Search This Blog

Sunday, 18 March 2012

"An Insight Into Jersey Corruption - Straight From The Horses Mouth"

A History Of Crime
But Just Who Is The Criminal?

SO, I finally got to do an interview! My profound thanks to Mike Dun for his time and effort in making this video possible.

During the interview we travel through time, 23 years of police and judicial oppression by the vile regime that is Jersey Governance.

As many of you are aware, I was arrested nine days ago and held for six hours at police headquarters. Whilst being interviewed by the police, and without my knowledge, my home was ransacked without a valid search warrant, without an independent witness being present, and without my permission!

My housemate of two years was at work, therefore no one present other than the police when the theft took place.

They went through all my belongings, taking computers, cell phones, and storage devices amongst other things. They even took my written passwords from a note pad!

What else have they done that I do not know about? Have they bugged my home? My phones? My computers? Have they cut their very own key for my front door to gain access as and when they like? 

By their unlawful actions they have also alienated another member of the public, yes, my housemate. She was working at the time of the unlawful entry and knew nothing of the invasion of her home and privacy until I was released from custody at 9.30pm that Friday evening.

This unlawful activity has profoundly affected the lady in question, and as a result of this outrage she tendered a weeks notice the very next day. She packed and left six days later.

She now distrusts the Jersey police entirely, and has no respect for our alleged authorities anymore.

Good job boys!!!  


The Next Video on the link Below

http://voiceforchildren.blogspot.com/2012/04/blogging-in-jersey-could-be-bad-for.html

Below is the search form offer (alleged search warrant) which you will see that I did not sign. After the scan, Cyril will give a brief rundown on the validity of the (alleged search warrant) document.



Over Now To Cyril The Squirrel

You will see just below the phrase "information to the occupier" (top left of the form) the word notice. This is important as all notices from Government are just offers, nothing more. No one is obliged to accept an offer, Ian clearly didn't.

The term (occupier) is just another bullshit administrative title, Ian is a man, not a title.

Ian was informed at Police HQ that contempt of court is a Common Law crime, so the police must deal with this in Common Law jurisdiction which is right and proper.

The problem is that the search was made using Statutory jurisdiction - police procedures and criminal evidence (Jersey) Law 2003.

Jurisdiction is an essential element in all cases, it cannot be switched willy nilly just to make life easier for public officials. The DI who signed this form could find himself with burnt fingers.

37 comments:

  1. Ian now don't take this the wrong way, but for the Police to hound you on entry to Jersey you must have done something serious in the UK. Can you not tell us what you had been charged with before coming into Jersey just to put this into perspective?

    ReplyDelete
  2. But contempt of court is not a serious offence as proscribed in POLICE PROCEDURES AND CRIMINAL EVIDENCE (JERSEY) LAW 2003. Surely they cannot be claiming it falls within Art 3(6)(b)?

    Anyway surely it is 'journalistic material'.

    ReplyDelete
  3. so ian they are giving you the same as mr syvret you must be getting at them.hope you get your stuff back soon so you can keep up the good work you and all the other bloggers are doing.and im sure in time there will be payback.
    keep up the fight

    ReplyDelete
  4. Well done Ian, it's time tptb realised they can't silence everyone who has woken up to what is going on.Keep the faith, my friend, and watch your back xx

    ReplyDelete
  5. An open and frank interview Ian which shows your courage and sincerity by not only posting under your own name but also putting your face out there. Hopefully your interview will inspire others to start speaking out against the judicial system in Jersey which is just another political tool used for silencing dissenters.

    ReplyDelete
  6. "Ian now don't take this the wrong way, but for the Police to hound you on entry to Jersey you must have done something serious in the UK. Can you not tell us what you had been charged with before coming into Jersey just to put this into perspective?"


    What a bizarre statement to make! "YOU MUST HAVE DONE SOMETHING SERIOUS" Why must I have? It seems you may well live in Jersey, therefore you will know that anyone can be hounded for anything, and at any time, and simply because their face does not fit.

    As I have nothing to hide, I am quite happy to tell you of my previous convictions before coming to Jersey.

    1. I smashed a window in a bus stop.
    2. I pushed two capping stones off the top of a wall.
    3. I stole a couple of radio cassettes out of cars when I was living rough and had no money for food.

    All three offenses where committed when I was 16 years old. Some dangerous criminal aren't I!!!

    ReplyDelete
  7. Caveman in the snowMarch 19, 2012 3:10 pm

    Well done Ian A man stands up and fights for what is right, he commited a few minor crimes when he effectively was a child and served what ever punishment was dealt out, that should be it he has paid his dept to society and all rights to a citizen are now his.

    isn't going to jail meant to be a punishment followed by rehabilitation, then Ian is a free adult was has no legitimate reasons over him to be treat the way they have treat him.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Incidentally, one of our government trolls has posted on Tom Gruchy's Blog that I have battered policemen in the past and committed burglary!!!

    Seems like libel to me :)

    ReplyDelete
  9. An 18 stone, 6'5'' burglar?

    Really?


    cyril

    ReplyDelete
  10. This is no bullshit but Jon said he always doubted the prosecution in the Bluefox incident you were involved in.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Ian why did you see Barbara Corbett, she is a family lawyer not a litigation expert.
    who ever recommended her , look closely at there motives.
    Its Tim Hanson you should be seeing.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Let us focus on what the issue is...You being robust in size and attitude were not easily intimidated...The system here is based on fear of reprisal and recrimination....when you stand up and say The dreaded 'NO' word their little panties get in a right strop,they want people who tug the forelock,never question anything and allow them to feel powerful....remember school prefects,,,same type could not hold their own in a scrap so quickly hid behind a badge of authority...thing is what they all forget is that WE are the people and WE have the real power,,,,this common Law has their collective Gusset wringing with sweat and confusion...as they will try to hold on to the illusion of power,,but people know that the Govt is actually a company...and that the laws /statutes they have been using control are becoming like a dog lead on a rhino.....keep up the good work,the ordinary folk of Jersey need you and all the Bloggers and contributors to restore fairplay...the worm has turned now and there is no going back..

    ReplyDelete
  13. Ian, I wish there were a thousand more people in Jersey just like you, you post in your own name and you have the courage of your own convictions, unfortunately, I think you will continue to be hounded under this regime, "every dog has his day", Ihope that you get yours!!!

    ReplyDelete
  14. "Why did I see Barbara Corbett?"


    Apparently in Jersey, you get whoever is next on their rota!!!

    Ever wonder why they never publish "The Rota"???

    ReplyDelete
  15. I will take this opportunity to thank everyone who has asked about me and shown support, it is very gratefully received indeed.

    I would also urge my readers to keep studying the "common law - admiralty law - and your straw man" postings, this is the only way we will ever achieve change on this unlawful rock.

    I will shortly be posting two videos from one of the leading lights of this common law revival, Robert Arthur Menard. Robert has done fantastic work and continues to do so. Anyone enjoying these postings will revel in what Robert has to say.

    Again, very many thanks for all your support.

    Kindest regards Ian

    ReplyDelete
  16. "I disapprove of what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it" (Evelyn Beatrice Hall)
    I am a non confrontational person normally but this has really got me mad.
    How dare they use the police for their political aims.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. :) Now your getting to understand the game!!!

      Delete
  17. Ian (and Cyril)

    Apart from a few minor traffic type cases - where the cost of prosecuting becomes not worth its while - and a few unreferenced anecdotes, I cannot find a single case where the "common law - admiralty law - straw man" argument has won the day. Can you guys point us to any?

    The problem I have with all this is that if nobody has ever meaningfully advanced the state of the law(s) by making such claims then isn't it all rather pointless? Even if your are technically correct.

    You can say to the police, "I can bring a kilo of cocaine into the island because it's not a common law offence, its a statute to which I did not consent" until the cows come home but my guess is that you will still be doing 12 years at Betty's B&B.

    You might just as well claim that you cannot be arrested because you are made from star dust.

    "Yeah right Ian, now just slip these bracelets on son" Mr Plod chortled sarcastically.

    I mean, surely you informed the police that they could not enter your home, search it and take stuff away. Did it have any effect whatsoever? (Apart from Mr Plod's aforementioned response.)

    So guys, where exactly are you going with this.

    Don't misunderstand me. I would love it if you, (Cyril and Mr Menard) were right. I just don't see the legal system crumbling on the back of it any time soon.

    Best wishes

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You are wrong actually.

      Importing a kilo of cocaine is a commercial transaction and therefore different laws apply which would very much make it illegal.

      What would not be illegal is to grow your own within the island as long as you did not try to sell it.

      Just as it is not illegal to grow coca leaves in a number of countries in South America nor indeed Poppies in Afghanistan.

      Delete
  18. This sounds like a troll with a bit of brain....If not, my apologies.

    What happens if we don't try? NOTHING!

    We have had a few successes, not least stopping the fraudulent actions of some local lawyers intent on stealing peoples hard earned property. However, having had some successes....Is that not indicative of the fact that we are absolutely correct???

    Everbody is entitled to walk their own path, we choose the path of lawfulness over theft and deception. If their way is so wholesome and good, how come they need so much deception and violence to sell it.

    You may be happy paying child abusers, child abuse sponsors and outright criminals to further their aims and make them even richer, we say "NO" not in our name.

    Furthermore, corporate slavery is not on mine and Cyrils' agenda, we like freedom. So, the next time you find yourself footing the bill for another golden handshake, another child abuser, or anyone who denies you your inalienable rights in the name of profiting the Oligarchy, you can simply pay up....OR JOIN US! :)

    ReplyDelete
  19. all lawyers newly qualified have to go on the legal aid list for 10/15 years, so one cannot pick and choose

    ReplyDelete
  20. Ok, I'm sure I'll get labelled a troll, whatever that is but...........firstly, all notices are not offers, they are what they are, a notice, meaning for you to 'take note of', to 'be aware of'. A notice is simply a form of words that pass information.

    An occupier is not an administrative term, it is an obvious way of identifying someone who resides in a particular place or address. The fact that the alleged offence is common law has no bearing whatsoever on the fact that a statute or act was used to search the address. The simple fact is that common law does not address all the issues that the 21 century demands; society has evolved and become too complicated for common law to stand alone. The magna carta says very little about drink driving, using a mobile phone when driving, speeding, possessing indecent images of children, etc, etc, etc. Not all crimes require a victim, just the way it is, if you don't like it then go and live somewhere else, you might need a time machine to get back there though!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Of course all notices are offers you halfwit, that is all they can visit on the PERSON, just an offer for the PERSON to accept because the PERSON doesn't even know he/she is a person!!! We will turn you thieves over eventually :)

      Delete
  21. Not a troll Ian, just trying to work out where this is all going.

    I could not agree with your assertion that some small measure of success definitively means that you are 'absolutely correct'. An analysis of the cases involved eg the reasons why particular decisions were made - such as to abandon a case, would be required.

    For example, is it really in the public interest to chase an unemployed offender to a full trial if the maximum sentence is only £50? It could cost the island thousands to bring to an end and the most you could ever hope get back is £50. I suspect some decisions are made on that basis and not your your construction of the law.

    I am however impressed and intrigued by your concept and wish you well with it. I remain to be convinced that, in the long term, anything much will change.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Things "WILL" change when the people get over the fear that government has battered & indoctrinated them with for all of their lives.

    We now have the tools....have we got the guts?

    ReplyDelete
  23. Hi anon @ AnonymousMar 25, 2012 11:04 AM

    Your understanding of common law is rather incomplete, in all common law jurisdictions, with the notable exception of jersey, the definition of crime has been ruled upon by the highest courts in the land. All crimes must meet the test of corpus delicti which has two elements, and both are necessary for there to be a crime.

    1. Causation of injury, loss or harm to another.
    2. Intent

    So, according to supreme courts the world over, for there to be a crime, there must be a victim.

    You present no arguement or evidence to back your claim that "Not all crimes require a victim" Instead, what we have is a nonsense called quasi crime (look it up in local enactments).

    Quasi means "nearly, but not really, almost"

    In common law we have an underlying duty to protect the rights of others, so D.I.C, SPEEDING etc are inof themselves, not crimes. However, if you cause injury, harm or loss to someone through negligence by DIC or SPEEDING etc Then yes, you have committed a crime, and should make reparations according to the severity of the injury, harm or loss as decided by a jury of your peers.

    You seem to be suggesting that possession of indecent images of children has no victim, or because the victim does not know that they are a victim, there is no crime.

    OK, now for the words issue....You say "An occupier is not an administrative term, it is an obvious way of identifying someone who resides in a particular place or address". Here we have 3 of the law societies favourite words, occupier, resides and address.

    The Germans occupied this island. The coalition of the willing occupy Iraq. Are you sure of your definition and meaning of the word occupier?

    The point is this, all 'letters' or 'notices' we get from government or corporations are written in a certain language (called law by the law societies) and some of the meanings of the words are very different from every day English. If you get a notice from government or corporations, it is "ALWAYS" an offer, simply because these legal fictions are forbidden by law from making demands on real men and women.

    I hope this clarifies for you some of the differences between common law and administrative laws.

    cyril

    ReplyDelete
  24. Just two things to consider...

    It is not a method to allow you to commit crime - such rape, murder, assault, fraud, theft, so it can only really be used in statutory matters. Your point is I am afraid irrelevant. I do not wish to see murder legalised, thanks!

    Do you really think that lawyers have not written in a loophole to allow them to get away with things into the law that they write? QC's in the UK make their fortunes by providing legal advice on laws they themselves have written... there are always loopholes and can you think of a Lawyer who has ever been in Court for a simple statutory offence? Do you think they never contravene statute?

    Those of us who subscribe to this do not go out of our way to break laws just so we can test the theory and it does not always require headlines or court appearances, most of it never sees the light of day and when it does work, it never works in a way which can be proven.

    If it was easy (i.e. did not require the individual to be strong minded and not rely on reassurance from others) then everyone would use it, because most people are sheeple.

    ReplyDelete
  25. No matter how you dress this up, it clearly warns you outside the court room that you cannot record proceedings and must switch off all mobile phones so good luck in talking your way out of this one.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Following on from previous comments here and the Data Protection Officer's talk at the Jersey Human Right Group last night - the question of your early "offences" come to mind. What is their status now in the UK or Jersey bearing in mind the Rehabilitation of Offenders laws etc?
    Since you offered some information willingly that there were convictions in your childhood I wonder whether it is appropriate to ask what these might have been? Obviously, somebody did ask and you provided further details here. But, if you had said that the matter is ancient history, you have been punished etc and so mind your own business - presumably some readers would assume that you had something to hide or that the offences were much more serious.

    Its a bit of a dilemma - what are people who have been prosecuted in the past supposed to do about such information. Who has the right to know now and what is supposed to happen with information in the public domain, in old newspapers, books or even on internet blogs?

    Answers on a postcard please.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Cyril,

    So your saying that it's OK to drink and drive and speed as long as your not involved in an accident? Pretty inappropriate advice wouldn't you say?

    By the same rational then importing and dealing drugs is also fine as there is no victim. I do not mean to be pedantic or argumentative but you have placed a caveat on your whole 'legal fiction' and 'straw man' theory by stating that the information is not to be taken as legal advice. This seems to suggest you are not completely convinced you are correct.

    ReplyDelete
  28. Well said Ian in your reply to: Anonymous Mar 25, 2012 11:04 AM

    You seem to be suggesting that possession of indecent images of children has no victim, or because the victim does not know that they are a victim, there is no crime.

    I also find it rather amusing, that they have resorted to the good old Jersey response to things they don't want to hear! "If you don't like it then go and live somewhere else" Sounds like you hit a nerve there Ian........ £10 bet he is a troll!

    Sandie

    ReplyDelete
  29. "No matter how you dress this up, it clearly warns you outside the court room that you cannot record proceedings and must switch off all mobile phones so good luck in talking your way out of this one."


    I did not 'notice' any sign, but that is not the point. If someone puts a sign up somewhere, we all have to obey what it says do we? Are you insane? Why don't you put a sign up on your car telling traffic wardens they cannot put a ticket on it?

    Don't talk utter crap, the people own the courts and we have every right to record anything we bloody well want! Especially when our Judicial Greffes doctor trial tapes before they send them to England for transcription!!!

    ReplyDelete
  30. Hi, Anonymous Mar 27, 2012 10:42 AM

    I didn't express an opinion about drink driving or speeding,which would be irrelevant anyway, I just pointed out the FACT that these are not unlawful.

    Dealing some drugs is no doubt unlawful, however, possession of drugs can never be unlawful.
    It is not for the government or anyone else to say what people can or cannot put into their bodies, please do not come back with the hypocritical government horse sh*t of the precautionary principle, these governments let corporations poison 'legal' drugs like cigarettes, deaths related to alcohol and cigarettes are orders of magnitudes greater than all 'illegal' drugs put together.

    The caveat about legal advice is there so that lawyers wind there necks back in.
    I would never dream of giving legal advice, to do so would breach the law societies copyright and the SoJ inc.s' franchise.

    I do sometimes suggest lawful remedies.


    Anon, you can get a better understanding of what the law should address by reading; The Law by Frederick Bastiat first published in 1850, it's less than 50 pages long, but stands as one of the greatest commentaries on law ever written.


    cyril

    ReplyDelete
  31. surely you have to be informed as to why you were arrested.

    ReplyDelete
  32. 'surely you have to be informed as to why you were arrested'

    Yes. Not only is that required in Jersey law it is also enshrined in European Human Rights law.

    ReplyDelete