Search This Blog

Thursday, 30 August 2012

"Michael John Huby - Another Filthy Paedophile"

"Paedo Convicted After 30 Years!"

So why aren't the historic paedo's and child abusers from Haut De La Garenne and other Jersey care homes not being hunted down and tried hey William and Mike?

You can happily do this scumbag after 30 years but not the likes of Danny Wherry, or the other government employee Mario Lundy?
Not forgetting the Bonners either!

How well you keep our children safe!

Please click once or twice on the pics to read them











"Another Youngster Chooses Jail Over A Fine"

"Our Courts Are Criminalizing Everyone"

Another statutory conviction at an administrative tribunal where the defendant had no chance of winning.

Another youngster with a police record, and for what exactly?

It costs around £220 a day to keep someone in prison

What a result!!!






"The Axe Is Ready To Fall"

Bailhache Plan For Jersey Domination
To Be Revealed




"Common Law - Admiralty Law - And Your Straw Man" Part 23

"Debt Collection - There's Lots Of

Nasty Swearing On This Posting"

 

 

Before we start this posting, we would like the reader to know, and acknowledge, that anything in this posting is "NOT" Legal Advice, and should "NOT" be perceived as such. Everything written here is merely our own theory.
Please also note, that anyone using these tactics or copying what we have done here, "MUST" know how to defend themselves properly in a courtroom. Lawyer's and Judges have a wealth of knowledge and trickery to get you to consent to their codes of practice, thereby rendering you liable to their penalties after you have been coaxed into giving up your "Inalienable Rights".
"Common Law is the greatest protection anyone has against tyrannical Government and injustice. The States of Jersey have trampled the Law of the land into the dirt."
  
"The Great Deception"

Common Law Admiralty Law And Your Straw Man,


Debt collection code of conduct created





Islanders struggling to cope with the aggressive tactics of debt collection agencies have been given hope. Yes, it's called Common Law!!!

As a result of an exclusive Channel Television investigation a code of conduct to regulate the debt collection industry has now been drawn up. The code of conduct is in the Magna Carta!!!

The new code aims to protect those who end up in the hands of debt collection agencies as well as providing guidelines for the companies themseleves. The real protection is below!!!

We want to know your views.

Have you been affected by Debt collectors?

"Fuck Off Channel TV"
"We Will Take Over From Here You Ill-Informed Idiots"

Below is some very good advice that puts the debt collection parasites in their place, and free's YOU from debt :)

I suggest you read the whole page before using the links

Freeman On The Land
Veronica Chapman
On Debt


What to do with Bailiffs and Debt Collectors.

Postby Veronica » Tue Mar 30, 2010 9:32 pm
I’ve left the best till last.

Well, I’ve a lot of personal experience of this, lately.

However, before I come to how to deal with them, perhaps I should try to explain the precise ‘scenario’ that involves them.

It goes like this (think about it … it is not hard!):

If someone is in ‘debt’, and someone else comes to the rescue - and pays off the debt - what is the situation?

I think you’ll agree that the situation is something like this:

Whoever was paid off, is now perfectly happy, and isn’t likely to re-demand being paid (although this does mistakenly happen, of course!). But, generally speaking, once they are paid off, they toddle off into the sunset.

In other words, the so-called ‘debt’ has been ‘extinguished’ by payment of it.

Now, if whoever paid it off was a friend, they might do so on the basis that you pay them back as soon as you are able, or they might say “Oh, that’s all right … I can afford it …I’m just glad to see you out of trouble. That’s what friends are for.”.

It’s only the former case that is important. Where someone pays off the debt, but expects to be paid back.

Now, I suggest for your consideration that, if someone is prepared to extinguish a debt for you, but expect you to pay it back to them, there are certain things that must happen due to the demands of good faith all round, and civilised behaviour. And these are:

1. That they make sure that you actually owe the debt, in the first place. And they can only do this by discussing it with you.

2. That they make sure you agree to pay them back, and (again) they can only do this by discussing it (up front) with you.

3. You should only expect to pay them back what they, themselves, paid out … otherwise they are taking the piss.

Do you think those three are fair, honest, honourable, and reasonable?

I do.

So, when you get a letter from Bailiffs or Debt Collection Agencies, what has happened? Well, they have paid off your so-called ‘debt’ (very cheaply) and are demanding that you pay them back.

That’s what’s happening.

But:

1. They never checked with you first to see whether you actually owed anything

2. They didn’t agree with you beforehand that you would pay it back

3. They aren’t demanding repayment of their outlay, they are demanding about 1,000 times that amount.

No. They just muscled in. Did you ask them to? No, you didn’t.

Well, they muscled in, and paid of you alleged ‘debt’. So that no longer exists.

And, if they had wanted to be paid back, they should have got your agreement BEFOREHAND … shouldn’t they?

Not that you would have agreed, of course. Because:

1. You didn’t owe it anyway.

2. You never agreed to pay them back

3. Why should you let them take the piss by demanding 1,000 more than they actually paid?

Well, that’s the scenario.

All you have to do is to explain it to them. (AND STAND FIRM! If you are not going to stand firm, then don’t bother … just roll over … play dead … and pay up. It’s your choice. You either walk all over them … or let them walk all over you).

Now, the DebtBust Application contains Templates that create ‘nice’ letters. And you can use that if you wish.

But I come back to what I said earlier. THEY DON’T UNDERSTAND.

So, here, I’m going to propose an alternative, which should be comprehensible to an 8-year old (I will actually try to verify this by asking an 8-year old).

Dear Sirs,

I write in response of your letter of the… yada …

It seem to suggest that you paid off some alleged debt to … yada … on my behalf.

It seems you expect me to pay you back. Unfortunately, however, your expectation is not going to be fulfilled for the following reasons:

1. Before involving yourselves, you failed to check that the so-called amount was actually owed. (It wasn’t)

2. That I, myself, am the debtor. (I’m not)

3. That I, myself, agreed to pay you back. (I didn’t)

4. That you are anyway attempting to take the piss, because your actual outlay would have 10%, or less, than your demand to me.

You need to make the most of this reply, because it is all you are going to get. You have now been told the situation in the plainest of English, I therefore intend to shred any further communications from you (however ‘dramatic’ you care make them. You are going to have to come to terms with the fact that your psychology no longer works).

Moral: If you go around paying off other people’s debts, make sure that you have an agreement with them BEFOREHAND. That is the accepted rule of good faith and civilised behaviour. It's also basic Common Sense - being the same thing as having a good look around first - before you jump into the water - only to discover there are sharks swimming around. Because once you've jumped ... it's a bit too late to discover the sharks.

Sincerely without frivolity,


X: of the Y family (as commonly called), English(Welsh/Scottish/Irish/etc) Sovereign.
Without any admission of any liability whatsoever, and with all Natural Indefeasible, Rights reserved.



(Actually they should get Oscars for some of the ‘dramatics’ I’ve seen recently)
Freedom's just another word for: "Nothing left to lose" (Janis Joplin)
"There is no path to peace, peace IS the path" (Mahatma Ghandi)
"There is no path to freedom, freedom IS the path" (Veronica Chapman)
User avatar
Veronica
Founder Founder
Posts: 4519
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2009 1:28 pm
Location: Feltham, Sovereign Republic of England


Re: For Newbies, as much as anybody ...

Postby Veronica » Tue Mar 30, 2010 9:54 pm
There's a Topic called "Veronica's Water Bill".

Thames Water have sold the so-called 'debt' to Fredericksons International.

Fredericksons have engaged some Solicitors called Bryan Carter & Co. They wrote to me a "Solicitor's Letter".

This was my response:

Tuesday, 23 March 2010.

NOTICE OF CUNTISHNESS & CONSEQUENT FEE SCHEDULE


Dear Sirs,

I write in response to your letter of 18/03/2010.

Even the Bills of Exchange Act, 1882 says that - once a debt is paid - said debt is extinguished.

Thus when Fredericksons paid Thames Water for some so-called ‘debt’ … said so-called ‘debt’ was extinguished. (FACT)

Consequently your letter doesn’t make any sense at all, in point of fact it is total bollox. You have your head totally up your arse for the following reasons:

1. I recall NO CONTRACT with you.
2. I recall NO CONTRACT with Fredericksons.
3. I recall NO CONTRACT with Thames Water.
4. I will NOT GRANT Contract to any Court de facto, should anyone decide to go to litigation. And, anyway, you will be wasting your time because there is no dispute, as explained above. There is only the FACT that any so-called ‘debt’ was extinguished.

So you are, basically, stuffed. And, that being the case, you must be a complete wanker to have even considered writing to me, because you should have checked all this out before putting electronic pen to paper.

Fredericksons have no right to pursue anyone for a non-existent so-called ‘debt’, and only a complete twat would conjoin with them in such a CRIMINAL activity of attempted:

FRAUD/BLACKMAIL/EXTORTION/RACKETEERING

(Call it what you will).

Perhaps you could redeem your blatant cuntishness by explaining it to them nicely?

Maybe you should take some LAWFUL advice? It is, after all, childishly simple. It goes like this. If you intend to pay off someone else’s debt, make sure – beforehand – that they have agreed, via BINDING CONTRACT, to pay you back. Otherwise it is rather stupid to go ahead and do it. (And even more stupid to conjoin with them). Unless, of course, you are all philanthropists … but you don’t sound like that.

This is so simple, and basic, that anyone who did not comprehend would need to be mentally retarded. It is the basis of good faith and civilised behaviour, and forms a part of the bedrock of the Law-of-the-LAND (aka the Common Law). (So now you know).

[b]I hereby send you Notice that my fee for any further responses in this matter (which constitute unwarranted intrusions into my privacy, and attempts at trespass on my sovereignty) will be £1,000 per letter (irrespective of content), and that by sending me a communication, you accept said Fee Schedule.[/b]

So, make the most of this response, and the education contained herein, because it is all you and/or Fredericksons are likely to get from me.

Sincerely without frivolity,

Veronica: of the Chapman family, as commonly called (English Sovereign). Without any admission of any liability whatsoever, and with all Natural Indefeasible Rights reserved.


Within a couple of days I get a letter from Fredericksons asking me to "Please confirm when the debt was paid off".

LMAO! THEY PAID IT OFF!

My reply to Frederiscksons:

TO WHOEVER IT MAY CONCERN:

Notice to Bailiffs & Debt Collectors (etc)

Notice to Agent is notice to Principal; Notice to Principal is notice to Agent


It is a basic rule of Common Sense that – if you pay someone else’s so-called ‘debt’ - then you make sure – BEFOREHAND – that they are prepared to pay you back. If you had done that, your demands would have the force of LAW behind them.

Since you never checked anything with me BEFOREHAND, then you & your Company are either:

1. Philanthropists, acting non-philanthropic
OR
2. A collection of mentally retarded wankers, devoid of basic Common Sense/comprehension of LAW.

Don’t bother knocking, because you’ll be unlikely to get an answer. If you do get an answer, then the only one you’ll get will be “Fuck off you pathetic little wanker” … so you’ll be wasting your time.

If you put a letter through the door it will be immediately shredded. Yet another waste of your time & effort … but hey … you’re a complete wanker … so you’ll do it anyway!

THE REASON IS VERY SIMPLE: DON’T BUY DEBTS BEFORE ESTABLISHING FIRST OF ALL, THAT YOU’LL GET PAID BACK … OTHERWISE YOU ARE

A STUPID FUCKING WANKER.

(By all means take a copy of this Notice back to your office)


I think that just about sums it all up ... and that's the latest in the saga of "Veronica's Water Bill".
Freedom's just another word for: "Nothing left to lose" (Janis Joplin)
"There is no path to peace, peace IS the path" (Mahatma Ghandi)
"There is no path to freedom, freedom IS the path" (Veronica Chapman)


REMEMBER to do your homework and study this stuff hard, you need to know ALL the tricks!!!

Have Fun




  


Wednesday, 29 August 2012

"Jersey's No 1 Criminal Fruitcake - Ian Le Marquand - Lies & Cheats Us Again"

"Inadvertently My Arse"

"The Tooth Fairy Told Me To Say It"

Witchfinder General of Jersey
 When is someone going to arrest this utter criminal?

Whether it's doctoring trial tape, committing fraud on the court,
lying to his peers, or covering up child abuse, this clown knows no boundaries!

If Trevor Pitman behaved like this madman, Trevor would be in prison by now!







"Criminal Le Marquand Defends Big Pharma"

"CANNABIS"

This has got to be the most ill-informed pig crap I have ever read on Cannabis.

What the hell do the JEP (filthy rag) know about anything? Let alone Cannabis!
A study from New Zealand says??? Says what???

Please see a proper documented study at the video below.
Please also use the labels at the foot of the page to learn more.

All Governments are against Cannabis because it heals or improves just about every condition that humans get! Trouble is, because it is a natural plant, it cannot be patented. This has huge ramifications for Big Pharma who cannot make money from it and therefore stand to lose Billions a year!

It's all about greed!!!












"Our Worthless Constables"

"Constables Don't Do Jack!!!"


"Safe Jersey - 'The Big Society' - In Action"

"Another Two Go Overboard"

But What Causes It?




Tuesday, 28 August 2012

"Deadly New Toy For The Police Draws Nearer"

Jersey could be tasered

Cop appears to be enjoying the experience


Jersey Police are one step closer to getting taser guns.

The Home Affairs Minister has responded to a report by a Scrutiny Panel which oversees the work that his department carries out.

Ian Le Marquand has agreed to several of their suggestions of what needs to be done before taser guns could be used in the island including addressing public concerns about their dangers.

He will draw up a report on why he thinks we should have tasers, and the States will vote on it.

Jersey Police say they cannot comment on whether the force want to carry taser guns or not.

What do you think?

Should our bobby's on the beat carry tasers?

Should the police be allowed to use tasers here in Jersey or are they simply unnecessary?

"When Two Properties Just Isn't Enough!!!"

Benefits cheat kept quiet about inheritance

Benefits cheat kept quiet about inheritance
The case was heard in the Royal Court
 
A WOMAN on benefits who hid the fact that she part-owned property worth half a million pounds has been sentenced to 15 months’ jail, suspended for two years.

The Royal Court heard on Friday that the woman received income support of £27,254 despite having inherited half of her late grandmother’s house and flat at Clos des Sables, St Brelade.
The court said that the crime was so serious that she deserved jail but they suspended her sentence because she has a six-year-old daughter.

The 28-year-old mother of one admitted two counts of failing to notify Social Security of a change in circumstances between 31 January 2010 and 2 August last year and between 15 June 2010 and 2 August last year.

"Rugby The Only Sport Worth Backing"


Tourism Development Fund comes up with another £56,000 for rugby club

Jersey Rugby Club chairman Bill Dempsey made a presentation to the Tourism Development Fund advisory panel in May
Jersey Rugby Club chairman Bill Dempsey made a presentation to the Tourism Development Fund advisory panel in May
 
The Jersey Rugby Club has been given a further £56,000 of taxpayers’ money to fund their season.

The hand-out follows a controversial £75,000 sponsorship deal the club struck with the Economic Development department.

Championship clubs, including Jersey, will also receive £345,000 from the RFU this season, rising to £380,000 by the final year of a four-year deal. There will also be help for travel to British and Irish Cup ties.
When the club, who will play in a friendly at St Peter this weekend, were given their one-year sponsorship deal worth £75,000 from the Economic Development department many sports clubs were left outraged.
They said that they were struggling to survive after having their States funding slashed.

This week the JEP has learned that the club were given an additional £56,000 grant from the Tourism Development Fund – funding provided by the Economic Development department. The money was spent on building the terraced stand alongside the pitch in St Peter.

Monday, 27 August 2012

"Getting Ready For The Flu This Winter?"

New Mass (mandatory?) Vaccination Propaganda Exposed! - 25 June 2012 update Jane Burgermeister




See The Links Below & Stay Safe!




"When Lawyer Corruption Is No Longer Acceptable"

"My Complaint To The CEO of the Jersey Law Society"




Dear Jane Martin


Firstly I must apologize for not copying you in on the final response I sent to Adv Thacker in relation to my complaint against Adv Bale.

Adv Thacker's farcical response to my complaint against Adv Bale beggars belief, and can only be construed as either gross negligence
or criminality. Please see my blog posting at the link below which deals with the aforesaid nonsense in it's entirety.

http://therightofreply.blogspot.com/2012/07/jersey-law-society-bloody-laughing.html

I understand that Adv Thacker is no longer the president of the Jersey Law Society, hardly surprising after the conduct he has displayed on the link above. Every time I make a complaint about anyone in a position of power within the Jersey Government, they always send me a letter instructing me that my complaints hold no merit, and then they suddenly leave their position! Well, it's not good enough.

I write to you this day to lodge a formal complaint of gross negligence against Advocate Charles Thacker. I further wish to continue my complaint against Advocate Bale until such time as the truth emerges, and that the correct documents and evidence have been sent to myself and verified as authentic.


This corruption cannot continue....



Yours sincerely





Ian-Leslie:Evans


All inherent inalienable rights reserved


 

Saturday, 25 August 2012

"Common Law - Admiralty Law - And Your Straw Man" Part 22

 "Playing The Word Game In
Jerseys Courts Of Fraud"

Before we start this posting, we would like the reader to know, and acknowledge, that anything in this posting is "NOT" Legal Advice, and should "NOT" be perceived as such. Everything written here is merely our own theory.


Please also note, that anyone using these tactics or copying what we have done here, "MUST" know how to defend themselves properly in a courtroom. Lawyer's and Judges have a wealth of knowledge and trickery to get you to consent to their codes of practice, thereby rendering you liable to their penalties after you have been coaxed into giving up your "Inalienable Rights".
"Common Law is the greatest protection anyone has against tyrannical Government and injustice. The States of Jersey have trampled the Law of the land into the dirt."
  
"The Great Deception"

Common Law Admiralty Law And Your Straw Man,




ENGLISH WORDS  vs  LEGAL TERMS

Spend time in local ‘Courts’ and you will come across a Judge or lawyer claiming that such and such an English word is a ‘legal term’

Here is an example by Bridget Shaw, from Cyril’s ‘trial’





We’ve left in the prosecutions only ‘on the scene’ witness (parking control officer) answers to Cyril’s questions; remember the burden of proof lies with the prosecution to beyond a reasonable doubt!

How does an English word morph into a legal term?

The process is simple, members of the legal professions (Law societies/Bar associations) invent their own words or take a plain English word then redefine the meaning of that word, and it then becomes part of the language of those societies/associations. These terms/words form the basis of commercial and administrative Laws. This is perfectly lawful as all societies are allowed to invent their own languages. The word society is itself a legal term.

From Black’s Law dictionary 5th edition;
Society: “An association or company of persons (generally unincorporated) united by mutual consent, in order to deliberate, determine, and act jointly for some common purpose.”
Mutual consent is the essential element here, consent is the basis of all man made laws, and we are governed and policed by consent.

This process sometimes works the other way around i.e. a legal term becoming part of the English language however, when this happens the word retains its legal definition, even if that definition is not mentioned in an English dictionary.

Registration is one such word/term
From the old maritime Laws registration was the act of a Captain handing over title of the ship’s manifest to the Harbour Master, ensuring all levy’s and imports could be collected after unloading of the cargo and before the ship leaves port.
For registration to be lawful it has always been and still must be a voluntary act, because it creates an association.

The ship’s skipper could sail on if he did not like the level of duty at one port.
No one can lawfully be forced to register anything, for that is theft/enslavement.
International human rights Laws tell us we have the right of free association, necessarily the converse is also a right, and we have the right of disassociation at any time we choose.

Human Rights Laws are not as comprehensive as our inalienable rights but,  Corporate Governments refuse to acknowledge these fundamental and inherent God given rights, choosing instead to use only lawyer written, watered down versions such as ECHR and UDHR

Where does that leave today's legislation (Law arbitrary) which tells us we ‘must’ register all manner of things? Firstly, all legislation is written in the language of the legal profession, by lawyers using lots of ‘legal terms’ which make them impossible for most politicians to understand or decipher.
They are codified = written in code

English word – ‘must’; implies obligation and/or necessity.
Legal term – ‘must’; is synonymous with ‘may’, a directional rather than mandatory instruction.
In order for any legislative direction ‘to register’ be compliant with the law (law of the land), we are required (directional) to submit (bend to another’s will) an application (to beg) for registration (handing over superior title). This process lets the registering authority claim, quite legally, that we took these actions voluntary. 

Another of the legal professions favourite legal term is the word understand.

English word – understand; to know what is meant.
Legal term – understand; to stand under some arbitrary authority.
This can be seen more clearly if it is written as under stand, but you won’t notice the difference when it is spoken.
At the end of the Police caution or after being charged with an offence you will be asked “do you understand”. Our reply is always “no, I do not understand”
Please note here, that this response is only to all statutory ‘offences’, we believe that should we have committed a real common law crime. We would hold our hands up and admit the crime, not that that is likely as we have no intention of committing any crimes.

With study, it becomes clear that the meanings of some legal terms are bizarre and counter intuitive. By using legal terms someone standing on St. Catherine’s breakwater can be found to be using a vehicle parked at Le Braye, I kid you not!

Without question the most pernicious ‘legal term’ is the word person.
English; a man, a woman or a child.
Legal term; a body corporate.
The legal term person is defined in the enactment
INTERPRETATION (JERSEY) LAW 1954
(Whose interpretation is this?)

Before we look at a couple of extracts from this ‘Law’ we would like to raise some points to help you deconstruct this enactment yourselves.
The word ‘include’ is also a legal term, so much so it has its own legal maxim to define it;
Inclusio unius est exclusio alterius
The inclusion of one thing is the exclusion of another.

We have also underlined an ‘a’ and a ‘the’ to highlight how these words can emphasise what is meant.

 

It’s an indisputable and provable fact that you will not find the words man or woman in any enactment.

Magistrates (sic) and lawyers have no conscience when it comes to mixing and matching English words and legal terms, they will switch between the two from one sentence to the next, even using both meanings in the same sentence.

Another example from Bridget;

 

Talk about a forked tongue, her first statement bears no relation to what I did say. Then we get the mix and match in one sentence, further more madam, no one would answer my question about what jurisdiction was being presumed for the action, and that part of the transcript mysteriously vanished!!
Notice too, how law is spelt both law and Law.
As for the conflict of interest, Bridget Shaw says she doesn’t know what I’m suggesting, really! Let me spell it out to you Bridget Shaw, you are a duplicitous crook – do you understand now?

Bridget Shaw, the Greffe, the crown prosecutor are paid by the States of Jersey Inc.
The Plaintiff P.O.S.H is a subsidiary of SoJ inc. tell us Bridget how this is not a conflict of interest. Maybe conflict of interest is a legal term eh!!
Magistrates do swear a common law oath of office, the problem is that Bridget refuses to operate under her oath of office

It is not just words the legal profession mess with, letters both upper and lower case have enormous significance legally.
Legally speaking names written in all capital letters always refer to dead things, sometimes called legal fictions. If you own a Company, a Corporation or a registered business have a look at the certificate of incorporation/registration, all capitals right?
 As spooky as it might sound, take a walk through a cemetery and read the names on the tombstones. If anyone can find a name there not in all capitals please take a photo and send it to us (include the year), we won’t hold our breath.

NOW LOOK AT YOUR BANK STATEMENT!
Capitis diminutio maxima -  Google it!  

Summary: Legal terms are the intellectual property of the Law societies/Bar associations. Factually they form the basis of all commercial and administrative Laws (Laws of water/sea). Legal terms bind those who are officers, members, agents, employees and associates through contract of the legal profession and the States of Jersey Inc. (who enact these Laws) and any man or woman who consents to be bound by them.
These Laws of water have been brought onto the land by people who can best be described as land pirates.

The Law societies tell us non-lawyers that we cannot understand their language, and they will come down heavily on anyone that is not a lawyer who claims to give legal advice. So for all you lawyers out there, nothing written here should be construed as legal advice, rather it is our understanding of the subject matter gained through study and research, so wind your necks back in!

Of course no such restraints apply to lawful advice, make of that what you will.

Since time immemorial oligarchs, elites, call them what you want, have used the control of Laws to enforce their hegemony and along with the control of money and information it forms an unholy trinity, keeping the general populace in fear, poverty and ignorance.

There you have it, ‘Legal terms’ are the invention of the legal profession. How can they possibly apply to us, absent our consent?
   

     Coming soon,
so you don’t think the States of Jersey is a Corporation?

Friday, 24 August 2012

"Taking A Step Back From The Brink!!!"

BBC JERSEY,
Rankine Cover-up TV
& THE FILTHY RAG Fart Again!!!



But that's all it is, hot air with a foul stench!

Who, with even the tiniest perception of what goes down in Jersey believes anything these tossers print or say?

NO ONE!!!

BBC JERSEY...."Damian Rzeszowski: Jersey father cleared of murdering family"
"Jersey Father?"
I thought the bastard was Polish!!!

RANKINE COVER UP TV....These brainless sad halfwits picked no less than '8' different headlines tonight to get the same farcical point across!!!

THE FILTHY RAG...."Rzeszowski Not Guilty Of Murder"
Are the poor victims....Not Actually Dead Then???

How in God's Name can these six people be dead and yet no-one murdered them???


Am I the only sane man on Jersey?


Wednesday, 22 August 2012

"Ministry Of Justice Abandons It's Citizens In Jersey "

"Not even the courtesy to sign for their betrayal"





As we are aware, Cyril wrote to King Birt a month ago in complaint of the appalling conduct of Barking Bill Bailhache at Cyril's appeal hearing, wherein Bailhache refused to investigate the complaints Cyril made. See link below


These complaints were that two policemen had committed perjury at his trial, and that the trial tapes had been doctored by someone at the Greffe.

These complaints were copied to
General Sir John McColl - Lieutenant Governor of Jersey
Rt. Hon. Kenneth Clarke MP. QC.  Justice Secretary
Rt. Hon. Teresa May MP.  Home Secretary

We would add that not one of the four named above have responded in any way, shape, or form.
Below is a reminder of the complaint.


cyril vibert
c/o 10 Haut de la rue farm,
St. Martin,
Jersey.
23rd July 2012.
Sir M.C.St.J. Birt.
Bailiff of Jersey.
Bailiffs Chambers,
Royal Square,
St. Helier,
Jersey.

Dear Sir Michael,
Please take note that I hereby lodge a formal complaint against Deputy Bailiff, William J Bailhache for abuse of discretion, in relation to my appeal against conviction from the Magistrates Court on the 27th April 2012, at the Royal Court on the 25th June 2012.
This complaint refers to two matters arising from my conviction at the Magistrates Court on 27th April 2012.
1) My claim of perjury by PC 252 O’Neill and PC 283 O’Brien, in that they both lied whilst under oath in the Magistrates Court and subsequently their evidence was used by Assistant Magistrate Shaw to form part of her judgment, there is an on- going police investigation into this matter (attachment 1) and should the officers be shown to have lied under oath, all of their evidence in this case would be called into question.  
The correct form was filed by me, asking for PC O’Neill to attend Court as a witness in the appeal (attachment 2), PC O’Neill’s police notebook contains the evidence proving perjury. PC O’Neill did not attend the appeal, the respondent claiming he had a firearms training course that day, this reason was accepted by the Deputy Bailiff.

2) There are 4 witnesses who are willing to testify that the transcripts of the Magistrates hearing have missing parts, a witness and me can testify that the recording of that same hearing also have parts missing. On the 25th June 2012 I asked the Deputy Bailiff for an independent forensic examination of this recording to determine what had gone wrong with this recording, this request was refused by the Deputy Bailiff.
Appendix 3, is a copy of the Deputy Bailiffs decision on these matters.

I do not accept the Deputy Bailiffs use of discretion in these matters as they have direct implications
On my ability to conduct a fair and meaningful appeal .

How the Deputy Bailiff can find that ‘alleged’ perjury by Police Officers and problems with Court recordings and transcripts have no bearing on my appeal, is not explained by the deputy Bailiff.
There are, of course, wider implications to these matters, which I am sure you will no doubt comprehend.

Yours sincerely,



cyril vibert


cc to;
General Sir John McColl, Lieutenant Governor of Jersey.
Rt. Hon. Kenneth Clarke MP. QC.  Justice Secretary.
Rt. Hon. Teresa May MP.  Home Secretary.



What we did receive today was the following from some group calling themselves The Crown Dependencies Team,
whatever the hell that is?

On reading their letter it would appear to be one of those 'fob you off' letters.

It starts with "Thank you for your Email"....
What Email? We didn't send an Email!!!
Anyone smelling a rat yet???

It goes on to explain that Jersey is not part of the UK.
Yes, we know that, but it sure as hell is part of Britain :)

And finally, they couldn't even sign this nonsensical garbage!
Anyone smelling a huge rat yet???

And we think England are coming to our aid???





"GOD HELP US"