On 31st July 2009. Mr Maurice Lyons was committed to life imprisonment by the Irish High Court Judge, Mr.Justice Birminghman for his unfailing support of his Family and his Faith.

This day was a dark day for those who espouse the belief that Ireland is a civilised country where justice prevails in the courts.

Mr Justice Birmingham in the High Court had the seizing of Maurice Lyons' application for a writ of Habeas Corpus in which the State were required to show that they had lawful cause for his arrest from his home and detention in the Midlands Prison for the past 30 days.

The law requires that all matters of keen public interest, such as why a man is in prison who has not been found to have committed any crime, must be carried out in public so that justice can be seen to be done.

It is especially pertinent where a man is in prison, as Maurice Lyons is, for simply wishing to remain faithful to and uphold his Marriage.

After Maurice was brought into court still wearing handcuffs, disgracefully Justice Birmingham cleared the court and members of the public were told that if they remained in the courtroom they would face imprisonment for contempt. Mr Justice Birmingham refused to answer any questions from the public as to why they were being excluded from hearing the case. Mr Justice Birmingham told the public that he wished to take a portion of the case in private but that the public would then be readmitted.

The public reluctantly left and took Mr Justice Birmingham at his word that they would be allowed back to observe the substantive issues of the Habeas Corpus application.

After a short time the judge's clerk came out and said that Maurice had asked for me to assist him as a McKenzie friend. I said that could not be true as a Mckenzie friend is a legal term used only where there were Family Law proceedings taking place and that Maurice was here only to have his Habeas Corpus application heard.

They took my refusal to be a McKenzie friend back to the Judge. This was plainly an attempt to ambush Maurice into accepting the court's jurisdiction in Family law matters.

Their trick failed so after another short time they returned to say that the judge had confirmed that he was not to hear Family Law and when I then went in to assist Maurice the Judge reiterated to me what he had assured Maurice - that he was not exercising any Family Law jurisdiction.

However immediately after I had sat down counsel - presumably for the Attorney General - claimed that I should not be admitted because I had broken the "in-camera" rule by posting on the Internet details of proceedings that had taken place under the Judicial Separation Act. She handed up to Mr Justice Birmingham a copy of some print-out without furnishing me with a copy. I asked if I could show that she was telling a lie because I have only sent out private emails in relation to this case and I had never posted anything about the case on the Internet.

The rules of justice require that the judge hears both sides. However Mr Justice Birmingham would not allow me to talk and make my "defence". He would only allow Maurice to talk and Maurice can not vouch for my actions one way or the other. He then ruled in favour of the Attorney General and required me to again leave.

Before I left Maurice made the argument that the judge had not yet heard his legal argument which was that there had never been any valid proceedings because the State/Court doesn't obtain jurisdiction for there to be valid proceedings until there is an Appearance from both Spouses and he had declined to make an Appearance and participate. He said that if the judge ruled at that point in favour of the Attorney General that there had been valid proceedings he was pre-judging the case and acting prejudicially and with bias against him. Mr Justice Birmingham reaffirmed his order in favour of the Attorney General and required me to leave.

When I came out I asked Mr Harry Rea to assist Maurice as best he could in the circumstances as he was not briefed as I was. The rest of the members of the public continuously asked of the judge's clerk to be readmitted as they were promised by Mr Justice Birmingham. However after another short while the court emptied and Maurice was led out again in handcuffs. The judge had found against Maurice and was in effect committing him to a sentence of life-imprisonment until he accepts that the State had authority to break up his Marriage without his authority even where he remained open to Reconciliation. In order to be released he must sign a document that says he is asking the Court to grant him a Judicial Separation. In other words he is being asked to dishonour the covenant of Marriage he made with God as well as his wife. He will never do that and no State/Court has any authority to demand it by force of imprisonment.

Importantly it must be noted that Mr Justice Birmingham, by not allowing the public back into the hearing as he promised, was reneging on the assurance he gave to the public that they would be allowed to witness the State/Court showing their bona fides. The writ of Habeas Corpus is there for the benefit of the State/Court, not for the prisoner. It allows the State an opportunity to show that it is acting on behalf of a civilised State and within the law where it detains a man against his will. The public will be assured by this process that the State/Court is not acting in an arbitrary and biased manner against a particular person or class of person by being able to prove to the satisfaction of the public the validity of any Orders or warrants it has employed.

By excluding the public from the totality of the hearing the State/Court have yet to show they have just cause and the public must presume that the State/Court is acting in an arbitrary and biased manner against Maurice because of his commitment to the Family founded on Marriage. It failed to assure citizens that it does not operate a secret "Star Chamber" like the Diplock courts or as it is alleged occurred in Guantanamo Bay.

Furthermore the law requires in Ireland and under the European Convention on Human Rights that ALL orders and judgements MUST be given in public. Even where it be deemed necessary for parts of the case to be heard in private ie in certain rape cases or child abuse or some aspects of Family law, the Judge is MANDATED by law to give his decision IN PUBLIC. Yesterday the public were excluded from a public hearing.

The actions of Mr Justice Birmingham appear to me to bring the administration of justice into disrepute by:

A) acting in a biased manner against me by ruling against me whilst not allowing my side to be heard when an accusation was made against me of breaching the in-camera rule

B) acting in a prejudicial and biased manner against Maurice Lyons by ruling that there were valid proceedings in the Judicial separation application BEFORE Maurice had an opportunity to make his case that there had not been any valid proceedings

C) wrongly excluding the public from witnessing a matter of public interest and importance

D) misleading the public by stating that a portion of the hearing would be heard in public but by concluding it without allowing the public entry

E) failing to make his Order in public

Not enough can be said by all those who know the situation and who were there in the High Court yesterday to admire the courage and commitment of Maurice Lyons. Despite the obvious atrocity that is being committed against him and his Family he is keeping his Faith and presented his case as well, if not better than any senior counsel. Even when the judge found against him without giving any reasons he somehow managed to keep calm and polite. As he was led away by the prison warders in the Round Hall of the Fore Courts a spontaneous and ear-splitting round of applause erupted that took over the entire building and Maurice was able to turn to the assembled crowd and raise a last fleeting smile that at once showed his appreciation and spirit and signalled his determination to continue to do the right thing for his Family.

Maurice has asked me to convey his heartfelt thanks to everyone who has supported him throughout this ordeal. He is grateful for the letters of encouragement he has received in prison, albeit after the authorities have read through everything and have delayed him receiving them for a week. Please keep them coming and your phone calls to the Prison Governor to remind him politely (as it is not his fault) that he has the safekeeping of an innocent man. He was able to tell the assembled ranks at the High Court yesterday of his gratitude and asked once more earnestly that you keep him and his Family in your prayers.

God bless, Roger Eldridge

Chairman, National Mens Council of Ireland
Executive Director, Family Rights and Responsibilities Institute of Ireland
National Office: Knockvicar, Boyle, Co. Roscommon
Website: www.family-men.com Email:  familymen@eircom.net Telephones: 00353 (0) 7196-67138 00353 (0) 86-8180146

––––––––––––

After what happened in the High Court to Maurice Lyons it is even more vital that a delegation from Ireland addresses the World Congress of Families Congress conference in Amsterdam next week to expose what is happening to Maurice and to those in Ireland who support the Constitutional legal institution of the Irish Family Unit founded on Marriage and to explain to the assembled pro-Family delegates from every country in the world how they can identify and so hopefully halt the destruction by the State/Courts of the Family founded on Marriage in their own jurisdictions.

We need to know today who can go and who can make a donation, no matter how small to cover the expenses of those who are willing to go.

At present Harry Rea is committed to travelling with me.

We are prepared to pay our way as best we can and we have had some donations from kind-hearted people already but we are still a way short of the target.

Please do what you can and please don't stop praying. The Truth will always shine bright in the darkness.

Here are the details of the conference.

God bless, Roger

The oldest human right defined in the history of English-speaking civilization is the right to challenge governmental power of arrest and detention through the use of habeas corpus laws, considered to be the most critical parts of the Magna Carta which was signed by King John in 1215.
Alexander Hamilton wrote in The Federalist #84 in August of 1788:
The establishment of the writ of habeas corpus are perhaps greater securities to liberty and republicanism than any the Constitution contains. The practice of arbitrary imprisonments have been, in all ages, the favorite and most formidable instruments of tyranny. The observations of the judicious [British eighteenth-century legal scholar] Blackstone, in reference to the latter, are well worthy of recital:
“To bereave a man of life” says he, “or by violence to confiscate his estate, without accusation or trial, would be so gross and notorious an act of despotism, as must at once convey the alarm of tyranny throughout the whole nation; but confinement of the person, by secretly hurrying him to jail, where his sufferings are unknown or forgotten, is a less public, a less striking, and therefore a more dangerous engine of arbitrary government.”

***
The oldest human right defined in the history of English-speaking civilization is the right to challenge governmental power of arrest and detention through the use of habeas corpus laws, considered to be the most critical parts of the Magna Carta which was signed by King John in 1215.
Alexander Hamilton wrote in The Federalist #84 in August of 1788:
The establishment of the writ of habeas corpus are perhaps greater securities to liberty and republicanism than any the Constitution contains. The practice of arbitrary imprisonments have been, in all ages, the favorite and most formidable instruments of tyranny. The observations of the judicious [British eighteenth-century legal scholar] Blackstone, in reference to the latter, are well worthy of recital:
“To bereave a man of life” says he, “or by violence to confiscate his estate, without accusation or trial, would be so gross and notorious an act of despotism, as must at once convey the alarm of tyranny throughout the whole nation; but confinement of the person, by secretly hurrying him to jail, where his sufferings are unknown or forgotten, is a less public, a less striking, and therefore a more dangerous engine of arbitrary government.”

"John D. Taylor"

Mr Lyons is in jail, not for being in contempt of an order, but for not giving the State/Court jurisdiction to
even issue an order.

They have no legal authority to even act, and without a legal basis for
their actions, they can only act outside the law.

And like all criminals they escalate their crimes to cover up the one that
would be exposed

To have the question of Habeas Corpus heard in a court room closed to the
public and by the judge only is to admit the only authority was by what he
granted to himself.

Everyone that was barred from that hearing has a right to demand the
performance of the law, and the judge be tried for his crime against the
people.

Since they think they can jail and not have to answer the question to the
public by what authority.

Anyone doing business with this country should know they can and will be
jailed to force you surrender all your assets to them, and you will not be
able to do a thing about it.

Anyone visiting this country can and will be jailed until they surrender
all their assets to them.

They have the right to do it simply because they can. It is the same
authority every criminal grants to himself.

I would never feel safe in your country.

A closed court on a Habeas Corpus issue means they can jail and never have
to answer to anyone for it.

JT