1919 Constitution

court case heard under the 1919 Constitution of the Sovereign Republic of éire


Home  News  Courts  court case heard under the 1919 Constitution of the Sovereign Republic of...
court case heard under the 1919 Constitution of the Sovereign Republic of éire
NewsCourtsLawMediaApr 30, 20151 1162

Judgement vacated


Not too many people may be aware of this, But it is possible to get a court case heard under the 1919 Constitution of the Sovereign Republic of éire. This is the only ratified constitution in existence today. Yes I know we had a de facto constitution in 1922 and we have Bunreacht na heireann which was ratified by a portion of the people (the ones living in the 26 counties) also know as free staters in 1937.

Now back to the courts and the 1919 Sovereign constitution,

One the 5th of March 2014 a Sovereign Irishman called Mick ÓRiordan from Cork received a summons from Cork court house, to appear before Judge D. Riordan on the 31/03/2014 at 10.30 that day in relation to the non payment of a fine.

Record No SA429/2013,

Courthouse : Washington Street Cork

Judge : D Riordan

Date 31st march 2014



Sequence 14

So Mick being Sovereign decided to exercise his right to have it heard under the 1919 Sovereign Constitution and duly informed the court clerk (Judges agent) of same. Mick handed in the necessary paperwork had it signed sealed and witnessed by William James McGuire, who is the President of  The Irish Republican Brotherhood and President of The Sovereign Republic of éire and is also president of the Sovereign Dail Eireann Court (Four Courts), It was also embossed with the Sovereign seal which Billy holds in trust for the Irish people on the 24th of March 2014.

So on the day of the hearing at District Court of Cork City

Case No S 2012/88342 charge No 1

The Director of public prosecutor at the Suit of garda Joe Bloggs (not real name) Togher.

Accused, Micheal Ó Riordan From somewhere in the rebel county of Cork (Not his real address).

Mick was accused of having a registered vehicle parked on a double yellow line at a certain location in Cork. in contravention of article 36(2) of road traffic regulations, 1997.

Contrary to section 35(5)of the road traffic act 1994 and section 102 of road traffic act 1961 (as amended by section 18 of the road traffic act 2006)

It was adjudged that the said defendant be convicted of said offence and pay a fine of EUR 125.00 within 3 months or in default of payment the said defendant be imprisoned in Cork prison for the period of 5 days unless the sum be paid sooner.

Upon the hearing of an appeal in said matter on 31/03/2014 the circuit judge did order:

Allow appeal. VACATE District court order

I can only guess as to why this case was VACATED, It being that none of the courts in Ireland have a license to operate. Everything that you are told is a lie, and the vast percentage of the population have been sold the lie that the court fictions people attend daily are real. They have no licenses, nor do County Councils, RTE or any other fictional entities pretending to be bona fide.

For artical and to view documents.
http://www.fairsociety.ie/court-case-heard-under-the-1919-constitution-of-the-sovereign-republic-of-eire/
*

I'm posting here dialog between LS ( whom some of you know) which I think useful to know.


Chris HT
Chris HT Aha ...... 26 Counties ......


Rob Halford
Rob Halford Now you're getting it nugg


Write a reply...


Paul Monteith
Paul Monteith ...interesting ...considering the local magistrates court here in Ringwood ..want me to appear on July 11th for numerous "matters" ...all relating to the allegations I get (often...about twice each month) from police personnel who pull over my "means of transport" saying the identifying plates, affixed to it, don't appear in any listing on the Vicroads register...and then they ask for a "license" ....hmmm (I get some interesting reactions from these 'employees of Vic Police Corp')

Claire Brain
Claire Brain 'back in the day' the ringwood police were a bit more...well..human lol. Young teenager me even got a lift to make sure I got home safely ('under aged drinking' days) and sweet talked my angry mother even lol. Ahhh the good old days. Now days theyd not only not care but they'd probably charge the teenager and parent (yeps, make criminals of regular people).

Claire Brain
Claire Brain my final wake up call to the nature of this corporate policy enforcement agency was a fine for an 'unregistered vehicle' simply because I was late paying registration for first time ever on a car I had registered for the previous 20 odd years! The penny finally dropped, no excuse to be naive what function they really serve!


John Smith So in the original 1919 Constitution it must have some section that stated the ratification of a new constitution is done by what process. A referendum? Similar to Australia....
Clearly 26 counties was not enough of the majority of whatever is stated in the 1919 constitution.

How, what and who ratified the first 1919 Constitution?


Rob Halford
Rob Halford https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D%C3%A1il_Constitution
Dáil Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The Constitution of Dáil Éireann (Irish: Bunreacht Dála Éireann), more commonly known as the Dáil Constitution, was the constitution of the 1919–22 Irish Republic.[1] It was adopted by the First Dáil at its first meeting on 21 January 1919 and remained in force for four years. As adopted it consiste…
EN.WIKIPEDIA.ORG

John Smith
John Smith yeah, im just reading it now how they went through the process.

What im really trying to get at is, all this jurisdiction stuff derived from an original source in time.

I was reading with Australia thats sect 61 allows the govt to treaty, and sect 51 the parliament has to pass a ratification and the GG sign for it to be ratified into Aust Law. Fair enough.

But when you go back, what ratified our Constitution, or constitutes our constitution?

Where did it all derive from....That thing called Royalty...
Well who the hell do they think they are to have Authority over anyone other than by way of Force.

Rob Halford
Rob Halford The treaty part is in section 51

John Smith
John Smith This is what wiki reckons: Ratification
In Australia, power to enter into treaties is an executive power within Section 61 of the Australian Constitution. Thus the Australian Federal Government may enter into a binding treaty without seeking parliamentary approval. However, implementation of treaties does require legislation by Federal parliament, following Section 51(xxix) of the Australian Constitution and signed by the Governor-General of Australia.

,,,,I remember sect 51 mentions for the good government of the people roughly etc without dragging it up again and reading it,,,,,

Anyway, my point is, it all derived from royalty with the royal charters and letter patents....

Fuck royalty and their proclamations and claims

Rob Halford
Rob Halford Not a good idea to listen to others opinions when you can check for yourself.
This is 61.
http://www.austlii.edu.au/.../consol_act/coaca430/s61.html
COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT - SECT 61 Executive power
                  The executive power of the Commonwealth is vested in the Queen and is exercisable by the Governor-General as the Queen's representative, and extends to the execution and maintenance of this Constitution, and of the laws of the Commonwealth.
AUSTLII.EDU.AU

Rob Halford
Rob Halford Check (XXIX)
http://www.austlii.edu.au/.../consol_act/coaca430/s51.html
COMMONWEALTH OF AUSTRALIA CONSTITUTION ACT - SECT 51 Legislative powers of the Parliament [see...
                  The Parliament shall, subject to this Constitution, have power to make laws for the peace, order, and good government of the Commonwealth with respect to:
AUSTLII.EDU.AU

Rob Halford
Rob Halford But I agree about ''fuck royalty''

John Smith
John Smith thats what wiki says....

Rob Halford
Rob Halford Read for yourself nugg

John Smith
John Smith i did,,,the executive sect 61 signs off
and sect 51 govt makes it law

Rob Halford
Rob Halford Did you look at the subsection I said?

John Smith
John Smith External affairs which means it can make laws in regards to external affairs, ie; treaty,,,,,every bill gets passed by the GG anyway.....what wiki claims is the govt of the day can treaty, but it still requires parliament process and the GG to sign off

John Smith
John Smith I cant see how wiki is wrong

Rob Halford
Rob Halford Because treaties don't have to be ratified by parliament.
And 61 has nothing to do with it

John Smith
John Smith Well the supreme court for that guy who was going through the ECT just recently stated the UNHR has not been ratified into Australian Law...

Rob Halford
Rob Halford They lied.
It has and it is provable

John Smith
John Smith Well according to International law, that is how the procedure works, so unless you know otherwise....

This is why the UN and our Nation is a joke, it agrees to all UN policy, and thats all it really is, like the carbon targets etc, but unless ratified into law here, nothing is binding...

Rob Halford
Rob Halford Just because ''they'' tell you x that doesn't make it so.
Why would you need to ratify it to make it binding?
Why would you sign it if not to follow it?

John Smith
John Smith I totally agree with you on that. That is my point,,,,The UN strips the people and the Nation of its Sovereignty.
It is an Institution just like the EU, and the delegates are appointed into position by those in government and not the people. therefor a quasi government. Another tier above.

All of a sudden, not only are the people hoodwinked into believing the decisions of the UN are International and binding on your Nation because the Govt of the day signed off on it, but they are taxed accordingly to that treaty of the UN BUT unless ratified in your own Nation by Constituional process and law.....Apparently and according to our courts it really isnt law here.

Rob Halford
Rob Halford You're missing my point.
THEY say it has to be ratified.
I disagree.
Why would they sign a treaty if not to be bound by its terms?

John Smith
John Smith I see your point,,,,,If its signed it should be binding,,,,full stop
They either have the power or they do not...

But all it is at the end of the day is an agreement to go back home and make into a law....Doesnt mean they do,,,,it may not pass parliament....

But yet we are taxed by other statutes they introduce all because we have signed off at the UN....But it doesnt mean everything in the UN agreement that we signed off on will be put into law...

John Smith
John Smith I said the same thing to Larissa Waters, Greens Party.
Either a signature is binding in the UN or it isnt.
Why do we pick and choose in what we will introduce into law and not only that, why are we led to believe we have all these International rights ie; UNHR,,,,,but you get into court only to find out they dont mean anything, never ratified.

Then you get into Citizenship....What makes that binding?
Everyone has to be a Citizen of a Nation,,,,UN convention of Statelessness,,,,,Is it Law here?
or are we all hoodwinked into believing we need passports and visa's to come and go because you have to be a citizen of a Nation.
I understand we have our own acts of parliament making certain laws for border protection and the Constitution says they can,,,,,,But we also have the right as a natural person to the right of Self determination, just like the Irish People did in 1919.....But according to our Govt and the UN,,,,,you dont now,,,,only certain "peoples" and only certain rights

Which is it. They cant just pick and choose and change the rules as they go,,,,we either all have the right or no one ever has the right. Some people had it years ago, and some may have some of those rights still, but not if you are considered a citizen in a Nation already....The Citizen trap.

John Smith
John Smith I will conclude with, just like the Irish did, we have always had the right and no law ever, anywhere, constituted, proclaimed, ratified can stop a group of people forming its own government and making its own laws because at any point of time the government you are under may become so oppressive or hostile, and therefor, you have a right to say fuck you, im out,,,,Im forming my own government....I will come and go in peace, do no harm and treaty with any other government or community, but you no longer have Authority over me, only my government who i swear an oath and alligiance to now.
Other governments may try to war with you,,,,but hey,,,might is right, might is democracy.....and my new government i form may just get all the people to leave their govt and fight for my government....

What ya reckon...The new IAR[Independant Aust Republic]

Rob Halford
Rob Halford I wouldn't be part of anything with the name ''australia'' as it is loaded.



Matty Yates
Matty Yates Bloody awesome great article

ratify
ˈratɪfʌɪ/
verb
past tense: ratified; past participle: ratified
sign or give formal consent to (a treaty, contract, or agreement), making it officially valid.
"both countries were due to ratify the treaty by the end of the year"