Search This Blog

Sunday, 7 October 2012

"No Response To Jersey Corruption From Anyone!"

"Cyril's Complaints Seem To Be Dismissed"
 




Earlier in the year, Cyril was up for appeal for a parking ticket at the Royal Court. There he alleged that two policemen at trial had committed perjury, and that his trial tapes had been doctored. These allegations where dismissed by William Bailhache without even a thought for any investigation into the claims, see the link below for the letters and summary.
 
Cyril wrote a letter of complaint to the Bailiff, Michael Birt and copied the letter to none other than
 
General Sir John McColl - Lieutenant Governor of Jersey
Rt. Hon. Kenneth Clarke MP. QC. Justice Secretary
Rt. Hon. Teresa May MP. Home Secretary
 
Not one of these four has responded to Cyril to date, all he has received is the unsigned letter below that quite frankly, could have been sent from anyone!
 
 
 
 
 
In the comments section of the above link, Rico shared with us a response he received from the same source, the similarities are strikingly uncanny!
 
 
Dear Mr R Sorda,

Subject: Graham Powers Judicial Review – Conflict of Interest

Thank you for your email dated 10 May 2012 copied to the Secretary of State of Ministry of Justice, in which you raise your concerns about the conflict of interest of Mr. Graham Powers in relation to his Judicial Review. Your email has been forwarded to the Crown Dependencies Team as we are responsible for managing the relationship between the UK and Crown Dependencies. I have been asked to reply.

At the outset, I should explain that Jersey is not a part of the United Kingdom. It is an internally self-governing Dependency of the Crown with its own legislative assembly, its own administrative, fiscal and legal systems and its own courts of law.

Consequently, the Judicial Review and any conflict of interest relating to it, are a domestic matter for the Jersey legal system (Courts) and not an issue upon which it would be appropriate for the Ministry of to intervene or comment upon.


Yours sincerely,


Manjula Rettna Kumar
Crown Dependencies Team


Cyril wrote back requesting clarification of the letters contents and also asked some very uncomfortable questions himself, questions they will not want to answer.
The Email that Cyril sent is below
 
 
 
Date: Fri, Aug 24, 2012 at 9:47 AM
Subject: your letter of 20th August 2012
To:
Crown.Dependencies@justice.gsi.gov.uk

Dear Manjula Rettna Kumar,
Thank you for your letter of 20th August 2012.
This email is to seek clarification, from you, on the contents of your letter mentioned above.
I would appreciate if you or the team could answer the following questions (1-7).
1) What factually is the Crown as mentioned in your letter?
2) What exactly does Jersey depend on the Crown for?
3) What exactly are the responsibilities of the Crown to the people of Jersey?
You state that the Crown Dependencies Team manage the relationship between the UK and Crown Dependencies
4) What exactly is the relationship between the UK and Crown Dependencies?
5) Is Jersey part of Great Britain?
6) Is Jersey part of the British Isles?
7) Is Jersey a member of the Commonwealth?
Thank you for your attention to these matters.
Yours Sincerely


Cyril Vibert
 
 
As you have probably guessed by now, Cyril has had no response.
He sent a further Email which is below.
 
 
 
Date: Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 3:52 PM
Subject: my email of 24th August 2012
To:
Crown.Dependencies@justice.gsi.gov.uk


For the public record.
Dear Team,
I emailed you on 24th August 2012 asking for clarification of your letter to me of 20th August 2012.
I have, as yet, to receive a response from any of the 'team'.
Please respond to the questions raised in that email and let me know if the Crown Dependencies Team is subject to the Freedom of Information Act.
Thank You,
cyril vibert
 
 

Cyril also sent an Email to the Bailiff, Michael Birt, which is below.


Date: Fri, Oct 5, 2012 at 3:29 PM
Subject: my letter of 23rd July 2012
To:
bailiffofjersey@gov.je


For the public record
Dear Sir Michael,
I have had no response or acknowledgement of my complaint to you of the 23rd July 2012.
The issues raised were very serious to say the least, you may be aware that the AG is considering a decision on my complaints of perjury by two Police Officers at this time.
Regarding the flawed Court recording, this is of great concern to the general public, there are witnesses to say that the transcripts and Court recording are not a verbatim record of what was said in Court on the 27th April 2012. Obviously for the people of Jersey to have faith in the Court system recordings of Court proceedings must be accurate and any discrepancies have to be accounted for.
I appreciate a man who has sworn an oath to serve the people of this island must be busy however, how much time does it take to dictate a reply, even if it is only to acknowledge you are considering your response.
I look forward to hearing from you.
Yours sincerely,
cyril vibert



I think the general conclusion we can all come to about Jersey is that no one will investigate anything that may "Rock The Jersey Boat" and that includes England.











14 comments:

  1. What happens about the two alleged perjuring police officers and the situation around the court doctoring tapes? It can not just be left at that surely?

    It is credit to you for publishing your records online so to speak as it helps build a picture of how things are dealt with in Jersey

    ReplyDelete
  2. "What happens about the two alleged perjuring police officers and the situation around the court doctoring tapes? It can not just be left at that surely?"


    Oh trust me anon, it can be left at that! Can you imagine what the world is going to think when it find out that Jersey has been doctoring trial tapes for at least 18 years!!!

    ReplyDelete
  3. I guess the States of Jersey Police do not have a problem with it nor the Royal Court.

    It will be interesting to see how quick the courts deal with Mr Christmas's appeal by comparison.

    ReplyDelete
  4. of course the Deputy Bailiff knows as he is a lawyer the information from the Ministry of Justice so it's a never ending circle, all we can do is advertise the role when it comes up, as we all know the Deputy Bailiff wants to Bailiff and we all know the Assistant Chief Minister was to be be Minister..... two brothers! did you know that the role of Bailiff for example is an 'open one?', no I didn't but I do now! if the Establishment know the response from the Ministry of Justice all we can keep doing is asking the same questions, over and over again until someone there asks, why are people going directly to the Ministry of Justice? they should be already asking these questions as the letters above are the same as the one I wrote.....

    ReplyDelete
  5. The Queen swore an oath to protect us and to hold our property in trust to protect it for us and to uphold your common law right in inherent jurisdiction.

    The court have not provided any evidence you are not entitled to your inherent common law rights in a common law jurisdiction, which you as a sovereign of your rights asserted.

    They provide no proof that there laws statutes apply to you. They provide no evidence that you have a contract with gov. They have Ignored your request to disclose evidence in effect they are in agreement with you by not doing so, If they were not in agreement they would provide you a certified copy of the court tape. Fraud on this Island is scandalous.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Cyril cont from my earlier post.

    The court did not produce evidence from PC283 or PC252 notebooks to refute your claims so once again, in agreement with you, or the evidence would of been produced. No evidence the road traffic (St Helier)(Jersey)order 1966 of whatever para of whatever article of the magistrates court (miscellaneous provision)(Jersey)Law, 1949 as ammended, (WTF) where is the proof You asserted your common law rights in a common law jurisdiction and they provided no proof what so ever that there laws apply to you.

    ReplyDelete
  7. The more I read of Cyrils appeal the more angry I am becoming.
    His appeal was dismissed citing Statutes Jersey this is irrelevant given Cyrils original appearance jurisdiction was established by Cyril. no proof provided him whatsoever proving otherwise.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Well, get a little angrier because Cyril's appeal wasn't dismissed citing statutes, Cyril's appeal was dismissed because Cyril didn't show up in court for his appeal!

    When Bailhache adjourned for a month for Cyril to prepare properly, Cyril, and his supporters who were in court were convinced that it was adjourned until 2.30pm on the relevant Friday. We attended at 2.00pm and the court usher said the judgement was made against Cyril at 10.00am that morning as Cyril hadn't shown up!!!

    In fairness, the court did write to Cyril at a later date for some reason, and added that the time of the appeal was 10.00am. But when you already have it in your head that it is 2.30pm, it kinda sticks. There is no way we can check exactly what Bailhache said as obviously, our court Greffe's doctor trial tapes! They would only refuse us a copy of the tapes anyway, even if we asked.

    When in court in Jersey, the court tells you what time and date to turn up for your next hearing. They never write it down for you, or send you a confirmation letter so, if you have not brought a pen and paper to court, you have to rely on your own memory....Those of us who were in court for Cyril's hearing believe that the court has switched the times on Cyril as they did not want this appeal to go ahead!!!

    ReplyDelete
  9. I am reading Cyrils letter to the Crown Dependencies Team.

    The Team state that "Your email has been forwarded to the Crown Dependencies Team as we are responsible for managing the relationship between the UK and Crown Dependencies".

    The letter then states "However, I should explain that Jersey is not a part of the United Kingdom". Am I missing something?

    If Jersey is not a part of the United Kingdom, then how can the Crown Dependencies Team have any responsibility for it?

    Yours sincerely

    Baffled

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Baffled.

      It is actually true that Jersey is not a part of the United Kingdom, but Jersey is a part of Great Britain.

      Delete
  10. Perhaps that explains why no one has put their signature to the letter :)

    ReplyDelete
  11. Can the court prove Cyril received notification of time to turn up? Where is the evidence he did. If the tape is the only proof then unless you have a copy, they have not proved you did not turn up at a certain time unless the tape is admitted as evidence. Good luck.

    ReplyDelete
  12. What has the Crown dependencies team got to do with the rule of law. You do not need the Queens Royal Ascent to pass law. Cyril is his own Sovereign in a common law jurisdiction with inherent human rights.

    http://www.justice.gov.uk/downloads/about/moj/our-responsibilities/Background_Briefing_on_the_Crown_Dependencies2.pdf

    “The Crown is ultimately responsible for the good government of the Crown Dependencies. (This means that, in the circumstances of a grave breakdown or failure in the administration of justice) or civil order, the residual prerogative power of the Crown could be used to intervene in the internal affairs of the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man“


    Tell the Justice Minister you will sue him if he does not intervene in this breakdown in the administration of justice.

    You have the evidence. You have seen no evidence whatsoever from the crown no log books no certified copy of the tape you requested no proof of your appointment time you do not have to rely on memory the court produced no evidence that proves it was stated a time to attend. Where is the evidence let the crown produce the evidence your evidence is that the crown have produced nothing lay it out to the Justice Secretary.
    The court were not fair by writing after the fact, That is not fair You did not get the letter to attend. You did not hear the time they allegedly told you where is the crowns evidence. Produce the letter you received after, as evidence date stamp. Lay it all out in an affidavit with there own unsigned letter exhibited in your affidavit. You have tried remedy.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Hi anon/s, thanks for you comments,

    If we had a de jure judiciary (justice system) the case would have been dismissed after my opening address; as the Crown had no evidence or facts to refute my claims or questions.
    However we have a de facto judiciary (legal system) in which the adherence to the rules of the law society/bar association becomes the way judges (lawyers) maintain what they laughingly call 'Honour'.

    These lawyers use deception to foist their occult(hidden)practices and words on us, then blame us for being ignorant of their rules which they call laws.That we should have to learn these weirdos shite to have any chance of remedy is an affront to justice.

    I am happy to be bound by the law of the land, and consider it my duty thereunder to resist the pseudo-authority of a private members club whose Raison D'etre is to enrich themselves at our expense.

    Our exposure of these crooks continues with Ian 10am this Thursday and me the following day at the same time, hope you all can come and watch, you wont be disappointed.

    cyril

    ReplyDelete