Search This Blog

Sunday, 9 December 2012

"Cheated Out Of A Fair Trial - The Legacy Of The Jersey Lawyer"

"Lying Lawyers & Ju-Rat Employers"

 
So, just exactly where am I going with this headline? To Court of course :)
 
As many of you are aware from the recent postings about Cyril, we have spent some considerable time preparing for Cyril's 'alleged' appeal.
 
Now, when 'Acting' as a 'litigant in person' in a trial or appeal, to put forward a successful and competent argument for your defence, the first thing you need is too know the rules! The second thing you need is to be in a Courtroom anywhere else in the world, apart from Jersey :) Failing the second point, you really do need to know the rules. These rules are called "The Rules of Procedure". They are called this because there are set rules on how to proceed in the Magistrates Court, and the Royal Court. There are also rules of procedure for appeals to the Royal Court from the Magistrates Court, it is those rules of procedure that we required.
Remember....Gripes go up!
 
So, on the back of this main ingredient, we set about trying to find out the rules. This proved to be a rather arduous task as no one within the Jersey Judiciary seemed to want to tell us the rules! Why not? The answer is simple, they didn't want the people to find out the true criminality that goes on within the Jersey Justice System.
 
Cyril had enquired about these rules with the Greffes department at the Royal Court, as had I on more than one occasion. Eventually I was able to organise a meeting with one of the members of the Greffe, a certain Mr Matthews who brought along a rather rude female sidekick. During this meeting I was advised that there was no official, or unofficial translation of the Loi 1864 Reglant La Procedure Criminelle in existence, which you will see at the link below, is written in French.
 
 
 
The States of Jersey bring their criminal cases under the
LOI (1864) REGLANT LA PROCEDURE CRIMINELLE.
 
The question now becomes, if you cannot read French/Norman French, how do you read the rules of procedure? Simple, you don't....
 
Well that sounds fair doesn't it? But it gets much worse.
 
During this meeting I was informed that there were books in the library that I could look at to find out what I needed to know. I got the rude sidekick to write down exactly what I needed to look for as it would save the head librarian a lot of time and hassle. Armed with the correct information I spent the next hour in the company of the head librarian, who was most helpful. She ran round like a blue arsed fly trying to find the information that I required, but frustratingly, in vain. The rude sidekick had given me the wrong information.
 
 
Eventually, Cyril's Court date was nearing and he received a bundle from the Judicial Greffe of the Royal Court with many papers in it. They knew we had been asking for the "Rules of Procedure" and they had to send us something, so they sent the "Rules of Procedure" in English!!!
 
REMEMBER THOSE?
The ones that there is no official, or unofficial copy of, written in English!
 
However, and in true Jersey fashion, they had sent us the "Rules of Procedure" for cases sent up from the Magistrates Court to the Royal Court for trial!!! These were of no use to Cyril whatsoever as these rules were not the "Rules of Procedure" governing appeals from verdicts given in the Magistrates Court.
 
Readers who have been paying attention to Cyril and myself, and our little peregrinations into Legal Land, have to ask themselves this, why will the Royal Court Greffe not provide us with a copy of the correct "Rules of Procedure" for Cyril's appeal?
 
Could it possibly be the fact that we are able to read and decipher their Legalese properly?
 
Having spent about thirty seconds reading these rules, we had realised that they were absolutely useless for Cyril's appeal, but these rules had confirmed a suspicion that I had had for many many years, and that suspicion has now formed the entire basis for this particular Blog posting :)
 
When I was in prison from 1996 to 1998 over the O'bar Incident, there were quite a number of people who were up on drugs charges of various sorts, but all had one thing in common with each other, none of them were allowed a jury trial, all had to be tried by a Judge and (Santa's little helpers) Ju-Rats. I couldn't get my head around this and asked them who had told them this? Every single one of them replied that this information had come from their own lawyers.
 
 
As I had recently discovered at the time, Jersey's Royal Court Greffe (the Greffier being Ian Le Marquand) were doctoring peoples trial tapes before their Royal Court appeals, and for the obvious reason. Were the lawyers at it as well? Very easy isn't it, in a closed and corrupt system, to doctor ones trial tapes and then put them before a bent judge and (two or more) servile to the system, Ju-Rats!
 
How much easier can it get to "engineer" the dismissal of a trial or appeal?
 
So what was it that was contained in the "Rules of Procedure" that we were given, governing cases sent up from the Magistrates Court for trial, that set me off on this posting this evening?
 
It was simply this extract below from the very first page of these "Rules of Procedure".
 
 
ARTICLE 1
 
"Every person brought before the Royal Court by virtue of a remand by the Magistrate's Court on a charge of crime or misdemeanour shall be tried: either at one of the Assizes hereinafter constituted, by the Court assisted by a jury composed of twelve persons selected in the manner hereinafter prescribed; or by the Inferior Number of the Court, sitting without a jury."
 
 
Well wadda ya think of that? Nothing I bet. The punch comes in the second half below.
 
 
"The accused shall 'in every case have the option of electing to be tried with the aid of a jury'. If he does not elect to be tried thus, the Court shall decide, when he appears before it, having regard to the nature and gravity of the case, and having heard the conclusions of the Public Prosecutor, in what manner the trial shall be conducted."
 
 
 
 
We can firmly deduce from this statement that it is up to the individual to decide whether or not he or she wants to be tried by a jury of his/her peers!
 
That is of course, providing that the individual being tried is 'actually aware' of the fact that this is the option open to them when appearing for trial!!! 
 
If a defendants lawyer tells them that they are not allowed, or entitled to a jury trial, what the hell else are they going to believe is the case? By the same token, if they are 'litigants in person' and cannot read French, how are they going to know they are lawfully entitled to a jury?
 
Of course, the Jersey Judiciary cannot be held accountable for this disgusting treachery as they will simply use the MAXIM: "Ignorance of the Law is no excuse".
 
The remedy is out there and you couldn't be bothered looking for it!
 
However, I don't think that this excuse is going to cut the mustard when those on the International stage start looking into the Jersey Justice System....
 
 
What can be acted on though, is the blatant deception used by Jersey Lawyers to keep this information from their clients, whether they be legal aid re-presented, or privately!
 
One of the few great bonuses of Cyril the Squirrel being in prison at this time, is that everyone in the prison is now aware of this factor, and yes, you can bet your bottom dollar that there are some very angry prisoners at HMP La Moye this week. By the same token, you can also bet that many Jersey lawyers are going to be soiling their undercrackers this Christmas :)
 
I will leave you all with a copy of the whole of the "Rules of Procedure" in this case. Please note how very poorly the Royal Court Greffe have photocopied these rules, and also note in these rules, just who they are allowed to include or omit from jury service? It reads like the Establishment can pick and choose exactly who they want to serve on a jury!!!
For those cheated into a Judge & Ju-Rat trial, you now have remedy....
 
 
Please click on the pic's below to 'try' and read them....PMSL
 
 
"Rules of Procedure"
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 


And please sign the petition below to help rid the Isle of Jersey of these disgusting crooks.

 
 
 
 
 

10 comments:

  1. Does this mean Stuart could have had a Jury sitting on his cases?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Stuart wasn't tried in the Royal Court, that was the venue for his appeal. He should have been furnished with the Rules of Procedure though....

      Delete
  2. Nice one Ian and Squirrel : )
    Phil

    ReplyDelete
  3. A helpful article.

    ReplyDelete
  4. You are confusing criminal and statutory offenses. Historically offences in Jersey have been divided into two separate classes: common law offences, called "crimes" and "délits" (the latter being less serious in nature) and statutory offences called "contraventions". Two cases, namely Att.Gen. v Pennington and Att.Gen. v Weston are binding authority that an accused has no right to trial by jury on committal to the Royal Court, where charged with a statutory offence.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. We don't have commom law in Jersey, we have customary law as many oligarch seem to spout when it suits their needs. We don't even have Queen's bench either! No surprises there. If contraventions are not a crime, what are we doing in court over them? Could it be called extortion? I have heard Bridget Shaw, on a number of occasions, declare that statutes are crimes. Pennington and Weston cases are binding authority? Now what exactly does that mean? Binding Authority! Aaah yes, the arbitrary opinionated whim of a lunatic, and at the barrel of a gun!!! However any of this horseshit is dressed up, it is still horseshit.

      Delete
    2. "Every person brought before the Royal Court by virtue of a remand by the Magistrate's Court on a charge of crime or misdemeanour shall be tried:"

      A "person" (legal fiction) can only be Acted against in commerce (another legal fiction) and with consent. Therefore, how can something not real, commit a crime, a be subjected to a real process?

      The two cops who perjured themselves at Cyril's trial, how does that work? Perjury is a common....err....customary law crime! Did the Attorney General fail to prosecute them because they stated that they were persons?

      Let us face facts anon, there is 'no law' in Jersey, or much of the rest of the world now, for that matter. The law of the land is abused so much now to protect private corporations (legal fictions) that the human race is almost fu*kin finished. The wankers responsible for this are the law societies and their members....

      I would like to leave you with a quote from Robert Arthur Menard, that explains my views beautifully....


      "Those with [De Facto] power will not let it go without a fight. And if it comes down to it, they will first seek to use the law, then abuse it, then change it, then disregard it entirely. Our strategy must be to always and only embrace the law. That is what will save us when they abandon it entirely."
      Robert Menard

      Delete
    3. For those of you who do not know what De facto means, it means illegal or illegitimate. De jure meaning rightful, legitimate, just, or constitutional.

      Is it any wonder we don't have a De jure Government, or Courts in Jersey?

      Just a cesspool of maggots unlawfully exercising their arbitrary commands and demands for their own gain and profit.

      Delete
  5. What terrible quality that photocopy is. They are obviously trying their best to annoy and hassle you.

    Hope Squirrel is bearing up. Is there anything I can send to help.

    ahimisa

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. A bit of love and kind thought should do it for the squirrel Ahimsa :)

      The only other real thing of any consequence is a few bob as most things are prohibited from being taken in to prisoners these days. You would need to phone the prison to check on their "rules" on that as well :(

      Delete