View the United Nations High Commissioner For Refugees Handbook (the international criteria for refugee status determination) at the following site:
http://www.unhcr.org/publ/PUBL/3d58e13b4.pdf
(Full title: "Handbook on Procedures and Criteria for Determining Refugee Status under the 1951 Convention and the 1967 Protocal relating to the Status of Refugees" Published by the UNHCR, Geneva.)
Friday, February 20, 2009
What the problem is:
A) Law enforcement and refugees: conflicts of interest
1) Under current Irish law, it is the Ministry of Justice (i.e., law enforcement) that is responsible to make sure refugees' rights are fulfilled. Yet NGO's expert in refugee concerns have decried conflicts of interest between the Ministry for Justice' enforcement role and its domination of all refugee matters.
2) The Council of Europe has recently censured Irish government cooperation in CIA human rights abuse in the EU. Their report therein has particularly noted the prominent role of enforcement agencies, who "frequently cooperate" in such violations "without the consent or knowledge of their own governments."
3) In view of the Justice Ministry’s collusion with the CIA in making victims of human rights abuses “disappear” (i.e. assisting in illegal “rendition”) how can anyone consider appointing that Ministry as both judge and advocate for such victims?
B) What is wrong with Justice Ministry's treatment of refugees in
1) Said well-documented cooperation in human rights abuse by foreign entities is only the most glaring of many such conflicts, which render said Ministry entirely unfit for any role whatever in caring for the needs of refugees.
2) Yet said Justice Ministry
a) has keenly sought total control over the lives of all who report human rights abuse abroad; and
b) has actively sought to exclude all independent review of their processes and performance therein by other agencies.
c) residents in Justice housing and their advocates in NGOs have reported widespread abuses, including:
i) denial of food, heat and medical attention (sometimes as retaliation against residents who place complaints);
ii) residents forced from their housing by Justice representatives, rendered homeless (sometimes as retaliation against residents who place complaints);
iii) residents afterward fraudulently reported by Justice representatives as "missing";
iv) applicants litigating their claim in the Superior Courts illegally removed from the State against their will, before the Court has heard their case.
3) Justice Ministry alone has the power to decide which asylum claims are valid:
their refusal of 90% does not match the statistics of any other source.
4) The Ministry claims that these thousands of people flee their country without any good reason. But their “findings” are belied by every other country in the EU, by the UN, and by every refugee crisis in history.
5) This means that the testimony of thousands of victims is outweighed and negated by the word of a handful of privileged white-collar bureaucrats: from an agency with suspicious ties to the perpetrators of the war crimes which created the catastrophe.
6) 7000 asylum applicants have disappeared while in Justice’ care. Now the same Ministry proposes to imprison future applicants, entirely based on this shocking failure to account for the fate of vulnerable crime victims whose lives were the Ministry's responsibility.
7) Endeavouring to shift the blame for this suspicious state of affairs onto the victims themselves, Justice claims that these thousands should be blamed for their own disappearance in absentia, without independent investigation. And that future applicants should be punished with arbitrary imprisonment without trial for events in which they had no part.
8) Said extraordinary practices discriminate against victims and witnesses of international war crimes and human rights violations:
a) thereby placing such victims and witnesses of crime at a grave disadvantage, in relation to alleged perpetrators of such crime;
b) arbitrarily raising requirements for the fulfilment of such victims' rights under EU law;
c) resulting in a disproportionality in the administration of justice which fosters international human rights violations and war crimes.
These injustices therefore are dangerous to people everywhere: no matter how seemingly secure from ever becoming refugees themselves.
C) Human warehousing
Yet they are made to languish for years, awaiting the resolution of their asylum claim: prohibited, under the harshest penalties, from work or from seeking employment.
A high percentage of these asylum applicants have third level education, and other valuable skills which are in high demand here.
This "human warehousing" creates a reservoir of the desperate, which may be very convenient for buyers of "cheap foreign labour."
D) Problems in
1) The new immigration bill (as of June 2008) fails to correct the real flaws in the previous law; and
2) proposes new abusive powers, so sweeping and invidious, as to reduce the rest of the law to the merest camouflage of those powers.
3) Especially dangerous therein are:
a) failure to place refugee matters under an independent agency separate from the Justice Ministry;
b) failure to curtail the Ministry for Justice' excessive discretion in matters bearing upon the life and freedom of individuals;
c) proposals to imprison applicants for asylum (see preceding items above)
d) deportation without advance notice, without a hearing, and now without disclosing destination [1]= disparacidos. It is impossible to fail to recognize in such measures the legalization of "making people disappear."
e) In refugee cases, where people's lives may be at risk, such a law sets a precedent dangerous to the human rights of all, everywhere.
f) said new immigration law's Part 7, Number 92 denies asylum applicants the right to independent health examination: specifying that their physical and mental condition can only be evaluated by doctors of the Ministry's choosing. No blameless purpose can be attributed to such an agenda.
What is needed to solve the problem?
1) Refugee matters should be handled by a modern, independent immigration department: entirely separate from law enforcement.
2) Law enforcement should have nothing whatever to do with refugee matters.
3) Asylum / protection should be granted strictly in accordance with the criteria set out by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR). [2]
4) No imprisonment for crime victims: Refugees are victims of international human rights violations: the worst kind of crime:
a) To apply for asylum / protection is to report these crimes and to seek victims' assistance.
b) To imprison such victims is to silence and intimidate them: it is to discourage and inhibit their reports.
c) The only elements who could knowingly welcome such a course are the
perpetrators of the crime.
5) Those who decide applications for asylum and their managers must have a full command of expertise in UNHCR criteria, national and international refugee law, and all issues affecting such applicants.
a) said expertise must be continually updated and examined;
b) they must be held accountable if they fail to apply criteria, or issue decisions based on irrelevant matters / illegitimate purposes.
6) If
7) Limits on the number of applicants accepted each year should be
a) openly negotiated: not enforced by secret agenda;
b) clearly published on the internet;
c) prominently displayed on the same page inviting applicants to apply for asylum.
8) It is necessary to recognize that in human rights violations affecting refugees, governments are often culpable and national security forces are frequently the perpetrators: and that this can create conflicts of interest for other governments / governing bodies and national security agencies.
9) To prevent the exploitation of refugee systems for "human warehousing":
Within designated time limits, governments who fail to provide an "effective remedy within a reasonable time" [3] should be obliged to offer affected applicants acceptable alternative solutions, to allow them to get on with their lives and become contributing members of society.
10) No deportation without hearing for anyone, anywhere, anytime, for any reason.
11) Asylum applicants, as alleged crime victims, whose purpose in entering the country has been to save or improve their lives, should not be subject to deportation which entails such punitive measures as banishment for life without appeal.
12) If non-criminal deportation is allowed, deportees must
a) have options regarding their destination; and
b) be enabled to make informed choices therein which will be respected.
[1] The Ministry for Justice recently fought in court and won the power to deport without disclosing the deportation's intended destination. And this is the agency upholding refugee rights!
[2] "Handbook on Procedures and Criteria For Determining Refugee Status Under the 1951 Convention and the 1967 Protocol Relating to the Status of Refugees" ("UNHCR Handbook") published by the United Nations High Commissioner For Refugees (UNHCR), (Geneva 1979; re-edition 1996)
[3] European Convention on Human Rights
To Dail na hEireann
Complaint against
G//// L//////, Plaintiff
and
Mr. Chief Justice John L. Murray,
Mr. Justice Nial Fennelly,
Mr. Justice Nicholas Kearns and
Mr. Justice Paul Butler, Respondents
Cases concerned:
Supreme Court Appeal Number 257-2008
(High Court Record Number 2008-232-JR)
Grace Lovejoy, Applicant, and
The Attorney General, Respondent
and
Supreme Court Appeal Number 436-2006
High Court Record Number 2004-1157-JR, 2005-625-JR
Grace Lovejoy, Applicant, and
Refugee Appeals Tribunal, Minister for Justice and the Attorney General, Respondents
ALLEGATIONS OF VIOLATION OF OATH AND UNETHICAL MISCONDUCT
BY JUDGES OF THE SUPERIOR COURTS
COMES NOW Plaintiff, //////////////////, her address being /////////////////////////, and presents most respectful compliments to this auspicious body, seeking redress for violations of oath and severe unethical misconduct by judges of the Superior Courts in the case numbers referenced above and hereinbelow.
A) Grounds
1) General legal grounds
a) My complaint of judicial misconduct concerns my asylum case: a question of risk to my life and freedom. These are ECHR rights. The State, as a signee, has an obligation to provide "an adequate remedy" "within a reasonable time" via "an independent and impartial tribunal" "notwithstanding that the violation was committed by a person acting in an official capacity." (European Convention on Human Rights Articles 6 and 13).
b) The State must provide effective, timely remedies for violations of ECHR rights by judges of the Superior Courts.
c) If judicial complaints cannot be dealt with in keeping with the ECHR in the political context of the Dail, then the State is under an obligation to create appropriate bodies and procedures to provide such "adequate remedy" "within a reasonable time" forthwith.
2) Grounds regarding the general nature of the case(s) in question
a) Disparity between the parties' power, prestige, resources, and close working relationship with the Court, (one side Government, the other a destitute non-national without counsel) is so extreme as to imperil a fair hearing, in and of itself.
b) Allegations in the case concern "foreign security services" notorious for their clandestine, powerful and violent interference with persons and institutions public and private, however highly placed;
c) Due to the nature of this case, it is entirely reasonable to suspect political pressure bearing upon this matter, of such a magnitude as may be felt even by Court representatives of such high position and prestige as learned judges of the Court themselves.
d) Respondents herein being a powerful government entity, The Ministry for Justice, Equality and Law Reform ("Ministry for Justice") which has been recently censured by the Council of Europe ("COE") for collusion in human rights abuses by perpetrators from Plaintiff's country of origin (the CIA, a "foreign security service" implicated in human rights violations in this case and internationally);
e) Applicant's allegations concern serious political import for the nation at large, touching on grave questions of the integrity of the Superior Courts and the Ministry for Justice.
3) Types of violations of oath and misconduct alleged
a) The misconduct alleged is far more serious than any question of mere unhappiness with the Court's decision. It concerns said judges':
i) extraordinary, so as not to say bizarre proceedings;
ii) fraudulent misrepresentations;
iii) unlawful refusals to do their duty "without fear or favour";
iv) refusal to comply with the Rules of Court;
b) with intent to
i) violate Plaintiff's human rights under the Constitution and EU law; and to
ii) cover up human rights violations by government;
c) with implications regarding the Court's treatment of alleged refugees generally, in:
i) cover up of international war crimes;
discrimination against crime victims therein, in favour of perpetrators
i) in a case which concerns risk to Plaintiff's life.
e) Judges' refusal to hear allegations concerning a tribunal (Refugee Appeals Tribunal "RAT")
i) which tribunal has been severely discredited in recent investigations by the legal profession and in a legal challenge which exposed:
A) systemic manipulation of cases to confirm Justice Ministry decisions,
B) in hundreds of cases
C) concerning human rights violations by foreign governments,
D) including torture and risk to human life ;
ii) a particular offending party at RAT therein (obliged to resign due to said investigations) having been involved in Plaintiff's case.
B) Specific allegations:
1) Mr. Justice Paul Butler
High Court Case #2005-625-JR
In the motion hearing of
a) refused Plaintiff's request that he recuse himself; and then
b) after soliciting and even coaching remarks by counsel for Respondents,
c) explicitly refused to allow Plaintiff to present her arguments;
d) explicitly refused to review written comments by TD regarding legal issues of particular public interest in proceedings.
e) failed and refused to comply with the Rules of the Superior Court,
f) failed and refused to comply with the European Convention on Human Rights,
g) failed and refused to apply the "anxious scrutiny" [1] called for in any case bearing upon a possible risk to human life; and
h) indeed demonstrated a wilful disregard for such risk to human life, which adds nothing to the dignity of the Court.
2) Mr. Justice Nial Fennelly
Supreme Court Appeal Number 436-2006
In the motion hearing of February 22, 2008 in the above-referenced case number, Judge Fennelly:
a) made fraudulent misrepresentations with intent to mislead Plaintiff as to the law relied upon,
b) with intent to
i) obstruct Plaintiff's right to know and answer the case opposing her;
ii) disable the presentation of her arguments;
iii) deprive her of a fair hearing;
c) adopted Respondents' position ver batim,
d) at the same time forbidding Plaintiff to present arguments.
e) all of the above to an extent that would cause a reasonable observer to apprehend that the judge had prior communication with Respondents, without Plaintiff's presence or knowledge.
///////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
3) Mr. Chief Justice John L. Murray:
Supreme Court Appeal Number 257-2008
In connection with this case number, Chief Justice Murray:
a) met the CSS on July 31, just three days after the appeal was filed;
b) without written notice to Plaintiff as prescribed by Rules of Court;
c) without Plaintiff's presence;
d) there made decisions in the above Supreme Court Appeal, in the CSS's favor;
e) subjecting Plaintiff to extraordinary time limits;
f) calculated to exacerbate Plaintiff's hardships in appearing without counsel, under financial hardship, and subject to limited access to facilities to prepare her case (as set forth in detail in the Notice of Appeal in the above-referenced case number.)
g) calculated to disable the presentation of Plaintiff's case;
h) calculated to give Respondents an unfair advantage;
j) in express disregard for Plaintiff's written notice delivered to the Court July 29, that she did not consent to any applications ex parte / without her presence.
k) In a case connected to:
i) government collusion in political human rights violations and attempted assassination;
ii) misconduct by judges of the Superior Courts in the examination of same;
iii) misconduct by said Chief Justice himself in said examination.
m) Plaintiff alleges that said extraordinary conduct, so particularly hostile and disadvantageous to Plaintiff, was a form of retaliation by Chief Justice Murray, due to Plaintiff's previous attempts to recuse him for disqualifying bias (in her previous Supreme Court Appeal Number 436-2006.)
4) Mr. Justice Nicholas Kearns
Supreme Court Appeal Number 436-2006
In the Motion hearing of April 11, 2008, in the above-referenced case number, Judge Kearns:
a) refused to allow Plaintiff to present arguments in full, and
b) refused to adjudicate questions of EU community human rights law which they were obliged to examine.
c) when Plaintiff began to point out relative pleadings which proved her arguments, said Judge Kearns angrily shouted, "I don't want to see any more papers!"
d) explicitly refused to review relevant pleadings in the case critical to Plaintiff's arguments; and
e) intimidating Plaintiff from presenting her case; and further
f) followed said extraordinary, hostile behavior with a threat to subject Plaintiff to punitive measures if she attempted to file "any more papers".
WHEREAS said judges named herein, in the above-described instances, clearly and flagrantly demonstrated utter contempt for their oath of office, to proceed "without fear or favour", in a case alleging threats to the life of an elected public official, for political reasons, from government sources; and
WHEREAS said judges named herein have pursued an agenda to approve government decisions affecting Plaintiff, no matter what evidence is presented; and
WHEREAS said judges named herein have therein conspired to deny Plaintiff a fair hearing, in a case concerning risk to her life (a human right protected by the European Convention on Human Rights);
PLAINTIFF RESPECTFULLY PRAYS the Dail to provide an "adequate remedy" for said violations, in accordance with law.
Respectfully submitted
January 11, 2009
(Please note that the foregoing represents a redaction of issues which were first submitted to a Deputy of the Dail on July 7, 2008 and August 11, 2008)
To Dail na hEireann
Complaint against
G//// L//////, Plaintiff
and
Mr. Chief Justice John L. Murray,
Mr. Justice Nial Fennelly,
Mr. Justice Nicholas Kearns,
Mr. Justice Hugh Geoghegan
and
Mr. Justice Paul Butler, Respondents
Cases concerned:
Supreme Court Appeal Number 257-2008
(High Court Record Number 2008-232-JR)
Grace Lovejoy, Applicant, and
The Attorney General, Respondent
and
Supreme Court Appeal Number 436-2006
High Court Record Number 2004-1157-JR, 2005-625-JR
Grace Lovejoy, Applicant, and
Refugee Appeals Tribunal, Minister for Justice and the Attorney General, Respondents
ADDENDUM TO THE COMPLAINT:
ADDING MR. JUSTICE HUGH GEOGHEGAN AS RESPONDENT, and
additional relevant information
COMES NOW Plaintiff, ////////////////, her address being /////////////////////////////, to submit necessary additional information regarding violations of oath and severe unethical misconduct by judges of the Superior Courts in the case numbers referenced above and hereinbelow.
A) Introductory: reasons for this submission of additional information
1) Plaintiff, an impoverished litigant appearing without the benefit of professional counsel due to financial hardship, has been obliged to present this Complaint to the Dail, while related litigation was still in progress.
2) Developments in said continuing litigation oblige Plaintiff to submit additional allegations and information herein: particularly concerning the penultimate mention hearing
3) Plaintiff's formal written Complaint of January 2009 focuses only on the most shocking, flagrant and proveable abuses encountered in said litigation.
4) Events in said hearings of January 15 and January 30, 2009 (described hereinbelow) were of that shocking, flagrant and proveable nature which requires their inclusion in the full Complaint.
5) Said new allegations combine with those previously recorded in such a manner as to significantly increase the overall severity of the violations and misconduct alleged.
6) In particular, said new developments significantly support Plaintiff's previous allegations that judges of the Superior Courts named herein conspired and colluded to violate Plaintiff's human rights.
7) Said additional information hereinbelow is therefore not peripheral but central to the allegations included in the original Complaint.
B) Additional information
1) Preliminary to the mention hearing of January 15, 2009
Supreme Court Appeal Number 257-2008
It is particularly pertinent to events at said hearing, that, Mr. Chief Justice John L. Murray ("Chief Justice") when meeting separately with the Chief State Solicitor ("CSS") on July 31, 2008, without due notice to Plaintiff (see Complaint B) 3) Chief Justice John L. Murray), said Chief Justice:
a) in violation of the Rules of Court, Order 58:
b) appointed that not Plaintiff (Applicant therein) but Respondent (CSS' client, the State) would file the Books of Appeal on which the opposing party (Plaintiff) would have to base their case;
c) making said appointment only three days after Plaintiff filed said Appeal in the Supreme Court;
d) said appointment not in the interests of justice, but with intent to
i) disable the presentation of Plaintiff's case;
ii) exacerbate Plaintiff's hardship as a litigant without counsel;
iii) suppress Plaintiff's evidence;
iv) prevent a full, fair hearing of the case; and
v) conspire to violate Plaintiff's human rights under European Union ("EU") law.
2) Events in the mention hearing of January 15, 2009
Supreme Court Appeal Number 257-2008
Mr. Chief Justice John L. Murray
a) At said hearing, upon confirming that it was this same Chief Justice Murray who was occupying the bench, Plaintiff immediately pointed out that:
i) as the actions of judges in related litigation might be examined in the case (see above-referenced related case numbers, title page hereinabove) no such judge could sit therein impartially; and
ii) Said Chief Justice himself being one such judge involved in previous related litigation, it was inappropriate for him to make any decision in this mention hearing; and
iii) immediately requested that said Chief Justice recuse himself.
b) Said Chief Justice refused to recuse himself.
c) Plaintiff then presented to the Court her formal written Complaint to the Dail of January 2009 explicitly specifying:
i) allegations against said Chief Justice therein; particularly
ii) that said Chief Justice had conspired with the CSS to disable the presentation of Plaintiff's case.
d) Again refusing to recuse himself, Chief Justice asked whether Plaintiff were ready for the substantive hearing scheduled therein for January 30, 2009.
e) Plaintiff expressly protested she was not ready for substantive hearing, and that:
i) the Rules of Court and the Chief Justice' own Practice Direction had been entirely violated in setting said substantive hearing
ii) without due notice and consent of both parties
iii) without any Certificate of Readiness
iv) with extraordinary proceedings constituting the Chief Justice' collusion with the CSS to prevent the full presentation of Plaintiff's case.
f) Mr. Chief Justice, without fully answering these concerns, refused Plaintiff's request for additional time to prepare; and yet
g) granted such additional preparation time to every other litigant, in every other case on for mention that day, who requested such time.
3) Preliminary to the substantive hearing of January 30, 2009
Supreme Court Appeal Number 257-2008
a) Plaintiff, in the two weeks before said substantive hearing of January 30, expressly reminded the Supreme Court in writing that:
i) no judge who had sat in previous related litigation should either sit in said hearing;
ii) nor should any such judge appoint which judges were to hear this matter;
iii) in which the actions of such judges themselves were in question.
b) Plaintiff in said correspondence specifically named Mr. Justice Hugh Geoghegan ("Judge Geoghegan") and Ms. Justice Fidelma Macken ("Judge Macken") as being inappropriate to hear the case for said reasons.
c) The Supreme Court Registrar replied that Judge Geoghegan and Judge Macken would be the ones to hear the case; accompanied by a High Court judge, Mr. Justice Liam McKechnie ("Judge McKechnie".)
d) Plaintiff protested in writing:
i) that said judges were not appropriate;
ii) asking who had appointed said judges to this hearing;
iii) questioning why a High Court judge was to sit in this Supreme Court matter;
iv) questioning why there were three and not five judges as is usual in a Supreme Court appeal of a judicial review;
e) The Court did not reply.
4) Events in the substantive hearing of January 30, 2009
Supreme Court Appeal Number 257-2008
Mr. Justice Hugh Geoghegan
a) As early as possible in the hearing, Plaintiff stated that these proceedings were seriously compromised by the presence of Judge Geoghegan and of Judge Macken on the bench, due to their own role in matters under examination.
b) Plaintiff consequently requested Judge Geoghegan and Judge Macken to recuse themselves.
c) Judge Geoghegan and Judge Macken refused to recuse themselves.
d) Throughout the conduct of this hearing, Judge Geoghegan distinguished himself for his flagrantly hostile treatment of Plaintiff:
i) never permitting her to present her case and arguments without interrupting, at best every five minutes;
ii) frequently shouting her down every time she opened her mouth;
iii) not permitting her to finish sentences;
iv) frequently not permitting her to completely pronounce a single word;
v) ostentatiously refusing to listen to Plaintiff's evidence, arguments and allegations;
vi) bullying, badgering and harassing her without pause for the entire duration of the hearing;
vii) disregarding his duty to hear the presentations of both sides in their entirety, he dominated the proceedings with frequent, protracted speeches of his own. And in fact, did as much or more talking than either of the litigants.
e) Said extraordinary hostile behavior by Judge Geoghegan was carried on in a manner calculated to:
i) continually derail her presentation;
ii) unsettle her thoughts;
iii) exacerbate her disadvantages as a litigant in person without counsel.
with intent to
iv) suppress Plaintiff's evidence and
v) prevent the full examination of Plaintiff's case.
f) Judge shifts his own standards whenever to Plaintiff's disadvantage (I)
i) After prohibiting Plaintiff from presenting her case for the relevance of examining the related litigation,
ii) Judge Geoghegan and Judge Macken did examine and discuss such related hearings;
A) in which they had themselves adjudicated; but
B) excluded Plaintiff from said discussion.
g) Judge shifts his own standards whenever to Plaintiff's disadvantage (II)
i) Judge Geoghegan in the March 14, 2008 hearing said that Plaintiff's Constitutional challenge was not in fact before him, because it was stated in the Relief section, but not in the Grounds section of the Supreme Court Appeal; and that in such an appeal, all that mattered was what was in the Grounds.
ii) Judge Geoghegan in the January 30, 2009 hearing said that Plaintiff's legal challenge was not in fact before him, because it was stated in the Grounds section, but not in the Relief section of the Supreme Court Appeal; and that in such an appeal, all that mattered was what was in the Relief.
iii) (Plaintiff having drawn up said pleading in express conformity to Judge Geoghegan's said specifications in said previous hearing of March 14, 2008.)
iv) Therein demonstrating that Judge Geoghegan was suffering from either a mental or a moral dysfunction with regard to Plaintiff's case:
A) either the judge was determined to change the standard to disallow Plaintiff's issues, no matter how presented;
B) or the judge was mentally unequal to that skill and consistency in the reading of the law so necessary to the competent performance of his office.
h) Refusal to adjudicate issues of EU community law
Judge Geoghegan explicitly refused to adjudicate questions of EU law set forth in the Notice of Appeal.
5) The meaning of the additional allegations detailed herein:
a) All of said conduct extraordinarily hostile to Plaintiff was carried on in a case concerning
i) the Constitutional validity of a statute; and
ii) questions of risk to human life in thousands of cases;
iii) concerning international war crimes and human rights violations.
b) The misconduct and violations of oath therein must therefore be judged with proportionality to the risk to human life in question.
c) The events detailed above abundantly support Plaintiff's contention that the judges named herein conspired to violate her human rights, and to grant the decision in her case to the opposing party (the State) no matter what the evidence or arguments.
6) Plaintiff prays to include the foregoing as addendum to the Complaint herein.
WHEREAS Judge Geoghegan, along with said judges named herein, in the above-described instances, did:
a) clearly and flagrantly demonstrate utter contempt for oath of office,
b) pursued an agenda to approve government decisions affecting Plaintiff, no matter what evidence is presented; and
c) conspired to deny Plaintiff a fair hearing,
d) in a case concerning risk to human life in thousands of cases; and
e) concerning other human rights protected by the European Convention on Human Rights and other Community law;
PLAINTIFF RESPECTFULLY PRAYS the Dail to include the foregoing as addendum to the Complaint herein and provide an "adequate remedy" for said violations, in accordance
with law.
Respectfully submitted,
[1] Z'gnatev v Minister For Justice, Equality and Law Reform [2002] 2 IR 135;
Bugdaycay v Secretary of State for Home Department [1987] AC 514 @ 531 & 537
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
