Ireland Small Claims Court

Dublin

 

 

Chris Addington Pr.Eng.

This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., 086 168 4318

(Due to previous death threats, full address supplied to court under separate correspondence)

 

versus

 

Royal Irish Academy (RIA)

RIA President Mary Daly

19 Dawson St, Dublin 2

Tel: 01 676 2560, This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.,

 

AND TO:

AFFECTED PARTIES:

Taoiseach (PM)

Tanaiste (DPM)

Chief Justice

Garda (Police) Commissioner

Comptroller & Auditor General

& INTERESTED PARTIES (including those of the General Public)

 

November 13 – Dec 14, 2015

 

Unlawful Discrimination/Dishonesty/Cronyism/Fraud

by

Royal Irish Academy (RIA)

 

RIA an Agency outside of Democracy –> criminal Agency

 

(Note: the general issues within this application are not limited to RIA but apply to Academia globally including Royal Society, Royal Institute, Royal Swedish Academy of Sciences, Nobel Foundation, etc., etc., etc.,

It is far, far, far worse than FIFA frauds because Academia directly/indirectly affect Government Policies which in turn create severe Socio-Economy disparities & starvation genocide globally, & drives Radicalisation.

It also mis & dis-educates children & societies.

 

NOTE: The Court Orders, requested herein, against Royal Irish Academy are nothing more than what RIA is LEGALLY OBLIGATED TO DO in terms of Royal Charter, Constitution & Law – it is because RIA are acting unlawfully, criminally that the orders are sought

 

Royal Irish Academy can easily settle out of Court by complying fully with their obligations

 

INDEX:

• Preamble

• Condonation Request for Application Costs

• Small Claim Court – Arguments re legal standing & duties

• Circumstances

  • 1^st Claim – Unlawful Discrimination by RIA

  • 2^nd Claim – Fraudulent suppression of Professional R&D

  • 3^rd Claim – Fraudulent oversight/control of EU R&D Funds

  • 4^th Claim – Unlawful Assaults/Insults by RIA Members/Staff

• Addendums

  • Order 53a

  • Application (wrongly rejected) of 2013

I, the undersigned Christopher David Addington, am a Professional Engineer (equivalent Chartered Engineer)

 

I point out that every statement herein can be concretely proved to Court, but avoid submitting such proofs herein as they are extremely numerous & each lengthy, but point out that much can be found at my website www dot cdadd dot com (which I anticipate to be thought-policed by Ireland ISPs/Garda/DPP/Justices) Consequently I set out matters in brief. If RIA should challenge then proofs will be submitted.

 

I append, as an integral component of this application, a previous application from 2013 – which application was wrongly rejected by the Small Claims Administration office, not I believe with any ill intent but due to misunderstanding by Court admin staff.

 

Preamble:

 

NOTE: This application draft was started on Friday 13 November 2015, just hours before the Paris Attacks – personal trauma has delayed continuance.

 

UN Security Council is looking for global support to fight ISIS/Terrorism – but NOTHING is being done regarding the corporate Organised Crime that globally aggregates to Economy Terrorism that fuels Radicalisation –> that requires systemic & systematic engineering of socio-economy systems such that, globally, optimally stable socio-economy systems can be achieved.

 

Thursday Nov 26, 2015 – UK PM Cameron is addressing Parliament HoC on the debate of bombing/not bombing ISIS and also for measures to counter the threat/causes of Radicalisation – Cameron refers to advice from Select Foreign Committee that supports bombing – the thrust being that there is considered opinion FOR bombing, hence the debate to HoC, and for a vote on same. However Cameron, as well as Parliament, as well as Foreign Select Committee are ALL being misled by defective Academic models – therefore their objectives to combat the threat/causes of Radicalisation cannot ever be realised.

PM Cameron, and western nations are calling for bombings, but no measures to fight the rogues that are engaged in corporate Organised Crime that aggregates to Economy Terrorism.

 

I am probably the foremost Professional, globally, that has been presenting CONCRETE evidence of corpOrgCrime & its criminals (a by-product of professional Socio-Economy Engineering) but because of Ireland's negligent/derelict Garda/Police Commissioner Noirin O'Sullivan my abilities to communicate with Governments has been unlawfully, criminally blocked by Eircom (now Eir) and by UPC (now Virgin, and owned by Richard Branson, a leading & global corpOrgCrime criminal) – Ireland ISPs UPC (Virgin) & Eircom (Eir) are unlawfully obstructing my legitimate communications to UK Houses of Parliament & elsewheres concerning valid academic/science/engineering points that directly impact upon the HoC democratic debate & other socio-economic & physics engineering issues – which HoC , in truth, is NOT democratic BECAUSE of the unlawful obstruction of communications by corpOrgCrime criminals – it follows that Governments & its Justices are in collusion with corpOrgCrime – it follows that PM Cameron cannot achieve his objective of defeating the ideology behind Radicalisation because it is the corpOrgCrime/Economy Terrorism that is driving Radicalisation.

 

Parliament are PURPOSEFULLY being obstructed in democratic process by rogue/criminal entities such as UPC & Eircom.

 

This is proof positive of corporate Organised Crime/Economy Terrorism by UPC & Eircom

 

It is also important to recognise Cameron's error – radicalisation is not limited to ISIS – we see it regularly with shootings at schools etc. - ISIS is simply organised radicalisation – 'organised' means, contrary to Cameron's view, that Reason does pay a role in ISIS ideology – hence there is hope of finding reasonable & constructive solutions – but it obviously cannot include western belief in the west continuing with a subsidised lifestyle based upon slave-labour.

 

It is the absence of Reason within western governments that brings about slave-labour oppressions upon others.

 

(Nov 28, BBC News reports another USA shooting)

 

I also stress:– my disgust with State Officers who are purposefully negligent in their duties has nothing to do with my utmost respect for the Institutions that these State Officers are wrongly, unlawfully abusing, prostituting.

 

Academia is supposed to be at the heart of providing the Academic foundations to strengthen Democracy and Socio-Economic Stability but in TRUTH they are working for corporate Organised Crime & oppressively opposing any new constructive R&D that opposes corpOrgCrime.

 

Justices are in collusion with Academia, and hence in collusion with corpOrgCrime, indirectly. But also directly by e.g. granting Receivership to corporate criminals of companies purposefully collapsed by corporate criminals (PWC etc.)

 

In other words Justice is so broken down that Radicals have become radicalised because there are no meaningful Justice processes by which Justice can be achieved – hence Radicals invoking of UDHR Preamble (acknowledged right to take up arms against western Economy Terrorism/Oppressions).

One cannot expect societies to respect Justice Systems when the Justices are rogues, acting as forces outside of democracy, as criminals.

 

The favourable Economics of Radicalisation are plain to see – AK47s and home-made bombs are cheap – online one can buy an AK47 for around £180 (in Africa probably for under $50) –> an abusive unjust, unlawful court costs-order, from some crony 'Judge' who has sided with corpOrgCrime, of thousands/tens-of-thousand/millions euros will buy many AK47s, bullets and bombs and with plenty change to spare – it is plain to see that bombs & bullets are economically favourable. BECAUSE Courts/Justice system are closed-shop and corrupt.

 

As a Professional Engineer my R&D has proved the existence of severe socio-economy cancers (of many strains) – the attacks/insults against me for doing so is not dissimilar to attacking a doctor for telling a patient the bad news of cancer.

 

This application seeks to have the Rule of Just Law enforced – i.e. the law as correctly applied through the filter of UDHR, ECHR, Constitution – so as to defeat corpOrgCrime/Economy Terrorism – but, in truth, I do not believe that this will be successful - BECAUSE Courts/Justice system are closed-shop and corrupt.

 

-------------------

 

I point out that I believe this application to be TOTALLY FUTILE because of the ample evidence of a corrupted Ireland Justice System (similar to all western Justice systems, and mainly based upon a Westminster system) – but that this application is submitted to give clear evidence of exhaustion of all possible & reasonable recourses available to me – and it being important to recognise that as a Professional Engineer I am far, far better qualified & experienced than the vast majority of other persons in Ireland, such that the vast majority would have had no success of getting even 1/10 th of the way that I have achieved in seeking Justice recourse.

(The failure of the majority in not achieving success can be witnessed in the SCC courts – not because claimants are not capable but because Judges are negligent/incompetent/derelict/dishonest)

 

This all meaning that, in truth, the Justice System is corrupted/prostituted such that there is NO possibility of Justice forthcoming from this application – it meaning, therefore, that it presents as clear concrete evidence that ISIS (Islamic State) are fully justified in the unreasonable/fundamentalist actions BECAUSE Ireland (& all other western Government/Justice systems) are TOTALLY UNREASONABLE, such that they are fundamentalist in their views such that the rest of the world must be content with being enslaved to western nations.

 

The reality, however, is that those enslaved do not believe it is their destiny to remain enslaved and since western governments are unreasonable (as evidenced by the simple circumstances of this matter & past SCC matters) that reasoning is impossible with western governments/justice, therefore there is no point in reasoning, thus they take action (unreasonably so?) understandably so, (justifiably so?) – albeit with tragic consequences that could have been avoided if western governments/justice were not prostituted.

 

But, it is also understandable that nations protect themselves against such radicalised attacks – which thus creates a downward spiralling situation as we see around the world – nations (western, economy terrorist) attacking terrorists; terrorists attacking western nations, ad infinitum.

 

Western governments spend billions on fighting Radicalisation but NOTHING on constructive Socio-Economy Engineering, of which I am the pioneering world leader.

 

We thus have a situation in which western governments, in retaliation, wipe out specific targets, such as Jihadi John, but in so doing entrench the 'ideology' that drives retaliation by fundamentalists.

A situation that cannot be won unless reason comes into play – and that is the purpose of Academies such as RIA – but they are failing because cronyism & corruption purposefully obstructs reasoned thinking, hence defective theories that create defective government policies – that create disparities, poverty, anger, violence → evidence: Paris Attacks, numerous USA shootings, Nazism, Stalinism …...

 

Therefore the need to bring this issue to court even though it is clear that the Justice system is corrupt.

 

[I point out that gross injustices were meted out by a lady Judge in the SCC court on March 2, 2015 in matters before court (including: Case 2014/000203, Chris Addington vs Thomas Russell trading as City Cycles, Fairview) in which in cross examination I caught the Respondent in Perjury – but the Judge ignored and abusively sided with Respondent. Another claimant re a carpet was also abusively treated. All this is a clear proof of a corrupted/unjust Justice System in which businesses/corporates are pandered to by Judges/Justices, and as evidenced by Ch J Denham's & J Hardiman's collusive relationship with RIA, and hence with corporates]

 

There are many other Constitutional grounds for this application but ALL are premised on the fundamental & unlawful Discrimination by RIA against me.

 

Ireland President Michael Higgins opened the Royal Irish Academy’s Centre for the Study of the Moral Foundations of Economy and Society. The centre is a joint venture between University College Cork and Waterford Institute of Technology. This with a speech in which Higgins stated:- 'The present institutional structure of the European Union can be seen as reflecting the distribution of political power in recent decades, decades that have seen the emergence of a new financialised global order, where unaccountable agencies and forces removed from democratic oversight or control are in the ascendancy” - this statement by President Higgins was possible due to CDADD's decades of R&D which has brought clarity as to the seriousness of Economy Terrorism/corporate OrgCrime.

 

President Higgins made his call for 'Moral Foundation' within the morally degenerate Royal Irish Academy to which he is a Member (as is the Chief Justice Denham & Justice Hardiman) – and with no Governance demands made by them upon the RIA.

 

The 'new financialised global order' is that of global corporate Organised Crime aggregating to Economy Terrorism which has bought Academia so as to 'legitimise' corporate frauds under a veneer of false respectability of 'science', i.e. defective science, garbage sci-fi, for 'legitimising' frauds (see defective Economic Science models at Nobel Foundation)

 

Also, many agencies & forces that are legal entities within democracies, are also at the same time forces that are removed from democracy, hence are forces that are perpetrating Crimes Against Humanity – they are criminal forces/agencies. And RIA is a party to these criminal forces by actively opposing legitimate, Professional R&D challenges to science/humanities.

 

BUT, President Higgins, being a Member of RIA, does not oppose the blatant dishonesty, cronyism, corruption that abounds within the morally degenerate RIA which dumbs-down universities & education in general.

 

(The RIA's inaugural John Bell lecture had an audience of academics & students sitting dumbly listening to & blindly accepting sci-fi nonsense)

This 'Moral Foundation' will fail as did RIA's 'Africa Day' flagship programme fail due to CDADD's penetrating analysis that showed gross incompetence by RIA. And, again, Ch Justice Denham & Justice Hardiman are supporting RIA corruption, and in turn corrupting the Judiciary, Courts & Justice. Ditto UK, USA, SA Justices.

(I also point out that the President' initiative will fail, without any doubt, because the Government has not paid me for the Intellectual Property which justified same – just as Nineveh was destroyed because they did not pay Jonah for delivering the message – it will fail because no one will be able to trust any of the products coming out of the Foundation)

 

Moreover, President Higgins' speech to RIA can be viewed as a ploy to entrench corpOrgCrime ever more deeply – for who in RIA or Academia or in general will stand up against RIA in the knowledge that the intellectual doors are closed & oppositions severely oppressed – keeping the Intellectual doors closed maintains Academic frauds.

This is no different to Academics standing outside a door at Auschwitz and stating to people locked-in that they must first take a shower, or standing-by as occurred with the starvation genocides that devastated Ireland.

 

And it is no different to ex-SA High Court Judge Mervyn King (CorpGov King Reports I, II, III – who developed the KR reports for the very purpose of a bogus but cleverly thought-out 'defence' for the massive frauds he was then scheming & with Judicial assistance from Johannesburg High Court Judges.

 

NEVERTHELESS it is imperative that this application is submitted so as to confirm the aforegoing points – if I am wrong (in my statement that that Justice is not going to change to comply with Democracy/Fairness) then the correct & Just outcome as sought will result – BUT, the very fact that the Chief Justice & colleague (Hardiman) are complicit with RIA dishonesty/cronyism/corruption and are grossly derelict, criminally so, in ignoring the Constitution/HR obligations upon them, it follows that my arguments are likely to hold valid.

 

The nature of this claim against the RIA and the public nature of the RIA & of the majority of its members COMPELS that the 'Corporate Veil' be lifted from the RIA.

 

RIA is a legal person that supplies services, in the normal course of business, in the form (mainly) of Academic R&D, and Academic books related thereto, and services to Government in the form of advice, directly and/or indirectly, and similarly to businesses, and similarly to the public in general – in addition RIA are obligated by the Royal Charter & later Customer Charter to engage freely & openly with society to enhance Academic learning – as partly evidenced by President Higgins' opening of RIA's 'Centre for the Study of the Moral Foundations of Economy and Society'

 

The public, corporates, governments, and all natural & legal persons, ALL jointly & severally, are enjoined to engage constructively with RIA as consumers, sometimes for free, sometimes at charge – and for persons to be considered on merit basis by RIA for receipt of taxpayers' monies (Ireland & EU tax monies) for the pursuit of legitimate R&D – and for which the RIA members and RIA facilities are largely paid by taxpayers' monies as Academic staff & as an Academic facility. The business of RIA is to engage constructively, fairly, openly so as to enhance academic learning as a service to all, nation, EU and the world.

 

Therefore there exists a general consumer contract - to which the RIA have unlawfully discriminated against me on a number of grounds..

 

The circumstances of my previous application have similar, if not identical, grounds to this present one – in that the Royal Irish Academy (RIA) is in gross breach of Law/Constitution/ECHR/UDHR in that it is a body:

1. of which its Members are largely Academics paid by State (Taxpayers/) Funds,

2. that is actively advising/influencing governments/corporates/societies through its claims of 'leading' research, which research is within its limited academic bounds having some credibility even though with errors, but wrongly extrapolated into defective policy/theory advice

3. that is housed within a publicly owned building thus paid-for & (part?)funded by Taxpayers' money

4. Consequently is a public body i.t.o. Freedom of Information Act

5. That claims (falsely so) that its 'mission' is to academic excellence, to advance learning – yet it hostilely, abusively suppresses new sciences/humanities and those that constructively attempt to engage with the RIA with new academic works.

6. to which the Chief Justice Susan Denham, her colleague Justice Adrian Hardiman, and President Michael Higgins are all members – yet there is no adherence to good governance, nor fair application of Justice & Human Rights in the RIA's behaviour & attitude to non-members, especially those that rightfully/lawfully dare challenge their defective theories.

7. That has total disregard for Human Rights, Discriminates unlawfully & abusively.

8. That has unlawfully established an 'executive' structure that effectively attempts to distance the Council from the legal implications of their fraudulently defective sciences/humanities.

9. That influences/controls directly and/or indirectly over E1B (1 Billion Euros) of EU taxpayers' monies assigned to Ireland for R&D.

10. Moreover the RIA has engaged in systemic & systematic unlawful bullying against me simply because I have proved much of their academic theories are wrong.

11. It is a body that requires the 'corporate veil' to be fully lifted and its activities fully scrutinised

12. The matter requires an experienced High Court Judge to sit in the SCC to hear the matter, and one that recognises/respects/upholds the UDHR/ECHR/Constitution.

The fact that RIA is dishonest, opposes merit based R&D, unlawfully discriminates, upholds defective science, obstructs new science, is justification for this Court to compel RIA to cease operation until governance compliance has been addressed. And to advise the EU Parliament, Council & President of RIA's failures.

 

Condonation Request for Application Costs

 

I request condonation for the costs of establishing this Application. I have been abusively economically isolated by Governments around the world including Ireland, despite my Professional Engineering R&D bringing to Ireland well in excess of E10B (Ten Billion Euros value), globally in excess of 1 Trillion.

 

The Royal Irish Academy has purposefully maliciously, with members, Chief Justice Denham & Justice Hardiman, colluding with RIA Members in wrongfully denying me a fair payment from taxpayers' monies (both Ireland & EU) which is well in excess of multi-billions of Euros – and for which the EU entrusted RIA (wrongly so, as the dishonesty of RIA has proved) to distribute these monies on merit basis for R&D to genuine researchers & professionals.

 

Since the RIA & governments have not paid me fairly for my groundbreaking R&D, i.e. R&D value proven & upfront, it follows that I am unable to afford the costs of this Application.

 

It would be a bizarre situation, a gross breakdown of Justice, with the Ch Justice & fellow Justice colleague, both aiding & abetting fraudulent denial of legitimate payment to a party and then not allowing that party condonation over Court application costs to apply to Court against that wrongful denial.

 

The UDHR cautions nations about the compelling need to develop Just societies –> to the extent of Condonation for Application Costs, a precedent has been set in South Africa's Constitutional Court for same (CCT35/05 Addington CD vs. Absa/1000, Barclays Bank UK, and over other Applications)

 

Arguments concerning Small Claims Court & Judges

 

The purpose of the SCC is to address small issues BEFORE they become BIG issues.

 

BUT, the structuring of Courts wrongly attempts to diminish the Constitutional responsibilities & duties of Justices/Judges – and Judges do nothing about this, in fact many (most/all?) actively engage in utilising grossly deficient, defective & unconstitutional law so as to gain advantage – hence Justice system breaks down.

 

It is important to recognise that a contractual circumstance of even, say, a 1 cent SCC claim can be far more complex than a multimillion Euro High Court claim.

The difference in treatment however is that the SCC would simply ignore the 1c, because a respondent would settle regardless – whereas a respondent will fight a multi-million DESPITE the simplicity of a contractual violation.

 

This unfair/unjust ignoring of complex contractual issues in the SCC is behind many people being abusively treated by SCC Judges – BECAUSE SCC judges do not bother to deal correctly with the matter. It follows that in complex issues in SCC court that more experienced judges should sit in the SCC on those particular cases.

 

Judges are not God or gods, as Ch Justice Chaskalson rightly pointed out when appointed to SA's first Constitutional Court Bench – but, regrettably, he then began his work for Israel (Virtual) rather than for SA => which is why SA (& World) is sinking, because Justice remains closed-shop & corrupt.

 

BUT, it is important to recognise the need for CJ Chaskalson to make such a comment – for Judges HAVE ALWAYS considered themselves as gods, if not God – to be grovelled to, and if not then a party can expect retribution from the gods.

 

The Authority from a Judge's decision comes from the Court NOT the Judge – the Judge is humble, the Court is Noble – or rather, it should be but is not – and Ireland, with its long, long history of oppressions is far removed from any form of Justice.

 

Despite the fact that the Order 53a, that creates the SCC Courts, is unconstitutional to the extents that (1) it wrongly restricts a Judges Constitutional duties & responsibilities, and (2) wrongly restricts the nature of a small claim (a small claim is a small claim is a small claim, regardless of its nature) it nonetheless needs to be addressed to consider whether a matter falls within or without the Order 53a – and why it falls without, if it so should. Because a judge MUST be aware of the grounds by which an unconstitutional law attempts to wrongly restrict a Judge, if solely to make Judges aware of how their responsibilities can be unlawfully hindered.

 

In terms of Order 53a pertaining to SCC Court:

The court must determine some fundamental points:

1. The contractual or otherwise inter-relationships between Claimant & Respondent/s

2. The Claim event

3. The Claim

In the SCC the claim cannot exceed E2000.00 but this does NOT restrict the Claimant pursuing a lesser amount for a Claim Event, or a Claim that is NIL amount, so as to determine the legal standing of the Claim event and/or the Contractual/Relationship standing. It is because of Judges negligently/purposefully ignoring complex issues that many abuses are perpetrated in the SCC.

 

BUT, there is a greater Constitutional/ECHR/UDHR violation – in that the Order 53a unlawfully restricts the duties of a Judge (presiding at a SCC Court) – in that it limits the nature of the claim and the nature of remedies – the Constitution provides for a Judge to uphold the Constitution, and the UDHR & ECHR reinforces that duty – therefore the Order 53a wrongly, unlawfully restricts Judges.

 

For Justice/Courts:- the Constitution recognises only Judges – and all Judges must take an Oath which Oath compels proper, fair, effective, equal, remedy, application, of laws (including Constitution, ECHR, UDHR) to protect their rights.

 

It cannot ever be construed that extortionate costs-orders, which are used to attain & maintain an unfair closed-shop, hence corrupt Justice system, will provide the called-for qualities of 'proper, fair, effective, remedy, application' of laws.

 

IT IS SOLELY BECAUSE OF HISTORICAL, UNLAWFUL ABUSES BY JUDGES THAT THE PRESENT CLOSED-SHOP, HENCE CORRUPT, (IN)JUSTICE SYSTEM PREVAILS

 

[Constitution 34.5.1 "In the presence of Almighty God I do solemnly and sincerely promise and declare that I will duly and faithfully and to the best of my knowledge and power execute the office of Chief Justice (or as the case may be) without fear or favour, affection or ill-will towards any man, and that I will uphold the Constitution and the laws. May God direct and sustain me."

BUT this must be read with

Constitution 40.3.1 The State guarantees in its laws to respect, and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate the personal rights of the citizen.

40.3.2 The State shall, in particular, by its laws protect as best it may from unjust attack and, in the case of injustice done, vindicate the life, person, good name, and property rights of every citizen.

AND with

ECHR ARTICLE 13

Right to an effective remedy

Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in this Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity.

AND with

UDHR

Article 7.

• All are equal before the law and are entitled without any discrimination to equal protection of the law. All are entitled to equal protection against any discrimination in violation of this Declaration and against any incitement to such discrimination.

Article 8.

• Everyone has the right to an effective remedy by the competent national tribunals for acts violating the fundamental rights granted him by the constitution or by law.

Article 10.

• Everyone is entitled in full equality to a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in the determination of his rights and obligations and of any criminal charge against him.]

It follows that whilst there are levels of Courts there are only Judges - who differ solely by experience – therefore where a more complex small claim arises it simply requires a more experienced Judge to sit & hear the matter in the SCC, and if that needs be the Chief Justice – so be it – the CJ is being handsomely paid – society has a right to expect that the CJ, or any other experienced judge, correctly earns his/her pay.

 

A Court has restrictions on the size of matter NOT on complexity or nature of matter (excepting in class distinctions such as family matters where it is justified that courts are established for that class) – whereas a Judge has NO restrictions on hearing a matter & applying the Law (in toto)

 

Bearing in mind the President's statement regarding forces/agencies outside of democracy – it would present as a bizarre situation that victims cannot claim in the SCC → where agencies are outside of democracy it can only be that they are acting in a criminal way and as a means of business that conducts, to them, in a normal way; and when a number of agencies are acting in concert, collusively then it is organised and becomes organised crime – thus criminal activities become the normal course of business, and against communities/persons singularly or collectively – and those communities/persons become consumers, albeit generally unwitting consumers – but nevertheless consumers, and in the ordinary course of their consuming the criminal services that the criminal agencies are peddling.

 

It is not necessary for a person to prove the criminality but simply the unfairness/injustice of such criminal business.

 

Consequently victims of crime that became unwitting consumers in the normal course of a criminal's (sole proprietorship) business activity are entitled to claim in the SCC.

 

The alternative, which presently exists, is that a victim is a victim, without choice, in the first instance by the criminal, then a victim of the (in)Justice system that steals cost-orders and/or extortionate fees to claim back that which was stolen in the first instance → a bizarre situation that has been wrongly upheld for millenniums.

 

It would be a complete travesty of justice if the matter came before the CJ in the Supreme Court on appeal simply because of gross incompetence by a lesser experienced judge sitting in a matter over which the judge knew full-well that he/she was incompetent – such a travesty would be criminal negligence.

 

In the circumstances a Judge sitting in the SCC is empowered by Law (including UDHR/ECHR/Constitution) to deal with any manner of small claim - therefore even though a small claim against a Respondent may not fall fully within Order 53a as writ it must be borne in mind that any attempt to argue it outside of SCC is irrelevant – a small claim is a small claim is a small claim ….... – the Judge sitting in the SCC must consider fully the issues and NOT exclude relevant issues, and hence render a matter unfairly, simply because, historically, Judges unlawfully ignored the Constitution.

 

The Supremacy of the Constitution is also superseded by the Supremacy of the UDHR, and both enhanced by the ECHR later interspersing the two.

 

A Judge CANNOT not hear a matter – if in hearing a matter the Judge considers him/herself incompetent then he/she must call in another Judge of sufficient competency – the original Judge CANNOT simply throw out a matter from Court on spurious grounds that the court is not competent, it is ONLY the judge who is not necessarily competent in applying Law IN TOTO.

 

Had such reasonable access to courts, as reasonably interpreted from ALL Law, been available then Garda Anthony Golden would probably still be alive, and also his killer who took his own life – two unnecessary & tragic deaths that could have been avoided had Judges performed their duties correctly.

 

The enhancement, via UDHR & ECHR, means that the Constitution is effectively subordinated – this means that judges are COMPELLED to 'filter' Law via these two instruments – what that effectively does is render C34.3.3 invalid ('No Court whatever shall have jurisdiction to question the validity of a law, or any provision of a law, …') BECAUSE ANY & EVERY Judge MUST apply the Law, ALL Law, fully – and that means that they MUST consider the validity of a lower Law against the Highest Law/s (C/ECHR/UDHR)

 

Another important factor to consider is that it was necessary to invoke a Constitution. Ireland's long, long, long history of oppressions, suppressions, depressions, repressions led to the formation of an independent State – and it was realised a need for a clear Constitution – and within that for a Just Justice system - BECAUSE the previous 'justice' system was an imported 'Westminster' based system, a closed-shop system.

 

Instead of the then new Justices invoking the Constitution the Justices maintained the same old-order closed-shop abuses, which were contrary to the Constitution & any reasonable interpretation thereof – and these abuses have been handed down to successive Judges over the decades.

 

It is because of these abuses that Judges are colluding with corporate criminals (e.g. Clerys & PWC, U2 & former employees wrongly groomed by U2) – and why people are denied Justice – because the Judges do not uphold their Oaths-of-Office – hence, Legals have free rein to inflame disputes so as to maximise returns in extortionate costs-orders – more than sufficient reason why societies are imploding with increasing violence/radicalisation.

 

It might seem that Reason & Justice are synonymous – but Reason has to come first so as to establish Justice – but Judges are divorced from Reason.

 

The system becomes exploitable – and no one does it better than U2 & Bob Geldof who use starving people as stage props to promote themselves, and now with U2 having exploited the Paris Bataclan tragedy – yet U2 & Geldof put NOTHING back into societies, other than the music from which they make plenty money, and which money avoids/evades taxes.

BUT, it is not difficult to see why U2 & Geldof do this – they too were groomed by the oppressive socio-economy system that has continued to oppress Ireland for decades since Independence.

BUT, in turn, U2 grooms their employees into similar immoral/criminal activities – and these employees are attacked within the Justice system whilst U2 can buy protection from corrupt Judges – those unwittingly groomed are severely, but wrongly, sentenced whilst the witting U2 groomers stay free.

 

(And people wonder why Radicalisation comes about → it's plain to see why)

 

A Judge does not need to be sitting in a court to effect the Oath of Office – it is a 24/7 duty (24/7!?!? - what an appalling expression). Further, if an SCC Judge is sitting in court and someone runs in demanding Constitutional protection from another State Officer behaving wrongly that Judge is COMPELLED to hear the complaint & provide effective remedy, THERE & THEN! -> ALL Judges are empowered by their Oath of Office, a Constitutional obligation.

 

It is because of the failure by Justices to uphold their Oaths & perform their duties correctly that events such as Dublin City Council metamorphosing into an undemocratic, unlawful, criminal entity has occurred. And why corporates have been able to consider themselves able to flout Law – and to buy-off Dail so as to achieve bought-off laws that enhance corporate Organised Crime.

 

Also, where a claim event occurs & causes consequential multiple damages, a claimant is entitled to claim for any one damage in an entirely separate claim from other damages, and where any one damage is in excess of the Court limit the claimant is entitled to limit his claim accordingly, and in each instance the Court is empowered/compelled to determine the contractual standing of the claim event, no matter how large the event damage.

 

This is intuitive and presents a fair process for people to obtain redress over a claim event without being faced with potentially abusive & unlawfully extortionate costs-orders from higher courts, which costs-orders are unconstitutional because it poses a barrier-to-entry to Justice – and is the CAUSAL REASON for SCC Courts to be established.

 

(Order 53a can only limit the claim amount to, presently, E2000.00 – that does not mean that the claim event is limited to E2000.00 therefore contractual claim can still be decided by the SCC Court with the claim, if any, limited to E2000.00)

 

Further, the presiding Judge of the SCC cannot & must not be influenced by any undue pressure from any higher court Judge – the SCC Judge MUST apply the Law fully, and that includes filtering through UDHR/ECHR/Constitution, excepting that if the Judge feels he/she is not adequately experienced then to call in a senior Judge to hear the matter or such portions that the original Judge felt insufficient competency. So,whilst the Chief Justice Denham & Justice Hardiman are wrongly members of the RIA, collude with Academic dishonesty & fraud, and in clear breach of their necessary independency requirements the SCC Court Judge must not allow him/herself to be wrongly influenced by the criminal wrongdoings of these Justice officers.

 

I point out an attack last week by a youth with behavioural difficulties upon a Family Court Judge. It is very easy to simply brush the incident off by blaming the youth, but the point remains that much of society is facing extreme difficulties because of socio-economic breakdown – and the root of that breakdown occurring is the corporate Organised Crime that the Judiciary are colluding with.

 

One must not overlook the excellent Administrative service within the SCC, the failings are SOLELY by the Judges, in filing to uphold & protect the Constitution & Laws (including UDHR & ECHR)

 

Such a format, as outlined above, and as reasonably constructed from reasonable interpretation of Law/Constitution/ECHR/UDHR, would create speedy & fair Justice for all – and not the travesties that occur daily in Courts.

 

It follows that a SCC Court cannot be restricted by the nature of a small claim, solely by the size of claim since it is clear that an SCC Court is a learning base for Judges.

 

Circumstances:

 

1^st Claim

For many weeks/months the RIA advertised a discourse for Tuesday Nov 10, 2015 at RIA Academy House – I made an online booking which was paid-for & confirmed.

Over the weeks after that I attended various other RIA events, many lunch time events were conducted constructively & open engagement permitted (Chair RIA Librarian Siobhan Fitzpatrick). However at other events chaired by RIA President Daly or other RIA Members I was regularly ignored or harangued simply for wanting to offer constructive inputs. I have previously been assaulted & insulted by RIA Members/Staff – I have reported to Garda, Pearse St. but the Garda, including Commissioner Noirin O'Sullivan have refused to provide protection or investigation.

 

A Seminar 'Debating Austerity' was held on Friday Oct 30, 2015 – in which various & numerous presenters were given much time – essentially one-way information and virtually no time for constructive engagement allowed for challenging that which was presented, and what little time was granted was given to other presenters thus a purposefully biased seminar → which violates the very purpose for which RIA was formed and to which much public money is expended. I raised objection and was shouted down repeatedly by RIA persons.

 

On Thursday 5 November at an RIA lecture – RIA President Mary Daly purposefully ignored my raised hand & vocal request, as she regularly does, I attempted to raise a question but was shouted down despite the visiting professor wishing to take my Q.

 

As a result of this the RIA issued a letter to which I replied – the RIA responded by falsely claiming that I had threatened the RIA – this is entirely false – it is indicative of the inability of RIA to correctly interpret that which is written and explains much of why it has difficulty in correctly interpreting science phenomena – hence, explains why much of RIA's (Academia's) theories are defective

 

Regardless, the RIA unlawfully stated that I was barred from attending further RIA events.

 

This is a gross unlawful discrimination with no foundation – denying access to a publicly funded premise & function (the illegality extends even to private premises that are opened to the public).

 

I nonetheless attempted to attend the lecture/discourse on Tuesday November 13, 2015 but was barred entry & was asked to leave I declined and the RIA called the garda/police. On arrival I explained that I was being discriminated against to Brendan Folan (B506, Pearse St) – he then spoke to persons in RIA and the came out and told me I was barred & must leave. I protested pointing out the Garda Article 2 'Uphold and protect the human rights of all'; Article 4 'Adhere to the principle of legality and apply the law in a fair and equitable manner'

 

I pointed out that the RIA event was open to the public, that I had paid, that RIA had unlawfully made false allegations against me for the sole purpose of obstructing my entry.

Folan was not interested and became aggressive. Folan failed to protect rights or apply the law fairly and allowed RIA to unlawfully discriminate. Folan stated that it was a civil matter - which it is not because Garda are obligated to uphold & protect rights.

I protested further and Folan became aggressive & threatening. If Anthony Golden had displayed ½ the aggression as did Folan then it is understandable why a domestic incident became violent such that Golden was shot & killed, and the gunmen then shooting himself.

 

The right of a business to reserve admission rights is only a right in a limited sense – so as to protect against unwarranted behaviour/conditions at that time only – reservation of admission rights cannot be used to discriminate unlawfully for baseless reasons. If there is a need for ongoing protection then a simple application to the SCC Court for an order would be necessary.

 

2^nd Claim:

 

In 2011 I finalised part-development of Engineering R&D that disproved Newton's Opticks, and which in turn disproved theories by Einstein, Hubble, Hawking, Higgs, CERN and many others.

 

I presented to RIA & around the world but was ignored. I pressed the issue with RIA (then, but now past, RIA President Luke Drury). There were many aggressive outbursts from Drury, until after some time he agreed to a private meeting. I objected to the meeting being private but nonetheless attended. Drury was clearly being difficult in addressing the necessary observations – but eventually we ticked-off each & every point of the new optics that needed to be observed so as to demonstrate that Newton's Opticks are wrong. When I presented the ultimate proof (colour spectrum not continuous, nor contiguous) Drury exploded and demanded I leave – Drury was not prepared to admit that science has for centuries been wrong.

 

RIA, still today, refuse to uphold their Charter compelling open engagement of Academic learning – and refuse to hold an open meeting to address this new science and other new science that flows therefrom.

 

RIA are in breach of their Charter contract with the public & with the obligations of Freedom of Information Act – which FoI Act not only compels access to appropriate information, but also via the Constitution/ECHR/UDHR, compels RIA to be forthright in presenting new science, for which the public are paying their salaries & the RIA facilities.

 

The SCC court, by necessity of considering any & every claim, must consider the contractual obligations as well as the compliance or non-compliance to the contract upon which a claim is based – and the SCC court must find appropriately when, as with RIA, they are in clear breach of their contractual & legal obligations.

Also, whilst the RIA have a Royal Charter & a Customer Charter, the underlying contract remains that of State employees (academics) and a State paid facility RIA Academy House wrongly failing to engage in their undertakings.

 

3^rd Claim

 

Ireland, under Horizon 2020, an EU funding programme for R&D, has been given over E1B (One Billion Euros) for appropriate R&D purposes, to which RIA have been empowered to influence and/or control the distribution of these funds. However RIA have indicated a distribution method that is not based upon merit but solely on distorted academic R&D lines, i.e. Professionals are wrongly NOT included in selection process. This is discriminatory and wrong. My R&D has demonstrated that centuries of R&D by other academics are wrong – therefore I am entitled to be considered for future R&D as well as recompense for past R&D that is proved.

 

This court is empowered to direct that the RIA is failing in its contractual obligations to correctly select awardees for R&D funds.

 

RIA is obligated under FoI Act to detail its methodology for distribution and is requested to provide this information to court prior to court hearing.

 

4^th Claim – Assaults/Insults by RIA upon me

 

I have been assaulted & insulted on many occasions by the RIA members/staff – and despite numerous protests these continued. The RIA have engaged in systemic & systematic unlawful bullying against me simply because I have proved numerous academic theories are wrong.

 

I lodged a formal criminal complaint at Pearse St Garda station but no record was made & no action taken despite my informing Garda Commissioner, Taoiseach, President, Dail, Senate, Justices.

 

I ask that the SCC Court hear the issues & determine the unlawfulness of RIA's assaults/insults/bullying.

 

---------------

 

It is imperative that the SCC Court correctly uphold Law/Constitution/ECHR/UDHR

 

(Judges CANNOT argue that Law, such as Order 53a, limits their Constitutional duties – a Judge is a Judge and MUST perform their duties correctly regardless of incorrect perceptions of limitations by Law)

 

My claim is for this Court to rule:

4. that the 'corporate veil' be lifted from RIA - and, as per FoI, information be freely available pertaining to RIA activities

5. that RIA is ordered to present to court & public its Financial Accounts, Minutes of Meetings etc.

that RIA:

6. unlawfully discriminated against me and that RIA are directed not to unlawfully discriminate against me by unlawfully barring me from Public events by unlawful & selective discrimination of access to its services provided to the public – that RIA must allow me full & reasonable access as allowed to any other public person.

7. That RIA must disclose full information, promptly, as to its activities (as per FoI Act) since it is a public body intent on openly engaging with the public,

8. that RIA allow adequate time during events for Q&A AND for brief counter arguments pertaining to Academic learning presented at such events.

9. Are in breach of law & their contract in unlawfully discriminating against me by unlawfully barring me from entry to RIA events

10. Are in breach of contract by wrongly accepting Garda statement that RIA's unlawful barring was a civil matter, for SCC Court to advise Garda Commissioner accordingly

11. Advertise and hold a prompt meeting for the purpose of hearing & recording the new science of my R&D that disproves Opticks, and to clearly advertise & present the recordings & papers on RIA website, as should have been done long ago.

12. To direct the RIA to present what in their view would be a fair payment from H2020 funds and/or other R&D funds under their control/influence to myself for past proven R&D presented, and for funding for future R&D

13. to find the RIA in breach of contract & human rights in the assaults/insults/discriminations upon me and to direct RIA to present to court what in their view would be fair compensation for past Assaults/Insults upon me

14. Further relief as may be presented by Claimant in court

I reiterate again, that I do not believe the SCC Judge will fulfil his/her duties properly – but that this application is submitted to establish concrete proof that those taking up arms against oppressive governments do so not simply understandably, but justifiably – I nevertheless hope & pray that on this last point I am proved wrong.

 

I also point out that the presiding Judge will no doubt discriminate against me simply for my statements contained herein (to which proofs will be presented if challenged)

It is stressed that the increase in violence/terrorist actions stems DIRECTLY from western nations allowing corpOrgCrime to which Governments/Justices/Academia pander – it is imperative that Just Law is upheld, i.e. that Law which is filtered with the UDHR/ECHR/Constitution.

 

Sincerely

 

Chris Addington Pr.Eng.

This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.,

+353 (0)86 168 4318

 

District Court Rules

Order: 53A

Small Claims : S.I. No. 519 of 2009

Definition

1. In this Order

“business” means a natural or legal person (including a company, partnership or natural person trading as a sole trader) who supplies, sells or purchases goods or services in the ordinary course of a business;

“business small claim” means a civil proceeding instituted under this Order by a business purchaser against a business vendor in relation to a contract in respect of any goods or service purchased, but excluding any claim

(a) arising from an agreement to which the Consumer Credit Act 1995 applies), or

(b) arising from an alleged breach of a leasing agreement, or

(c) for debt or liquidated damages,

provided that in every such case the amount of the claim does not exceed the sum of €2,000.00;

“consumer” means a purchaser of goods or a service of a type ordinarily supplied for private use or consumption, where the purchaser does not make the contract in the course of a business and the vendor does make the contract in the course of a business;

“consumer small claim” means a civil proceeding instituted under this Order

(1) in relation to a consumer contract, by the consumer against the vendor in respect of any goods or service purchased, which is not a claim—

(a) arising from an agreement to which the Consumer Credit Act 1995 applies, or

(b) arising from an alleged breach of a leasing agreement,

(2) in relation to a tort, by the claimant (not being a body corporate) against the respondent in respect of minor damage caused to property belonging to the claimant but excluding personal injuries,

(3) in relation to a tenancy, by the tenant (not being a body corporate) against the landlord in respect of the non-return of any sum paid by the tenant as rent deposit or any such sum known as "key money" unless such claim is a dispute that may be referred to the Private Residential Tenancies Board under Part 6 of the Residential Tenancies Act 2004,

provided that in every such case the amount of the claim does not exceed the sum of €2,000.00;

“Form”, unless the context otherwise requires, means a form set out in the schedule hereto, or such modification thereof as may be appropriate in any particular case;

“small claim”, when used without qualification, includes a business small claim and a consumer small claim;

“Small Claims Procedure” means the alternative method provided by this Order of commencing and dealing with a civil proceeding in respect of a small claim;

“Small Claims Registrar” means any District Court Clerk who for the time being is performing the duties and functions of a Small Claims Registrar.

2. Whenever it is intended to institute civil proceedings in the District Court and the claim to which the proceedings relate is a small claim as defined in this Order, the person so intending (in this Order called “the claimant”) may, instead of issuing a civil summons, make application to the appropriate Small Claims Registrar to have the claim processed through the Small Claims Procedure, and the proceedings may then be commenced and dealt with in accordance with the provisions of this Order.

3 An application to which rule 2 relates shall be in writing, which may be in electronic form, in the Form 53A.1, Schedule C. The application, when completed, shall be lodged with the Small Claims Registrar together with any supporting documents required and the appropriate fee. The claimant may call to the court office if assistance is needed in completing the form.

4 The Small Claims Registrar shall, in respect of every such application received, record in writing the name and address of the claimant, the name and address of the person against whom the claim is made (in this Order called “the respondent”), the date of the application, the nature of the claim and any other relevant details. The Small Claims Registrar shall consider the application and may take such steps as he deems necessary, whether by way of interviewing the claimant or otherwise, to record the full facts of the claim.

5 Where the claim does not come within the scope of the Small Claims Procedure or the claimant fails to supply supporting documents sufficient to identify the proper respondent to his or her claim, the Small Claims Registrar shall so inform the claimant and shall refund the fee. If the Small Claims Registrar considers the claim to be appropriate to the Small Claims Procedure, he shall serve by registered post (or, where permitted, by electronic mail in accordance with rule 15) on the respondent a Notice of Claim in the Form 53A.2 Schedule C (containing also Forms 53A.3 and 53A.4) together with a copy of the claim (Form 53A.1).

6. (1) If the respondent admits the claim made against him and

(a) agrees to pay the amount claimed, or

(b) consents to judgment being given against him, or

(c) wishes to pay the amount claimed by instalments,

he shall complete, detach and return (by post or by hand or, where permitted, by electronic mail in accordance with rule 15) the Notice of Acceptance of Liability (Form 53A.3 Schedule C) to the Small Claims Registrar within 15 days after service of the Notice of Claim and copy claim upon him. On receipt of such Notice the Registrar shall inform the claimant accordingly.

(2) Where the respondent agrees to pay the amount claimed, he may forward to the Small Claims Registrar, together with Form 53A.3, payment by cheque, postal order(s) or money order(s), made payable to the claimant, for the full amount claimed. The Small Claims Registrar shall transmit any such payment to the claimant. If the respondent's agreement to pay is conditional, (e.g. on condition that goods are returned by the claimant), the Small Claims Registrar shall so inform the claimant and seek his agreement to comply with the respondent's requirement.

(3) Where the respondent consents to judgment being given against him, the Small Claims Registrar shall proceed to judgment in the manner provided in rule 11.

(4) Where the respondent wishes to pay the amount claimed by instalments, the Small Claims Registrar shall seek the consent of the claimant to the terms proposed by the respondent.

(5) The details of every agreement reached or settlement effected under this rule shall be recorded in writing.

7. If the respondent disputes the claim or wishes to make a counterclaim, he shall complete, detach and return (by post or by hand or, where permitted, by electronic mail in accordance with rule 15) the Notice of Dispute in the Form 53A.4 Schedule C to the Small Claims Registrar within 15 days after the service of the Notice of Claim and copy claim upon him. Where a counterclaim is made the Notice of Dispute shall be accompanied by the appropriate fee (or where the Notice of Dispute is sent electronically, the fee shall be paid by cheque, postal order or money order to the Small Claims Registrar as soon as may be following transmission of the Notice of Dispute). The Small Claims Registrar shall promptly furnish the claimant with a copy of any Notice of Dispute received from the respondent.

8. (1) The Small Claims Registrar shall use his best endeavours to settle the dispute(s) between the parties and in that connection may interview the parties and any other person whom either party may wish him to hear. Where a settlement is effected, particulars of the settlement shall be recorded in writing.

(2) Where the terms of an agreement or settlement (including an agreement to pay by instalments) are not complied with, the Small Claims Registrar may, if requested so to do by the claimant, proceed to judgment against the other party. In cases other than those where payment by instalments has been agreed, he shall proceed in accordance with the provisions of rule.11. If default is made in the payment of an instalment, Order 46 rule 7(2) shall, with any necessary modifications, apply and Form 46.1 Schedule C prescribed therein (with any necessary amendments) may be used.

(3) Where a decree is issued in a case to which this rule relates, the Small Claims Registrar shall notify the party against whom it was issued accordingly and particulars of the request for and the issue and notification of such decree shall be recorded in writing.

9. (1) Where the Small Claims Registrar fails to effect a settlement of the dispute between the parties, he shall refer the matter to the District Court for hearing.

(2) The Registrar may at any time on his own initiative and shall, if so requested by either party, refer any application or proceeding under the Small Claims Procedure to the District Court for hearing.

(3) Upon referral under this rule, the Small Claims Registrar shall notify the parties of the place, date and time of hearing. He shall make himself available to assist the Court at the hearing, if requested by the Court so to do.

10. The claimant and the respondent shall be liable for their own legal costs and witnesses’ expenses (if any) incurred in respect of any claim processed through the Small Claims Procedure.

11. (1) Where the respondent fails to return either the Notice of Acceptance or Liability (Form 53A.3) or the Notice of Dispute (Form 53A.4) to the Small Claims Registrar within the time permitted and fails to contact the Small Claims Registrar within that period, he shall be deemed to have admitted the claim.

(2) The claimant may then apply for judgment by swearing an affidavit of debt and lodging same with the Small Claims Registrar together with a requisition for judgment and a Small Claims decree, and the Small Claims Registrar shall proceed to judgment in accordance with the provisions of Order 45 as if the Notice of Claim and copy claim served under these Rules were a civil summons issued and served under the Order 39. The forms of affidavit and decree provided in Order 45 may, with necessary modifications, be used for that purpose. The claimant may call to the court office if assistance is needed in completing the forms.

(3) When a decree is issued under this rule, the Small Claims Registrar shall notify the respondent accordingly, and particulars of such issue and notification shall be recorded in writing.

12. The provisions of rule 3 of Order 45 (which relates to the review of judgments) shall, with necessary modifications, apply in the case of a decree obtained under rule 8 or rule 11 and Order 45, rule 3 shall be construed accordingly, save that in any application pursuant to that rule in relation to a decree so obtained the parties shall be liable for their own legal costs and witnesses’ expenses (if any).

13. The Court shall not award costs or witnesses' expenses to any party when determining any matter referred to it by a Small Claims Registrar under the Small Claims Procedure. A decree granted in such a case shall be a Small Claims Decree, and the forms of decree at present in use may, with necessary modifications, be used when preparing the order of the Court.

14. (1) Every Small Claims Registrar shall have the power and is hereby authorised, to take affidavits and affirmations for the purposes of processing claims through the Small Claims Procedure and issuing decrees thereunder.

(2) No fee shall be payable by any party in respect of any affidavit or affirmation made by him before a Small Claims Registrar under this rule.

15. (1) Notwithstanding any other provision of these Rules, where suitable facilities for that purpose have been established by the Courts Service, and the Judge for the time being assigned to the relevant district (or in the case of the Dublin Metropolitan District, the President of the District Court) has so directed, the service of:

(i) a Notice of Claim by the Small Claims Registrar on a respondent;

(ii) a Notice of Acceptance of Liability by a respondent on the Small Claims Registrar;

(iii) a Notice of Dispute by a respondent on the Small Claims Registrar

shall be valid if transmitted in electronic form as an electronic communication to the respondent's electronic mail address (as identified on any letterhead or stationery of the respondent) or to the Small Claims Registrar's electronic mail address (as identified on a website operated by the Courts Service)

provided that where the sender is not satisfied that the electronic communication was delivered to the intended recipient (by reason of any delivery status message received) or where no response has been received within a period of seven days following such transmission, then the electronic communication shall be treated as if it had never been sent and the relevant document shall be served as provided for by rules5, 6 and 7 within eight days following such period.

(2) No document sent pursuant to the provisions of this rule shall be treated as invalid or ineffective by reason only of the fact that it does not include a manuscript signature.

(3) Where a provision of this Order requires that a fee or payment be “lodged together with or forwarded together with” a document or that a document be “accompanied by” a fee, such fee or payment shall be deemed to have been validly effected or made provided that it is sent to the Small Claims Registrar as soon as may be following the transmission in accordance with this rule of the document in question and accompanied by a written note quoting any reference or claim number given in respect of the small claim to which it relates.

(4) No document sent pursuant to the provisions of this rule shall be treated as invalid or ineffective by reason only of the fact that any fee associated with the lodgment or delivery of such document is recorded or receipted otherwise than by impression of a stamp on the original document.

Note: Orders 39, 45 and 46 form part of the District Court Rules 1997 (S.I. No. 93 of 1997, as amended).

 

Application (wrongly rejected) of 2013

 

Ireland Small Claims Court

Dublin

Chris Addington Pr.Eng.

versus

Royal Irish Academy (RIA)

AND TO:

AFFECTED PARTIES:

Taoiseach (PM)

Tanaiste (DPM)

Chief Justice

Garda (Police) Commissioner

Comptroller & Auditor General

& INTERESTED PARTIES (including those of the General Public)

June 15 to 25, 2013

(To Small-Claim Court:
1. please see under section Claim: Point 4.5
2. Application cover-sheet under separate email)

INDEX:

- Preamble

- Background

- RIA's Customer Charter

- Specifics of Claim

- Claim

Preamble:

I, the undersigned Christopher David Addington, am a Professional Engineer (equivalent Chartered Engineer)

I point out that every statement herein can be concretely proved to Court, but avoid submitting such proofs herein as they are extremely numerous & each lengthy. Consequently I set out matters in brief. If RIA should challenge then proofs will be submitted.

[From Court information:

'The small claims procedure is limited to:

13. a claim in respect of goods or services bought for private use from someone selling them in the course of a business (consumer claim).

14. a claim in respect of minor damage to property (but excluding personal injuries).

15. a claim in respect of the non-return of a rent deposit in relation to a holiday premises (actions relating to rent deposits for places of residence must be brought to the Private Residential Tenancies Board.)

Excluded from the small claims procedure are claims for:

15. a hire-purchase agreement

16. a breach of leasing agreement

17. debts

18. personal injuries]

A small claim may arise from sale/purchase of goods/service for private use, or for minor property damage. Consumer is synonymous with Customer.

This application concerns services provided by RIA as per their Customer Charter/Contract, purchased with public/taxpayer funds that for centuries has justified its very existence, which funds accrue from private persons taxed so as to provide beneficial services to all, and for consumption/use of same by private & public.

A contractual failure, governance failure, will ALWAYS cause consequent damage to property both private & public.

It would be a bizarre situation if a minor damage small claim was rejected simply because RIA could argue that they have done far greater damage publicly therefore any one private small claim is invalid within this Court because the aggregate exceeds the small claim limit.

Similarly: RIA provide services to public & private persons as Customer/s via its Customer/Royal Charter (see Customer Charter appended below; RIA have disingenuously removed the Royal Charter from their website (so it appears)- it would be bizarre to argue that the goods were not actually bought directly by any one individual but via public taxpayer funds, or to argue that service is not solely for private personal consumption and aggregated into public consumption; hence for RIA to wrongly argue it falls outside of a small claim.

Since Governance violations ALWAYS incur property damage, and first on a micro/small scale, later aggregating to macro-scale; it follows that governance failures must be addressed promptly and before significant property damage increases, it follows that governance violations fall within the ambit of small claims. Even the threat of a governance violation incurring consequent property damage justifies a small claim application.

The nature of this claim should be viewed in its correct light - that this Court simply imposes, partly, an outcome that would have been the case had the RIA correctly fulfilled its Governance obligations as per its Charter/Contract- consequently this Claim should not be seen as a penalty but simply an enforcement of what should have transpired in the first instance.

This Court should also recognise the global implications of this matter, and of Governance failures in general:

- the demonstrations against G8 currently (June 15) taking place outside Dublin’s Garden of Remembrance (& elsewheres) & the various & numerous conflicts around the world such as Syria, Libya, Egypt, the Global Economy Meltdown, etc., etc. - that these upheavals stem from economic instability which derives from global corporate Organised Crime that emanates as oppressive Economy Terrorism - which corporate abuses are made possible by the applications of grossly defective & hence massively destructive academic 'science' (physics & economics) models - which 'science' models give false credibility to otherwise fraudulent corporate scams - which scams have over some 5 to 6 decades artificially inflated global Money Base & Supply with artificial/counterfeit money - which artificial money has grossly skewed economies destructively - which destruction produces the anger & violence that we presently observe - and which Tsunami backwash from collapsed Money Base & Supply has caused the Global Economy Meltdown - and the consequent opposition we observe in the Garden of Remembrance & elsewheres & the understandable armed violence in opposition to Economy Terrorism in the middle-east.

The most notable of these defective economics models can be viewed at Nobel Prize website - I point out that John Nash is the only Nobel Prize winner to make a retraction (admittedly only partial) of his models due to my R&D that disproved its validity.

Significant Causal Dynamics within my R&D has been adjudicated by a Central Bank Governor & 2 other eminent persons (proofs of same are available).

The polarisation between Vladimir Putin and other key G7's (Barack Obama, David Cameron most notably) stems directly from the economic turmoil created by oppressive western economic models utilised within Russia post-Wall collapse. Putin recognises that the West's economic models do not work, other than impose Economy Terrorism upon others, including Russia; it leaves opposition as the only option available to Putin (& Syria) - unless & until the West engage Economy Engineering & develop stable economy systems & controls.

But that is not possible if corporates & institutions can blatantly evade Governance and as a consequence maintain corporate Organised Crime which collectively produces Economy Terrorism.

All this is why it is imperative that Governance violations are addressed promptly BEFORE minor property & other damage increase to major damage.

A Governance violation is a small claim issue; the fact that enforced compliance of a micro event brings macro benefits does not increase any one claim beyond it being small.

Ireland is signatory to the Rome Statute & Universal Declaration of Human Rights; it follows that the UDHR is Supreme Law and that Ireland's Constitution & Law are SUBORDINATE to the UDHR.

Property under UDHR is all-inclusive: fixed, moveable, tangible, intangible.

In terms of Small Claims, 'damage to property' includes 'property' as fully envisaged under the Constitution & Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR) - it would be an Article 30 violation of UDHR were this full interpretation of 'property' not upheld - these are both fixed & moveable, both tangible & intangible, and claims for property damage include, are measured by, time-wastage costs in (self) rectification of property damage.

In short: Governance violations, although small issues in any one case, collectively in the aggregate have massive DESTRUCTIVE macro-impacts - Consequently enforced compliance, via a small claim, can also collectively have massive CONSTRUCTIVE macro-impacts.

G8 are currently (June 18) meeting in Ireland to find ways to solve the global economy problems - the Justice system needs, willingly, to be part of the solution.

Background

The RIA was intended to be & should be an academy for excellence in the pursuit of the sciences & humanities and formed under Royal Charter by King George III on January 28, 1786, BUT abusive actions by RIA President & Council have grossly undermined this; subsequent to various of my Intellectual Property inputs the RIA recently (2013) transformed its juristic persona characteristics through the adoption of a Customer Charter. It is pointed out that the Intellectual Property of mine, consumed by the RIA, was not paid for by the RIA -> a governance violation by RIA.

The RIA's very existence has largely been possible due to support from state funds, the state having been in various forms in Ireland's history; nevertheless RIA funding has derived from State funds essentially derived from taxpayers' monies (or from private monies defrauded by corporate Organised Crime, concrete proofs available)

In short a Contract has existed since inception of the RIA, between the RIA & the public in its various & numerous forms from the singular natural persona to juristic collective bodies, and the new Customer Charter confirms such contract (charter & contract being synonymous terms)

The same applies to all Royal Chartered & similar institutions globally.

Royal Society Paul Nurse (the Speaker at the discourse referred to herein) is also hostile toward me not only for my having disproved Newton's Opticks but also for my demonstrating that the RS's history is steeped in dishonesty stemming from Newton.

Since beginning to attend various functions such as discourses, seminars, conferences at the RIA I had noticed much lack of Governance. My raising of objections created animosity, but nevertheless transforms occurred, the new Customer Charter being one transform.

Nevertheless animosity from RIA has strongly remained such that at events the various chairpersons have clearly been instructed to ignore my raised-hand during question time.

I have also raised strong objection regarding the ex RIA president Nicholas Canny publicly insulting Ireland's bus drivers with his self-superior statements, no apology was forthcoming from RIA to the bus drivers nor to myself for the attack against me for objecting.

Much hostility by RIA has remained - on one occasion a Member physically assaulted & orally insulted me whilst I objected to a governance violation by RIA.

Amongst my Professional Engineering work I have created clearer understandings of why economies, locally & globally, go boom/bust, have pioneered Economy Engineering; but have also pursued research & development into physics. This research led to the realisation that Newton's Opticks were wrong; and consequently Edwin Hubble's 'expanding universe' & Albert Einstein's energy & relativity theories were wrong. My R&D further showed, beyond any reasonable doubt, that Newton had stolen the Intellectual Property behind the Opticks works.

My R&D has also realised incorrect interpretations of weather & climate, which is why forecasting is not so effective.

It is now over 2 years since my revelations concerning Newton's Opticks errors and I have repeatedly requested from the RIA an Open Meeting to present these findings, as the Royal/Customer Charter provides - this request has been hostilely denied. Children, right now, are wrongly being educated with defective science. However the President Luke Drury (LD) eventually agreed to a private meeting on May 9 last. Being a private meeting I was restrained from reporting fully on the events but was able to report points of fact - which I did the following day. However, the circumstances which were causal of this claim now releases me from such restraint.

It is important to recognise that LD is a theoretical (not an experimental) astro-physicist and that my R&D into Newton's opticks has essentially proved much of LD's life's work to be incorrect, as with Stephen Hawking, Richard Dawkins and with the IPCC & Mary Robinson in relation to climate change, and with science academia in general. My R&D has completely transformed the generally long-held view of how the Universe & World functions in its (near) most fundamental manner.

It is understandable, as I full well know as an engineer, the gut wrench when one discovers that one has been wrong in any particular project/task - but professionalism compels acceptance & meticulous correction of the error; and not to sweep it out of sight.

The same cannot be said of scientists who do not operate under statutory regulated professional body as such (or as to the best of my knowledge)

As a consequence of my R&D disproving Newton, LD has become increasingly hostile; during the private meeting it took much of the time cajoling him into actually observing through a prism to which he repeatedly fell back to repeating incorrect theories; but it was when the sun came out briefly, even though weakly, that I could demonstrate with sunlight that Newton WAS wrong - at that point of realisation LD became extremely agitated & angry and kept insisting I leave the academy house, which I did whilst trying to reason with him en route to the exit. RIA security cameras can verify this.

The hostility from LD has not diminished despite my numerous attempts to keep matters on a constructive path; the RIA Council also do not respond to my communications as is required of them - this is in direct breach of the Royal Charter & new Customer Charter.

I also point out that academia in general is held subservient to the governance violations/abuses by the RIA. R&D grants are won or lost based upon academics toeing the RIA's 'line'. Oppose, and grants are cut-off/not awarded. This is a gross abuse & explains why academics produce 'science' works that conform to the needs of corporates, which becomes Organised Crime, and explains why science has gone far-off track into science fiction, both physics & especially economics.

Corporate Organised Crime, and hence oppressive & destructive Economy Terrorism, occurs partly because Grants are not being correctly distributed on Merit grounds.

A particular RIA event occurred in a Trinity College auditorium a few year ago - a Nobel Prize scientist was lecturing with an Irish Times reporter acting as Chair - I raised objections to the reporter, being an unqualified person, acting as Chair of a science lecture - the reporter made many incorrect science statements - yet, not one of the numerous senior science academics in attendance dared to challenge RIA's gross Governance violation - because of fear of reprisals.

The public are largely misinformed by 'science' reporters, who are unqualified, who in turn are being misinformed by unregulated 'scientists', and who hostilely refuse to accept that Newton's opticks are wrong.

BBC regularly present 'science' programmes presented by unqualified, unregulated persons. Of note is a recent series presented by Marcus du Sautoy, whom I keep regularly informed of my R&D. On Monday June 24 BBC4 aired a new 2013 programme: Precision: The Measure of all Things. Du Sautoy falsely presented disproved 'science' pertaining to Newton's Opticks - including omitting evidence on a sketch diagram that proved ownership of IP to another unknown person. Later in the programme he presented personnel from UK's National Physical Laboratory who reinforced incorrect interpretations of light stemming from errors in opticks stemming from Newton's dishonesty.

The evidence of opticks errors have been presented to RIA President Luke Drury but he is in hostile denial, and he & RIA Council, and other academic institutions, refuse an Open Meeting to air the proofs of my R&D that disproves 350 years of incorrect opticks.

There are many other important points to consider, some of which are:

- that the majority of RIA members are academics funded by taxpayers' money - this means our money is being used by RIA to entrench Organised Crime which works against us, hence economic turmoil.

- ex-President Mary Robinson's Climate Justice is supported by Richard Branson a corporate criminal that has built his business through defrauded employee pensions & other scams. (Note: I have for long & regularly kept Branson informed of these facts, he has chosen not to challenge me, because these statements are true & proofs are available - Branson has accepted these truths, hence no one else can claim the statements are abusive or defamatory. The fact that Justice/Police do not investigate & prosecute Branson is proof of breakdown in Justice system)

- the RIA's Customer Charter was unilaterally imposed upon the people, the Public had no inputs into its establishment - which is a governance violation. Consequently any interpretation of the Charter must be such that the Customer receives full benefit of any doubt as to interpretations, or of any Rights violations.

- the fact that RIA are actively assisting corporates with defective academic models, which is the means by which Organised Crime is legitimised, and that Justices are members of the RIA, is what causes the Justice System to be undermined.

- RIA fail to display Minutes of General & other Meetings on their website, and the contents of minutes are totally inadequate & with relevant issues purposefully omitted.

- Conferences, seminars, discourses from RIA are essentially 'one-way' communications; any attempt to counter defective points is cut-short & interaction limited to questions, which wrongly assumes that what went before justifies a question rather than, and often, a rebuttal.

At one General Meeting I raised a 'point-of-order' concerning some of the above points but was immediately abusively shouted down by LD & with one or two hecklers in support. This confirms that the RIA has no intention of fulfilling its Customer/Royal Charter obligations of engaging with the public, or of transparently keeping the public correctly informed, or of achieving excellence in the sciences & humanities. The purpose of these obstructions to valid objections being simply to maintain defective science giving false credibility to corporate Organised Crime.

And how better to do it, than having Justices on board!

Another crucial factor behind RIA's Governance violations is the failure of the Comptroller & Auditor General fulfilling its duties in auditing the RIA.

[From Comptroller & Auditor General website:

'Mission

To provide independent assurance that public money is properly managed and spent to good effect and to contribute to improvements in public administration

The role of the Office is to

• audit and report on the accounts of public bodies

• establish that transactions of public bodies are in accordance with the legal authorities governing them and that funds are applied for the purposes intended

• provide assurance on the system of internal financial control put in place by each body

• examine whether each body administers its resources economically and efficiently and has mechanisms in place to evaluate the effectiveness of operations

• authorise the release of funds from the Exchequer for purposes permitted by law

In implementing this mandate account is taken of the special considerations which attach to the management of public funds including the requirements of probity and sound corporate governance']

The C&AG does not audit the award of funds for research & development, or of RIA's general operations. The term 'probity' does not feature in the functioning of the RIA because C&AG does not compel such compliance - 'probity' is that all encompassing term that closes any & all loopholes for those intent on governance violations.

It is because probity is absent that RIA can shout down legitimate opposition & objections, call on police & Justices to maintain governance violations -> and hence R&D is grossly skewed to maintaining corporate Organised Crime.

Governments are strongly influenced by academic 'science' models, with much influence from RIA, which impact on government policies & law, which then skew economies detrimentally, resulting in protests. Governments can simply claim they are following 'Best Advice/Practice', yet government/s know that RIA, hence academia, do not comply with Governance, which is why RIA can produce defective 'science' models.

This Court should not attribute any significance to the fact that two Justices, including Chief Justice, are members of the RIA. Outside of their Offices they are no different to any other persons, entitled to no especial privileges other than allowed for through legitimate remunerations & protections, are bound by court orders, including those from this Small Claim Court. Therefore this Court must not be swayed into thinking that some members of RIA being Justices gives credibility to the RIA. The numerous governance violations confirms RIA's lack of credibility.

The RIA have for long been in gross violation of even the most basic of Governance Principles - hence RIA do NOT purse Excellence.

The RIA's position over my R&D that disproves Newton's Opticks is not dissimilar to flat-earth thinkers oppressively opposing (then, centuries ago) new science that showed the world round.

Whether the Court agrees or disagrees with my R&D results is IMMATERIAL to the fact that the RIA has CONTRACTUALLY failed to address the issues in an appropriate forum, and allowing me to interact with Academic Freedom - this contractual failure by RIA is the cause of the claim herein.

The contractual failure is also the governance failure.

(I also point out that Ireland's communications infrastructure is compromised by USA & UK invasion - the recent revelations in the media concerning Edward Snowden's release of information concerning USA & UK spying, is also affecting Ireland. Both UPC.ie & Eircom.ie are unlawfully destroying/blocking state communications.

Both UPC & Eircom are owned & controlled by USA ISPs that are destroying and/or spying on sovereign state & other legitimate communications & websites. Due to my R&D Eircom have recently changed their corporate structure - Eircom have consumed my IP without payment.

Garda (Police) Commissioner refuses to uphold the law and hence refuses to act - in fact he now blocks my email address; the Chief Justice refuses to uphold the Constitution and hence refuses to act)

RIA's Customer Charter

(appended below)

NOTES:

- The term 'general public' means the private persons individually aggregated into the collective 'public'

- the term 'use' means to 'consume'

Consequently the intended purpose of the RIA's Charter is a contract which meets the requirements for a Small Claim, vis: 'a claim in respect of goods or services bought for private use from someone selling them in the course of a business (consumer claim)'

Governance failures/abuses by RIA incur property damage.

- RIA wrongly mixes stakeholders with customers

- RIA wrongly gives its Academy members priority over the general public

- RIA opposes achievements in learning by denying Newton was wrong

Particulars of Claim

On Friday June 14, 2013 the RIA held a long advertised (more than 12 months) Discourse by Royal Society President Paul Nurse (see email attached below). By error I had made two bookings on different dates hence had reserved 2 seats.

On arrival at the RIA Academy House I was confronted by staff with a names list, it transpired that my name was not on the list despite having made 2 bookings.

It quickly became clear that the RIA had purposefully changed the title of the discourse & hence now stated that the tickets I held were for a cancelled event & that the current evening's event was entirely different. I pointed out that no notice of cancellation had been sent out, that the current event was the same venue as the booked event, on the same date, at the same time, by the same person - and that the ONLY difference was the title of the discourse, which change of title has occurred in other discourses before at the RIA but without rebooking necessary.

(Old Title: Great Ideas of Biology; New Title: Making Science Work)

Another female member stated that I could not go in because of Health & Safety reasons - the mind boggles that Ireland can be held enslaved to such feeble arguments; 'health & safety' is often used as the first line of opposition so as to not do anything.

I had to side-step Pauric Dempsey (PD, who has previously without any cause physically assaulted & orally insulted me) to speak to Luke Drury - it quickly became clear that LD's unwarranted anger, over my R&D having destroyed long-held science theories & much of LD's science works, was still seething within LD. LD stated that I was abusive to the Academy in having insulted the Chief Justice Susan Denham. I pointed out that I was simply making a valid/lawful (political) statement (that the Chief Justice had undermined the Judiciary & its Impartiality by accepting membership of the RIA which did not uphold Honesty), and politely so.

On the grounds LD had stated, he demanded that I leave the Academy - it was clear then that this was the true & only reason behind the devious concoction of changing the name of the discourse - so as to deny me access, to deny Academic Freedom, and by devious manipulations.

(This is not dissimilar to a patient thumping a doctor for breaking bad news to the patient)

I pointed out again that I had made a booking (x2) & showed him the print out of the email (below), that no notice of cancellation of the other discourses had been sent out. LD restated PD's statement that it was a different event.

I reiterated that no notice of cancellation had been sent out, that the current event was the same venue as the booked event, on the same date, at the same time, by the same person - and that the ONLY difference was the title of the discourse, which change of title has occurred in other discourses before at the RIA but without rebooking necessary.

It was clear LD's bravado had increased a number of clicks now that he had bought on board Chief Justice Susan Denham as a member of the RIA, to join another member, Supreme Court Justice, Adrian Hardiman.

LD demanded I leave; I stated again that I had a valid booking & that there were always plenty of seats available (by 18h00 start there were still plenty available) - LD stated that he would call the police (garda); I said that was fine, this because we needed to establish the extent to which the RIA can & will abusively call upon State Authority to entrench the RIA's dishonesty & undermine Academic Freedom.

(It is interesting to note that on Monday June 10, 4 days prior, the RIA held a Seminar: Values in University Education: From Academic Freedom to Impact; David Puttnam (UK, House of Lords & Open University Chancellor) also presented by weblink.

In the seminar it was pointed out that London School of Economics had recently pulled one of their conferences in the middle-east (Bahrain?) because of government interference with speakers (but now RIA was prepared to destroy Academic Freedom)

I raised to Puttnam that the RIA was in hostile denial over my having disproved Newton's Opticks - of which Puttnam is fully aware as I keep him & Parliament informed of my Professional Engineering R&D; Puttnam went off on a tangent about Ove Arup engineers and purposefully avoided/evaded addressing the issue)

After some 15 minutes 2 police constables arrived (B480 John Starkey & B471 Kenneth? Clince). I pointed out the issues but the police were not prepared to protect against UDHR & Constitutional abuses by the RIA - and, despite my warning that they were abusing their powers and corrupting Academic Freedom (or to effect), the police warned that if I did not leave then I was trespassing - it was clear the police were prepared not to uphold Rights.

I restated that there were plenty seats available and insisted that they view the evidence for themselves - they refused to verify the evidence. I took their names & left

Shortly after, outside, constable JS took my details in his notebook, more a scrap-book. From what I had learnt on a South African Police Reserve training programme years ago -> notebooks had to be meticulously filled-in, no gaps betweens entries, entries lined-off, no missing pages, etc. JS's scrap-book falls far short of professionalism.

BUT, this is not to blame JS, but to blame the generally corrupt nature of Ireland's Police executive, as often stated by the media, headed by Commissioner Martin Callinan & Judiciary headed by Denham, who both continue undermining, as did their predecessors, according to media reports. This is not dissimilar to the status in UK, USA, SA & around the world. NOTE:- global corporate Organised Crime could not be entrenched even if only one Justice System stood up to global corporate crooks.

It is stressed that both JS & KC were polite, but both refused to uphold Rights.

It is beyond all comprehension that Luke Drury & Paul Nurse could corrupt themselves to undermine Academic Freedom and to call upon State Authority to act as thugs; and beyond comprehension that Susan Denham & Adrian Hardiman can undermine themselves and the Judiciary & Justice System by joining a generally dishonest, immoral Academy.

My R&D as a Professional Engineer has been, partly, to establish the Causal Links that have created an unstable Global Economy; to identify principally the dynamics and, consequently, the key personas, natural & juristic, that are scheming the scams that collectively make up global corporate Organised Crime.

It is this collective corporate Organised Crime that imposes Economy Terrorism upon the World; which drives impoverishment, enslavement (including forcing women into sexual prostitution) & is causal of socio-economic upheaval that erupts into civil war - as we see in the middle-east.

Peace initiatives cannot be sustained because the underlying economic models are the very cause of destabilisation.

The professional/academic dereliction, governance violations, by Luke Drury, Paul Nurse, Susan Denham, Adrian Hardiman, are part contributory to global Organised Crime.

RIA have failed to fulfil its Royal Charter; its Customer charter; its Mission Statement, Customer Service Statement, General Customer Care statement & its Complaints procedures - all of which falls under the general term of Governance.

The nature of this claim is:- to compel Governance compliance by RIA, a small-claim is a simple means for attaining enforced compliance, for compensation for wastage/loss/damage of Intellectual Property reflected in the time-damage/loss of same,

and all due to RIA's Governance & Contractual violations through its abusive actions.

Claim:

1. To direct the RIA to contractually comply with its Customer Charter/Royal Charter and fully comply with all reasonable Governance requirements

2. To direct the RIA to contractually comply with its Customer Charter/Royal Charter and to promptly hold an Open Meeting to hear & consider my evidence concerning Newton's Opticks errors.

3. To direct the RIA to contractually comply with its Customer Charter/Royal Charter and to cease & desist from any further attacks, insults or unwarranted obstructions against me

4. To direct the RIA to pay wasted time-costs due to access denial to June 14 Discourse of (6 hours x E324.00) + E25.00 = E1969.00 (One Thousand Nine Hundred & Sixty Nine Euros)

   1. (2 hours preparation, 1.5 hours travel, 2.5 hours of lost work-time due to distractions of RIA abuses = 6 hours)

   2. Reiterate: this is not a penalty but simply a correct (part) award of a Research Grant that should have been awarded by RIA had Merit been correctly applied to adjudication of my R&D.

   3. Based upon Engineers Ireland generally accepted professional/chartered engineer rates of 18c/hour per E100 of gross annual salary of a mid-career Chartered/Professional Engineer at E60,000 Gross = E108.00 per hour (One Hundred & Eight Euros per hour)

   4. BUT, I point out that I am a senior Professional Engineer in qualifications & experience, that my professional R&D is at the forefront of pioneering new sciences (Physics & Economics) that disproves centuries-long-standing theories & progresses science into new correct directions; therefore I contend that the hourly rate of E108.00 does not reflect the seniority or standard of my work-time; and that a factor of 3 would be more appropriate even though still not reflecting the true higher value of my work-time => E324.00 peer hour. I point out that the value of my R&D to Ireland alone far exceeds 100 Billion Euros, globally the value runs into the Trillions - I can provide evidence of my professional work to prove my claims)

   5. Due to the fact that governments have not paid me for my R&D AND because corporates are openly hostile to me, I have not been properly paid for some ten years, consequently I am unable to afford the fee for this application & request condonation for same.

Sincerely

Chris Addington Pr.Eng.

This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it., This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.,

+353 (0)86 168 4318

-------- Original Message --------

Subject:	Royal Irish Academy Event
Date:	22 Jan 2013 14:48:00 +0000
From:	This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
To:	cdadd

Event: Academy Discourse: Great Ideas of Biology
Date of Registration: Tuesday, January 22, 2013

Venue: Belfast/Dublin - Venue TBC
Date: 13th/14th June 2013, 6 pm

Thank you for registering for Academy Discourse: Great Ideas of Biology, you have booked 2 tickets. Please print this email to use as your ticket.
Please do not reply directly to this email. All queries should be sent to This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

RIA website:

Academy Discourse: Making Science Work

Sir Paul Nurse, will give a discourse on Making Science Work at The Great Hall, Queen's University Belfast and Academy House, Dublin on 13 and 14 June. More Details.

ROYAL IRISH ACADEMY

CUSTOMER CHARTER

Mission Statement

The Royal Irish Academy (RIA), the academy for the sciences and humanities for the

whole of Ireland, will vigorously promote excellence in scholarship, recognise

achievements in learning, and undertake its own research project, particularly in

areas relating to Ireland and its heritage. It will reflect upon, advise on and contribute

to public debate and public policy formation on issues of major interest in science,

technology and culture. It will continue to offer an independent forum to Irish

scholars, it will provide a network of support for scholarly disciplines through its

network of academic committees and commissions, it will maintain and enhance its

unique library, it will publish scholarly papers and it will represent the world of Irish

learning internationally.

Customer Service Statement

The Academy is fully committed to the pursuit of excellence in all aspects of its

service to its stakeholders and customers, both external and internal. We will seek to

ensure that this commitment is met at all times by using our resources in an efficient

and effective way.

Our stakeholders/customers consist of the Academy’s Members, the wider academic

community, members of our specialist academic committees, users of our Library,

the general public, the Higher Education Authority, relevant government

departments, and, internally, the Academy’s staff.

General Customer Care

The Academy is committed to providing its services in a professional, considerate,

courteous and open manner. We will be sensitive to our customers’ particular needs

and circumstances and respect their rights under equality and other legislation.

The Academy is committed to delivering a high-level quality service.

The Academy is committed to providing equality of treatment The Academy is

committed to the principles of modernisation and flexibility in its work practices. It will

take all necessary steps available to it to achieve greater efficiency and effectiveness

in the provision of its services.

Staff members will respond to communications, whether by letter, email, phone-call

or fax, promptly and courteously. Every effort will be made to provide substantive

responses within a reasonable timeframe to queries from stakeholders and

customers.

We will continue to expand and develop our web site and to maximise the electronic

availability of information, and publications.

We are committed to the use of up-to-date modern technology so that our services

continue to maintain a high technical standard.

We will continue to take steps towards full implementation of the relevant provisions

of the Official Languages Act 2003.

We will endeavour to develop and maintain good internal communications so that

there is an integrated approach to serving our customers/stakeholders in a prompt

and responsive way.

We will continue to ensure that all Academy publications are of the highest quality in

content, style and presentation.

Academy House, 19 Dawson Street, Dublin 2, is the main centre of the Academy’s

activities, hosting many conferences, symposia etc. The Academy’s Library, with its

highly significant manuscript collection, is located there also. Physical access to

Academy House for persons with impaired mobility is limited because of the physical

structure of the 18th century building. A ramp and invalid chair have been installed in

Academy House in recent years, so facilitating persons with physical disability to

enter both the lower ground and ground floors of Academy House. In effect, this

means that such persons can attend functions in the Academy’s public rooms and

use the Academy’s Library facilities.

Complaints

If a person is dissatisfied with the standard of service received, she/he may contact

the relevant head of the section concerned who will investigate the matter. The

outcome of the investigation will be reviewed by the Executive Secretary who will

issue a written response to the person who made the complaint. All such reviews will

take cognisance of existing laws, rules, practice or policy of the Academy or the

generally accepted principles of equity and good administrative practice.

How to contact the Academy:

The Royal Irish Academy

19 Dawson Street

Dublin 2.

Telephone: 01 6762570

Fax: 01 6762346

Email: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Web site:

www.ria.ie