💾 Archived View for eir.mooo.com › nuacht › lui168243969115.gmi captured on 2023-04-26 at 13:28:56. Gemini links have been rewritten to link to archived content
-=-=-=-=-=-=-
David Hurley, 25 Apr
A HIGH Court judge has ruled the taxpayer does not have to pay the
legal costs of parties, including a Limerick woman, who are seeking
orders including the mass exhumation of all people under 80-years who
died suddenly after getting the Covid-19 vaccination, if they lose
their action.
As well as seeking the exhumations, so that the bodies can undergo
autopsy's, the three persons taking the case also want the court to
make orders preventing children aged between 5 and 11 years from
receiving the Covid-19 vaccination.
The proceedings are against the Taoiseach, the HSE and the Minister for
Health, who all oppose the action which they say is "alarmist and
scandalous."
Ruling on a preliminary issue in the action, Mr Justice Michael Twomey
said that the court was not prepared to make a protective cost order in
favour of Sharon Browne of Garryowen in Limerick, David Egan from
Galway City and Emmanual Lavery of Rear Cross, County Tipperary.
The plaintiffs, he said, had "by a long way" failed to comply with the
various conditions that need to be satisfied to allow a court to make a
protective costs order.
The granting of such an order, which the plaintiffs had sought, would
have meant that they would not have had to pay the legal costs of
taking the proceedings even if they are unsuccessful in their action.
[1550246516734.jpg--limerick_woman_launches_legal_action_to_stop_vaccin
ation_of_children_against_covid_19.jpg?1550246519000]
Limerick woman launches legal action to stop vaccination of children
against Covid-19
The judge said that while the outcome of the case was a matter for the
judge hearing the full action, the court was not convinced that the
plaintiffs claim has "any, let alone a real, prospect of success."
The judge said that he was not satisfied within the first hour of the
hearing of the pre-trial application to grant the protective costs.
It would not be fair to grant such an order, nor had the case raised
any point of law of any special and general public importance.
The judge said the plaintiffs were in effect seeking an order from the
court that would "subsidise them in suing the state," and allow them to
avoid be subjected to the general legal principal that "the loser pays"
the legal costs incurred.
Mr Justice Twomey, said that the plaintiffs "do not have the right to
make such extraordinary broad and scandalous claims based on internet
speculation", and "do not have a right to pursue such litigation at the
cost of the taxpayer. "
If they believe that their "extraordinary claims" will be successful,
then they will need to "back their belief with their own money and not
at the expense of the taxpayer."
In addition to finding that the case has no prospect of success, the
judge said that he deemed the action, which includes baseless claims of
mass killings and comparisons to Nazi Germany, an abuse of process.
The judge said the plaintiffs claim the vaccine is "a bio-weapon" and
compared the administration of the vaccine to the actions of the Nazis
in World War 2.
[Untitled_design_-_2023-04-25T111633.148-1682417801508.jpg--gardai_seek
_to_identify_man_who_vandalised_limerick_bus.jpg?1682417801555]
Gardai seek to identify man who vandalised Limerick bus
The applicants also sought orders seeking the mass disinterment of the
bodies of all vaccinated persons under 80 years of age who died
suddenly in the last two and a half years so that they could under go a
specific type of autopsy sought by the plaintiffs.
They further seek a full public commission of Inquiry into the use of
early treatments for Covid-19, the judge noted.
As well as making claims about "mass killings" the plaintiff had made
several other "breath-taking claims" in thousands of pages of
documentation.
These included the claim that the Covid-19 vaccine inserts nanochips
into recipients, and that the use of the bioweapon is part of a plan by
US tech Billionaire Bill Gates to "depopulate the world".
"The alleged evidence for all of the plaintiff's claims is a
combination of hearsay, speculation, commentary, questions, internet
sites, blogs YouTube videos, etc" the judge said.
While it is important that every citizen has access to the courts, the
judge said that a key issue in the proceedings was who is going to pay
for the very considerable legal costs incurred.
While the plaintiffs, subject to the defamation laws, are "perfectly
free to express on the internet and elsewhere their views on
conspiracies regarding the Covid 19 vaccine", the judge said that "it
is a separate matter if they should be facilitated in making these
claims in court."
The plaintiffs he said "appear to genuinely believe that they are
acting in the public interest and appear to be completely convinced of
the claims they make about mass killings and a need for national
disinterment of bodies.
However not being motivated by personal gain was not enough to be
granted a protective costs order, or to have taxpayers' monies diverted
for their own purposes rather than other causes.
[1521638296724_1678721257.jpg--limerick_mum_speaks_of_pain_as_son_s_kil
ler_remained_free_for_more_than_four_years.jpg?1678721257446]
Limerick man jailed for nine years over fatal stabbing in nightclub
The judge said he was taking the provisional view that the costs of the
preliminary hearing, which ran for one day before the High Court should
be measured and paid by the plaintiffs.
He was making this provisional finding because the "unmeritorious"
claims in this case had to be defended at the taxpayers' expense.
This costs order, he said should be made as soon, as possible in order
to act as a deterrent and to discourage in the strongest possible way
further abuse of process by the plaintiffs.
The judge who invited submissions from the parties in relation to the
costs of the hearing of the preliminary issue, adjourned the matter to
a date next month.