Is this casual Corruption, and how can we stop it ?

Edbx333

A former Chief State Solicitor, signed a Notice of Motion and sworn Affidavit which are/were 'allegedly' false, were I was declared as the 'Plaintiff', (putting the onus on me) but where it was the State who brought the case, and which documents were accepted in both Circuit and High Court as true evidence, without question and despite my objections as to their inclusion, and with my objections dismissed by the Judge, as being of no relevance to the case.

The Notice of Motion is dated the 10th November (Sunday ?) 2013, but signed on the 12th February 2014, (by said former CSS), it bears no official seal and contains only one signature, and the Commissioner for Oaths who witnessed the sworn Affidavit in 2014, claims (in FOI 2023) no knowledge of said Notice of Motion, or of any related document having been witnessed by him in 2013, so might this have been a solo run by the CSS ?

The Affidavit (copy) 2014, contains material which did not exist on the 10th November 2013, (when Affidavit recorded as sworn) and there are copy letters and Reg envelopes included as corroborative evidence of fact, but which bear conflicting dates of creation and of transport, while there are some corrections made to dates within said sworn Affidavit, but which corrections are not highlighted and/or explained.

And no one in 'authority' seems to give a 'toss', and it's 'circle the wagons' and ignore him, and eventually he'll go away.

I include as an attachment, a 'synopsis' of matters to 2019, although I am still working hard to get answers.

Opinions would be appreciated, and I apologise if I have 'fcuked' up my question, as this type of forum is new to me, and I'm an 'old guy'.

Robbo

Moderation: I've edited the post to remove the attachments, which identify you and the nature of the dispute.

In general terms:

• Yes, an affidavit can be sworn and on a Sunday. Similarly, Notices of Motion may also be dated on a Sunday.
• The Notice of Motion itself is dated 12 Feb 2014. It refers to the grounding affidavit being sworn in Nov 2013 which is a pretty obvious typo.
• The jurat for the grounding affidavit confirms that it was sworn on 12 Feb 2014.
• The Notice of Motion would not be put before a Commissioner for Oaths. It would be highly unusual for a Commissioner for Oaths to keep records of court documents sworn before them and the nature of same.
• Nothing turns on any of the above.

Edbx333

Hi Robbo, and thanks for your comment/advice.

I guess that under certain/ordinary circumstances, an Affidavit can be sworn on Sunday, and a Notice of Motion could possibly be dated on a Sunday, but it would be unusual, and this Affidavit was allegedly signed on a Sunday, by a solicitor from the Chief State Solicitors Office, which office doesn't open on Sunday unless there is a State emergency, and whose solicitor's don't work weekends, again, unless there is a State emergency, according to Statute, and this case was no emergency. So why the hurry, cos these are busy guys ?

The Notice of Motion is dated by the person who had it drawn up, and who is ultimately responsible for it's content, and who presents us as Plaintiffs (putting the onus of proof on us), yet it was the State who brought the case against us, and the obvious typo you refer to might indeed be a simple mistake, if it was typed as the 12th November 2014, or the 10th February 2013, or any combination of these dates, where the individual month, or date, or year was wrong, but a completely different date, from a totally different year seems like much more than a simple 'typo'. It seems like the 10th November 2013 was true date on which the Affidavit was to be sworn, and so the Chief State Solicitor jumped the gun in having the Notice of Motion drawn up, but with nothing but questionable evidence to support the States case, this avenue of attack was put on hold until the 12th February 2014, when the State finally decided to try to 'squash' us.

The Jurat confirms, on the 12th February 2014, that the Affidavit is a true copy of an original document, yet the Notice of Motion contains the signature of Eileen Creedon, confirming that the Affidavit was sworn on the 10th November 2013. So which do we believe, the Notice of Motion or the sworn Affidavit, or neither, which was my proposal to the Circuit Court Judge, but I was told to be silent, following which, the Judge admonished States Counsel in no uncertain terms (while waving the sworn Affidavit at him) and saying that 'this is not how the Law works', but carried on regardless.

I agree that the Notice of Motion would not need to have been shown to the Commissioner for Oaths, but the declaration contained in the Notice of Motion and endorsed by Eileen Creedon on the 12th February 2014, that it had been sworn on the 10th November 2013, has the sinister effect of involving, without his knowledge and without naming him, the Commissioner for Oaths, as a person who may have engaged in a fraud with others, and it is to be noted that the Affidavit, even if sworn on the 12th February 2014, contains so many irregularities, mistakes and contradictions, that those involved in it's creation, and credence as evidence in Court, should truly be ashamed, and shamed.

Sorry for the long winded response, but I've been at this for a long time, and there's a lot more actions by the State and it's arms, in this case, that would make you despair.

Anyway, thanks again.