Search This Blog

Sunday, 27 May 2012

"Bridget Shaw Arrested Again!!!"

 "Bridget Shaw's Bad Hair Day" 

"Bridget Shaw's Bad Hair Day 2"

Cyril was up for another parking fine, and Bridget?
Well Bridget
was up for another Citizens Arrest!!!

Below, Cyril takes us through the motions, and the emotions of an
'alleged Magistrate' that is fast losing the plot.


So, it was back to the magistrates court for some more
 attempted extortion by criminals in fancy dress outfits.

It’s getting to feel like a second home for me.

I keep them guessing as to what tactics I might employ.
Believe me, they are so criminal
there is no shortage of subject matter to choose from.

Last Monday I thought I’d go for the ruffling of the feathers routine.

They called me, then this…

C; (standing in the doorway to the court) To Bridget “Madam,  are you operating under your Oath of Office at this time?"

BS; I am not prepared to have that discussion……

C; (quite loudly) Why not?

C; I have the right to know in what capacity you are presuming to sit in judgment over me.

BS; No you don’t....(That’s right, these gangsters would like to sit in judgment over us, using a secret authority in a secret jurisdiction and they think we should politely accept this!)

C; (laughing) yes I do....

I asked her the same Oath of Office question again, and after listening to her splutter for a while, I then arrested her for "Misconduct In A Public Office". I asked the usher to call the police, he refused, so I asked Ian too call the police, I then sat down in the public gallery. Whilst this was going on, Bridget was barking out garbage about contempt of court and getting visibly red in the face and very angry, eventually calling for the police herself.

PC Steve arrived first,
I explained to Steve what had just happened and invited him to speak with the witnesses in the public gallery, he refused to do so.

PC Danny then arrived, pumped up and moving apace, Danny immediately told me I was under arrest (though he neglected to inform me what I was under arrest for), he grabbed my right arm and tried to twist it up behind my back. I told him I was not a violent man and that I would not resist so there was no need for his violence against me, fair play to you Danny, you did release the pressure.

Neither Steve nor Danny were prepared to call their Inspector as I had requested, rather just blindly following the orders of Bridget Shaw as though what she had said was Gospel!

On the way down to the cells we had a cordial and candid conversation highlighting their lack of education of the law, I know their bosses keep ‘em in the dark and feed them bullshit,  but they should ponder on the fact that magistrates will always dishonour their Oaths of Office on Jersey, and why this should be so?

Out of earshot of the court, both Steve and Danny were niceness itself, are they starting to realise that they are being used to enforce policy rather than the Law, by a disparate group of lawyers who have hijacked justice on Jersey?

To much to hope for?  Yeah, you’re right.

After a peaceful hour in the interview room (upgrade from a cell for frequent visitors?), it was back to the DOCK.

BS; Will you apologise for raising your voice to me?
(what rarefied air do these nutters breath? It was Shaw herself who lost it and shouted at me. My friends in the public gallery told me Bridget needed a 20 minute recess to regain her composure).

C; I have nothing to apologise for madam

BS; In regard to the contempt of court charge….

C; You are not on your Oath of Office, you are the one in contempt, not me. This is not a court, It’s a tribunal and there’s no contempt of court at tribunals.

Lawrence O’Donnell; (crown advocate) ma am, as this is a minor contempt I propose a warning this time.

C; I do not consent to that.

BS; Yes....

C; I do not consent to that. 

BS; You must come to court to answer bail.

C; There is no bail at tribunals.

Bridget Shaw then went on to fix a trial date, needless to say I used the phrase “I do not consent to that” a fair bit in those exchanges. She also forgot the sole purpose of my being there....To enter a plea to the Mickey Mouse charge!

Obviously this account is from memory and is not verbatim. We are not allowed to record these criminals practicing their fraud on the people, and the court. God forbid, there should be a true record of these crimes.


  1. Trolling is pretty heavy this morning, wonder if we are hitting some real raw nerves?

  2. Ian have the police dropped all charges for contempt now?

  3. In my case?

    I have no idea, and neither do I care!

    You cannot be held in contempt for being open and honest in a court of law.

    Let them do their worst, they are on the wrong side, not us.

  4. Good to have you back again Ian.

    Cyril, Cyril, Cyril You have no inalienable rights according to Ms Shaw.

    Where you are going wrong is you should be Kowtowing in deference to the lady with the ability to change a public office into a Court of Law before your rights have been heard.

    Ms Shaws cries, of contempt of ''court'' unbelievable.

  5. Cyril you certainly have guts lovely too see you running circles arround the scum good luck

  6. Ian, you say, "Obviously this account is from memory and is not verbatim. We are not allowed to record these criminals practicing their fraud on the people, and the court. God forbid, there should be a true record of these crimes."

    True for now, but the technology for recording such things is becoming so pervasive, inexpensive and easy to hide, that it will eventually be impossible to prevent such recordings. Covert recordings have become a way of life in court rooms in many places where they are officially banned. Sooner or later that should help those of you in Jersey who are subjected to false transcripts, and give more pause to crooked judges.

    1. "Ian, you say"

      Actually, no I didn't say, Cyril said....

    2. I shall still be recording all my stuff as they doctored my trial tapes, and which fact I can prove. It shall be an interesting debate next time I am in court.

  7. It just shows what her motives are for doing the job. She wants power and control, so she gets angry when she doesn't get it.

    If she was dispassionately and calmly doing necessary work for the community, the situation you presented to her, Cyril, would have been an interesting challenge to be considered thoughtfully, not to fly into a rage about :)

  8. "It just shows what her motives are for doing the job. She wants power and control, so she gets angry when she doesn't get it."

    That is quite true with Bridget, but not true with every judge or magistrate, some are actually sorry that they are committing fraud on the people, yet they still carry on knowing what they do is unlawful....They are in fear also.

  9. Guts? err ummm yes you could say that haha

    Courts and the process are designed to make us fearful,the fabled 'contempt of court' is just another brick in the wall

    If we stand our ground and learn how to demand our inalienable rights their deception becomes clear

    by asking questions we see these criminals (I dont use the term lightly) cringe, splutter and look stupid, a beautiful sight to behold.

    I mean, how very dare we ask a public official, paid by us,whilst supposedly on the clock, to confirm their oath of office,

    just who do we think we are?

    we are a group of people that have had enough of the state embezzling our hard earned cash, and are prepared to say NO to their unlawful demands and threats of violence

    join us


  10. Join us indeed....all it takes is a little courage on your part, and a little support from us.

    1. Well Cyril, you get an "A" for effort, but a double "D" for starting off once again on the wrong foot. I believe I have mentioned here before that the first thing you must do is establish the part, the roll you are playing in the "Hearing" - that is the fact that you are there to deal with the issue as the beneficiary and authorised representative of the Agent in commerce (Straw Man) that is the only roll you play - in short you establish yourself as the director/Administrator of the Straw-man Trust, which then removes the magistrate to the roll of Trustee and as a trustee must now follow your instruction - in fact it would be wise to ask the judge if you may HAVE his/her NAME, (if they give their name then they have just contracted with you on your terms. You can then ask them to identify the accused party (which they can't) and for full disclosure. Then you can move to dismiss and walk out. Remember, once you step into their Jurisdiction (Legal-language) they can do whatever they like with you! You cannot take Common Law into a Statutory hearing it means nothing there. Unless of course you are able to first first establish a common law court.

      Also next time take your birth certificate with you and wave in the air, because once the magistrate or judge sees it, they have to acknowledge it exists and cannot then deny you the right to administer the "Straw-man Trust. Remember establish your roll first, don't let them do it or else they establish you as a trustee liable for penalty.

      As far as asking if BS was standing on her Oath and Bond at that time, had you said the words: "For the public record" first - then She and the Crown would have probably gotten up and run out of the first door they could find. Because there is NO public record in an "administrative Hearing" or court of Summary Judgment" which is all the Magistrates court is. This means that even if a recorder is recording the minutes, they are NEVER entered into a Public Record unless you first establish one.

      Another way is to declare that you are not surety for the NAME - that you are the Administrator for the NAME (making you not liable) and then point to each member of the court present and say in turn "I do not recognise you" This means that you do Consent to this Transaction, you not wish to Contract with them. Remember they cannot win unless they have a contract with you - no contract no win. And be careful that you are not tricked by them into contracting. So unless anyone there has a claim against you, walk out!

      Good luck Keep trying,

      Red Lion.

    2. Red, what you have to remember is that here in Jersey, they just do what the hell they want. I know it sounds crazy but these clowns just 'ignore' everything, if it doesn't suit them they ignore you and find you guilty.

      We have established jurisdiction, standing, asked for OoO, asked who has a claim against us, they just pronounce you guilty. Cyril ripped their case apart a couple of weeks back and they had no evidence against his whatsoever, did it stop him being found guilty? NO!!!

      I am adopting a new strategy from now on, I am sending their crap back in the post marked 'no contract, return to sender' see if ignoring them is any more effective :)

  11. Red, I hear what you're saying but, I have seen no evidence that your/Dean Cliffords theories have any basis in fact in court. I did ask you before to back up your theories with some tangible evidence,
    (I dont mean youtube vids) maybe an act or rule of procedure or any actual written proofs of your claims?
    or maybe you could recount to us the success you or anyone else has had using this theory.
    I have my doubts that you have tried these theories yourself but would be happy to know that you speak from experience and not wishful thinking