Search This Blog

Saturday, 17 September 2011

"Common Law - Admiralty Law - And Your Straw Man" Part 5

"Parking Tick-et's - A Test Case"
We will be keeping readers informed of any developments as we progress.

Before we start this posting, we would like the reader to know, and acknowledge, that anything in this posting is "NOT" Legal Advice, and should "NOT" be perceived as such. Everything written here is merely our own theory.
Please also note, that anyone using these tactics or copying what we have done here, "MUST" know how to defend themselves properly in a courtroom. Lawyer's and Judges have a wealth of knowledge and trickery to get you to consent to their codes of practice, thereby rendering you liable to their penalties after you have been coaxed into giving up your "Inalienable Rights".

"Common Law is the greatest protection anyone has against tyrannical Government and injustice. The States of Jersey have trampled the Law of the land into the dirt."
  
"The Great Deception"

Common Law - Admiralty Law And Your Straw Man PART 1
Common Law - Admiralty Law And Your Straw Man PART 2
Common Law - Admiralty Law And Your Straw Man PART 3
Common Law - Admiralty Law And Your Straw Man PART 4



Paul, a common law man living in a common law jurisdiction, received a parking tick-et from one of God's most infamous creatures. A creature that is slightly less popular than "The Black Death", a Jersey Traffic Warden.

What followed, is nothing short of BIBLICAL!

Oh how the Jersey Authorities are pursuing this alleged parking infraction, and with some of the most predictable of tactics. In short, they are breaking every rule of the real law of the land, and falling deeper into dishonour in their pursuance of 30
measly pounds, that is not even lawfully owed.

Paul has agreed that we may use his true identity....


THE  TICK-ET  LETTER



THIS WAS OUR NOTICE OF DISCHARGE

NOTICE OF DISCHARGE OF NOTICE OF REFERRAL TO THE PARISH HALL

AND REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION

Chef De Police

Parish Hall....Ref  SF01888259



Notice to agent is notice to principal and vice-versa



You have apparently made allegations that I am obliged to attend a meeting with a representative of your company.

You have apparently made demands upon me.



I do not understand those apparent demands and therefore cannot lawfully fulfil them.



I seek clarification of your document so that I may act according to the law and maintain my entire body of inalienable rights in doing so.



Failure to accept this offer, to clarify, and to do so completely and in good faith within 7 (seven) days will be deemed by all parties to mean that you, and your principal, or other parties, abandon all demands upon me.



I conditionally accept your offer to agree that I am Mr Paul Le Bourgeois and that I am obliged to attend a meeting with a representative of your company, upon proof of claim of all of the following;



Upon proof of claim that I am a Mr and not a man.

Upon proof of claim that I am a Sir and not a man.

Upon proof of claim that I am a person and not a man.

Upon proof of claim that I am obliged to contract with you.

Upon proof of claim that I have a lawful contract with your Company.

Upon proof of claim that any of your Companies rules apply to me.

Upon proof of claim that there is a law obliging me to provide you, or your company, with any service.

Upon proof of claim that a voluntary payment can become an obligation.

Upon proof of claim that a record of evidence is a valid claim.

Upon proof of claim that I am obliged to attend your parish hall in this matter.

Upon proof of claim that I have signed an international contract.

Upon proof of claim that my inalienable rights do not apply to this matter.



Furthermore, I reserve my rights not to be bound by any unrevealed contracts.



All words, terms, phrases, symbols and figures used herein, mean what I say they mean, and are not open to reinterpretation.



Sincerely and without ill will, vexation or frivolity.





Paul


Paul was then sent a copy of the original notice whilst they ignored our own notice, which immediately sent our Parish officials into (what is known as) DISHONOUR.

Paul rang me and asked what to do next?
I told him to send a copy of our original notice back to them, but just changing the date. Again our Parish officials just ignored our lawful notice, and which lack of action sent them further into DISHONOUR.


BELOW IS THE FOLLOWING INTIMIDATION



Accompanying that, we had this, the
ALLEGED SUMMONS!

If you 'notice' that on their purported "SUMMONS" it actually says
"TAKE NOTICE" and not "SUMMONS"
so it is therefore, just a notice, an offer, NOTHING MORE!

OUR RESPONSE WAS THIS LITTLE NUMBER!


Paul Le Bourgeois
*************
*************


16/09/2011

NOTICE OF DISCHARGE OF INVITATION TO A BUSINESS MEETING AT THE MAGISTRATES COURT
AND REQUEST FOR CLARIFICATION

Chef De Police d. Scaife
Connetable A.S. Crowcroft
Parish Hall....Ref  SF01888259

Thank you for your undated letter and accompanying dated notice. Your undated letter states “Please find enclosed Summons(es) for your attendance at The Magistrates Court”. I cannot find a summons anywhere in your correspondence! It is my understanding a summons must be signed by the Greffe under seal, no such document was sent to me.

Notice to agent is notice to principal and vice-versa

You have apparently made allegations of criminality against me.
You have apparently made demands upon me.
I do not understand those apparent demands and therefore cannot lawfully fulfil them.
I seek clarification of your document so that I may act according to the law and maintain my entire body of inalienable rights in doing so.
Failure to accept this offer, to clarify, and to do so completely and in good faith within 7 (seven) days will be deemed by all parties to mean that you, and your principal, or other parties, abandon all demands upon me.

I conditionally accept your offer to agree that I am Mr Paul Le Bourgeois and that I owe your company £30. I will administer this account according to best practice, therefore I require a proper ‘wet signed’ bill of this account. I also require the lawful two party signed contract that this bill is raised, and rests upon, after all, you wouldn’t want me paying a bill that I do not owe, would you?

You will understand that I cannot, in good faith, action this account without both aforementioned documents. As I have already demonstrated on two occasions, and which your company has failed to respond, I am willing to engage in discussion and negotiation to settle this matter as I do not wish to fall into dishonour. I can be contacted at the following email address.
paul@
Sincerely and without ill will, vexation or frivolity.




Paul Le Bourgeois
All Rights Reserved


Note that we say in the above notice that it is an "invitation to a business meeting at the Magistrates Court".
When in Court (business can be conducted in Maritime Admiralty Law) the judge, acting as Captain or Banker, is responsible for settling the balance between the two sides. This is why there is always a monetary value in any Court case, the Captain is simply dealing with banking or merchant disputes, once the balance is paid, the case is closed. 

Remembering this, you will also remember that we earlier mentioned "DISHONOUR". Before a Court hearing, both sides are given time to engage in "DISCUSSION & NEGOTIATION" before "ADJUDICATION" in a competent court of jurisdiction, and in order to find peace with their fellow man.
From the above letters, it is quite clear that our Parish officials have totally refused to discuss or negotiate in any capacity whatsoever, and are therefore in 'dishonour' and have no place taking Paul to Court.
As public servants/trustees, they are bound by their own rules, we are not.

WE WILL KEEP YOU INFORMED OF ANY NEWS IN THIS CASE

41 comments:

  1. Thanks Ian and Paul for sharing. Fascinating subject

    ReplyDelete
  2. Your very welcome anon.

    Indeed, the outcome is going to be very interesting as the ramifications are enormous. Our Oligarchy have already dishonoured two notices, and they are now cured.

    It is hard to see what else they can do after ignoring two lawful notices and dishonouring themselves?

    Still, this is corrupt Jersey, and they just ignore the law when it suits them. Stuart has shown that clearly :)

    No doubt that this saga is far from over!

    ReplyDelete
  3. You may have found chinks in what people think is the armour of the law, but Paul presumably still parked in a way which most people would regard as abusive of the rights of others to space to drive and park without others hogging it.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Damocles

    I think that you may be missing the whole point here. That point being that every man or woman is entitled to park anywhere on public land, paid for by the taxpayer, and at any time.

    Furthermore, they are certainly entitled to park without having monies extorted from them by a manipulative rogue bunch of greedy louts that use language to cheat & con people out of their hard earned cash.

    In Common Law, there has to be a victim for a crime to have been committed, where is the victim?

    ReplyDelete
  5. The victim is the person who was prevented from finding a parking space because an abusive person was hogging it. Or else the person whose ambulance got delayed because someone parked on a yellow line designed and placed to maintain the free flow of traffic.

    ReplyDelete
  6. "The victim is the person who was prevented from finding a parking space because an abusive person was hogging it."

    So, if you want to park near the hospital, and there is a space to park in, you cannot park there because someone else might want to park there, and this would make them a victim of yours???

    WHATEVER....

    ReplyDelete
  7. No wonder you get in trouble if you still can't see it! You seem effortlessly to miss the point that there are designated parking areas with rules attached to "share out" access to the ability to park.

    Your point about the Hospital is silly. If it is a designated area and you park in it paying the scratch card fee designed to limit people overstaying and reducing others' access, then you won't get a fine. If you think it is your right to park where and when you like without consideration for the fact that you will be reducing other people's access to a shared resource, then you must have some psychopathic tendencies (the clinical meaning, not the insulting one). In effect you are stealing because you are demanding for yourself a larger slice than is fair and thereby condemning others to a smaller slice.

    ReplyDelete
  8. I am not "in" trouble!

    And if you, or others, want to carry on living as government slaves, that is your perogative, who am I to deny you paying your money to the shysters?

    When you have any sort of grasp of the dire situation that you are in, then you will understand what I am trying to communicate to you....

    ReplyDelete
  9. Damocles, not so very long ago parking on public property was free, as it should be according to law
    (there is a big difference between law and enactments)

    look carefully at their paperwork, you will not find the word 'fine' anywhere,
    this is because the lew officers dept. know it is unlawful to charge people for parking on public property. Hence the 'powers that be' send
    us notices- commercial paperwork that are 'offers' these offers are asking for a 'voluntary' payment.

    Blacks law dictionary 5th edition;
    Voluntary;
    unconstrained by interference,
    unimpelled by anothers influence..

    dont pay a 'voluntary' donation and you face violence- "If you fail to appear the court may order your arrest"

    once in court a whole new raft of deceptive legal bullsh!t kicks in.

    charging people to park on public property (roads,carparks etc.) is state theft that cost us £multi-millions each year.

    c

    ReplyDelete
  10. Perhaps you ought to know that I absolutely despise those who use the letter of the law, rather than the spirit, to either convict or let off people or, in your case, get yourselves out of people trying to control your irresponsible attitude. If there were no controls on parking the roads would be a nightmare.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Look out for that sword mate, it's just hanging there!

    ReplyDelete
  12. there is no spirit in enactments they are strict liability

    "If there were no controls on parking the roads would be a nightmare"

    really, do you have evidence to back up that statement, or is it some barking piece of propaganda.Ever heard of selfcontrol?

    I park so as not to cause any trouble to anyone
    and I do it without a paycard.
    why would I contribute my hard earned money to the gangsters running this island

    c

    ReplyDelete
  13. 'I park so as not to cause any trouble to anyone
    and I do it without a paycard.
    why would I contribute my hard earned money to the gangsters running this island'

    Maybe, but you expect car parking spaces, ie car parks, to be made available, and how do you think the construction and upkeep of these are financed? Because the rest of us are buying paycards.

    So, Ian and c, would you prefer that we abolished paycards and consequently car parks, so putting thousands of cars each day onto our pavements?

    Personally, I would have felt more comfortable with your experiment if, rather than using Paul as your guinea pig, you'd allowed your own car to get booked and taken your stand from there. In other words, put your money where your mouth is.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Anon said

    "Personally, I would have felt more comfortable with your experiment if, rather than using Paul as your guinea pig, you'd allowed your own car to get booked and taken your stand from there. In other words, put your money where your mouth is."

    hahaha, I knew someone would come out with that one sooner or later :)

    Myself, and 'c' have spent the last six weeks parking on pavements, yellow lines, piles of dog shit. etc etc....TRYING to get a ticket!!! They won't give us a ticket!!! WE WANT A TICKET....and we want a ticket for the simple reason that, we both know how to handle ourselves in a court of Law, we know how to avoid a judge getting jurisdiction over us.

    THAT'S WHY THEY WON'T GIVE EITHER OF US A TICKET :)

    ReplyDelete
  15. ASIDE FROM THAT, IF YOU KNEW THE SHIT THAT MEMBERS OF PAUL'S FAMILY HAVE HAD WITH OUR CORRUPT GOVERNMENT OVER THE LAST 15 YEARS, ON VARIOUS COUNTS RANGING FROM THIS PARKING TICKET, TO POLICE BEATINGS, UNLAWFUL PROSECUTIONS, AND CHILD RAPE, NOT TO MENTION HIS FATHER DYING AND NOT BEING FOUND FOR 6 WEEKS, YOU WILL UNDERSTAND WHY PAUL, AND HIS FAMILY HAVE THROWN THEMSELVES AT THIS CHANCE TO HAVE A POP BACK AT THIS DISGUSTING COVER-UP REGIME :)

    ReplyDelete
  16. AND, incidentally, Paul got this ticket because he did not have a paycard handy, and was a tad late for some meeting that was to do with his fathers death!

    Perhaps I have no right to post this, but I am sure Paul would stand by my actions, he is NO loser, or cheat, and neither are any of his family :)

    ReplyDelete
  17. Hey 'c' - Do you think that the last anon comment was the guy with sword hanging over his head???

    I do

    ReplyDelete
  18. THE GOVERNMENT TROLL SAID

    "Damocles said...

    Ian Evans posts a lot on here. He has his own peculiar take on the law which means he thinks he can ignore virtually all laws with impunity. No wonder he has got into such a lot of trouble previously.

    Check out his latest blog post, but particularly the comments section
    Common law admiralty law and your straw man

    Personally, I wouldn't want him on my side with the attitude he is currently displaying.
    Tuesday, 20 September 2011 00:03:00 GMT+01:00

    ReplyDelete
  19. That was posted on Stuarts blog, sad twat you are Damn-ocles.

    I believe you are the same Knobsock that posted on the VFC site some weeks ago and made Neil & Jill look a little foolish?

    Well done, I was impressed, and it's a shame you are one of the bad guys, you could do so much good with your intellect, yet you choose the wrong path on a daily basis!!!

    When "KARMA" catches up with you, perhaps you might do the right thing?

    ReplyDelete
  20. With Paul's authority and blessing, and mine, and 'C's commitment, this case goes right to the European Courts....

    Huge price to pay for extortion, Jersey?

    ReplyDelete
  21. Ian you are absolutely right and welcome to post the truth in any of these matters. We are grateful for all your help as always. And we trust yourself and C to the max

    xx

    ReplyDelete
  22. Oh, and it was 7.30 at night when we parked. Pay cards only ran until 5.30 at the latest until the ''powers that be'' decided otherwise. And they say we were parked in a residents parking at all times!!! The sign wasn't and still isn't clear. We were needing to get to the hospital urgently. At that time of night. We were there 40 mins. We were ticketed 20 mins in. WE WERE IN A MARKED PARKING BAY!! NOT A YELLOW LINE. NOT OBSTRUCTING AMBULANCES.

    With the little available parking already for the hospital and they have turned the side road by the park into residents only at most times?? It was an emergency but even all the EMERGENCY parking outside the hospital was full.. we drove around 4 times and every person on that emergency bay was waiting for the bloody cash machine at side of hospital. I know because i damn well kept an eye on the bay for 10 mins. I was livid. Never a pocket hitler around when really bloody needed but then we get ticketed for actually needing a space to be somewhere for a reason. Not just to take money out!!

    Please explain that 1 Damocles.....

    We have sent them 2 letters requesting an explanation of things.. they have chosen to ignore both. We are LOCAL hard working people who, as Ian said, are sick and fucking tired of OUR island treating us like 4th class citizens.

    U would laugh if I actually went into some of the crap they have put us through over the years. We pay tax, social, own an upstanding well known business, but still no respect.

    I would rather take this all the way than roll over again and play the good puppy we have always been!!!

    After what has been done to my family, up until very recently, my HOME ISLAND can go whistle. It is failing royally and i for 1 am pleased these 2 men are taking the stand we should've been doing years ago.

    Our ancestors will be turning in their graves.

    ReplyDelete
  23. And it isn't the £30 parking fine.. it is down to the damn principle!!!!

    If we don't start standing up for ourselves, who will, and when will this farce of an island be brought to task!!!!???

    ReplyDelete
  24. Maria,

    Sorry to be pedantic, but Patriotic place is pretty well empty at 7.30 pm on all nights - it's there to serve the hospital. By the time you'd driven around 4 times, you could have been parked up and got to A&E. However, if you had a reasonable excuse, why didn't you go to the parish hall to put forward your case? That is the normal course of action.

    Ian,

    Why didn't you publish my earlier email? I advised that I was not Damocles, but wished an answer to my earlier question - 'So, Ian and c, would you prefer that we abolished paycards and consequently car parks, so putting thousands of cars each day onto our pavements?'

    ReplyDelete
  25. car parks were built before pay cards, income tax paid for them,if you think parking charges are in anyway used for purpose, take a look at the state of our roads, then there's petrol tax whats that used for?
    the 'powers that be' are taxing us to extinction,
    the 53 doughnuts need to show us exactly where OUR money is spent, no excuses, GAAP compliant.
    lets say it one more time,it is unlawful for governments to charge people to park on public property, end of

    c

    ReplyDelete
  26. 'lets say it one more time,it is unlawful for governments to charge people to park on public property'

    And in your world it would be unlawful for governments to stop children driving cars, or drunk drivers, or drivers driving at 100 mph in our country lanes etc etc - where do you stop c?

    ReplyDelete
  27. Anon, you do everything but discuss the topic!

    You are trying to inflame everything with your evasive little peregrinations, if you want an arguement, go find a lawyer....

    ReplyDelete
  28. But I am dicussing the topic! Parking in public places falls under the Road Traffic law, as do the other things that I mentioned. This law, with its various articles, has been put in place with the majority's approval so that we as a common people, can drive and walk with a fair degree of safety on our roads. If we fall foul of those laws, we are penalised - just the same as if our pocket money had been withheld by our parents because we had been naughty.

    I'm not saying that our system of law is perfect, but I really don't see what positive alternative you are offering.

    ReplyDelete
  29. What Road Traffic Law?

    There is no Law, only statutes designed to rob us blind, nothing else. Government is a company, so are the police, so are the courts, and parishes, its ALL just a money making scam, can't you see that?

    And none of it is for our benefit, when was the last time government gave you ANYTHING other than a BILL?

    You should start reading these postings from the beginning mate, use the links up top.

    When the penny drops, it will all become clear as crystal. You are a slave, nothing more, and if you need legal fictions (without a soul) to guide you through your life, I for one would rather be dead than have my life dictated by bits of paper with words on them.

    "THINK FREE!!!"

    ReplyDelete
  30. ANON

    Watch THIS VIDEO over and over until the penny drops, you won't regret it....

    ReplyDelete
  31. We all make our own choices in life.

    I do not see Ian dictating people should not pay fines.

    ReplyDelete
  32. "I'm not saying that our system of law is perfect, but I really don't see what positive alternative you are offering."

    I think Ian is just offering the one thing that you have overlooked anon, the fact that you 'do' have a choice.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Someone is paying attention!

    Thank you Lady, that makes it all worthwhile when people start waking up from their indoctrinated slumber :)

    ReplyDelete
  34. anon
    your talking of the precautionary principle
    an illogical nonsense governments use to gain ever more power.
    Think about it,do the road traffic enactments stop people drink-driving or speeding,clearly not, responsibilty stops people doing these things.
    self responsibilty is the foundation of freedom,
    I choose not to drink-drive or speed because I believe it is my duty to do no harm, as common law(real law) requires.

    As for the majority's approval, 53 people decided on these enactments and they represent a minority of people ie.those who vote.

    'our system of law' has been trashed it no longer protects people, it protects corporations.

    c

    ReplyDelete
  35. 'And none of it is for our benefit, when was the last time government gave you ANYTHING other than a BILL?'

    It gave my child an education.

    It nursed my mother when she was seriously ill.

    ReplyDelete
  36. NO!!!

    You payed for that, it was not a gift.

    ReplyDelete
  37. "Dumbocles"

    I am not posting anymore of your trite garbage on this blog. You are clearly not interested in the subject matter so you therefore have nothing to say of any value or consequence.

    These postings are here for those with an interest in the errosion of their rights and liberties, they are not here for you to try and bring folks into line with the wishes of a corrupt government.

    Goodnight & Goodbye :)

    ReplyDelete
  38. The town without traffic wardens:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-13735341

    ReplyDelete
  39. Hmmm..Anon, answer this 1 for me..

    I was parked legally in my own parking space in front of my own home. I pay the rent on that property which includes 2 parking spaces. I had the required parking disc in my car. As i am an upstanding citizen you know!!

    I came home from work and my car was clamped in my own space with a £130 release fee. This is States housing....

    My disc had slipped below the windscreen line and mr jobsworth could see it but couldn't read the estate it was for. He could see my registration number and the expiry date.... I called him to prove it. He said now the fine was issued it was up to the housing department as to what to do.

    I had a bloody fight on my hands and no car for 2 days as they bluntly refused to remove the clamp without payment.

    I wrote to Terry Le Main who told me that If i had been showing the correct documentation it wouldn't've happened and he was not involving himself!! I had the correct disc and could bloody prove it!!

    I called the police to see where i stood. They informed me that as long as i didn't damage their property, the clamp, i could remove it if it was possible.

    I had my brother let down my tyre. Slip off the clamp. Took the wheel to the garage. Pumped tyre back up. Put back on my car. Removed my car from its space. Left clamp in its place. Called clamp man to come get payment as i gave in and needed my car, so would indeed pay the fine.

    He turned up to an empty space bar his clamp... He called the police. They told him that he was not operating within the law and as long as there was no damage to his property i was well within my rights to do what i did!!!

    So i cannot even park on property i pay for without some dumbass trying to make me pay again and again for it!!

    ReplyDelete
  40. And I see that you didn't comment on the fact I stated that almost every person parked on the emergency bay was getting cash from the hole in the wall at hospital!!

    As Ian said, going round houses but refusing to actually add anything of sense about the main issue here.. Re read the title of this blog posting!!

    ReplyDelete