Search This Blog

Saturday, 22 September 2012

"Complaint Against 'alleged' Magistrate Bridget Shaw Finally Gets A Response, of sorts!"

"Letters To David Filipponi, Chief Officer
Of The Bailiff's Chambers"

After arresting Bridget Shaw in her own courtroom for Contempt of Court, Abuse of Process & Treason, I proceeded to lodge a formal complaint against her for the above offences. Bridget Shaw is the (alleged) judge who broke every rule in the book in the

Below is the link to the posting of Bridget Shaw's arrest.

So, on the 28th of February 2012 I first wrote to Jane Martin C.E.O of the Jersey Law Society who informed me that Bridget Shaw was not a member of the Jersey Law Society so she could not deal with the complaint. Jane immediately kindly passed my complaint on to David Filipponi, the Chief Officer at the Bailiff's Chambers as this was the correct procedure.

Below is my Notice to the Law Society


28th February 2012


Adv. Jane  Martin
The Law Society of Jersey,
P.O. Box 493,
St. Helier


This complaint and demand is both specific and general

1.      On the 8th of February 2012 at the petty debts court in Union St, St Helier Jersey, Bridget Shaw, a member of Your Society, did practice law from the bench of said court.

This being in contravention of the MAGISTRATE’S COURT (MISCELLANEOUS PROVISIONS) (JERSEY) LAW 1949
ARTICLE 15  Role of the Magistrate

In proceedings conducted in accordance with Article 14, the Magistrate shall perform only a judicial role.

Evidence of this offence can be heard on the enclosed CD, or by visiting

2.      Bridget Shaw did fail to confirm that she was “acting under her Oath of Office at the time” and therefore was not acting in the capacity of a judge/magistrate when making an unlawful administrative judgement against myself. Such action I believe is contempt of court, misconduct in a public office and abuse of process.

3.      Bridget Shaw did commit fraud on the court by using public monies to bring about an unlawful judgement on a man who did not consent to stand as surety for a legal fiction, that man being myself, Ian-Leslie:Evans

4.      Bridget Shaw did commit Treason by refusing to uphold her common law Oath of Office that she did swear in allegiance to Queen Elizabeth the second, and faithfully promising to do right by (all manner of people) her Majesty’s subjects.

Whereas it is my understanding that some members of Your Society also swear a public oath of office, and

Whereas it is my understanding that Your Society is responsible for regulation and discipline of Your Society members, and

Whereas it is my understanding that I can demand that any member of Your Society who also swears a public oath of office, honours that public oath of office when acting as a public officer in matters that might concern me, and 

Whereas it is my understanding that any member of Your society who operates outside the authority of their public oath of office in matters that may affect me, has no authority over me and must be sanctioned by Your Society for such offences, in accordance with the laws and rules of Your Society, and

Whereas it is my understanding that I am a man, who has inalienable rights, and

Whereas it is my understanding that Your Society is a legal fiction, and

Whereas it is my understanding that I am not a member, agent, employee, representative or affiliate of Your Society, and

Whereas it is my understanding that I do not have a valid lawful contract with Your Society, and

Whereas it is my understanding that I am not obliged by any laws or rules of Your Society, and

Whereas it is my understanding that to dishonour an Oath sworn to Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth the second is Treason, and

Whereas it is my understanding that to use public funds to falsely bring judgement against a man is to commit fraud, and

Whereas it is my understanding that to behave in such manner is to confer upon oneself obligatory disbarment, and

Whereas it is my understanding that my properly and lawfully claimed “Claim of Right” is being transgressed.

I demand that Your Society, its members, agents, employees, representatives, affiliates, contractors or other interested parties desist from using Your Society laws and/or rules to attack me with.
I also demand an apology and reparation from your member Bridget Shaw for any tort I have suffered, and the removal of any judgment made by her against me.

I also demand an apology and reparation from the Advocate who apparently signed the enclosed copy of a summons, absent any valid cause of action and/or proof of claim

I reserve the right to publish any or all correspondence with Your Society regarding this matter.
Your Society and/or its members mentioned above have 7 (seven) days from receipt of this notice to rebut my complaints, understanding and demands, in full, in writing and in good faith.
Failure to properly rebut this notice and its contents within 7 days will be deemed by all parties to constitute acceptance of my complaints, understanding and demands.

All words, terms, phrases, symbols and figures used herein have the meanings that I give them, and are not open to reinterpretation.

All inalienable rights reserved

CD Enclosures:
1.      CD - Claim of Right 12th October 2011
2.      CD - Notice of Dishonour 24th October 2011
3.      CD - Recording of magistrates court 8th February 2012

Then in good old Jersey fashion, I waited, and I waited, and I waited, and I waited, I then waited some more, and some more, and yet some more, until finally I had had enough and decided to write to Mr Filipponi myself, hand delivering the letter and getting a receipt! This always seems to get a response.

My Letter to Mr Filipponi


11th July 2012

Mr David Filipponi
Chief Officer
Bailiffs Chamber
Royal Court Buildings

Dear Sir

Having made serious complaints against ‘alleged’ magistrate Bridget Shaw, CEO of the Law Society, Jane Martin, advised me that she had forwarded my complaints to you as Bridget Shaw was not a member of the Jersey Law Society.

I have enclosed a copy of my complaint, a copy of the email sent to me by Jane Martin and a copy of her follow up letter explaining her actions in sending this evidenced complaint to yourself.

It is now four months since this matter was passed on to you yet I have heard nothing from yourself to date, not even an acknowledgement of the reception of this paperwork?

Have you received it? If not, why not? Has the matter been delegated to someone else in your office? Why haven’t they contacted me? So many questions Sir.

I would like some acknowledgement from yourself that these papers and disc have been received from Jane Martin, and that this matter is receiving your full and undivided attention.

I thank you for your time in this matter and look forward to hearing from you shortly.

Yours sincerely


All Inherent Inalienable Rights Reserved

cc. CEO of the Jersey Law Society - Jane Martin

Then in good old Jersey fashion, I waited, and I waited, and I waited, and I waited, I then waited some more, and some more, and yet some more, until finally I had had enough and decided to pay Mr Filipponi a little visit. My visit was on the 20th September 2012!

Whilst at Mr Filipponi's office I was advised that he was away, I left another letter for him to address in the hope I might receive some contact. The lady I spoke to then told me Mr Filipponi had received my Notice of Complaint and had responded. I informed her that I had never received a response, she said she would Email it to me, which she did.

Response From Mr Filipponi

I don't know what anyone else thinks, but aren't such important letters supposed to have the writers details on them, and indeed, some sort of signature from someone within the particular department endorsing the letter?

He (allegedly) states "However, it is not clear from your letter and supporting correspondence what the exact nature of your complaint is." Are we to believe that the Chief Officer of the Bailiff's Chambers cannot deduce what my complaints are from what is written in the blue letter at the top of this posting??? Did my readers understand it?

My Second Letter To Mr Filipponi


20th September 2012

Mr David Filipponi
Chief Officer
Bailiffs Chamber
Royal Court Buildings

Dear Sir

Thank you for your letter of the 25th July 2012 which I never actually received, but which a copy was Emailed to me by one of your staff members, and which was unsigned. I hereby notify you of all of the following matters in connection with my complaints and the actions taken on the day in question.

In your letter you state that “the Bailiff has instructed me to seek a transcript of the hearing at the Magistrate’s Court of the 8th February 2012 presided over by the Assistant Magistrate Bridget Shaw in connection with your alleged allegations”. I am not sure if that transcript will be of any intrinsic value as the Greffe of the Magistrates Court has been doctoring trial tapes recently! Ref Cyril Vibert. Furthermore, the refusal by the Deputy Bailiff, William Bailhache at appeal, to have Mr Vibert’s tapes independently investigated/examined does not fill me with any great hope that the transcript of ‘my hearing’ will be an accurate representation of what was said.

You also state that this hearing was “presided over by the Assistant Magistrate Bridget Shaw”. This Sir is the whole crux of my complaint and argument, that Bridget Shaw refused (twice) to “confirm that she was operating under her Oath of Office at that time”. How can Bridget Shaw be an Assistant Magistrate if not operating under her Oath of Office? She cannot, she can only be best described in her role as a banker settling merchant disputes. This is Treason, it is also fraud on the Court, and is wholly unacceptable in a modern day democracy.
Halsbury’s administrative law 2011 says about the unlawfulness of these revenue collecting tribunals

"The law is absolutely clear on this subject. There is NO authority for administrative courts in this country and no Act can be passed to legitimise them because of the constitutional restraints placed upon her Majesty at Her coronation. The collection of revenue by such means is extortion, and extortion has been found reprehensible since ancient times."

My charge of Bridget Shaw’s ‘contempt of court’ was the above stated fact that she was not operating under her Oath of Office. The ‘abuse of process’ complaint relates to her attempts to silence me when I wished to ask some questions to try and understand the nature and cause of the charge against me. Bridget Shaw flatly refused to let me ask any questions, which is against all my inherent inalienable rights. Furthermore, the Clerk of the Court then tried to infer that, when I did stand my ground and ask a question, that I was in contempt of Court! This was more or less endorsed by Bridget Shaw who stated “it is getting that way”. How can I be in contempt of Court for asking a lawfully valid question?

Please see link below:

I would further like to add a complaint of ‘fraud on the Court’ to the outstanding charges I set out in my original letter of complaint. Using tax payer’s money to fund an Administrative Tribunal to extort monies from myself is not lawful.

It appears that you do not fully understand some of my original complaints, I hope I have clarified matters for you with this letters contents. If there is anything further that you need to know or understand, please do not hesitate to contact me as I shall be pleased to assist in any way that I can.

I look forward to hearing from you at your convenience.

Sincerely, and without ill will, vexation or frivolity

All inherent inalienable rights reserved

I must add that Mr Filipponi was away again when I delivered this letter.

So, now you all see the stack of hoops that you are expected to jump through in order to get a response to a letter of complaint against one of the Oligarchy Members!!!

Is it any wonder that John Hemming is demanding action against

"The Jersey Way"

I will finish with a link to Leah McGrath Goodman's petition
that I hope all my readers will sign. Please show your support for Leah,
and for all the victims of child abuse,


  1. Why wont she confirm her oath of office,it's the authorities who tell us, "if you've got nothing to hide you've got nothing to fear"

    What are you hiding Bridget?

  2. Anon

    If Bridget Shaw had confirmed her Oath of Office, she would have been duty bound to her Oath which is to protect the people. Bearing that in mind, she would have been forced to drop the statutory charges against me and thus not gaining any revenue for her bosses or the Queen.

  3. Anyone doubting the corruption in Jersey, please read STUART SYVRET'S latest account, and with links to all the evidence.