Civil or criminal ?

by Buddyboo73 Thu Jun 01, 2017 9:36 pm

Hi all , I was up in court today for poor attendance at my son's school due to personal reasons.
Under section 444 of the education act 1996. Straight off the bat they asked if I was guilty or not guilty.
I said I couldn't put in a plea because I haven't been interviewed or charged with anything,anyway they put in a not guilty plea for me ! I did not consent to it ..the clerk and council solicitor told me it was a criminal matter ! I said due process was not followed if it was criminal anyway they adjourned for trial which I did not consent to..can anyone advise whether it's a civil or criminal charge ?

by **daveiron** Thu Jun 01, 2017 10:00 pm

Is home schooling an option ?,my daughter is doing that with her two daughters

by **daveiron** Thu Jun 01, 2017 10:15 pm

Had a quick look & it seems it may be criminal
Have you looked at section 444 ie; 200 attendances per year ,or para 3b

by handle Thu Jun 01, 2017 11:01 pm

https://www.theguardian.com/education/2017/apr/06/supreme-court-upholds-ban-on-term-time-holidays-jon-platt-unauthorised-break

it looks criminal but it wasnt until recently because the parent originally won in the normal courts but the supreme court changed it. there were landmark rulings in 1996 and 2006 that favoured the parent, but looks like the marxist agenda as to who is in charge over ones children seems to be settling in.

by man Fri Jun 02, 2017 12:13 am

Do they convert it to criminal when you enter the room? as surely if a crime had been committed by the O.P., the police would have had to arrested the O.P. beforehand.

by **daveiron** Fri Jun 02, 2017 7:30 am

I remember a few years back they tried this with Karen from the old site. about 15 of us turned up at Southend Court for support (Mareo ,Noisetone etc) .I remember the usher came along and asked her how she was going to plead & Karen made it very clear that she was pleading to nothing.
She was intending to use the Karl Lentz method.I think they got wind of what she was going to do And the prosecution failed to turn up. Job done.

by **urchinatheart** Fri Jun 02, 2017 8:02 am

The key to the pleading thing is liabilty. Who has made the plea for you?
How can they possibly know? It needs to be uttered in court that whoever has made the plea carries the liability also.

by Buddyboo73 Fri Jun 02, 2017 4:59 pm

Thanks people,it was the clerk of the court who put in the plea,when I challenged this she got snotty , I said they couldn't make assumptions to whether someone is guilty or not and she said she could ! I didn't consent to any of it and brought up the human rights thing saying I haven't been interviewed under caution and they got me there under false pretense..she said they are protecting my human rights...I laughed and said I haven't been charged with anything !

by Guest Fri Jun 02, 2017 5:07 pm

Hi Buddyboo73

This is just opinion....

You gotta watch the Troy vids fella!

If it says 'charge' or 'charges' on the paperwork then it's a commercial case. There are (apparently) two layers of 'criminal'. There is common-law criminal and there is statutory criminal. Statutory criminal is commercial, it is pretend law to extort money from the ignorant. This is what they are doing to you. You need to do battle in commerce.

If it was common-law criminal then it would say 'complaint' rather than charge - civil = claim, criminal = complaint, commercial = charge.

However asking for clarification of jurisdiction from the prosecution is a sharp arrow in your quiver of questions for an offer of Conditional Acceptance...

Remember - i KNOW nothing.

Cheers!

by Buddyboo73 Fri Jun 02, 2017 5:18 pm

All it said on the summons is "to answer information"

by Buddyboo73 Fri Jun 02, 2017 5:20 pm

I saw a Troy vid but found the background noise too distracting.

by Guest Fri Jun 02, 2017 5:29 pm

Hi Buddyboo73

At the Plough Inn? Yes bit tough that one, gets clearer second time through. However he's done 4 or 5 and i consider them essential viewing.

Must have been a short letter if that's all it said! Any more clues?

Cheers!

by living man 01 Fri Jun 02, 2017 8:42 pm

Hi, The Karl lentz vids are very powerful wow, look @ the interview with uk column news. A child belongs to the state because of the birth certificate. Its not are children but its are property & no man/women can take are property from us. Best of luck.

by Sponsored content

Civil or criminal ?

Civil or criminal ?

Re: Civil or criminal ?

Re: Civil or criminal ?

Re: Civil or criminal ?

Re: Civil or criminal ?

Re: Civil or criminal ?

Re: Civil or criminal ?

Re: Civil or criminal ?

Re: Civil or criminal ?

Re: Civil or criminal ?

Re: Civil or criminal ?

Re: Civil or criminal ?

Re: Civil or criminal ?

Re: Civil or criminal ?