"Why should I appear in any court in the Republic of
Ireland when the grossly corrupt Republic of Ireland's legal system is failing
to provide the 'minimum' facilities required by its 'European Convention on
Human Rights Act 2003'?
======= "No legal representative"by W. Finnerty. Thu Nov 22,
"If NO legal representative
will entertain you that is their business." (From Wed Nov 21, 2007 23:18
So how does the statement above fit in with Article 6.3.b
of the "European Convention on Human Rights Act 2003" (Republic of Ireland),
which reads as follows:
adequate time and facilities for the preparation of his
How am I supposed to prepare my defence if I cannot
find a lawyer who is willing to help me? In other words, the MINIMUM
"facilities" specified by the Act are simply not there, in any shape or form -
whose "business" is that?
Note also Article 6.3.c - which in part
"to defend himself in person or through legal
assistance of his own choosing ..."
What choice do I have? - if I
cannot find a lawyer who is willing to take on my case?
I appear in any court in the Republic of Ireland when the grossly corrupt
Republic of Ireland's legal system is failing to provide the "minimum"
facilities required by its "European Convention on Human Rights Act
"Step into my parlour said the spider to the fly
" - and
" said I.
I think the BEST decision I made in all of
this was to get well away from the corrupt thugs who are running the Republic of
Ireland's legal system, and to show them up all over the world for what they are
(on the Internet).
"The opera ain't over 'til the fat lady
I think it's a bit too soon yet to predict the
final outcome of my exposure (on the Internet) of these revolting thugs. There
are a lot of people visiting the web site at the address below, and I would not
be in the least bit surprised if the reputation of our Chief Justice John L.
Murray is already in tatters.
How can Mr Murray (and his
senior lawyer colleagues) EVER be seen to be credible again? - when the mountain
of corruption they have enmeshed themselves in means they cannot answer the
registered letter at the address below: without making their own position many
times worse - and which may of course explain why they are now WHOLLY dependant
on the likes of you to flood the whole stinking rotten situation with piles and
piles of lies and nonsense (from behind the cowardly protection of a pseudonym):
for the purpose of covering up the IMPOSSIBLE situation they find themselves in
regarding all the unconstitutional (i.e. ILLEGAL) legislation they have
knowingly produced during the past several years.
things, they'll now go down in history as the bunch of corrupt lawyers PRIMARILY
responsible for destroying some of the nation's most important heritage sites (at
Tara): through the use of the illegal law they have produced and
I've got problems I know - but I see them as very small
compared to the ones that Chief Justice Murray
and President Mary
You ask me why "they" have not tried to
I'll tell you why: BECAUSE THEY ARE AFRAID TO
- that's why!
They know perfectly well what would happen if they
tried to extradite me (and I suspect you do as well): they would bring the roof
down on top of themselves, and well they know it.
disgusting, revolting they may be, but stupid they are
not. Related link: http://www.europeancourtofhumanrightswilliamfinnerty.com/ChiefJusticeMurray/28August2007/Letter.htm
The above text has been copied from the following