Home Owner’s High Court Win is Pyrrhic Victory according to an Irish High Court Judge http://wp.me/p1SOal-C4.

Conveniently leading on to this judgement, firstly please read my article below on the dysfunctional compromised advices of an Irish Judge who is happy in his total conflict of interest to tell defendants they should have a Solicitor and Legal Counsel representing them in breach of their constitutional rights.

Spread word of the Court Judgment issued on the 20th day of May 2015:

THE HIGH COURT

CIRCUIT APPEAL

[2014/88CA]

BETWEEN

BANK OF IRELAND MORTGAGE BANK

PLAINTIFF

AND

LAURA FINNEGAN & CHRISTOPHER WARD

DEFENDANTS

JUDGMENT of Ms. Justice Murphy delivered the 20th day of May, 2015.

In the recent case of Paul O’Shea, the Farmer engaged in a monumental battle with Danske Bank (another one which has gone home with its tail between its legs) and Receiver George Maloney, The Hon. Judge Gilligan J. referred to the Pseudo-Legal people Paul was taking advice from, as misleading him, while he encouraged Paul to engage the services of a Solicitor.

What the “learned” Judge failed to acknowledge, is that, like the many, many other Lay Litigant’s who clog the hallways of not only the Four Courts but, every other Circuit Court in the Country every day, Paul O’Shea COULD NOT afford the cost of engaging the services of a Solicitor, the result of this conveniently ignored fact is, a complete disadvantage and prohibition of fundamental rights under the Constitution of Ireland which states that every man is equal under the Law and is entitled to unfettered access to the Courts and to Justice, it doesn’t say in the Constitution “if the man can pay for that equality and access to Justice”.

The unintended result of this abstract failure of the State to guarantee the covenants prescribed by the Constitution is, the basic education of unwilling students in the Law and the workings of the Legal System-the Lay Litigant Defendants.

Now, when they group together, to share experiences, to impart individual snippets of knowledge, to support each other in the face of overwhelming odds, they are denigrated by the Judiciary and ridiculed by Solicitors and Barristers.

It is more telling when one seeks out the definition in the Oxford English Dictionary for the word “Pseudo”, it means:- Pretentious or Insincere. What a disingenuous name to call any ordinary person facing a wall of legal people, in a fight to save their home or property, how is any Judge deemed or considered to be impartial when they feel at home making such disparaging comments? TOTAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST.

Could it be that there is a whiff of uncomfortable concern, that the normal constraints of the venerable BAR Association and the self-regulated Law Society don’t apply to the dirty, scruffy, uneducated lay litigant’s, that these constraints, because they don’t apply, cannot temper the comments and attitude, in essence the dance which plays out when two formal legal people do battle.

I say bring on more Lay Litigants!