Has Cyril cracked it?

Taken from "Tales Of Plunder - Pirates & Privateers" (Italics are quotes from Cyril)

The paperwork (right) appeared through my letter box in August 2013:

Take a close look at this alleged ‘charge sheet’, who is Mr Cyril Vibert? It certainly is not me, I was not christened Mr by my parents, neither did they call me Mr, Mr is a fictional construct, a title, a legal person, It is not a human being.

There is a box for a signature why is it not signed by the Constable or one of his Centeniers?

Why is no one prepared to take responsibility for this document?

Indeed the only thing in this box is the company seal of the Parish of St Helier, are these agents saying that I have a contract with this body corporate? 

I would very much like to see this alleged contract. Oh that’s right, there isn't one.

Why didn't the agent of the court, Mr Mourant, sign instead of write his title and surname? 

 We’ll look at the answers to these questions later. This so called ‘charge sheet’ has about as much lawful significance as a piece of bog roll, albeit not as useful.

At this point it may be worth noting that a) only a Centenier has the power to charge in Jersey, which Centenier is laying the charge? and b) a prosecution may only take place with the consent of the Attorney General. The papers say "For the Constable of St Helier".

Now the Viscount’s letter

Again this is addressed to a legal fiction, now I know we have been schooled into believing that we are Mr, Mrs, Ms, Miss, Esq, Sir, etc etc. But we are none of these things, we are real living beings with a soul and a conscience and as long as we remember this and exercise our inalienable rights as such, then the corporate judiciary and government must also remember this (they won’t because they are a criminal outfit).

Notice how the Viscount wants cash, I have sat through many hours of Magistrate’s Court plunder sessions and can confirm that the Viscount will only accept cash in court, they will even allow you to go to an ATM to get the cash, this amounts to thousands of pounds every session, yet you will not find these figures in the States of Jersey accounts nor where this considerable sum of money is spent, why not? Are there commissioners and the likes to pay?

The above documents came a little while after the usual pro forma invitation to a parish hall inquiry and then a facsimile template summons to appear in the Magistrates Court on the 12th August 2013 issued by the Connetable (Constable) of St. Helier.

Firstly I’ll state for the record that I have not been charged with any of the alleged offences contained in the above ‘charge sheet’. 

So the question is this, is anyone obliged to attend the Magistrate’s Court (other than as a witness) if they have not been charged with an offence?

Answer: Of course not.

At this stage I am going to intervene in Cyril's observations, firstly the letter says "you should have appeared to answer the charges". So there we have confirmation from the viscount that Cyril has not been charged and that he was not requited to appear ("should" not "were ordered")

There is also a certain phrase in the letter, "you should attend IN PERSON". So this tell us two things; firstly that you do not have to ("should" is not an order, "must" would be an order) and secondly that you should attend IN PERSON, why is this capitalised? If the requirement is for you to attend, then the 'in person' is superfluous and lawyers rarely if ever waste words. Perhaps it means that you must attend in the persona of Mr Cyril Vibert, rather than just Cyril the human being.

Now under the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (remembering this is a treaty between nation states and thus it applies only to nation states as contracting parties and not to individual humans)

"Article 6. Everyone has the right to recognition everywhere as a person before the law."

We also know from the Interpretation (Jersey) Law 1954 that a person can include a body corporate and thus the term does not refer to a human being exclusively.

Whilst every nation state has to offer to recognise a human being as a person; a human being has the option of whether or not to exercise a right.

By turning up to the Viscount's Department 'in person' you are in effect exercising your right to be recognised as a person. There is no compulsion for you to do so. By turning up you are signalling your consent.

Next the pro forma quasi summons was from the Constable of St. Helier, sorry but I forgot to make a copy of these which I sent back marked “No Contract – Return to Sender”.

Now obviously the Constable of St. Heliers’ jurisdiction and authority is limited to within the Parish of St. Helier. So, does a summons from the Constable of St. Helier create any legal obligation upon someone who lives outside of the Parish of St. Helier? – No it does not, but let us not forget that this is Jersey with it's Alice in Wonderland make it up as you go along ‘justice system’.

You would have thought that the Magistrates with their planet sized legal minds would have picked up on such glaring problems, but no, according to the Viscounts’ dept. the Magistrate (no clue as to which one) issued an arrest order. Strange how these mythical arrest orders never seem to see the light of day, I have yet to see one of these orders signed by a Magistrate, maybe they’re shy.
Or Even the court jesters (sometimes called Magistrates) know better than to sign an unlawful order.

Despite threats of immediate arrest by Viscounts officers (basically bailiffs for our non-Jersey readers) I have carried on living my life. The Viscounts Dept. is infested with lawyers so it is not clear to me what they mean by ‘immediate arrest’ could it have some kind of secret legalese meaning.

Why more than 4 months after the alleged ‘arrest order’ have I not been arrested, I did not pay any bail nor will I. Have they just forgotten? Or do they have so many ‘arrest orders’ outstanding that they have not got around to me yet? Do you dear readers think either is likely? Nor do I. So what is happening here?

One of the essential elements of any court case is jurisdiction, for criminal and quasi criminal matters a court must establish in-personam jurisdiction; a court cannot lawfully proceed against you without establishing jurisdiction over you. And at no time has the court established jurisdiction over me, you see, if you go to court under your own steam for statutory matters, you have, simply by turning up, tacitly consented to in-personam jurisdiction even if you dispute jurisdiction once in court. The courts presumption of tacit consent to jurisdiction will stand no matter what argument or rebuttal you care to use, I know this because I’ve tried most of them.

By not going to court the alleged Magistrate was unable to claim that jurisdiction was established either tacitly or expressly, no jurisdiction, no case to answer. Magistrates and the lawyers from the Viscount’s Department know this full well.

The glaringly obvious truth is that a Magistrate’s Oath of Office does not allow or authorise them to administrate legislation. When Bridget Shaw, or whoever is sitting in court administrating legislation they are acting as a private Commissioner not as a Magistrate and a nice commission it must be considering all that lovely cash coming in through the box office every day. You see why a ‘Magistrate’ might be loathed to confirm their Oath of Office in court and in so doing limit their ability to act in any other capacity at that same hearing.

From the Bailiffs’ office we have the Magistrates Oath of Office with English translation


Publicly sworn, before God, upholding the rights of the Queen and her subjects, in accordance with the laws and customs of this Island. All of this confirms that this Oath is a common law Oath; the swearer is promising to uphold common law when using its authority. It does not authorise a Magistrate to administer legislation.

However nothing in legislation or law forbids Bridget Shaw, Peter Harris et al from working as a private commissioner after their work as a Magistrate is finished.

Magistrates have no problem giving lawful orders and signing both orders and warrants, private commissioners are far more reluctant as it is them personally, and not the ‘Court’ who is responsible for their actions and orders.

Asking these well paid private commissioners questions they don’t want to answer is not only revealing but laugh out loud mad;

Me to Bridget Shaw “what jurisdiction is the court presuming here?”
BS; “The Magistrates court is a creature of statute”.

A CREATURE, WTF? No doubt this SEA CREATURE has tentacles and big sharp teeth.
A creature or court of statute, statute (act, enactment etc.) is just lawyers fancy way of saying a tribunal administering legislation.

Of course it gets more serious when an important question and the answer vanish from the official court recording. See the rather stunning posting on the link below, a must read. http://therightofreply.blogspot.com/2013/04/the-maleficent-seven-how-bandits_6.html

From the start of my various appearances in ‘court’ for ‘statutory offences’ I would ask the ‘Magistrate’ “Are you operating under your Oath of Office at this time” not once did any so called magistrate give a responsive answer, they would obfuscate by saying things like “I am not prepared to enter into a discussion about that” You what!!! Only a corrupt or disingenuous mind would interpret asking for a simple yes/no answer to a question as calling for a discussion.

Compare this to my later appearances for the common law offence of contempt of court, when asked the same question about their Oath of Office both Richard Falle and Bridget Shaw had no hesitation in answering “yes”. These crooks think we were born yesterday, and that we are not capable of leading them into answers that show how they are abusing their public positions and the law.

I’ve spent a lot of hours at the Magistrates court both appearing and listening to other cases so I’ve noticed a few things, like all the common law proper crime stuff is usually dealt with first and swiftly so the lawyers can get down and dirty making wonga.

Policed by consent and governed by consent means exactly what it says.

I consent to be bound by common law, I do not consent to be bound by legislation created by a de facto corporate government unless I am acting as a government agent or am engaged in commerce.

Jersey has, in effect and fact, a privatised justice system (sic) the private members only BAR Association and its junior affiliate the Law Society control justice on this island. The membership by invitation only BAR Association (an Unincorporated Body Corporate) which is chartered through the Inns of Court, situated within the City of London Corporation and the CROWN whose address is Crown officer, Crown office row, Chancery lane, CITY OF LONDON, are not government bodies, are not public institutions, have no natural authority to determine how our justice system should operate, rather they are a collection of people who have joined together to promote their, and their fellow members standing and earning potential and who are not held accountable by lazy and/or corrupt politicians.

This arrangement is financially beneficial for both government and lawyers they will not give up this scam lightly. But I digress

OK perhaps a little clarification is required here. Magna Carta originally signed at Runnymede in 1215 was given legal authority in 1297 (slightly amended). Clause 8 in the 1215 charter (Clause 9 in the 1297 version) remains extant (from wikipedia)

"9. THE City of London shall have all the old Liberties and Customs which it hath been used to have. Moreover We will and grant, that all other Cities, Boroughs, Towns, and the Barons of the Five Ports, as with all other Ports, shall have all their Liberties and free Customs."

The City of London to this day has its own legislative assembly, whereas all the others have largely lost their liberties.

"The City of London operates through its Lord Mayor, Aldermen and other members of the Court of Common Council (equivalent to councillors and known as 'Common Councilmen'). They are elected by the residents and businesses of the City's 25 wards. Like the Lord Mayor and aldermen they have stood as independents and carry out their work voluntarily. 

The Court of Common Council 

The Court of Common Council is the City of London's primary decision-making assembly, and meets every four weeks. It works through committees, like any other local authority, but it is unique in that it is non-party political. Its main business focuses on the reports of committees and members' questions and motions. 

Common Council is elected by the wards of the City. Elections, when all the seats are up for election or re-election, will next be held in March 2013 and every four years afterward. Each ward returns between two and 10 members (ie councillors, known as 'Common Councilmen') depending on the size of the electorate. Candidates, men or women, must be 21 or over, a British subject (or a citizen of another European Union country) and a Freeman of the City of London. They must also either be registered to vote at any ward election or own freehold or leasehold land in the City or have lived in the City in the 12 months prior to the nomination date and intend to live there until the election date. 

The Court of Aldermen 

The role of the Court of Aldermen has changed considerably over the City of London's long history. Centuries ago it was responsible for the entire administration of the City but this function diminished with the development of the Court of Common Council. Today the full Aldermanic Court, summoned and presided over by the Lord Mayor, meets on about nine Tuesdays each year. 

Aldermen have jurisdiction over their wards and for centuries each ward has elected one alderman. Upon admission to the Court of Aldermen, an alderman automatically becomes a Justice of the Peace for the City of London. They also serve on Common Council committees, act as governors and trustees of a variety of schools, hospitals, charitable foundations and trusts with ancient City connections."

It is thus, in effect, in a very similar position to Jersey being a peculiarity of the Crown and not subject to the Laws of England and Wales to the full extent.

Now back to Cyril.

So what have I been up to since these threats of arrest, well, straight from the 'you couldn’t make this shit up' department, I was employed on a temporary contract with authorisation to access the computer system, keys and card swipe to buildings whilst working for;

THE STATES OF JERSEY.

A case of the right hand not knowing what the left is doing? If there is one thing lawyers hate more than ordinary people learning their deceptive ways, it is people who make it public. What are the odds of me being arrested after this posting? Answers on the back of a parking ticket please! Watch this space. Cyril

In effect then Cyril by not complying with the wishes of the various 'authorities' has chosen not to exercise his right to be recognised as a person and as such is not subject to the statutes which if you read them always apply to 'a person' and not 'a human being'. The only time a human being is ever mentioned is in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, which within its text recognises that there is a difference between 'a human being' and 'a person'.

In short the best way to deal with any creature of statute is to ignore them.