Search This Blog

Saturday, 25 August 2012

"Common Law - Admiralty Law - And Your Straw Man" Part 22

 "Playing The Word Game In
Jerseys Courts Of Fraud"

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,




ENGLISH WORDS  vs  LEGAL TERMS

Spend time in local ‘Courts’ and you will come across a Judge or lawyer claiming that such and such an English word is a ‘legal term’

Here is an example by Bridget Shaw, from Cyril’s ‘trial’





We’ve left in the prosecutions only ‘on the scene’ witness (parking control officer) answers to Cyril’s questions; remember the burden of proof lies with the prosecution to beyond a reasonable doubt!

How does an English word morph into a legal term?

The process is simple, members of the legal professions (Law societies/Bar associations) invent their own words or take a plain English word then redefine the meaning of that word, and it then becomes part of the language of those societies/associations. These terms/words form the basis of commercial and administrative Laws. This is perfectly lawful as all societies are allowed to invent their own languages. The word society is itself a legal term.

From Black’s Law dictionary 5th edition;
Society: “An association or company of persons (generally unincorporated) united by mutual consent, in order to deliberate, determine, and act jointly for some common purpose.”
Mutual consent is the essential element here, consent is the basis of all man made laws, and we are governed and policed by consent.

This process sometimes works the other way around i.e. a legal term becoming part of the English language however, when this happens the word retains its legal definition, even if that definition is not mentioned in an English dictionary.

Registration is one such word/term
From the old maritime Laws registration was the act of a Captain handing over title of the ship’s manifest to the Harbour Master, ensuring all levy’s and imports could be collected after unloading of the cargo and before the ship leaves port.
For registration to be lawful it has always been and still must be a voluntary act, because it creates an association.

The ship’s skipper could sail on if he did not like the level of duty at one port.
No one can lawfully be forced to register anything, for that is theft/enslavement.
International human rights Laws tell us we have the right of free association, necessarily the converse is also a right, and we have the right of disassociation at any time we choose.

Human Rights Laws are not as comprehensive as our inalienable rights but,  Corporate Governments refuse to acknowledge these fundamental and inherent God given rights, choosing instead to use only lawyer written, watered down versions such as ECHR and UDHR

Where does that leave today's legislation (Law arbitrary) which tells us we ‘must’ register all manner of things? Firstly, all legislation is written in the language of the legal profession, by lawyers using lots of ‘legal terms’ which make them impossible for most politicians to understand or decipher.
They are codified = written in code

English word – ‘must’; implies obligation and/or necessity.
Legal term – ‘must’; is synonymous with ‘may’, a directional rather than mandatory instruction.
In order for any legislative direction ‘to register’ be compliant with the law (law of the land), we are required (directional) to submit (bend to another’s will) an application (to beg) for registration (handing over superior title). This process lets the registering authority claim, quite legally, that we took these actions voluntary. 

Another of the legal professions favourite legal term is the word understand.

English word – understand; to know what is meant.
Legal term – understand; to stand under some arbitrary authority.
This can be seen more clearly if it is written as under stand, but you won’t notice the difference when it is spoken.
At the end of the Police caution or after being charged with an offence you will be asked “do you understand”. Our reply is always “no, I do not understand”
Please note here, that this response is only to all statutory ‘offences’, we believe that should we have committed a real common law crime. We would hold our hands up and admit the crime, not that that is likely as we have no intention of committing any crimes.

With study, it becomes clear that the meanings of some legal terms are bizarre and counter intuitive. By using legal terms someone standing on St. Catherine’s breakwater can be found to be using a vehicle parked at Le Braye, I kid you not!

Without question the most pernicious ‘legal term’ is the word person.
English; a man, a woman or a child.
Legal term; a body corporate.
The legal term person is defined in the enactment
INTERPRETATION (JERSEY) LAW 1954
(Whose interpretation is this?)

Before we look at a couple of extracts from this ‘Law’ we would like to raise some points to help you deconstruct this enactment yourselves.
The word ‘include’ is also a legal term, so much so it has its own legal maxim to define it;
Inclusio unius est exclusio alterius
The inclusion of one thing is the exclusion of another.

We have also underlined an ‘a’ and a ‘the’ to highlight how these words can emphasise what is meant.

 

It’s an indisputable and provable fact that you will not find the words man or woman in any enactment.

Magistrates (sic) and lawyers have no conscience when it comes to mixing and matching English words and legal terms, they will switch between the two from one sentence to the next, even using both meanings in the same sentence.

Another example from Bridget;

 

Talk about a forked tongue, her first statement bears no relation to what I did say. Then we get the mix and match in one sentence, further more madam, no one would answer my question about what jurisdiction was being presumed for the action, and that part of the transcript mysteriously vanished!!
Notice too, how law is spelt both law and Law.
As for the conflict of interest, Bridget Shaw says she doesn’t know what I’m suggesting, really! Let me spell it out to you Bridget Shaw, you are a duplicitous crook – do you understand now?

Bridget Shaw, the Greffe, the crown prosecutor are paid by the States of Jersey Inc.
The Plaintiff P.O.S.H is a subsidiary of SoJ inc. tell us Bridget how this is not a conflict of interest. Maybe conflict of interest is a legal term eh!!
Magistrates do swear a common law oath of office, the problem is that Bridget refuses to operate under her oath of office

It is not just words the legal profession mess with, letters both upper and lower case have enormous significance legally.
Legally speaking names written in all capital letters always refer to dead things, sometimes called legal fictions. If you own a Company, a Corporation or a registered business have a look at the certificate of incorporation/registration, all capitals right?
 As spooky as it might sound, take a walk through a cemetery and read the names on the tombstones. If anyone can find a name there not in all capitals please take a photo and send it to us (include the year), we won’t hold our breath.

NOW LOOK AT YOUR BANK STATEMENT!
Capitis diminutio maxima -  Google it!  

Summary: Legal terms are the intellectual property of the Law societies/Bar associations. Factually they form the basis of all commercial and administrative Laws (Laws of water/sea). Legal terms bind those who are officers, members, agents, employees and associates through contract of the legal profession and the States of Jersey Inc. (who enact these Laws) and any man or woman who consents to be bound by them.
These Laws of water have been brought onto the land by people who can best be described as land pirates.

The Law societies tell us non-lawyers that we cannot understand their language, and they will come down heavily on anyone that is not a lawyer who claims to give legal advice. So for all you lawyers out there, nothing written here should be construed as legal advice, rather it is our understanding of the subject matter gained through study and research, so wind your necks back in!

Of course no such restraints apply to lawful advice, make of that what you will.

Since time immemorial oligarchs, elites, call them what you want, have used the control of Laws to enforce their hegemony and along with the control of money and information it forms an unholy trinity, keeping the general populace in fear, poverty and ignorance.

There you have it, ‘Legal terms’ are the invention of the legal profession. How can they possibly apply to us, absent our consent?
   

     Coming soon,
so you don’t think the States of Jersey is a Corporation?

11 comments:

  1. This is fantastic, so much to go through. you should consider a website for this, for this, a Facebook page get it out there, so important. Thank you very much for your hard work :)

    ReplyDelete
  2. Thanks Ian, fascinating.

    Some people have and will continue to accept with consent, being referred to as a ''person'' others realise the consequence to themselves of acceptance in non verified jurisdiction court.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Corporation

    Corpse - oration

    the speaking dead

    ReplyDelete
  4. In 3 Application of penal enactment to bodies corporate
    In the construction of every enactment relating to a punishable offence, whether passed before or ofter the commencement of this Law, the expression ''person'' shall, unless the contrary intention appears, include a body corporate.

    Contrary - Opposite in nature direction or meaning.

    Cyril your contrary intention appeared and is recorded in the statement on Ians blog yet the Magistrate did not appear to accept it.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Hi anon,

    THE contrary intention of the legal term definition of a person as a body corporate,is the English definition of the word person i.e. man, woman or child.

    The Magistrate(sic)lied.

    cyril

    ReplyDelete
  6. How on earth can the Magistrate deem evidence admissable when the prosecution witness provide none.

    None stating you were in the car, none that you were in the Parish.

    What evidence is there for the Magistrate to accept as admissable?

    ReplyDelete
  7. Exactly Cyril's point anon, they proved nothing that day other than they can doctor trial tapes well, and that policemen still commit perjury at the drop of a hat!

    ReplyDelete
  8. More extracts from 'court' transcripts;

    Me; Ma'm,am I presumed innocent of these alleged crimes?

    Bridget Shaw; This is for the prosecution to prove their case beyond reasonable doubt.

    these lines were said however,there is a missing question and exchanges between these lines in the recording.

    later when Bridget gives her reasons for judgement we get this;

    "There are many authorities in the UK of the varied terms in which the phrase "user" has been taken to mean people connected with the car in various ways,but certainly a registered keeper is PRESUMED (my capitals) to be the user of a vehicle unless, in my view, there is evidence to the contrary." and " you have admitted to the police that you use it. It was seen at you home address and, in the absence of evidence to the contrary,I find that you were the user"

    For a start the enactment never mentions the registered keeper it refers only to the owner!

    Bridget tells us clearly that these courts of confidence tricksters
    make unsubstantiated presumptions then use these presumptions to turn on its head the burden of proof rule.

    Here's another piece of Bridget bullsh*t (again from the transcripts)

    Me; But it is a quasi-criminal offence, Ma'm, is it not?

    BS; I don't know what you mean by "quasi".

    Really Bridget, try

    royal court rules 2004
    (6) Any party to criminal or quasi-criminal proceedings may apply to the Court for an order authorizing the Greffier or the Viscount to take in writing, on oath, the evidence of any person who is in Jersey at the time of making the application, whose evidence is required for the proceedings, and who –

    court of appeal (jersey) law 1961
    (5) In relation to the criminal and quasi-criminal proceedings mentioned in Article 44(2), a shorthand note shall be taken only in cases in which there has been a denial of the facts alleged by the Crown.
    There are others.

    So Bridget you are either incompetant or a liar, in any event you are not fit to hold any public office, are you?

    cyril


    ReplyDelete
  9. I can only assume from reading above, that prosecution witness's are for show.

    No evidence needed by the Magistrate when her own assumptions convict.

    How strange:-s

    ReplyDelete
  10. Spot on anon, no evidence needed, for these are strict liability courts with no need for evidence. The only evidence any judge has in front of them is a complaint of wrongdoing by you!

    Because these courts are not courts of PUBLIC RECORD, there is nothing on the PUBLIC RECORD other than the original complaint!!!

    We are going to change that :)

    ReplyDelete