Treason – or Reason?

Regular readers of this blog will be reasonably familiar with the reality of the money-generating feudatory that is the off-shore Crown Dependency of Jersey, the anti-democratic oppression carried out by its oligarchy, and the conduct of what passes for a “judiciary” in the island.

Just for example, the endless succession “legal” battles I face at the hands of the Potemkin village “justice” apparatus of Jersey.

Mrs Windsor’s Privateers – Part 1 – which is a handy introduction to the heart of darkness – can be read here: –

To readers familiar with the Crown-empowered feudal “court” of Jersey, the e-mail I publish below requires no introductory explanation. Although a brief communication, concerning a pretty simple issue – my attempt to obtain an electronic version of a recent “court” transcript – the e-mail nevertheless states and shows – in so many ways – that what we face in Jersey is, actually, beyond Kafka.

I’ve titled this post, Mrs Windsor’s Privateers – Part 2 – because, well, that’s what we’re dealing with.

Privateers – directly empowered by the British monarch.

The still extant – in the 21st century – unbridled and absolute power of the “court” and its “courtiers”.

Just hope that your daughter or son never needs protection from those courtiers, their thanes and vassals – nor the apparatus that shields and succours them.

Stuart Syvret.

E-mail from Stuart Syvret to the Jersey “court” apparatus, concerning a transcript – and “judicial” conflicts of interest – and the monarch’s approval of William Bailhache:

From:  Stuart Syvret

To:   Jersey Appeal Court Secretariat, Bailiff’s Judicial Secretary

CC:   Secretary of State for Justice UK Government,  Privy Council, Justice Department UK Government,  Jersey Child-Abuse Public Inquiry

Date:  9th April 2014 16:47

Subject:  Re: Treasurer of the States v Syvret

Thank you for your e-mail.

Whilst I am grateful for the hard-copy, which I will collect when I am able, I require an electronic copy, so I would ask that a PDF of the transcript is e-mailed to me. (That has been the case with previous transcripts.)

My reason for requiring electronic copies of all documents I have to deal with in these interlinked cases is simple; I am self-representing (not of choice) and can only very occasionally obtain any pro-bono advice. Even that slight assistance is dependent upon me being able to e-mail electronic copies of the relevant material to those who may assist me.

There is also the simple matter of not being able to store or transport physical documents. For example, the material served on me by the directly and corruptly conflicted law firm Appleby Global / Bailhache LaBesse (which law-firm corruptly betrayed the Blanche Pierre child-abuse victims when they were legal-aid clients in 1998/9 when William Bailhache was the Senior Partner) now amounts to approximately 30 large lever-arch files – about 14,000 pages – which, alone, requires two sack-trolleys to transport. Such physical burdens are a pro-active obstruction (another) to the practical enjoyment of my Article 6 Rights.

When I have an electronic copy of the transcript, I will be able to prepare and lodge the appeal against the decisions and conduct of Michael Birt and Philip Bailhache’s dinning-companion, friend, admirer, defender, and public cheer-leader – and appointee – Howard Page QC – and his extraordinary conduct. Just for example – actually agreeing to hear the case at all – when he was (a) conflicted, (b) case-decided, & (c) functus officio – and displayed all of the thus predictable overt, actual bias in that he didn’t actually permit me to run a case against the aforesaid & associated & related evidenced factors.

The Crown judicial function in the feudatory of Jersey is – along with the Crown prosecution function in Jersey – a criminal enterprise – in-and-of-itself.

I suppose corruption will spring – wherever it is permitted to; “absolute power”, and all that. But what is remarkable about the Jersey situation is its sheer brazenness – the startling absence of even any attempt to disguise the lawlessness – the criminality hiding-in-plain-sight.

It’s the kind of brass-neck hubris that only the British ruling elites can pull off.

Directly, expressly – and very seriously – conflicted judges, such as Philip Bailhache, Michael Birt and William Bailhache – hearing cases they’re parties to – choosing and appointing their own  judges to further hear such cases – judges such as their friends, admirers, cheer-leaders and dinning-companions – like  Christopher Pitchers, Jonathan Sumption, Charles Gray, and Howard Page.

When I was most recently a political prisoner of this Crown-protected Jersey/City of London commune cosa nostra, I was denied my Article 6 Rights to access adequate “time and facilities” to prepare my legal appeals & applications. In an attempt to secure my Rights, I prepared an injunction application against the prison.

That application of mine was simply vetoed – prevented even from reaching court – by the expressly and fatally conflicted William Bailhache in the office of Deputy Bailiff. I was merely notified of his decision by a brief letter – which contained no attempted explanation or justification for this illegal, oppressive act.

The letter asserted that a fully reasoned explanation would be provided in due course.

No such explanation was ever received – and has not been received to this day.

I was thus prevented from accessing justice – prevented from securing my Article 6 Rights – when politically imprisoned by friends of William Bailhache – by William Bailhache.

That’s  the William Bailhache who I had been exposing in the public interest via Google/Blogger for such malfeasances as corruptly betraying legal-aid child-abuse victims, obstructing the 2008 child-abuse investigations, associating with priority criminal suspects, making non-prosecution decisions in cases he was directly conflicted in, breaking the Data Protection Law, aiding his equally criminal brother Philip Bailhache in the obstruction of anti-corruption investigations, attempting to illegally coerce the Police Chief Graham Power into dropping an investigation into planning-corruption, and then participating in the criminal conspiracy to illegally suspend the Police Chief.

As all of this – evidenced – conduct is so obviously approved of by the Crown – and Her Majesty personally, as evinced in the granting of Her Letters Patent to make William Bailhache Bailiff – you will understand and appreciate that I need every conceivable practical assistance – such as electronic copies of the transcripts.

A person faces hard enough odds as it is, in confronting the corruption and criminality in Jersey of Crown power. Though it hides in plain sight, who dare call it for what it is and confront its omnipotently empowered privateers?

It can only be a matter of time, surely, until the new Treason law is used to imprison me.

Thank you for your assistance.

Stuart Syvret.


  1. Ignorant Pleb

    “It can only be a matter of time, surely, until the new Treason law is used to imprison me.”

    New Treason law? Forgive my ignorance, can you provide a link or explanation.

    Must have been down with he plague the week that notice was nailed to the parish hall doors.

      1. Crimes against the state ....... ?

        One imagines that the hijack of the Jersey Data Protection Law for use against political dissidents was perhaps a purely opportunist act rather than premeditated at the time that the law was drafted.

        Unlike the Jersey Cannons Law which does rather look to specifically been written to retrospectively protect Jersey’s Dean Bob Key from his proven failings and as part of a plan to place establishment figures and crown appointees beyond external supervision or oversight.

        This “Draft Treason (Jersey) Law” is one to watch.
        In a Jersey or a Jersey Law context, what does “Treason” mean and what could it be construed as meaning within the establishment court system……

        Just-in-time lawmaking?

  2. Anon

    The more rabid fascists on the island may see the “Draft Treason (Jersey) Law” as a part of the insidious march of liberalism with the maximum penalty merely being life imprisonment.

    The historic distinction between Treason and High Treason seems to have been lost but Wiki gives a flavour of the level of protection given to the crown and state:

    (Before 1998) The form of execution once suffered by traitors was often (though not invariably) torturous. The condemned could not walk or be carried to the place of execution; the sentence required that they were to be drawn: they might be dragged along the ground, but were normally tied onto a hurdle which was drawn to the place of execution by a horse. A man would then be hanged by a noose around the neck, but not so as to die: there would be no “drop” to break the neck. Whilst still alive, he would be cut down and allowed to drop to the ground, stripped of his clothes, his genitals cut off, his viscera [organs] pulled out and burnt before his own eyes, and other organs would be torn out of his body. The body would be decapitated, and cut into four quarters. The body parts would be at the disposal of the Sovereign, and generally they would be gibbeted or publicly displayed. This torturous sentence was amended in 1814 so that the offender would hang to death; the disembowelling, beheading and quartering to be carried out posthumously.


    Under the law of the United Kingdom, high treason is the crime of disloyalty to the Crown. Offences constituting high treason include plotting the murder of the sovereign; committing adultery with the sovereign’s consort, with the sovereign’s eldest unmarried daughter, or with the wife of the heir to the throne; levying war against the sovereign and adhering to the sovereign’s enemies, giving them aid or comfort; and attempting to undermine the lawfully established line of succession. Several other crimes have historically been categorised as high treason, including counterfeiting money and being a Catholic priest.[1]

    Another tit-bit from (recent Lady-DI) history:
    A second form of high treason defined by the Treason Act 1351 was having sexual intercourse with “the King’s companion, or the King’s eldest daughter unmarried, or the wife of the King’s eldest son and heir.” If the intercourse is not consensual, only the rapist is liable, but if it is consensual, then both parties are liable.Anne Boleyn and Catherine Howard, wives of Henry VIII, were found guilty of treason for this reason. The jurist Sir William Blackstone writes that “the plain intention of this law is to guard the Blood Royal from any suspicion of bastardy, whereby the succession to the Crown might be rendered dubious.” Thus, only women are covered in the statute; it is not, for example, high treason to rape a Queen-Regnant’s husband. Similarly, it is not high treason to rape a widow of the sovereign or of the heir-apparent. Diana, Princess of Wales admitted that she had an affair with her riding instructor, James Hewitt, between 1987 and 1992. As she was then the wife of the Prince of Wales, heir to the throne, this fitted the definition of high treason, and a national newspaper briefly attempted[5][6] to have Hewitt prosecuted for what was then still a capital offence.[7]

    As a general rule, no British criminal court has jurisdiction over the Sovereign, from whom they derive their authority. As SirWilliam Blackstone writes, “the law supposes an incapacity of doing wrong from the excellence and perfection … of the King.”

    …..So perhaps the monarch IS above the law, as well as above responsibility for the actions of their appointees.

    It’s revolting!!!


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.