Search This Blog

Sunday, 27 November 2011

"Common Law - Admiralty Law - And Your Straw Man" Part 11

"The Curious Case Of The Person"
"Another Parking Ticket Outing"

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
Common Law Admiralty Law And Your Straw Man PART 9
Common Law Admiralty Law And Your Straw Man PART 10

"The Curious Case Of The Person"

"In law you are not a person, you have a person." This is one of the biggest shocks the study of law reveals.

Upon registration of a live birth, the government sets up a trust and creates a legal fiction person in the name of the child.
Lawyers distinguish these fictitious persons by using capitalisation of names or titles (Mr, Mrs, Sir, Esq, Miss, Ms) and so on, or by using surnames first, for example Bloggs J John

 This is known as

  •  Capitis Diminutio Minima
  •  Capitis Diminutio Media
  •  Capitis Diminutio Maxima

Our system of commerce is also a legal fiction and we all have a ‘person’ to enables us to sail the sea of commerce if we so wish, persons are our vessels, they are not us, the living breathing flesh and blood man or woman.
Real people cannot ‘appear’ in the fictional world of commerce, often called ‘the public’ by duplicitous lawyers and government agents, the laws of the water rule commerce, the laws of the land rule people.

Men and women can re-present, or act as surety for a person but in law cannot be a person, we can only ever prove we are men and women in a court of law, never a person.

Originally the ‘person’ was our greatest protection from predatory governments and corporations, it still is if we learn to differentiate between ourselves and the ‘person’.


Lawyers are experts with words – forensic experts
They can prove the meaning of all the words they use and rarely misplace punctuation, symbols or grammar.
The word person is the bedrock of administrative law that government use to convince us they have the power to make laws for us, government does not legitimately have that power (more on this later).


Person; from the Latin persona, means an actor’s mask used to represent a character in a play.
Probably from Etruscan- phersu, a mask
From the Greek prosopa, faces/masks
First known use in the 13th century


3      Application of penal enactments to bodies corporate
In the construction of every enactment relating to a punishable offence, whether passed before or after the commencement of this Law, the expression “person” shall, unless the contrary intention appears, include a body corporate:

And in the schedule:-
(Article 4)
(Article 4(1))

“person” shall include any body of persons corporate or unincorporated;

Of course the first and obvious question here is why would the Law Society and States of Jersey seek to redefine such a commonly used word?

Anyhow, let’s deconstruct the above definitions

In both the above extracts the word “include” is the giveaway.
In law the word include is exclusive, as evidenced by the legal maxim

“Inclusio unius est exclusio alterius”

“the inclusion of one thing is the exclusion of another”

So only the words written after include is included,
If it’s not written, then it’s not included.

1) The expression “person” shall, include a body corporate:

2) “person” shall include any body of persons corporate or unincorporated;

In extract 2 the extra words are to confuse, but this is easy to understand if you recognise that some bodies corporate are unincorporated, medical practices and law firms can be unincorporated partnerships, the most infamous of these are the Inns of Court of the Crown Corporation of the City of London.

1) Unless a contrary  intention appears
2) Unless the contrary intention appears

These two phrases are used liberally in the INTERPRETATION ‘law’

No1 tells us there might be a contrary intention
No2 tells us there is a contrary intention

No prizes for guessing what the contrary meaning of the word person is outside the legal definition!!


1. Definitions with regard to enactments
(1)    In this Law and in every other enactment (as hereby defined) whether passed before or after the commencement of this Law, the expression “enactment”, unless a contrary intention appears, shall mean any provision of any Law passed by the States and confirmed by Her Majesty in Council and any provision of any regulations, Order, rules, bye-laws, scheme or other instrument passed or made in Jersey under the authority of any Order in Council or under any such Law as aforesaid.

The above tells us that the definition of the word “person” applies to all enactments, regulations, orders, rules, bye-laws, schemes or other instruments – basically all written ‘law’.
Try finding the words "man" or "woman" in any enactment!!!

That a ‘person’ is a body corporate in administrative law has to be so because it is the duty of government to regulate commerce to limit any harm to the people.

All power is vested in the people

Governments are instigated by men and women for the sole purpose of protecting and maintaining individual rights (that’s individual people not individual corporate persons, ILM’s the corporate sole)

This is written and enshrined in constitutions from common law jurisdictions the world over.

Governments are created by men and women through law thus governments are legal fictions, a legal fiction being something not naturally occurring on earth but created by the action of a court.

The limit of all legal fictions authority is set by the legal maxim;

“Les fictions naissent de la loi, et non la loi des fictions.”

“Fictions arise from the law, and not law from fictions.”

The States of Jersey Inc.’s enactments obey this maxim, they are what they should be; regulation of corporations

Magistrates, judges and lawyers know these simple truths yet every working day they perpetrate "constructive fraud" on ordinary people to benefit themselves and generate revenue for their corporate masters.

"Another Parking Ticket Outing"

SO, our friend Eddie got a Parking (err) Infraction,
YUP, and one of the new ones too.
Remember them? They are called Security Interests!
That was Eddies "ticket" on the last posting.

Now that we have rumbled their latest deception, Slyman Crowcroft and his Child Abuser protecting friend, Daniel Scaife, are pushing us the whole distance by taking Eddie to court, and whilst doing so, they are in even more dishonour than they were in the last battle!!!

Eddie & Cyril went to the parish hall last Friday for Eddies Parking Infraction, as we guessed, they were made to wait till the last.
The Parish Of St Helier will, of course, be getting a bill for £5,000 for two hours of Eddies time, as per his (now cured) "Claim Of Right" and in accordance with "The Bills Of Exchange Act 1882".

If the Parish Of St Helier will not honour Eddies bill, we will be taking the company to the petty debts court. and if need be, the Royal Court.

So, Eddie was finally called to see the Chef De Police, Daniel Scaife, and of course, they addressed him as Mr.

Eddie immediately pointed out that he was in fact, just Eddie, nothing more, nothing less. Scaife didn't like this and ordered Eddie into the room. Eddie refused to be addressed as Mr, again pointing out that he was just a man. Eddie then told Scaife that he would not enter the room unless he could "maintain his entire body of inalienable rights".

Chef De Police, Daniel Scaife
said NO!!!

I wonder if Scaife knows just how much trouble he is in for the use of that one little word? He had just broken his "Oath Of Office" and forever relinquished his right to be a policeman. Furthermore, he has committed treason, and opened himself up to prosecution, silly little man.

Cyril then said to Scaife something like "so you are denying Eddie his inalienable rights?" Scaife just ignored Cyril and told Eddie to sit down to deal with the matter. Eddie again refused unless he could "maintain his entire body of inalienable rights" something that every man and woman is allowed to do.
We must remember that in order to have inalienable rights, we must first claim them.

Scaife continued to bark orders at Eddie hoping that Eddie would consent to jurisdiction by obeying Scaife's orders, Eddie kept on refusing unless he could "maintain his entire body of inalienable rights". I believe at some stage, Scaife told Eddie to sit down and he would tell Eddie what his rights were!!!


So, after all this refusal to let Eddie maintain his inalienable rights, Cyril and Eddie left. Scaife and his buddy telling them that Eddie would be brought before the court.

Oh Boy, is that going to be fun!!!

We will keep you all informed as we go along, this is going to be one court date not to be missed.

Who knows, they might even get the police to kidnap Eddie, just like they did Stuart Syvret? In the old days it was called "Press Ganging" when they just kidnapped someone and dumped them
"Aboard Their citizen-Ship!!!"

CONSENT - The Most Important Word In The English Language

- And Possibly The Least Understood

We are all familiar with the concept of being "governed by consent", but how many of us truly know what this means?
The answer, I’m afraid, is very few of us indeed.There is a widely held view that voting at elections is the way by which we give our consent to being governed by a particular group of politicians – this is an entirely false assumption as can be deduced logically from the fact that not everyone votes for the political party that eventually secures office. There may be a temptation to think that consent is somehow a collective notion, but this flies in the face of common sense. If somebody makes a decision on your behalf contrary to your wishes, then it is patently obvious that you have not consented - you have been coerced i.e. forced to accept the imposition of others, and this cannot be construed as consent under any circumstance.

When we vote at elections we are simply deciding which political party will run the executive. Consent is an entirely different matter. Consent is categorically an individual action. You are governed by the government of the day entirely because you and you alone consent. The trick is of course that ‘they’ have secured your consent without you realising how and when.

You give your consent every time you engage with the government or with one of its many institutions, such as the Inland Revenue. The next time you fill in your tax return, remember that at the moment you sign it, you are consenting to paying tax. The same applies when you complete your car registration, you are consenting to paying road tax.

The list goes on - whenever you sign your name, you are consenting.
No matter how difficult it may be to understand...

Now, those of you who feel compelled to shout ‘rubbish’ at the page – calm down and read on. Turn down your internal switch marked ‘conditioning’ and turn up the switch marked ‘logic’ and you will start to make more sense of it all – it won’t come easily but it will slowly start to dawn on you that all governance, including taxation - must be consensual. If not, then we are mere slaves, compelled to do as we are told.

How many times do we tell ourselves that government is there to serve us and not the other way around? The formula is perfectly simple. We need governance for our convenience to run vital services and our collective defence and for this ‘benefit’ we are prepared to make a voluntary contribution by way of taxation to the running of the system. If we do not contribute, then we do not partake of the benefits. This is a logical and sensible arrangement which most of us would agree is a good system. The problem is that the voluntary element has been replaced with the assumption of compulsion and with it we have lost control. The system has moved slowly towards a ‘pay-up-or-else’ format which of course suits the modern day political order who no longer consider themselves as holders of ‘office’ but holders of ‘power.’ The mind set has changed. Not only do they think that we must do as they command, but worryingly – so do we. We have been systematically hoodwinked into relinquishing our authority under the clever cloak of assumption.

When you combine the assumption (by you) of their absolute authority and the assumption (by them) of your automatic consent (subservience) - you have the very essence of how it is that ‘they’ control ‘us’ – the ultimate smoke and mirrors.
It is time we started to re-evaluate how government is supposed to work and reassert our authority by first understanding that we do not have to consent to their governance – elected or not - if they are not governing us according to our wishes.

If we accept the principle that we are governed by consent, then we must also accept that we have a right to withhold our consent - a mere extension of logic.  If we have no right to withhold our consent, then it isn’t consent – plain and simple – it is a dictatorship. And the beauty of consent and withholding it is that we can do so at any time we chose. Elections are of no consequence to the withholding of our consent.
We are policed by consent. When a policeman asks us our name, and we give it, this is ‘tacit consent’

Many of us have heard the expression ‘acquiesce’ - another interesting word which means that your consent is assumed because you do not protest. To ‘acquiesce’ is to consent tacitly i.e. to consent without stating it directly. If somebody assumes authority over you and you do not protest then you will be deemed to have consented by acquiescence.

If somebody walks into a room of 100 strangers and declares ‘I am in charge here’, guess who will end up in charge, and his right hand man will be the guy who stands up and says ‘who says so.’ We are easily convinced of the authority of those who have the brass to declare it.

Consent is given in many ways. If you look up the meaning of consent, you will see amongst its several definitions the word ‘yield’ which means to ‘give way to’ – this should give you a clue as to how you might sometimes be giving your consent without fully realising it. If somebody tells you to do something and you meekly obey... you are consenting. When you get a parking notice... it is an invitation to pay.. If you pay, you are consenting. The police operate very effectively on the assumption of your consent – i.e. when they tell you to jump... you will jump, because if you tell them NO... there is a high degree of probability that they will arrest you and march you down to the police station to impose their will upon you. But in order to do so lawfully, they must get your consent first. How do they do this? Well upon your arrest they will simply ask you for it and almost certainly – you will give it, albeit unwittingly. An essential part of the arrest procedure is to read you your rights and then ask you ‘do you understand’ – the word ‘understand’ is synonymous with ‘stand-under’ – they are asking you whether you are prepared to ‘stand-under’ their authority... and when you answer yes – you are giving your consent.

Before we discuss ‘withholding consent’ let’s be clear about one thing... the political establishment have become so used to us doing their bidding without objection, that when we start to flex our muscles and remind them that it is they who serve us, they are not going to shift from their control mentality easily – they are going to put up a fight.. They will bring all their assumed authority down to bear on us, with a poorly informed police force ready in the wings to do their dirty work for them, albeit unwittingly. The powers-that-be will not be dragged down from their pedestals without a fight. They are going to take the assumption of their absolute authority to the Nth degree and challenge us to prove our point – and they will fight dirty.

Withholding consent requires a working knowledge of the legal fiction (see previous article in UK Column). By ‘working’, I mean an ability to walk into court and defend yourself against anything and everything they throw at you. One of their most potent weapons is fear, and they use it at the drop of a hat. They will threaten to fine you, imprison you and bankrupt you... if you do not succumb to their authority.

Some of us are up to the challenge and we are telling them to ‘bring it on’ – across the country individuals are going to court and using their ‘legal fiction’ defence to defy the authority of the government. We are refusing to pay speeding and parking fines... and we are refusing to pay our council tax. We will not pay until the government starts governing according to our wishes.

Lawful Rebellion is now moving apace. We are getting more nimble in the courts and have witnessed one judge after another stand up and walk out when confronted with our ‘we do not consent’ attitude.

If you want "REAL CHANGE" please sign
the petition below
Please do not use a JERSEYMAIL ACCOUNT to email with as it will be discounted. AND REMEMBER to click on the return link sent to you by the UK government or your vote will NOT COUNT!


  1. Although I could be wrong, it seems to me that Eddie will lose his case, because eddie registered (identified himself with and both begged and gave power over) his vehicle. If the vehicle were not registered, which it does not have to be, then perhaps Eddie would have a case... similarly, Syvret, misapplied common law when last appearing in the gallery of the magistrate's court, because he had already been tried and convicted in said court and the warrant for his arrest was 'legally' imposed upon him, because he had already 'stood under' their authority and was guilty of 'failing to appear' and therefore subject to arrest...

  2. The offer of transaction is a parking infraction that is specific in an offence they are billing for.

  3. anon @ 11:56 on 28/11

    any contract that was not fully revealed
    (registration is a silent adhesion contract)
    can be voided by the following statement;

    " I reserve my inalienable right not to be bound by any unrevealed contract"

    as for Stuart
    Jurisdiction must be established at each court appearance except for adjournments and general appearances

    the courts will always presume you are appearing generally unless you tell them different

    "I an appearing here specially only and not generally." or words to that effect!

    of more concern in Stuarts case is that he asked Bridget Shaw " are you operating under your oath of office at this time ma am"

    Shaw would not answer this reasonable question

    the courts work using many presumptions and devices

    Eddie is learning fast the tools he will need to take on these fraudsters

    should make entertaining watching