|
INTRODUCTION:
In the past twenty-four months we have
been very much concentrated on considering the immorality, the
illegality and unlawful conduct, acts, behaviours and omissions of the
judiciary, the courts, the legal professionals and their associated
paymasters, the financial institutions.
For almost all of the People that have
been through our door(s) specifically over the last twelve months, we
have endeavoured to guide and educate them in terms of certain Criminal
acts, namely the "Non-Fatal Offences Against the Persons Act 1997", the
"Criminal Justice Theft and Fraud Offences Act 2001" the "Criminal
Justice Act 2011/2013" and various other related and associated Criminal
Acts Statutes, Codes and Statutory Instruments.
With this in mind:
Many People felt the need, of their own
volition, to lodge "Criminal Complaints" with An Garda Siochana and with
the Garda Bureau of Fraud Investigations, in respect of various alleged
criminal offences that were being and have been committed by financial
institutions, their consorts and agents, by solicitors and bar*isters,
by receivers, by debt collectors, by court registrars and latterly by
judges.
In the initial stages People were being
turned away by the Garda, with the reason given that "this is/was a
Civil matter and not Criminal!" This essentially was/is a lie, but no
Garda at the time would put this in writing. One wonders why?
Peoples’ persistence, coupled and armed
with the appropriate LAW, and some specific guidance/direction from
ourselves (The Common Law Society) won the day. The vast majority of
People we have dealt with have managed to break through, and lodge the
appropriate Criminal complaint(s). There now seems to be very little, if
any, reluctance from the Gardai to accept Criminal complaints in regard
to the Criminal activities of all or any of the above named parties
(including judges).
As a result … We
have had corroborated reports of Gardai attending courts to observe,
witness and investigate proceedings, and the unlawful acts and conduct
of court registrars and judges. Wherein once the same registrars and
judges were made aware that Gardai were and would be present, they have
stayed proceedings indefinitely, without reason and without rhyme.
It logically follows, that the same People
who(m) have lodged Criminal complaints, are now putting immense
pressure on An Garda Siochana and the Garda Bureau of Fraud
Investigation to have said Criminals questioned, arrested and brought to
trial for their crimes, which naturally includes not just bankers and
members of the legal fraternity and their consorts and agents, but court
registrars and judges.
After all if the registrars and judges
were applying the LAW in the correct manner, then very few, if any, of
the financial institutions and banks would proceed to court. Instead
what you currently have is the registrars and judges facilitating Crime,
which is, and of itself, a very serious Crime.
IN SUMMARY:
As far as we have factually ascertained
(to date): ALL AFFIDAVITS that have been filed in the District, Circuit
and High Courts in relation to all and/or any Civil/Commercial
matters/cases (and some if not many criminal matters/cases) dating back
to 1986 (and possibly before) cannot be held as authentic, and should NOT have been "admitted to be filed or enrolled without leave of the Court", are illegal, and are NOT Lawful.
ALL AFFIDAVITS we
have examined in the past four years plus are Constituted as "Perjury"
and/or as "Forgery" in LAW, on the part of Solicitors, Commissioners for
Oaths, Court Operatives, Officers and Registrars of the Court, and of
course the Judges that have facilitated recognising same. We do not
state any of this lightly ... so take a very close and critical look at
what is to follow.
The "Commissioners For Oaths Act 1889" Clearly states the LAW:
Perjury:
7. Whoever wilfully and corruptly swears falsely in any oath or
affidavit taken or made in accordance with the provisions of this Act,
shall be guilty of perjury in every case where if he had so sworn in a
judicial proceeding before a court of competent jurisdiction he would be
guilty of perjury.
Forgery:
8. Whoever forges, counterfeits, or fraudulently alters the seal or
signature of any person authorised by or under this Act to administer an
oath, or tenders in evidence, or otherwise uses, any affidavit having
any seal or signature so forged or counterfeited or fraudulently
altered, knowing the same to be forged, counterfeited, or fraudulently
altered, shall be guilty of felony, and liable on conviction to penal
servitude for any term not exceeding seven years and not less than five
years, or to imprisonment with or without hard labour for any term not
exceeding two years.
Trial of Offences:
9. Any offence under this Act, whether committed within or without Her
Majesty’s dominions, may be inquired of, dealt with, tried, and punished
in any county or place in the United Kingdom in which the person
charged with the offence was apprehended or is in custody, and for all
purposes incidental to or consequential on the trial or punishment the
offence shall be deemed to have been committed in that county or place.
Impounding of Documents:
10. Where any offence under this Act is alleged to have been committed
with respect to any affidavit, a judge of any court before which the
affidavit is produced may order the affidavit to be impounded and kept
in such custody and for such time and on such conditions as he thinks
fit.
FOR AND ON THE RECORD:
This is a brief list of just some of the
Parties that (to date) have been DIRECTLY contacted/notified/noticed,
informed and/or made aware of the facts contained herein in relation to
the "Rules and Orders of the Superior Courts" pertaining to the swearing
of "Affidavits" and the applicable Statutory Instruments, and LAWS
governing same. Equally all parties named/listed herein have a duty of
care to inform ALL members of the Judiciary, and all the Legal
Professionals, Officers of the Court, All Registrars and all Agents,
Employees, Assigns and Associated Parties/Operatives etc. As they say "NOTICE TO AGENT IS NOTICE TO PRINCIPAL, NOTICE TO PRINCIPAL IS NOTICE TO AGENT".
There is NO ESCAPING this, for any of them. Here is a short listing:
* Justice(s) Baker, White, Gilligan, and Judge O'Neill + many Others.
* Ivor Fitzpatrick & Co. Solicitors, Joynt & Crawford Solicitors + many Others.
* The Minister for Justice, Francis Fitzgerald
* Norin O'Sullivan, Garda Commissioner.
* David Dowling, Head of The Garda Bureau of Fraud Investigation.
* Chief Justice Susan Gageby Denham.
* The Attorney General of Ireland, Marie R. Whelan.
* Enda Kenny (Taoiseach).
* Michael D. Higgins (President).
* Ken Murphy, The Law Society of Ireland.
* President Dean Speilman, European Court of Human Rights.
* The Court of Justice of the European Union.
* The High Court Registrar and Office.
* The Manager of Court Services.
* ... and many other County & District Court Registrars & Staff.
There are many other parties which are not
included in this list. With this list you get the clear idea of how
serious these issues are, and how far reaching the consequences of their
Crimes are. No one is immune to being Criminally taken to task and
prosecuted, including any of the above parties.
BREAKING THE LAW ...
The LAW that all solicitors, barristers,
registrars, judges and other court staff members and employees are
guilty of breaking on a daily, weekly and yearly basis; pertains
specifically to the unlawful and illegal creation of, issuing of,
lodging and proceeding with AFFIDAVITS. This has been done and continues
to be done and carried on in both Civil/Commercial and Criminal matters
throughout the whole Courts system, and is unlawfully facilitated to
run and go unchecked to date (apart of course by the People we are
working with), by all Court staff/employees, all Registrars and all
Judges.
Just One Relatively Recent Case:
This is a case whereby the Plaintiff (a
receiver), was attempting to get an "Interlocutory Order" from the Court
(High Court) to distrain/restrain the Defendants (owners of a
property), from hampering and/or interfering with him (the receiver)
taking control of their property. In the normal run of things, such an
"Interlocutory Order" wouldn't take much more than ten or fifteen
minutes to achieve in the High Court.
The matter to date has been floating
around the High Court for approximately Fourteen Months at this stage,
and has been bounced back and forth to no less than four High Court
judges. Strange or what?
The proverbial S*1t hit the fan last
November 2014, when a letter was sent directly to the presiding Judge,
and all Judges previously involved, and ALL other parties involved and
inculcated, including the relevant members of An Garda Siochana and the
Garda Bureau of Fraud Investigations.
HERE IS A SMALL EXTRACT (ONLY) FROM THAT SAME LETTER:
"The
Affidavit of the said Deponent is in clear breach of Statutory
Instrument Number 15 of 1986 which created the current Rules of the
Superior Courts, which is a breach of the Laws of IRELAND. This
purported Affidavit breaches Order 40 Rule 9 of SI 15/1986 in so far as
NO “true place of abode” is provided in the Affidavit. It also breaches
Order 40 Rule 6 of SI 15/1986 where NO Time is recorded in the Jurat.
wherein Order 40 Rule 6 does stipulate that, “Every commissioner to
administer oaths shall express the time when and the place where he
shall take any affidavit, otherwise the same shall not be held
authentic, nor be admitted to be filed or enrolled without the leave of
the Court;” The Solicitors (Amendment) Act 1994 Section 72 (1) clarifies
that a Solicitor is and holds all the powers of a Commissioner for
Oaths so long as s/he holds a valid practising
certificate. Also in line with the Commissioners for Oaths Act 1889
which additionally states that the date should be recorded. Wherefore if
the Law is to be administered correctly the, TIME, the DATE and the
PLACE are to be recorded in the JURAT “otherwise the same shall NOT be
Held AUTHENTIC” Wherefore we move this Court to Strike out the illegal
Affidavit of the said Deponent and ALL other such Affidavits, and in the
absence of such Affidavits Strike out this particular case which was
brought by The Plaintiff clearly relying on Affidavit(s) for want of
prosecution inter alia".
In this particular case, the Defendant(s)
did not attend the Court, and instead members of An Garda Siochana /
Garda Bureau of Fraud Investigation were directed to attend and take
cognisance of the proceedings, wherein should the Court and/or the Judge
proceed to issue the said "Interlocutory Order", a crime had taken
place in open Court, and had been facilitated by the presiding Judge.
The Garda were to take the appropriate lawful action.
Despite the red face and protestations of
the Bar*ister that represented the Receiver, and in the absence of the
said Owners of the Property, the Judge did not and would not rule
against the Owners of the Property. The matter was adjourned subject to
review of the information contained in the letter, leaving the
dumbfounded Bar*ister in shock. Since then another letter has been
lodged with An Garda Siochana and the Garda Bureau of Fraud
Investigation, to bring pressure to bear on ALL those involved,
including the High Court Office staff, the Registrar, the Solicitor, the
Bar*ister and the Judges themselves. This means having them brought in
for questioning, charged, tried and ultimately jailed.
QUESTION: How is it possible for the
Court/Judge to proceed, when the basis for the case is founded upon
"Perjury and Forgery"? ... That's right, ITS NOT!!!
This is only one case/matter of a
multitude we have been guiding and directing People in and on. And only
one of a number that have been adjourned stayed, stopped, withdrawn
and/or thrown out.
The point being is that, this information
alone will have very far-reaching consequences on ALL CASES that have
been lodged in the Courts in both Civil/Commercial and Criminal matters,
at least since the year 1986, and possibly prior to 1986 (more on this
later). If you overlook this information and/or take it for granted, all
we can say is, you are on your own from this point. This information
means that ALL cases back as far as 1986 (at least) that have been
perceivably lost, can now be revisited and reopened ... FACT!!! And ALL
same Orders are NULL and VOID, ILLEGAL and UNLAWFUL.
"PERJURY and FORGERY"
The basis for all cases were and are founded upon DECEPTION and LIES.
RULES OF THE SUPERIOR COURTS: AFFIDAVIT (ORDER 40)
Points of Reference ...
Some of Statutory Instruments/Amendments Governing the said Rules are as follows:
* No40-S.I. No. 95 of 2009 (Affidavits).
* No40-S.I. No. 2 of 2011 (Examiner).
* No40-S.I. No. 487 of 2012 (Affidavits).
For the purpose of getting to the meaty
stuff, we will skip some of the less relevant Rules of Order 40, and
just concentrate on those that are particularly of interest in these
matters. Each rule is quite self-explanatory, but where appropriate we
will expand, explain and/or elaborate upon them.
ORDER 40: AFFIDAVIT
Rule 5:
Affidavits sworn in Ireland shall be sworn before a judge, commissioner
to administer oaths, or officer empowered to administer oaths.
TAKE NOTE: Rule 5 DOES NOT STATE that an
affidavit can be sworn before a "Solicitor" in particular. While some
"Solicitors" can become appointed as judges, commissioners to administer
oaths and/or officers empowered to administer oaths, "Solicitors" are
NOT by default empowered to administer oaths.
Under the Irish Statute Book, the
"Commissioners For Oaths Act. 1889" states 1.-(1) The Lord Chancellor
may from time to time, by commission signed by him, appoint persons
being solicitors or other fit and proper persons to be commissioners for
oaths, and may revoke such appointment.
QUESTION 1 to ASK: Has the said "affidavit" been sworn before a Judge?
QUESTION 2 to ASK: Has the said "affidavit" been sworn before a Commissioner to administer oaths?
QUESTION 3 to ASK: Has the said "affidavit" been sworn before an Officer empowered to administer oaths?
FURTER NOTE: the "Commissioners For
Oaths Act. 1889" also states 1.-(3) Provided that a Commissioner for
Oaths shall not exercise any of the powers given by this section in any
proceeding in which he is solicitor to any of the parties to the
proceeding, or clerk to any such solicitor, or in which he is
interested.
In other words, whatever said affidavit
was sworn before a particular "Commissioner for Oaths", that same
Commissioner cannot by LAW be involved in the case itself, either
directly and/or indirectly, nor can he/she use their clerk/employees to
have affidavits sworn.
IN SUMMARY:
If the said "AFFIDAVIT" is not sworn
before a Judge, or a legally appointed Commissioner for Oaths, it is a
DEFECTIVE document, and whosoever that person is would be guilty of
perjury, and possibly forgery under the same act. The Commissioner that
the same "AFFADAVIT" is sworn before CANNOT in any way whatsoever be
involved directly or indirectly with the case/matter, and nor can
his/her clerk(s)/agent(s)/employee(s) ... That is the LAW.
~~~
Rule 6:
Every commissioner to administer oaths shall express the time when and
the place where he shall take any affidavit, or the acknowledgement of a
deed, or recognisance, otherwise the same shall not be authentic, nor
be admitted to be filed or enrolled without the leave of the Court; and
every such Commissioner shall express the time when, and place where, he
shall do any other act incident to his office.
This is a very simple issue to grasp and
comprehend. Of all AFFIDAVITS we have seen and examined over the years,
NONE of them have the TIME (as underlined above) stated on them. Very
few if any have ever identified “the PLACE where he shall take any
affidavit”. Now, this is the point TO NOTE: “otherwise the same
(affidavit) shall NOT be held authentic, nor be admitted to be filed or
enrolled without leave of the Court”.
This means that NONE of the affidavits we
have seen and examined over the years are AUTHENTIC, and NONE of them
should have been “ADMITTED TO BE FILED OR ENROLLED” at Court. FULL STOP.
But they have, and therein lies the rub.
Therefore the Court Offices and Officers,
their employees and the Court Registrars are in breach of the Orders and
Rules of the Superior Courts, as they have been accepting, admitting
and enrolling affidavits that are NOT AUTHENTIC, and are Defective.
ALL of these said affidavit’s under the
aforesaid “Commissioners For Oaths Act” and the respective Statutory
Instruments are constituted as forgery and perjury, and therefore by
extension the said employees, agents, members of the Courts’ offices and
the respective Court Registrars have been facilitating and committing
criminal offences. As they say, “ignorance of the law is no defence”.
This is the LAW to which the Judges, Registrars, Officers of the Court,
Magistrates and Sheriffs, and ALL of their associates, agents, assigns
and employees are bound, and they are wilfully breaking it, in favour of
making fraudulent financial gains.
None of these persons can plead “ignorance
of the law”, as it is their law, and they have a duty in law to know
their own law, and act upon it accordingly. If they pertain to “not know
the law”, that is not a plausible defence for breaking the law. These
are serious Criminal offences that are being committed, and over the
past twelve months, we and others have been pointing this out to them
from the very top down, and criminal complaints have been and continue
to be lodged with An Garda Siochana and the Garda Bureau of Fraud
Investigations, in relation to these same CRIMES.
Question 1: What particular time was the said affidavit sworn?
Question 2: What particular place was the said affidavit sworn at?
If any one of these two particular answers
are not specifically on the said affidavit, then the said affidavit
“shall not be held authentic, nor be admitted to be filed or enrolled”
in Court or in the Office of the said Court. The Court cannot see or
recognise it, as it is NOT AUTHENTIC, and has NO VALIDITY in LAW. Yet,
since 1986 (at least) these affidavit’s that are NOT AUTHENTIC, and
cannot be recognised in LAW by the said COURTS are being seen and
recognised and read into evidence in both Civil/Commercial and Criminal
cases, which of course is illegal and is a CRIMINAL Offence.
WHO KNOWS THIS, AND YET ALLOWS IT TO CONTINUE?
ALL Solicitors know this and yet continue
in their FRAUD and PERJURY. ALL Court Registrars and Officers/Employees
of the Court know this and facilitate the FRAUD and PERJURY perpetuated
by the Solicitors. ALL Bar*isters know this and continue to facilitate
and perpetuate what commenced with the Solicitors and is facilitated by
the Court Registrars and Officers/Employees of the Court.
FINALLY: To compound the FRAUD and PERJURY,
ALL Judges know this, and ALL have up until about twelve months ago,
facilitated the ongoing FRAUD and PERJURY (since 1986 at least). Now
that they know that we know, they have eased off a little. But this
“little” is not enough. This “little” is too late for a great many
People.
~~~
RULE 8:
Every affidavit shall be drawn up in the first person, and shall be
divided into paragraphs and every paragraph shall be numbered
consecutively, and as nearly as may be shall be confined to a distinct
portion of the subject matter. Every affidavit shall be written or
printed book-wise. No costs shall be allowed for any affidavit or part
of an affidavit substantially departing from this rule.
RULE 9:
Every affidavit shall state the description and true place of abode of
the deponent; and every affidavit of service shall state when, where,
and how, and by whom, such service was effected and in the case of
delivery to any person, shall state that the deponent was at the time of
such delivery acquainted with the appearance of such person.
Check ALL current and historical
affidavits. Is the “true place of abode” of the deponent (the one making
the affidavit), their home/living address on the affidavit? If it is
not then the affidavit is defective, and again it should NEVER have been
lodged with the Court/Court Office. We have never, ever seen an
affidavit with “the true abode of the deponent” on it. It usually has
their workplace address, or their employer’s address on it.
When a Defendant and/or the accused is
served with a said affidavit, the server of said affidavit is legally
bound to lodge an “affidavit of service” with the Court/Court Office,
which states “when” specifically the affidavit was served (as in date
and time), “where” particularly the affidavit was served, “how” it was
served, and “by whom” in particular it was served by. The server has to
state/attest that they “at the time of such delivery acquainted with the
appearance of such person”. How could they possibly be acquainted with
the appearance of the “person” they are serving, unless they were
personally known to them, were related to them, were their neighbour,
and/or unless they had and carried a photograph of that said person on
them to identify them?
If any or all of the above specific
criteria cannot be fully met, and/or is not adhered to, then the said
affidavit is defective and should never have been lodged with the
Court/Court Office, and if the criteria for service has not been met and
fully adhered to, then service has NOT been legally executed. In all
cases the Court cannot recognise the affidavit or read it into evidence,
and also cannot proceed as service has NOT been legally executed. To do
so would be illegal and unlawful. It is a Criminal offence.
~~~
RULE 11:
There shall be on every affidavit a note showing on whose behalf it is
filed, and no affidavit shall be filed or used without such note, unless
the Court shall otherwise direct.
EVERY AFFIDAVIT must show a note on it, “showing on whose behalf it is filed”. Not just some or a few, EVERY AFFIDAVIT.
We have seen some/a few affidavits without this note, which have been
illegally and unlawfully lodged/filed. Some have it, some don’t. The
ones that do NOT have the note “showing on whose behalf it is filed”,
that were filed are illegal/unlawful. “NO affidavit shall be filed
without such note”.
NO does NOT mean a few or some. Perhaps we
need to borrow the campaign slogan,” NO MEANS NO!”? Perhaps a slogan
like “NO MEANS NO!” would raise awareness of the illegal and unlawful
activities of those that have and continue to perpetrate the
psychological and financial assault, violence and rape against the
People, whom up to this point, were ignorant (had no knowledge) of the
laws that are in place to protect them?
~~~
RULE 13:
No affidavit having in the Jurat or body thereof any interlineation ,
alteration, or erasure, shall, without leave of the Court be filed,
read, or made use of in any matter pending in Court unless the
interlineation or alteration (other than by erasure) is authenticated by
the initials of the person taking the affidavit, nor, in the case of an
erasure, unless the words or figures appearing at the time of taking
the affidavit to be written on the erasure are re-written and signed or
initialled in the margin of the affidavit by the person taking it.
Interlineation is “the act of writing
something between the lines of an earlier writing” (writing between the
lines). How would you know if any interlineation, alteration or erasure
had taken place on the original said affidavit, unless you had the
original, had sight of the original to compare it to the copy you may
have, and then been provided with an attested copy of the said original,
which you agreed was a TRUE ATTESTED COPY?
In other words, perhaps you should ALWAYS
DEMAND that you are provided with TRUE and ATTESTED copies of all
affidavits and or documents lodged/filed with the Courts. Then demand to
get sight of the said ORIGINAL affidavit and or documents (to compare
with what you have been given/issued), just in case there may have been
changes made to the ORIGINAL TRUE affidavit/document that are not on the
copy you have. We are not saying or suggesting here that changes,
alterations, addendums, erasures or amendments may have been made to the
said original documents/affidavit without your knowledge, and/or
wilfully kept from you, but stranger things have been known to happen.
~~~
RULE 14:
All persons taking affidavits shall certify, in the Jurat of every
affidavit taken by them either that they know the deponent himself, or
some person named in the Jurat who certifies his knowledge of the
deponent. Where an affidavit is sworn by any person who appears to the
officer taking the affidavit to be illiterate or blind, the officer
shall certify in the Jurat that the affidavit was read in his presence
to the deponent, that the deponent seemed perfectly to understand it,
and that the deponent made his signature or mark in the presence of the
officer. No such affidavit shall be used in evidence in the absence of
this certificate, unless the Court is otherwise satisfied that the
affidavit was read over to and appeared to be perfectly understood by
the deponent.
The key here is, does the person taking
the affidavit actually “know the deponent himself, or some person named
in the Jurat”? … and where in the Jurat is the said certificate of “his
knowledge of the deponent” contained? If there is not certification of
“his knowledge of the deponent” then this said affidavit is not
legal/lawful and should never have been lodged/filed with the
Court/Court Office.
Not only have we seen many cases where
this said certification has not taken place, but we have seen
cases/affidavits that were written up in foreign jurisdictions, whereby
the deponents could not possibly have been known to the person taking
affidavits. Yet the Court/Court Office have facilitated the illegal and
unlawful lodgement/filing of same nonetheless.
~~~
RULE 16:
(a) In cases in which an original affidavit is allowed to be used it
shall, at the time when it is used, be delivered to and left with the
proper officer who shall send it to be filed. (b) A copy of an
affidavit may in all cases be used, the original affidavit having been
previously filed, and the copy duly attested. (c) A Photostat copy
of an original affidavit which has been filed may be used, if certified
by the solicitor who has filed the same to be a true copy thereof and
that the original thereof has been filed.
Absolutely
NONE of the affidavits, and/or copies of affidavits we have seen and/or
reviewed have been “duly attested” as such, and/or “certified by the
solicitor who has filed the same to be a true copy thereof and that the
original thereof has been filed”. Therefore in almost ALL cases whereby
you receive, or have been issued or served with an affidavit, it is not
“AUTHENTIC” in accordance with the LAW, and therefore CANNOT be seen,
read and/or recognised by the Court in LAW.
~~~
RULE 17:
No affidavit shall be sufficient if sworn before the solicitor acting
for the party on whose behalf the affidavit is to be used, or before any
agent or correspondent of such solicitor or before the party himself.
RULE 18:
Any affidavit which would be insufficient if sworn before the solicitor
himself shall be insufficient if sworn before his clerk or partner.
### Both Rules 17 and 18 were covered earlier (above) in relation to the “Commissioners For Oaths Act 1889”.
~~~
RULE 19:
Where a special time is limited for filing affidavits, no affidavit
filed after that time shall be used, unless by leave of the Court.
This speaks for itself. Just keep an eye
on the time for filing affidavits, if they are filed late, in many cases
the Court Offices and the Central Office will accept them from
Solicitors and Legal Professionals, without having to apply for “leave
of the Court” (permission), although by the LAW, they are bound to. If
filed late without “leave of the Court” to do so, this makes them once
again NOT authentic, and they cannot in LAW be seen, read and/or
recognised by the Court in LAW.
~~~
RULE 27:
Every certificate on an exhibit referred to in an affidavit signed by
the person before whom the affidavit is sworn shall be marked with the
short title of the cause or matter.
The key line here is “shall be marked with
the short title of the cause of the matter”. Seldom if ever, do we see
or find the said “short title” on any exhibit certificates. Once again
this makes the affidavit and the exhibit and/or the affidavit not
AUTHENTIC etc.
~~~
RULE 31:
When the evidence is taken by affidavit, any party desiring to
cross-examine a deponent who has made an affidavit filed on behalf of
the opposite party may serve upon the party by whom such affidavit has
been filed a notice in writing, requiring the production of the deponent
for cross-examination at the trial, such notice to be served at any
time before the expiration of fourteen days next after the end of the
time allowed for filing affidavits in reply, or within such time as in
any case the Court may specially appoint; and unless such deponent is
produced accordingly, his affidavit shall not be used as evidence unless
by the leave of the Court. The party producing such deponent for
cross-examination shall not be entitled to demand the expenses thereof
in the first instance from the party requiring such production. The
notice shall be in the [1]Form No. 21
in Appendix C.
IN SUMMARY:
IN ALL CASES this means that you have the
right in LAW to CROSS-EXAMINE all and/or any deponent who has made an
affidavit. The notice is noted therein.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
ALL and/or ANY of the above points
singularly used, and/or in any combination, and if used in the right
manner and/or form will leverage the Court into a position, whereby they
will have to grant an adjournment, an indefinite adjournment, a stay on
proceedings, a withdrawing of the case by the Plaintiff/Accuser, or the
case being struck out. If at all possible, it is and would perhaps be
in your interest as the Defendant/Accused/the party being attacked, to
report the same UNLAWFUL and ILLEGAL Acts, Omissions and Behaviours of
ALL parties to the action to An Garda Siochana and/or to the Garda
Bureau of Fraud Investigations, in relation to their Criminal
intentions, and thus bring more pressure to bear on the Solicitors, the
Court Registrars, the Court Officers, Employees and Agents, the
Bar*isters and ultimately the Judges.
ALL JUDGES SINCE 1986 (and possibly
earlier), have been and mostly still are complicit in facilitating the
Crime(s), as denoted herein above. ALL CASES SINCE 1986 (and possibly
earlier), whether they be Civil/Commercial, Criminal or a Hybrid of both
are founded upon illegal and unlawful affidavits, and therefore ALL
Judgements therein are UNLAWFUL and ILLEGAL.
This means that ALL JUDGEMENTS dating back
to 1986 (and possibly earlier) can be taken as VOID, as ALL these cases
were founded upon the use of UNLAWFUL AND ILLEGAL AFFIDAVITS. That is,
of course, according to Statutory Instrument No. 15 of 1986, governing
the Rules of the Superior Courts, and more specifically AFFIDAVITS under
Order 40 Rules 1 through to 33 etc. ... REF: [2]http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1986/en/si/0015.html
This obviously has major implications for
the Courts and is a pretty major headache for “the State”. But having
said that, “the State” and “their Courts” have pretty much been
persistently attacking, and in many cases grievously harming, tens if
not hundreds of thousands, of the People of this Island for many
generations.
Here is an extract from a relatively recent case/matter … note the way it is structured/worded “
… this Court, the presiding Judge hereof, and the Plaintiff herein are
ALL acting on illegal documents in breach of several Statutory
Instruments (S.I.), one such Statutory Instrument being No. 15 of 1986,
but by NO means limited to this S.I., The law (S.I.’s) are Extremely
Simple in relation to the subject matter and the Law is Extremely Clear
in relation to the Subject matter. Either these “legal documents” fabricated by the Plaintiff and its Solicitors/agents are LEGAL or they are ILLEGAL. They quite simply CANNOT be a little bit of both”.
THE LAW IS THE LAW … THERE IS NO ESCAPING THIS!
The “fabricated” documents
are either LEGAL or ILLEGAL. This is not something any of the Judges to
date have had the stomach to address, they would much rather adjourn
and/or stay the matter in order NOT to deal with the statement, and who
can blame them?
|
