No constitutional barrister or solicitor I walked into court the high court today in front of Judge Ryan, my application was denied, but what I had registered in court for the first time in Irish History CAN effect every case brought by the Irish Financial institutions of this country, if the borrower raises there issues, below is my word for word statement, read it and post it, Judge if I may just address the case management issues raised by the defendants counsel. As you might recall judge back in August I presented an application to your court for an interim injunction against the signing of the bill in question, You denied that application on jurisdictional constraints. Events overtook the original summons thereafter. The central office at that time issued a date of the 28th of October and then rescheduled it for a week earlier that being the 21st of October. That brings me to the application before this court today. In light of the events the 3rd named defendant would be therefore so –removed from these proceedings in respect to constitutional entitlement. An application to amend the motion will be brought forward in that regard. A brief history of the bill Judge, It was born out of a Laguna created by Judge Dunne’s ruling stark Mortgages v Gunne 2009 leaving section 62 subsection 7 repealed. Thus leaving an impassable forge for the financial institutions of this state that relied heavily on the said repealed legislation. The defendant raises the issue of this plaintiff’s locus standi, In fact this plaintiff has 3 cases before the Supreme Court case no 352- Case no 225 and case no 416. The Judge Dunne Ruling is fundamentally crucial to those proceedings. Thus proving this Plaintiff holds locus standi in this regard. The defendant goes on further to state that this plaintiff has initiated a frivolous and vexatious case against the defendants, I say in reply to these averments by the defendants that the violations of this plaintiffs constitutional rights, rights under common law, rights in accordance with the European convention of human rights article 6, 8 and 13 and further violation of the Lisbon treaty are in NO WAY considered frivolous and vexatious. (I would like to park that there for the moment) In opening the affidavit to this court I would like to address some points not yet properly ventilated in the Irish court system, (With the obvious exception of your own ruling judge regarding the Freeman case v Bank of Scotland) Judge The bill in question as mention at point 9 of the affidavit states. Extends further legislative powers to financial institutions who to date have not accounted for the serious issue of securitisation by the banks of Ireland, The legal system of Ireland has yet to address the issue of all of Banks of this state transferring their equitable and legal rights on the securitisation of its loans by their direct sister companies who sole purpose was the sale of the banks loans in this state. The locus standi of all cases against borrowers brought by Banks in this state has yet to be clarified. A brief example of this is the ruling under the same law practice and upheld in this state by Judge Baqwa of Johannesburg High Court ruled that the banks’ securitisation vehicles are “subsidiaries” of the banks. It confirms a central pillar that banks’ securitisation vehicles are subject to the same laws as the banks themselves. The banks over what it says are shadowy and secretive practices such as securitisation. It says the judgement effectively means the banks’ failure to disclose their securitisation activities places them in violation of the Banks Act, Consumer Protection Act and several other statutes Yet this country has over 10 such limited companies acting as SPV’s owned by Irish Banks, again contrary to EU and statute law. And the honourable Judge Baqwa ruling. Bank of Ireland thru ICS ----- Kildare Securities. Irish Life & Perm----- Fastnet SECURITIES INBS---- Armoin Residential Securities (pros attached) Ulster Bank/First Active---- Celtic residential Securities. Bank of Scotland (Ireland)---- Wolfhound Funding 2008- EBS---- Emerald Securities AIB----AIB Mortgage Securities Limited. Start Mortgages--- Lansdowne Securities. Danske Bank-- Mermaid AND Prime Bricks. SECURITIES KBC --Phoenix Holdings. The sole purpose of these companies is the sale of loans, securitising loans, transfer of equitable and legal rights. In relation to paragraph 7. The legality of all Irish and registered Banks in accordance with the Central Bank Acts of 1941-1989 trading without a perfected Banking Licence has yet to be concluded by An Garda Siochana, with a mass Criminal investigation initiated last February. I hold a copy of the mass statement use throughout this country seeking criminal investigation by an Garda Siochana. And confirmation of file number. On the 15th of February 2008 all Irish Banks entered into contractual agreement with the Central Bank of Ireland pledging all of their assets and securities, in accordance with contractual rights extended the Central Bank of IRELAND BECAME LEGAL OWNER ON THE CRYTALISATION OF THOSE CONTRACTS, the locus standi of all Irish Banks again needs to be clarified. I hold a true copy of the contract for the court inspection. And finally Judge, In my respectful submission, the Laguna as previously mentioned the void within the legislation that the Defendant so wishes to bridge by retroactive law, Which I say this bill extends, I say retroactive law is a direct violation of this Plaintiffs constitutional rights, rights under common law, rights in accordance with the European convention of human rights article 6, 8 and 13 and further violation of the Lisbon treaty. Not wanting to labour this court with numerous authorities in relation to retroactive law by the supreme court of Ireland, the House of Lords, the European courts of human rights, and the Lisbon treaty I will comment on two case rulings, Mc Kee V Culligann the court held that Article 15.5 Constitutes “An expressed and unambiguous prohibition against the enactment of retrospective laws declaring Acts to be an infringement of the law, whether of the civil or the criminal law And Lord Nicholls of Birkenhead in the House of Lords stated “ retroactive law would mean that parties rights under existing legislation in respect of a transaction completed before the act came into force could be changed overnight to the benefit of one party and the preijuce of the other ,when the events apt to create rights or obligations take place citizens affected by the events need to be able to ascertain the extent of their rights or obligations, they cannot do so if the subsequent legislation may be added to or diminish those rights or obligations. In closing, I say this plaintiff has clearly ventilated the gravity of the flaws within the land and conveyacing law reform bill of 2013 in regard to the introduction of retroactive law to bridge a void by the defendants to facilitate the financial institutions of this state, without first addressing the serious legal issues raised in this court today And the many other grave issues not yet addressed by the revelient authorities. I respectfully seek a full injunction on the Land and Conveyancing law reform Bill of 2013. Until a judicial review can be concluded. A very big thank you to all who took the time today to support me, please post
Posted on: Thu, 07 Nov 2013 13:42:42 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015