Wednesday 20 April 2016

how to recuse a judge

The Common Law Society

Educate People to Protect Themselves

Land line call: 057 8688 410

Before we get started:

We respectfully ask that you share this email with all your friends and family on this Island and beyond.  All information contained herein is for education and entertainment purposes only, and cannot be taken or construed as legal advise.  It is up to every Man/Woman to verify for themselves all/any information contained herein, and to act accordingly, and in good conscience.




Please do not copy, edit or amend this article in any way, shape or form.  By all means feel free to print, post and share it, in its full unadulterated and unedited context.  


Do not use the material or information contained herein verbatim, or as a template to create a letter or notice.  As it may get you into some very hot water. REMEMBER: Context is everything.


P.S. This is a long and potentially very valuable email ... take your time when reading it. 






"Recusal, refers to the act of abstaining from participation in an official action such as a legal proceeding due to a conflict of interest of the presiding court official or administrative officer. Applicable statutes or canons of ethics may provide standards for recusal in a given proceeding or matter. Providing that the judge or presiding officer must be free from disabling conflicts of interest makes the fairness of the proceedings less likely to be questioned".




Impartiality is the significant overriding element in relation to the administration of Justice.  ALL Legal disputes that arise in ALL Courts should be free from all bias and/or prejudice, and free from all suspected bias and/or prejudice.  In any event, as a result of the foregoing NO Judge in question can continue to preside over a case where there is any appearance, hint or suspicion of bias or non-impartiality.  Even in a case when a Judge is being impartial, where there is any suspected appearance of bias, prejudice and/or non-impartiality, recusal is not just necessary it is an absolute.



Therefore, even if YOU JUST SUSPECT that a Judge is being biased, prejudice and/or NOT impartial, you can and perhaps should seriously consider getting rid of them as soon as possible.  After all, we are all interested in the lawful administration of Justice, are we not?


Over the past few years we have been quietly successful in getting certain Judges to stand down, or recuse themselves from certain particular cases, for a host of anomalous and specific reasons and inferences.  We didn't consider until recently, that this might or may be useful to People in Court on a broader basis.  A recent recusal of a High Court Judge assisted in the penny dropping with us.  So now we ask, that everyone reading this article, that may be involved in a Court case (directly and/or indirectly), to consider the appropriateness and merit of what we are suggesting.


I.E. Consider whether or not to recuse the Judge.


To be clear we do not and have never set out to have all Judges recused, only the ones that were and/or are demonstrating bias and/or prejudice, and in all cases where clear bias and/or where prejudice was demonstrated by a Judge, the Judge did stand down or recuse him or herself from the case, just with some well worded bits of paper, and without having to lodge/file Court paperwork for a Motion to recuse.


In more recent times, we have insisted that ALL People working with us (that are in the Court), provide us with accurate records/transcripts of the Court proceedings.  On close and Critical analysis, we have found that almost all of the records/transcripts of the Court proceedings, have shown or demonstrated that the respective Judge(s) involved was and/or is Prejudice or Biased or was not impartial in some way, shape or form.  That is not to say, that in all cases the Judge was ordered to step down or recuse him or herself, only in some.


Most Judges (but not all of course), will and do show favor towards the Plaintiff/Accuser.  Some Judges fear what may happen (to them), if they do not find in favor of the Plaintiff/Accuser, or a-judge matters in favor of the Defendant/Accused.  Perhaps some Judges have been bribed or paid off, induced and/or coerced in some way, and perhaps some just take delight in destroying the lives of People.  Who knows? 


A great many Judges will blatantly show affection for, and are led by Solicitors and/or Barristers, albeit, it may be because the respective Judge may not have the Knowledge of the Law required for that particular type/form of case, and therefore the Judge becomes reliant and/or dependent upon the presumed knowledge and/or the perceived experience of the Solicitor or Barrister before them. 


In which case the or any Judge that is so reliant upon the said knowledge and/or experience of a Solicitor or Barrister can be led by the nose, to wherever the Solicitor or Barrister wishes to bring them.  Such Judges should not be Judges, and have no place in any Court of Law or competent Jurisdiction.  Any Judge in such a case is in over their heads, and can hardly presume to be impartial. Ignorant maybe, but NOT IMPARTIAL.


In most cases the respective Judges (we have examined), have shown and demonstrated a proclivity and penchant for treating lay-litigants (litigants in person), with utter contempt and/or disregard or disrespect in some form or fashion.  It is demonstrably clear, that most if not all Judges hate dealing with lay-litigants.  Perhaps this is because, most lay-litigants on the face of it, and in the eyes of the Judges, hold up the business of the Court, and delay what most Judges see, and are convinced of, as being "the inevitable". 


After all, if it is inevitable that the Defendant/Accused is going to lose anyway, then why waste any of the Courts valuable time, even being seen to administer Justice?  Why not simply RUSH TO JUSTICE in all cases, and be done with DUE PROCESS, or as many Judges, Barristers and Solicitors have put it; the semantics, rhetoric, prevarication, equivocation, evasion, avoidance, delaying tactics, games of ducks and drakes and fishing expeditions that Defendants and Accused alike indulge in? 


Whenever a Judge, Barrister and/or Solicitor use these types and turns of phrase, they are willfully stereotyping the said Defendant/Accused in the Public Court, and in the eyes of the Court and the Public. This is construed as Prejudice and a form of discrimination, and they are being diminutive and grossly disparaging of the said Defendant/Accused.  They are trying to paint the Defendant/Accused in the eyes of the Court as some sort of malingering timewaster.


Well, this is precisely what happens and is happening.  DUE PROCESS in LAW is more often than not, ignored by the Judge, and the respective Judges are led by the nose on this merry dance, by the Legal Professionals, and convinced that the Defendant or Accused are purposely and willfully wasting the Courts time, by asking questions that the Legal Professionals and their Clients are not prepared to address and/or answer.


Equally, when m/any straight forward POINTS OF LAW are raised or posed to the Court, the Court and/or the Solicitor or Barrister will accuse the said Accused or Defendant of attacking, and/or being a protester against "the State".  Of late, the use of the word or term "protester" seems to have taken up special residency in the narrow minds of Judges, Barristers and Solicitors.  If this in and of itself does not demonstrate clear bias, prejudice and/or lack/want of impartiality, what does? 


The Court, the Judges, the Barristers and the Solicitors hone in on all Lay-litigants that dare to use the term or words "the State", either on paper and/or in open Court via voce (spoken words), and will and do castigate, marginalize and discriminate against those that step over the line, of perceivably levying an attack upon "the State", be it well founded or intentioned, or not.  And sure who can blame them?  Wouldn't you too, protect your "paymaster" at all costs?


On any basis:

How can any Judge on the face of it, claim to be IMPARTIAL, UNBIASED, UNPREJUDICED, NON-DISCIMINATORY and so on … if they are being paid by "the State"? The State, that is interwoven, interlocked and interlinked with ALL Banks, Financial Institutions, County Councils, the Revenue Commissioner and so on ad infinitum, and with all BIG and Small Industry and Business.  Where does "the State" begin and end?  It has its fingers in everything, and has a vested interest in everything, and thus if follows, whenever any party or representative from any of the above present in Court against a Lay-litigant, the Lay-litigant has very little chance, on the face of it, of winning that case per se.


That is not of course to say, that Lay-litigants never win. Of course some do, and every battle is hard fought.  For the purposes of this article, and for absolute crystal clarity, EVERY time and in EVERY case where the People we have worked with have sought to Recuse, and/or Order that a Judge step down from the case, the Judge has recused, retired and/or stepped down from the respective case. 


This does not mean the end of the case, as the case(s) is usually handed over to another Judge, and on it proceeds, with perceivably a non-biased, non-prejudiced impartial Judge in tow.  Nonetheless, it does no harm, where appropriate to use this facility if the case is not going the way that you might have imagined, because of the way the Judge, the Barrister and/or the Solicitor are conducting themselves.  Lets just say this for the moment; the recusal of a Judge tends to ground all parties, and makes the Barrister or Solicitor a little more inclined to respect the Defendant or Accused.  


There are several potential ways a Judge may be recused.  He or she may recuse themselves voluntarily of course.  The Plaintiff/Accuser may ask for them to recuse themselves.   They can be recused on a Motion for Recusal, and quite simply they can be directly written to, and/or verbally instructed to Recuse themselves, by the Defendant or the Accused. 


Whilst the Courts, Court Services, the Barristers, the Solicitors and the Judges do not like or appreciate any Lay-litigant writing directly to them about any matter, especially when ALL parties to the case are LAWFULLY addressed, they cannot stop you, providing of course what you write is FACTUAL, is LAWFUL and appropriate to the case in question ...


After all it is supposed to be a Public forum, but sometimes the only way the Judge really hears what you have to say, is when they get it in writing and/or ON THE RECORD.  Remembering of course that NO Judge is of higher authority to any of the People of this Island.


Lets get the ball rolling …





The starting block in getting any Judge recused, is to make sure you have a CRITICALLY ACCURATE RECORD or TRANSCRIPT of the proceedings i.e. A WORD FOR WORD, BLOW BY BLOW ACCOUNT AND RECORD/TRANSCRIPT of what was said in Court on the day in question.  If your transcript/record of what the Judge said, what the Barrister or Solicitor and/or what you said is NOT word perfect, then you will end up getting yourself into more bother, than when you first started.  If you misquote the Judge and/or any of the parties to the case, including yourself, and this is found out, you will lose you case in rapid time, and might end up behind bars.  We cannot stress this enough. Critical accuracy is required.  We are not going to tell you here, how to get a Critically accurate record/transcript of the proceedings.  We do not care how you manage this. That is up to you.  Just do it, as they say.



Critical reading of the Record/Transcript is required.  This is where the real hard work comes in.  Get your highlighters, pens, markers, spare paper, copybook etc. ready.  Turn on the internet, and get access to a legal dictionary, albeit in book form or via the internet.  Critical Reading is simple (when you know how).  The basis of Critical reading, comes from the Greek term Critique, which is the word for "to Judge".  Ironic really, isn't it?   So when you critique or critically read something, you are Judging it.  But before you get to the point of being able to make or form that Judgment, you will need to establish the Truth, which is derived from the Facts, which is derived in this case from the proceedings of the court.  The proceedings of the Court is what was said and done in the Court, which you should have a very accurate Record/Transcript of, as suggested earlier.



Some reverse engineering is required.  This is very much like what on the face of it the Courts do, so in effect you are doing what most Courts do.  They make a decision, and then direct all the proceedings towards reaching that decision.  In this/your case, you have perhaps decided you wish to recuse the Judge.  Now you have to find the way to get there, using your Record/Transcript of the Court proceedings.  See, this is really easy stuff! 



You will forensically trawling the Transcript/Record of the Court for any subtle, blatant or overt suggestions of improper or stated misbehavior, for insults, for manipulation, for favoritism, for bias, for lack of impartiality, for aggressive language, for misleading and/or malicious statements, for bullying, for coercion, for suggestions that the Judge may know and/or have had improper/prior contact with any parties to the case.  When you are looking to recuse a Judge, it may also be critically important to check the Judges history and contacts, and to research if the Judge has any connection whatsoever with any of the parties to the case, in any context whatsoever.  Perhaps you suspect that the Judge may be taking a bribe or receiving an inducement or favor from the Plaintiff or the Accuser in some form or fashion?  Bribes, inducements and favors can take many forms.  It is not just about brown envelopes.  It could be a holiday, a car, an agreement, a dinner or lunch, an insurance policy, a favorable rate for something, a nod and a wink … the list is endless. 


NOTE: This list of things herein is not exhaustive.  There are probably a whole host of other issues and reasons why you can recuse any Judge, but they are too numerous to suggest here.



The penultimate step. 

When you find any of the above present, and/or reasonably suspect, because of what was suggested, said and/or stated in the Court, you can then simply write to the Judge (again), and demand that they recuse themselves from the respective case.  When writing to the Judge, the letter should in our opinion, be registered and/or emailed, and addressed to ALL parties to the case/matter also.  After all, you are not trying to hide your concerns about the potential bias, prejudice and/or lack of impartiality of the Judge from anyone, and in likelihood, the Judge will take your letter more seriously if all parties to the case have been informed of your GRAVE concerns, in respect of a potential ABUSE OF PROCESS or MISCARRIAGE OF JUSTICE.  In other words the Judge cannot hide any longer, and there will be far more scrutiny levied upon the Judge if they persist with the case.  If perchance the Judge does not, or refuses to recuse themselves from the proceedings, this fact alone will be enough in LAW to have the matter appealed, and the Judge will potentially be in for a very rough ride after this, with a possible Judicial Review, or Impeachment Proceedings etc.



Rather than go through explaining how best to construct a LETTER FOR RECUSAL of a Judge, we have stuck a sample letter below for your reading pleasure.  Remember, context is everything.  DO NOT use this example/sample letter as a template, as it is in reference to a real and particular case, with extracts taken from the relevant Court Transcript(s), it will get you into a whole heap of bother if used verbatim.



Appear in Court, on the respective next hearing date and present the Court with the letter again, and your VERBAL DEMAND/REQUEST for the respective Judge to recuse him or herself from the case.  You shouldn't need to say too much, other than what is in your letter, with perhaps some added emphases on the terms biased, impartial, prejudice, abuse of process, malicious deception, miscarriage of justice etc.  As they say Q.E.D.



Thus far, ALL the People that have worked with us, that had need to have the Judge in the case recused, have been successful in doing so. It ALL hinged upon getting and keeping CRITICALLY ACCURATE COURT RECORDS/TRANSCRIPTS. 


Do not attempt to recuse any Judge, if you do not have the FACTS, the LAW and the TRUTH ... Then again, once you have CRITICALLY ACCURATE COURT RECORDS/TRANSCRIPTS, it should not prove too hard to put forward a reasonable reason as to why the Judge should or needs to be recused.  As very few, if any of them are squeaky clean, and all you need is one reason, or a reasonable suspicion, as to why they should be recused. 


After all, it stands to reason, that if a Judge is not prejudice before you wrote to them, they surely will be after they have read your letter, which again is another GOOD REASON for them to be recused.













Court Record Number [ ---------------]

Garda Siochana Ref./Pulse I.D [if appropriate]






Your Name,



Time etc.


Sent via An Post Registered Post


Justice Soandso, The High Court, Four Courts,Dublin 7.



Registrar of The High Court | The Barrister/Solicitor involved | An Garda Siochana and/or the Garda Bureau of Fraud Investigation etc. | The Law Society of Ireland | Data protection Commissioner | Irish Human Rights & Equality Commission, | Chief Justice, Four Courts, Inns Quay, Dublin 7, Ireland



Re: Your Court Record/Ref. Number: XXXX 

Further to your hearing dated: [date of last hearing etc.]


Dear Justice Soandso,


As you are FULLY aware we were in attendance again at the High Court no X, last Monday in relation to your case/record no XXXXXXX.


FOR AND ON THE RECORD AND FOR ABSOLUTE CLARITY:In the interest of upholding fairness honesty and integrity of the justice system, it is vitally important that you FULLY address and clarify ALL of the Points of LAW raised herein, and FULLY answer ALL of the Legal questions raised herein. FURTHER: It is in your best interests, as a purported Judge of the High Court, that you FULLY ADDRESS ALL PARTIES named/listed and inculcated herein and above. 

On the day in question (date here), you did make it abundantly clear you wanted me to know that you did "… take a very serious view of the content of your (my) letter".   We are quite unsure as to how to read/take this statement of yours.  We would hope that you do take PERJURY and FRAUD before the Court as "very serious", but yet, why did you fail, refuse and/or neglect to give absolute clarity in LAW on the demonstrable FACTS before you and the honorable Court?


How are/were we to read what you stated ON RECORD?  Are we to take it, that you are now going to address the FACT that PERJURY and FRAUD was and is before the Court?


Or are you going to IGNORE the FACTS and the LAW; wherein the intent of your statement i.e. "I want you to know that I take a very serious view of the content of your (my) letter.", was stated as a warning/threat to illicit fear, and to prevent the Court FULLY ADDRESSING the Criminal Acts, Omissions, Intents and/or Behaviours of the puported Plaintiff, their purported Council and cohorts? 

Are you further positioning yourself as a puported High Court Judge to faciliate PERJURY and FRAUD, and to further aid and abet the Plaintiff and thir puported Council in RUSHING to JUDGEMENT … irrespective of the LAW, and the FACT that you have been NOTICED and INFORMED of same ON RECORD, and that you have confirmed NOTICE OF SAME ON RECORD?


TAKE NOTE: Notwithstanding the above and herein, we reserve the right, irrespective of any positive or negative outcome of the MOTION TO STRIKE/DISMISS, as the ONLY MOTION that stands LAWFULLY before the Court, to seek a Review of Judgment and/or Appeal, and/or to have YOU and matters JUDICIALLY REVIEWED.  Insofar as we are aware, NO JUDGE of/in "the State" has ever been impeached, despite the FACT that perhaps many should be, or should have been … Perhaps because of the way you have conducted yourself thus far ON THE RECORD, you may be the first?


FURTHER TO THE ABOVE/HEREIN, AND THE AVOIDANCE OF ALL DOUBT, TAKE NOTE, FOR AND ON THE RECORD: We demand that you FULLY address ALL of the herein, and FULLY answer ALL of the herein Legal questions, points of LAW etc. BY RETURN POST to ALL PARTIES as follows:



On the day in question, YOUR Barrister did state, "Unfortunately Judge there are two motions listed but there is only the Defendants motion… my motion was supposed to travel from the adjournment last week".

a.     What Specific and Particular "two motions" was YOUR Barrister referring to?

b.     Isn't it true that this is a wilfully misleading statement (A LIE), by the YOUR Barrister, wherein as both YOU and YOUR Barrister are FULLY AWARE, the ONLY MOTION that is LAWFULLY before the Court is the said "MOTION TO STRIKE/DISMISS"?

c.     Isn't it TRUE that the said YOUR Barrister is CRIMINALLY misdirecting the Court, and getting YOU to coalesce to NOT addressing the said LAWFUL MOTION to STRIKE/DISMISS?



Justice Soandso, you did state, "I will deal with both motions together".

a.     What specific and particular "both motions" are you puporting to "deal with"?

b.     How can you purport to deal with "both motions" wherein, as YOU are FULLY aware, there is ONLY ONE LAWFUL MOTION before the Court?

c.     Isn't it true, that you have wilfully failed, refused and/or neglected to address the ONLY LAWFUL MOTION before the Court?



YOUR Barrister did state, "Thank You".

a.     Why specifically did YOUR Barrister "Thank You"?

b.     Isn't it true that YOUR Barrister did "Thank You", because you did and are facilitating and aiding and abetting him to RUSH TO JUDGMENT?

c.     Isn't it true that YOUR Barrister did "Thank You", because you chose to ignore the FACT that we are NOT, and nor is the said Court LAWFULLY in receipt of any new or other MOTION other than the one that was, is and still remains unaddressed by YOU before the Court?

d.     Isn't it true that YOUR Barrister did "Thank You" for ignoring the FACT that we are not and were not ever in receipt of any NEW MOTION?

e.     Isn't it true that YOUR Barrister was thanking you, and was and is greatful for your assistance in attempting to RUSH TO JUDGMENT?

f.      Isn't it true that YOUR Barrister was thanking you, and was and is grateful, for you NOT addressing the points of LAW raised in the said earlier letter (referred herein) and the ONLY LAWFUL MOTION before the Court?

g.     Isn't it true that YOUR Barrister was thanking you for your prevarication and wilful sidetracking of LAW, DUE PROCESS and the ONLY LAWFUL MOTION before the Court?



YOUR Barrister made reference to an "Order for Substituted Service".

a.     Isn't it true, Justice Soandso, that at the time of this puported Order, you had sight of the documents relating to the puported Summons therein, and you were FULLY aware that the said documents were unauthentic and a FRAUD before and on the Court?

b.     Isn't it true Justice Soandso that as a puported acting Judge of the High Court, you have an absolute DUTY OF CARE to NOT facilitate and/or allow FRAUD and/or PERJURY before the Court, and should have dismissed the Plaintiffs UNAUTHENTIC, ILLEGAL and UNLAWFUL documentation to travel further?

c.     Isn't it true Justice Soandso that the said documents should NOT have been allowed to travel to the court proceedings on the said dates, and that said proceedings should NOT have proceeded, had you been conducting yourself and the Court in a LAWFUL manner and way, wherein you would have dismissed the said Plaintiff's case in its entirity?

d.     Isn't it true Justice Soandso that in your purported position as a said acting High Court Judge, wherein if you do not know and/or have FULL cognisance of the LAW, you have no LAWFUL option but to recuse yourself?

e.     Wherein, isn't it true that you either have FULL knowledge and cognisance of the LAW, and are wilfully facilitating FRAUD and PERJURY before the Court, or you do NOT have FULL knowledge and cognisance of the LAW and should recuse yourself from this matter forthwith?



Justice Soanso you did state "you have absolutely no grounds for what you said in your letter and you disseminated your letter to many other people".

a.     Isn't it true that when you say "no grounds" you are again displaying your bias in favour of the said Plaintiff and their Legal Counsel and YOUR Barrister?

b.     What "grounds" does the Plaintiff and their Legal Counsel have for lodging fraudulent and perjurous documents into the court?

c.     What "grounds" do you have for continuing with this case when on the face of it you are hell bent on facilitating the Plaintiff and his agent YOUR Barrister by rushing this case to judgment regardless of the LAW which governs the courts? 

d.     What "grounds" do you have for publically rebuking, shaming and humiliating us three times in Court on the day in question, when we have been open and honest and respectful to the Court at all times?

e.     What LAW can prohibit any Man or Woman from "disseminating" matters ON PUBLIC RECORD in a PUBLIC COURT?  … Isn't it a PUBLIC COURT?

f.      Would you prefer that your intents, omissions, behaviours and acts be stifled, suppressed and/or withheld from the PUBLIC COURT and from PUBLIC RECORD?

g.     What would or have you got to hide from the matters of FACT being "disseminated … to many other people"?

h.    What "many other people" are you referring to?

i.      Are you attempting to hide, stifle, suppress and/or withhold said "disseminated … letter" from all of the parties listed/named/addressed herein?

j.      Would you prefer to be approached and/or courted in Private?

k.    Did YOUR Barrister, court or approach you and/or discuss the matters herein, in the Private with YOU prior to the said proceedings?



Justice Soandso you did state "You may have that feeling but in any event I'm not dealing with the matter today".

a.     What right in LAW do you have to negate and/or belittle our feelings?

b.     Isn't it true that feelings are informed by conscience, and conscience is how one knows the difference between right and wrong?

c.     Isn't it true that on the face of it … YOU ARE NOT DOING RIGHT? Perhaps you take issue or umbridge with anyone who is acting in conscience, and knowing right from wrong?  Perhaps this is why, on the face of it, you have been hostile, aggressive, prejudicial and belittling of (our) feelings?

d.     Why are you again facilitating YOUR Barrister by "not dealing with the matter today" when there was/is a LAWFUL MOTION before you and the Court?

e.     In good conscience how can you continue with this case, when the said Plaintiff, their puported Legal Counsel and YOUR Barrister have brought the Court into disrepute, and have UNLAWFULLY brought FRAUD and PERJURY before the Court?

f.      Perhaps you consider that feelings, conscience, right and wrong and LAW have no place in a Court of LAW or Competent Jurisdiction, but that DISREPUTE, FRAUD and PERJURY do?



Justice Soandso you did state "The papers should be delivered by prepaid post forthwith so that the Defendant has an opportunity to disseminate them, and put in a replying affidavit … POST all papers to the Defendant".

a.     What particular and specific "papers" are you referring to here?

b.     Isn't it true that we did not ever seek and/or request "papers"?

c.     Isn't it true that giving your YOUR Barrister permission to serve papers by ordinary post is just compounding the FRAUD and PERJURY on/in the Court, due to the fact that the Order for substituted service given previously was/is NOT AUTHENTIC and was and is ILLEGAL/UNLAWFUL due to your own direct UNLAWFUL acts, ommissions and/or behaviours, and the PERJUROUS and FRAUDULENT documents before the court?

d.     What in particular are you expecting "the Defendant" to "disseminate"?

e.     How in LAW is it possible to "put in a replying affidavit", when the ONLY LAWFUL MOTION before the Court, is the very one that you wilfully and CRIMINALLY failed, refused and neglected to address on the day in question?

f.      Do you want us to lodge/issue "a replying affidavit" to OUR OWN MOTION?

g.     This matter is getting quite beyond the ridiculuous; and in this regard, we have to enquire as to your mental capacity, if you are expecting us to lodge "a replying affidavit" to OUR OWN MOTION, when there is no other LAWFUL MOTION before the Court, and you are on the face of it failing, refusing and/or neglecting to deal with this matter in a LAWFUL manner?

h.    Isn't it true that as the puported presiding Judge, you are either mentally confused, or perhaps you are wilfully trying and/or attempting to confuse the issues before the Court in favour of the said Plaintiff and their Counsel?

i.      Which is it - are you mentally confused, or are you wilfully confusing the matter in favour of the Plaintiff?

j.      Isn't this question as to your mental capacity, and your aggression towards us, enough to warrant that you graciously recuse yourself from continuing with this matter, or perhaps you prefer the matter to go to a review of judgment, an appeal and/or a judicial review, perhaps impeachment proceedings?



Justice Soandso you did state, "Ok we will put it back for another date. Have any replying motions in the court within 10 days".

a.     What specific and/or particular "replying motions" are you going on about here?

b.     How can we reply to "replying motions" that do not exist in LAW, and are not LAWFULLY before the Court?

c.     What LAW are YOU relying upon to force us to reply to a "motion" that we haven't seen, and/or are NOT LAWFULLY before the Court?

d.     Isn't this very confused statement of YOURS, yet again another sign of either your mental confusion/incapacity, and/or a sign of your biased and prejudiced support of the said Plaintiff and their Legal Counsel?



Justice Soandso you did state, "You know perfectly well what's in the letter and if you think that you can just write in and make the comments that you made. It's one thing to write to me but you disseminated them to about eight or nine other people, so I take a very serious view of the letter".

a.     What specific and particular "comments" are you referring to here?

b.     Where in said "writing" have "comments" been made?

c.     Are you trying to bully and intimidate us into revoking our right to ask honest and enquiring legal questions?

d.     What is wrong with disseminating to all other inculcated parties?

e.     Isn't this a public Court?

f.      If YOU FEEL or THINK that you can make an Order, to Order any Man or Woman to NOT "disseminate" what is in the PUBLIC and ON PUBLIC RECORD, by all means FEEL FREE to do so, otherwise YOUR COMMENTS can only be taken and treated as contempt for Constitutional and Human Rights.



Justice Soandso you did state, "I don't find it amusing".

a.     Are you saying that we wrote our legal questions to amuse you?

b.     Do you think we are funny?

c.     Isn't it true that in the time you took to shame, rebuke and humiliate us publically in court you could have struck out this case as you are required to do by LAW?



As you are FULLY aware, and if you are not, in your capacity as the said puported presiding Judge, there NOW exists TWO DIFFERENT TRUE COPIES of the said Plaintiff's Grounding Affidavit.

a.     How can there exist TWO DIFFERENT TRUE COPIES?

b.     Which is the TRUE COPY of the Original Affidavit and which is FRAUD and PERJURY?

c.     Isn't it true that the said ONLY LAWFUL MOTION before the Court, and the said letters to you as puported presiding Judge have and did bring this matter to your direct and immediate attention, wherein you have UNLAWFULLY attempted to avoid, evade and wilfully mislead and misdirect the Court with such trite comments as "I don't find it amusing", and by cutting in on us EVERY time we did attempt to address these matters and bring the matters to the attention of the Court?

d.     Isn't it true that YOU are CRIMINALLY facilitaing and aiding and abetting the Plaintiff and their puported Legal Counsel in their ABUSE OF PROCESS, and facilitating what can only be constituted as a MALICIOUS PROSECUTION?



We put you on JUDICIAL NOTICE Justice Soandso,that this letter is written also for the immediate attention of the An Garda Siochana who already have an ongoing criminal investigation under Pulse I.D XXXXX and all matters of perjury and fraud before the court will be brought to the attention of the Gardai under the 2001 criminal justice theft and fraud offences act, including but not limited to section 24, 25 and 26, forgery, false instruments and their use.



Notwithstanding the above/herein, in the interest of FAIRNESS and JUSTICE and RIGHT, we DEMAND and DIRECT that you Justice Soandso as puported presiding Judge, formally recuse yourself from these said proceedings, as on the face of it, you have shown and demonstrated clear bias and prejudice in favour of the said Plaintiff and their Legal Counsel, and that you may have or had Ex-Parte communications with the said Plaintiffs Legal Counsel/Barrister, and/or you may have personal knowledge about the parties or the facts of the case, and YOUR comments and conduct to date and ON RECORD show and demonstrate a penchant and proclivity towards facilitating and aiding and abetting the said Plaintiff and their Legal Counsel achieving a RUSH TO JUDGEMENT under COLOUR OF LAW.  Notwithstanding this, we reserve the right to have any or all Orders/Judgements etc. (be they biased or not), to be subjected to Review, Judicial Review, Appeal and/or for Impeachment proceedings to commence. 



We demand that you FULLY ADDRESS and FULLY ANSWER ALL of the herein Points and Legal Questions BY RETURN POST, and address same to ALL PARTIES listed, involved and inculcated herein.  When we say BY RETURN POST we mean BY RETURN POST.




By: ________








The next day in Court, Justice Soandso stood down/recused himself from the case, much to the consternation and confusion of the Barrister.






 TUT1: Read, Write and Think Critically.


Commencing:Tues. 7th. June - 3 Part Tutorial (inclusive).


More info. and

Booking Details

Available >HERE<





The CLS Talks


Census 2016

Click >HERE<















The drafting of the "sample letter" in this email, took quite a considerable amount of time and effort. 


The Man that used the letter has spent a massive amount of time attending Schools and Tutorials, and researching and studying the LAW.


The letter was and is in relative context to a specific case that was being attended to.


It is only after a great many discussions, debates, arguments, and many hours of research and study, that the Man was competent enough to draft such a letter, send it off, and eventually get the desired effect/result.


It is within EVERYONE to attain and gain the knowledge, ability and confidence to face such demons, if you are prepared to put in the time and work required.


The CLS can only ever point you in the right direction. After that, it's all up to you. 





... GO >HERE<




No comments:

Post a Comment