Search This Blog

Thursday, 29 November 2012

"Cyril The Squirrel Takes Jersey Corruption To New Heights"

"Just Making It Up As We Go Along!"
 

As readers will be aware, Cyril was up for appeal today before the Royal Court against his sentence for, erm, contempt of court.

He showed that Bridget Shaw had acted in a biased manner, and had denied him his International Human Rights amongst other little indiscretions.

The prosecutor had asserted that Cyril was following Freeman On The Land advice and that a judgement in Canada had show Cyril's actions to be those of a F.O.T.L. and their "ilke". So What?

The prosecutor had asserted that decisions made in the magistrates court had led to the use of the words "Freeman On The Land Outburst" on Cyril's charge sheet and was included in the judgement against Cyril.

Just one slight little problem with that! This allegation of "Freeman On The Land Outburst" was made rather early in the year and could not have been taken from the judgement in Canada. The judgement in Canada (as myself and Cyril have read it) was made only a few months ago!!! Were the prosecution lying? Just to thick to check their facts? Or making it up as they went along?

As expected, King Birt dismissed Cyril's appeal without a word of explanation but stating there will be a written judgement at a later date. We will look forward to deconstructing that little number in the forthcoming months.

So, Cyril had to go back to prison for another five days to finish his original sentence, no biggy, but there was a twist in the tale that shook myself and Cyril somewhat, the implications of which are deeply worrying for the future of alleged justice in Jersey.

Cyril rang me from prison tonight, he had had a visit from the Viscounts representative who was also in court today. This guy said to Cyril that he had some document from court (which he refused to show to Cyril) that said Cyril had to serve an extra FORTY TWO days in prison, and then Poof.... he just disappeared!!!

If there was another issue, then why was it not addressed in court today? Why was Cyril not given the opportunity to defend any action in conjunction with this matter? And how can a member of the Viscounts office give someone an extra forty two days in prison? Why was King Birt not sentencing Cyril to this extra time?

I would urge all readers to look at my postings on "A week trying to wake the sheep" as it is all unfolding before our very eyes!!!

 
"What Kind Of Horseshit Is This?"
 
New World Order Horseshit....
 
 
And please sign the petition below to help rid the Isle of Jersey of these disgusting crooks. 
 
 
 
 

17 comments:

  1. I am struggling to understand what difference it makes to Cyrils appeal who or where he gets advice from and how that should affect his appeal when claiming inherent common law rights in a common law jurisdiction

    No point was made by the quotations given by the prosecutor as being on the charge sheet? I suppose in one way by not providing an excuse to dismiss the appeal all Birt is show his weakness of the case, while abusing his position in sentencing Cyril imo

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The approach adopted by the "Freeman of the Land" movement is seen by the judiciary as a threat to their ability to function "as a court". It represents an inversion of the power of the monarch to exercise dominion over her subjects and, in common with the past, the arguments are met with 'violence' in the form of imprisonment on the basis that the litigant's conduct is "vexatious" or "frivilous" in nature.

      The Canadian case referred to is interesting as are many of the related cases many of which are referenced in that case: they are worth looking up both to recognize the arguments and also to understand the judicial response. Justice Rooke provided a very balanced and considered judgment from what I can see although it is invariably from the standpoint of a judge that has not really considered where the source of his power to condemn another is derived from.

      I do, however, share the belief of Dr Macfarlane who has commented, in an online journal that:-

      "My ongoing empirical study of self represented litigants in family and civil courts in Alberta, BC and Ontario (funded by the Law Foundations of the same) demonstrates very clearly that as several others have commented, OPCA's do not represent the vast majority of [self represented litigants]. Instead, the extraordinary numbers of people who are now representing themselves are doing so not to challenge the legitimacy of the courts – far from it – but in a desperate bid to attain a legitimate legal resolution. Over half of my sample had retained a lawyer earlier in their case and simply ran out of money – others could not even begin by paying the type of retainer asked for by many lawyers. We know that Legal Aid cover is now thin to non-existent – at or below welfare levels – in these provinces for civil and family litigants.

      My fear is that Justice Rooke's meticulously researched judgment will be used to conflate OPCA's with the large number of ordinary, overwhelmed and often traumatized self reps who are struggling to navigate the system. While some judges and counsel are patient and helpful with [self represented litigants], I hear many many stories that are similar to the one told by Sharen Skelley above."


      The reference to Sharen Skelley appears to be a reference to comments as follows:-

      "It has been my experience over the last 7 years of family court hell, that challenging legal authority is not well received, even if you are correct. So while some of these [OPCA liticants] are extreme, there are countless other [self represented litigants] that are treated unfairly by judges because they are on their own."

      The judicial apparatus that "serves" Jersey is resistant to litigants in person when, in reality, the litigant in person model is an appropriate model for a vast number of the types of disputes that might arise between ordinary citizens. It shouldn't cost people the earth, or indeed subject them to disproportionate risks, to obtain satisfaction for their legitimate legal rights.

      Jersey's Magistrates' Court is particularly biased against submissions of the States of Jersey Police despite the requirement for them to show "beyond reasonable doubt" that a crime has been committed. Some of the criminal cases brought by the Police against citizens appear, themselves, to be vexatious. Mr Syvret, for example, omitted to update his address for his driving license. Having said that, brief research of his case appears to suggest that he may have been charged in connection with holding a provisional license rather than a full license.

      It is little wonder, then, why a person might resist the jurisdiction of a court applying OPCA strategies when the forum for a dispute is so heavily weighted against a person seeking a "fair hearing".

      Delete
  2. Wow the story surrounding the extra 42 days in prison.

    Wow wow wow you need to get this story to the national media.

    I have never heard of anyone being sentenced and then whilst in prison, that person is informed the sentence has grown from that given at time?

    ReplyDelete
  3. The funny aspect of the Canadian judgement was that the article was dated the way the Americans date things, month before the day number, so our Law Office numpties had thought this judgement was written 'AFTER' what was written on Cyril's charge sheet! Idiots :)

    ReplyDelete
  4. The judgement today was simply that the appeal failed and the sentence already given would not be reduced - hence Cyril had 5 more days in jail to complete his sentence. The Bailiff said that the written judgement would follow but there was no request for an increased sentence and none was given.
    All very puzzling...

    ReplyDelete
  5. Absolutely unbelievable, they are really gunning for poor Cyril which shows he is doing something right.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Cyril rang me from prison tonight, he had had a visit from the Viscounts representative who was also in court today. This guy said to Cyril that he had some document from court (which he refused to show to Cyril) that said Cyril had to serve an extra FORTY TWO days in prison, and then Poof.... he just disappeared!!!

    Simply can't be true......

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Frankly anon, I didn't believe Cyril at first, I thought it was a wind up. The fact remains though that it is true, I had to ask him five or six times before I was sure!

      Delete
  7. Hi Ian/ Cyril
    Hope all is well with you, alas not poor old Cyril.
    The follwing link will hopefully be of some use to you both.
    Give Cyril our regards, we are thinking of him.
    Eddie & Christina.

    http://exopolitics.blogs.com/breaking_news/2011/05/uk-landmark-case-could-stymie-legal-system-queen-not-valid-monarch.html

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Ed & Chris, yes, we saw that one a few months ago and thanks for the link. No doubt it will help at the Privy Council hearing :)

      Delete
  8. The definition of fascism is Government by corporation, (States of Jersey) is a corporation, how long before we rid this world of this presence? Wakey wakey : )
    Phil

    ReplyDelete
  9. How can someone in 2012 be sent to prison when no reason is given for why the appeal failed resulting in a jail sentence?

    ReplyDelete
  10. http://www.jerseylaw.je/law/display.aspx?url=lawsinforce%2Fconsolidated%2F07%2F07.840.50_ServiceofProcessRules1994_RevisedEdition_1January2011.htm#Toc266368195

    Law surely follows the RULES of law.

    Who is, or isn't playing by the rules?

    Where is the contract of which Cyril is being pursued? Rule 8





    8 Agreement on jurisdiction and service

    Notwithstanding anything contained in Rule 7, the parties to any contract may agree –

    (a) that the Royal Court of Jersey shall have jurisdiction to entertain any action in respect of such contract, and, moreover or in the alternative;

    (b) that service of any summons in any such action may be effected at any place within or out of the jurisdiction on any party or on any person on behalf of any party or in any manner specified or indicated in such contract. Service of any such summons at the place (if any) or on the party or on the person (if any) or in the manner (if any) specified or indicated in the contract shall be deemed to be good and effective service wherever the parties are resident and, if no place or mode or person be so specified or indicated, service out of the jurisdiction of such summons may be ordered.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I would inform no 10. cameron surely he will look into what is happening here.

    ReplyDelete
  12. get a pettition going it worked for mr nightingale

    ReplyDelete
  13. I hope you will be contacting the UK media about this Ian, and someone takes an interest and looks into it!

    ReplyDelete
  14. If contacting the UK Media didnt make a difference for Stuart. It certainly wont make a difference for Cyril....

    Jersey at the moment, is a rule to its self!

    ReplyDelete