Frank Ruesink, of the Virus Truth group, received a fine for a traffic violation. That is not so unusual, were it not for the fact that he committed the exact same violation as a reader of this website, at the exact same location, with the exact same response to an objection, namely that he did not have to pay the fine.
I received the documents from that reader (Marieke) on March 5, 2022, and published them the next day. The similarities raised my eyebrows.
How could Frank have received the letter from CJIB, sent on March 9, the day before, which was March 8. Oh well, it could be a clerical error. It happens. Still, Frank's Facebook timeline raised some questions for me (read on below the screenshots):
If you then click on CJIB's response, you will see the exact same violation, the exact same location and the exact same response.
Did Frank happen to be fined for something where, in general, something did not go according to the official rules, and therefore any objection rightly resulted in a rejection of the fine? Was Marieke's objection also granted for that reason? Could it be that, for example, the traffic sign was missing?
All this reminded me strongly of 2013, when I was sent a false police report to discredit my research. Why did a reader send me a letter from the CJIB on March 5, 2022, and does Frank Ruesink publish almost exactly the same thing on March 8 this year? Is this an attempt to discredit Martin Vrijland's story about not paying fines?
Therefore, in the comments under the previous article, I posted the following:
Martin Vrijland6 March 2022 at 19:52Reply
It can always be the case that people send me something only to later dismiss it as "hahaha I fooled you, it was fake"
That's the risk. In that sense, it is indeed always important not to take it at face value.
So I agree with you that it is not irrefutable proof. It gives a picture that could be true; assuming that I am not fooled by the sender of these bills.
Is it an attempt to give readers the feeling of "Ah, don't trust that nonsense. Not having to pay was simply the result of an illegible or missing road sign"? If so, I have to say that they played it brilliantly and once again I was tricked.
What do you think? Are we dealing with a setup here to make my articles implausible, starring Frank and Marieke(this Marieke)? I think that is exactly what is going on here. Marieke has not responded again.
In any case, searching on the Hogeweg in Amersfoort shows that it happens more often that objections to the fine during closed declaration are successfully filed there.
marieke7 March 2022 at 14:36Reply
Hi Martin.
Saw that you placed my letter and fine in your article and this is also fine.
And also saw the reactions underneath that they look at it with a bit of suspicion.
And I completely understand those as well.
I myself am not the type that likes to be in the spotlights.
And in my family I have been laughed at that this would never work.
So when I received the first fine this was a fine of 55 euros for speeding and I also sent that back.
This letter I started to object to the fine and asked for proof of the Grace of God.
After this I got a letter back from the prosecutor with proof of the fact that I had driven there and that I had to prove that it wasn't me.
My husband didn't want me to appeal and we paid it.
When this fine came (which is funny because I have had my driver's license for almost 20 years and this was my third fine) I thought I should do things differently, not ask for proof and not acknowledge the fine.
Why I chose to write a bill with only five or six lines is because I really feel in myself what a crazy system we are in and wanted to show those around me how simple it can be done differently.
It's also nice to read that a handwritten bill and a simple wording immediately comes across as very simple.
We take expensive words with nicely typed letters more seriously,
but I have to admit that I didn't expect it myself and indeed it may not say anything whether it's because of the bill but the fact that I didn't have to pay was already a celebration for me because it did indicate that you shouldn't pay just anything.I don't trust what's on the internet very easily and I'm not into comments and I don't join everything right away.
I first want to feel in myself if it's something for me.
I'm almost 38 and my search for who and what I am is a thread that runs through my life in which I've often fallen flat on my face.
I also like to think in solutions instead of problems.
And that's why I emailed you that it worked for me.
Because without your articles I would never have sent it back anyway.
And whether it's because of the grace of God or whatever doesn't really matter to me.
It worked and with a next fine I would do it again.
In my environment everyone reacted immediately saying yes, it must be something else.
Also fine that they think like that, it worked.(point)
Do something, instead of trying to put your finger behind everything is more important to me now.And no I am not the person you are stabbing a knife in the back I sincerely wanted to thank you for it.
Greetings Marieke
Oh well why my last name is not on the bill is because I also read once that your last name is your trade name.
And that you should not use it because you acknowledge them as well.
Does that prove that invoking the missing authority of the legislature, because of the missing grace of God, is thereby ineffective? If you ask me, no. What has been proven above all is that, as a writer, you have to be very careful about people who deliberately feed you false info. After all, the reaction in the first article shows otherwise(see here).
That is not to say that the method does not work. It means that some try to discredit the way of thinking so that my readers drop out. I fight with an open mind.
Source link entries: appjection.co.uk
9 Comments
What a thank you doesn't cause.
I have emailed Martin and for all readers just go do it and you will know.
I don't know most of the people reading this and you don't know me so it's hard to know if it can be trusted.
I do know for myself and what is made of it now is totally fine.
But I would say just go do it and you will find out for yourself if it works or not.
And as in my previous comment with 1 fine it didn't work(not sure I didn't appeal)And with 1 fine it did work.
So now you can think what you want about it.
Greetings Marieke
@Marieke
It's not difficult just say a time and location. Then we will go over everything.
Maybe a good idea ? to meet tomorrow at the demo of Willem E.
Am very curious what kind of heroine you are.
Martin may exchange my email address to you, we need to unite, not with hearts but with deeds
as I hope you have done.
@frank Holland
There is nothing more to go through.
And to demon(strations)I don't go.
There is no more like it here in the comments.
Be your own hero and go do it yourself.
I'm not going to prove or explain my own for the rest I know for myself that it was sincere and if that can't be gleaned from my posts for the reader I can't do anything about it for the rest.
I affect my own actions not how the readers read it.
@Marieke
of course I close the discussion with you but precisely because you yourself indicate in your first comment
"Most of the people reading this I don't know and you don't know me so then it becomes difficult to figure out if it can be trusted."
It is always good to meet like-minded people and especially to see the sincerity, as you so
yourself that it is difficult to trust someone. The person in charge of this site can only guess whether your letter is sincere and honest. In any case, you have taken away all trust from me with your last comment.
The only way to regain trust and put it right for the readers is to show up in person but you don't do that, discussion ends.
Hello Frank,
A demo of Willem E still. Are you new to this site? Vrijland has written enough about this Willen E. Therefore, I would not agree with you.
@Inge
Have such a suspicion that the character Marieke feels at home there hoo ;-).
If you have seen more of my comments you can see that I do not hold Willem E in high esteem (even called him a charletan).
Sometimes it is good to see all those IMB'ers together.
And hò, having said that, they drag a lot of sincere people along and that's the dangerous thing about that William E, totally agree with you.
Trust, trust, trust and trust pff....
Marieke writes:
"Why I chose a written bill with really only five or six lines"
and
"Oh well why my last name is not on the bill is because I also read once that your last name is your business name."
So she only wrote a 5-line bill, with no address to whom it was addressed, no CJIB reference and no last name.
And the CJIB grabbed its crystal ball, and saw in it who, objected to which fine.
You see the CJIB also works with God-recognized forces! William Alexander is not alone!
For those who miss it:/sarcasm off.
@Marieke,
I'm going to give it a try, too. Different location, different 'offense'. Did you send your letter(s) to the CJIB mailbox in Leeuwarden or to the 'Mulder' mailbox in Utrecht?
Thanks in advance.