Search This Blog

Wednesday, 9 November 2011

"Common Law - Admiralty Law - And Your Straw Man" Part 9

"A SECOND BITE AT THE CHERRY"

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
Common Law - Admiralty Law And Your Straw Man PART 5
Common Law - Admiralty Law And Your Straw Man PART 6
Common Law - Admiralty Law And Your Straw Man PART 7 
Common Law - Admiralty Law And Your Straw Man PART 8


Paul's parking ticket just won't seem to go away!!!

This was only a parking ticket, yet the significance of it was rather huge. After attending court, we discovered that Paul's name had been taken off the court roster, and we had won. END OF, you may think? NOPE, not in Jersey.

The Constable of St Helier, Simon Crowcroft, was not happy with this and had Paul charged again, and with the same parking ticket!!! He sent another "NOTICE" purporting to be a Court "SUMMONS" to Paul, and for his attendance at the Magistrates court on Monday the 31st of October 2011, "YES" this Monday just gone.

Please see below, their letter and purported summons, and our response.

The Alleged Summons

 OUR REPLY

Paul:Le Bourgeois

c/o

25th/October/2011



Parish Hall, St Helier

Connetable A.S. Crowcroft

Chef De Police D. Scaife

Parish Hall....Ref  SF01888259



Dear Sir


Thank you for your letter dated the 21st October 2011, and your purported court summons addressed to “Mr Mr Paul Le Bourgeois” which is in fact, a Notice. Thank you also for the purported charge sheet of which I have never been charged, and that is incomplete.

As I have explained ‘twice’ previously, I have still not received the summons that is alleged to have been sent to me, and I do not consent to your authority over me. As administrator of the legal fiction person MR PAUL LE BOURGEOIS, I have conditionally accepted every offer that your company has made and maintained my full honour in doing so.

On the contrary, yourself and your principals/agents have dishonoured every lawful response I have made which actions leave you deep in dishonour, and with no recourse to the law for adjudication in a competent court of jurisdiction. Furthermore, I attended your court to file papers for a motion to dismiss, said filing having being refused, I was then informed (twice) that the legal fiction person MR PAUL LE BOURGEOIS had been taken off the court hearing register.


Bearing all these facts in mind, I hereby notify you that I have activated my rightfully and properly claimed Fee Schedule. Please find enclosed a bill (in accordance with the Bills of Exchange Act 1882) to the value of (GB) £375.00 THREE HUNDRED AND SEVENTY FIVE POUNDS STERLING for one and a half hours of my time. Furthermore, any future time spent dealing with this matter will incur more charges at either £250 or (adjudication process) £2,500 per hour, or portion thereof.


I still remain open to discussion and negotiation to stay in honour, as I have been throughout this matter, and have at all such times acted lawfully. Your company representative can email me any time before Monday at the following address, whilst being mindful of my Fee Schedule, nunc pro tunc.



Sincerely, and without ill will, vexation or frivolity.





Paul:Le Bourgeois

All Rights Reserved

 

Sick of Constable Crowcroft's, and the Chef De Police, Danny Scaife's nonsense in this matter, we decided to attend their kangaroo court of thievery.

 When we attended court, we found that it was Bridget Shaw who was presiding over the case. When Paul's name was called, he stood up in the public gallery and said the following;


Remain seated until called

Then stand and
Say; I am here to deal with that matter Ma-am”

Say; I claim the protection of common law and I DO NOT consent to “in personam” jurisdiction in this matter.”

Say; DOES ANYONE HERE HAVE A CLAIM AGAINST ME?”
Wait a few moments and
Say;Let the record of this court show, and the people here witness, that no one here has a claim against me.”

Say; Thank you Ma-am and good day”
Then leave the court briskly….


Paul followed these instructions to the letter, he finished what he was saying and left the court. NO court ushers chasing after him, NO police officers waiting to arrest him at the foot of the stairs. In fact, not a peep from anyone other than Bridget Shaw saying she couldn't hear him, which is the mandatory excuse every judge makes when they cannot get jurisdiction over their victim of court fraud.
As our fee schedule stated, we sent Crowcroft a bill accordingly,
this is below
 
Mr Paul Le Bourgeois

c/o

9th November 2011





Connetable Simon Crowcroft
c/o Parish of St. Helier
Town Hall
St. Helier



INVOICE



To: Attending Magistrates court on the 31st October 2011 as ordered by the Parish of St. Helier.

One and one half hours at £2,500.00 per hour           = £3,750.00




Mr P. Le Bourgeois

Settlement of this bill should be completed no later than two weeks from the date of this bill. Failure to settle will be deemed a breach of my rightfully and properly claimed Fee Schedule and a breach of the Bills of Exchange Act 1882.

SO....That was it....Again!!!
We had won....Again!!!
"ANOTHER PARKING TICKET"
Paul received another parking ticket on the 26/10/2011
Right outside his shop, and whilst delivering to his shop.
Crowcroft, Scaife, & Co have decided that it might be a good idea to go through the same rigmaroll again with Paul, so sent the following Notice.
 Paul, having written out a CLAIM of RIGHT two weeks ago, had it Notarised and sent to the Bay-Leaf for rebuttal, no such rebuttal was forthcoming so the CLAIM of RIGHT is now cured.
Below are the following invoice and letter we wrote in response.
 
Mr Paul Le Bourgeois

c/o

9th November 2011

Connetable Simon Crowcroft

c/o Parish of St. Helier

Town Hall

St. Helier



INVOICE



To: Attending to, and responding to a Notice from the Parish of St. Helier dated the 7th of November 2011 and referenced SF01989187



One hour at £250.00 per hour           = £250.00





Mr P. Le Bourgeois

Settlement of this bill should be completed no later than two weeks from the date of this bill. Failure to settle will be deemed a breach of my rightfully and properly claimed Fee Schedule and a breach of the Bills of Exchange Act 1882.


"A FINAL LETTER"


 
Paul:Le Bourgeois

c/o
9th/November/2011

Parish Hall, St Helier

Connetable A.S. Crowcroft

Chef De Police D. Scaife

Parish Hall....Ref  SF01989187



Dear Sir

Thank you for your Notice dated the 7th November 2011 wherein you attempt to unlawfully extort monies from myself, namely by trying to get me to stand as surety for the legal fiction person Mr Paul Le Bourgeois. As has already been explained to you and your agents, umpteen times, I do not grant you my consent to stand as surety for the legal fiction person you seek to create a liability on.

For the final time, I am a man, living flesh and blood, I am not a “Body Corporate” or any corporation for that matter. You, as a Policeman, swore a common law Oath of Office to Her Majesty and to Her Majesty’s subjects to protect and serve, haranguing, harassing and berating me is not a part of that Oath of Office. Also, as a Policeman, you have a duty to look into the matters that I have raised, if you had done this you would have found that all your actions against me are unlawful.

To reiterate, your attempts to create a liability on a man are “FRAUDULENT” and are punishable by law. If you continue to harass me further, I shall be forced to make a common law complaint that you are using ‘mischief and fraud’ in your contracts.

Please find enclosed another bill for the value of £250.00 for my time in writing this letter, and indeed, for its safe delivery to your offices. Please also find enclosed, my “now cured and Notarised” Claim of Right addressed to your principal and which is irrevocable, and bars the bringing of any charges under any statute or enactment against My Self. Any further correspondence or action in this matter on my part will incur more charges as set out in my Claim of Right.



Sincerely, and without ill will, vexation or frivolity.



Paul:Le Bourgeois

All Rights Reserved

"THE END"



"FIN"

15 comments:

  1. Have you spoken to Simon Crowcroft for a bit of advice

    ReplyDelete
  2. goin to be interesting to see what they do when you dont make an appearance for a court appearance.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Paul can always send his birth certificate for trial, after all, that is the entity being summonsed to court!!! :)

    ReplyDelete
  4. would it be better if he parked on an unloading bay and parked like the rest of us have too ? .i see ppl park all over the place thinking they own the road .i have been fined in the past and now make sure that i park in the right places and if i have to use a scratch card i do .i know its a pain but it works every time without all the hassle of going to court, just a thought .

    ReplyDelete
  5. "would it be better if he parked on an unloading bay and parked like the rest of us have too ?"

    HOW DO YOU KNOW HE WASN'T???

    OR WERE YOU JUST ATTEMPTING TO TRY AND APPEAR SMART???

    ReplyDelete
  6. Wait a second. I'm a van driver and people selfishly abusing unloading bays makes my life really hard. Imagine if you had to park in town within humping distance of your delivery points up to 30-40 times a day and the bays were usually cluttered with car drivers who treat them as alternative parking spaces. B*stards!
    Seeing as abusing an unloading bay is just as much an offence as parking on a yellow line, why do they do it?

    ReplyDelete
  7. I have just finished a phone call to Paul's wife. Paul was parked right outside his shop, he was not blocking access to anyone or obstructing the road.

    He was right in front of his shop and had a big laminated placquard on his dashboard with the shop name on it!!!

    This is victimisation because he had defeated the authorities over the previous ticket, nothing else but victimisation....

    ReplyDelete
  8. Nice one Ian. I guess the next move would be to take Constable Crowcroft to the Petty debts court. Good luck to Paul.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Great little earner for POSH

    ReplyDelete
  10. "I'm a van driver" We are not here to make your job easier! Your job is deliveries to shops and if you have to walk some distance so be it you lazy git!

    ReplyDelete
  11. Has your bill been paid yet and will you be taking crowcoft to the petty debts court if he doesn't pay it?

    ReplyDelete
  12. looks like pauls turned over big time by more jersey corruption but hey just another normal day !

    ReplyDelete
  13. An unpleasant thoughtless person the world would be better off without wrote -
    "if you have to walk some distance so be it you lazy git!" and "We are not here to make your job easier"

    Who is this "we" you claim to be part of? You sound rather arrogant, possibly with delusions of grandeur too.

    The main point your feeble nasty brain missed is that unloading bays were created for a purpose - so that people who deliver or pick up large, heavy or inconvenient items that it would be impractical or uneconomic to "walk some distance" with - do not have to create a lot of extra traffic congestion endlessly "going round the block" to park often large vehicles safely without causing obstruction. They weren't created for someone to go to the hairdressers, or buy a packet of fags weighing 50 grammes.

    It appears I need to repeat myself for those selfish ones who are "hard of thinking" -

    The bays are "usually cluttered with car drivers who treat them as alternative parking spaces"

    These abusers, most of them not working anyway, have no heavy or awkward items to manhandle so why don't they park on a yellow line instead (more or less equal legal offence) instead of burdening someone who has to put up with their selfishness all day every day else merely to indulge their own convenience?

    ReplyDelete
  14. Anon above, I so understand your frustration, but the plain fact is that the shithead traffic wardens are incompetent assholes who walk by the cars in the unloading bays every single day!

    Any dumb fuckwit with the tiniest ounce of common sense can see that a car is highly unlikely to be delivering goods to a shop or warehouse, yet, what do our dipshit parking control officers do about it? sweet fuck all.

    They are contented with picking on the easy targets, the poor twats that are genuinely trying to deliver goods to their legitimate destination.

    SO....stop moaning about those parking in the spaces and go complain to the top criminal police officer for St Helier, Slyman Crowcroft....I shall be blogging about this particular criminal later on today :)

    ReplyDelete
  15. I hesitate to defend wardens but their job is difficult. If they applied the letter of the law (leaving aside your interesting "freeman" ideas) with zero tolerance, town would be paralysed.

    Talk to them about cars on unloading bays and they will say it is because they can't prove that they are not loading (picking something up) that prevents them from booking them. Unless they wait until the person comes back empty handed they can't do much.

    Van driver

    ReplyDelete