Search This Blog

Wednesday, 9 January 2013

"PRIDE-less & PREJUDICE" Part 2

"Just Who Is Whiter Than White?
Le Squirrel Or The Jersey Justice System"



So, we hit part 2 of the mystery of Cyril's extra forty two days in custody, kindly donated by the
Viscounts representative, Lester Hammon.

Bridget Shaw, who we proved needs her ears syringed judging by the statement below from Cyril's court transcripts, actually backs Cyril's claims for once, although she is painfully unaware of that fact.

Magistrate Shaw;
"Mr Vibert You've been convicted of five matters of parking do you have anything to say to sentencing?"

Cyril Vibert;
"I'm not Mr Vibert"

Magistrate Shaw;
"OK nothing to say"

It is imperative for you readers to recap on this story, so please see the link below to the short, but thought provoking posting we did on the 3rd of January 2013 with a rather interesting comment section.

Part 1



Cyril Le Squirrel has recently wrote to the Bailiff of Jersey, Sir Michael Birt, with some deep seated questions regarding the disgraceful manner in which Cyril was treated. He has also laid down the facts concerning this travesty of justice, and has provided the irrefutable proof that at best, this extra 42 days in prison was at the very least negligence, and at the very worst, utter unadulterated corruption.

I believe that they needed to teach Cyril a lesson for meddling with THE JERSEY WAY, and that lesson was an over extended stay at HMP La Moye hoping to put Cyril off his pursuance of fair justice and the rule of law for everyone.

Without further delay, I give you the proof of the facts in this case :)




cyril vibert
c/o 10 Haut de la rue farm,
St. Martin,
Jersey
8th January 2013
Sir M.C.St.J. Birt
Bailiff of Jersey,
Bailiff’s Chambers,
Royal Square,
St. Helier,
Jersey.

FOR THE PUBLIC RECORD


Dear Sir Michael,

Having now had time to fully review the paperwork in the case HR Attorney General-vs- Cyril John Vibert at the Magistrates Court on 5th November 2012 and subsequent events, please take note that I wish to make a formal complaint against Mr Lester Hamon of the Viscount Dept.

You may recall releasing me from custody at my appeal of the default sentence for non-payment of Magistrate’s Court fines for parking infractions (imposed on 5th Novenber2012) on 20th December 2012, by which time I had already served 17 days imprisonment for that default. You may also recall that I informed the court at appeal on 20th December 2012 that I had received the respondents bundle the day before. I can also confirm that I was handed a copy of the document “Magistrate’s Court committal for non-payment of fine” by prison officials on or about the 18th December 2012. (Attachment 1, enclosed), and that my first view of this document was whilst I was in prison.

Please note the second line beneath the boxes in this document;
Pay at the rate of: £30.00 per week/month commencing 26/11/12

I can find no reference to the date 26/11/12 in the transcripts of the Magistrate’s Court case of the 5th November 2012 (Attachment 2, enclosed). Where did the Viscount Dept. get this arbitrary date from? Why did Mr Hamon not pick up this error when doing his due diligence?

Mr Hamon was present in the Royal Court throughout my appeal against conviction and sentence for contempt of court on the 29th November 2012, a case that lasted several hours and where he did not speak or become involved in that case. No doubt he was paid from the public purse for the time he was there.

You presided over my appeal of 29th November 2012 and, along with the Jurats, decided not to allow that appeal, whereupon I was immediately taken into custody to serve the remaining prison time originally handed down at the Magistrate’s Court on 5th November 2012. After the appeal and whilst in custody in the cell adjoining the courtroom Mr Hamon visited me in the cell and defaulted me for non-payment of £490.00 fine for various parking infractions, thus putting an extra  42 days on my sentence, to run consecutively with the sentence for contempt of court.

Mr Hamon’s action in defaulting me for non-payment of the £490.00 fine whilst I was in custody is clearly contrary to Magistrate Shaw’s instruction of the 5th November 2012 (see last paragraph of page 5 of transcripts enclosed).

Mr Hamon could not have known on the 29th November 2012 whether I or anyone else would have paid the first £30.00 instalment of the £490.00 fine upon my due release date of 4th December 2012 for the contempt of court sentence. As a result of Mr Hamon’s action in defaulting me on the 29th November 2012, payment of the full amount of £490.00 became due and given my financial position meant I would not get the chance to avoid further prison time.

As everyone is equal under the law and if the people of this island are to have confidence that the courts and judicial function adhere to that principle, and as I was charged with contempt of court and imprisoned for ignoring Magistrate Shaw’s instruction, then I put it to you that Mr Lester Hamon must be charged with contempt of court for ignoring Magistrate Shaw’s instruction.

I do not accept that these matters are merely administrative errors that can safely be ignored as no harm was done, that is not the case, at the very least Mr Hamon was negligent in his duty to ensure that he was acting in accordance with the courts wishes, something, that when someone’s liberty is at stake, would be any competent public servants primary duty.

As a consequence of the manifestly excessive default sentence handed down by Magistrate Shaw, the incompetence and likely unlawful action by Mr Lester Hamon of the Viscount Dept. along with the time it took for my appeal against the default sentence to be heard, I served more days in prison than I should have.

In light of the above, I look forward to you proposal of how this unjust situation can be addressed.


Yours sincerely,



cyril vibert  




The below so-called "committal document" would seem to be all that is needed for the prison to lock you up. No judges signature, no court seal, just the scribbled mark of a monkey doing the bidding of the company known as the Viscounts department.






Can anyone see the date of the 26/11/2012 in the trial transcripts below? Myself and Cyril have searched this document tirelessly yet we cannot seem to find any reference to the date of the 26/11/2012. Please read carefully the final paragraph of this transcript showing what the Magistrate did actually say about the payment of the fines. If any of our readers would like to voice an opinion on the contents of these documents, please feel free to do so as we would very much appreciate your input :)












As you can see from the transcripts, summary trials and hearings can be very brief! This is what passes for a fair trial in courts of contract in Jersey Inc.

The whole show was over in ten minutes flat.

And they have the nerve to call this justice!!!



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





7 comments:

  1. Bloody disgusting in a nut shell the Law in Jersey is a disgrace!!! How can an individual get an extra 42 days in prison and not be sentanced by a Judge in a court of law is a BLOODY DISGRACE and shows the contemt the law in jersey treats the ordinary man in the street disgraceful good luck for 2013

    ReplyDelete
  2. I am intrigued and cannot wait to see what Mr Birt will make of all this.

    ReplyDelete
  3. We believe Hamon only approached Cyril with the default sentence after the court had disbanded, to enable the system to visit Cyril with the excessive sentence of forty two day when Cyril would be powerless to do anything about it.

    Hamon was sat there through the entire appeal, which went on all morning and into the afternoon, and without Hamon uttering a single word. Why did he leave it until Cyril was in the court cells to default him?

    This was all staged, no doubt about it in my mind. Ask yourselves why the judge, Michael Birt, did not ask why the Viscounts representative was in court? Quite clearly he was not needed for any reason insofar as proceedings were concerned, was he just having the day off at the tax payers expense?

    ReplyDelete
  4. I cant get my head around the court situation. Cyril has equal rights to the judge Cyril asserted his rights and was happy to discuss and reach agreement why did the judge ignore Cyrils claim and move on to any sentence in the given situation?

    ReplyDelete
  5. We cant let this carry on for much longer we need action asap

    ReplyDelete
  6. Am I right in thinking the anomaly is the fact cyril received, whilst Cyril was in prison, prior to the actual appeal being heard the amount and date you were to start paying the fine,on the outcome of the appeal that had not been heard?

    If so, how does that work?

    ReplyDelete
  7. Parking infractions? What common law covers infractions in Cyrils case which enabled him to be fined?

    ReplyDelete