The Canons of evidence - 'Not in the public interest'

[chaz63]

please could you re post in really simple lay man terms please strawmansarah..i think i understand what your saying but totaly sure..i thought that freeman are not looking for judgements,but are just not taking part in the circus.common law..no harm loss or damage.if our lower courts are common law then it matters not that higher courts aint because if the lower courts acted under common law,which they dont,then they wouldnt send us to higher courts.this is a common law country.fact.what they do against common law to tax us,and fine us etc is against that law.no judgement needed.no victim,no crime.plain and simple.good post.gets us thinking.

[State-Property]

what they do against common law to tax us,and fine us etc is against that law.no judgement needed.no victim,no crime.plain and simple.good post.gets us thinking.

What 'freemen' call 'common law' and what the courts have called Common Law for the past 800-odd years is very different. When people go in to court bleating "I want common law".... they shouldn't be surprised when they get it!

Common Law means Law created by common judgments over time in cases where the 'evidence' presented is similar. Also called case law/precedent etc.

Of course if you don't present any APPROPRIATE evidence/legal argument then your side won't get heard and you will lose by default. THAT is Common Law.

As for the court heirarchy I think you have read it the wrong way round. Lower courts are bound by the decisions of the higher courts. So, for example, a magistrates court will be bound by the common law (judge-made) decisions of a court of appeal...

[chaz63]

so what would you sugest the best course of action should be sarah in say a court hearing about council tax etc?

[Star-Child]

Is ignorance of the LAW (AKA Rules of a community) in the publics interest ?

Case law says education should be sufficient to equip individuals to function in their immediate communities but not necessarily their wider one. So we have a class action cause of action to sue the LEA's for not providing an education suitable for all the people who live in their own communities .


Or, will they say, the public knowing the rules - by being taught them at school, is NOT in the publics interest ?


Ignorance of the law is not a defence at law, so we sue the Local Education Authorities for damages, and I wager it's a systematic abuse of human rights by knowingly choosing not to equip people with the actual REAL WORLD RULES (AKA THE LAW) for their own communities. (as backed up by case law)

[chaz63]

while looking to see if you had replied to the question in my last reply i read back over what i wrote last night and realised it seemed a bit sarcastic or maybe even rude.that aint how i would like it to sound so i just want to say to you +sarahstrawman+ sorry if it sounded sarcky.it wasnt intentional.it was a genuine question with a real interest in your reply.