Search This Blog

Saturday, 13 October 2012

"The Beginning Of The End Of Jersey Justice" :)

"The Squirrel Walks Away From The Nuts"


As I explained yesterday, I was up in the Magistrates Court for two parking fines and failure to produce insurance details, did they forget the Contempt of Court charge that 'alleged' judge David Le Cornu encumbered me with, and without just cause? I guess so.

I turned up an hour early to file papers and was told that all my charges were being dropped. That'll do, I thought. I came back an hour later and all charges were dropped, no mention of the Contempt of Court charge though! I was also awarded costs.

I had also filed a document with the court, this was a lawful "Notice of Understanding and Status and Demand" which myself and Cyril 'the squirrel' had prepared earlier. Harris read the document and simply dismissed it as "gobbledygook" to use his words. I kind of smiled and just knew Cyril, behind me, would be p*ssing himself laughing. Harris then stating that I had been listening to Mr Vibert :) Well yes, I always listen to Cyril as his advice is always good. The filed notice is below. Just click on it.









The charges against me were allegedly dropped because a witness, Vingtenier Steven Falle, was out of the island. Of course, myself and Cyril checked up on this as we cannot trust them to speak the truth, even in Court. It did however transpire that Mr Falle was out of the island yesterday. So, were there any more deceptions to deal with? Or anymore corruption involved in the case, bearing in mind they were simply dropping the charges against me?

Well, yes actually, there was another issue that needed to be dealt with. When 'alleged' judge, Peter Harris asked the pro-se-cutor about the issue of myself not providing evidence of insurance, the prosecutor (Mr Baglin, or Beglin) muttered, then stated that he had seen the insurance document when my friend was appearing in court in relation to this very same charge! Did the prosecutor lie to the court when saying this? I don't think so, why would he?



So where does that leave us? Well, on both occasions that my friend appeared in court, I was with him. I also addressed the court on both occasions to state that it was I who was traveling in the automobile at the time of the alleged offence. That being the case, the prosecutor has vexatiously charged and prosecuted me for not producing insurance details when clearly he had already seen them, and would have known full well that I was insured for the automobile!!! Did they just want to encumber me with another charge? or was it the thought of extorting more money out of me by way of a fine that had driven them to this deception?

Vexation, when used by the authorities, is a rather serious matter, and one that is going to produce a letter of complaint from myself against the prosecution. They treat the courts and the people as their own private toy to play with when they choose, well, that is going to be stopped shortly, we have plans.

Now Over To Cyril & Today's Nonsense

Cyril was up in court in front of Jersey Criminal, Bridget Shaw again. Shaw has surely earned herself a disbarment this time as the criminality was like nothing we have ever heard before. Cyril will be complaining to Sir Michael Birt, if Birt will not deal with this wretched woman, Cyril will be complaining to the Justice Secretary. If the Justice Secretary will not deal with this wretched woman, the Justice Secretary, Michael Birt and Bridget Shaw will all be held accountable.



So, In Cyril's own words, the following....


Firstly I’d like to thank Mike and Ian for turning up to witness Bridget Shaws’
Criminality in Court today.
I was told to turn up at 9:30 so duly did. When trying to file my notice in the greffe, another chap announced he was there for his 9:30 appointment with Bridget, hum, it soon became clear why they wanted me there at that time.
David le Heuze, Lawrence (slick) O’Donnell (his hair, not his prosecuting ability) and another gave me a copy of barking Bill Bailhaches’ judgement from my previous appeal, Le Heuze, who David Icke might point to as proof positive of reptile/human hybrid, told me it was very important I should read this 13 page document (especially point 29) before my ‘trial’ at 10am. I was offered advocate Gollop to assist me. People, it has been a long time since last I needed help with my reading, obviously I told lizard man that ‘I don’t trust lawyers’.
We will look in detail at barking Bills’ pseudo-intellectual jism in the near future.
The ‘trial’ started with Magistrate Shaw  informing me that she would be Bound by barking Bills’ jism (royal court judgement), as the Magistrates Court follows the judgements of the higher Court (a bit like the Royal Court is bound by International Law, ECHR,UDHR,ICCPR etc.)
I said that Bill’s judgement, was in fact, just an opinion.
I took the lull in Bridget Shaws’ jabber to hand up the notice below to read and enter into the Court record.
 
Just click on the pic

 

Call me a sadist if you want, but I just love watching these racketeers faces when confronted by a lawful notice that destroys in one, their presumptions and ability to carry out their fraud on us.
Of course Magistrate Bridget Shaw wasn’t going to let silly little things like International law and human rights stop her grift.
Bridget said she would "Not Accept that I could waive my Article.6 UDHR & Article.16 ICCPR Right" I told her they were "My Rights to do with as I wished" and it was not for her to say otherwise, and then I confirmed that I was waiving that right.
 
It has to be said at this point that Mike was taking notes so will have a much more accurate record of exactly what was said (bearing in mind the last time I was in court segments of the recordings mysteriously disappeared), but I’m sure my recollection is close enough for the general idea.
It was round about this time that I stated that I did not understand the detailed nature and cause of the accusations and charges against me, this being a right we have under International law and one that I did want to reserve, here are the relevant Articles:
 ECHR Article 6. 3. (a)
Everyone charged with a criminal offence has the following minimum rights:
(a) to be informed promptly, in a language which he understands and in detail, of the nature and cause of the accusation against him;
 
And,
International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights,
Article 14. 3. (a)
 3. In the determination of any criminal charge against him, everyone shall be entitled to the following minimum guarantees, in full equality: (a) To be informed promptly and in detail in a language which he understands of the nature and cause of the charge against him;
Bridget tried to tell me I had received full disclosure, although how she could have possibly known this without having seen what the Crown had sent me, leads me to suspect witchcraft or clairvoyance. In truth, the Crown had sent the witness statements and lots of photocopied photos and not much else, not even a charge sheet!
I told her that what the prosecution had sent did not constitute detailed information as to the nature and cause of the charges against me, she said "what else was there to know?".

I said “I’d like to ask the Crown if these charges are for quasi-criminal offences madam”.
Bridget then changed the subject thus; ‘Well extradition is a quasi-criminal matter, but I don’t know what you mean’
WTF planet is this woman from? How does she get from parking tickets to extradition?
 We had expected the ‘I don’t know what you mean’ routine as she always says this when confronted with a question which, any answer she gives, will expose the real fraud that is going on, so I quoted some enactments that used the ‘term’ quasi-criminal.
Really folks, are we to accept that a trained lawyer and Magistrate should claim "ignorance of the law" to avoid telling the truth in Court? Try that one for yourself and see how you get on!
 If Bridget would have told the truth, that all so called ‘victimless crimes’ can only ever be quasi-crimes, then my next question would have been; "who is the plaintiff?" And she didn’t want that can of worms opened up.
I had had enough of this illegality and unlawfulness by now and told her that if she was not going to abide by International Rights law then I was not prepared to continue with the proceedings.
 I stated that "I wished to go free on my way"
Bridget said "no"
I said "am I being detained?"
Bridget said "err yes, I mean if you go I will proceed with the witnesses"
I said "I do not agree to any proceedings, am I free to go?"
Bridget said "yes"
 
I was outta there!
 
I did hear some squawking from the bench on my way out....
She seemed to be calling her imaginary friend MR VIBERT!!!
 
 
What we also must remember is that one of Bridget's witnesses is the cop O'brien, who is under investigation for perjury in Cyril's last case!!! WTF?
 
Also....
Myself and Cyril will not be attending their courts under any statutory charges ever again unless dragged there!!!





http://www.change.org/en-GB/petitions/ukhomeoffice-restore-the-visa-of-banned-journalist-leah-mcgrath-goodman-freejersey








62 comments:

  1. lmao... They are not learning quick enough :)

    ReplyDelete
  2. The best blog opening line ever @ Aangirfan :)

    ReplyDelete
  3. Many thanks for the link.

    Like the squirrel.

    - Aangirfan.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Cyril out of interest what was the 13 page page gumf you were given specifically point 29?

    That was, some proclamation from Bridget when acting as a judge to say she would "Not Accept that you could waive my Article.6 UDHR & Article.16 ICCPR Right"

    ReplyDelete
  5. I am constantly in awe of your courage and wish you well. There are not enough brave people around to deflate those who would control us.

    ReplyDelete
  6. That is very kind of you anon, but the truth is that myself and Cyril are no more brave than anyone else. It is just that we have managed to harness our spirit a little earlier than others :)

    A quote about courage that I would highlight this point with is the one below. Enjoy....


    "What is cowardice but the body's wisdom of its weakness; What is bravery but the body's wisdom of its strength? The coward and the hero march together within every man. So to call one man "coward" or another "brave" serves only to indicate the possibilities of their achieving the opposite."

    ReplyDelete
  7. Bridget should of told Mr Heuze a trial cannot start until pleas has been made nice bit of teamwork by the prosecutor and Bridget, she's aware and Heuze did the bidding.

    At that stage she should of acted in your interest and best judgement to inform you as she is aware no man can rule on there own cause that is why she had to say she would be Bound by barking Bills’ jism (royal court judgement)and partie to the game.

    That was not a trial that was a meeting. It could not be a trial as you had not plead.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anon,

      We 'NEVER' plead, to do so is to 'BEG' to the court, we are men who beg to no one for anything.

      Delete
  8. Hi anon,

    Point 29; "Put another way, a court is entitled to infer from evidence as to the registered owner or keeperof the vehicle that that person was using it at any particular time, in the absence of any evidence to the contrary."

    hahaha still makes me laugh at the 6th reading


    How does a lowly Magistrate imagine she has the authority to disregard or countermand International law?

    delusions of grandeur? a sense of privilege? decades of untrammelled power? probably all these and more.

    It must irk these types that it is the common man(woman)who will tear down their ivory towers.

    cyril

    ReplyDelete
  9. I dont understand what the thing is with the waiving right to be a person before the law can you explane and put it so the novises can getit thanks.

    ReplyDelete

  10. Jesus this is really powerful stuff. I thought you were both just on a mission to wind up the officials running the court system. Then you both walk out free.

    Bloody hell I am sure a load more people including myself will tune in a little more closely now as you have talked the talk ( a little of which I am starting to understand ) and now without doubt have walked the walk.

    Well don Cyril and Ian, excellent result and thanks for your time and effort in trying to educate the rest of us.

    Boatyboy.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Dude....We told you so :)

      Thank you for your comment.

      Delete
  11. Love it. I just hope that this wasn't just phase one of the softening up process Ian. You need to be extra vigilant in not becoming a recipient of a scheme similar to LuAnn Tyler from David Baldacci's The Winner.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi anon, not sure what you refer to but shall google it later, thanks for the concern and hopefully, the education :)

      Delete
    2. Furthermore anon, I now get your message loud and clear, thanks. If the truth is that they are suckering us into a false sense of security before the fall, so be it, it doesn't matter, and it doesn't matter simply coz we don't give a shit! They can do nothing to us anymore that will hurt, but thanks for the warning :)

      Delete
  12. Hi anon @ 7.pm

    "Waiving your right to be recognised as a person before the law" simply means this....

    We have human rights, and one of those rights is "to be recognised everywhere as a person". Any right we have, we can just as easily abandon as they are "OUR RIGHTS".

    A "PERSON" is a legal fiction created from our birth certificate by government, it is that legal fiction that they act against when summonsing us to court. By sheer fraud they dupe the unknowing into consenting to represent the legal fiction in court.

    They ask you your name, date of birth, and your address whereby they have created joinder between you (the man or woman) and the legal fiction person. Having achieved this, they can then hold the man or woman as surety for the legal fiction, e.g charge you for the fines applicable to the legal fiction.

    By "waiving our right to be recognised as a person before the law" we give them nothing or no one to act against!!! They cannot fine a man or a woman without our consent, they cannot even summons us to court if we do not consent.

    The only reason myself and Cyril have bothered even going to court is A. Because they have arrested us by using violence against us, and B. To show our readers the truth behind "The Great Deception".

    Hope this has helped :)

    ReplyDelete
  13. Nice one Point 29 is irrelevant as you claimed your common law rights in a common law jurisdiction.

    Seriously, they could not have believed you would fall for that.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Thanks you ian i am starting to get it now.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Now I wonder what the court thinks when you start putting in your claims with your own fees attached.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. We do have our "claim of right" which was unrebutted by our Bailiff, our "notice of dishonour" to them was also unrebutted. We are in no hurry yet as we have plans we are working on ;)

      Delete
  16. The best part of all this, Is you and Cyril are acting within the law, as intended law abiding citizens.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Anyone wishing to understand the concept of what is going on here, please view the two vids on THIS LINK

    ReplyDelete
  18. I hate people have been taught through this system of gov, in order to survive we need to operate under a tax and benefits system, everything taxed, wages, food, clothes, savings.

    We work, and gov have the right to take our money because we're told this is what we have to do, the majority believe it, I think such people convince themselves yeah we have to do this, yeah yeah yeah thats what I believe.

    We believe the gov when they tell us its what you voted for, its democratic. Well we know it isn't here with the block voting going on. Right, and I have to believe that?

    When Gov sell out to private enterprises and then charge us to the hilt. Gov Schools teach, this is the way it has to be like this?

    Governments take us to war, for what? Weapons of mass destruction? Did anyone believe that? We were told it, right. It is all about control. War makes governments money and who pays?

    The Economy suffers deliberately to repress people when the gov need more money. It is intent of gov. we then have to tighten our belts even go through depressions and plead for benefits that we contributed too.

    Like we have done something wrong, its our fault.

    Your a sponger or scrounger if you do not want to be controlled under this system. Who delivers the message, media most owned by Gov sponsors. We're bombarded with messages about scroungers living of the state which is repeated until people actually believe everything gov tells them, to such an effect I'm sure those same people actually believe, it is there own belief.

    Who,s controling who?

    I do not want anyone teling me via these gov media mouthpieces gov education what I have to believe or think.

    People can take control or not of there own lives we are not slaves we have choice.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Excellent comment anon, you have so studied the rules :)

      Delete
    2. Remember one thing though, we are all different! Some peeps are stronger than others, some are more intelligent than others, some are more fearless than others, this is why we have shepherd's.

      The shepherd's job is to protect the sheep from the Wolves, and then to teach the sheep to become shepherd's. For if we do not teach the sheep how to become shepherd's, there is the obvious danger that the shepherd's could well become the Wolves....That, I believe, is what has happened with humanity, and unless we intercede immediately, this God aweful trend will continue until our destruction is immenent!

      Had to resubmit this as the spelling mistakes were aweful :)

      Delete
  19. Thanks Ian. I have studied I have watched every video link you post and then some. So thank you. I will say I am not able to get my views across at all well, when I do post on your blog.

    Nothing wrong with my comprehension but my articulation is terrible. I acknowledge that.

    I have submited a comments to you a couple of times and you took me the wrong way twice. At one stage I was pretty damn offended when you called me an embarresment for something I said of which obviously I did not explain well. I was that upset and thought if you only knew me what would you think. I decided I had enough of trying to educate myself and being misunderstood and insulted but I am glad I stuck with it. If you do it again well what the hell I will carry on reading and just not post.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. hahaha!!!

      Anon, I have fallen apart many many times in the last two decades, and a prime example was when I took a hissyfit on Rico (one of my most respected friends) a couple of weeks back.

      Because I am bold and brash people think I am utterly untouchable and fearless. Some nights I cry my eyes out sat at this God Damned Computer wishing I had never started this blog. But....I cannot cheat my destiny, all thing are preordained, I believe.

      Some of you guys look to me as a tower of strength, unstoppable in my beliefs and without an ounce of fear....That is truly not the case, I am as weak and vulnerable as any other man or woman, perhaps I have learned to mask it a little better than others.

      We all need each other, no matter how independent we may feel at times. Unless your called Jon Sharrock Haworth, I mean no bad feeling toward you, if I annoy you with sarcasm or arrogance, just post back telling me where to shove it :)

      PISS OFF WILL DO NICELY!!!

      Delete
  20. Thanks Ian. Now I feel we talk the same language I do not want to be a sheep and follow but I do want to open my mind I dont come to this blog for support I come to learn and yeah I like the path you have opened and provided to us as readers. So logically I want to follow yours and Cyrils progress. Glad you did not take offence.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. And that's OFFENSE, not OFFENCE, Jesus Christ, where do you people come from, Aaaaaaagh!!!

      Delete
  21. Hahaha I told you I cant articulate. Piss off:)

    ReplyDelete
  22. Anyone just got home half pissed, and wanting a little giggle? Just read Mike Bowron's Christmas Special RIGHT HERE Don't forget to hang your undercrackers out to dry after reading this :)

    ReplyDelete
  23. update,

    After Bridget confirmed that I was free to go and me stating that I did not agree to the proceedings,Bridget carried on with the quasi criminal 'trial' once I'd left.

    She gave a good performance strongly questioning the Police Officers,soley for appearences, you understand, as Mike stayed to take notes. I was 'found guilty' and a given a fine.

    I look forward to hearing from them,

    cyril

    ReplyDelete
  24. Ian, your file on demand notice seems like gibberish to me. You honestly want to not be a person? the definition of which in Websters in 'a human being'. Cyrils battle is nothing more than an attempt to get out of paying parking fines!

    Where is this leading? No one pays...people park where they want for however long they want? Chaos, like it was in the Welsh town that got rid of traffic wardens? people cheered when they came back.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It would seem like gibberish to you as you don't know what your talking about? My point proven by the fact that you look for the legal definition of something in a normal dictionary, when you should be looking in Black's!!!

      Delete
    2. Ian, I wonder if anon pays to park on his own drive? He/she is a shareholder in all things owned by the people, including the roads we use, and which are ours. Why would he/she want to pay for the use of something that he/she already owns? Some people will never grasp the situation as they have been thoroughly indoctrinated by government which is so sad.

      Delete
  25. It says on jersey law website that a "person" is a "body corporate" is that a human being?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Exactly anon,
      Ian and I waived our right to recognition everywhere as a body corporate before the law.

      we waived that particular human right because our courts are supposed to be International HR compliant, Bridget told me as much at a previous hearing.

      We have seen how the courts operate on many presumptions,
      they will assume we reserve all of our Human rights and therefore take it that we want to be re-cognised as a body corporate,hence our waiving of this deceptive nonsense.

      cyril

      Delete
  26. Edward 111 in 1341

    “Considering how faithfully the beloved men of our Isles have ever
    maintained their loyalty towards the King of England, and how much
    they have suffered in defence of their islands, and of our rights and
    honour, we concede for ourselves and our heirs that they hold and retain
    all privileges, liberties, immunities and customs granted by our forbears
    or of other legal competency, and that they enjoy them freely without
    molestation by ourselves, our heirs or officers.”

    Nor trusts, nor incorporates states of Jersey estates.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Come on anon, I thought you were going to follow that up with something special? :)

      Don't be shy....

      Delete
  27. Furthermore anon, I now get your message loud and clear, thanks. If the truth is that they are suckering us into a false sense of security before the fall, so be it, it doesn't matter, and it doesn't matter simply coz we don't give a shit! They can do nothing to us anymore that will hurt, but thanks for the warning :)

    Ian, I applaud your tenacity, please do not under any circumstances get complacent, that's when they'll attack hardest.
    Whilst I understand your stance with regard the common law, I do believe it has disadvantages. I am currently awaiting a hearing of my own petition to the European Court which is directed at both the Jersey Government and the British. Collectively, these two governments have effectively made me, and my wife, stateless, denying us that right as a persons, which for obvious reasons we have no wish to relinquish nor waive. Having only ever paid social security in the Island of our birth, Jersey, the UK don't want to know us, this confirmed by the same Mr. Kumar that has brushed your own pleas aside. Jersey, equally, don't want to know us as we have left the island for more than six months. This is something that Jersey people need to consider very carefully before leaving the septic isle in retirement.
    D.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I never underestimate anyone D. Your story sounds very interesting and oh so familiar, how would you feel about writing it out and publishing it here?

      I would be pleased to hear from you, and thank you for your comment.

      Delete
    2. No D, your email address does not come through on comments and I have deleted your private comment so no worries there :)

      Delete
  28. At this time Ian, I'd rather keep the element of surprise. Foolishly, at the time of first petitioning the ECHR, Feb/Mar this year, I thought that it may be of assistance to possibly have a States member on side. I both wrote to and telephoned Trevor Pitman, leaving a message on his answer-phone. I have never been afforded the courtesy of a reply to either. Unfortunately, Mr. Pitman is no Angel Gabriel in this neck of the woods.
    D.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That sounds very unlike Trevor, having said that he has been under immense pressure this year that I know of. It is unfortunate that in Jersey we only really have one politician that people can go to for genuine help. At one time I was looking into six different peoples cases and doing all the other daily things and it does wear you down some. I would suspect that if Trevor could help you at all, he would have done. If you wish to publish your story in the future, please drop me a line.

      Delete
  29. To the commentor at 6:04 I do not understand what it is that you are actually petitioning for. What is it you want from the Gov. when you say stateless I do not understand what you mean are you talking about housing qualifications?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. No, not housing qualifications at all.
      If, you are Jersey born, check out the implications of this endorsement, "holder is not entitled to benefit from European Community Provisions relating to employment or establishment", in the back of your passport, particularly the "establishment" bit.
      At first glance, it appears insignificant but the ramifications are enormous. A classic example of benevolent prejudice if ever there was one.
      I sincerely hope for your own sake, that you are not Jersey.
      D.

      Delete
  30. Extradition? Obviously you're a threat to the Freedom Loving West, and so they're thinking of sending you to Gitmo for an orange jumpsuit holiday and a spot of recreational water boarding.

    You'll end up taking refuge in the Ecuadorian Embassy at this rate ;-)

    ReplyDelete
  31. Has Cyril been arrested since leaving the office meeting?

    ReplyDelete
  32. Not that I am aware of!

    I would be stunned if Cyril ever hears another peep about this issue, except from the complaint he is making of course.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Cyril has just turned up at mine now and has told me the police came round his place this morning with a compliment slip. This compliment slip appeared to be warning (an offer) Cyril to attend the Magistrates court on the 25th of this month at 2.30pm. This is unrelated to the judiciaries crimes of last Friday.

    In no way can this be construed as a lawful order, and Cyril has just told me that there is not a snowball's chance in Hell of him turning up for that meeting. Undoubtedly, our judiciary and policy-men will act totally unlawfully and transport the Chattel property known as MR CYRIL VIBERT off to their warehouse for storage....

    ReplyDelete
  34. Is Cyril being victimised for claiming his common law rights in a commmon law jurisdiction?

    ReplyDelete
  35. yes anon, that is exactly what is going on.
    These crooks will deny us all our rights to line their pockets.
    Nothing they do to me will deter me from my course.

    cyril

    ReplyDelete
  36. I think more important is they are trying to deter man from following your example. I have read somewhere that in Jersey in the later period only two people have asserted their rights I can't remember the terminology they used and prior to that 29 through the ceturies. I will have a look and see where I can find the info.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hell, we shall probably beat 29 on our own, and by this Christmas!!!

      The only two I know in the fairly recent past are Harry Hannon and Dave Shepherd, but Dave is kind of Oligarchy pal's anyhoo....Harry though, is a well pincipled old timer with a sense of value and virtue :)

      Delete
  37. The longer they store you the bigger your bill. I also read or heard a good way to value yourself monetarily if needed is to base it on all men are equal then you are worth as much as the richest man on the planet.

    Your time is valuable.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Earlier I said that the police had visited Cyril this morning, but not in relation to the above case. It now transpires that it is in relation to the above case as they want MR CYRIL VIBERT to attend their business meeting to confer upon MR VIBERT his legal fiction benefits and privileges!!!

    That means fines....LOL

    ReplyDelete