tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-667039295268759670.post4644840691146519779..comments2023-08-21T10:31:37.251+01:00Comments on Jersey Libertarian: The ECHR and Parking FinesDarius Pearcehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08207593799348887450noreply@blogger.comBlogger21125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-667039295268759670.post-31763715407656837482012-02-21T01:51:35.756+00:002012-02-21T01:51:35.756+00:00As an aside...I find it interesting that the Deput...As an aside...<br><br>I find it interesting that the Deputy Bailiff did not refute your Claim of Right... I think it proves you are on the right track.<br><br>But filing a claim that you are a man, which no one has ever denied or sought to deny, in any case, I wonder if that is the right approach.<br><br>If you NEVER want to be the Legal Person, then maybe it would be better to dissolve it, like you would a company.<br><br>I wonder if there is a legal mechanism in place other than by filing a death certificate?Darius Pearcehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08207593799348887450noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-667039295268759670.post-87222383122907250952012-02-21T01:40:27.403+00:002012-02-21T01:40:27.403+00:00Sorry forgot to say 2.30pmSorry forgot to say 2.30pmDarius Pearcehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08207593799348887450noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-667039295268759670.post-47744996108410678492012-02-21T00:51:12.778+00:002012-02-21T00:51:12.778+00:00"We hold these truths to be self-evident, tha..."We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights"<br><br>So it is self-evident that our creator has endowed us with rights (why Endowed? Endowment is a trust)<br><br>How carefully do you think the Founding Fathers worded their declaration? I imagine they spent weeks quibbling over the exact text...<br><br>That's 30 witnesses I can call to aid my case...<br><br>The Father is the beneficiary, the Son is the executor of the trust who gave us the rules we must abide by, and the Spirit is the trustee ('we are all imbued with His spirit' or we are all His 'trustees').<br><br>The Court simply cannot deny God as it claims its own rights from God. (We are a Christian society).<br><br>Man caused government to be formed (beneficiary), Government makes the rules (executive), Legal Person (trustee must follow rules).<br><br>Statute only applies to Legal Person not to man. Only when Man can be shown to have committed breach of God's trust (to break Common Law) can he be made to make restitutions.<br><br>So in the ECHR (which also applies to non-common law contries and non-Christian societies) they change the terms to Private Person and Public Person, but the difference IS recognised.<br><br>So as far as I can see everything fits the hypothesis... unless you or Ian can see something that does not. A hypothesis needs to be tested and it will either found to be correct or incorrect and in need of refinement.<br><br>See that Catholic eduction came in useful!Darius Pearcehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08207593799348887450noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-667039295268759670.post-66693367134934245152012-02-20T21:17:03.174+00:002012-02-20T21:17:03.174+00:00Your first visit to court for this ticket is equiv...Your first visit to court for this ticket is equivalent to an arraignment its purpose is to establish jurisdiction,done formally by you entering a plea, entering a plea(any plea) in an administrative court is consent to jurisdiction of the judges choice.<br><br>other ways your express or tacit consent can be inferred are;<br><br>asking if you under stand the charge and you saying yes<br><br>by calling and you responding to the title Mr.<br><br>telling you to sit,stand,be quiet etc. and you obeying.<br><br>giving,when asked your name,address and date of birth.<br><br> your legal fiction person can act in several capacities.<br> <br>in trusts;<br>beneficiary/ executor or trustee<br><br>as a government agent/employee.<br><br>as your vessel to sail the fictional sea of commerce.<br><br>the person can never be the man,<br>the man can act in any legal way for the person.<br><br>It would be great if trust was the key in 'court', but<br>as the 'magistrates' can change jurisdiction when they want and without telling you,well, like you say, lets see <br><br>good luck<br><br>cyrilAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-667039295268759670.post-3191220374031677552012-02-20T18:13:13.722+00:002012-02-20T18:13:13.722+00:00What time on the 27th?What time on the 27th?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-667039295268759670.post-62525600476960017382012-02-20T13:13:55.934+00:002012-02-20T13:13:55.934+00:00I am with you there, if all your property belongs ...I am with you there, if all your property belongs to the man then they cannot take it from you.Darius Pearcehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08207593799348887450noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-667039295268759670.post-13744753632722612452012-02-20T00:56:01.036+00:002012-02-20T00:56:01.036+00:00hahaha,I don't want to reverse ALL THOSE JUDGE...hahaha,<br><br>I don't want to reverse ALL THOSE JUDGEMENTS, for the simple reason that the Viscount's department cannot ever enforce them, one sweetly written notice and there is silence forever!<br><br>By fighting me 'n' the squirrel, all they will (corruptly) achieve is the judgements, nothing else, just a preliminary judgement that hits the headlines and goes in the paper! So what???<br><br>Let us see if they ever collect on any of their 'ALLEGED' debts???<br><br>I say absolutely NO!!!Ian Evanshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15228210750484725153noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-667039295268759670.post-54695047395594875982012-02-19T23:53:49.868+00:002012-02-19T23:53:49.868+00:00Yes Ian you are right you are always the Man, I am...Yes Ian you are right you are always the Man, I am always the Man.<br><br>But the basis of the law is that...<br>The Man can be judged by God alone, the Man can only be ordered by Courts to make restitution for harms caused, and never punished. God is omniscient and knows our deepest thoughts and every action we take, we are always answerable to Him. We all await our final reckoning which shall be at God's hands, and He shall judge us.<br><br>But do you recognise that you are sometimes the Person? Like when you chose to register to vote? At that point you were choosing to be the Person, because only the Person has the right to vote. <br><br>The Man has god-given rights, but voting is a government given right and it is given to the Person.<br><br>In filling in that form and in completing the rights that arose from it you were choosing to be a Person for those time periods.Darius Pearcehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08207593799348887450noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-667039295268759670.post-77676427352209728702012-02-19T23:30:40.195+00:002012-02-19T23:30:40.195+00:00"Maybe if you gave them notice as the PERSON ..."Maybe if you gave them notice as the PERSON that you were acting as a MAN at the time and it went un-rebutted...<br><br>I can and do act at different times of the day as one of the following:<br>Darius Pearce (the Man)<br>Darius Pearce (the Person)<br>Darius Pearce (Director of my company)<br><br>Simon Crowcroft is at various times<br>Simon Crowcroft the man<br>Simon Crowcroft the person<br>The Constable of St Helier."<br><br><br>I am ALWAYS the man, how could I possibly be anything else Darius?<br><br>"It is said that a man is three things,<br>What he thinks he is,<br>What others think he is,<br>And what he really is,<br>Which of these do you believe to be true?"Ian Evanshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15228210750484725153noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-667039295268759670.post-17816610364977199442012-02-19T22:05:58.364+00:002012-02-19T22:05:58.364+00:00They have NO RIGHT even communicating with a man o...They have NO RIGHT even communicating with a man or woman absent their consent, a simple notice tells us this as they never respond to the lawful notice.<br><br>An unrebutted notice is more than enough to dismiss, yet these corrupt clowns ignore them and push for their £30 or £40 with their lives.<br><br>You need to get your head around this, it is called corruption!Ian Evanshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15228210750484725153noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-667039295268759670.post-58801240772868123652012-02-19T21:58:12.346+00:002012-02-19T21:58:12.346+00:00Think of it this way... an innocent man does not t...Think of it this way... an innocent man does not turn up at the Court on the first day, say I'm innocent, walk out and then it's all over and done with.<br><br>There are weeks and weeks of mental stress put on you to try and make you crack and plead guilty, if you have a lawyer then he constantly tells you to plead guilty unless you are paying him. You know innocent people plead guilty all the time in Jersey.<br><br>The legal person Ian Leslie Evans does exist and you have your birth certificate to prove it, maybe that person is not flesh and blood but the flesh and blood man is the only authorised representative of that legal person.<br><br>If the Legal Person is summoned to Court he has to go, he has to go through the whole process as any innocent man would.<br><br>If the Legal Person does not turn up then summary judgement can be given (because summary judgements are easily over-turned, and are over-turned on request).Darius Pearcehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08207593799348887450noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-667039295268759670.post-13046650811688043462012-02-19T21:54:08.437+00:002012-02-19T21:54:08.437+00:00We have done it right and they just ignore it and ...We have done it right and they just ignore it and act as they please. If Shaw is not acting under her oath of office, then she is not acting as a judge/magistrate and therefore cannot issue a judgement, it is as simple as that!<br><br>Like I said, totally corrupt judges!!!Ian Evanshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15228210750484725153noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-667039295268759670.post-20310025548637925982012-02-19T21:21:32.963+00:002012-02-19T21:21:32.963+00:00"I cannot hear you"Means that they are s..."I cannot hear you"<br><br>Means that they are saying that they "cannot hear the Law"Ian Evanshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15228210750484725153noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-667039295268759670.post-82291359733402262742012-02-19T21:16:20.892+00:002012-02-19T21:16:20.892+00:00I guess we'll find out 27th Feb. But it makes ...I guess we'll find out 27th Feb. But it makes no sense to me that anyone other a person who is a party can address a Court.<br><br>When the judge says 'I cannot hear you', as I know she has said to you before perhaps she means that 'the statutory court cannot hear a natural person'? It certainly makes more sense to me that way.<br><br>So I shall go to Court as a legal person, plead not guilty, if they do not drop the charge, ask for a hearing to jurisdiction and then make the case that I was not acting as a person at the time the alleged infraction occurred.<br><br>I shall force them to give a written judgement and then they can pick holes in the theory to their heart's content and I can refine it and try again next time and the next time until I get it right.<br><br>Then if that fails we have plan b and plan c.Darius Pearcehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08207593799348887450noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-667039295268759670.post-81529046792154566342012-02-19T20:08:29.632+00:002012-02-19T20:08:29.632+00:00"You need to acknowledge that you are that pe..."You need to acknowledge that you are that person to be able to address the Court."<br><br><br>Are you MAD?Ian Evanshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15228210750484725153noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-667039295268759670.post-43097221277194763832012-02-19T18:38:38.370+00:002012-02-19T18:38:38.370+00:00THE COURT PROCESSInitial HearingHearing to jurisdi...THE COURT PROCESS<br>Initial Hearing<br>Hearing to jurisdiction<br>Directions hearing<br>Trial<br>Sentence<br>(NOTE there can be more than one hearing at each of these stages)<br><br>If you refuse to acknowledge that you are the person (which you cannot realistically deny as who else is authorised to be that person?)<br><br>You need to acknowledge that you are that person to be able to address the Court. For the time you spend addressing the Court, you are that person. If you are not a party to the case it is none of your business.<br><br>So at the initial hearing if you state that you are not the person they have called, then that person is in default (or dishonour) and summary judgement may be given... and in your case it has been.<br><br>You need to make the 'I'm a Man not a Person' argument at the hearing to determine jurisdiction since that argument is simply saying you do not have jurisdiction as I was acting as the Natural Person (God's trustee) not the Legal Person (the government's trustee) at the time the alleged infraction occurred.<br><br>It does not matter what person you are when you speak to the Court it matters what person you were when the infraction occurred.<br><br>The Court file is not opened until after the initial hearing - the prosecution will not file a full claim. You as defendant can only RESPOND once a claim has been made. So the greffier was right you could not file at the Court, yet.<br><br>Once this has been disclosed the Court then considers whether it can hear the case (at a hearing to jurisdiction) and only once jurisdiction is established can any hearing on the claim proceed.<br><br>You are not being defeated by law but by lack of knowledge of the process...<br><br>It is not their corruption, but if you will forgive me, your ignorance, which has allowed them to rule against you.<br><br>I welcome any thoughts from you or Cyril on this.Darius Pearcehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08207593799348887450noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-667039295268759670.post-12254545576973136992012-02-19T17:57:05.539+00:002012-02-19T17:57:05.539+00:00e-mail me at dariuspearce@yahoo.co.uk and I'll...e-mail me at dariuspearce@yahoo.co.uk and I'll send through where I am up to...Darius Pearcehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08207593799348887450noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-667039295268759670.post-30543981880152363312012-02-18T13:07:55.474+00:002012-02-18T13:07:55.474+00:00Oh, I forgot, they will not let you file at the co...Oh, I forgot, they will not let you file at the court either! We went in to file our papers one time and they said "you can't file here, you have to file at the town hall" WTF???Ian Evanshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/15228210750484725153noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-667039295268759670.post-27438653233994244142012-02-18T13:00:48.372+00:002012-02-18T13:00:48.372+00:00Anyhow I suspect that somewhere along the line you...Anyhow I suspect that somewhere along the line you made a mistake (possibly in your correspondence with the Constable?) I suspect that you did not file your own 'bundle' of papers to support your case and oppose the Parish's, the judge simply went on the case before him as represented in the paperwork.Darius Pearcehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08207593799348887450noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-667039295268759670.post-51217258347486316842012-02-18T12:55:41.115+00:002012-02-18T12:55:41.115+00:00Well there is a difference - parking tickets are a...Well there is a difference - parking tickets are an infraction, rates are voted on directly by the people (if they choose to attend the Rates assembly), you personally could have attended the meeting and said no I want the rate lowered and cast your vote directly... that is not quite the same as Statute.Darius Pearcehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/08207593799348887450noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-667039295268759670.post-48339092359779919542012-02-18T11:48:36.529+00:002012-02-18T11:48:36.529+00:00Darius/Ian.Ian has pretty much hit the nail on the...Darius/Ian.<br><br>Ian has pretty much hit the nail on the head with the link he posted. This is Jersey, the courts just do what the hell they like, make it up as they go along and answer to nobody.<br><br>Being right, or in the right, counts for absolutely nothing in a Jersey court.voiceforchildrenhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16825129148579102037noreply@blogger.com