Search This Blog

Wednesday, 5 December 2012

"When Musings Really Are Amusing :)"

"The Flim-Flam Of A Cautionary Note"

Today my attention was directed to the Tony's Musings Blog (by a Face book friend) in which it appears that the author is having another pop at the efforts of Cyril and myself to attain some justice on this wretched Island.
 
 
So, what exactly is "a-musing"?
 
musing - a calm, lengthy, intent consideration
 
As we can observe from the contents of the link above, this particular Tony's Musing (like others) has in fact, been given no such 'intent consideration' whatsoever! It is at best, a sign that it's author may be clinging to the edge of the cliff by his fingertips.
 
I am going to do a quick deconstruction of this err, alleged musing, so as not to waste too much of my time as there are more pressing issues to be addressed, like Jersey Lawyers deliberately lying to their clients in order to deny them a fair hearing in Court.
 
I will say one thing for Tony though, I read his blog posting to Cyril tonight over the prison phone, boy did Cyril howl with laughter over said rantings. So thank you Tony for cheering my good friend up as you did :)
 
 
"The Deconstruction"
 
 
Tony starts with the following quote from my blog.
 
A straw man is the legal fiction your parents created and unwittingly signed over to the Government when they registered you at birth. Your straw man is the "person" created by that birth certificate, and that the Government has title to. (Jersey Blog Posting)
 
What exactly is the problem with this quote? It is true and correct. When we are born our parents created a Certificate of Live Birth, this is ours as our parents created it, and we are the beneficiaries of it. The deception comes when government is notified of that birth, they write to our parents telling them that "You 'must' Register this birth within 'x' weeks" so they can then create the Birth Certificate. The instrument that they are the beneficiaries of, and we are the trustees.

 
Is this not a threat? it certainly sounds like one doesn't it. However, it is simply Legalese, the secret language of the Law Society, it is designed to deceive us. Look up the word "must" in Black's Law Dictionary, it is synonymous with the word "may". Because government is a legal fiction (not of the real world) it can only Act against a man or woman with an offer, and that offer is then left to us to either 'not consent to', or to tacitly or expressly accept. So why the Legalese as illustrated above? if what they are selling is so good, why do they need so much deception to sell it?
 
Then we have this excerpt from my blog.
 
It is important to note that Freemen are not against the Rule of Law, just the deception and criminality that it is now used for by Governments. (Jersey Blog Posting)
 
I, nor anyone else for that matter, should have any problem at all in complying with Common Law which is simple. Do no harm to others, or their property, and do not use mischief or fraud in your contracts. These are the rules we have lived by for a thousand years, and they work. Why would we need statutes? And why do statutes always have to have a remedy? Work it out.
 
Next up we have this.
 
Dear Connétable,
Take notice that I am not accepting any transaction of a securities interest at this time.
I do not wish to contract with your Company and decline your offer to a business meeting.
I am a man, your Company is a legal fiction, and as such has no right to make any claims on me, absent a contract.
I return your paperwork herein
Thank you for your attention to this matter
Yours sincerely
xxx
All inalienable rights reserved.

(Letter to Constable of St Helier)
 
Tony then comes out with the following insult directed toward Cyril.
 
"or for that matter what world the writer of the strange letter lives in - it is, in fact, declining to pay a parking fine, although you would be hard put to deduce that from the wording."
 
Correct Tony, anyone would be hard put to deduce that from what was written.
 
And why is that Tony? It is simply because you are either too thick, or too biased, and lacking the intelligence to let your few readers know about the letter that preceded the above letter. As usual, you are quite contented only to let the readers know your slant on the issue.
 
Furthermore, a month or two previous to the above letter being written, we had sussed out a way to lawfully get around their parking ticket statutes which at the time, their parking tickets were Bills of Exchange. We put this up on the blog and a few days later the JEP hit the headlines with "Parking tickets may be illegal". Coincidence Tony? I don't think so.

The government then set about changing the law so that parking tickets were no longer Bills of Exchange, they had been changed to a Securities Interest, but we sussed that out within three days when their parking laws went back up online. It was then that the above letter was written, and indeed successful in quashing their Securities Interest. We will return to this point a little later in the posting.
 
Next up, our new legal beagle quotes someone else.
 
We are all taught to be a name, the name on our birth certificate. But if you don't consent to be that "person", you step outside the system.
According to the law books, a "natural person" (or human being) is distinct from the "person" as a legal entity. All the statutes and acts are acting upon the "person", and if you're admitting to being a person, you are admitting to be a corporation that can be acted upon for commerce. (1)
 
The above statement is also true, as any honest lawyer would tell you Tony :) On the Jersey Law website, a "Person" is defined as a "Body Corporate". According to Mr Musings, a person is a man, a woman, or a child, so why do governments legally state that people are in fact, Body Corporates? The answer is because a Body Corporate is a Corporation, a Legal fiction and can be Acted against through commerce, which incidentally, is another Legal Fiction.
 
His Royal Highness then states the following.
 
"Probably the best response to this piece of nonsense is one comment below it which stated that "you are number 6 and I claim my prize", a reference to the TV series "The Prisoner", which actually took the opposite line - "I am not a number, I am a person". But the Prisoner only had to deal with a Village for captured spies, not the strange looking glass world in which these statements are being made."
 
Well Tony me boy, the only piece of nonsense so far is the utter dross that you have been scrawling. I think most of us are well accustomed to the fact that you live in the dark bubble that is television, surrounded by Daleks, a world filled to the brim with fantasy and fiction, and designed for the purpose of leading the sheep to utter subservience. You quote fictitious lines from a fictitious TV series and expect the sane of this world to believe that that is the truth about Law?
 
Perhaps you should start looking in law books and on government law websites for information as to the law, instead of plucking your trite disinformation from the inside of a TV fiction writers wandering imagination?
 
He then drools.
 
"But nonsense it is - as one legal commentator noted "Names are not Crown copyright, registration is not transfer of title, and your car doesn't belong to the Government." If you see "Crown copyright" on a birth certificate, it is simply because the Crown claims copyright to all the forms it issues so that only it can produce them, and not part of some arcane conspiracy."

 
"Names are not Crown copyright", they are if the Crown created them and copyrights them. Our parents created our names, those names are the private property of the child they are given to by the parents.
"He who creates, owns"
 
Then we have Registration. What is Registration?
 
‘Registration’ was historically the act of a Ship’s Captain signing over his ship and all chattel contents over to the harbour master for safekeeping. Chattel contents included the condemned, those in debt, prisoners, anything that could be bought or sold and slaves.
 
 
"registration is not transfer of title, and your car doesn't belong to the Government."
 
Well now Tony, isn't that interesting? It is also appallingly inaccurate. When we register something we transfer legal title, that is how a "Trust" is created, when titles are split. When a vehicle is registered, all we are left with is the equitable title, the use of the vehicle, nothing more. The government hold the legal title in trust for us, just as they do all public property belonging to the people. The trouble is though, that now it has been registered the government is the beneficiary of that Trust, and we are merely the trustees of that Trust.

Beneficiaries being the bosses of the company, or Trust, and the Trustees being the workers, or servants of that company, or Trust!!! Nice down ere innit?
 
Ever wondered how it is that the government can seize your £300,000 Ferrari because it has no £120 tax disc, then tow it away and crush it whilst the alleged owner stands by powerless to do anything about it? It is because the owner has signed it away! It is because the conditions of registration set out in the Motor Traffic Act say it has to be taxed and insured when registered. Did you ever look at the top right hand corner of your vehicle registration document Tony? I would be pleased if you could write in and explain the following quotation from that very document for the benefit of all us uneducated Persons.
 
"The person named opposite is the registered owner but not necessarily the legal owner"
 
EXACTLY WTF DOES THAT MEAN TONY? :)
 
 
Can you also explain to us thicko's just why it is, that after registration, the government can suddenly start dishing out the threats at the foot of this document?
 
You implied that we own our vehicles Tony!
 
Did you ever read the Motor Traffic Act Tony? It has a lot more surprises in it....
 
Next we have another insult for Cyril, swiftly followed by more of Tony's unsubstantiated, err, facts!
 
"Unfortunately, faced with a letter that looked as if it had been composed by someone who perhaps did not appear as being of sound mind, the Centenier delegated to deal with the matter told the individual that they didn't have to pay the fine. A triumph for the legal expertise of the writer, or so they saw it. What they failed to see was that the reason for not following up with legal proceedings might just as easily have been because the Centenier decided against wasting hours of time pursuing the matter."
 
In response to this,  I refer my readers back to the paragraph I wrote near the top of the page which I have copied in below.
 
"Furthermore, a month or two previous to the above letter being written, we had sussed out a way to lawfully get around their parking ticket statutes which at the time, their parking tickets were Bills of Exchange. we put this up on the blog and a few days later the JEP hit the headlines with "Parking tickets may be illegal". Coincidence Tony? The government then set about changing the law so that parking tickets were no longer Bills of Exchange, they had been changed to a Securities Interest, but we sussed that out within three days when their parking laws went back up online. It was then that the above letter was written, and successful in quashing their Securities Interest."
 
You see Tony, (or perhaps you obviously don't) anyone can discharge a Securities Interest within 72 hours, simply by sending a notice stating that you do not wish to contract with the other party. Nobody is obliged to contract with anybody, it is all voluntary actions.
 
You also bawl about how the Centennier may not have followed up on the parking ticket to save the money and the hassle. Save what money Tony? What hassle would you be referring to Tony? The laborious task of sending out a summons in the post perhaps?
 
Saving money and hassle hey....Jeeeeeez!!!
 
If that was the case, why have the States spent several tens of thousands of pounds pursuing Cyril for seven parking tickets that he only got fined £490 for???
 
They even got two of their dumb-assed cops to perjure themselves over this matter, and not forgetting of course, the fact that someone at the Magistrates Court Greffe ended up having to doctor Cyril's trial tapes to try and put a block on Cyril winning his case.
 
Notwithstanding the fact that it costs the States an average of £250 a day to keep a prisoner locked up at La Moye. That is an addition to the total of £11,750 Do you really think that this is the reason that they didn't pursue the ticket Tony?
 
The truth is more like Centennier Scaife will have sent Cyril's notice voiding the Securities Interest to Howard (not so) Sharp, who would in turn have realised that we had stumped them again and they were legally powerless to do anything about the Securities Interest being discharged.
 
We must remember that this is not about the odd parking ticket, or three, it is a multi multi million pound scam that the States of Jersey are desperately trying to protect by going to virtually any lengths to silence and persecute myself and Cyril, much the same as they did with Stuart Syvret over the child abuse allegations.
 
The next crass bout of stupidity is below.
 
My second example arose when I did jury service last month (a generally positive experience - see my comment on it here). One of the trials involved a defendant who was accused of stealing sports cars. When we entered the court, the judge told us that the defendant had released his legal team and was denying the court's jurisdiction. He refused to cross-examine witnesses - rather, he used the opportunity to ask the judge whether his jurisdiction arose from maritime law - and his closing statement involved the reading of a Latin phrase and stating that he was the "official representative of the legal fiction known as..."

We found the Defendant guilty on 7 of 8 counts, and I will not say anything about our reasoning. I do suspect that the car stealing Defendant's bizarre and misguided defence influenced the judge's sentencing, and I also imagine that if he had retained his representation he may have pleaded guilty in any event. Either way, he probably went to prison for longer as a result of his attempt to trying to "step outside of the system". (3)
 
He is a thief Tony, it is a Common Law crime Tony. We all have to abide by the Common Law or suffer the consequences, I am pleased he was found guilty :) That will teach him not to rob people of their hard earned motor vehicles, even if they don't actually own them themselves....

The monkey and the organ grinders.
 
What follows next is quite breathtaking when you consider that Tony The Professor, who isn't actually a Professor, fails irredeemably to even grasp the simple fact that Lawyers wrote all this legal bullshit in the first place, and will defend that legal bullshit to the last as it is their exclusive copyright property.
 
The lawyer Duncan Roy, who was part of Occupy London's legal team, came across a "freeman" defense from a man called Dom, or to be more precise, ""the man commonly known as Dom", as he liked to refer to himself, who was very disruptive to the legal team and its efforts on behalf of Occupy London. He wrote a blog posting on the matter, in which he noted that

Occupy London fights its battles on many fronts, be they political, publicity, practical and, yes, even legal. It is but one front but if we're going to fight on that front too, we need expert lawyers not babblers of modern-psycho-mystical-nonsense, which is the comedic diversion you provide so beautifully Dom. (6)
 
And then this....
 
Lastly, I'd like to finish with a comment by Barrister F. Gibbons:A typical mistake Freemen make is to try to apply principles of courtroom law (civil contracts etc) to legal philosophy, i.e. arguments in relation to consent to be governed. For people to be governed subject to the country's laws, including statute law, does not require their signature on a piece of paper. I completely understand why some people would say: 'I didn't consent to this law; why should I be governed by it?' But consent is not required in relation to each and every individual law. Consent is only required insofar as the government needing general consent to its rule so that it is considered legitimate. If everyone rose up against the government's rule, it would not be considered legitimate and general consent would essentially be withdrawn. This is not something written down in the books; it is not a matter of black-letter law. This is quite simply the practical reality of our situation.

Every law is man-made. Even the legal gibberish many Freemen spout is man-made. They are simply trying to replace a set of rules that has been made up and developed over centuries with one they have just made up themselves. Unfortunately for them, the centuries-old set of rules is recognised by the vast majority of the population and the entire judiciary. (8)
 
It's called propaganda Tony, all lawyers use it, or didn't you know? A lawyers first commitment is to the Law Society and the Crown, every other half hearted commitment is just gravy. Lawyers will (for the most part) do all they can to dissuade the people that any of this alleged legal mumbo jumbo is worth anything in their Courts.
 
The true fact of the matter is that governments all over the world are shitting themselves as the world wakes up to the knowledge that they have been turned over by government for an eternity, and the enlightened ones are causing havoc as they try and teach the sheep to become the shepherds of tomorrow.
 
 
"Addendum"
 
 
There is a thought I had this morning, I went against all my rules and sent Tony an "anonymous" comment knowing full well he would not post anything from me on this subject. I basically asked him if he had sold out and was getting paid from government to write this crap?
 
I also know that Tony has some issues with Cyril over certain stuff, could Tony be doing this to attack and attempt to discredit Cyril whilst he is locked up and cannot defend himself?
 
Who knows, but there again, who gives a shit? Not I or Cyril, we will just keep plodding along on our path doing our own thing, and frightening the shit out of the government whilst doing it.
 
I will close with one of the "anonymous" insults that flow into the blogs on a daily basis from cowards like Haworth and his ilk. This one was addressed to an earlier posting so I thought I would save it just for now :)
 
Nighty Nite Peeps xxx
 
 
"Just because tony disagrees with you, you accuse him of losing the plot ? I wonder who people will believe, an intelligent blogger with a legacy of informative and balanced posts, or a thug with a legacy of insults and convictions for violence ?

As if you needed any help, he's made you look a right mug. And don't you know it.

Keep losing dickhead."
 
 
Hey, you too asswipe!
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 

24 comments:

  1. Well, still no response from the mad professor!

    Perhaps he is sitting at home in his armchair, musing over the dire ramifications of REGISTERING HIS HOUSE!!! LOL

    Read "AGENDA 21" Tony, then you really will have something to worry about....

    ReplyDelete
  2. Ian.

    as always you put up documented proof and that registration document is rather worrying as i had never even noticed that before. I hope tonys musings is taking note of what you have said.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Anon, virtually every government document any of us receive is riddled with this kind of deception.

    Indeed, I find it rather helpful Cyril having taught me how to read these documents properly, that I can now identify exactly what the words "really" mean. Everyone should study this stuff.

    Having shown fairly clearly, the deception involved in registration, is it any wonder that Hitler had a rather large fixation with getting everyone to register everything they owned???

    ReplyDelete
  4. registered owner v legal owner....I took this to mean that although (for example) I might be the registered owner the legal owner was the HP company etc? what do you think?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think that's silly.

      When you register anything with anyone, you create a Trust, the title to the item registered is split.

      What do you think?

      Delete
    2. Furthermore, if you paid cash for your vehicle, what would you think then?

      Delete
    3. Come on anon! We are talking government here, HP companies lend you cash and don't put your vehicle in their name until it's paid for, do they! Otherwise they would be legally liable for all of your bloody parking tickets, right? :)

      You register with the government, why would they want you to do that? Stop and think about it a while....


      Firstly, they gain control over your property. Secondly, you are now elligable to pay road tax.
      Thirdly, you are now obliged to purchase insurance.
      Fourthly, you must comply with everything in the contract they have layed out for you. Road Traffic Act.

      Now cast your mind back to a 100 years ago, when none of these bullshit statute limitations on the people were in existance. The rules haven't changed!!! You still have the inalienable right to travel in the chosen convenience of the day (your personal motor).

      Just the propaganda through the lawyers Legalese has changed, "YOU MUST" register your vehicle, NO!!! you must not, you "MAY" register your vehicle, it is an offer!!! Because they use deceptive language to tell you you must, does that create any obligation whatsoever on your part to obey their commands and demands? NO!!!

      All they are doing, is effectively just bullying you into submission through the threat of violence....If you don't comply you will be liable to the penalties set forth in such and such of their fu*king bullshit Statutes, Acts, Enactments, Orders, By-laws....and all the rest of the deceptive horseshit they come at you with.

      Find some courage, educate yourselfs, and tell these parasitic wankers NO!!!

      Delete
    4. "Why would we need statutes? And why do statutes always have to have a remedy?"


      Anyone of you sussed it out yet? Why it is that we need statutes?

      If you can't be arsed thinking for yourselves, I will let you know tomorrow on this posting....

      Delete
    5. C'mon Tony, I heard somewhere that you were a smart one! Wouldn't take a respected Professor five teeny weeny minutes to suss this one out!!!

      Answers on a postage stamp please :)

      Delete
    6. "The person named opposite is the registered owner but not necessarily the legal owner"

      This is a notice to a third party buyer. Often, a seller will try to prove their legal title to a vehicle by reference to an official document such as a vehicle registration document.

      The DVS cannot prove who a vehicle belongs to and nor does it need to for the purposes for which it retains this information. All DVS needs to know is the identity of the "registered keeper" (where to go to respond to complaints etc).

      I am not sure where you get this business about anything you register becomes subject to a trust, creating split title. Perhaps you could explain?

      You know, I stumbled upon a posting of yours a couple of days ago suggesting that you'd like to work in a law office as an analyst of sorts. It is evident that you are an intelligent person and, from what I have seen (excepting the vitriol), you are prepared to work hard to prove your position (whatever it is).

      The trouble with law is that, often, when facing legal attacks of one sort or another you don't have much if any time to think deeply about law in general: one becomes reactive to the threat rather than proactive. Unfortunately, legal study can take many years and many legal resources are beyond the reach of the average citizen. I would recommend to anybody, though, reading the occasional senior court case (ideally, House of Lords or Supreme Court). There's plenty of cases covering all aspects of law (including commercial law and admiralty law) and most of it is publicly available. I would recommend it: many of the senior court judges are extremely intelligent and often grapple with problems more than their junior court counterparts.

      To be a good lawyer, you need to be able to recognize both "sides" of an argument and pitch your position persuasively. You need to be able to differentiate the philosophical foundations of the different approaches. Adopting such a dogmatic position on Freeman theory undermines your ability to present it effectively in the places that can make the difference. #JustSayin'

      Delete
    7. "This is a notice to a third party buyer."


      What kind of dick head do you think I am???


      This is simply a government troll trying to temper the truth that I am enlightening the sheeple of Jersey with! The fucking contract is with the fucking government, shit for brains....Why do you think the government want clarification of the details of the owner??? So they can fucking steal that info and fine the fucking halfwit who signed up to their agreement for every contradiction of their alleged Trust....You really must do better than this feeble effort if you are going to win through for your totallitarian government.

      You have made youself so obvious over the last month, that it is laughable. You are obviously well versed in law. Why don't you sit down in front of a mirror, take a good hard stare, realise that you are so on the wrong side, then take all your knowledge and expertise, and join the right fucking side?

      Do this not, and you shall eventually become a victim of your own oppressions, I guarantee it....

      Delete
    8. Now fuck off until, with all your intelligence, you can come out fighting on the side of humanity, and life!!!

      Delete
    9. Christ All Fucking Mighty!!! Some of these money worshippers just make me wanna piss....WTF are they going to do in the near future, when water and food is king? We will be lighting camp fires with the Hundred Pound notes these twats held so sacred only a couple of years earlier....Are they really that fucking obtuse? :)

      Delete
  5. :) Actually, that's Cunt's anon....

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As I posted some time last week....Anyone up for a War?

      Delete
  6. Mr Evans. To be clear, I was the author of the comment of 6 Dec at 01:48 but I am not the author of any of the subsequent anonymous messages at 03:13 and 10:07 today.

    Almost every time I browse your blog I find extremely concerning stuff. Not the stuff you have written nor the way you have written it but rather the fact that some of the stuff contained on this blog gives rise to very real concerns about the probity of the Police, the Law Officers and the Bailiff.

    I do not regard you to be a "dick head" (as you put it), for if I did I simply would not bother posting to your blog. I have simply contributed to try to understand some of the comments you have raised (in relation to the model of law adopted by you and Cyril) and to try to provide an objective viewpoint based on my interpretation of the law.

    Using the DVS form above as an example, the whole text of the particular paragraph says: "The person named opposite is the registered owner but not necessarily the legal owner. Vehicle details and use are as declared and no responsibility is accepted for the accuracy of the particulars contained in this document."

    The bit I have highlighted says that the DVS does not endorse the information on the form as being true. They do not accept responsibility for it if it is false. In my view, it operates a bit like the disclaimer of liability you have put on your blog, where a similar "no liability" disclaimer also appears on most of your postings relating to Freeman theory.

    I do not say that some of the other points you have raised are not valid as I have not spent any real time considering them as they involve Bills of Exchange and Securities Interests which requires additional research. Some of the comments on Tony the Prof's blog are in my view valid, and some of the contrary comments to Tony's posting are equally valid, particularly those by Nick Palmer.

    Undoubtedly I have made myself obvious over the last month though, I do not regard myself as a "troll". According to Wikipedia, a troll is somebody who "posts inflamatory, extraneous or off-toping messages in an online community .. with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response". That is not my object. My object is to understand and to bring knowledge to the fore.

    I do not dispute, however, that from a receiver's or an onlooker's point of view it may be perceived as trolling and, due to the nature of the queries I have raised, that I may appear to be a government-backed troll. You have called upon me to leave the wrong side and to join the right side, or I shall eventually become a victim of my own oppressions. You have called upon me to "fuck off" until I can come out fighting on the side of humanity and life. I am not sure how to respond to that. I have already tried suggesting that you moderate your approach to make it more appreciable in the forums that may make a difference. In my view, until you do the "right side" as you put it, will always appear to be the "wrong side" in so far as your fight against corruption locally will be perceived as non-compliance / civil disobedience.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anon, I must apologise for some of my outbursts of late as I am very ill at present, that coupled with the severe bout of depression I am going through at the moment, doesn't help much. Neither does the attitude of my legal aid lawyer who just will not follow my instructions to the full.

      I have put up with the corruption of this wretched government for 23 of the 24 years I have been here. I have on many occasions provided irrefutable evidence of the corruption of the police, the judiciary and lawyers, yet not one single person has had so much as a verbal caution arising out of these very well evidenced complaints. Is it any wonder that I flip from time to time? Sometimes, I am surprised that I am still alive!

      Then looking very recently at our Attorney General allowing two cops to get away with perjury and perverting the course of justice, aided and abetted by Bridget Shaw, and the doctoring of Cyril's trial tapes, and only Cyril gets punished for effectively proving his case in court. Is it any wonder we get sick to the back teeth and just explode in a tirade of expletives and anger?

      Who else would be able to tolerate it for the duration I have? Only Stuart Syvret that I know....

      Delete
    2. I accept your apology. I realise that the circumstances you have found yourself in, probably through no fault of your own, have lead to illness and depression. Just this evening, I reviewed this post which, if you don't mind me quoting something you wrote to Advocate Corbett, said -

      "They have destroyed my life completely, I have not been able to hold down a relationship since I went to jail. They turned me into an alcoholic for seven years and I have suffered anxiety and depression ever since I was thrown in jail. This culminating in me almost taking my own life on two occasions three years ago."

      To me, this says it all. You don't have to explain or justify or apologise. I am familiar with the government juggernaut. I am familiar with the corruption and the lack of introspection by everybody performing public functions in Jersey.

      From my perspective, your role in citizen's media is one of cataloguing the instances of corruption: providing a public register of them. And what a useful function that is, because it provides a starting point for anybody wishing to investigate. And that, Mr Evans, will become a thorn in the side of the establishment.

      Indeed, you even have sworn advocates talking down Jersey as a destination for contractual disputes. The corruption and poor judgment inherent in a Jersey court is destroying Jersey from within. Nobody will want to keep any part of their wealth in a whimsical and corrupt legal environment as it no longer represents a "secure" and "stable" jurisdiction.

      Delete
    3. Cheers anon, and thanks for the sentiments :)

      Delete