Who is buying the Assets

When  good businesses   becomes indebted there is a  loss not only to the economy of  revenue makers but  also to the bank’s shareholders who do not see a return on their investment .The persons who benefit  are the recipients of the assets who are  given a  virtual gift   of   portfolios without the requirement of repayment of   loans .This is a very sharp incentive in monetary terms for  manipulation of the economy as asset bases of billions of Euro  are becoming available through the ‘strict’ use of the summary process   .Perjury is a criminal activity and even the suspicion of one act of perjury by a bank who selects cases for court seizure should be sufficent  for a moratorium on all summary cases within the court system  pending   investigation as to the destination to date  of   assets from court seizures.

Perjury and Criminal Activity in the Summary Process

A bank engaging in perjury a criminal activity, for the  purposes of asset seizure  should raise the most profound concerns in any economy or any society  . This summary court  procedure allows the bank take possession of  the asset or indeed collection of assets .The moribund economy justifies the sale of them  at  a very low value leaving the liability for payment of the full loan on the owner who is unlikely to be able to repay the sum without the asset from which the loan should be paid .

Abuse of Court Process

Successful asset seizures arise on the court’s not permitting a full hearing .This is achieved through not allowing a defendant to raise a defence to the bank’s case .Indications of unlawful asset seizure will include a bank being prepared to make false affidavits so as to  hide evidence so as to fulfil the criteria for summary judgment .Where this is shown in one case it is unlikely to be an only  one . However given the particular seriousness of such a case where it is established that it has occurred it should ring alarm bells and  call for a thorough investigation of all such cases .

Asset Acquisition and the Courts

It is  a mockery of the Rule of Law and of fair play as week by week the courts award judgments to banks against individuals who cannot service their commercial loans as a result of the incessant  malevolent interference in the  economy  .The   likely involvement of politicians  with a personal  interest  in successful court confiscations  crystallises the suspicion for the delay in enactment of the Third Directive

Confiscations and the Rule of Law

The process of confiscation even for the  Common Good is not easily reconciled with our constitution .However compulsory purchase orders , the manipulation of loans and now the introductionof NAMA  has made commonplace asset seizure  the economy has been weakened to the point that assets can be accumulated by ‘vultures’ associated with illegal elements and indeed political and former political elements which is totally corrosive of our society .It is a matter of public record that onthe day or days of nationalisation  of Anglo Irish one developer received sums of 700,000 million and transferred those to the Isle of  Man whereupon the assets were then placed with NAMA where they became the responsibility of the State .

Democracy and the Courts

It is fundamental that the courts adminster justice fairly and  impartially .When it is seen that the courts appear to favour banks against inidviduals and small businesses , it erodes confidence in the  judicary and in the  process of the courts . This  is destructuve of the  very democratic fabric of the  State

Asset Seizures

It is to be noted that particular businesses have not been closed down despite their liabilities in an economy which has all but collapsed . The choice of which businesses are allowed to remain and those which have been closed leaves little to the imagination . The closure of legitimate small business by the banks through the courts system means  the economy and democracy is either being put in the hands of unlawful criminal   elements or is  at risk of such  .It is these elements which are  particularly likely to purhcase assets at low face value leaving the  liabilities on their original owners without the means to discharge them  . The failure to implement protective measures in Ireland leads to the  suspicion othat the economy was manipulated to effect such asset collections as a means of personal enrichment  either by the political elite or other  elements .This was the peril the European Union identified as likely to destabilise democratic states in the  Third Directive

The Law in Roman Times

  Cicero said Forms of process were settled, by which men might argue their differences, which forms were established and made certain, that the people might not at pleasure institute their own modes of proceeding” compositae sunt, quibus inter se homines disceptarent, quas actiones ne populus prout vellet institueret, certas solemnesque esse voluerunt. “

The Right to an Impartial Hearing

 

The courts service owe a duty of impartiality to litigants and to the public A Judge must evaluate the dispute by reference to the general rules whether of law or factual reasoning which are accepted independently

Locabail (UK Limited v Bayfield Properties Limited 200 QB451 at 457 2000 1 AER 65  at 69

All legal arbiters are bound to apply the law as they understand it to the facts of individual cases as they find them They must do so without fear or favour affection or ill will  that is without partiality or prejudice Justice is portrays as blind not because she ignores the faces and circumstances of individual case  but because she shuts her eyes to all factors extraneous to the particular case.The Common Law insists not only on the absence of bias but ALSO  on the ABSENCE OF ANY  appearance of bias.; Lord Hewart CH Rv Sussex Justices Exp Mc Carthy 1924 1 KB256 at 259.It is of fundamental import  that justice should not only be done but be seen to be done .It is inconceivable that Common Law would tolerate partiality

The Right to a Fair Hearing

 

Blackstone Commentaries on the Laws of England 1765-1769

The concept of fairness is deeply rooted in the common law .The right to a fair trial is protected by statute  rules of court and common law principles that uphold fundamental constitutional rights The right to a fair trial has been described  as near to an absolute right as any which could be envisaged Whether this is the right to an impartial court, the right to be heard or indeed the elementary access of rights of access to the courts these and other similar rights have for centuries found expression in case law and the rights of procedure However these statutory and common law safeguards are procedural fairness are now overlaid with the right to a far trial established by Article 6 of the European Convention of Human Rights