Google+ Followers

Tuesday, 12 June 2012

Preparations for the Appeal


My appeal will finally be heard on the 25th June at 10:00 am, with Cyril Vibert's to be heard at 2:30 p.m. on the same day.

This is the basis of my case, with of course a few cards up one's sleeve to play at the pertinent moment.

This is a matter of public record

Dear Advocate O'Donnell,

I have found that Persona est homo cum statu quodam consideratus which I believe means that a man is a person with reference to a certain status, in virtue of which certain rights belong to a man and certain duties are imposed upon him.

So far I can find that I have certain 'unalienable' or un-lienable rights which means that these are granted by God and no lien may be placed upon them by any man nor can any duties arise from them other than those given by God (i.e. not to kill, not to steal etc., but I'm pretty certain God never said be careful where you park your car), the States of Jersey are compelled to follow this as a result of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights Article 1.

Looking at the Crown - Alfred the Great decreed that there should be one law which would apply equally to all and that any man might bring his case before the King, clearly since these statutes do not fall into that category as for example I cannot bring a case before the King (or the Royal Court in his place) about someone parking in an unloading bay. Therefore my 'status' as a British Citizen, should indeed that be my status, would not compel me to follow Jersey statutes.

Therefore I surmise that there must be a further status which you are seeking to apply to me of which I am not aware. If there is such a status it is not one which I have entered into knowingly or willingly and therefore is unenforceable in a Court of Law.

As far as I am aware as a human being I have a 'common law' right to travel and if whilst travelling I am simultaneously operating a vehicle this does not make me a 'driver' as I am not 'employed' at the time, nor does it afford me any other status than those described above.

Further examination of Black Law Dictionary suggests that an 'individual who is not the incumbent of an office' is a private person. The European Convention on Human Rights Article 8 further states that it is not sufficient that a private person has acted in a manner which is in breach of statute it must also show that any penalty "is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others." I would suggest to you that the actions of the authorities in this matter are none of the above and therefore the actions of the States of Jersey in this matter are both unlawful and not compliant with the demands of the European Convention on Human Rights.

I would also point out that following a series of Human Rights abuses perpetrated against me by Officers of the States of Jersey I declared myself independent from their authority in 2008, whilst remaining a British Citizen, as is my right under the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, specifically the Right to Self Determination.

Just assuming that you are attempting to ascribe an erroneous status to me (which I suspect is that of 'driver').

I would point out that you have no evidence to suggest that Mr. Pearce was the driver of the vehicle and whilst it may be the case that the Court will initially make the assumption that the registered keeper of the vehicle is the driver, there is evidence to the contrary as presented to the Magistrate and therefore this assumption cannot be made in this case as a result of the evidence to the contrary. Indeed as the only evidence before the Court is that Mr. Pearce was not the driver, as the 'Crown' have not chosen to present any evidence in this regard, I believe the case should be immediately and summarily dismissed.

Secondly there is no evidence whatsoever that anyone was acting in the person of Mr. Pearce (whatever rights and duties he holds) at the time of the alleged offence and thus there can be no certainty that the right person has been charged. Indeed there is evidence to the contrary that the sole authorised representative was acting as a different person at the time and therefore Mr. Pearce cannot have been the driver.

Thirdly, the person who parked the car is not necessarily the person responsible for the infraction since the offence is exceeding a time limit, were there a driver, the identity of the driver may have changed between one person parking the car and the person who failed to remove it at the appointed time.

Further I operate under the assumption that this is an appeal from an administrative hearing and would be grateful if you would correct me as is your duty under Article 6 of the European Convention of Human Rights. I therefore challenge your assertion that you are my administrator and I am your trustee, I am a trustee of God alone and unless you have the written authority of God I am bound only by my conscience as a God fearing man.

I shall compile this into a bundle in time for Court but I wished you to have every opportunity to research and answer these points and I am aware that there is less than two weeks until the hearing.

Of course if you believe that further discussion would best serve the Court as is your Duty as a member of the Law Society then should you feel minded to correct any erroneous observations that I have made, as I am not a man of Learning, I am always willing to discuss the matter further and seek a resolution which will save the Court's time.

The Man commonly known as Darius Pearce