Search This Blog

Monday, 10 September 2012

"Ian May Well Be Visiting Prison Tomorrow"

"Another Unlawful Parking Ticket"



After receiving another parking ticket (Security Interest) the saga has rumbled on.

I lawfully dismissed this Security Interest (returning it within three days) by way of a letter to the Viscounts Department which can be read below.


Ian-Leslie:Evans
c/o                          

01/08/2012
Viscounts Department
Maurier House
St Helier



Dear Sir

Please find enclosed your security interest, I am not accepting any transactions of securities interests at this time.


Yours sincerely and without ill will, vexation or frivolity



Ian-Leslie:Evans

All inherent inalienable rights reserved


As lawful as my actions were, our corrupted Viscounts department didn't like it, they wanted me dragged back to court. I had heard a rumour that a warrant had been issued for my arrest and I Emailed the Viscounts department with the following Email.



Ian-Leslie:Evans
c/o                      

19/08/2012
Viscounts Department
Maurier House
St Helier

Dear Viscounts Department

It has come to my attention that there is possibly an arrest warrant issued for me, if this be the case, I advise you to take note of the following.

I hereby notify you, and your principal/agents that it is my understanding that the Viscounts department is a limited liability company and cannot lawfully make an arrest order on a man absent a contract or a bench warrant by a judge operating under their Common Law Oath of Office at the time of signing. It is also my understanding that any such warrant must be accompanied by an official court stamp.

Should the police, or any other government agent acting under the instruction of the Viscounts department without the said bench warrant, deprive me of my liberty and/or inherent inalienable rights, your company shall be liable to my properly claimed fee schedule set out in my Notarised Claim of Right that is attached for your perusal.

Yours sincerely and without ill will, vexation or frivolity



Ian-Leslie:Evans

All inherent inalienable rights reserved



After being detained later in the week, I went to the Viscounts department with two police officers who (I must confess) treated me with courtesy, manners, and respect, and to which officers I am grateful.

I explained to these officers that a bench warrant must be wet signed by a judge who was operating under their Oath of Office at the time of signing, and that the warrant must have a court stamp. When a member of the Viscounts department appeared, I asked to see the alleged warrant. It was not signed by a judge and it was not court stamped, so I explained again that it was unlawful.

Please note that the agent for the Viscount stated it was a lawful warrant and therefore was committing fraud. Ask yourselves, how is it that a limited liability company can issue an order for the police to go and arrest a man or woman? If they can do it, so can any other limited liability company! Should I be keeping an eye out for an arrest warrant from Jersey Telecom? Or even MacDonalds?

I was told the alleged warrant was for me not turning up to court on the 17th of last month? If they wanted me in court, why didn't they notify me of this? I might even have turned up!

To add insult to injury, the alleged judge (David Le Cornu) charged me further with contempt of court for non appearance, adding to the two extra charges the Viscounts department had lumbered me with and had not told me what those charges were!!!

Please see the link below on the transaction of a security interest, it is very interesting :)



WE SHALL SEE WHAT TRANSPIRES TOMORROW
AS I HAVE A GREAT GAME PLAN!!!



23 comments:

  1. the alleged judge (David Le Cornu)

    doesn't he have a bit of "history"? protected by the "boys"

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I am not sure anon, it would be interesting to find out though! He did, some years ago, do the dirty on me.

      Delete
  2. Well, that was short, and not so sweet!

    I was up in front of Bridget Shaw again, and sat down where I chose in the 'alleged' court. Bridget took exception to this and told me to stand at the front of the court, I said a number of times that I was fine where I am thank you ma'am.

    Then came the inevitable threat of violence, she said that if I did not come to the front of the court she would have me arrested for contempt. I replied that I was not being contemptuous but merely avoiding the court gaining jurisdiction over me. She then stated that "the choice is yours" some choice, I said, obey or be arrested! I did eventually move to the front of the court to avoid the violence I was threatened with, but did so under protest and duress!

    I then asked Bridget Shaw to recuse herself as she was conflicted, she asked what the confliction was, I replied that I had an ongoing complaint against her for contempt of court, abuse of process, and treason! I think she stated that she was not conflicted, and that she WOULD NOT recuse herself.

    Treason would finish her career and probably find her imprisoned in any just and lawful jurisdiction, yet she is adamant there is no conflict of interest. Incredible....

    I was then charged with another parking fine, plus the contempt charge by David Le Cornu. I was also charged with failing to produce a license and insurance. I stated that I was never notified to attend court, or to produce a license and insurance. I commented that if the court wished me to attend, then the court should actually notify me that my attendance was required, and that certain documents were to be brought to any said hearing.

    Nope, this is just another corrupt little peregrination designed to inconvenience and annoy me, nothing more. I was not able to use my game plan today as I was not standing trial, so I kept my mouth shut avoiding furnishing them with any clues. Again we see the lengths that these fraudsters will go to in avoiding anyone receiving proper justice and the rule of law (Law of the Land) Common Law.

    I am up for trial later this month, but hope to have this nonsense totally dismissed before the court date. I will keep readers informed :)

    ReplyDelete
  3. Thanks for keeping us updated and documenting the corrupt legal system we have in Jersey who's sole function looks to be the oppression of those who question the equally corrupt political regime.

    ReplyDelete
  4. My pleasure anon, it is indeed my common law duty to my fellow man to expose and bring to the public attention the underlying corruption in our courts.

    I might also add that whilst in court, I was told I was entitled to full disclosure, and that I should "APPLY" to the prosecution for all the relevant documentation. I told Bridget that I was not going to "BEG" for anything.

    The word "APPLY" in Black's Law Dictionary literally means "TO BEG" petition, implore, entreat or request. As no one is obliged to beg, it is the duty of the prosecution to make sure I am furnished with all the relative documentation....

    ReplyDelete
  5. Thanks again Ian for keeping the public updated.

    Is Bridget playing God? Why does she believe you must obey her or be in contempt? What happens to your common law rights under Bridget?

    ReplyDelete
  6. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yqzcUMrDmjM&feature=youtu.be

    ReplyDelete
  7. You should ask Stuart Syvret about when Steven Baker told Bridget Shaw there was no need to disclose Graham Power's 64 thousand word document to the Wiltshire police because in wasn't relevant to syvret's case and Bridget Shaw believed him and it wasn't disclosed. A matter of weeks later the same Steven Baker told the royal court he hadn't even read Mr Power's document!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Let us hope Stuart reads this and enlightens us with the full story.

      Delete
  8. Ian, sorry to interrupt this thread, but do you have the link to your posting about avoiding the TV license please? Thanks mate.

    ReplyDelete
  9. We are not avoiding it anon, we are just choosing not to contract with the BBC! CLICK HERE for the link.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Justice Bridget is a public servant she is public trustee for the government the executor. Is Trust law being violated?

    Are public servants trustees allowed to abuse their position in trust law?

    ReplyDelete
  11. Hopefully this will make you smile Ian.

    In Sand Street car park this lunchtime was a St. Lawrence Hobby Bobby car. It looked rather dashing especially with a yellow "Parking Notice" stuck to the drivers door window.

    Who 'pays'? Well we all know the answer to that little chestnut; we all do, one way or another.

    The Beano is not the Rag.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Ian if you had of produced your licence or a licence are you not then contracting with the gov (identifying you as an agent for gov) enabling Bridget to enforce Statutes against you?

    Statutes only apply to agents of gov.

    ReplyDelete
  13. The simple answer is NO!!!

    Just because you have a license, does not mean that you were operating under that license at the time of any alleged transgression! There is nothing the Government can do to prove you were operating as an agent for Government if you say you were not. All you need do is to ask them to produce payroll receipts, if you were working, you must have been getting paid right?

    If you were operating under that license, then you were working for Government. If you were working for Government, you have every right to send them a bill for your work. How does a million pounds an hour sound?

    Since The European Convention on Human Rights says....

    ARTICLE 4

    1. No one shall be held in slavery or servitude.
    2. No one shall be required to perform forced or compulsory labour.

    you are not obliged to work for free, so you may bill them as you please, any rate you deem fit, but you must pay for the alleged statutory crime. :)

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. There again, a million pound for an hours work compared to a £30 fine is a pretty good bargain!

      Delete
  14. Thanks Ian that makes sense a lot clearer now. I am presently watching Dean Clifford forgive my questions I dont mean to confuse you.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dean actually goes over this point in one of the vids, and feel free to ask questions whenever you feel the need, it's about helping each other.

      Delete
  15. A person found in contempt of court is called a "contemnor." To prove contempt, the prosecutor or complainant must prove the four elements of contempt:

    Existence of a lawful order
    The potential contemnor's knowledge of the order
    The potential contemnor's ability to comply
    The potential contemnor's failure to comply

    They must demonstrate both ACTUS REA (that you acted in contempt) and MENS REA (that you intended to act in contempt).

    Your defence is thus that any or all of the elements of contempt cannot be shown, and/or that even if they can that it was not your intention to be contemptuous of the Court.

    But first doodle, dawdle and delay - drag the series of events out as long as possible over as many hearings as possible which maximises the cost to the Crown.

    If they do not disclose any evidence prior to the hearing, ask for an adjournment at that hearing - in order to have sufficient time to consider the matter and formulate a considered response.

    Do not be rushed or bulldozed, it does not matter how long it takes for the Court to reach the correct verdict indeed a considered verdict is always preferable.

    Do not present any direct evidence, make a case or provide any information. The prosecution has to prove their case, there is no point in assisting them. Simply state that they have not shown sufficient evidence to prove their case.

    Remember it is likely Mrs Shaw who will decide so best not to wind her up too much, too soon.

    My advice is just to let them proceed and find you guilty, in the Magistrate's Court - you may wish to argue whether the order was lawful or not, but they will find you guilty.

    Then appeal to the Royal Court (I'd literally run straight round and get the form) on the grounds that they did not prove beyond reasonable doubt that you had knowledge of the order. Assuming they did not actually serve you in person with a summons of course.

    Remember YOU are NOT on trial, YOU are a Free Man, not one statute ever states that you cannot do something, (it would be patently absurd if it did)... merely that if you do certain things the state can tax you. The State has unlimited powers to raise taxes, both the ECHR and SCOTUS have confirmed this.

    Statutory offences are just stealth taxes.

    THEY however are on trial - as they have to prove you have rendered yourself liable to the tax (or 'criminal' penalty if you prefer) and that means they have to have acted within the statute, and they have to prove that they acted at all times within their statutory authority and the Law.

    Statutes solely regulate government employees - not real people.

    ReplyDelete
  16. P.S.

    If asked "Are you trying to show contempt for this Court", simply reply "No Sir, I was trying my best to conceal it".

    ReplyDelete