Good evening to you, ONE UNDER GOD...

Wow, you've managed to clearly define the primary philosophy even the ideology of general policing per se '...the protection of life...' !

This Canadian judgement, though compelling reading in terms of the 'ratio decidendi', to my knowledge, it's not binding in terms of the Oz police, 'duty of care necessity', that I'm aware of at least ?

There are demands imposed on all police, in terms of a general requirement for the diligent and assiduous investigation of crime.

Nor, in all my years in the job, do I have any specific knowledge associated with a member who's had to deal, with such an allegation pursuant to - The general 'dereliction and negligence of duty', by a member.

The material that you've kindly sent me, makes for a thoroughly good read, O U G.

I do however, understand why you've seen fit to pass it on for my pursual, and I thank you very much for that. And I'm sure we could discuss elements of the 'ratio' ad infinitum, and probably go round in circles.

So, O U G, I might just leave it at that, as I'm not entirely sure what 'grounds' I'm on, in this particular matter. But I do thank you nevertheless, once again.

I believe (from what you've told me herein, and in other threads) you have suffered at the hands of either 'lazy' police, or police who've neither understood, and if they have, declined to act on that information. In relation to a matter(s), that you've previously brought to their attention, requiring at least, a thorough enquiry or investigation.

At this point O U G, I'll bid you good night. Take it easy, OK !

the grounds we are on is opinion..public opinion
i love that your able allowed to think for your self..this give me hope..

i will relay your reply to my ex forum..if i return
your inputs would be great on posts like this one
http://public.worldfreemansociety.org/index.php/forum/43-general-discussion/109240-on-against-in-the-public-record

a debate of what is the difference between for and on 'the record'

in the future our various guises../persona's
become more like our inner spiritual being
then the lion will lie with the lamb

thats where im trying to get 2
i feel we do this by being honest..no bull

look we both hate criminals..its just govt is criminaling KIDS..
under the lie of/BY..deeming a plant a drug..as justice staples himself said

''how absurd a law
that makes a plant a crime''..
[read genesis..FIRST page..gen 1;29

""BE-HOLD I GIVE YOU..every seed bearing herb"
yet perfectly good xtians,,IGNORE GODS WORDS..and bust kids experimenting..not bankers looting..we are al being ripped off

jesus called for serrvice to brother
not money changers..yet there they are..everytime our leaders meet

the leaders..the people
and keeping us appart..the thin blue line...

lol excuse me thick black back line backers
/mindlessly preventing the peoples WILL*..[you know for every letter..100 wanted to send..but didnt

ditto protests..once we get advance knowledge..that together
we have a hope to ccvhange insane actions of govt..signing away rights..LEGISLATING commerce..mate your caught up in it as much as we

act as intermediatry between the heads,
find a middle path..how do you KNOW*..them body gaurds are there to protect the [president..not hold hostage fame plus their family?

you dont yopu presume
heck on the streets..
of the obvious homeless..EVERYONE I MET..had been molesterd as a child

STATISTICLY one in 4 kids get molesterd
to me bringing a child[any innocent..into adulthood awarnessness..BEFORE their time..is criminal..

but even there rape
and kiddy fiddling..are sources/resources
true crims..get deals..and affectivly get off..and into the system

and 5 more kids are criminalised for life
by lie..

by those..who would have known better

had they listened more?

Hi there ONE UNDER GOD...

Gee wiz, you've handed me a curly one by asking me to provide you with the legal delineation, or interpretation of - 'on the record', and 'in the record' ?

Also, we are way off the Topic also, ONE UNDER GOD. I reckon you'll get me shot by the Moderator's ? And I'm far too old to be taken out by a bullet now ?

Anyway, looking at the above issue, 'in or on the record' - in relation to evidence, something recorded is always reduced to 'transcription' of that recording, whether or not that recording is presented (tendered) as the 'best evidence' to the court.

To try to answer your question (I'm probably in error). Where the meaning of that recording is clear, interpretation will be unnecessary. Thus, extrinsic evidence will be inadmissible, (that's the 'recording' issue to which your colleague has referred).

However where the meaning of a document (the actual transcription) is obscure, extrinsic evidence (the recording) to aid in it's interprtation, will often be admissible - there is a judgement somewhere on this issue, O U G .

I'd respectfully suggest, your friends on that former Site to which you've referred, are probably putting too fine a point on interpretation, and in doing so, arguing the inarguable ?

Perhaps also, they should rely on the 'Golden Rule' of 'Statutory Interpretation'. Or, look at the true intention of the law makers (parliament) when they drafted the legislation, rather than getting bogged down in mere words alone.

There is legislation provided specifically on Interpretation. And if my memory serves me well, it's titled, the 'Acts Interpretation Act 1901 (Cth)'. I can't recall many other details, other then it's legislation, used by legal practitioners and ors, to assist in interpreting specific Commonwealth Legislation.

I sincerely hope this helps O U G ? I should also remind you, my legal knowledge is now somewhat dulled by the passages of time, regrettably.

As always, take care.

Cheers.

the forum is down..
but i posted a link..on the wall*

thanks for clarifying..
]silent witness is my name there after they banned one under god
its amasing how 'freemen..yet found reason to delete my posts so often

see you know as i know..[or maybe im wrong
the crown..isnt her majesty..but the legislative arm of governance

i think langauge is so inportant..that when we talk of standing in court..this MEANS..your a personal injured part..or got a contract default injury claim

courts are there to remedy a finantal sccounting
where damages have occured..its so importasnt we access just grounds and at moment..its hard to know the lion from the lamb..cause their both acting like sheep

anyhow thanks for the feedback..and dont sweat on our moderators
after all the topic began with phyc..and one of us is delusional

and i know the money is on its being me
but mate i been rejected by lies all my life
i asked..for help..all they will give is perscribed meds or booze

booze killed my father
and all drugs have 'adverse reaction..ESPECIALLY where some mug can make cash*..[we all try to sort a path through peace..and being clear

or as clear as these times will allow
any how who the lie on who the laaaaamb..i rekon we both got a bit of

the word is mongrel..but in a loving way of a mate
poiunmting 3 fingers back at self,,

till we know what truth
really acts feels/looks like..we cant even comprehend what the other is saying[my writting is unclear because its not clear

but if you do a thing via fear or lie
even if its the right thing..its root is still a lie

i feel religious zealots have subverted both crown/pope
to loot the peons..by sending out the tax collecter..to catch the drunk cashed up RESPONSABLE proffitable workers

who cant take a day off to find out the lie
no injury no broken contract, no lawfull reason to act..UNLESS REAL AND PRESENT PUBLIC DANGER IS PRESENTED..;ie real and present danger

not some mug trying to get to work
sit outside pubs at closing time..where it matters

policing isnt 8 to 4..when money trade went 24/7..
thats why you get 'the big bucks'..lol

policing went 8 to 4..9 to 5..funny about that
thats egsactly when nmart thieves dont risk thieving or driving

your[generic]..they*

policy policers..are only catching mug workers
via unlawfull random search..to tax em..

or fools seeing a clear road relaxing for 3 seconds..nity picking,.,revenue raising by statute

anyhow if it was a debate you win
but i feel we both did

cheer johan

Hi There ONE UNDER GOD...

Again, many thanks for your Emails, and thoughtful responses. I will admit, I do need to read you material very carefully, in order that I might (fully) understand the import of your words, and the thrust of your comments or arguement(s).

If I do happen to miss 'exactly' what you're saying, it's because I'm a bit slower these days, and I am older at 70.

Nevertheless, I don't tend to read your sentences in isolation alone. Rather, I try to 'grab' the true intent of your words and often, that gives me the basis of understanding the issues to which you refer.

Thank you again, for taking the time to respond. I do hope we can speak again soon, 'til then, take good care of yourself, OK ?

Cheers.