Search This Blog

Wednesday, 4 January 2012

"Common Law - Admiralty Law - And Your Straw Man" Part 13

"Corruption In Our Courts!!!"

 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
   Common Law Admiralty Law And Your Straw Man PART 11  
 Common Law Admiralty Law And Your Straw Man PART 12



Cyril 'the squirrel' Finds A Nut!!!
 Its just a shame the nut is
"THE JUDGE"

 SO,
Corrupt little Jersey lives up to its reputation again. Cyril was before the court
following more statutory bullshit, and as always, was contesting its lawfulness.

Three of us went into court today, what followed was judicial criminality
of the Jersey kind. Cyril will take you through the debacle.

 A few things happened before the recording starts....

I, Cyril, was standing up when the usher called ‘all rise’
Eddie and Ian remained seated.
The usher said to Ian that he had to show some respect to the court and stand when told.
Ian said he had no respect for the court.
(why would Ian want to show respect to criminals?)

We were all seated throughout ‘prayers’ much to the annoyance of the court usher who wanted us to stand, Ian said he was not religious.

Relief Magistrate Richard Falle then reneged on his promise to imprison anyone who does not stand for morning prayers, see link below.

  
This only goes to prove that you can’t take a fraudster at his word.

When Cyril was called he stood and announced that “I am here under duress and will deal with this matter”.

He continued “I am making a special appearance only and not a general appearance”.

Cyril then stated “Sir, I am convening here and now, my own court with inherent jurisdiction and I will be making a recording of these events”.
(not allowed to record in court? - (Bullsh*t) my phone recorder was turned on and placed on the desk in full view of the fraudulent Judge Falle.
 Cyril chose where he wanted to sit and refused to be intimidated by claims that he must go where he was told to, and to stand in the dock.
 
Here’s the recording……


 


So in Jersey, unsubstantiated claims made by agents of a corporation, (SoJ Inc) who are members of the same Private Club as the ‘Judge’....are accepted without any proof of claim whatsoever!
This, in any ones language is fraud.
Should the private, for profit, limited liability company known as the Viscount try to enforce this fraud, Cyril will make them a party to a civil suit along with 'judge-Dick Falle' and the Parish of St Martin.
Bring it on you bunch of criminals.

It is Cyril's opinion that judge Richard Falle is a liar and fraudster, who is not fit to hold any kind of public office in Jersey.



Cyril's final words to the court were

"Absolutely unbelievable fraud that's going on here, unbelievable!!!"

I can confirm that Cyril 'Le Squirrel' will be suing judge Richard Falle,
and anyone else who is party to the corruption.


 

A defence of the court, not Christianity

Friday 5th September 2008, 3:00PM BST.

THE Relief Magistrate, Advocate Richard Falle, has come in for more than his fair share of criticism over his promise to jail anyone who refuses to stand for morning prayers in his courtroom.
It is, however, fair to say that letters to this newspaper and other comments about Advocate Falle’s conduct have missed the point of the warning he issued. As he himself has pointed out, he is intent on defending the dignity and authority of the court rather than the primacy of Christianity or, indeed, the established Church.
In short, he will do his duty in accordance with his oath of office and he will not tolerate contempt of court. That the category of contempt in currently in focus concerns prayers is of only incidental significance.
Nevertheless, even if we accept without reservation the principle that our courts have rules and no one can be allowed to flout them in any way, it is legitimate to ask whether even implicit allegiance to a specific religion should

Even here in Jersey, a place less culturally diverse than many parts of the United Kingdom, the courts are frequented by defendants, witnesses, victims, legal professionals and members of the general public of a wide variety of faiths and ethnic backgrounds. A majority of those who would not call themselves Christian will be happy to go along with tradition and will probably view prayers as a display of respect or perhaps a moment of quiet reflection. A minority, on the other hand, will take serious offence at being obliged to participate in what they view as an alien – or in some cases superstitious – rite.
There is little prospect of present court protocol being altered while Anglicanism remains the state religion here and in the UK. That said, there is no reason to believe that courts will, in the fullness of time, be any more resistant to change and reform than any other element of the complex net of institutions and interactions that we label culture.

21 comments:

  1. Cyril, can I ask why did you not establish jurisdiction at the outset? i.e Common law

    The Judge states with great bluster ''your in court'' as if that gave him ultimate power. Is it not the case in common law we are all equal?

    You were very respectful in wanting to co-operate.

    1.It appears as if the judge ignored (Mr)and happily referred to you as ''Cyril'' yet ignored that and claimed You are a defendant in the court. (Your on the back foot from the off)

    2. According to law you owe money to the Parish.
    (What law?)

    I am only an observer interested from the links Ian has posted.

    ReplyDelete
  2. There are good answers to your questions anon, I will leave them for Cyril, but remember this, the judge never got jurisdiction!!! :)

    ReplyDelete
  3. "he will do his duty in accordance with his oath of office and he will not tolerate contempt of court."


    hahaha, he sure did bottle it today then.

    And speaking of Oaths of Office, he broke every one of his today, and as for contempt, Falle was the most contemptuous being in the court!!!

    ReplyDelete
  4. By the way, Cyril "farts" at 6 minutes and 25 seconds :)

    Love it....

    ReplyDelete
  5. Heard the fart:}Straining to listen at 8.08

    ''What I have here is constitutional process on this Island whereby not sure if he says business's or occupiers pay rates. Is this law they are trying to adhere to?

    ReplyDelete
  6. He says

    "Whereby local rates, parish rates, are collected of person who occupy."


    It is statutory law, and that does not apply to men or women, only to "Body Corporates" who admit to being so.

    In other words, CRIMINAL BEHAVIOUR!!!

    ReplyDelete
  7. hi anon,
    thanks for the interest

    common law jurisdiction was established by my convening a court of inherent jurisdiction which for men and women is common law jurisdiction

    'courts' will presume we are making a general appearance (consenting to statutory jurisdiction) unless we remove this presumption
    by stating we are making a special appearance, this can also be done by stating we are appearing 'in propria persona'

    you are correct anon we are all equal under common law

    point 1
    Yes, Falle acknowledged I was a living breathing man then ignored the evidence and tried to drag me into the weird world of administrative law

    point 2
    There is no law that obliges men or women to pay the Parish anything, absent a valid lawful contract.

    The Parishs' are all limited liability companies - legal fictions, dead things not blessed with minds or souls

    by law it is forbidden for fictions to make laws or claims for/on real people, absent our individual consent

    by trying to drag me into a foreign jurisdiction
    Falle may have caused me to suffer a tort (a wrong),lets see if the Viscount interferes,
    this would be outside the authority of Falles oath of office and make him personally liable when being sued

    I try to respect everyone until such a time that respect has to be withdrawn - next time I am in 'court' there will be no more Mr.nice guy

    Jerseys' judiciary are so intoxicated with self importance they behave like rabid dogs toward anyone who stands their ground

    Cyril

    ReplyDelete
  8. Is this the falle that robbed jersey of millions from the waterfront?

    ReplyDelete
  9. Ian.

    Exclusive Interview with Stuart Syvret PART ONE

    ReplyDelete
  10. anon @ 10:30 am

    yes the very same crook


    cyril

    ReplyDelete
  11. Thanks Cyril for your reply to my earlier observations of the video.

    Are you being judged by a Court that gives itself their own laws to judge you?

    Can the Jersey Company (Court) ignore, your inalienable rights and consent being given, at being judge by this company? (Court)

    I dont understand why you canno0t be judged in Court using the law of the land?

    ReplyDelete
  12. cyril you are an utter and total all out legend and you have my 100%respect for that my friend:)

    ReplyDelete
  13. Hi anon,

    Unfortunately for us SoJ inc. as managed by the Crown officers totally ignore the law of the land (except for cases of murder)

    The courts over here are commercial in nature and will indeed refuse us our inalienable rights

    This is the reason I call the SoJ a criminal regime and why I am in non compliance with it.

    government by corporation is fascism

    other anon, legend? I'm just an ordinary man, but thanks anyway

    cyril

    ReplyDelete
  14. A little knowlege in the wrong hands can lead to disaster. Cyril, all you are doing is demonstrating ignorance in action and muddying the waters for others. You nee to do your homework first and act honourably. Obviously you do not fully understand the difference in the roles that are to be played within 'Common Law and its two principles'. 'Trust Law", Contract Law and Commercial law'.

    You should not have entered the court as you did in the first place. Rather you should have sent in your sworn affidavit along with a notice to dismiss and then waited for a default. Instead you stepped into their durisdiction and then failed to establish properly. Stop moaning and do your homework first. If you want to screw an eagle, make sure you know how to fly. Never go into a court of any kind unless you have already won the case first. Neither the judge, not the system is your enemy; it is the Crown that is your adversarry and you must know, which one and how deal with it first.

    You are not going to get anywhere by babbling on in front of a judge about common Law and the difference between the man and the person, without first having submitted the paperwork and establishing properly. The important thing is to keep it simple - don't tread where it is not necessary. If you want to become a Freeman on the Land; do your homework first!

    Red Lion

    ReplyDelete
  15. Ian. Avoid the unecessary vitriol. This will only diminish the integrity and validivy of your blog and apart from some barren quantity of imbeciles, will result in it's purpose not being taken seriously.

    Red Lion

    ReplyDelete
  16. Your point is well taken.

    Do I know you?
    Or do you know me?

    ReplyDelete
  17. Hi red lion,

    Where do you get the idea I want to be a 'freeman on the land'? not from me

    No, I'm happy to be a man with inalienable rights in a common law jurisdiction - simple really

    I continue to do my due diligence which I started 2 1/2 years ago, I have learnt to read and make sense of enactments and know the principles of common law - do no harm, corpus delicti etc.

    "Obviously you do not fully understand the difference in the roles that are to be played within 'Common Law and its two principles'. 'Trust Law", Contract Law and Commercial law'."

    sorry you've lost me here you say 2 principles then name 3, please clarify

    I take your point about the paperwork, do you have examples where this has worked?

    stepped into their jurisdiction- who's them?
    the court room was paid for by the people wasn't it?

    the old crown chestnut,does it mean the queen or the crown corporation of the city of London- honestly I dont really know

    you dont think judges or the system is the enemy- ha ha you're having a real laugh now eh!

    judges can act in common law because of their oath of office, maybe you can tell us the reason no Judge will confirm their OoO in a court?
    Judges see a man or woman standing in court,making a special appearance, claiming common law jurisdiction, yet they ignore the facts and treat men and women as if we are legal fictions - how does that work?

    are you watching too many youtube vids red?

    Instead of belittling my efforts why dont you give us the benefit of your knowledge, with references of course

    cheers

    cyril

    ReplyDelete
  18. Cyril readinging the comment from Red Lion I believe he serves only one purpose posting here, that being to muddy waters.

    I listened to the audio again and not once did you mention common law yet alone babble about it neither did you go on about the difference between man and woman. You claimed you are a man big difference to ~Red Lions claim

    Either Red Lion did not listen to the audio or he is posting to muddy waters.

    I

    ReplyDelete
  19. "whatever he calls himself cyril,cyril vibert or jahova" pmfsl

    ReplyDelete
  20. 8:15 Falle says 'What I have here in this bundle'... now did you submit your own 'bundle' of documents to the Court?

    The judge can only go on the papers in front of him

    ReplyDelete