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.
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....
ECHR Article 6. 3. (a)
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;
I said “I’d like to ask the Crown if these charges are for quasi-criminal offences madam”.
Wehad 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.
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 stated that "I wished to go free on my way"