Search This Blog

Friday, 2 November 2012

"Cyril The Squirrel Turns Fugitive!"

"Where Did He Go?"


video


Wanted....
"Dead or Alive"
For the Murder of Jersey's Legal System!


As we know, Cyril was supposed to be in court yesterday but was not obliged to attend as he was not given a lawful order by Bridget Shaw to do so.
Shaw didn't know what he meant by "A Lawful Order"....
 
 
This morning Cyril was contacted by police who notified him that there was an arrest order out for him. Cyril rang the officer back stating that he would attend court for the afternoon session, and did in fact attend court. When we got to the court we were informed that Cyril was not booked in to appear, so Cyril waited as I went into the Greffe's office to enquire if there was any magistrate in the court that afternoon. I was told by the lady on reception that no magistrate was present at that time.
 
Myself and Cyril already suspected some shenanigans and the news that no magistrate was in the building came as no surprise. I explained to the lady about the case and she insisted  there was no one to hear it, this confirmed our suspicions that Cyril was being duped into appearing to enable him to be locked up for the weekend at the police station. I thanked the lady for her assistance and scarpered....
Cyril and I walked off up the road where we happened upon "a lowly pipe fitter" Rico Sorda, who almost fell over with laughter as we explained the debacle. At that point Rico spotted a number of men in white shirts with disgruntled faces who were pointing to where we were stood. I turned around to speak to Cyril and he was gone!!! I looked up, and my round little buddy was almost out of sight, clothes bag in tow.
 
 
Shortly after on my drive through town, I confess, I have never seen so many police cars in the space of three minutes, I counted seven in all. Were they looking for that elusive squirrel? It now appears that Cyril has turned fugitive, and all because of the criminality of Captain Shaw and her crew. All myself and Cyril have ever done is fought the system peacefully and lawfully, and having done so, we have been criminalized by a wretched Oligarchy whose crimes we could never match. Bridget Shaw is going to have some serious explaining to do, and with a commercial lien hanging over her!
 
Will the squirrel resurface on Monday?










43 comments:

  1. I did witness this with my own eyes and yes pissed myself laughing. Just when I thought I had seen it all. A two legged squirrel running for dear life up Devonshire Place pursued by two bouncers lol....

    ReplyDelete
  2. "I turned around to speak to Cyril and he was gone!!! I looked up and my round little buddy was almost out of sight, clothes bag in tow."

    Priceless.

    I have to admit to being somewhat perplexed by the references to the common law / statute law and commercial entities but there is no doubt, in modern society, that there exists a quasi-contract between citizen and state founded on "mutual trust and confidence". A state ruled by force is more vulnerable than one ruled by consent. The former is liable to civil disobedience and general breakdown of society whereas the latter, people will fight for. If I recall, the Squirrel's dispute related to proportionality did it not?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi anon,

      Tomorrow i will let you in on a little government secret about contracts, and how they gain authority over us!

      Delete
    2. There is a contract between the people and government but it has nothing to do with "mutual trust and confidence". The contract is the trust that was created from our record of live birth via the government deceiving our parents into signing us up for a birth certificate, which we are the trustee's of, and not the beneficiaries.

      Along with that birth certificate is another contract we unknowingly entered into thinking it was just the normal thing to do, this really is "The Great Deception". This was us submitting an application for registration in the form of a National Insurance Number, this little treasure is what the government use against us. This ties us to being government employees (although they will never admit this), and as a consequence, we are subject to their rules and regulations as our application was a voluntary act!!!

      However, there is nothing to stop us from sending these documents right back to them and closing our account, that option is always within our mandate :)

      Delete
    3. Yes, you can analyse the relationship between citizen and state in terms of contracts: a contract being a bilateral relationship between persons with rights and obligations subsisting on both sides.

      I am not sure that the birth certificate is, in itself, a contractual document; though it is, I suppose, evidence of a form of contract and evidence that may be used in support of claims made under other citizen/state contracts as in social security or national insurance claims.

      Most citizen/state "contracts", though, are based around "residence". For example, a "non-resident", locally born person is not liable to pay tax in Jersey while a resident, Australian born person is liable to pay tax. Technically, a person becomes liable to the citizen/state constitutional structure when he or she "submits" to the jurisdiction in some way: by, for example, living in the Island or agreeing that the laws of the Island should apply in any foreign agreement.

      In saying this, it is clearly arguable whether a person born in Jersey, and in consequence, is resident in Jersey is "submitting" to the jurisdiction but this might be an example of a legal fiction: an assumption. My understanding is that the Squirrel is simply challenging this assumption, and others as to the nature of law that applies and the standing of those who have purported to make that law dating back to some point in the past.

      Interestingly, while researching this post, I stumbled upon the The British Constitution Group which appears to speak in very much the same terms as you, treating the birth certificate as a broad equivalent to a certificate of incorporation for a legal company. And it's quite an interesting argument which I am going to think on; the concept that the maintenance of the relationship between the actual person and the legal person - "the person at law" - is a relationship maintained by force.

      Delete
    4. Roger Hayes is a class act, and would back up every presumption that I have made about my very limited knowledge and perception of the bondage we have been enslaved by....Go check out Robert Menard for a little enlightenment :)

      Delete
    5. The birth certificate is a Trust, as well you know....

      Delete
    6. What concerns me, in reviewing The British Constitution Group website, is that there seem to be trials relating to arguments of the nature being held in secret. Why secret?

      Perhaps the biggest problem I am having with the argument at the moment though, is how it can be reconciled with other aspects of the law. For example, if the state is acting without power by passing a statute in relation to taxation or parking charges / fines; how can it assert criminal liability to genuinely repugnant crimes that perhaps only exist based on the outlook of those that passed the statute?

      For example, the various statutes relating to terrorism; offences against the person; sexual offences.

      Are we viewing the 10 commandments or the Bible as the real source of law and relevant case and statutory law as an interpretation of the "fundamental" laws?

      Delete
    7. The State can pass whatever "Law" it likes! Who are they to determine that it applies to us? Statutes are not laws, again, as you well know, Statutes can only be given the force of law through our consent to their lawfulness, if we don't consent, then they don't apply!!!

      And what has the bible got to do with any manner in which we live our lives today? We are free to think, and be, if we so choose....

      Delete
    8. I don't necessarily disagree with your comments, in context, but I question how anybody can be held accountable for anything under "the Law" if your approach to the law is correct.

      I could understand making a distinction between, say, malicious acts or acts equating to gross negligence; and of the enforcement of person-to-person liabilities but what you appear to be saying and what the BC Group appears to be saying is that the "Rule of Law" simply does not apply.

      Delete
    9. "I don't necessarily disagree with your comments, in context, but I question how anybody can be held accountable for anything under "the Law" if your approach to the law is correct."


      Go defy them, and see the results for yourself! They Fcuking lie, lie right in your face, then back their lies up "at the barrel of a gun"....


      What's not to see???

      Delete
    10. I know they lie. I know they lie right to your face. Let us just say that corruption in Jersey is provable beyond reasonable doubt.

      But I wonder whether the Squirrel's position is "the state is failing to meet its obligations to me as a citizen and as a consequence, I am entitled to suspend my compliance with my obligations to the state" and "the Rule of Law does not apply because the judiciary does not enforce it, or if it does it does not enforce it consistently with the consequence that I can ignore it for practical purposes"; rather than being question of whether he is ameinable to the Rule of Law at all.

      Delete
    11. Matthews? No.

      Delete
    12. D'ya know what I think? I think your trying to take the piss whilst trying to influence the real public against myself and the squirrel.

      I know that you know exactly what myself and Cyril are banging on about, and you have been asigned to put the public's mind at rest with regard to our escapades, well you ain't gonna win!!!

      You are far to smart to not comprehend what I have been saying, and you are certainly going to end up doing your pay-masters more damage than they paid you for!!! This conversation is over....Period....Troll away my friend, but not off our backs :)

      Delete
    13. Like I said earlier, "This conversation is over" so don't send anymore 'well please see my side of things comments' as they are not getting posted....Nighty Nite my little "Gov T"

      Delete
  3. Cyril's dispute has always, as has mine, been about proportionality. We, the creators of all wealth and good things, are palmed off with the scraps from the elite table. They attempt to charge us to park on our own property, and get us to pay through the nose for what we already have free and undeniable access to.

    Quasi "almost, but not quite" is a swear word in Jersey, that is why 'alleged' magistrate Shaw did not 'understand' what it meant last week. "I don't know what you mean"....

    All we are looking for is some small amount of equality amongst our fellow man, unfortunately, the worlds 13 elite bloodlines don't wish the same for us!

    Sadly, they still cannot see that we are all equal under the law, and God....

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "When no one begs....All are equal."

      Delete
  4. The Squirrel's got an interesting point of view; but I wonder what his view of the tragedy of the commons might be? Arguably, people abuse property held in common requiring them to agree certain principles of sharing between them.

    This is the role that government ought to play: the legislature represents those with interests in common (the people); the executive performs the management role; while the courts regulate the relationship between the people and the executive aside from regulating person-to-person relationships.

    The fundamental problem, as I understand from your comment, is that the Courts in Jersey are unduly harsh when prosecuting citizens for so-called strict liability offences (offences that the prosecution does not need to show "intent" for) while unduly lenient when applying the laws against "their own".

    Interestingly, this proportionality issue appeared to crop up in Lenny Harper's affidavit on one of the other blogs: the idea that some crimes are prosecuted while others are not, depending on the relationship of the "criminal" to the State; some complaints are investigated, some are not. In a more anonymous society it is easier to apply an objective test of proportionality in relation to individuals that are (relatively) unknown to each other. In a closer society it is much harder to apply and the scope for corruption is much greater. The question is, how to we fix this problem?

    ReplyDelete
  5. Their courts are strict liability courts, we cannot win, we are in their jurisdiction, which ever they choose at any given moment. Our remedy lies in civil actions and commercial liens against our oppressors. If they cannot be fair, then neither should we be. They have no control over commercial liens, as liens are not regulated by the courts and do not need a Notary Public to execute....

    ReplyDelete
  6. Hmm, I think I know where Squirrel's coming from now. He's not disputing the "debt" in respect of parking; he's withholding subject to the administrations' compliance with its obligations, yes?

    ReplyDelete
  7. Debt? There is no debt! That is what the squirrel is against....Imagine slaping a ticket on King Birt's motor when parked on his own driveway, then dragging him through an alleged judicial process for having the audacity to park his motor on his own private driveway!!!

    ReplyDelete
  8. It's on his own driveway? Literally?

    ReplyDelete
  9. Dude!!! That was an example! But, every public road and highway 'IS' our own driveway!!!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "The sea is Lord over a thousand streams....Only because it stays below them."

      Delete
  10. Lol. It comes back to this resource issue really; somebody has to manage the road or public highway and keep it in good order. I presume Squirrel pays his taxes, so the issue is whether he ought to be penalised for parking in an area presumably designated as being chargeable without paying the charge.

    Kind of reminds me of that Gary Lineker advert where he starts helping himself to your bag of crisps: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bfsDN4glOdU

    Arguably, equality is either "nobody pays" or "everybody pays"; or perhaps "everybody pays what they can afford" - which is probably only just becoming a practical propositions, what with technology.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Err, nope, actually! The Squirrel refuses to pay taxes anymore, as do I. Cyril has paid in faithfully for 35 years and is now given £17 a week to feed, clothe, and pay his bills and survive on....It would take him to live a thousand years just to recouparate what he has already payed in!!! That's the scam....

    ReplyDelete
  12. That's an interesting point you raise there; over what time frame should the government account to its citizens? Maybe governments should be held to 2 to 5 year budgets.

    ReplyDelete
  13. The time frame government should account to it's citizens is literally....by the second....We owe these greedy butchers nothing, they owe the people EVERYTHING!!!

    ReplyDelete
  14. Are you sure we are all citizens? Person with a citizen ship? Member of a political community country or city?

    I don't get the impression Cyril subscribes himself as a member>


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. You brought up citizens in the last comment, not I.

      It was our parents that were duped into our being citizens as you well know! I'm going home....Nighty Nite :)

      "Pay for nothing....Go to court....Fuck em."

      Delete
  15. People are struggling with the concept that we are all equal and have the right of use of all that is creation as long as consent is given. As for nature full respect must be given (as American Indians preach). Our position in creation is caretaker with the write to experience for the purpose of gaining understanding what it is to be a physical being on a physical world interacting with all that "IS". As for the man made law PooP and a waste of energy. Those who force their opinions on others will suffer the own choices. We are FREE within the confines of RESPECT FOR ALL EXISTANCE. LOVE to ALL : )
    Phil

    ReplyDelete
  16. Treat the earth well. It was not given to you by your parents, it was loaned to you by your children. We do not inherit the Earth from our Ancestors, we borrow it from our Children.
    Ancient Indian Proverb


    Humankind has not woven the web of life.
    We are but one thread within it.
    Whatever we do to the web, we do to ourselves.
    All things are bound together.
    All things connect.
    Chief Seattle, 1854


    If the white man wants to live in peace with the Indian, he can live in peace...
    Treat all men alike. Give them all the
    same law. Give them all an even chance
    to live and grow. All men were made by
    the same Great Spirit Chief.
    They are all brothers. The Earth is the mother of all people, and all people should have equal rights upon it....
    Let me be a free man, free to travel,
    free to stop, free to work, free to trade where I choose my own teachers, free to follow the religion of my fathers, free to think and talk and act for myself, and I will obey every law, or submit to the penalty.
    Heinmot Tooyalaket (Chief Joseph), Nez Perce Leader

    ReplyDelete
  17. You know Ive always thought "How can a finite being have any claim on any part of the world?" If anything the land owns them. The planet and all its pathways roads rivers seas mountains and oceans belong to mother earth and have no price attached to them. We as a race upon the earth have consistently been shown to take without giving back and in some ways we all deserve the earth to be fighting back. So do "Your!" Storms, Earthquakes, and other natural disasters, in the hope that we as a species will one day learn that the earth is not ours to own, The Kings & Queens, emperors, Land owning lords who have rented out parts of what they claim are their estates, Should have it all taken from them and the people should have their rightful respect and use of mother earths bounty.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Sorry but I cannot see what is so funny about having an arrest warrant out for a person.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The funny bit is the fact that the "Person" doesn't really exist, it is a legal fiction dreamed up by government thugs to control, manipulate, and fleece us at every opportunity :)

      Delete
  19. If a company issue an arrest warrent with no Judge signing it, no authority behing the contempt of company who authorised it, as I see it the company is trapped in the headlights, playing bluff with the aid of the police.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Marc Stevens describes Law as "An opinion at the barrel of a gun".

      Delete
    2. The "opinion" being that of the Law Society, and "the barrel of a gun" being the threat of the use of force by the police!

      Delete
    3. They have arranged society over the last 250 years (really 5,000 years) so that everything is geared for them to win, we are left with just the few rebels you see before you!

      What they forgot however, is the most decisive factor of their entire plan for control and the New World Order domination...."The biggest mistake of mankind, is trying to remove from one’s mind, something that is embedded in the heart."

      Delete
    4. You don't have to explain the opinion at the barrel of a gun. The judiciary wield a great deal of power despite their apparent susceptibility to undue pressure.

      Delete
    5. I feel it right to explain for the benefit of our many new readers of late, who have no real idea of the criminality and deception going on around them on an hourly basis....Enjoyed your comment though :)

      Delete