It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: teapot
a reply to: hellobruce
Ignorant, educate yourself! Or suck it up!
I shall give you this. I know someone that was arrested for resisting arrest for a charge he knew himself innocent of. This was a driving offence. The police knew who he was and did not like him. He refused to give his name to either the police or the magistrates he was placed before. Bail was denied and he was put in a police cell overnight.
He was taken to hospital, psych assessed and found to be of sound mind, even though he would not speak a word to anyone.
Next day, he was again put before the courts and warned, he would be charged with contempt of court but still would not reveal his name, would not speak at all. Back to the police cell. As the 'authorities' knew his identity anyway, he was then charged with contempt of court and sent down.
Police had to do necessary enquiries and in the course of this, found he had not committed the offence they had originally attempted to charge him with.
Courts ordered his immediate release. He then was happy to speak with his court appointed lawyer. The guy ended up making a mint in compensation for his wrongful arrest and subsequent imprisonment.
Do you imagine there is any way he would not have sued the entire court and legal system if the details of this case were publically available?
Do you imagine the legal system would want the details made public?
originally posted by: teapot
a reply to: hellobruce
Ignorant, educate yourself! Or suck it up!
originally posted by: teapot
a reply to: hellobruce
Ignorant, educate yourself!
He then was happy to speak with his court appointed lawyer. The guy ended up making a mint in compensation for his wrongful arrest and subsequent imprisonment.
Do you imagine the legal system would want the details made public?
originally posted by: grainofsand
originally posted by: teapot
a reply to: hellobruce
Ignorant, educate yourself! Or suck it up!
Perhaps it is you who should educate yourself.
Not-guilty verdicts and records of all cases are public information available from all courts in the UK, from magistrates, to Crown, and the high court.
You have to pay for them though, and Magistrates files are held locally, but the records are there.
Northern Ireland has a free web-service showing Summaries of Judgements from their courts, it is an interesting read, perhaps you will take a look and realise that 'not guilty' cases are just as much public knowledge as 'guilty' verdicts are.
Here, take a look courtsni.gov.uk ...then scroll down to 5th of January and you'll see a curious 'not gulity' case of a pastor who had been accused of sending a grossly offensive message in a digital format.
The claim that not guilty cases are not recorded and public information is ridiculous, and uninformed.
statute
ˈstatjuːt,-tʃuːt/
noun
plural noun: statutes
a written law passed by a legislative body.
originally posted by: teapot
Details of cases where people have successfully used their common rights under common law are not readily available for a reason
originally posted by: teapot
Details of cases where people have successfully used their common rights under common law are not readily available for a reason and that is it is not in the best interests of those that promote legislation above Law.
originally posted by: icura7
a B.A.R member (British Accredited Registry)
originally posted by: lacrimoniousfinale
a reply to: icura7
Oh, my goodness. I think I'm going to have to lie down for a while. Can you please explain how the Crown owns my car?