Challenging a Wexford judge to produce his oath … being remanded … and then released

Having challenged a Wexford District Judge to produce his oath and been remanded in custody, Bobby of the family Sludds has walked free following a High Court order.

Last week’s post outlined Oliver Sludds’ unusual court appearance in connection with alleged motoring offences. The Irish Times outlined the conversation between the defendant and the judge.

“The Constitution. It says that a judge must offer up his oath when requested and I am asking you, do you have your oath?” said Mr Sludds, before picking up a copy of the Constitution and quoting from it at length.

“This is not a quiz, I ask the questions. I made my oath in front of the Chief Justice and I have no idea if he kept a record or not,” the judge replied.

Sludds disputed that he was the ‘Bobby Oliver Sludds’ named in the summons.

Having heard repeated denials that he was the man named, the judge said he had no choice but to remand Mr Sludds in custody because there was some confusion about his true identity.

“I can’t accept a bail bond from someone whose signature can’t be verified,” he said, remanding Mr Sludds to Cloverhill prison.

On Friday, the High Court intervened and the dispute was resolved. The New Ross Standard explains:

Last Friday, at the High Court, Mr Justice Roderick Murphy directed Mr Sludds be released after he was informed the State ‘did not intend to seek to justify’ his continued detention. The judge was informed the matter had been settled and costs had been agreed between the parties. After his release, Mr Sludds was greeted and embraced by members of his family.

Mr Sludds’s lawyers sought an inquiry under Article 40 of the Constitution into the legality of his detention on grounds including that Judge Anderson had erred by remanding Mr Sludds in custody when Gardaí, who had no issue in relation to his identity, had not objected to bail being granted.

Senior counsel Colman Fitzgerald, for Mr Sludds, said Gardaí at Wexford District Court had not voiced a concern that Mr Sludds would fail to turn up at a later hearing. Mr Fitzgerald also argued the motoring offences against Mr Sludds would not attract a custodial sentence if he is convicted of them.

However, Mr Fitzgerald said his client accepted his argument to Judge Anderson regarding his oath of office last Wednesday was ‘misconceived’.

No date has been set for Sludd’s next day in court … for “driving without insurance, a licence, no NCT, having no registration plate on the back of the vehicle and failing to stop the vehicle after being asked to do so by gardaí”.

, ,

  • Rory Carr

    We may be forgiven for believing that, not only was Mr Sludd driving “without insurance, a licence, no NCT, having no registration plate on the back of the vehicle”, but that he very probably was not in a motor vehicle either.

    I shouldn’t be at all surprised to learn that he was riding in a golden carriage being pulled by six white swans.

  • Jimmy Sands

    This appears to be the hot new trend within the tinfoil heat wearing community, a reboot of the Montana Freemen which convinces the gormless that Magna Carta exempts them from Council Tax or MoTs. Some unintentionally funny videos out there, complete with Dungeons and Dragonsish dialogue. It will however probably end in tears.

  • Pigeon Toes

    Jimmy

    ” Mr Fitzgerald said his client accepted his argument to Judge Anderson regarding his oath of office last Wednesday was ‘misconceived’.

  • Jimmy Sands

    I don’t necessarily mean this case, but if you google this stuff, there’s a lot of it about. There was an incident on Merseyside earlier this year wear a mob of these nutters attacked a judge in court. One of them had a noose. They make Teabaggers look normal.

  • Munsterview

    Jimmy S : “… They make Teabaggers look normal….”

    Agreed…even Unionists also !

  • annanukian

    It always amazes me, how people such as yourselves can quite easily submit to attacking these people as nutters when you have never even taken the time to research the information for yourselves to see if there is any validity to their arguments. This is a typical fallacy of people who have been groomed to accept the status quo without question. Yes none of you have demonstrated the intelligence to ask yourselves why was this guy suddenly released?

    I suggest you look up information on Youtube like John Harris – It’s an illusion, Rob Menard – bursting the bubbles of government deception. Then research “legalese” which is the recognized language of the law society. You and I are not allowed to translate legalese because we are not members of the law society and thus are not recognized by them. So ask yourself how is it constitutional to force legislation on a people written in a language that they are not able to understand by a society that they are not a member of? The next question after asking for the oath would be, can you document and verify the obligation on your full commercial liability and under penalty of perjury in a court of law in the form of a sworn affadavit. Of course, you will never find any registered company willing to do that!

    The only form of government that is lawful in a sovereign democratic republic is a representative one, sovereignty is only given away when you register to vote and confer that sovereignty upon third party representatives, but if you do not register to vote, then how are you represented if you never gave your clear lawful consent?

    To govern those who do not consent to representation or governance is dictatorship, dictatorial fascism exists when the government become corporations and declare themselves as having more power than they actually have, remember that the Irish constitution clearly states that we are ALL equal before the law. Incidentally, the government and all their respective parties ARE all registered companies tradign for profit (statutes for the purpose of revenue generation) – check dnb.com search Department of the Taoiseach – it’s a registered company. Nobody is obliged to do business with a business against their lawful mutual consent.

    What are Statutes / Acts?

    Black’s law dictionary defines a statute as a given legislative “rule” of “a society” that has been given the force of law. It is a permanent rule established by an organization, corporation, etc., to govern its own internal affairs.

    What society is a statute a given rule of?

    A Statute is a given rule of The Law Society. You and I are not members of it and yet for some reason many of us acquiesce to it without questioning if our consent is optional or mandatory.

    Who is The Law Society?

    The Law Society is the educational, representative and regulatory body of the solicitors’ profession in Ireland.
    It exercises statutory functions under the Solicitors Acts 1954 to 2008 in relation to the education, admission, enrolment, discipline and regulation of the solicitors’ profession.

    The Law Society is the professional body for its 12,000 solicitor members, to whom it also provides services and support.

    It is governed by an elected Council, which is supported by a full-time executive led by the Director General.

    In short, the Law Society of Ireland is a registered company, trading for profit in the field of law. It has its own council that it elects from within and it only serves the interests of its 12,000 members. It is a professional company that caters only to its own members. You and I are not members of it.
    The law society upholds the legal system (Law as a business for profit), it protects wealthy corporations and corrupt political figures from all accountability, while ordering us one after the other to pay into their coffers and the coffers of their business friends by way of hefty fines for acts that they have declared illegal or prohibited by their society’s rules.

    What is a given rule of a society?

    A given rule of a society is a rule created by a society that applies to all members within that society, and to those outside that society who have consented to give it the force of law upon themselves. Equality is paramount under the law, therefore being that we are equal, we have the right to reject or refuse governance and we have the right to decline to accept any statute as having the force of law.

    What is a society?

    A society is a collective group of people united by a common purpose or the common good of their respective society. Societies have names and are registered as legal fictions such as The Law Society. It is my understanding that I am not a member of any society. Societies have names, can you name the society of which you are an official member?

    Can any society’s rules be given the force of law?

    Yes, but only by the consent of those governed who agree to accept it as such, therefore giving it the force of law upon themselves.

    What is the force of law as opposed to law?

    The force of law and being law are not the same. A given rule of a society that has the force of law only has the force of law upon those who accept it as such. It is a legal terminology that suggests an agreement into a contract granting The Law Society’s rules the power of law by the consent of those who accept it.

    How do statutes apply?

    A given rule of a society may be given the force of law by the consent of those who agree to accept it as such. It is accepted by those people who have agreed to be represented by their governing representatives.

    To whom do they apply?

    They apply to those who have consented. They apply to those who have registered to vote, and who have conferred their individual sovereignty upon their representative government. A government can only represent those who consent to be represented; otherwise government enforcing it’s will upon unwilling people would be dictatorship.

    Statutes / Acts, a given rule of a society applies when one has consented to accept

    To whom does it not apply?

    A statute does not apply where there is no consent to give it the force of law. It does not apply to those who are not members of the society which gave it, and it does not apply to those who retain their sovereignty by not conferring their sovereignty upon political representatives.

    What is an obligation?

    1. The act of binding oneself by a social, legal, or moral tie.

    2.
    a. A social, legal, or moral requirement, such as a duty, contract, or promise that compels one to follow or avoid a particular course of action.
    b. A course of action imposed by a society, law (as opposed to the force of law), or conscience by which one is bound or restricted. (Again this requires consent)

    3. the constraining power of a promise, contract, law, or sense of duty.

    4. Law (as opposed to the force of law)

    a. A legal agreement stipulating a specified payment or action, especially if the agreement also specifies a penalty for failure to comply.
    b. The document containing the terms of such an agreement.

    5.
    a. Something owed as payment or in return for a special service or favour.
    b. The service or favour for which one is indebted to another.

    6. The state, fact, or feeling of being indebted to another for a special service or favour received.

    How is an obligation created?

    An obligation is created…

    By binding oneself by a social, legal, or moral tie (consent / contract)

    By the signing of a contractual agreement. (Consent / contract)

    By constraining power of a promise, contract, law, or sense of duty. (Consent / contract)

    By Law (as opposed to the force of law)

    By A legal agreement stipulating a specified payment or action (consent / contract)

    By The document containing the terms of such an agreement (consent / contract)

    By (a.) Something owed as payment or in return for a special service or favour.
    (b.) The service or favour for which one is indebted to another… (Consent / contract)

    By. The state, fact, or feeling of being indebted to another for a special service or favour received. (Consent / contract)

    An obligation between two or more parties is created when all of the above criteria are met, and in all cases these would require consent of all parties to the obligation by mutual consent. Where mutual consent has not been obtained then no obligation can exist or be created. Any such agreements must first be agreed by a meeting of the minds after which signed contracts bind the agreement between those who enter therein. Where a verbal contract can be created there must be at least two valid witnesses to the agreement.

    What is extortion?

    Extortion is defined below:

    1. An act or instance of extorting.

    2. Law. The crime of obtaining money, or some other thing of value by the abuse of one’s office or authority.

    3. Oppressive or illegal exaction, as of excessive price or interest: the extortions of usurers.

    4. The use of force against others in order to achieve compliance.

    What is Fraud?

    Intentional Wrong. Gross Negligence is held equivalent to intentional wrong, which is equivalent to fraud.

    1. Wrongful or criminal deception intended to result in financial or personal gain.
    2. A person or thing intended to deceive others, typically by unjustifiably claiming or being credited with accomplishments or qualities.
    3. Deliberate and intentional failure to differentiate between a contractual agreement (statute / act) and a law.
    4. Claiming an obligation upon another without the ability to document and verify such an obligation.

    What is Consent?

    Permission, approval, or agreement; compliance; acquiescence

    Agreement in sentiment, opinion, a course of action, etc.: By common consent he was appointed official delegate.

    Archaic. Accord; concord; harmony.

    Consent is participation by free will.

    What does An Garda Siochana mean?

    An Garda Siochana literally means (The Guardians of the Peace). Every member of An Garda Siochana must take an oath of office (see The Garda Siochana Act 2005 Section 16 Below)

    16.—(1) On being appointed, each member of the Garda Síochána shall make before a Peace Commissioner a declaration in the following form:
    I hereby solemnly and sincerely declare before God that I will faithfully discharge the duties of a member of the Garda Síochána with fairness, integrity, regard for human rights, diligence and impartiality, upholding the Constitution and the laws and according equal respect to all people, while I continue to be a member, I will to the best of my skill and knowledge discharge all my duties according to law, and I do not belong to, and will not while I remain a member form, belong to or subscribe to, any political party or secret society whatsoever.”.
    (2) The words “before God” may be omitted from the declaration at the request of the declarant.

    What is a free man on the land?
    What is a Sovereign?

    A free man on the land is essentially a sovereign citizen of the earth, who is not represented by any other third party representative whatsoever. A sovereign is a human being, independent and without the State, who retains their inalienable and indefeasible sovereign rights to go about their daily business without the interference of members of any and all state agencies.

    A sovereign does not register to vote, and therefore does not confer their individual sovereignty upon any other third party representatives; therefore they retain all of their sovereign inalienable and indefeasible rights. A sovereign recognizes that a Statute does not apply to them if they do not consent to give it the force of law. A sovereign free man is self governing, and peaceful.

    What is a transaction of a Security Interest?

    A security interest is a property interest created by agreement or by operation of law over assets to secure the performance of an obligation (see above), usually the payment of a debt.

    Given that a Statute is not law without consent, then any transactions of security interests that are forced upon a sovereign man or woman against their will and without agreement and / or proof of obligation is unlawful.

    As mentioned before (see Obligation) a peace officer cannot have clear lawful authority to execute a transaction of a security interest where there is no consensual agreement. Consent makes the law.

    Maxims In Law:

    A broad statement of principle, the truth and reasonableness of which are self-evident.

    • No one is obliged to accept a benefit against their will
    • One is not present unless he understands.
    • He who questions well, learns well.
    • Consent makes the law. A contract is a law between the parties, which can acquire force only by consent.
    • Consent makes the law: the terms of a contract, lawful in its purpose, constitute the law as between the parties.
    • Every consent involves a submission; but a mere submission does not necessarily involve consent.
    • A contract founded on a base and unlawful consideration, or against good morals, is null.
    • The essence of a contract being assent, there is no contract where assent is wanting.
    • An infamous person is repelled or prevented from taking an oath
    • No one can sue in the name of another.
    • No one is to be punished for the crime or wrong of another.
    • Gross negligence is held equivalent to intentional wrong.
    • Misconduct binds its own authors. It is a never-failing axiom that everyone is accountable only for his own offence or wrong.
    • An act does not make a man a criminal, unless his intention be criminal.
    • An act does not make a person guilty, unless the intention be also guilty. This maxim applies only to criminal cases.
    • If one falsely accuses another of a crime, the punishment due to that crime should be inflicted upon the perjured informer.
    • Long time and long use, beyond the memory of man, suffices for right.
    • Custom is another law.
    • What is done contrary to the custom of our ancestors neither pleases nor appears right.
    • Where two rights concur, the more ancient shall be preferred.
    • The meaning of words is the spirit of the law.

    The meaning of words is the spirit of the law – The spirit of the law is legality.

    What is the difference between Legal and Lawful?

    Legal. Latin legalis. Pertaining to the understanding, the exposition, the administration, the science and the practice of law:

    Lawful. In accordance with the law of the land; according to the law; permitted, sanctioned, or justified by law.

    What is an oath of office?
    An oath of office is an oath or affirmation a person takes before undertaking the duties of an office, usually a position in government or within a religious body, although such oaths are sometimes required of officers of other organizations. Such oaths are often required by the laws of the state, religious body, or other organization before the person may actually exercise the powers of the office or any religious body. It may be administered at an inauguration, coronation, enthronement, or other ceremony connected with the taking up of office itself, or it may be administered privately. In some cases it may be administered privately and then repeated during a public ceremony.
    Some oaths of office are a statement of loyalty to a constitution or other legal text or to a person or other office-holder (e.g., an oath to support the constitution of the state, or of loyalty to the king). Under the laws of a state it may be considered treason or a high crime to betray a sworn oath of office.

    Does the Road Traffic Act apply to me if I am a sovereign man?

    NO! Not without my clear lawful consent, or unless you can document and verify the alleged legal obligation.

    The difference between Legal and Lawful is clear, lawful pertains to law, whereas legal pertains to the letter of the law, words have meanings and definitions, in fact many words have many meanings and definitions, especially in legalese. To understand, is to stand under the authority of another.

  • Munsterview

    annaukian : “…..In short, the Law Society of Ireland is a registered company, trading for profit in the field of law. It has its own council that it elects from within and it only serves the interests of its 12,000 members. It is a professional company that caters only to its own members. You and I are not members of it.

    The law society upholds the legal system (Law as a business for profit), it protects wealthy corporations and corrupt political figures from all accountability, while ordering us one after the other to pay into their coffers and the coffers of their business friends by way of hefty fines for acts that they have declared illegal or prohibited by their society’s rules…..”

    No great disagreement with that; however it is but half the picture, you have made no mention of the Barristers and how they do business or indeed the most apparent powerful legal associations of all, the various associations of Judges who practice in the different courts.

    To deal with the latter first; in the Superior courts these are drawn from an already privileged, pampered and financially well insulated level of society. They demanded and held all the old status of Lordships in the new Free State even to the extent of being referred to in Court as ” your Lordship” ” If your Lordship pleases” ” as your Lordship wishes” and other such nonsense.

    They are drawn from the very same segment of society as gave us the Banking collapse through unbridled greed and corruption in the Private sector and and from which by in large the so called ‘ regulators and watch dogs’ the incompetent, ineffective, greed and corruption facilitating Senior Public services were drawn from.

    The legal system is in fact the last pillar of Irish Society to escape accountability or real exposure for it’s inherent corruption and incompetence. Even the Bishops were brought down, but not ‘My Lords’ they are above and outside the very law they administer.

    One example : try suing a Judge in a civil tort for incompetence or the lack of specific performance of his duty and see how far you get. I was with a mother of a sexually abused child when she attempted to issue legal proceedings against a High Court Judge. First the Chief Register refused to issue the summons or get a reason.

    The Mother was asked to call back an hour later and when she did she was ordered before a Judge sitting in a cleared court who immediately launched into an attack on her personally, accused her of attempting to bully and intimidate the Register ( who incidently could make Maggie Tatcher in full power seem like Mary Poppins) The judge then read from a document that supposedly gave precedents back to the 12th, century as to why a Judge could not be sued.

    These were English Monarchial and Crown reasons of course but that is where their collective ‘Lordships’ are happiest to have their noses buried ! The mother was also informed that she would be banned indefinitely from the Superior Courts and their environs if she persisted. He also said that if she attempted to get the ‘ruling’ he was giving in that ‘quasi-legal’ setting that he would regard that as persisting with her attempt and institute the ban with immediate effect!

    I worked for seventeen years as a paralegal, and may I add without any support or appreciation from Sinn Fein or any other section of the Movement for my use of the Court’s system to protect my own rights and that of others abused by State forces. I know that the entire Administration Of Justice system in the Twenty-Six Counties is a bastion of corrupt privilege to it’s very core and always has been. Britain is the very same.

    One small illustration of this regarding ‘Their Lordships’. As with everything else in Ireland these days the Courts Cleaning is ‘farmed out’ to competitive contract which means that the wages available for the cleaners, thanks to Progressive Democrats policies and legacy, are minimum wage only.

    These hardworking cleaners, paid the very minimum wages legally allowed by the State are paying a financial levee for the Bankers etc. greed.

    Some of these Judges, coming to work in State financed Cars, parking in free secure State car parks just outside their windows and doors provided at public expense, driven by servants paid for by public expense, with doors opened for them and every need served by a personal servant paid for at public expense while in the Courts Building, and who work in the environs of plush, heated luxury offices at public expense, and when who feeling a bit peckish, can take a leisurely short stroll to a taxpayer substituted restaurant operated naturally in service terms and food quality to the High levels that ‘Their Lordships’ expect form the four and five star establishments they frequent in their leisure time.

    Their Lordship’s Chamber ( rooms in lay language) cleaners, paid the minimum pay allowable by the State pay a financial deduction and no choice about it, it is law, if they refuse they are fired !

    However a significantly tranch of ‘Their Lordships’ have stubbornly refused almost two years after the first levy to pay one cent, voluntary or otherwise, towards resolving the crisis in State revenues, despite their cosseted, privileged, overpaid ( by the standards of serving Judges in American Courts who also serve under a Republican Constitution ) insulated existence.

    Annanukian, here is where we part company, I gave the first fifteen years of my political life regularly marching up and down outside various courts with a picket across my shoulder, as total waste of time and energy as to influencing one iota what happened inside.

    I became a paralegal and worked out a ‘hit and run’ strategy to deal with them and where possible use their own system against them. The ad hoc group I put together had Free Legal Aid as administered declared unconstitutional and forced the Government to spend over ten million pounds and open up seventeen new Lay centers.

    Our direct intervention compelled the resignation of A President of The High Court.

    Our challenge had a Senior Judge of the District Court removed as he ignored a High Court Order at the urging of the Health Board, that barred him from acting in a certain way in a child sex abuse case.

    Our confrontation with and challenge to the Legal Partners acting for the Health Board in question resulted in the arrogant little sod of a Solicitor taking a hike not only out of that particular firm but as we pressed him in the High Court, out of the profession and country as well. That shook things up in Health Boards put some manners in a whole lot of people!

    I could go on but why bother. Many of your contentions have a validity in Monarchial systems such as across the water but in The Twenty-Six County Republic there is a State Contract with it’s citizens, it is called the Irish Constitution. Under that I can (and have ) walk in off the street, go before a Judge of the High Court, make an arguable case that my constitutional rights are infringed and get injunctive relief against the offending party.

    There is a system there that can be used and a set of rules that even the judges have to follow. If you want to upset their gravy train go in there and establish the right of a Citizen of This Republic to sue a Judge as in America. Several of the leading Law Lecturers in our Universities believe that Judges can and should be sued.

    You are of course correct in many of the points that you have made but you loose all moral authority when calming the right to drive around without car Insurance. Whatever of State law on that issue you have a personal responsibility to other road users to be insured : by not doing so you put ordinary people, the very people that you would claim to fight for in peril and you have absolutely no right to do that on moral grounds whatever of legal provisions.

  • Jimmy Sands

    Excellent overview here

    http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Freeman-on-the-land

    It’s very big in tinfoil hat wearing circles this season/

  • Rory Carr

    Succinct. I like succinct.

  • Jimmy Sands
  • Rory Carr

    ‘pon my oath ! So he is and he appears to have mustered some support.

    I wonder how he did that? Perhaps he “Spurred up the rock with a warning cry.”

  • Munsterview

    Rory : disagree with them or otherwise, they have a point of view and more important, they have done quite a bit to expose institutional corruption. There is a big organization world wide, their Irish organization website is at

    http://freemanireland.ning.com/

    Do not throw out the baby with the bath water!

  • Jimmy Sands

    Well I can see the bathwater….

    Rory,

    Not a happy precedent for Mr. Sludds..

  • Rory Carr

    If all he seeks is martyrdom, Jimmy…

  • Jimmy Sands

    So long as there’s no ballad involved, I’m ok with it.

  • Harry Flashman

    Maybe this man has got the wrong end of the stick or maybe he doesn’t but I rather dislike the kneejerk dismissal of him as a “nutter” merely because he chooses to challenge authority and stand up for what he perceives to be his rights.

    There is a rather dangerous assumption held by most people that government and government agents are essentially benign and there to look after the interests of the citizen who in turn doesn’t have to worry his little head about such piffling issues as freedoms and liberty of the individual.

    Government and law are necessary in the same way that sewers are, we need them and they are useful but we should not venerate them or allow our lives to be dictated by them or by those who maintain them.

    If there is a clause in the Constitution which requires a judge to show his oath of office it was presumably put there for a reason and if it hasn’t been revoked it is presumably still valid. Anyway where’s the harm in asking a judge to provide us with his credentials upon which he bases his right to judge us and deprive us of our liberty if he so chooses? Are judges some form of higher Godlike beings who may not be questioned by us lower life forms?

    Are we serfs or citizens? Even if this man is a crank I salute him, he stands apart from the sheeplike masses, he is a citizen who questions authority and believes his rights and liberties are important to him. The Republic of Ireland wouldn’t be in the mess it’s in today if more people had challenged authority in that state over the preceding half century.

    By the way I recall another “crank” from the early ’80s who challenged the blind obeisance of the Irish establishment toward the greater good of ever more European control, he was sneered at too, the great and the good despised him, everyone “knew” he was an oul’ looney.

    His name was Dr Raymond Crotty and he was right.

  • Munsterview

    Harry….. : “…..Are we serfs or citizens? Even if this man is a crank I salute him, he stands apart from the sheeplike masses, he is a citizen who questions authority and believes his rights and liberties are important to him. The Republic of Ireland wouldn’t be in the mess it’s in today if more people had challenged authority in that state over the preceding half century………”

    Amen to that !

    As to “….Are we serfs or citizens?….” in my own small way I resolved that matter as far a citizens of Eire are concerned in a Supreme Court Ruling in the opening decade of this century while appearing in person as a para-legal and lay litigant in an appeal case.

    Some time in 2002 I made my first appearance of this Century in the Supreme Court. The relevant part of the transaction is as follows……

    Presiding Judge ” Good morning Mr X, are you ready to proceed”

    ” Yes Judge I am ready ”

    The case was then formally opened by the court.

    Presiding Judge ” very well then Mr X, you may proceede.

    MV “…… As this is my first appearance before this Supreme Court both this Century and this Millennia, much to my relief whatever of the Courts, I would like, with the Court’s permission to briefly digress as there is a procedural matter that I would like this Court to address before I continue with the matter at trial.”

    Presiding Justice : ” If it is a brief matter and you consider it relevant you have the Courts permission ”

    MV ” I was born in 1949, a citizen of the Republic that this Court is Constituted under. As a Citizen of that Republic and a Republican by conviction, I do not believe in rank or privilege or the elevation of one person over another by accident of birth or Monarchial creation and it is therefore repugnant to me to come into the assembly of these Superior Courts and hear titles derived from privileged, Monarchal society that were considered obnoxious and oppressive to my people even when such titles were in vogue in this country expected and used as form of respectful address.

    I deliberately did not use these titles or forms of address in any of my previous appearance before these courts and while it is within my rights as a citizen to so do, never the less the inference has sometimes been drawn by presiding Judges, that I have disdain or contempt for the court, a disadvantage that the State side has regrettably been all too ready to exploit in these circumstances.

    As we are in a new Century and a New Millennium, would this Honorable Court then give to me a form of address for the Judges of this Honorable Court in keeping with their dignity as Judges appointed and presiding under a Republican Constitution, and mine as a Citizen of that same Republic ?

    Presiding Judge ” Mr X you as as an Irish speaker and scholar will be aware that Irish is the first Official Language of the State and accordingly of the Constitution. All correct forms of address are therefore derived from the first official Language and in that language Judges are defined as ‘breitheamh’ and you may refer to me as ‘ Breithneamh’ when addressing me personally or as ‘Breithiuna’ when addressing both myself and my colleagues on the bench collectively.

    Do that answer your query ”

    MV “….,Ta’im lan sasta ar do rialu e sin a Breithneamh, go raibh mile maith agat ! …”

    ( I am well satisfied on your ruling on that Judge and I thank you for it )

    In this instance I very deliberately used the Irish Language to address both the Judge and her other sitting colleagues as when I thanked her for her ‘Ruling’ and this was not corrected by either the presiding Judge or her colleauges, this ‘de jura’ and ‘de facto’ as it was given in a case at sitting in a Superior Court Case, elevated her answer to become a benchmark ruling of the Supreme Court, that this was the correct form of address.

    For those not farmilar with the Southern Irish Courts system, it is quite common outside of a Court sitting in Irish, where an applicant or defendant or the Judge are known Irish speakers to have remarks or curtsies spoken in Irish in the course of a case at trial.

  • Harry Flashman

    Nice story, Munsterview, a decent judge too, unlike the arrogant oaf quoted above; “This is not a quiz, I ask the questions. I made my oath in front of the Chief Justice and I have no idea if he kept a record or not”.

    So if I ever have the misfortune to find myself in the dock in the Republic is that how I may address the judge or do you reckon it was just a one off in your case?

    How should I pronounce that by the way? Alas only one year’s tuition, no matter how superb from no less a paedagogue than “Nipper” McGonagle at St Columb’s, has left me woefully bereft when it comes to my native language.

  • Harry Flashman

    OK, reading the penultimate paragraph again I see that by referring to her “ruling”, and that term not being challenged, then in law it is applicable to all courts up to Supreme Court, is that right?

    Nice touch.

  • Munsterview

    Flashman : Yep that was the general idea !

    The wigs are gone now by the barristers and the term of Judge, or Justice have by in large replaced the ‘your Lordship’ this, that and the other. my the majority of counsel, especially the younger ones.

    To digress : this is worth sharing….

    To set the scene, on the long corridor up stairs at the back of the Four-courts there is a well known BL character who had ‘come late to law’ having spend half his adult life farming and still not able to believe his change of fortune, is ambling along a good lunch in his well expanded girt helped down by a hennesy or two. A young Counsel just starting off hurries after him, catches up and asks if he may have a word.

    ‘Old Counsel’ ” but of course you may my dear fellow, what can I do for you” ?

    ‘Young Counsel’ “How dose one avoid putting up an accident”
    ( In lay parlance ‘how do one avoid putting an accident victim in the witness box to give evidence ?)

    ‘OC’ ” One always puts up an accident whenever possible, what is it ? ”

    YC ” A leg actually ”

    OC ” A leg you say, one always puts up ‘a leg’ but do not let the leg sit down. the leg must always stand and the crutches, they are very important, none of those short metal things, get the big wooden padded ones for under the shoulder and have ‘the leg’ in distress leaning forward and shifting around. The pin is very important, go up to that place for the kilts and get a big safety pin and pin up the leg of the suit….”

    YC ” That could present a bit of a problem……”

    OC ” Could not be simpler…..” ( and OC runs through the routine again in a more business like way )

    YC ( Now looks discomforted and embarrassed )

    OC stops, stares at him and asks icly ” What part of that do you have a problem with ” ( i.e. why ask me if you are not prepared to do what you are told you young get )

    YC “The accident still has the leg actually”

    OC ” Good God, still has the leg, is it working ok ” ?

    YC “Oh yes, it is fine, he is cycling and everything but he is down on hospital records as having sustained a full amputation …”
    ( If he could run the case without ‘putting up the accident’ it was worth £ 250,000 at that time )

    At that stage both noticed me stopped nearby and appearing to be absorbed in a file .

    OC ” ( Arm around the young man’s shoulder and good humored again ) Lets go down to the Library young man, thats the proper place to discuss these things and if I see it in phoenix ( nod of the head in my direction ) we will know where it came from”

    I do not know if some insurance company paid out on that ‘accident’ but it is a fine illustration of the skullduggery that go on behind the scenes in that supposed genteel environment!

  • Munsterview

    Flashman : just has a phonecall from a legal friend who spotted a very important omission….

    “…All correct forms of address are therefore derived from the first official Language and in that language Judges are defined as ‘breitheamh’ and you may refer to me as ‘ Breithneamh’ when addressing me personally or as ‘Breithiuna’ when addressing both myself and my colleagues on the bench collectively.

    ( Omission ) ‘ Then it so follows that in the English Language the correct form of address is Judge, or Justice if preferred, for individually use or the plural of those terms when addressing the bench collectively ‘.

    Do that answer your query ? ”

    MV “….,Ta’im lan sasta ar do rialu e sin a Breithneamh, go raibh mile maith agat ! …”

    ( I am well satisfied on your ruling on that Judge and I thank you for it )

    Incidently what is not widely known or disclosed to the general public is that there is a covert, ultra secret practice in the bowels of the Four Courts to drastically elevate the awareness and IQ of some judges appointed to the Bench of the Superior Courts. I have not been able to find out any information about the process to date but there is every indication and an undeniable logic that it exists.

    I have known Barristers over the years who were as thick as the proverbial ‘ two short planks ‘ and struggling with their briefs as Counsels but they were ‘plodders for the State’ prepared to come in and represent Gardai involved in the most obvious sculduggery, arrogant misbehaving Civil Servants etc. Even more important for them and their place in the gravey train, they were also well keyed in Fianna Fail Party Hacks.

    These oh so Limited individuals, after serving their time in the State legal sewers, finally got their appointments to the bench, in the immediate aftermath of which, they were there after referred to in affidavits and other legal documentation as ‘ Learned Judges ‘

    I know that the evidence is only circumstantial, but since there was not time or any obvious medical outward signs such as scars or stitches to indicate a brain transplant in the short time that had elapsed from notice of their appointment to their first appearance on the bench as Judges, the only logical explanation for the transition from the ‘two short planks’, limited mentality status to that of ‘Learned Judge’ is the probable ‘covert, ultra secret practice’ referred to !

    All information on the process eagerly sought and welcome.