Search This Blog

Wednesday, 8 February 2012

"Common Law - Admiralty Law - And Your Straw Man" Part 17

"The Utter Criminality In Our Courts Continues"

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 11 , PART 12 , PART 13PART 14PART 15 , PART 16


Bridget Shaw 'ARRESTED' By Me!

So, the criminal career of 'alleged' Magistrate Bridget Shaw appears to continue unabated.
After the fraud committed against Cyril a few weeks back, courtesy of Richard Falle, we thought the magistrates court might have put the brakes on their extortion racket after being exposed? Not a hope in hell.
http://therightofreply.blogspot.com/2012/01/common-law-admiralty-law-and-your-straw.html 

 Below is the recording of today's outrage, Bridget Shaw refusing (twice) to acknowledge her Oath of Office as a Magistrate!!!

 A Magistrates Oath of Office
I, (Insert full name), do swear by Almighty God that I will well and truly serve our Sovereign Lady Queen Elizabeth the second in the office of (Insert judicial office of), and I will do right to all manner of people after the laws and usages of this realm, without fear or favour, affection or ill will. So help me God.

I very much hope that at least some of you will be wondering why this quite fine, and admirable
Oath of Office
is
NEVER EVER
repeated again by those who swear it?


THE REASON IS MONEY!!!


CYRIL'S TAKE ON TODAY'S CORRUPTION


We hear Ian confirming his status as a man and not a legal fiction person.
Shaw won't allow Ian his inalienable right to ask questions in court, but he does anyway, exercising his right to stand his ground.
To the all important question "Madam, are you operating under your Oath of Office at this time"
Shaw, almost unbelievably says
(well we are in jersey so anything is fair game in legal land)
"not prepared to do that"
Lets think about that.
Why won't she confirm her Oath of Office?
What legitimate reason could there be for this?
As a public servant she is obliged to confirm her OoO when asked to do so in office hours on our dollar
You have to marvel at the complicity or ineptitude of the lawyer in the viscounts cage after witnessing the 'judge' commit
contempt of court,abuse of process,treason,impersonation of a public officer and fraud on the court,
yet then suggested that Ian is the one in contempt.
The attack dogs are well trained over here, even the pugs

Cue The Bill
Steve and Danny
nice guy's but scared
We need the police on the peoples side, and we support any who are.
You get the feeling that the police who work at the courts have their own view on what they've see over the years.
I'd like to thank them for not steaming in sweeney style



I will add that the police were very courteous and polite, which was a nice change from my experiences. There was however, that underlying fear of repercussion if they had acted as they should have in this case.

What should have happened is that the officers, after hearing that I had arrested the Magistrate, should have carried out the arrest. Shaw should have been taken to a safe secure place and questioned about the charges leveled against her.

All witnesses could then have made a statement as to what they had witnessed, and justice could have been done. But if our policemen are to afraid to arrest a criminal, what hope is there for anyone? They know the game that is being played here, and must soon begin to restore the rule of law and justice to this septic little crime syndicate


BEFORE IT IS TO LATE!!!

http://www.jail4judges.org/ 





42 comments:

  1. Love it, well done Ian, what happens now though?

    ReplyDelete
  2. What happens now?

    The lawful complaints begin, just as in the Squirrel's case. Events get documented and written up, evidence gets passed to those who need to see it, and a little something in the background that me 'n' the Squirrel are working on :)

    ReplyDelete
  3. Judging by the trolling tonight I think perhaps that Jon's nappy may be soggy and full :)

    ReplyDelete
  4. Hi Ian,

    You have the same common law right of arrest as any police officer or citizen. So why did they deny you that right?

    Surely by refusing to be arrested Bridget the Midget is now out-lawed?

    Surely it would have been for Bridget the midget to lay a claim of wrongful arrest at a subsequent time if such a claim were valid?

    ReplyDelete
  5. "Hi Ian, You have the same common law right of arrest as any police officer."

    Yeah, I know that, but who, on the balance of probabilities, would Jersey finest have arrested first?

    When the law, and equality is not on your side, you have the brains to bow out gracefully, or you get arrested and get ripped for another bullshit fine!

    Discretion, in this case, is the better part of valour. Rest assured, I will eventually see the midget suffer for her inherent corruption. Hearts broken, I would most likely visit her in prison :(

    ReplyDelete
  6. Well I do not think it appropriate for a judge to act in contravention of the law in this manner.

    She should do the honourable thing and stand down immediately.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Love the sense of humour, pigs might fly!!!

    Rest assured, I will fix it....


    Price to pay for everything

    ReplyDelete
  8. "I very much hope that at least some of you will be wondering why this quite fine, and admirable
    Oath of Office
    is
    NEVER EVER
    repeated again by those who swear it?"


    Because once the oath has been made the person who took it is bound by it for the tenure of their time in office. It is the same in all professions or walks of life which require an oath to be taken.

    Let me ask you. Does a Doctor repeat his Hippocratic oath with each patient?

    No he doesn't.

    And when has a Doctor EVER repeated his oath in YOUR presence? NEVER.

    ReplyDelete
  9. NOW!!!

    That is the very last Trolligarchy shyte I will allow on my blog, finito forever you pissy pants losers.

    Bridgit the midget will end up in prison eventually, I bet MY ENTIRE LIFE ON IT....Karma is a bad man's worst enemy, and it's coming....Last chance to repent you monster....

    ReplyDelete
  10. She needs arresting by 20 people and escorted to the station. All judges and lawyers HATE Joe Public knowing any Legalese . More people ar elearning this secret code to confront these assholes.

    ReplyDelete
  11. As an aside, I would love to know who the big fat stupid dickhead lawyer was who's shoulders were bouncing up and down with laughter at the moment I arrested this lame witch?

    Would you like to step forward and name yourself you arrogant, self ritious prick?

    ReplyDelete
  12. Guess I won't hold my breath then?

    ReplyDelete
  13. thank you so much for sharing this article to us. The information shpwed here are worth remembering.
    How To Become A Police Officer

    ReplyDelete
  14. So what actually happened in relation to the debt they are alleging against you ?

    ReplyDelete
  15. I am puzzled as to WHY you need her to confirm her oath of office.Whats the purpose?
    That was a question without notice which was a little unfair as she
    likely could not remember the wording of the oath.I wonder if she will have been practicing it before your next meeting.

    ReplyDelete
  16. I am surprised she didn't halt the trial and go for a "directions" meeting - aka 'what do I do next AG?'

    She did it often enough with Stuart

    ReplyDelete
  17. Shaw unlawfully continued with the judgement against me.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Ian,

    Members of the public (other than constables) may only arrest for "indictable" offences.

    There are 2 conditions which apply:-
    That there are reasonable grounds to believe the arrest is necessary for a reason specified and
    It is not reasonably practical for a constable to make the arrest.
    The reasons specified are to prevent the person in question:
    Causing physical injury to himself or any other person.
    Suffering physical injury.
    Causing loss of or damage to property
    Making off before a constable can assume responsibility.

    None of the above applied when you appeared as there were constables present. There is no common law citizens power of arrest and
    if it isn't common law then (according to you) it doesn't apply to you; so by your own reasoning and theory you would have no such power.

    ReplyDelete
  19. anon @ 2:56 AM

    Your assumption that a public oath once taken bounds that person to it for their tenure is not supported by the facts in the case of 'judges' in Jersey,
    They regularly act outside the authority of their oath of office by practicing law from the bench and making unlawful rulings as to admissibility.

    The only time a Judge is obliged to operate under their oath of office is in a de-jure court or if they confirm their oath of office in a de-facto court

    a 'judge' who does not confirm their OoO in a de-facto court can act in the capacity of a lawyer,which is exactly what they do in 'our courts'

    anon, do you think a doctor would refuse to confirm their hippocratic oath if asked?
    I don't think so.

    It must be remembered that Shaw also swore an oath to the law society

    Asking her "madam, are you operating under your oath of office at this time?" is a legitimate question (our due diligence) that requires a responsive yes or no answer

    what could be simpler than that?

    cyril

    ReplyDelete
  20. Ian you got it wrong again! The legal fiction may apply to many things and vary in different situations - because it is a presumption of Law. It does not matter what they call you man, person, name, corporation or whatever. What matters is what role do you play. And this you must establish first before getting into any dialogue with the magistrate. As the benificary in the trust created by the birth certificate, you may (by right) appoint yourself as the Administrator. This removes the judge/magistrate from that position. Their whole deception here is to get you to accept the role of being a trustee so that they can administer the trust. But once you establish your role as administrator then the Judge/Magistrate, police (public servants )and everyone else become trustees (employees) of the Capital Letter NAME fiction that was set up as a trust by your parents and the Government. You must also make sure that you understand Trust Law if you want to play in this field. Once you have established yourself as both beneficiary and the Administrator of the 'Fiction Name Trust', you can then move to dismiss and that is what they will have to do. Or you can there and then establish a Common Law court or you can ask for a 'public record hearing', but this will only cause the judge and crown to walk out of the court (not an abandonment) Also it is very important to seek a 'Proof of Claim' before you go into court (do the paper work first) i.e. challenge them to prove that this or that statute applies to you? The Magistrates Court is a court of summary judgment - it is not a court of 'Public Record'. Therefore if you claim the role of administrator of you NAME, then the magistrate becomes a trustee employee and must dismiss if you so direct. Remember Statutes are merely rules for government employees and no more. And administrative courts have NO authority (see Halsbury's 20/11)

    Hope this helps...

    ReplyDelete
  21. Thanks anon, I have been studying Dean Clifford's "Both Sides Of The Story" which covers it well.

    Judges are always trying to swap rolls as the beneficiary, but are really only the trustee.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Good. Dean Clifford's videos are excellent way to go. The point he makes of keeping it simple is right on...

    I have this birth certificate. I believe I am the beneficary and grantor of the NAME. I believe I own all the equity in this name. Therefore I have the right to appoint myself (name of the name Clann purposely spelt with two 'n' - beware of using the word family because family can apply to slaves) as the Administrator of this Account (all caps name at top of certificate) and I believe you are the trustee... That should roughly cover it and can be used to establish with the AG...

    ReplyDelete
  23. Establishing anything with our A.G is going to be hell, the whole shooting match are totally corrupted and work together to defy everyone their inalienable rights. It really is that corrupt in Jersey!

    Again, thanks for the pointer, and I think I know who this is :)

    ReplyDelete
  24. Also anon, we went for the Proof of Claim in Cyril's recent case and they had no proof of the claim, so they simply ignored it as a troublesome obstacle and gave a judgement against Cyril anyway!

    They are just corrupt disgusting criminals

    ReplyDelete
  25. hi anon,
    is that you red?

    Our notarised claim of right documents cover the trust relationship with government,
    it is ignored by vacuous public officials.

    I dont know if you live over here anon,but Jersey has one of the most corrupt administrations anywhere on earth.

    the more one studies 'law' the clearer the fraud being perpetrated against the people becomes.

    True law is simple and agreed on by most people - do no harm

    Statutes, enactments and administrative 'laws' are tools of the powers that be to achieve two main aims;

    1.silence and punish those who would expose the criminality of the administration

    2.generate revenue

    The law societies were co-opted into the fraud many years ago with the promise of wealth, power and prestige for its members

    it's a sick joke that conveyancing lawyers (the shelf fillers of the trade) can 'earn' £300+ per hour

    Ian and I will challenge these racketeers every step of the way

    as the admirable Rico says

    no retreat, no surrender

    cyril

    ReplyDelete
  26. Anon above, trust law

    I will be publishing mine and Cyril's Claim of Right tonight so you can have a look at what is being ignored by our less than lawful lawmen.

    I will also be adding Dean Clifford's Video's to the affray, see if we can't arouse a bit more interest on this issue :)

    ReplyDelete
  27. Re: the Claim of Right. If they do not rebut and or show proof of their claim within the stated time you have given for such rebuttal, you must send them a 'Notice of Default.' by registered mail.

    if you receive no timely rebuttal, state that your statement in your 'Notice of Understanding and Intent' in which you have stated such and such, STANDS. The idea is to have everything ready so as it may be entered into 'Public Record' - win the case before you go into court. Be sure you print on both sides of the documents, otherwise some judges will simply turn the page over to the blank side and declare that they 'cannot see anything'! It the same as when a judge says that 'I cannot hear you', what he means in legalese, is that he cannot 'Hear the Law' -

    The task is to deconstruc the "presumptions of Law" - the presumption that the statute in question applies to you or your Straw-man Trust, in which you do play a part - Choose to play either the Beneficiary (which you are) or the Administrator, but never let the get you to play a trustee. Remember you do not represent your self, because you are your self. Therefore you are the only true Notary in all matters.

    When someone chooses to be represented by lawyer or anyone else, they are in fact saying (in legalese) to the Court that they are incompetent! very sneaky!

    Go with Dean Clifford - stay honourable, keep it simple. Here is a neat, inexpensive little publication you can get in a couple of day from amazon - well worth the trouble - " So, they say you’ve broken the law: Challenging Legal Authority" - by the lioness.

    Hope this helps

    ReplyDelete
  28. Hi anon

    Yes, we did a "Claim of Right" and followed it up with an also notarised "Notice of Dishonour" and still they totally ignore it like it is worthless....

    ReplyDelete
  29. Will try and get them up online later, or if not, then tomorrow :)

    ReplyDelete
  30. Hi Ian,

    Well it's lovely to see that there's someone out there willing and able to give you help on all this straw man stuff, obviously someone who wants you to succeed, I'm intrigued as to what their interest may be for this to happen, are they local I wonder?

    Changing the subject somewhat, remember the fulfillment industry and the fact that it was all going to court early ?http://www.thisisjersey.com/news/2012/02/08/march-date-for-court-battle-over-mail-order-legal-challenge/ Well today, friends in the industry have been told they are being made redundant !

    The Powers that be already seem to know the case is lost, but nothing reported as far as I know.

    C-L-P

    ReplyDelete
  31. "The Powers that be already seem to know the case is lost, but nothing reported as far as I know."

    Yes, but it is a good day out for the legal teams $$$ ...

    The Beano is not the rag

    ReplyDelete
  32. INDEED!

    Why not screw the mugs for a few more Grand, we can even pretend that we tried for their sakes!!!

    PMSL

    ReplyDelete
  33. Keep going Ian..we need your efforts and courage....

    ReplyDelete
  34. Doing the right thing can never be known as courage, common decency does fit the bill though! :)

    ReplyDelete
  35. AND....what about the Squirrel?

    Non of this law stuff would be possible if not for his enlightenment.

    He rang me and arranged to meet, shared his knowledge, fully knowing that I was never giving up.

    Your kind complement must also be directed to Cyril, one of the finest "MEN" I have ever met :)

    ReplyDelete
  36. Hi Ian and Cyril,

    I have been 'summoned' to Court on the 27th February any chance of a sharing of thoughts before then?

    ReplyDelete
  37. Oh, ok we can pop in the market next week ok?

    ReplyDelete
  38. Anonymous said...

    Ian you got it wrong again!


    Actually anon, 'NO' we didn't get it wrong!!!

    Bridget Shaw got it "WRONG" by breaking the law refusing to operate under her oath, nothing we did was wrong.

    BUT....it is another case of malfeasance in a Jersey court!!!

    The cases are piling up :)

    ReplyDelete