| RULES OF THE SUPERIOR COURTS: AFFIDAVIT (ORDER 40) For Point 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-explanitory, 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 adminiter 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 interestd. 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 sall do any other act incident to his office. This is a very simple issue to grasp and comprehend. Of all the AFFIDAVITS that we have seen and examined over the years, NONE of them have the TIME (as underlined above) stated on them. Very few if any ever 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. 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. 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 1t 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 or a workplace address, or their employers 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 in 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 be 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 without 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 "AUTHENTICE" 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 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 the 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: 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. FINALLY TAKE NOTE: There is only so much material and time we can put into any (short) article/email. This article is a snippet of a much greater and larger volume of work entitled "EVERYMANS LAW", which shall be released in 2015. In the interim, you might read, re-read and re-read the material herein. If you cannot assist yourself now in slowing down and/or stopping any legal matter proceeding and/or progressing, then you need to re-read the material. | 
No comments:
Post a Comment