As this is a draft judgement I cannot disclose the contents, but I have taken the opportunity to point out the grounds upon which I will rely for the resultant appeal to the European Court of Human Rights (this being my last available domestic remedy) which number six, so far.
Whilst five are fairly standard points of law, for one of the points I finally submitted in writing the basis of my claim for non-membership of 'the Island of Jersey and its Dependencies' the jurisdiction in which all Jersey statutes operate and all administrative Courts (the Royal Court, the Magistrate etc.) operate. I therefore thought I should share it for comment (or ridicule) depending on your point of view.
The judgement does not make mention of the matter of jurisdiction in the following regard.
Nowhere does it state in the Law that physical location alone is a determinant of jurisdiction. Indeed the Interpretation (Jersey) Law 1953 refers to the jurisdiction of 'the Island of Jersey and its Dependencies'. The 'Island of Jersey' is capitalised and thus it is a proper name which refers therefore to a group of people and not to a physical place, the United States for example exercises authority of its 'citizens' no matter their physical location. What is more a lump of granite which is what the 'island of Jersey' (note lower case island) is constituted of cannot have 'dependents' as it is by our own human standards inanimate.
I live within the geo-political territory claimed by the Diocese of Winchester, that however does not make me a member of the Church of England. Likewise I live within the physical territory claimed by the Island of Jersey and its Dependencies, that does not make me a member of that group of people.
No evidence was presented to indicate that I was either a member of 'the Island of Jersey and its Dependencies' or subject to its rules and regulations. Such membership can by its very nature only be a voluntary act; and under the UN Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, any person whose human rights have been abused has the right to self-determination, (as mine were from 2007 to 2009 when the Island of Jersey and its Dependencies allowed itself to become and instrument of vengeance and torture under the advice and guidance of an Advocate of the Royal Court (Advocate <<name removed>> to be precise) solely for her own personal financial gain).
This is a right I have exercised as a matter of public record.
I noted before attending Court that I was attending solely as a child of God and subject to his jurisdiction alone. Clearly I am not therefore subject to the Employment (Jersey) Law 2003, nor any statute of that society, and therefore cannot be named as a party in any proceeding carried out under its auspices.
Subject, as I am, solely to the Royal Law, as affirmed by Her Majesty at her coronation as being that which is constituted within the Bible, I have only two laws to abide by; love my God above all else and love my neighbour as myself.
To submit to the rules and regulations of the 'the Island of Jersey and its Dependencies' is to worship false idols, an act for which I would have to answer to God.
A God-fearing man's conscience stands above the Law and on this matter my conscience is clear.
I have endured every torture and injustice that the Island of Jersey and its Dependencies have subjected me to and it has made me stronger, I thank the Island of Jersey and its Dependencies, I forgive the Island of Jersey and its Dependencies, but I want nothing to do with the Island of Jersey and its Dependencies other than the return of the monies fraudulently obtained under the euphemistically termed 'Social Security (Jersey) Law 1974', Ponzi scheme.
If forced to conduct a campaign of satyagraha against 'the Island of Jersey and its Dependencies' rather than live in peaceful co-existence, then so be it; I am answerable to God for my actions alone and I have no desire for Him to find me wanting.
I will not be bowed, bent or broken, by fear or by favour, I will not be turned from the path of righteousness.
I will not take advantage of the weak and slow-witted as the Island of Jersey and its Dependencies does, I will not assist the Island of Jersey and its Dependencies' protection racket, and I want nothing from the Island of Jersey and its Dependencies, but to be left alone to live out my days in praise of God and fear of His judgement to come.
That makes for quite an interesting point to take to the ECHR: the extent to which a person abused, unlawfully, by another person with the support of the abusive regime is obliged to accept and comply with the abusive regime thereafter.
ReplyDeleteThe Freeman movement does not appear to have gained much in the way of credence in other jurisdictions but, in those jurisdictions, the defendant has often breached an obligation provided by statute in circumstances where, at the time of the relevant breach, the defendant had no evidence of fundamental breach of the "social contract" by the state. This case appears a little different.
The proposition, as I perceive it, is that you have evidence of abuse (albeit in a past situation) as a result of which you have been or are entitled to sever your relationship with the state to the maximum extent possible without interfering with your human right to live.
I'm not sure how this argument will stack up in practice but, arguably, it is a better than other more objectionable methods of dealing with abusive regimes such as terrorism.
Also, in comment to the circulation of draft judgements, this is quite common now. I say this because you refer to legal friends. By describing your friends as 'legal', it implies that they have legal training or are practicing advocates or solicitors. I would be surprised if an experienced lawyer would assure you that judgements are never circulated before they are "handed down". You do say that the judgement was accompanied by an invitation to make comments on points of law. This might be exceptional.
I look forward to reading the judgement when it is publicly available.
The circulation of judgements before they are formalised is covered in a practise direction of the Royal Court and is allowed only in the case of a reserved judgement. It is unusual in that given that the judge has unlimited time to research whatever points of law he wishes to, there is not usually any requirement.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
ReplyDelete