Search This Blog

Monday, 5 November 2012

"Pirate Captain Shaw Plunders Cyril The Squirrel's Nuts!"

"Queen of Pirates Pillages and Plunders
From The Poop Deck!"
 
 
 
Cyril, this morning, was finally press ganged and dragged aboard
Privateer (government-sponsored pirate) Bridget Shaw's Citizen-ship of Commerce.
 
Cyril had only been in storage a matter of a few hours when he was unpacked and taken on board in preparation for the "rigging" ceremony!
 
 
Again, I went to the headland to watch the debacle, and again I was accosted by a Galley slave who came running down the gang plank toward me. Captain Shaw demanding that I was relieved of my booty (mobile phone) or I would not be permitted to watch her ship on manoeuvres....
 
I could do little but watch from dry land, and take notes as Captain Shaw again started to bark non-orders at her imaginary friend MR CYRIL VIBERT. It really shivers me timbers to see a veteran pirate trying to converse with something that be dead, and that only be living in the world of fiction beyond the deep blue yonder. She might just as well have had a convo with Davey Jones Locker?
 
 
It was good to see that 'slick' O'Donnell had jumped aboard for the "rigging" ceremony, and I had to marvel at the way he went about crafting his Hempen Halter (noose for hanging) as The Captain was preparing to set sail.
 
She sat on the Poop deck and gave the order to weigh anchor and hoist the mizzen! It was clear from the Captain's kipper that they were only embarking on a short voyage, perhaps once around the bay.
 
 
"Ship's Log"
 
 
They set sail at 3.30pm (pirate time) no sooner had they got out of port when DeJa Vu set in. Bridget again, went about her trite "MR CYRIL VIBERT" routine, in the same vain attempt to get Cyril to accept the courts jurisdiction, and again, the squirrel was having none of it.
 
Next we went through the "what is your address" routine, of course, I already knew Cyril's answer, "addresses are for corporations madam".
 
Then finally we had the last attempt for Captain Shaw to create any joinder between the man, and the legal fiction person. She asked, "what is your date of birth?" Cyril replied, "I don't know ma-am, I was way to young to remember".
 
Captain Shaw then asked Cyril if he wanted some assistance with the "rigging" ceremony? Cyril just smiled as he knew he was being offered the Ship's Parrot (court lawyer).
 
 
Having gotten the niceties out of the way, Shaw then started the charges process. It began with another fine dollop of contempt of court (3 now) which Cyril clearly didn't "understand". Neither did he "understand" the bit about (plea's) stating that he did not plea in Star Chambers! He also said that there was no contempt as there was no lawful order from the court, Captain Shaw, having previously refused to give a lawful order for his attendance aboard her boat....Why would the Captain not issue an order aboard her own ship? Have a think about it peeps :) Let us see if anyone can come up with the answer?

Shaw then put in a 'not guilty' plea on Cyril's behalf, was she re-presenting Cyril? Was she making a judicial determination that Cyril was not guilty of the charge? She had no right to enter a plea for the squirrel without his consent, but when did that ever stop her?



"Taking The Convictions On Board"

Le Squirrel had two counts of contempt to answer to, along with seven non-parking ticket tick-et fines. On the two contempt charges, Captain Shaw simply stated to the Court,
"I find you guilty"....Cyril just pissed his sailors pants laughing and shook his head. Shaw then proclaimed that she found him guilty of the seven non-parking tick-et tickets also!!!
 
 No wonder the voyage was a once only around the bay affair! LOL.
 
 So, that was the adjudication process (1 minute) out of the way, now for the meaty stuff....
Was Cyril to be tied to the main mast and flogged, or would he have to walk the plank?
 
 
That little process didn't take to long either!!! Captain & Banker Shaw imprisoned Cyril for 7 days for each contempt, plus £500 costs for each contempt, and £70 a ticket for 7 non-parking infraction tick-et's.
 
Total Plunder Registered On Sailing Trip £1,490 plus two weeks clapped in irons in the hold!
 
Naturally....Cyril waived those benefits :)
 
 
 
However, in Maritime Admiralty Law there is an appeals process, even if your Cyril Vibert....
 
Cyril demanded bail pending appeal since he hadn't even had a trial!!!
What came next, took even me back somewhat....
 
Captain Shaw said (not verbatim) that she could grant bail pending appeal if there was a reasonable chance of an appeal succeeding. She then asked
"what are your grounds for appeal?"
Cyril replied "You committing fraud on the court".
 
Captain Shaw then stated that Cyril had very little chance of winning his appeal (no shit Bridget!), and remanded him in custody!!!
 
She also proclaimed that, upon his release, Cyril should pay his plunder surcharge off at £30 per week. Cyril only gets £17 a week from Social Security to pay all his bills, and feed and clothe himself. He is also a month behind with the rent as he has not yet mastered the art of eating and digesting grass, and therefore has had to break into the rent for food and electricity over the last five months, hence his rent arrears. It is hard to cook with candles, I know!
 
Happy Sailings on the Ship of Commerce
 
 
 
Squirrel's Nuts....OUCH!!!
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

20 comments:

  1. The sentence on Cyril would appear to be a case of, setting an example to those who follow Cyrils adventures into the world of commerce.

    You have to wonder if Cyrils was a Falle rather than a Vibert would law would work in his favour?



    As it appears today the

    ReplyDelete
  2. Well that will give Cyril time to work on his appeals, I am sure that there was some errors in there Ian; get a written judgement and transcript and let's get to work.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. "Transcript!!!"

      After the last court case where they doctored his trial tapes before his appeal!!!

      Those "Transcripts" ???

      Delete
    2. Yup, I am sure they would be mighty helpful :) PMSL

      Delete
  3. "Well that will give Cyril time to work on his appeals, I am sure that there was some errors in there Ian; get a written judgement and transcript and let's get to work."

    Ian and Darius

    Work together.

    This is how it should be done. No lone battles. This is your bag. Put your minds together and take them on. The opposition always work together hence they always get their desired result.

    rs

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Nothing we can do at the minute Rico as Cyril is the only one who can apply for the recordings and paperwork.

      Delete
  4. How does Cyril manage to run a car, to clock up the parking tickets, on £17 a week?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Most of these parking tickets where for parking tickets dished out whilst he was in court! There is nowhere to park a van that would have allowed to park for longer than 2 hours as they always keep Cyril till last as they don't want anyone else to hear what he has to say in court....

      Delete
  5. Did Cyril or anyone ask for his copy of the court recording tape?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. They refused to hand over a copy of the tapes for Cyril's last case

      Delete
  6. On the positive side, Cyril will be on 3square a day, central heating,so maybe he will be able to focus on his forthcoming plans, I am sure he has one.

    ReplyDelete
  7. This gets more shocking every day!! Poor Cyril, I will pop up to La Moye and put what I can on account for him so at least he can have a few treats whilst he is there. I think he has really got Shaw spitting feathers now, and she does not like being made a mockery of, the old cow. Well done to both you Ian, and the little squirrel, I should imagine Shaw will be sitting tonight with her little effigies of you both and a big box of pins :-)
    Donna x

    ReplyDelete
  8. I have just spoken with Cyril, he is fine and says hello to all. He is using his free time to deconstruct the judgement bailhache made against him. He is also composing far reaching complaints against the Jersey judiciary and the cop who refused to take a complaint from him about Shaw.

    He also informs me that he put a bail application in to the Royal Court on monday afternoon, so far it appears that he is being ignored. If you remember, Stuart was in court the very next morning for his bail hearing and released the same day, which should be the case if bail is an option.

    I guess the squirrel is not worthy....

    ReplyDelete
  9. Hi Ian, well I now know what you guys are up against and how deep you are getting under the skin of the ptb! As an animal lover I was very worried about the little squirrel so I popped up to La Moye at lunchtime to put a few quid on account for him, to enable him to restock his nuts and warm him in preparation for the frosty reception I imagine He is getting in there.A very sweet female prison employee asked if she could help, I told her that I wanted to put some money on account for a prisoner. She then asked me to put the money in the drop box as she couldn't take it from my hand. I did so, wondering if she really thought I was going to drag her size 14 frame through the 8inch slot, but heyho rules are rules. Then she asked me for photo ID. I said I didn't have any, she said I must show passport or drivers licence. I then explained that I knew who I was and what I looked like so I felt no need to carry these things. I then said I knew Cyril was inside as I had read it on the blog last night and wanted to help him. Then things changed, she spoke to neanderthal man behind her who bristled to the window, only to tell me I couldn't put money for Cyril anonymously as I might be money laundering, apparently this is a direct order from the prison govenor!! PMSL. Obviously things changed as soon as i mentioned reading about Cyril.It appears that looking at me, this prison muscleman saw a money laundress, whereas when I look in the mirror I see a 5ft 3in hippy. As I left I realised how lucky it was that I hadn't told them that I don't own a passport, because coupled with the fact that I was trying to pay in cash they would have probably arrested me on terrorism charges!!! Don't worry little squirrel, we will get the cash to you somehow, keep safe. Donna x

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Donna, have just spoken with Cyril and he is ok for money as another friend dropped some up to him yesterday, they had a port-pass and a drivers license handy, along with three credit card and a library membership!!!

      He said to say that he is extremely touched by your very kind offer, and is most grateful for your thoughts :)

      They have finally sorted out his application for bail pending appeal, which will be heard tomorrow morning at 10.00am and dismissed at 10.02am :)

      Delete
  10. I see you freeman theory is working well.

    ReplyDelete
  11. What freeman theory is that anon?
    I have never claimed any such thing.
    In court today the prosecution made the same foundless allegations
    which I rebutted with gusto.

    Lets get it straight,I am a man in a common law jurisdiction who has inalienable rights, nothing more.

    Oh and by the way, I'm free!

    cyril

    ReplyDelete
  12. Freeman Theory, as described in http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Freeman_on_the_land.

    The Canadian case of Meads v Meads 2012 ABQB 571 is an important case to read, if only to consolidate your understanding of the common law and your inalienable rights. It is also a good case to read as it serves as an example of the kind of balanced judgment that a litigant ought to be able to expect from a court of law.

    At paragraph 646, the judge says "OPCA litigants mask their potential real disputes in a bog of cryptic documentation, spurious argument, irrelevant legal maxims, and stereotyped and caricatured court conduct. A judge can very much benefit from the opposing party's understanding of what tangible legal issues may lay buried in that morass. Indeed, once those spurious OPCA characteristics and components are stripped away, it is the duty of the Court to fairly adjudicate the legitimate issues that remain."

    Whereas, at paragraph 736, the judge says "In our discussions on June 8 [Mr Meads] raised several issues in relation to matrimonial property division, spousal support, and child support that I believe are potentially valid. I look forward to assisting him and Ms. Meads to settle or, if necessary, take those issues to trial in a cost and time effective manner. While I am not his 'Fiduciary-Trustee-Liable Position with the highest and with the greatest-level for the care', I am the Case Management Justice on this matter, and I intend to see that both his and Ms. Meads' legal rights are protected and explored in the resolution of this dispute."

    A benevolent academic.

    ReplyDelete
  13. A man can opt out of a government system; it is a right under the United Nations Covenant on Civil and Political rights. Why do you think they do not try to tax the rich?

    However, a true libertarian, one who abides by the maxim 'and it harms none do what thou will', will never come into conflict with the law simply because he will act as a reasonable man, ANY law may be transgressed, whenever it is reasonable to do so.

    It will ultimately never be necessary to argue the reasonableness or otherwise of your actions, because the agents of the State will invariably break the law themselves, thus nullifying the case against you.

    Fortunately we do not live in the United States, under a two party dictatorship which has given itself the power to detain without charge indefinitely, to torture, or to execute, any US citizen anywhere in the world or any person within the geographic territory it calls its own with a simple 'presidential order'.

    It is hardly surprising that so many Americans have decided they no longer wish to be part of such a regime.

    ReplyDelete
  14. "Why do you think they do not try to tax the rich?". Tax offices do not attack the rich because the legal risks of doing so are considerable unless the relevant tax officers are certain of a successful outcome. Same goes for regulators of all kinds. Even the Jersey Financial Services Commission tend to go after the smaller entities rather than investigating the activities of larger entities such as HSBC, exposed recently, and Lloyds TSB which I recall was exposed on national television some time ago. It is a matter of "equality of arms", or rather the "inequality of arms" which determines whether a person is to be the target of regulatory activity.

    I have been giving the whole Freeman of the land "psuedo-legal" argument some thought recently. It is easy to deride the movement but it does raise some interesting questions and responses. For example, the distinction made by "Freeman Theorists" between a person as a legal entity and a person as a physical entity appears to have been described and dismissed, judicially, as nonsense. This is probably due to the lack of coherent research and presentation and, of course, relationship of the claimant's proposition to orthodox thinking.

    Many systems of law already allow a person to create a split "personality" under the law. For example, the limited liability company or partnership is a mode through which a person can create a container of liabilities the nature of which are limited. You can contract with third parties, as an agent of a limited liability company, with significant protection against being held personally liable for the debts generated. A trust may operate as a form of split personality as well, distinguishing assets from the beneficiary. A protective trust is one that severs the rightful receipt of proceeds of a trust to discretionary receipt, thereby protecting a trust's assets and the beneficiary's receipt of them from the beneficiary's liabilities. Jersey's foundation law is, I understand, a mechanism for "incorporating" assets independently of there being a natural person that "owns" the assets either directly or indirectly.

    As a "finance centre" Jersey is at the forefront of assisting people to separate and "compartmentalize" their "personalities". Desastre law itself allows a separation of person and liabilities.

    In R v Lindsay 2008 BCPC 203 at paragraph 38, Judge Sinclair said "The argument that some men (or women) can opt out of the Act by choosing not to be “person” or by renouncing their “personhood”, while at the same time being at liberty to use public parks, highways, buildings, airports, healthcare, and everything else the Province and the Country provide, without paying their fair share of taxes, is untenable."

    I agree. But if, "as a freeman", you busily engaged in a barter economy trading chickens for potatoes, in the absence of express provision to value "money's worth" for the purposes of taxation, your engagement with statute law is significantly reduced simply because the conditions for statute law to apply have not been fulfilled.

    If you don't drive a car on the public highway or use the public highway, Road Traffic Law is not engaged. In most cases, with the exception perhaps of property taxes and parochial rates, a "man" opts in to a system of government simply by interacting with its facilities.

    If you want to characterize statute law in contract terms, arguably, the State (as a "body corporate") has simply made certain activities within the sphere of its control subject to an implied license (contracts can be entered into tacitly).


    ReplyDelete