Date: Wed, 22 Apr 2026 11:44:21 +0200 (CEST) From: Niocláisín Cóilín de Ghlostéir To: bill@HolohanLaw.Ie Subject: judicial review or judicial misconduct etc. Message-ID: Dear Doctor William Holohan, Congratulations on a dissertation which "The Irish Times" reports about since 20/04/2026. Thanks for talking to me by telephones on 20/04/2026 concerning a district judge. "Three things must be proved for a professional negligence action to be successful:- · Firstly, it must be shown that a duty of care (obligation) was owed to the wronged party." says HTTPS://WWW.HolohanLaw.Ie/professional-negligence I assert that a district judge has a duty of care to me (i.e. a torture victim). I cited passages of anti-torture legislation to a district judge which obligate a judge to act against torture. "· Secondly, it must be determined if this duty of care was breached." says HTTPS://WWW.HolohanLaw.Ie/professional-negligence Inter alia the Petty Sessions (Ireland) Act 1851 declare that a district judge signs a summons. "I'm refusing to issue them under the act." said a district judge on 24/03/2026 so I determine that she breaches this duty of care. "· Thirdly, it must be established that an actual financial loss was suffered as a result of that breach." says HTTPS://WWW.HolohanLaw.Ie/professional-negligence I can prove so (but I can rapidly pay you e.g. 20,000 Euro). I brought criminal-private-prosecutions forms HTTPS://Gloucester.Insomnia247.NL/gardai/Where_are_you_from/2026-03-13f_gearan_Information_No_15-3.odt and HTTPS://Gloucester.Insomnia247.NL/gardai/Where_are_you_from/2026-03-13i_Summons_No_15-1.odt to a district court as a consequence of being tortured. The European Committee for the Prevention of Torture visited me in torture chambers. It repeatedly criticises violations of international law against me. This conversation with a district judge lasted barely 56 SECONDS (not minutes)! The 4th page de 2026-03-13i_Summons_No_15-1.odt clearly refers to inter alia murders and torture and persecution. The 3rd page de 2026-03-13f_gearan_Information_No_15-3.odt clearly refers to inter alia murders (“dúnmharuithibh”); perverting (the course of) justice (“claonadh ceartas”); neglect of duties (“faillí dualgas; [. . .] faillíochaibh dualgas”); persecution (“anchor”); discrimination (“idirdhealú”); torture (“scóladh”); extermination (“díothú”); harassment (“ciapadh”); hatred (“fuath”); connivances (“cúlcheaduithibh”); falsehood or prevarication (“falsacht nó fiaradh fírinne”); and discreditable conduct (“iompar míchlúiteach”). The 12th page de 2026-03-13f_gearan_Information_No_15-3.odt clearly refers to the Ethics-In-Public-Office Acts and the STANDARDS IN PUBLIC OFFICE ACT, 2001. The 13th page de 2026-03-13f_gearan_Information_No_15-3.odt clearly quotes an ambassador who wrote that I could complain to local authorities. The 14th page de 2026-03-13f_gearan_Information_No_15-3.odt clearly says “Please read "Report to the Portuguese Government on the periodic visit to Portugal carried out by the European Committee for the Prevention of Torture and Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment (CPT) from 23 May to 3 June 2022" (which is based on an interview with me after I was tortured)”. The 15th page de 2026-03-13f_gearan_Information_No_15-3.odt clearly says “Inactions about torture are crimes. Cf. Article 1[. . . footnote] of an 1984 UN Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. I remind you that the putative Republic of Ireland has universal jurisdiction against torture. Cf. CRIMINAL JUSTICE (UNITED NATIONS CONVENTION AGAINST TORTURE) ACT, 2000 ( HTTPS://WWW.IrishStatuteBook.Ie/eli/2000/act/11/section/2/enacted/en/html#sec2 ). Portugal murdered 2 of my friends and another neighbour to cover up torturing me in 2013.” N.B. these laws forbid any discretion to refuse to act against torture. The 15th page de 2026-03-13f_gearan_Information_No_15-3.odt clearly refers to the Petty Sessions (Ireland) Act 1851. I myself also took to this district-court hearing a copy de Appeal No: 402/2013 ( HTTPS://WW2.Courts.Ie/acc/alfresco/d354fe32-57d1-42c9-b953-4b79d4558989/2015_IESC_69_1.pdf/pdf#view=fitH ). A district judge is a respondent in that case. It says: “THE SUPREME COURT [. . .] Between/ Mary Kelly and Declan Buckley Applicants/Appellants and District Judge Ann Ryan Respondent and Patrick Halpin Notice Party/Respondent and Director of Public Prosecutions Amicus Curiae Judgment of Mr. Justice Clarke delivered the 30th July, 2015. [. . .] 10. Conclusions 10.1 For the reasons analysed in this judgment I would conclude that, in the absence of clear wording, it cannot be implied or inferred that the common informer system of private criminal prosecution has been abolished.” “Good afternoon.” said a blond district judge to me on 24/03/2026 at 1:38p.m. “Eh. Bíonn eh síniú eh le breitheamh uaim le do thoil.” said I myself i.e. a litigant in person. “So. So. So you're asking me to issue these summons.” said this district judge. “Eh tá eh. Eh. Eh. Tá seo ag teastáil uaim.” said I myself. “Yeah, good afternoon.” said this Anglophone judge misinterpreting Irish “uaim.” to be English “afternoon.” as this Courts Service scheduled this hearing for 10a.m. (i.e. this inept lazy judge waited some 3 hours and 37 minutes for calling me)! “Now having considered these matters and I've looked at the summonses and I do not believe that there is any legal basis to issue them and I'm refusing to issue them under the act. Thank you.” “Conas?” said I myself as an unanswered data-subject-access request. “I I'm refusing to issue them. Thank you.” said this criminally conniving district judge. “Cén fáth?” said I myself as an ignored unanswered data-subject-access request. "So the next matter then is [. . .]" said a court blonde. Please listen to HTTPS://Gloucester.Insomnia247.NL/gardai/Where_are_you_from/uaim_Good_afternoon__District-Judge_conversation_lasted_barely_1_minute_on_24th_March_2026.M4A "The reference in part (a) of this definition to ‘acknowledged standards’ of judicial conduct begs the question of the source of these acknowledged standards. Some internal evidence of the legislative intent may be gleaned from the reference to international standards of judicial conduct in subsections 7(1)(b) and 43(2) of the Act which both set out the same principles of judicial independence, impartiality, integrity, propriety (including the appearance of propriety), competence and diligence and to ensure equality of treatment to all persons before the courts. These principles reflect the Bangalore Principles of Judicial Conduct,15 which are described by the recently published Judicial Council ‘Guidelines concerning Judicial Conduct and Ethics’ as ‘highly respected international standards on which the Oireachtas drew in framing the Judicial Council Act 2019.’ 16 [. . .] It is difficult to definitively state what standards need to be met so that the public would be justified in trusting a court system but as a starting point one would expect such a system to have the following features: i. compliance with the general principles of natural justice such as hearing both sides of a case, providing reasons for one’s decision, and impartial adjudication; [. . .] v. ‘the skilful application of the law’;103 vi. an ‘obvious commitment to public service in the activities of every facet of a court’.104 This involves making the court process accessible, avoiding undue delay, seeking and implementing feedback etc; vii. an appropriate complaints system and accountability mechanisms to address both allegations of judicial misconduct and general complaints" says HTTPS://WWW.IJSJ.Ie/assets/uploads/documents/5.%20Eunice%20Collins%20Final.pdf I can be telephoned on 01 8350 646. This Courts Service boasts that it provides interpreters. The Language-Commissioner staff must respond in English to writings in English. Cf. HTTPS://Coimisineir.Ie/Teagmhala?lang=EN for contact details therefor. 2026-03-13f_gearan_Information_No_15-3.odt cites at Page 2 a ruling by the Language-Commissioner staff against this Courts Service in Complaint G7081/2024. So victimisation is a ground on which I shall probably sue this Anglophone district judge and this Courts Service at the Workplace-Relations Commission. Cf. similar prior rulings by the Language-Commissioner staff for me against this Department of fake Justice and against this police force. Cf. Complaints inter alia C003/2025 and C092/2024. I already sent Forms ES.1 and ES.2 to this Anglophone district judge to sue her at the Workplace-Relations Commission. They are already served by registered mail. Cf. HTTPS://WWW.anPost.com/Post-Parcels/Track/History?item=RL069648568IE and HTTP://Gloucester.Insomnia247.NL/gardai/Where_are_you_from/2026-04-10e_10Euro_agus_deimhniu_postala__img20260410_18103917.jpg I cite Fiosrú (i.e. a police-ombudsman commission) on Pages 1 to 2 de HTTPS://Gloucester.Insomnia247.NL/gardai/Where_are_you_from/2026-03-13f_gearan_Information_No_15-3.odt confirming that a complaint by me against a defendant policeman (over whom this district judge refuses to sign a summons) "is admissible. This means that Fiosrú will investigate your complaint." Look at the CCTV evidence de Fiosrú; Meath-County Council; and this police. The Language-Commissioner staff can confirm that Irish versions of Forms 15.1 and 15.3 continue to not be available despite this Department of fake Justice and this Courts Service makings committments for forms for me to be available in Irish since many months ago. The Judicial-Conduct Committee demands me to name a defendant judge, but this district judge does identify herself to me but I asked her. Also this Courts Service and the guards do not identify herself to me. I demand arrest warrants since years ago. "I am directed by the Minister for Justice, Simon Harris, T.D. to thank you for your email dated 18/04/2023, the contents of which have been noted. [. . .] this matter is [. . .] appropriate [. . .] Yours sincerely, Emma McHugh Private Secretary to the Minister for Justice" says this Department of fake Justice. Cf. HTTP://Gloucester.Insomnia247.NL/Fine_Gael/Fine_Gael.HTM "With this in mind, it is worth considering examples and academic discussion of judicial misconduct in Australia to aid our understanding of ‘acknowledged standards’ of judicial misconduct in Ireland. Appleby and Le Mire helpfully provide ten categories through which one may assess whether conduct amounts to judicial misconduct based on the Australian experience of misconduct.35 These categories are: [. . .] ii. [. . .] incivility while in office; [. . .] iv. delay in delivering judgments; v. conduct that would be ‘professional misconduct if the judge were still in practice’ such as plagiarism; vi. administrative misconduct, such as regularly failing to attend court; vii. abuse of judicial power such as deciding cases in a manner to gain personal benefit or seeking an acquittal for a friend; viii. criminal conduct; ix. morally or politically reprehensible behaviour;" says HTTPS://WWW.IJSJ.Ie/assets/uploads/documents/5.%20Eunice%20Collins%20Final.pdf This district judge refuses to sign a summons against an assailant who perpetrated actual hits against me in front de a CCTV camera. Contrast with a precedent. Convicted Criminal Michael Kelly did not actually even touch Victim Paul Keane when Michael Kelly assaulted Paul Keane in March 2023. Judge Orla Crowe at Dublin Circuit Criminal Court sentenced Michael Kelly over that assault on 13/04/2026. Judge Orla Crowe said that that contactless assault was “unacceptable” and “reprehensible behaviour”. John P Gallagher BL might have prosecuted him. Is mise le meas, Niocláisín Cóilín de Ghlostéir