I have a Constitutionally protected right to access to the Courts.
Summary / Special Summons and even a Notice of Motion is denying a defendant the right to meeting the claims of the Plaintiff and a full trial. It is fundamentally again my human rites.
Summary /Special Summons and even a Notice of Motion; to deal with a case being determined without pleadings or oral evidence:- Summary Summons allows the Plaintiff to enter final judgement and although the Affidavit must state why there is no defendable point within the action, I do say that they have not in any clear fashion.
A Bona Fide Defence;
1. I did not get the money the Plaintiff claims, I did however get a facility and it is a point of contest here to allow the Plaintiff to exercise a want for that which I did actually get.
2. I claim my rites to discovery, therefore a Summary Summons is the wrong course the Plaintiff has taken.
3. I claim my rites to interrogatories and again prove the inappropriate nature of this Summary Summons.
4. I claim that the actions of a Summary Summons is against my Constitutional and Basic Human rites and should be struck out forthwith.
5. I do say that I am not at all sure the Plaintiff is the holder of the bond it created when it created my facility, I believe that the Plaintiff has no legal standing “Locus Standi” (Locus Standi expresses the obligation on a litigant to show that the Plaintiff has an interest in the subject matter of the dispute in the legal proceedings). I do further say that it would be in interest of both parties and the court to establish Locus Standi, as I do say an infringement of the Locus Standi would be against my Constitutional and Human Rights.
6. I am not even sure that the Plaintiff is the injured party here today. And I am asking for the injured party to come forward and make themselves know to me.
7. I do say that some Judges have the opinion that the Defendant (if not all Defendants) in cases of liquidated damages against a mortgage, insofar “they borrowed the money” and that there is no arguable case, what so ever, to suggest that the Defendant should be absolved from the liability to repay. I do say that in-light of the question of securitisation and the actual funds being loaned to the Defendant in the form of money or cash is dubious. A Loan Facility Letter being turned into a Bond and then being sold on the stock market is not a debt recoverable, or the Plaintiff quite simply selling the ‘Mortgage’ to a third party, the debt also being unrecoverable, the Plaintiff has yet to prove their ownership over the facility.
8. I do say that the Plaintiff has no Locus Standi in this case and respectfully direct the master of this High Court to strike out this case. There maybe an injured party in this case but there is no xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
9. I do say that an Affidavit by Ms xxxx xxx not being a Partner or Officer can not make any claims to the entries onto the Banks Books. Likewise is unable to prove that the Plaintiff actually owns or has title over the Facility. I do say that the Plaintiff did relinquish the control over the facility to an unknown Bond Holder.
10. I do say that the truth or otherwise of any such suggestion is a matter which will require an analysis of the Plaintiffs evidence, which can only be done by a Plenary action, I do say that I am entitled to explore the procedural devices of discovery and interrogatories as laid down in my Constitutional and Human rites.
11. I would also bring to this affray the actual legality of the Plaintiff securitising my loan / facility within the bond markets. One must consider the Irish Constitution, it guarantees the Inviolability of the Family Home, in that sense it would preclude the Bond Holder from ever claiming any rites to my family home and the Bond Holder would be walking into an illegal act as he is not on the deeds or the lien. So the Bank has walked the Bond Holder into a deal that he could never materialise should a default situation occur. There is no recourse to the judicial system to recoup any losses through default on the part of the Defendant or Mortgager. I do say that the Bond Holder was wholly duped and that the Plaintiff (bank) are fully aware of their action.
12. I do say that the Plaintiff is fundamentally aware of its action and is fully aware of the legality of any action against, as being flawed