Crown court trial

[ulaw]

Funny story about a year ago i was on my way to work i was stoped by police for smoking a role-up which they thought was cannabis, and not knowing what i do now i was searched, in my bag they found a knife in its sheaf zipped up in my shoulder sack, which i use at work as i work in a warehouse, and in general when i go camping ect. I was then arrested for a possession bladed article.
Believe me or not but in 27 years i have never been on the 'wrong side of the law'.
Even though i have statements from a number of people including my managers and various character witnesses im no due in court and being told i may have a prision sentence.

Now some people use a knife as a tool, other a weapon now because i happened to have a knife the law say i am a criminal and as knife are stigmatized because the knife crime anyone that carries one according to mainstream society and the law wants to stab people and do all sorts of ridiculous things.

My only crime is that i am a responsible, now if the knife was in my pocket un sheathed i understand the threat but carrying one in my bag zipped up, sheathed and out of reach is just stupid.

Common law says if i cause harm to other, steal or disturbe the peace it is pretty much impossible to break the law, ethical law or moral ?

I was going to go court and refuse to consent, and thoughts please share.

[the worm that turned]

Funny story about a year ago i was on my way to work i was stoped by police for smoking a role-up which they thought was cannabis, and not knowing what i do now i was searched, in my bag they found a knife in its sheaf zipped up in my shoulder sack, which i use at work as i work in a warehouse, and in general when i go camping ect. I was then arrested for a possession bladed article.
Believe me or not but in 27 years i have never been on the 'wrong side of the law'.
Even though i have statements from a number of people including my managers and various character witnesses im no due in court and being told i may have a prision sentence.

Now some people use a knife as a tool, other a weapon now because i happened to have a knife the law say i am a criminal and as knife are stigmatized because the knife crime anyone that carries one according to mainstream society and the law wants to stab people and do all sorts of ridiculous things.

My only crime is that i am a responsible, now if the knife was in my pocket un sheathed i understand the threat but carrying one in my bag zipped up, sheathed and out of reach is just stupid.

Common law says if i cause harm to other, steal or disturbe the peace it is pretty much impossible to break the law, ethical law or moral ?

I was going to go court and refuse to consent, and thoughts please share.

Don't take this as actual legal advice but I would definitely look into the Rights of Englishmen, which is a constitutional right from hundreds of years of history in England (assuming that is where you are) that allows EVERY man to be given the right to trial by a jury of their peers.

So you must prove that you are a man and that you want to use this right. If they refuse to give you this then you could ask if they are seeing you as a English Man, which is easy for you to prove, but very hard for them to prove that you are not.

[zarah]

From my understanding (I'm a second year law student) stop and search can only be made if a reasonable assumption has been made that you are breaking, or are about to break, the law. I would have thought that your defense would be that, as roll up cigarettes are not in contravention of any law, and that police officers should be aware of the attributes of cannabis on sight, that the search was unlawful. It's not the strongest defense, but it's worth a try. You're probably looking for a freeman argument, and I don't have much understanding of that side of law, sorry.

[yozhik]

Ironic, isn't it.

They "stop and search" (unlawful) for suspicion of smoking cannabis (nature's product) only to find that it was unjustified (slander, harm to credibility, common law crime).

To save face, they then "have you" for carrying a concealed blade, despite witnesses and testimony verifying no malicious intent and justification for carrying a tool used for your legal and lawful employment.

Classic example of the world being upside down and back to front.
Exactly who is breaking the law here?
(it's a rhetorical question)

"Just look at us. Everything is backwards; everything is upside down.
Doctors destroy health, lawyers destroy justice, universities destroy
knowledge, governments destroy freedom, the major media destroy
information and religions destroy spirituality."
- Dr. Michael Ellner

[bsmurph83]

Funny story about a year ago i was on my way to work i was stoped by police for smoking a role-up which they thought was cannabis, and not knowing what i do now i was searched, in my bag they found a knife in its sheaf zipped up in my shoulder sack, which i use at work as i work in a warehouse, and in general when i go camping ect. I was then arrested for a possession bladed article.
Believe me or not but in 27 years i have never been on the 'wrong side of the law'.
Even though i have statements from a number of people including my managers and various character witnesses im no due in court and being told i may have a prision sentence.

Now some people use a knife as a tool, other a weapon now because i happened to have a knife the law say i am a criminal and as knife are stigmatized because the knife crime anyone that carries one according to mainstream society and the law wants to stab people and do all sorts of ridiculous things.

My only crime is that i am a responsible, now if the knife was in my pocket un sheathed i understand the threat but carrying one in my bag zipped up, sheathed and out of reach is just stupid.

Common law says if i cause harm to other, steal or disturbe the peace it is pretty much impossible to break the law, ethical law or moral ?

I was going to go court and refuse to consent, and thoughts please share.

well if you do wind up in court, i'd be asking them to show how their legalities apply to a living, breathing spirit within a man, as opposed to the legal fictions found on birth certificates, for instance.

"i accept your charges on proof of claim that i am a dead legal fiction and not a spirit within a man..."

can they prove you are NOT a freeman on the land?

and yeh, never consent to anything, not even as a judge gives his orders. if it gets to that point, there's not much else to lose. "I don't consent to that, Your Honour..."

there's lots of stuff in this forum on how to deal with things in court if it gets to that point... not to mention all the stuff for preventing it getting to that point to start with that's to be found in this forum! good luck dude

[yozhik]

Just plead "guilty to the facts".
(not the charges)
They don't like that.

[bsmurph83]

Just plead "guilty to the facts".
(not the charges)
They don't like that.

yeh, now my comprehension here is fragmentary. i know, for instance, that if you get a fine from a red light camera 'violation' that pleading guilty to the facts ruins them because a camera cannot testify and has no firsthand personal knowledge. you can't injure a camera or the police force by driving through a red light and having yer picture taken. but what EXACTLY does pleading guilty to the facts mean in more general terms?

i am missing something here. for instance, what would 'the facts' refer to in the OP's case where there was a cop there in person??

[number_6]

Why is this Crown Court and not magistrates? Have you been to the magistrates and elected for trial or is there more to this?

[yozhik]

yeh, now my comprehension here is fragmentary. i know, for instance, that if you get a fine from a red light camera 'violation' that pleading guilty to the facts ruins them because a camera cannot testify and has no firsthand personal knowledge. you can't injure a camera or the police force by driving through a red light and having yer picture taken. but what EXACTLY does pleading guilty to the facts mean in more general terms?

i am missing something here. for instance, what would 'the facts' refer to in the OP's case where there was a cop there in person??

Have a read of this :)

http://www.loveforlife.com.au/node/5792

[dolores1]

All my engineers carry knives of different types e.g. stanley knives, multiple types of screw drivers, cutting tools, cable strippers etc?

They can't work without them and we work in every environment?

[dolores1]

I'm with you on the boycott Sarah,

I just look for the bar codes and 07 numbers.

[ulaw]

Many thanks or the rplies folks, its given me food for thought.
I just hate the way im being treated like a criminal, one does nt know injustic until it happens to them, and they kow they have done nothing wrong.
what i love about their law is that they cannot take action against you if you do not play their game, i.e give consent, and acknowledge you 'understand' what theu tell you.
I am somewhat nervous but also looking foward to acting as free individual, its like a game of wits.

[bsmurph83]

Have a read of this :)

http://www.loveforlife.com.au/node/5792

thanks, Yoz. revision is handy! (i think i have that whole page saved on file somewhere haha!) that's what i get for being taken away from FMOTL by other fields of study...

just to illustrate the point for anyone else who might want some revision like my good self, this is a snippet from the link yoz supplied;

If you were driving in a 60ks per hour zone doing 70'ks per hour, the Magistrate can only see the charge (the $ - the fines - the fees in line with the statute which is the rule within a society that allegedly has the force of law),........

but the magistrate is unable to look at the facts...

i.e, did anyone get hurt or get injured [the STATE is alleging that you harmed or injured the STATE] and if so could he or she please stand before the court and make a claim that they were hurt by you driving 70ks per hour in a 60ks per hour speed limit zone.

Obviously no real flesh & blood Man can STAND.

"Its a Fictitious entity" we are talking about here (prosecutor, magistrate STATE, statutes etc are all fiction)

Breaking the presumption is saying that you are not on/in or part of their their ship at sea.

If you defend a claim against you, the state sends in its prosecutor (prostitute) who has no claim because he cant STAND and so they (including magistrate) can't see the facts.

remember THEY CAN ONLY BRING FORWARD A CHARGE.

so, essentially, pleading guilty to the facts brings you back into the realm of Common Law, where you can really only be punished if you have done real harm to someone, because if that was actually the case, that person would be present there in court to testify to that effect (the facts).

pleading guilty to the facts requires the injured party to stand and account for the claim against you.

no injured party - no claim - no facts.

simple. it's like i knew it all along lol

:D

[deem]

Have a read of this :)

http://www.loveforlife.com.au/node/5792

Good post.:D

[ulaw]

If only i knew all this a year ago, the reason i went for crown court was because i simply did what my solicitor said,
I was also told if it was a magistrates court there was more chance of me given a prison sentence, oh and i would also have to pay the legal costs, and earning just above minimum wage i was under the impression it would be a 'fair trial'.

Having read up on various aspect of civil and common law, i finally have a chance to put it into practice, and experience in exersising my free will

One thing is for certain i am looking foward to the trial, so i can find out for myself if all this is a urban myth or not.

[tien an]

If only i knew all this a year ago, the reason i went for crown court was because i simply did what my solicitor said,
I was also told if it was a magistrates court there was more chance of me given a prison sentence, oh and i would also have to pay the legal costs, and earning just above minimum wage i was under the impression it would be a 'fair trial'.

Having read up on various aspect of civil and common law, i finally have a chance to put it into practice, and experience in exersising my free will

One thing is for certain i am looking foward to the trial, so i can find out for myself if all this is a urban myth or not.

Good luck to you mate...have to get rid of that solicitor (pimp) first though...


tian an.

[number_6]

Good luck to you mate...have to get rid of that solicitor (pimp) first though...


tian an.

I agree. If this was in the magistrates, I would have thought a bind over the likely outcome. Going to Crown can be a gamble. Magistrates can only give a maximum six months imprisonment. Crown, if found guilty, can give you the maximum for the committed crime. Although it must be said if the magistrates feel that six months is inadequate, they have the option to send you to Crown for sentencing.

[yozhik]

Having read up on various aspect of civil and common law, i finally have a chance to put it into practice, and experience in exersising my free will

One thing is for certain i am looking foward to the trial, so i can find out for myself if all this is a urban myth or not.

I hope your expectations are realised ...

What outcome would either confirm the myth or dispel the myth?

[ulaw]

I hope your expectations are realised ...

What outcome would either confirm the myth or dispel the myth?

Game theory, and if i have what it takes to play their game and come out clean.
Whether or not Common law can still be up held by anyone.
If the judge has an oath of office, and cannot contiune the court process without first showing proof of the oath.
Not to give consent ?
All information i have come across regarding the law and how it is simply a game of words.

[ulaw]

So I was acquitted the jury found me not guilty, even the judge was in my favour, the PC that arrested me was simply being difficult and my defense made this very clear, So i will be given my knife back and will even be given money for my travel.
I took the witness box and argued my case and proved i had nothing to hide and proved good reason to be carrying the knife.
I was advised not to pull off any stunts like asking the judge to provide oath of office, or refuse to give my name or ask to be tried by common law.
At the end of the day i am innocent the the jury could see that,
Im glad it went to crown as oppose to magistrate.

[yozhik]

So I was acquitted the jury found me not guilty, even the judge was in my favour, the PC that arrested me was simply being difficult and my defense made this very clear, So i will be given my knife back and will even be given money for my travel.
I took the witness box and argued my case and proved i had nothing to hide and proved good reason to be carrying the knife.
I was advised not to pull off any stunts like asking the judge to provide oath of office, or refuse to give my name or ask to be tried by common law.
At the end of the day i am innocent the the jury could see that,
Im glad it went to crown as oppose to magistrate.

Nice.
Trial by jury has is advantages, eh?
:)

Heartening to know common sense can still trump Common Purpose.

[bsmurph83]

So I was acquitted the jury found me not guilty, even the judge was in my favour, the PC that arrested me was simply being difficult and my defense made this very clear, So i will be given my knife back and will even be given money for my travel.
I took the witness box and argued my case and proved i had nothing to hide and proved good reason to be carrying the knife.
I was advised not to pull off any stunts like asking the judge to provide oath of office, or refuse to give my name or ask to be tried by common law.
At the end of the day i am innocent the the jury could see that,
Im glad it went to crown as oppose to magistrate.

good to hear ulaw. congrats!