COMMUNIQUÉS FROM THE APOCALYPSE.
Welcome to today’s quotes from the Claim-Forms – observations for the Draft Orders….
Extracts from Armageddon: # 5
“…….Yet other examples can be cited; the illegal oppression of this applicant in 1996 by Sir Philip Bailhache when he – wholly unlawfully – excluded me from the legislature for six months, in a criminal attempt to silence and coerce me, so as to protect his friend and senior Jersey Freemason, then Senator Reg Jeune, from the consequences of having his nakedly corrupt actions exposed by this applicant.
In many ways that episode is indicative of the criminal dysfunction of the Jersey polity and – of especial relevance in these proceedings – the failed relationship with the authorities in London.
In the case of the police, they refused to even investigate the matter in any meaningful way when this applicant made formal criminal complaints to them. But – indeed – if the police had acted lawfully – the prosecution file would have simply landed on the desk of Bailhache and Jeune’s friend – the Attorney General Michael Birt. Therefore – even if there had been a lawful policing function (which there was not at that time) – there was not – nor is there – any lawful prosecution function for a lawful policing function to report to.
As there is not a “statute-of-limitations” in English – or Jersey – law – those various crimes arising from the notorious LLP Law episode – in which the Jersey parliament became, infamously, a “Legislature-for-Hire” – remain outstanding – and unaddressed.
That episode is also of deep evidential relevance in respect of a broad purpose of these applications – namely, that of inquiring into and reviewing the lawfulness – or otherwise – of the manner in which the respondent authorities discharge their duties to people of the Crown Dependencies.
Extremely detailed, formal complaints were made in 1996 by the applicant – who had been wholly illegally prevented from taking his seat in the legislature by Sir Philip Bailhache – acting under the power of Her Majesty’s Letters Patent – and with the support of his de facto party political allies.
In 1996, the detailed complaints by the applicant against the illegal – anti-democratic – and coercive abuse he was suffering, were made to the then Home Secretary, Michael Howard. At that time the responsibility for the Crown Dependencies rested with the Home Office, not the Justice Department. For notwithstanding six months of entirely illegal coercion and anti-democratic exclusion inflicted upon this applicant for doing his public duty and opposing corruption – no response was ever received from the Home Secretary – and no lawfully adequate intervention – to restore good governance or the rule of law ever occurred.
Thus the illegal and corrupt abuses inflicted on this applicant by Bailhache – were illegal and corrupt abuses inflicted on this applicant by the Crown.
The “methodology” and the evidential documentation relevant to that ultra vires failure by the United Kingdom authorities must be examined by the court. Examined – because that episode is of key evidential relevance to the fundamental questions that these applications put before the courts – and examined because the criminal offences remain outstanding – and unaddressed. The passage of time does not diminish or insulate them – nor the fraudulent and misfeasant conducts that in turn facilitated and shielded such conduct at the time.
“………Indeed – the problem – that of the actually disturbing lack of “quality” and of “calibre” on the part of the self-sustaining, self-recommending, self-elevating, self-protecting claque of Crown Officers in Jersey – who then receive the power of Her Majesty’s Letters Patent – goes further than the startling political illiteracy on repeated display. For even though they are lawyers – they frequently display what are frankly jaw-dropping ignorances of even the law.
For example – and in one of the more amusingly Kafkaesque moments of the plain descent into anarchy that has gripped the Crown functions in Jersey during the last six years – the current Solicitor General, Howard Sharp, when opposing one of this applicant’s judicial review applications, argued in open court that “it was not possible for the courts to judicially review decisions and actions of the executive”.