by understanding the concepts of Lawful Rebellion
and Freeman-on-the-Land at Common Law. The Acts that you so diligently summarised are not in
fact Laws, but rather Statutes - and a Statute is a legislated Rule of a Society that is given the
force of law by the consent of the governed. By lawfully serving Her Majesty The Queen with two
sworn Affidavits, and entering into Lawful Rebellion, I have explicitly removed my consent to be
governed by these Statutes.

Some concerns were raised by yourself regarding the licensing of Drivers - presumably, as some
desire for proof of my competence to use the roads. To allay any fears you may have, I can assure
you that I do indeed have a Full Licence that was issued in the UK in 1976, and my record for the
last 33 years clearly demonstrates that I am capable of controlling my Private Automobile without
placing other road users at any undue risk of harm, injury or loss.

If you check the DVLA's records you will find it under the number: KERSL 509128 N99MS and it is
apparently valid until 11.09.2028 - the address on this document is out of date as I have been living
and working abroad for more than 8 years - and your organisation would not allow me to record a
change of address whilst outside of the UK - I did try! - and please don't bother telling that it is
some sort of 'crime' under a Statute to have the wrong address recorded with the DVLA - for at
Common Law: if there is no victim, then there is no crime - and now you have my address, you
could simply update your records, if you feel that is appropriate.
Also, as a Freeman-on-the-Land at Common Law, I have absolutely no need of a 'Driving Licence',
as ‘driving’ is defined as using a vehicle on the Highways for commercial gain - an activity I will not
be undertaking, as I will be simply exercising my ancient Common Law Right to travel without let or
hindrance in my conveyance of the day, namely my Private Automobile. Furthermore, any activity
that can be licensed, must by it's very nature be lawful, and only giving my consent to be governed
by an Act of Parliament would require me to be licensed to perform a perfectly lawful activity - and
as I have already stated: by entering into Lawful Rebellion, I have explicitly withdrawn my consent
to every Statute; Rule; Regulation; Order; Tax; Fee or Charge of Her Majesty’s Government.

Your main concerns seem to centre around the Vehicle Excise and Registration Act 1994, which
you tell me: requires vehicles to be taxed ... The tax disc must be properly displayed on the vehicle
and the vehicle must be properly registered with the DVLA.

Well I'll take your word that it says all that, as again I don't need to read it - for it is yet another
Statute that only 'Acts' as the Law if I consent to be governed by it (and I think we both know my
position on that subject) - regardless of this, my Private Automobile has never been registered in
the UK, and therefore doesn't fall under the jurisdiction of the DVLA (or indeed the Crown and/or
Her Majesty’s Government). In fairness to yourself, you couldn't possibly have known that from the
contents of my Notice - so please accept my sincere apologies for the time you wasted.

Your expert knowledge of that Statute led you to conclude: Therefore, I am afraid that it will not be
possible for you to remove the registration mark from the vehicle without first notifying DVLA.

If you had all the information regarding the current status of my Private Automobile, I am sure you
would have arrived at a different conclusion - so once again, sorry my friend - and to avoid wasting
any more of your valuable time, do please ask me what else you would like to know in order to
make a more informed and appropriate response. I will however point out at this stage that I did in
fact 'notify' the DVLA - you acknowledged that you received a 'Notice' - the contents of which you
apparently 'noted'.

You went on to say: Also, small vehicles over three years old must have a valid MoT certificate and
the driver must have valid motor insurance.

Luckily, I don't have a vehicle, but rather a Private Automobile - and as for the MoT certificate, it
has the stricter German version - a TÜV that was issued at 16:04 on 19.03.2009 and is valid
throughout the European Union until the end of February 2011 (a TÜV is €57 & runs for 2 years).
I've enclosed a copy for your reference. As for Insurance, I indeed have that also - but that is for
my own peace of mind, and not because of a desire on my part to comply with any Statute.

To finally quote from your reply: The Notice you supplied, if it has any effect, does not provide for
any exception or exemption from these requirements or any other requirements with regards the
licensing of drivers and the registration and taxing of vehicles

That is obviously your personal opinion, and thanks for taking the time to express it in writing - but
you missed the quotes around the word Notice this time. Obviously, my opinion is diametrically
opposed to yours - in that it certainly does have lawful effect and, in conjunction with my Affidavits
to Her Majesty The Queen, it specifically provides for exemption from the Statutes you mention.

At the end of the day, the ultimate test of the lawful efficacy of my Notice can only be decided in a
Court de jure by a Jury of my peers - and to this end, should the need arise, I will of course call you
as the duly authorised representative of the Secretary of State for Transport to testify under oath
why you replied to my Notice without making a lawful counterclaim in the proscribed manner - and
failed to make the important differentiation between the concepts of Lawful and Legal.

As a gesture of good will on my part, I am now prepared to give you a further 10 days from
receipt of this letter to correct your previous errors and reply in substance to my Notice by way of
a lawful counterclaim in a sworn Affidavit under penalty of perjury and full commercial liability.
Failure on your part to make an appropriate lawful counterclaim within this timeframe, will be taken
as full and final acquiescence by Her Majesty’s Government to my Claim of Right to use the Index
Mark FREEMAN on my Private Automobile and to charge the Secretary of State for Transport a
Fee Schedule of £500 per hour, or part thereof, if I am prevented from exercising my ancient
Common Law Right to travel freely on the Highways and Byways of the United Kingdom of Great
Britain and Northern Ireland.

May I respectfully suggest that you seek advice on the Law before proceeding in this matter, as the
failure of a public servant to differentiate between the concepts of Lawful and Legal is 'Misfeasance
in Public Office' - the equivalent of the serious criminal offence of Fraud at Common Law.

The spirit of the legislation regarding the use of Index Marks is ultimately the eminently sensible
and reasonable requirement for automobiles to be uniquely identified by the Police and other road
users - and to this end, my lawful Claim of Right to the Index Mark FREEMAN more than fulfills
this purpose by making my Private Automobile one of the most readily identifiable in the Country.

Absent a lawful counterclaim on your part, I will write to the Chief Constables of all the areas of the
UK through which I travel regularly, to inform them of my use of this Index Mark and my Fee
Schedule - so that their Officers do not waste their extremely valuable time by interrupting my free
travel because I have simply identified my vehicle with the Index Mark FREEMAN - and in so doing
cause unnecessary expense to the Secretary of State for Transport.

At this stage, may I make an observation regarding Index Marks? - The UK has a rich history of
formats for identifying automobiles - all of which are still as valid as the day they were first issued.
To preserve them, the DVLA already engages in commerce, by operating a ‘Cherished Plate’
transfer service and it frequently auctions Index Marks (often raising large sums of money for a
single Cherished Plate). Thus, I cannot see any reason why the Secretary of State for Transport
couldn’t extend this to include the use of inoffensive words as Index Marks - for this would surely
raise much needed revenue for the Department of Transport during these difficult financial times.

Finally, if you would like to meet me at any location that is convenient to yourself, to discuss any of
the issues raised herein, I would be more than happy to do so - on the understanding that, as a
Filmmaker, I would record our discussions on audio and video for use in a Documentary Film I am
making about the Freeman ethos:

Love - Peace - Justice - for All

Yours most sincerely, and without any ill-will, vexation and frivolity,

Neil, of the Kerslake family,

PS: I have enclosed another copy of my Notice of Understanding and Intent and Claim of Right
that was lawfully served on the Secretary of State for Transport - in case the original has been lost
in the mountain of paperwork that you, and the DVLA, have to deal with on a daily basis - and for
your reference purposes, I have also included copies of the two Affidavits that I served on Her
Majesty The Queen to enter into Lawful Rebellion and assert my status of Freeman-on-the-Land.

PPS: Please would you note that for the purposes of future correspondence, I am lawfully known
as: Neil, of the Kerslake family - and as a Freeman-on-the-Land at Common Law, I respectfully
request that you desist from continuing to associate me with the fictitious legal title of Mr. Kerslake.