🚀 go-pugleaf

The Government of the Republic of Ireland ignores rights of falsely accused!, they even go so far as to engage in perjury, 
kidnap, theft, torture, discrimination and attempted murder!

The contents of this posting show clearly through the transcripts of court documents that the above statement is true and the 
Government of Ireland through it's servants and agents, namely the police force (Garda), the prison service and the courts, 
actively violate the rights of persons
with total disregard to legal process, British, Irish and European law, they show contempt for the Constitution of Ireland and the 
courts of their neighbour state the United Kingdom of Great Britain

The person refered to as Defendant Victim, is the accused who has been deliberately targeted, not for justice but for the 
purpose of ensuring the total destruction of the reputation and credibility of Defendant Victim

These documents refer to a case involving a Defendant Victim, a person who in the past was so badly treated in the Irish 
state that he felt compelled to leave
that place and later sent notification to the department of foreign affairs, care of the Irish Embassy London UK to inform the 
Irish Government that he was revoking all claim to Irish citizenship as he could not 
in good concience represent such a corrupt state and was unable due to his experience and beliefs represent the Irish state 
in accordance with obligation of allegiance
Therefore the only reasonable course of action was to become a non-Irish citizen
To the Government and People of Ireland
Defendant Victim, does not hold Irish citizenship, and reiterates his statement of revocation of all claim of Citizenship, 
furthermore Defendant Victim revokes all duty, privledge and responsibility of Citizenship of the Irish State
Defendant Victim does so without prejudice to the Irish people, stating that Citizenship and the obligation of allegiance that 
goes with it cause conflict of interest which is unacceptable to Mr. Defendant Victim

The Irish State, did obtain a warrant for the arrest of Defendant Victim who is resident in the United Kingdom
The Irish State, did knowingly give false information to the Magistrates Court, Nuneaton, Warwickshire, United Kingdom and 
in doing so did cause harm to the person and reputation of Defendant Victim
In the UK this act is known as perjury and invalidates any warrant obtained through such false criminal means
The Irish State, did falsely claim that Defendant Victim did have sex with a 10 year old mentally impaired girl WHO DOES NOT 
EXIST
The Irish State, did this knowing the full facts in a malicious and deliberate action
Defendant Victim was illegally held at HMP, Winson Green, Birmingham where they violated his right to 
religious freedom in that they failed in their obligation to provide Kosher food to Defendant Victim in accord
with his Religious beliefs, furthermore they left Defendant Victim in poor health as they did not offer sufficient food which could 
be accepted by Defendant Victim without violating his Religious Beliefs & risking his health due to allergy to onion
This also violates the Human Rights Act of Great Britain and the European legislation which clearly states that punishment 
without trial is Illegal
The appointed representative of Defendant Victim failed totally in their obligation to file an application to the High Court in 
London in accordance with Defendant Victim's instructions
Defendant Victim was left without legal representation for the entire period he was held on remand in Britain
This is also Illegal and did leave Defendant Victim without means to speak in his own defense in accord with the Laws of 
Great Britain
The action of the Irish and British states in their failure to furnish Defendant Victim with a copy of the Book of Evidence while 
in the UK left Defendant Victim without the means to defend himself
This singular action allowed the Irish state to abduct Defendant Victim and remove him to the Irish State in direct 
contravention of law,
This action can only be described as Abduction and Smuggling
Defendant Victim was brought onto the aircraft last and removed first, in what Defendant Victim believes was a deliberate 
action of the Garda of Ireland to demean Defendant Victim
Upon arrival in Ireland, Defendant Victim was so ill as to be unable to answer questions properly to the Garda, also despite 
requesting medical attention as a matter of urgency as Defendant Victim was finding it very difficult to remain conscious and 
had in-fact been unconscious for most of the drive from
Dublin Airport to Kilkenny
When a Doctor did eventually attend he did remove from Defendant Victim perscription medication provided by the Doctors at 
HMP Winson Green
This Doctor did examine Defendant Victim by checking his pulse, and decided on that basis he would overrule the medical 
expertise of the UK doctors
The Doctor did not have access to the UK medical records, save those taken from the Prison service by the Irish State
These documents were removed from the UK without leave of the UK court or Defendant Victim and as such were stolen and 
smuggled into Ireland
Defendant Victim wants them back, and wants a formal explaination from the Irish State regarding this violation of International 
law and personal privacy
The Garda did the next morning make a false declaration before the Court at Waterford Ireland, falsely claiming they had to 
trace Defendant Victim through Interpol
The Garda had already obtained the victim's address prior to contacting Interpol
Defendant Victim is also seeking full disclosure of all documents and transcripts of all communications between Interpol and 
The Irish State, if any such communication ever even existed!
Defendant Victim hereby formally accuses the Garda of trying to pervert the course of Justice
Defendant Victim spent approx. 3 & 1/2 months in a prison cell where the Irish State repeatedly tried to feed toxins to 
Defendant Victim despite being frequently informed that Defendant Victim is allergic to Onions
Defendant Victim states that this action was no action and on this matter accuses the Irish State of attempted murder by 
poisoning
Defendant Victim despite clearly declaring his religious beliefs and requesting Kosher food was not provided any Kosher Food, 
and has still not had a single Kosher meal since
his arrival in Ireland, further the Irish State has failed in it's obligations to provide access to religious literature and articles to 
Defendant Victim
They claim there is religious freedom in Ireland, this case clearly demonstrates that is NOT TRUE
The Irish State also violated not less than three High Court orders in relation to this case
The appointed representatives of Defendant Victim, have ignored his repeated instructions to pursue these violations and 
therefore
cannot be deemed to be acting in the interrests of their client
The appointed representatives also failed to take the Prison service to task despite Defendant Victim securing a court order 
against Cork
Prison ORDERING THE PROVISION OF KOSHER FOOD, this order did not have any proviso's and did not place any burden 
of responsibility on Defendant Victim
It clearly ordered the Provision of Kosher food and was IGNORED, to the extent that Defendant Victim was subject to abuse 
by the Prison staff including threats, numerous anti-semitic comments, nazi salutes and was told
"FUCK YOU, EAT THE PORK OR STARVE" Defendant Victim is a man of conscience and chose to starve rather than 
violate his beliefs
Defendant Victim, being a Man of conscience, unlike the prosecution does not lie before the courts or knowingly violate any 
law
Defendant Victim is completely innocent and is in fact a victim of a vicious deliberate assault on his person and character by 
the Irish State for no more
reason than standing up for his lawful, constitutional rights
Defendant Victim left Ireland more than seven years ago after a concerted campaign of harrassment by a number of thugs 
from Enniscorthy, Co Wexford, among the 
persons directly responsible for his departure are Judge Donnacha O'Buachalla, a number of Garda based at Enniscorthy, one 
who told the Court that Defendant Victim was going around with a note pad up his
sleeve taking notes of Garda actions
Defendant Victim made numerous complaints to the relevant authorities regarding harrassment, assault, intimidation attempts 
and religious discrimination
Defendant Victim was forced to defend himself physically, without assistance on numerous occasions, often outnumbered
The Garda refused to investigate these matters, claiming no evidence, there were numerous witnesses, recordings of 
harassment and sectarian abuse and numerous opportunities to interview witnesses and even to catch these criminals red 
handed
On the one occasion on which an assailant was prosecuted for assault, the witnesses named by Defendant Victim claimed 
the Garda did not interview them
The statement made by Defendant Victim consisting of three pages, became two pages, page two went missing
and of course the victim was never informed of the court hearing and therefore could not address this issue, this resulted in a 
blatant mis-carraige of justice as this criminal got convicted of assault but the matter
of religious discrimination and abuse was never raised before the court nor was the matter of the deliberate blows to the 
throat, base of the skull and temple, leaving the question unanswered as to his true intent, assault or murder?
The Irish State of course, feel the need to deny Defendant Victim the right to go see his son, who being a religious minority will 
not be brought to Ireland due to the risk of attack upon his person
They attacked the father repeatedly and without grounds so this claim is legitimate and it would be gross criminal neglegence 
to expose this child to this environment and the very real risk of harm to him
The legal representatives of Defendant Victim have of course ignored all Defendant Victim's instructions to address this very 
serious matter
Defendant Victim has had no contact with his son in over eight months, The Constitution of Ireland very clearly states the Irish 
position on family, they therefore are proved nothing more than farsical hypocrytes who ignore their own
Constitution, now maybe you can understand why Defendant Victim is NOT a Citizen of this God-forsaken land of crime and 
prejudice
The Garda and Prison service demanded with menace from Defendant Victim the name of the Synagogue he attends, 
Personal information about himself, his associations and his family
A message to you all, Immunity of State, Right to Silence, Soverignity of State, Defendant Victim of course has the right to tell 
you, the Irish State, Department of Justice, Prison Service and Garda to kindly go fuck yourselves
Defendant Victim would rather die than give in to your clear and blatant abuse

To the Irish State:
Release the illegally held Mr Defendant Victim from your Prison called Ireland
Cease and Desist from further unlawful harassment and assault on Defendant Victim
Compensate Defendant Victim, His Son, Fiancee & Family whom you have assaulted, harassed & violated in this case

The Irish State is invited to explain to the International community it's criminal actions and violations so severe as to preclude 
any possiblity of fair hearing on any matter involving
the Irish State, in any capacity!

The State also refused to allow defence to examine the alleged injured party, further prejudicing the case of the falsely 
accused
The State report assumes guilt on the part of Defendant Victim and the State has decided to allow as evidence this clearly 
biased report
There is another accused in relation to this case, This man cannot get fair trial in regard to this matter in any event due to the
violations committed by the state in relation to Defendant Victim
His prosecution should be dismissed forthwith
In the statement alleged to be the words of Defendant Victim this other Accused is refered to as a Friend
This is NOT CORRECT, the other accused is not friend or enemy to Defendant Victim and this statement was NOT made by 
Defendant Victim
The statement they have issued as the Statement is NOT SIGNED by Defendant Victim and is not an accurate account of 
the words of Defendant Victim
in relation to these false accusations

The alleged injured party is according to the state, mentally impaired and Defendant Victim is supposed to know this, as is the 
other Accused
The state forgot that this woman has demonstrated considerable ability in that she has a Mobile Phone and therefore it is 
assumed she can use it
If this woman is of such limited intellect then how did she make such a detailed statement
This woman is capable of going to a pub in a taxi which she has ordered and ordering drink in a pub
All without assistance or supervision

This woman also has a job, therefore Defendant Victim contests the state claim that she is mentally impaired
Defendant Victim further states that it is unreasonable to expect any person to be able to tell the difference between
a person who is a little intoxicated after consuming 4 to 5 strong drinks such as Vodka and a person who is mildly mentally 
impaired

Apart from destruction of the life of an innocent man, they have achieved nothing and could never achieve Justice
The persons truly responsible for this entire fiasco if this woman is impaired as they claim, are the family who have responsibility 
to protect her
If they are not charged with criminal neglegence it must be assumed that they committed no offense and such assumption 
would have to accept this woman 
had sufficient ability to take care of herself
The taxi driver states that she considered this woman a bit simple or words to that effect, if so why did the taxi driver not speak 
to a member of her
family to verify the situation, is this statement even relevant, and moreover could that taxi driver tell if a person
was drunk or simple?, is that taxi driver a physologist or psyciatrist?, no she is a taxi driver and therefore this assessment is 
questionable at best
The bar maid served her alcohol therefore accepting that she had adult capacity, after all it is against the
law to serve alcohol to minors, an action which rendered it impossible for a person not familiar with her to tell if she is a bit slow 
or a bit drunk
The people there who claimed to know she was a bit simple, to them a question, was it not neglegent to fail to inform the 
accused of her mental state?
Their actions demonstrate that they accepted she was capable of taking care of herself, these are not the actions one would 
expect
toward a vulnerable person, that they claim needs constant care and protection
The actions of the family, note the time that passed between them claiming to be worried and actually attempting to find her
Note furthermore that they according to the paperwork if they are to be believed that she is in fact a sexual predator
Their actions are therefore (A) totally neglegent toward this girl and any guy she might meet or (B)There is no mental condition 
as they claim
Further to the above, at the time of the alleged offense, Defendant Victim was taking strong pain killers as a result of a severe 
ankle injury and had gone more than a week with very little sleep
A fact which has been proven the world over to affect judgement and performance of any person
There are witnesses who can testify to the detremental effect this injury had on Defendant Victim

To Mr P W, you should have applied to the High court as you said you did, Friendship terminated, as for assuming 
the other matter of threats to your family were associated with me, apology is NOT accepted

Michael Buggy, Solicitor, Kilkenny, Ireland, You failed to act according to the instructions of Defendant Victim, further you 
failed to act in the interests of your client with regard to the provision of food and the attempts on your clients life by the
state who repeatedly tried to poison him with Onion, this IS CRIMINAL NEGLEGENCE, Defendant Victim will be pursuing this 
matter

Maybe the Constitution is more of a guideline?
NO, it's the basis of all law in Ireland


The Evidence:
Summary of Evicence, presented to the Magistrate Court of Nuneaton, UK, at a public hearing
"On 1st July 2001 a ten year old mentally impaired girl attended Thomastown Garda Police Station and made a complaint that 
two men had sexual intercourse with her, against her will in ;the early hours of the same day."
Defendant Victim was kidnapped at his home in Rugby UK on 21 OCT 2003 by DS 244 Pyne and later conveyed to Rugby 
Police station
This 10 year old girl DOES NOT EXIST, no 10 year old was ever assaulted, in fact no person was assaulted by Defendant 
Victim
No person has ever been forced to act against their will by Defendant Victim or the Other accused
This false information was furnished by or on behalf of The Director Of Public Prosections at the Suit of Seargeant Patrick J M 
Wheelan who also gave false
information about the need to trace Defendant Victim through Interpol, the book of evidence clearly shows they had already 
obtained Defendant Victim's address prior to engaging the services of Interpol, this man is guilty of the criminal offense of 
perjury as is the DPP

Book of Evidence page 57, clearly gives the following informaton on the alleged victim
Name given but witheld to protect the alleged victim, Kiltorcan, Ballyhale, Co. Kilkenny
Date of Birth 17.12.80
Date of Assault June 2001, note two facts, this document violates the principle of innocent until proven guilty and the alleged 
victim was more than 20 years old, now about that 10 year old, She does not exist, therefore perjury was committed
This page refers to an assesment given by Martin Doolan, Clinincal Pyschologist on behalf of the state
The report was according to this prepared with sight of a Psychological assessment report (20.07.99), and States that Alleged 
Victim scores on Inetllectual assessment scale in the Mild Range of Learning Disability
It goes on to give a background in which it states
Alleged Victim was a victim of a sexual assault by two men in June 2001, thus absolutely violating the principle of innocent till 
proven guilty
This man has reached this conclusion all on his own, without looking at any evidence, the court feels that an independent 
assessment is not needed
This is clearly prejudice, further when compared to the statements it is not consistent with her statement at all

On the statement of Deirdre Carroll , book of evidence page 12, it clearly states Alleged Victim had at least 4 vodka and 
orange drinks, it also states that she goes into Treacy's pub nearly every saturday night
On the statement of Mary Molloy, book of evidence pages 14-17, the following facts can be derrived, she has a job at a the 
Riverside Bistro next to Defendant Victims Stores in Kilkenny
Alleged Victim was allowed by the family to go out unsupervised demonstrating clearly that they accept her ability to go to an 
adult environment on her own!
This statement also claims she has to be told what number to dial when washing, 
This conflicts with the statement of Claire Molloy who states that Alleged Victim phoned her at 6.30 am on her mobile 1st July 
2001, now obviously she can use a phone on her own and can do a task without being told every time so somebody is 
bullshitting
Also in the statement of Mary Molloy it is clearly shown that they were SOO concerned for Alleged Victim that Mr Molloy had a 
drive around Thomastown at 4.45 am and DID nothing more, she was not reported missing and they did not phone anybody!
On the statement of Ann Doran it states that she was informed by Mary Molloy that Alleged Victim had sex with 2 men, one by 
consent and one rape, this raises an interesting question, why then is there no rape charge?
Simple, no rape ever took place

on page 26 of the book of evidence the Garda claim that Defendant Victim was cautioned and that Defendant Victim replied 
no comment, the truth is,
Defendant Victim was in such poor health due to the lack of food in the UK that he was unable even to give his own address 
and they obtained this by phoning Defendant Victim's phone number, they obtained this from a piece of paper Defendant 
Victim had with him, Defendant Victim was too ill to give it
Defendant Victim never responded because Defendant Victim was in fact unable to respond and has no recollection of this at 
all, after all Defendant Victim spent most of the trip from Dublin airport to Thomastown, unconscious, and DID not receive 
appropriate medical care at any time while in Custody

The High Court orders violated in relation to this case
First one, Friday 21 December 2001, in relation to a Defendant Victim
States the following
IT IS ORDERED pursuant to Section 4(5) of the Criminal Justice (Forensic Evidence) Act 1990 that the said samples of 
Defendant Victim and Another Accused be retained for a period of six months from the 31st day of December 2001
And IT IS ORDERED that the said Defendant Victim and Another Accused be served with a copy of this Order with liberty to 
the said Defendant Victim or Another Accused to apply to discharge the aforesaid Order on notice to the Applicant
This was ordered by Mr Justice Murphy
Order by Mr Justice O Caoimh Friday the 28 June 2002 makes the same order with a date from 1st of July 2002
The Order of Justice O Caoimh 19 Dec 2002
Ordered as above with a period of 12 months from the 1st January 2003
Defendant Victim WAS NOT SERVED a copy of said aforementioned orders, therefore one of 2 conclusions are possible
Contempt of court for failing to inform Defendant Victim or Defendant Victim is not the Defendant Victim to whom these orders 
relate and therefore is not the defendant


The Acts:
Criminal Law Sexual Offences Act, 1993
The act itselt refers repeatedly to he or him, now what about sexual equality?
With reference to article 5.4 it clearly states that if a person did not know and had no reason to suspect the person in respect 
of whom hi is charged was mentally impaired
Drunk, tipsy, or simpelton? is not a person who is drunk or even partially intoxicated capable of stupid acts?
How is any person supposed to tell the difference?

UK Statutory Instrument 1994 No. 1952
The backing of warrants (republic of irland)(rule of speciality)Order 1994
Take a full read through this article and you will find that there is NO MEANS for a person to
speak in their own defense, a right guaranteed all persons before British Courts under House of Lords ruling
This rule of the House of Lords gives an irrevocable right to all persons to speak in their own defense, this however is
not possible when the required documentation is unavailable, as in the case of Defendant Victim
Where the Irish Department of Justice (or it's agent) made false declaration to a public hearing in a British Court
Defendant Victim could not demonstrate this was a false allegation as the papers (book of evidence) was not shown to him
Further, Defendant Victim had not at that time been allowed to read the Warrant, and therefore could not prepare any 
statement of defense
They stated Defendant Victim was an Irish National, Fuck the lying bastards, Defendant Victim HAS REVOKED HIS 
CITIZENSHIP OF IRELAND AND INVITES THE IRISH STATE TO SHOVE IT UP THEIR PROVERBIAL ARSE
Defendant Victim finds this statement HIGHLY OFFENSIVE as it is to associate him with a Nation which engages in 
discrimination and perversion of the course of justice
They would not allow Defendant Victim to contact the Embassy of Ireland for 4 full days after his arrest, They said he was 
Irish, if so they gave him the Legal right to contact the Embassy
In any event, an accused person wishing to obtain details of the accusations, is entitled to request same and normally such 
request can be handled by the High Commission to the relevant state
Further, under the Human Rights Act of the United Kingdom, it is illegal to deport a person to a state which has committed 
human rights violations against that person, or it can be shown that they are likely to do so
They had done so in the past in respect of Defendant Victim, and had done so by Lying before the Magistrates court of 
Nuneaton

HMP Winson Green, Birmingham, failed to provide Kosher food to Defendant Victim in accord with his 
religious beliefs and did fail to provide suitable food for Defendant Victim in accord with his religious beliefs and medical needs
This also constitutes a breach of Article 7 of the European Convention of Human Rights, which is titled "No Punishment 
without Trial"
Look it up!
Defendant Victim was held as LG5600 under another name not Defendant Victim as stated on the Irish Papers, so who the 
fuck do they want?
This very act violates the extradition warrant anyhow!

The Irish constitution states the following

There is an article on family, Defendant Victim has been obstructed from seeing his son without due cause!
article 40.1, all citizens shall as human persons, be held equal before the law, Defendant Victim states they should rip it up 
and throw it the fuck out, this does not apply in practice
More from article 40, The state guaranteees in its laws to respect, and as far as practicable, bi its laws to defend and 
vindicate the personal rights of the citizen,
No Citizen shall be deprived of his liberty personal liberty save in accordance with law, What a load of crap, Defendant Victim 
was KIDNAPPED and illegally brought into the country and then tortured by the State
The right of the citizens to express freely their convictions and opinions, to that end the opinion of Defendant Victim on Irish 
Justice:Sick, Corrupt and Severly Prejudice, needs to be put down like a bad dog
Article 43, read it carefully, Defendant Victim wants to be compensated for the violations against him and in addition the loss 
of his earnings and Car!
The constitution (art 40.5) does of course guarantee inviolability of the dwelling of a person, and in the case of Defendant 
Victim did violate this article in that they did on the foot of false information did have their servants and agents
The British Police violate the home of Defendant Victim in the UK, for reference look at The People(DPP) v Kenny (1990)
More on The People(DPP) v Kenny, The Supreme court finding, Finlay CJ  commented " The detection of crime and the 
conviction of guilty persons, lno matter how important they may be in relation to the ordering of society, cannot however, in my 
view, outweigh the unambigously expressed constitutional obligation as far as practicable to defend and vindicate the 
personal rights of the citizen
Also from that case the Judges state the courts have not only an inherent Jurisdiction but a positive duty:
To protect persons against the invasion of their constitutional rights, If invasion has occourred, to resotore as far as possible 
the person so damaged, to the position in which he would be, if his rights had not been invaded and  to insure as far as 
possible that persons actiing on 
behalf of the Executive who consciously and deliberately violate the constitutional rights of citizens
do not for themselves or their superiors obtain the planned results of that invasion