Not a 'Claim of Right' but a 'Claim of Duty'

I have been researching the duties of a trustee, in order that I might best undertaker the endowment which the Creator has entrusted to me. Other commentators have extolled the virtues of a 'Claim of Right', I however have decided that rather making such grandiose claims for things which are not within the gift of man, have decided to make a 'Claim of Duty'.

The whole ethos of government is contrary to the obligations which have traditionally been assumed to lie with each natural person. And it has been suggested that reliance on government which is the mud which clogs the lotus blossom of the soul and prevents it from opening.

Government is little more than a bunch of nine year old children seeking to assert their authority on the playground. As time progresses they become ever more inventive in the means they employ to dupe the gullible into descending to their level of behaviour. Power by its very nature exists only as long as one does not try to use it. And as Power slips from the grasp of governments, they become more desperate in their attempts to assert their authority and thereby hasten their own demise.

There is no getting around that government in its current form is immoral. But how does one deal with the playground bullies?

I am a trustee of our Creator, born free and subject only to the terms of the trust endowed to me by God. Those terms are embodied within ‘the Royal Law’, also known as ‘the Common Law’, affirmed by Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II, as those contained within the King James Edition of the Holy Bible. 

Having looked through ‘the Royal Law’ there is no indication of any legal requirement other than those of the Creator, as Settlor of the Sacred Trust. 

I therefore do have certain lawful duties which include the duty to: 

·         Carry out the expressed terms of the trust instrument
·         Defend the trust
·         Prudently invest trust assets
·         Account for actions
·         Be loyal
·         Not delegate
·         Not profit
·         Not be in a conflict of interest position
·         Administer in the best interest of the beneficiary ('the glory of God')

Therefore, to accept any artificial limit to the endowment of our Creator, including, but not limited to, 'statutory laws', is to fail to perform the duties imposed upon me under the Trust and would constitute a 'Breach of Trust'.

I am a God fearing man, and any injustice that I might unfairly be subjected to in this life, is of no consequence when compared to ensuring that His final judgement of my performance, as His trustee, is favourable.

Similarly, to delegate any of my responsibilities to ‘the States of Jersey’ is also a 'Breach of Trust', which means I cannot allow anyone, including government, to remove any of my responsibilities from me. 

As a result, ‘the States of Jersey’ and ‘the Island of Jersey and it’s Dependencies’, have been advised through various of its agents (and notice to one, is notice to all) that I am not a member of the society ‘the Island of Jersey and its Dependencies’, nor do I recognise the authority of ‘the States of Jersey’ to limit, in any way, shape or form, the endowment given to me by my Creator. Indeed it is a matter of public record in the Royal Court of the Island of Jersey.  Nor do I wish to delegate or abrogate any of the responsibilities which our Creator has entrusted me with to ‘the States of Jersey’, its agents, representatives or employees. 

Therefore I am unable to subject myself to any of the rules of that 'legal person' unless I so wish to enter into a Common Law contract with that 'legal person'. I may from time to time enter into contracts with the States of Jersey, as I may enter into contracts with any person, however in the absence of a written contract signed by my own hand, no contract may be presumed by the States of Jersey. This truth is self-evident given that ‘the States of Jersey’ is a legal fiction and not a natural person and is thus not capable of entering into verbal contracts. 

It appears that what you claim as ‘legal requirements’ are in fact your acceptance of an offer you have presumed that I have made under the ‘invitation to treat’, based upon some statutory 'law'. I, of course, have made no such offer and there is no intention to create legal relations in this regard. 

We are not contracted and I am not therefore legally obliged to do anything save carry out the lawful duties of a trustee as listed above.

Fulfilment a growth industry for the UK

Recent changes to the VAT rules on place of supply have opened a very useful little loophole for international trade to British businesses selling internationally.

Under the new rules a VAT registered business in the UK which imports goods from another EU country still receives those goods VAT free, but under the new rules if the goods are then exported from the UK, the company pays no VAT under the 'place of supply' rule.

I have not looked into the rules for all the EU member nations but it seems that the UK has decided to take Jersey's fulfilment business and make it its own.

Want to take advantage of this competitive edge, then perhaps the best place to base your operations is the Isle of Man or Ireland...

Defender of the Public Trust

I have decided to award myself the above title.

The case of whether the Public Markets' rents should be subject to GST has now progressed a stage further and the particulars of the claim have been submitted by 'the Treasurer of the States'.

Interestingly it is the submission is based on a decision in the early twentieth century which determined that a workhouse under the trusteeship of the Guardians of the Poor of St Marylebone was a business (South West Suburban Water Co. v. Guardians of the Poor of St. Marylebone, 1904(2) Kings Bench 174) in relation to the 'domestic supply of water'; the case found that the work house should pay for water as if it were a business. What bearing this has on whether or not GST should be charged on the rents in the public markets, I cannot see, but clearly this is the best they have. A further case has been dredged up from 1887 which states that any activity which is carried on a great expense is a business, but surely the law has moved on in the past 126 years. Why can they not find any case which says that the operation of Government is a business? I suspect it is because it is not, and therefore there is not one.

Thus having clearly established that in legal terms my case is the superior, the discussions now turn to the implications of allowing me to win.

Jersey Property Holdings has recently started charging GST on a number of rents; every stall in the markets, in Liberty Wharf and at every cafe and kiosk all around the coast. Which is probably around £500,000 collected in the last six months.

This in itself is a breach of trust; for if the States of Jersey are not personally profiting from this action then they are at least placing themselves in a position of conflict of interest.

Trustees have certain duties. These include the duty to:

• Carry out the expressed terms of the trust instrument
• Defend the trust
• Prudently invest trust assets
• Be impartial among beneficiaries
• Account for actions and keep beneficiaries informed
• Be loyal
• Not delegate
• Not profit
• Not be in a conflict of interest position
• Administer in the best interest of the beneficiaries

The States of Jersey somehow forget that they are the trustees of the Public Trust in their case. There are also multitudinous errors in Law contained within the various agreements.

So the answer now submitted is as follows:

1.       Definitions of terms used in this Answer
a.       ‘The Lessor’ is the Public of the Island of Jersey, whom is also the Settlor and Beneficiary of the ‘Public Markets Trust’.
b.      ‘The Public Markets Trust’ is that established with the proceeds of seven public lotteries with the intention of constructing Markets for the benefit of the Public of the Island of Jersey.
c.       ‘The Lessee’ is Darius James Pearce
d.      ‘Nigel Pearce’ is Nigel Robert Williams Pearce, the original Lessee
e.       ‘The States of Jersey’ is the Trustee of the Public Markets
f.        ‘The Inspector of Markets’ is the duly authorised representative of the Lessor under Article 11 of the Public Markets (Administration) (Jersey) Regulations 1947, as party to any rental contracts entered into.
g.       ‘The Minister Responsible’ is the Minister of Transport and Technical Services as per Article 1 of the Loi (1885) Touchant L’Administration Des Marches Publicsh.      ‘The Agent’ is any other person who acts with the consent of the Inspector of Markets on behalf of the Public of the Island of Jersey; this may be the Treasury and Resources Department or Jersey Property Holdings Limited or another Agent.
i.         ‘GST’ Refers to any sums payable under the Goods and Services Tax (Jersey) Law 2007.
j.        ‘the GST Law’ refers to  the Goods and Services Tax (Jersey) Law 2007 2.       IDENTITY OF THE PERSONS WHO ARE PARTY TO THE CONTRACT. There has been consistent errors in the identity of the person who acted as ‘Lessee’ initially the contract was with ‘Nigel Pearce Jewellers’ when in fact the correct person was ‘Nigel Pearce, Jeweller’ and the identity of the person who is currently the Lessee is Darius James Pearce. ‘Nigel Pearce Jewellers’ was never a person to the best of my knowledge. ‘Nigel Pearce & Son, Jewellers’ is a trading name of Jersey Online Traders Limited who is not a party to the contract.
3.       The document referred to as ‘A Memorandum of Assignment of Lease’ dated 20^th May 2009 which assigns the benefit of the lease from Nigel Pearce to the Lessee is in fact not an Assignment but a Novation as it is a tri-party agreement between The Treasury and Resources Department (acting as Agent on behalf of the Public of the Island of Jersey with the consent of the Inspector of Markets), Nigel Pearce and the Lessor.
4.       In paragraph 5 of the Particulars of Claim the Plaintiff concedes that GST shall only be charged on the supply of goods or services made by a taxable person in the course or furtherance of any business carried on by the person. The Plaintiff makes no representation to demonstrate that ‘The Public of the Island of Jersey’ is a taxable person, nor that they are a registered person under the GST Law.
5.       The Plaintiff in his Particulars of Claim further confuses the parties to the Contract. The Trustee is an employee of the Lessor and any contract which exists between the Trustee and Lessor is not the subject of this matter. Therefore any GST chargeable on the services provided by the Trustee to the Lessor is not a matter which is the business of the Lessee, nor of any relevance to the Court’s deliberations on the matter under consideration.
6.       However, it is apparent that the provision of GST to the services provided by the Trustee as specified under the GST Law as amended Goods and Services Tax (Jersey) Regulations 2007 specifically separates those occasions when the Trustee is acting on behalf of the Public of the Island of Jersey and when the Trustee is acting on its own account, on a commercial basis, and only subjects those commercial activities to the effect of the GST Law. This is the stated intention of the Minister during the debate on the GST Law and Regulations in the States of Jersey. It was never intended that GST should be chargeable on the normal business of government, that being the operation of the Public Trust. For the plaintiff to suggest otherwise is patently absurd. There is no GST levied on Income Tax, Social Security Contributions, or Parish Rates.
7.       The Plaintiff appears before the Royal Court in full dishonour having made no effort to enter into discussion with the Defendant for the previous seven months; this matter appears before the Court through the choice of the Plaintiff when the reasonable course of action would have been to enter into correspondence on the matters contained in the Particulars of Claim and Answer.
8.        Therefore I humbly beseech the Court to dismiss the claim of the Plaintiff and award the Defendant full indemnity costs.

The issues with which the judge must now contend are:

• Is government a business?
• Is government a trust?
• Are 'the Public of the Island of Jersey' a taxable person?
• If so, should the trustees (the States of Jersey) not pay parish rates on the properties they administer on their behalf?
• What are the implications for the finance industry of whatever verdict is arrived at?
• What are the implications for the lease renewals in the Public Markets which come up on December 24th 2013?

It seems that I have found the right question to ask, and I eagerly await the answer to my query. It has been seven months so far but the judgement should be handed down in the next 28 days or so. As the case entirely rests on points of law and their is no dispute as to facts, it can be dealt with by way of summary judgement under Rule 7/8 of the Royal Court Rules 2005.

Eight months, you see the wheels of justice can move move swiftly.

What the devaluation of the One Pound means to you

The log-graph of German inflation
in the inter-war period
Each line on the vertical access is
10x the value of its preceding

Over the weekend the government and banking world has stated its intention to continue to de-value The Times reports,

'The incoming Bank of England Governor may attempt to depreciate sterling by as much as 15 per cent against a basket of currencies as he seeks to help British exporters to tap into foreign demand', Mike Amey, the head of sterling portfolios at Pimco, said.

The contrarian view has oft been reported in the Telegraph and the Financial Times. But none of them actually explain to you what exactly devaluation is and what it means to you.

In short a 15% devaluation of the pound means that the price of everything will increase by 17.5%, everything not produced in the UK at least.

But that may not be the full story, looking at the fx rate between the GBP and the USD for the past ten years shows that the pound has already been devalued

And against the Euro

But the story is even more pronounced if compared to a currency which has not been actively de-valuing such as the Thai Baht

Devaluation is simply a euphemistic way of saying 'you are going to be paid less and everything will cost you more'. Your savings and investments which are denominated in pounds are going to be worth less and the value of your home which is also calculated in pounds will also decrease. Most importantly your benefits including pension are not going to be increased to compensate.