As no one has authority over another, it means no one has any inalienable rights beyond survival (shelter from elements, food and water)
No rights mean no one can justify knowingly causing another harm (our freedom ends once we impact on any of another’s senses – sight, sound, smell, touch, taste and feelings).
This means ALL interactions must be negotiated, and as no one has the right to cause another harm there must be a meeting of the minds, for that to occur there must be full disclosure and a negotiated contract. Where this cannot be achieved between the individuals, the group meet to see if agreement can be negotiated. If agreement still cannot be negotiated then the matter goes to public court which is LEVEL 4 who will be the jury where the claimant and defendant represent themselves by statements of fact via affidavit which becomes the court record forming the basis of common law. This means that there is 1 court per 20736 people = 0.00964% (latest civil claims in England and Wales 508700 from population of 56 million = 0.9% divided by 90 days = 0.01% per day) so that would mean the level 4 court load would be 1 case per day to provide the same level of service as is currently provided.
JURY TO JUDGE GUILT
A fact of any issue is there will be extremist views which are as valid as your and mine.
Juries deliberation must be public record and done in public as each member must stand behind their reasoning for their judgement.
A majority vote of 10 to 2 minimum (83% minimum decide laws) is required for a judgement.
JURY ALSO TO DECIDE IF LAW IS JUST
As common law is based on the current belief system of society the common law needs an expiry date which must be decided on by society and 12 years since a law was last used randomly fits in the the concept of the council of 12. (wisdom is the best just application of available knowledge)
Further the job of the jury is to decide if the law is just if a person in challenging the law with new knowledge prior to the automatic 12 year expiry.
The only possibility of appeal is if new facts unknown at the time were innocently missed from the affidavit. If the new trial finds this is a waste of their time then the person that appealed will be liable for the harm caused even if it possibly is only wasting other peoples time!
ALL COURT CASES MUST BE BROADCAST LIVE AND KEPT FOR PUBLIC RECORD AVAILABLE VIA INTERNET WITH SUITABLE BACK UP (Maybe we can use FaceBook and Twitter for live broadcasts and NSA for storage 😉 )
ANY MEMBER OF THE PUBLIC CAN ATTEND ANY COURT CASE. DEPENDING ON POTENTIAL NUMBERS SUITABLE VENUES WILL BE NEEDED.
THE LOOSER’S OF THIS POLICY – Those which are protected by privilege.
THE WINNERS OF THIS POLICY – Everyone.
REPORTING UNLAWFUL ACTIONS
As we may not have the same knowledge base we initially act unknowingly causing harm. Once we have been notified of harm caused by our actions we are continuing to knowingly cause harm and hence are acting unlawful!
Anyone who believes harm may be done as the result of another’s actions must inform the person and log it on a social system (again maybe NSA could be used for storage 😉 ) that can hence allow mental knowledge to find the best solution based on available knowledge to be found through reasoned debate. Reasoned debate must include the impact of transitioning from existing to best available. As it is logged publicly people with interest or knowledge in that area can hence earn extra money by applying their skills, experience and knowledge. Reasoned debate would include a scientific approach in public where ever possible (eg. global warming, vaccinations which are current hot debates).
Anyone who then sees someone continuing ignoring best available knowledge is given one further opportunity to correct their actions and is logged on the knowledge base record against the original entry, again directing to the best available knowledge and a cease and desist date by which the defendant must adopt it or face the consequences of their actions.
FAILING TO ACT UPON UNLAWFUL ACTION IS UNLAWFUL