We all swore an oath to protect this

countryIt won't be abandoned', say

garda as strike looms
29/09/2016

Garda say the country will not be abandoned when they go

on strike.
The union representing rank and file officers has announced
"a unilateral withdrawal of services" on four separate days in
November in their pay row.
However they say 999 calls will still be answered and
emergencies will be dealt with.
Garda Representative Association deputy president Jim
Mulligan (pictured) said striking was a last resort.
He said: "Contingency plans have to be put in place. We're a
vocational group (and) the country will not be abandoned.
"We all swore an oath to protect this country. This decision
was not taken lightly. There was a sombre mood when this
decision was taken."
The GRA Conference announced yesterday that its members
would strike on the following dates:
,
,
,
,

Friday, November 4
Friday, November 11
Friday, November 18
Friday, November 25

http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/we-all-swore-an-oath-to-protect-thiscountryit-wont-be-abandoned-say-gardai-as-strike-looms-756968.html

'We will be contribution to the EU Army yet we will

remain a neutral country'
'We want to halt water charges but we can't rule them out
completely'
'We don't need 13bn from Apple but we've no money for
pay increases'
There nothing but Corporate enforcers what about all the
people they assaulted and terrorized in Rossport so Shell
can steal our Natural Resources for nothing. They do
nothing for the benefit of citizens and are now whinging
because they have it tough no more creaming the overtime
and expenses so they have their second property. Now
they know what its like for all the working class people
struggling to make ends meet that they look down on like
dirt. World wide joining the police is not a well paying job
they are paid well enough for what they do an d thats very
little. How many bungled investigations, cover ups ,
corruption, unsolved murders, junkies and drug dealing
daily all over the nations capital in broad daylight and they
want a pay rise what a joke.

Sinn Fins Mary Lou McDonald "I Will Be

Paying My Water Bill"

Oct 9, 2014
CLONDALKIN METER WATCH
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Clonda...
SOURCE
Friday 26th September 2014
http://www.newstalk.com/MaryLou-McDon...
Wednesday 8th October 2014
http://www.highlandradio.com/2014/10/...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?
v=BlbBVgdQXA0&app=desktop

Mary Lou McDonald puts Labour Party

hyopcrite Joan Burton in her place
Jun 11, 2014
During an interview on Newstalk's "Political Panel" on the
Breakfast show, Minister Joan Burton decided to again
opportunistically use the suffering of victims of the conflict to
score cheap political points

https://www.youtube.com/watch?
v=I08Gesc2QBs

Tnaiste rattled as Mary Lou McDonald

confronts her over threatening water
charges letters
Oct 16, 2014
Joan Burton spins nonsense and untruths as she attempts to
defend the decision by her Department to authorise letters
threatening eviction to Rental Accommodation Scheme tenants
on the issue of payment of water
charges

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6nMmmPDYYMo

Tnaiste destroyed on issue of Water

Charges by Caoimhghn Caolin
Apr 17, 2014
Sinn Fin's Caoimhghn Caolin destroyed Tnaiste Eamon
Gilmore and his party of hypocrites over their support for water
taxes - which will disproportionately affect ordinary families
and the less well-off. Gilmore responded with typical untruths
and demonstrating his almost non-existent knowledge of the
North.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K9Py8qrzWIQ
There nothing but Corporate enforcers what about all the
people they assaulted and terrorized in Rossport so Shell
can steal our Natural Resources for nothing. They do
nothing for the benefit of citizens and are now whinging
because they have it tough no more creaming the overtime
and expenses so they have their second property. Now
they know what its like for all the working class people
struggling to make ends meet that they look down on like
dirt. World wide joining the police is not a well paying job
they are paid well enough for what they do an d thats very
little. How many bungled investigations, cover ups ,
corruption, unsolved murders, junkies and drug dealing
daily all over the nations capital in broad daylight and they
want a pay rise what a joke.
The Tnaiste and Minister for Justice says she's disappointed
the Garda Representative Association has rejected the pay
deal reached with her Department.
Frances Fitzgerald says it would be most unfortunate if, rather
than engaging further, action were to be contemplated that
would not be in the best interests of communities or An Garda
Sochna.
Update 6.51pm: The Garda Representative Association has
issued a statement regarding its decision to engage in
industrial action.
"The Garda Representative Association Conference has voted

to take industrial action up to and including a unilateral

withdrawal of services on the following dates: Friday,
November 4 2016; Friday, November 11 2016; Friday,
November 18 2016; Friday, November 25 2016," the statement
read.

"Members of the Garda Representative Association are

denied the civil rights afforded other workers and citizens. We
are denied the civil right to withdraw our labour.
"There is an implied contract that the civil power will not abuse
its police force. We have exhausted every channel of industrial
relations open to us.
"Government has taken advantage of our limited rights. Our
members feel that we have nowhere left to turn.
"Garda do a dangerous, difficult and often thankless job.
"Garda pay has fallen behind others. Our claim for pay
restoration has been ignored.
"Garda have legitimate grievances - and it is with vocational
reluctance that 95% of the GRA membership feel they have no
option but to take industrial action.
"Conference has determined today that action must take the
form of unilateral industrial action by members of the Garda

Representative Association [GRA].

"To this end, action will be taken on 4 November 2016; 11
November 2016; 18 November 2016; 25 November 2016;
unless we hear of substantial and significant progress towards
real and tangible increases in our pay."
Update 6.34pm: The Garda Representative Association has
voted to take industrial action.
The GRA said the action includes "a unilateral withdrawal of
services" on November 4, 11, 18 and 25.
It follows a meeting of the GRA executive council in Tullamore,
Co Offaly.
Earlier:
The Association of Garda Sergeants and Inspectors (AGSI)
has announced that it is to host special delegate conference to
discuss possible industrial action.
The National Executive of the AGSI, which represents middleranking garda, met to discuss the matter earlier today.
"The Association of Garda Sergeants and Inspectors (AGSI)
have held a Special Executive meeting today to discuss the
outcome of recent Government meetings at which significant
Garda pay matters emerged," the statement read.
"President Antoinette Cunningham says the AGSI are now
considering a campaign of industrial action after what she
describes as significant new information emerging from the
proposed Public Service Commission on Pay and matters
relating to the Lansdowne Road Agreement.
"The National Executive met today and discussed at length the
emerging issues and we now feel we have no option but to call
a Special Delegate Conference on the 17th October in
Athlone, where these matters will be discussed and proposals
relating to industrial action will be tabled."
Earlier today, grassroots Garda leaders have warned of

potential industrial action after rejecting a proposed pay deal.

Over the weekend, the Government offered improved terms in
the hope of averting disruption as part of the ongoing dispute.
In a statement, the Garda Representative Association (GRA),
which represents 10,000 rank-and-file officers, said the offer
does not go far enough to settle the row.
"The Garda Representative Association has unanimously
rejected the draft proposal by government and has been
mandated by conference to take up industrial action," a
spokeswoman said.
About 200 delegates from the GRA were meeting at a special
conference in Tullamore, Co Offaly, to discuss the proposed
pay and conditions deals.
More than 95% of GRA members balloted backed industrial
action.
The dispute centres on a Government move to freeze
incremental pay increases after the GRA failed to sign up to
the Lansdowne Road public-sector pay agreement.
Terms offered to new recruits was a main sticking point.

BAD NEWS FOR GALWAY RESIDENTS AS THEY FACE A 10%

INCREASE IN PROPERTY TAX
"The proposal was backed by all but one of the Fine Gael
members on the local authority, with support from several

Fianna Fil councillors."

This tax on the roof over peoples' heads is unfair enough,
without giving individual councils the power to increase it
arbitrarily ... So rates all over the country are different where is the equality in that?!

Home owners in Co Galway are facing a

10% increase in Local Property Tax payments
next year.
Galway County Council last night voted in
favour of a proposal to increase the charge in
2017.
A total of 21 councillors supported the
motion, with 15 opposing it.
Councils have the power to either increase or
decrease the rate of Local Property Tax by up
to 15% or, leave it unaltered.
The proposal was backed by all but one of
the Fine Gael members on the local authority,
with support from several Fianna Fil
councillors.
A majority of the council's Independent
members opposed the motion, along with
Sinn Fin and some representatives from
Fianna Fil.

Donald Trump has launched

an attack on Hillary Clinton
over her links to Denis O'Brien
Denis OBrien has found himself in the middle of the US presidential
battle.
September 29, 16

IRISH BUSINESSMAN DENIS OBrien has found himself

in the middle of the US presidential battle as candidate
Donald Trump launches an attack on Hillary Clinton.
In a missive on his website, the Republican nominee
criticises his rival for her ties to OBrien who is described
as a cell phone tycoon.

Entitled Follow the Money, the statement details

OBriens business interests in Central American, the
Caribbean and the Pacific Islands.
It notes that he is the chair of the Clinton Global Initiative
Haiti Action Network and a leading philanthropist before
going on to paint an unfavourable picture of the Irishman.
It uses quotes from a number of media articles and other
sources.
The lengthy letter details some of the donations OBrien
has made to the Clinton Foundation, as well as pointing
towards $2.5 million in funding Digicel received from the
Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation in 2011 for use in cell
phone development in Haiti. Trump notes that USAID
(US Agency for International Development) administered
the programme while Clinton was US Secretary of State.
It outlines OBriens various legal actions against media
organisations and the purchase of Siteserv, a company

which went on to win the contract to install water meters

across Ireland.
On the 1995 mobile phone license competition which
OBriens Esat Digifone won, the statement quotes articles
from the Guardian and the Irish Times published
following the Moriarty Tribunal which found that OBrien
made payments to former minister Michael Lowry.
OBrien continues to challenge the findings of the Tribunal
which concluded beyond doubt that the then-minister
gave substantive information to OBrien, which was of
significant value and assistance to him in securing the
licence.
OBriens spokesperson has told RT that the
businessman would not be making any comment on
Trumps statement.

http://www.thejournal.ie/denisobrien-donald-trump-3001305Sep2016/?
utm_source=facebook_short

Denis OBrien involved in the findings of the Mahon

Tribunal,

Telefnica signs
agreement with
Vivendi to offer

exclusive premium
content for mobile
customers in Latin
America
Q
Q

Telefnica adds two new innovative mobile content

services - WatchMusic and STUDIO+ - to portfolio of digital
experiences for its mobile customers.
Agreement activates with first launch in Brazil of
WatchMusic through Vivo in early October and more
countries in the region to follow over the coming weeks.

MADRID, Paris, So Paulo 28 September, 2016.Telefnica today announces a partnership with

Vivendi that sees the company offering customers
in Latin America two innovative mobile
entertainment services: WatchMusic, a premium
immersive music video platform, and STUDIO +,
the first global short premium series offer and app.
The agreement comes into effect in markets across
Latin America with the launch in early October of
WatchMusic in Brazil through Vivo followed by
other markets in the region over the coming
weeks. WatchMusic is a new premium music video
service optimised for mobile devices and also
available across multiple platforms. WatchMusic
focuses on delivering an immersive video
experience for fans.
In addition to unlimited access to a large catalogue
of music videos, entire concerts and festivals, the
service provides the best live streaming experience
as well as unique original content such as the
WatchMusic Moments with the highlights from a

music festival. The service also provides a new

generation of video playlists and includes special
features such audio-only listening and offline
modes.
STUDIO+ is a premium mobile short series offer
and app with addictive exclusive content
specifically shot for mobile viewing. The original
programme line-up will be unveiled at launch in the
coming weeks.
Dominique Delport, Chairman of Vivendi Content,
said: We are very happy and proud that Telefnica
has chosen to be the first telecom partner to
launch the new Studio+ and WatchMusic services
designed by the Vivendi development teams across
Latin America. Vivendi and Telefonica share the
same view that compelling content and innovative
formats will meet the expectations of new
audiences. There is still a lack of premium content
designed for mobile customers. We hope with this
worldwide premiere to provide an immersive and
addictive experience that we intend to roll out
globally in the next months.
We are delighted to bring Vivendis premium
mobile entertainment content to our customers.
Weve seen a mobile first mind-set that confirms
the smartphone is the most favoured way to
access internet experiences for most of our millions
of mobile customers worldwide, said Michael
Duncan, Telefnica Group CEO of the Consumer
Unit. Both WatchMusic and Studio+ meet the
needs and expectations of todays digital consumer
and it is our aim to offer our customers the very
best in digital services.
The two new services will be delivered ad-free
through the Movistar and Vivo brands in the region
on a Buy and Try basis. A customer can subscribe
for a week or a months trial with the option of

cancelling hassle-free within that time to stop the

service from rolling over onto the next billing
period, if they decide the product is not for them.
Prices and specific content for each country will be
announced in due course.
About Telefnica
Telefnica is one of the largest telecommunications
companies in the world by market capitalization
and number of customers with a comprehensive
offering and quality of connectivity that is
delivered over world class fixed, mobile and
broadband networks. As a growing company it
prides itself on providing a differential experience
based both on its corporate values and a public
position that defends customer interests.
The company has a significant presence in 21
countries and 347 million accesses around the
world. Telefnica has a strong presence in Spain,
Europe and Latin America, where the company
focuses an important part of its growth strategy.
Telefnica is a 100% listed company, with more
than 1.5 million direct shareholders. Its share
capital currently comprises 4,975,199,197 ordinary
shares traded on the Spanish Stock Market and on
those in London, New York, Lima, and Buenos Aires.
About Vivendi
Vivendi is an integrated media and content group.
The company operates businesses throughout the
media value chain, from talent discovery to the
creation, production and distribution of content.
The main subsidiaries of Vivendi comprise Canal+
Group and Universal Music Group. Canal+ is the
leading pay-TV operator in France, and also serves
markets in Africa, Poland and Vietnam. Canal+
operations include Studiocanal, a leading European

player in production, sales and distribution of film

and TV series. Universal Music Group is the world
leader in recorded music, music publishing and
merchandising, with more than 50 labels covering
all genres. A separate division, Vivendi Village,
brings together Vivendi Ticketing (ticketing in the
UK, the U.S and France), MyBestPro (experts
counseling), Watchever (subscription video-ondemand), Radionomy (digital radio), the LOlympia
and the Thetre de LOeuvre venues in Paris, the
CanalOlympia venues in Africa and Olympia
Production. With 3.5 billion videos viewed each
month, Dailymotion is one of the biggest video
content aggregation and distribution platforms in
the world. Gameloft is a worldwide leading video
game publisher on mobile, with two million games
downloaded per day.
https://www.telefonica.com/documents/737979/1202203
28/PR_TEF_Vivendi.pdf/c6dd7765-179c-4bde-a673c7e6eceda9b4?version=1.0

Telephonia ANNUAL CORPORATE GOVERNANCE REPORT 2015

ANNUAL REPORT ON THE REMUNERATION OF DIRECTORS
2015

https://www.telefonica.com/documents/153952/1334792
0/Gobierno_Corporativo_2015_en.pdf/27e90d26-453a4579-9bf7-434b0f190330

National Integrity Systems:

Transparency International
Country Study Addendum
Ireland 2012
https://ia600403.us.archive.org/20/items/485117-national-transparencysystems-transparency/485117-national-transparency-systemstransparency.pdf

. National Integrity Systems: Transparency International

Country ... stg paid by Mr OBrien to Fine Gael ... found that
Mr OBrien made payments

Transparency
International Ireland calls
for Irish and Norwegian
investigations into
payments to Fine Gael
and former
Communications Minister
Dublin, 24 March 2011 - Transparency International
(Transparency) Ireland has asked that the Garda,
Criminal Assets Bureau, Office of the Director of
Corporate Enforcement and Norwegian authorities
lead investigations into any prima facie criminal
activities or company law violations surrounding
the award of Irelands second mobile licence in
1995.
break
; The Organisation for Economic Cooperation and
Development (OECD) will also be asked to review
progress in the case.
The statement comes after Tuesdays publication
of the final Moriarty Tribunal report on payments to
Irish politicians which found that the former
Minister for Communications Michael Lowry had
received over 500,000 in secret payments in

respect of his time as Minister overseeing the

award of the telecommunications licence.
The anti-corruption group has also called for:
1.
The identification and potential freezing of
profits arising from any illicit payment made
directly or indirectly to Mr Lowry by Mr Denis
OBrien, or any other members of the winning Esat
Digifone consortium, or their agents.
2.
The Norwegian authorities to investigate an
attempt by Telenor Mobile to make a secret
50,000 (63,000) donation to the Fine Gael party
after the award of the licence to the Esat Digifone
consortium of which Telenor Mobile was a member.
3.
The Irish authorities to investigate alleged
corrupt payments by Mr Ben Dunne to Mr Michael
Lowry T.D. and any apparent illicit enrichment
arising from Mr Dunnes payments.
If evidence of criminal wrongdoing is uncovered
by the Garda and Norwegian authorities,
prosecutions must follow. Where there is sufficient
evidence to show that profits have arisen from
corrupt transactions, those profits must be seized
by the Irish State, said John Devitt, Chief
Executive of Transparency Ireland. It is also worth
noting that if a finding were made of corrupt
enrichment arising from the award of the second
mobile licence, the proceeds from a seizure could
more than recoup the running costs of the Moriarty
Tribunal for the Irish taxpayer, Mr. Devitt added.
Transparency Ireland has also called on Mr Justice
Moriarty to forward any evidence of obstruction or
attempts to mislead the Tribunal to the Director of
Public Prosecutions.
Systemic change needed to prevent repeat of abuse of

power
In 2009, Transparency Ireland published a National
Integrity Systems study on the risk of corruption in
Ireland and made some 40 recommendations to
deal with them. Not one of the recommendations
has been fully implemented. Transparency repeats
its call for reforms that would help both clean up
politics and help prevent the kind of abuse found in
both Moriarty Tribunal reports.
Transparency Ireland has urged the new
government to ensure:
1. The introduction of legislation banning
corporate donations and consider the introduction
of an opt-out system to allow taxpayers to make
small contributions to political parties.
2. The publication of audited and standardised
accounts by all political parties.
3. A mandatory register of lobbyists with criminal
and civil sanctions for failure to disclose the
identity of clients and income.
4. The publication of all sources of donations to
political parties over 100 as well as the identity of
bundlers or organisers of fundraising events and
appeals.
5. The delegation of powers to the Standards in
Public Office Commission to appoint an Inquiries
Officer to investigate suspected violations of the
Ethics Acts without a complaint.
6. The introduction of universal whistleblower
legislation that would protect civil servants and
workers in the private sector for reporting concerns
in the public interest.
7. The review of all public contracts over a certain
value by the Comptroller and Auditor General with
additional emphasis on compliance with anti-fraud
and corruption safeguards.

8. The ratification of the United Nations

Convention against Corruption.
Questions and Answers for Editors
The following questions and answers may be
helpful in identifying corruption related offences:
1. Does anyone have to prove that a licence or
contract was awarded in return for any payment or
gift?
No. Any payment offered or received in order to
influence a public official is deemed to be a corrupt
act under the Prevention of Corruption Acts 1889 to
2010. This includes influencing a public official to
give advice, the release of information or the
untimely release of information on a public
contract or State licence competition. No proof
would be needed that any transaction directly
secured a state contract or licence for a finding of
corruption to be made.
2.
Does money have to change hands for a
prosecution to take place?
No. Sufficient evidence of an offer of any gift or
advantage in an attempt to influence a public
official is grounds for prosecution. Offering an
advantage for services to be rendered or an
attempt to pay a kickback to a public official for
services already rendered is also an offence.
3.
Does a public official have to benefit directly
from a bribe or attempted bribe?
No. It is sufficient that any person is offered a bribe
once the purpose of the bribe is to influence the
conduct of a public official. A bribe may be any
payment or advantage, such as a loan, job offer or

insider information. A political party, a business or

consultancy may also be regarded as an agent
under the terms of the Prevention of Corruption
Acts.
4.
Must a conviction of corruption be secured
before the proceeds of a corrupt transaction can be
seized?
No. Under the Proceeds of Crime (Amendment) Act
2005 the High Court can order that the proceeds of
any crime including corruption be frozen or seized
by the State. The order is made after the court has
ruled, on the balance of probabilities, that a
corrupt transaction led to the enrichment of an
individual or organisation.
5.
Is witness testimony required to secure a
conviction for corruption?
No witness testimony is required under the
Prevention of Corruption Acts, to secure a
conviction for corruption. A jury simply needs to be
convinced, beyond a reasonable doubt, that
corruption has occurred. In some cases financial
evidence may be sufficient, in others, witness
testimony may be necessary. This is the reason
universal whistleblower legislation and some form
of witness leniency programme are urgently
needed.
6.
How hard is it to secure a criminal conviction for
corruption?
Since 2001, it has been much easier for the
authorities to secure a conviction of for corruption
than was previously the case. While the burden of
proof still rests with the prosecution in corruption

cases, a public official may have to show that any

hidden payments were not lawfully acquired. If
they cannot prove this, the assumption is made
that the payment was a corrupt one. Of the eight
prosecutions for corruption brought to court since
2003, seven have been successful. It would
therefore be wrong to conclude that securing a
conviction of corruption is impossible.
7.
How corrupt is Ireland?
It is very difficult to say. Ireland is regarded by the
international business community as being a
relatively clean place to do business. It is currently
ranked 14th out of 180 countries on Transparency
Internationals Corruption Perception Index (CPI).
However, the international business community
does not seem to have noticed the scale of the
problem. According to Transparencys Global
Corruption Barometer, 90 per cent of the Irish
public does not believe that the government is
doing enough to stop corruption, while 60 per cent
believe that levels of corruption in Ireland are
rising.
8. What happens next?
The Government has forwarded the final Moriarty
Tribunal report to the Director of Public
Prosecutions (DPP). However the DPP cannot
investigate alleged offences. The Garda will have
to uncover evidence of wrongdoing again with a
fresh investigation into the circumstances
surrounding the case. This is because evidence and
testimony presented at a Tribunal of Inquiry cannot
be used to secure a criminal conviction against a
witness in the tribunal. It could take over two years
to conclude, however it should be noted that once
a corruption-related case is brought to court by the
DPP it generally has a very good chance of

succeeding.
Are there any other questions you would like to put
to us? Email us at info@transparency.ie and we will
post the answers on our website as soon as
possible.
Media Contact: John Devitt, Tel: 086 173 5040,
Email info@transparency.ie

Examining and Assessing the Regulation of

Lobbyists in Canada, the USA, the EU institutions,
and Germany- A Report for the Department of the
Environment, Heritage and Local Government By
Dr. Raj Chari and Dr. Gary Murphy
http://transparency.ie/sites/default/files/2006_Re
gistration_of_Lobbyists.pdf

Report of the Tribunal of

Inquiry into Payments to
Politicians and Related
Matters
http://www.moriartytribunal.ie/images/sitecontent
_427.pdf
Report of the Tribunal of
Inquiry into Payments to
Politicians and Related
Matters Part II
http://www.moriarty-

tribunal.ie/images/sitecontent
_426.pdf

REVISED TRIBUNAL RULING DATED 24th MARCH 2010

RE: OPINION DATED 9TH MAY, 1996
1.
This Ruling relates to an issue that has arisen
in the course of the Tribunals inquiries, pursuant to
paragraph (e) of its Terms of Reference, into the
circumstances surrounding the grant of the second GSM
mobile telecommunications licence to ESAT Digifone on
16th May, 1996. The particular issue which has arisen
relates to an opinion of Counsel dated 9th May, 1996 that
was provided to the Department of Transport, Energy &
Communications (as it then was) in the weeks leading up
to the grant of the licence. In brief, IIU Limited and Mr
Dermot Desmond have sought access to the opinion over
which the Department and the Attorney General have
maintained, and continue to maintain, a claim to legal
professional privilege. What IIU and Mr Desmond are
effectively asserting (and in which regard they are
supported by Mr Denis O'Brien) is that the Tribunal should
make an Order for Production of the opinion, pursuant to
the powers conferred on it by the Tribunals of Inquiry
(Evidence) Acts, 1921 and 1979, notwithstanding that
claim to privilege.
2.

In order to put this matter in context, it is

necessary in the first place to make reference to both the

circumstances in which the opinion was sought by the
Department, and to the Tribunals dealings with the
Department in relation to it.
3.
The second GSM process which led to the
licensing of ESAT Digifone comprised two distinct phases.
The first phase, which involved the competitive evaluation
of tenders submitted by interested parties, commenced on
4th August, 1995 with the receipt of tenders, and
concluded on 25th October, 1995 with the announcement
that ESAT Digifone was the winner of that competitive
process. What ESAT Digifone won, was not the right to the
second GSM licence, but rather the exclusive entitlement
to negotiate with the Department for the grant of the
licence. The second phase of the process involved
negotiations between ESAT Digifone and the Department
which ultimately led to the grant of the licence. This
second phase commenced very shortly after the
announcement of 25th October, 1995, and concluded on
16th May, 1996, when the licence was issued.
4.
It was during the second phase of the
process that the opinion in question was sought after
consultation between the Department and officials of the
Office of the Attorney General. Those consultations
followed receipt of notification on 17th April, 1996, from
William Fry Solicitors for ESAT Digifone, concerning the
composition of the ESAT Digifone consortium, and in
particular informing the Department that a 20%
institutional shareholding provided for in the tender, would
not be taken up by the institutions mentioned in the
tender, namely, Allied Irish Bank, Investment Bank of
Ireland, Standard Life Ireland and Advent International plc,
but would be allocated to IIU Limited, a company
beneficially owned by Mr Dermot Desmond together with a
further 5% shareholding arising from the dilution of the
holdings of Communicorp and Telenor. Following a meeting
between officials of the Department and officials of the
Office of the Attorney General, the Department wrote to
the Attorney Generals Office on 24th April 1996 in relation
to a number of aspects of the process on which advice
was being sought, and reiterated the Departments

requirement for a legal opinion on the re-structuring of the

ownership of ESAT Digifone and in particular:The question of whether recent correspondence suggests
any change in the identity of the beneficial owners of the
company which could be considered incompatible with the
ownership proposals in the companys application must be
addressed.
That advice was sought in the light of paragraph 3 of the
Request for Tenders document that had been issued by
the Department on 2nd March, 1995 inviting interested
parties to submit tenders, which provided at paragraph 3
that:Applicants must give full ownership details for proposed
licencee
5.
Whilst the correspondence received from
Messrs William Fry, and the dealings between the
Department and the office of the Attorney General
featured in evidence led by the Tribunal in the course of
public sittings, the opinion of 9th May was not led in
evidence by the Tribunal having regard to the legal
professional privilege attaching to it, which was accepted
by the Tribunal and indeed is accepted by IIU Limited and
Mr Desmond, and is further accepted in principle by Mr
OBrien.
6.
With regard to this second preliminary
matter, it is necessary to refer briefly to the Tribunals
dealings with the Department in relation to the production
of documentation. From in or about May, 2001, the
Tribunal was in contact with the Chief State Solicitors
Office with a view to obtaining copies of all documents
held by both the Department and the Department of
Finance, in relation to the entire second GSM process. At
all times, it has been the preference of the Tribunal, in
furthering its inquires, to obtain documents from parties
on a voluntary rather than a compulsory footing, and its
dealings with both Departments were at all times on that
basis. The documents in question were produced to the
Tribunal voluntarily, and in the course of that exercise the

Chief State Solicitors Office furnished the Tribunal on 15th

February, 2002, with a schedule of documents itemising
documents that had been withheld by the Department,
pending consideration of a claim to legal professional
privilege. By letter dated 18th February, 2002, the Tribunal
responded by indicating that as a lengthy period had
already passed since documents had been provided by the
Department, the Tribunal wished to receive confirmation
from the Department within seven days as to whether it
was, or was not maintaining a claim to privilege over the
documents listed in the Schedule, and if so, wished to
obtain details of the basis on which such claim was being
maintained in respect of each document or category of
documents withheld.
7.
From the inception of its private inquiries, the
Tribunal adopted a procedure for dealing in a pragmatic
and efficient manner with claims to legal professional
privilege made by persons from whom the Tribunal was
seeking the production of documentation. Rather than
ruling on such claims to privilege, which could involve a
costly and time-consuming process in relation to
documentation which might not ultimately be of any
assistance to its inquiries, or material to its Terms of
Reference, the Tribunal developed a practice of requesting
persons maintaining such a claim to provide copies of
such documents to the Tribunal for the purposes of
examination only without prejudice to such claim. This
practice obviated the necessity of the Tribunal having to
rule on privilege if it transpired, as was very often the
case, that the documents were not material to the
Tribunals Terms of Reference or not significant in terms of
the Tribunals inquiries. In the event that the Tribunal
determined that such documentation was significant, it
was agreed that the claim to privilege could be fully
ventilated, and would then be ruled on by the Tribunal. It
was this course that was adopted in the case of the
documentation listed in the Schedule with which the
Tribunal was furnished by the Department, and which
included the opinion of 9th May, 1996.
8.
Notwithstanding that IIU/Mr Desmond accept
that the opinion is privileged, they have sought access to

it as they understandably wish to ascertain for themselves

whether the advice sought had actually been obtained.
The Tribunal has considerable sympathy with the position
of IIU Limited/Mr Desmond, and in the first instance,
endeavoured to facilitate them by seeking to put in place
some arrangement whereby they might have access to
the Opinion, but those efforts came to nothing. In that
regard, the Tribunal sought to ascertain whether the
Department would be agreeable to waiving privilege, but
by letter dated 6th December, 2005, the Chief State
Solicitors Office informed the Tribunal that, having
considered the matter, the Department was not prepared
to waive privilege in respect of the Opinion.
9.
The Tribunal then instituted a procedure
whereby it invited IIU/Mr Desmond and the Department to
furnish the Tribunal with written submissions addressed to
the issue. Written submissions were received on behalf of
IIU/Mr Desmond on 2nd March, 2006 and from the
Department on 12th June, 2006. Copies of the submissions
of each of the parties were in turn served on the other,
and each of them was invited to furnish supplemental
submissions if they chose so to do, but neither availed of
that option. All other affected persons, including the Public
Interest, were also extended the facility of making
submissions, and submissions were received on behalf of
Mr Denis O'Brien on 18th January, 2008. Copies of those
submissions were in turn provided to both IIU Limited/Mr
Desmond, the Department and the Public Interest, who
were again invited to make supplemental submissions.
Supplemental submissions were received from the
Department on the 1st of February, 2008, and initial
submissions, limited to a single matter raised by Mr
OBrien, were also received from the Attorney General, on
behalf of the Public Interest, on 1st February, 2008. Mr
OBrien, having been served with the public interest
submissions, provided final submission on 20th February,
2008. The Tribunal has fully considered all of the
submissions which it has received.
10.
IIU/Mr Desmond do not dispute that in the
ordinary course the opinion would attract privilege, but
contend as follows:-

(i)
That there has been an implied waiver of the
privilege by reason of references made to the opinion in
the course of the Tribunals sittings.
(ii)
That, irrespective of the privilege attaching to the
opinion, it should be disclosed pursuant to the principles
recognised by the Supreme Court in the case of
OCallaghan v. Mahon[1].
Mr OBrien also accepts that the opinion is prima facie
privileged but has submitted that, in circumstances to
which reference will be made, there is no reality attaching
to the claim of privilege, and/or the privilege has been
waived. A further submission is made that other legal
considerations justify the Tribunal in overriding the
Governments privilege, and directing full disclosure of the
opinion.
The Tribunal will consider each of these matters in turn.
Waiver of Privilege
11.
The thrust of the submissions of IIU and Mr
Desmond is that references were made in the course of
the evidence of departmental witnesses to the opinion,
and that passages of the opinion were put to Mr Loughrey
in the course of cross-examination by Mr Eoin McGonigal
SC, Counsel for Mr OBrien, without objection by the
Department. It is contended that these references were
made for litigious advantage, and that accordingly there
has been an implied waiver of privilege. The Department
has submitted, in brief, that the request made by IIU/Mr
Desmond is based on a fundamental misconception of
what occurred in the course of the Tribunals inquiries, and
that there has been no implied waiver of privilege, either
by virtue of any partial disclosure or otherwise and that
further, such disclosure as may have occurred was not for
the purpose of litigious advantage.
12.
Before proceeding to consider the legal
principles applicable, it is appropriate to set out briefly
what occurred in the course of the Tribunals public

sittings. As already adverted to, the Departments request

for the provision of an opinion by the Office of the Attorney
General was prompted by the notification received from
Messrs William Fry on 17th April, 1996, that a 25%
shareholding in ESAT Digifone would be allocated to IIU
Limited, rather than to the institutions to which reference
was made in the tender submitted by ESAT Digifone, and
evaluated by the Department. This matter formed one
aspect of a much broader inquiry made by the Tribunal as
to the actions of the Department, and of the then Minister,
in the weeks preceding the issue of the licence on 16th
May, 1996. In particular, the Tribunal was pursuing
inquiries into what action (if any) was taken by the
Department and the Minister on foot of that
communication from Messrs William Fry, what decision
was made on foot of that communication, and what
factors may have prompted or contributed to that
decision.
13.
Whilst the opinion of 9th May, 1996, was not
opened in the course of evidence, IIU/Mr Desmond have
instanced references to the opinion in the course of the
evidence of Mr Martin Brennan (who was Chairman of the
Project Group established to evaluate the bids), Mr Fintan
Towey, who was a member of the Project Group and who
had signed the letter of 24th April, 1996, to the Office of
the Attorney General requesting the provision of an
opinion, and the evidence of Mr John Loughrey, who was
then Secretary General.
14.
Before proceeding to consider the authorities
to which the Tribunal has been referred, it is necessary to
explain that Messrs William Fry were in possession of a
copy of the opinion due to an inadvertent error on the part
of the Tribunal. Prior to circulating public sittings books to
affected persons on 22nd November, 2002, for the
purposes of its sittings which commenced on 3rd
December, 2002, the Tribunal, at the request of Messrs
William Fry, furnished Mr OBrien with advance copies of
documentation relating to the second GSM process in
order to assist him in the preparation of a voluntary
statement; the Tribunal having been informed that he
would otherwise be disadvantaged in making such a

statement. The Tribunal in that letter made it clear that it

had not yet determined what documentation, from within
the documents furnished, would be ventilated at public
sittings.
15.
It appears that due to an error on the part of
the Tribunal, a copy of the opinion of 9th May was
inadvertently included. A copy was not within the public
sittings books circulated to all affected persons, including
Mr OBrien, on 22nd November for the purposes of
ventilation at public sittings. The error did not come to the
attention of the Tribunal until extracts of the opinion were
referred to in the course of cross-examination.
16.
The Tribunal has helpfully been referred to the
relevant authorities on the waiver of legal professional
privilege, and in particular the decisions of the Supreme
Court in Hannigan v. Director of Public Prosecutions[2]and
Fyffes plc v. DCC plc[3]. The former case involved Judicial
Review proceedings in which the applicant (who had been
charged with a criminal offence) made certain claims
regarding the conduct of the Director. In the course of the
proceedings, the applicant sought discovery of a letter
from the Director giving directions as to what charge or
charges should be proceeded with, and in what form. The
Supreme Court recognised that the letter over which
privilege had been claimed was relevant, and the issue
turned on whether there had been an implied waiver. It
was held that there had been an implied waiver of the
privilege arising from references not just to the letter, but
to a summary of its contents, in the replying Affidavit
which had been sworn on behalf of the Director. The
Supreme Court was of the view that the disclosure was for
the purpose of rebutting the applicants contention that
the charges against him could have been dealt with
summarily but that the Director withdrew his consent
when it became clear that the applicant did not intend to
plead guilty to the offences with which he was charged.
In the course of his judgment, Hardiman J. quoted from an
extract of Matthews and Malek Discovery (London 1992
at paragraph 9.15) where he stated:-

The general rule is that where privileged material is

deployed in Court in an interlocutory application, privilege
in that and any associated material is waived.
The discussion of that rule in Nenea Krteria Maritime
Company Limited v. Atlantic and Great Lakes Steamships
Corporation (1981) Com L.R. 139 was also cited as
follows:The opposite partymust have the opportunity of
satisfying themselves that what the party has chosen to
release from privilege represents the whole of the material
relevant to the issue in question.
Having considered those authorities, Hardiman J. was
satisfied that the document had indeed been deployed
in those proceedings, for what was termed litigious
advantage
17.
The matter was also considered, albeit in an
obiter dictum, of Fennelly J. in Fyffes plc v. DCC plc where
discovery of a privileged document was sought on the
grounds that the privilege had been waived by reason of
the disclosure of the relevant document to a third party. In
the course of his judgment, Fennelly J. made the following
observations:I would conclude, however, that the well-established rule
regarding privilege, whether including a notion of fairness
or not, goes no further than the proposition that a party
who seeks to deploy his privileged documents by partially
disclosing them or summarising their effect so as to gain
an advantage over his opponent in the action in which
they are privileged, runs a serious risk of losing the
privilege. I do not deny that the partial disclosure which
has that effect might, in some circumstances, be made to
a third party, but it would have to be for the purpose of
gaining an advantage in that action.
18.
IIU/ Mr Desmond have submitted that the
references to the opinion by Mr Brennan, Mr Towey and Mr
Loughrey in their evidence to the Tribunal, together with
the opening of passages from the opinion by Counsel for

Mr Denis O'Brien, in the course of Mr Loughreys crossexamination, without objection by Counsel for the
Department, constituted a deployment of the opinion by
the Department, and that this was done for litigious
advantage. In that regard, it is contended by IIU/Mr
Desmond that the Department witnesses made reference
to the opinion to demonstrate that the issue of change of
ownership was duly considered by them, and that they
had been reassured by the contents of that opinion. It is
asserted that that is sufficient to satisfy the litigious
advantage test.
19.
The Department has submitted that the
references in the course of evidence related to the seeking
and the coming into existence of the opinion, and that the
issue which arose in the course of Mr Loughreys crossexamination was whether it was appropriate for Mr
Loughrey to express an opinion on a matter which had
already been the subject of Counsels opinion. It is
asserted that neither of these matters constitutes a partial
waiver of privilege. It is further submitted that it was Mr
OBriens Counsel who was permitted to read passages
from the opinion, and that it is not possible for a third
party to waive privilege. Without prejudice to those
arguments, it is further contended that if some inaccurate
or partial disclosure did take place, it did not occur for
litigious advantage. In that regard, the Department
points out that the Tribunal is an investigative body, and
that accordingly there is no lis, there is no litigation, and it
follows that there can be no litigation advantage within
the meaning of the test adopted in the Hannigan case.
20.
The Tribunal has considered the submissions
and the relevant authorities. It is clear that what must be
determined by the Tribunal is whether the references in
the course of the evidence of the departmental witnesses
in response to questioning by the Tribunal, together with
the non-objection by the Department to passages of the
opinion being opened by Counsel for Mr OBrien in the
course of Mr Loughreys cross-examination, constituted a
deployment of the opinion by the Department, and if so,
whether that was for the purpose of litigious advantage.

Whether there was a deployment by the Department

(i)
chief.

References to Opinion in course of evidence in

21.
It has always been recognised, and is
undoubtedly the position that legal professional privilege
belongs to the party to whom the legal advice has been
furnished, which in this instance is the Department. The
privilege therefore could not be waived by references to
the opinion made by the Tribunal, or Tribunal Counsel, or it
seems by departmental witnesses, who could not be
presumed to be authorised, expressly or impliedly, to
waive privilege on behalf of the Department[4]. The
references to the opinion in the course of Mr Brennans
evidence on 4th February, 2003, Mr Toweys evidence on
20th May, 2003 and Mr Loughreys evidence on 21st
February, 2003 fall far short of the partial disclosure of the
contents of the opinion. In the course of the evidence
given by the departmental witnesses on those dates, there
was no reference whatsoever to the contents of the
opinion in question.
22.
The sole reference to the contents of the
opinion was made by Counsel for the Tribunal when
questioning Mr Brennan on 4th February, 2003 when he
commented it doesnt seem that the opinion that was
eventually obtained or pursued dealt with that issue; it
seemed to deal mainly with Section 8 (It should be
observed in passing that the reference to Section 8 related
to an entirely different matter whereby the Department
could place restrictions on the future alienation of shares
in ESAT Digifone following the issue of the licence). It
seems to the Tribunal that there was nothing in the
exchanges between Tribunal Counsel and the
departmental witnesses that could approximate to a
deployment of the opinion by the Department.
(ii)
Non-objection by Counsel for the Department to
the putting of passages from the opinion to Mr Loughrey
by Counsel for Mr OBrien.
23.

The opening of passages of the opinion by Mr

OBriens Counsel in the course of Mr Loughrey's crossexamination on 27th February, 2003, patently constituted
some form of disclosure of the contents of the opinion. The
disclosure in this instance was not of course made by the
Department, but by Counsel for Mr OBrien, albeit without
objection by Counsel for the Department. The issue
therefore is whether what occurred was tantamount to a
deployment of a portion of the opinion by the
Department. In the absence of evidence or any suggestion
to the contrary, there can be no question but that Counsel
instructed to represent the Department in the Tribunal
proceedings, as distinct from departmental witnesses,
must be deemed to have been authorised to bind the
Department in this regard. That being the case, the matter
turns on whether the actions of Mr OBriens Counsel,
without objection by the Department, should be treated as
those of the Department.
24.
No suggestion has been made by IIU/Mr
Desmond, nor does it appear to the Tribunal that there is
any evidence that the Department was complicit in the
course taken by Mr OBriens Counsel. Nor was it a result
of any act or omission on the part of the Department that
Mr OBriens representatives were in possession of a copy
of the Opinion, so that there can be no question of any
waiver through disclosure to a third party as was
considered in the Fyffes plc v. DCC plc case.
25.
Counsel for the Department did not object to
what transpired, and what must be addressed is whether
the Departments passivity in the face of the evident
intention of Mr OBriens Counsel to disclose a portion of
the opinion is sufficient to satisfy the test of deployment
as contemplated by the Supreme Court. It seems to the
Tribunal that in order to constitute a deployment within
the terms contemplated by the Hannigan case, that which
is required is some conscious and deliberate use of
selected portions of the privileged document by the party
in whom the privilege is vested, as in the Hannigan case,
where the replying affidavit filed in the judicial review
proceedings was expressly stated to be sworn on behalf of
the Director, and which not only referred to the privileged
advices but summarised their contents. Such an affidavit,

as in the case of a pleading, would have been carefully

constructed, and it must be taken that references to the
advices and their contents were deliberately included in
the affidavit. In contrast, it seems to the Tribunal that
there was nothing deliberate or conscious in the
Departments acquiescence in the disclosure made by Mr
OBriens Counsel. Neither the Department nor its Counsel
referred to the opinion, quoted from passages of it, had
any input into the selection of the passages quoted, nor it
seems to the Tribunal had any role in initiating the events
that gave rise to the disclosure. In these circumstances, it
is the Tribunals view that the Departments mere
acquiescence in what occurred lacks the requisite
deliberation or involvement to constitute a deployment
by the Department in the terms contemplated by the
Supreme Court in the Hannigan case.
26.
It is also the Tribunals view that having regard
to the stated purpose for which passages of the opinion
were opened by Mr McGonigal, that the matter is put
beyond question. What was stated by Mr McGonigal was
as follows:Sorry, in fairness in to Mr Loughrey, my Lord, Mr
Chairman, I am not in the least bit trying to infiltrate in
relation to Mr Nesbitts opinion or question it in any way.
The document speaks for itself. But what I am suggesting
is, that there are aspects of the document which open
lines of inquiry for the Tribunal, more so than Mr Loughrey,
but they give a flavour, insofar as Mr Nesbitt was briefed,
as to the concerns which were happening in the
Department at that time, and insofar as that is relevant as
a line of inquiry, it seems to me that it should be brought
to the Tribunals attention in public session. It is for no
other reason than that.
It is apparent from what was stated in this regard that Mr
McGonigal was not seeking to draw the attention of the
Tribunal, or the witness, to the advices comprised in the
Opinion, but rather to the matters on which Counsel had
been briefed, as indicative of the concerns of the
Department.

Whether purpose of disclosure was for litigious

advantage
27.
Having already ruled that there was no
deployment of the opinion by the Department, it is not
strictly speaking necessary for the Tribunal to consider
whether such disclosure as occurred was for the purpose
of litigious advantage. However, as it has been
contended that the concept is applicable to the
proceedings of a tribunal of inquiry, it seems of sufficient
importance to warrant comment.
28.
It is trite law to state that neither the Tribunal
itself, nor those assisting it with its inquiries, nor those to
whom representation is granted are engaged in litigation.
This principle was recognised in Goodman International v.
Hamilton (No. 1)[5] and has been confirmed in numerous
subsequent cases. The Tribunal is an investigative body
engaged in a purely inquisitorial function. There is
accordingly no lis, there are no proceedings, and there are
no parties, in the sense of plaintiffs or defendants, but
merely parties assisting the Tribunal with it inquiries.
29.
In these circumstances, the concept of
litigious advantage has no direct application to Tribunal
proceedings, nor is it a concept that can easily be
superimposed on the work of a tribunal. IIU/Mr Desmond
have asserted that an advantage equivalent to litigious
advantage accrued to the Department consequent on the
disclosure by Counsel for Mr O'Brien. It is asserted that the
references to the opinion were made for the purpose of
demonstrating that the issue of change of ownership was
duly considered by them, and that they had been
reassured by the contents of that opinion.
30.
Even if such a purpose was served by the
partial disclosure, in order for that purpose to constitute
something akin to litigious advantage, it could only be
operative, if there was a corresponding disadvantage
suffered by IIU/Mr Desmond. There is nothing in the
circumstances surrounding the Tribunals inquiries which
could give rise to any such disadvantage on the part of
IIU/Mr Desmond. This, it seems to the Tribunal, arises from

the absence of any issue on this point which could

potentially impact adversely on IIU/Mr Desmond. There is
no suggestion that the involvement of IIU/Mr Desmond
was not fully known to the Department at that time, nor is
there any suggestion that IIU/Mr Desmond had any role in
the requesting or furnishing of an opinion on the point.
This was solely a matter for the Department, and
ultimately it is only material to the Tribunals inquiries in
terms of the involvement (if any) of the then Minister, Mr
Michael Lowry.
The OCallaghan decision
31.
IIU/Mr Desmond are also seeking access to the
Opinion on the basis of the principles enunciated by the
Supreme Court in the case of OCallaghan v. Mahon[6].
They contend that the opinion has been examined by the
Tribunal in the course of its private investigations, and as
it may impinge on what are characterised as allegations
made against them, the fundamental fairness recognised
in the OCallaghan decision dictates that the opinion
should be made available to them. The Department has
also provided the Tribunal with submissions addressed to
this matter. The Department asserts that the OCallaghan
case has no application to privileged, as opposed to
confidential documents. The Department also points to the
absence of any concrete explanation by IIU/Mr Desmond
as to what relevance the opinion might have, and how the
absence of access to it might adversely affect their
position or, with specific reference to the OCallaghan
decision, any respect in which their cross-examination of
departmental witnesses has been limited or undermined
by not having access to the Opinion.
32.
It is the view of the Tribunal that the principles
of the OCallaghan case have no application to privileged
documents, as opposed to those documents which the
Tribunal has treated as confidential. It is important in this
regard to bear in mind that in the OCallaghan case the
Applicant sought access to previous statements made by
a witness, who in evidence made serious allegations
against the Applicant, which were not comprised in the
witness statement circulated prior to that witness being

called to give evidence. The previous statements which

had been furnished to the Tribunal, in the course of its
private investigative work, were required by the Applicant
in order to enable the Applicant to cross-examine the
witness who had made the allegations for the purpose of
vindicating the Applicants reputation. The document in
question was not privileged, and there is nothing in that
judgment which, in the view of the Tribunal, could extend
to documents over which a valid claim to privilege
subsists.
33.
It has been suggested by IIU/Mr Desmond, in
the course of submissions, that an allegation has been
made by the Tribunal that they evaded the competition
evaluation conducted by the Department, and that in
some unenumerated fashion access to the opinion of 9th
May might assist them in meeting that allegation. In the
first instance, the Tribunal wishes to correct any
misconception on the part of IIU/Mr Desmond or any other
person. No such allegation has ever been made by the
Tribunal, or by any witness to the Tribunal, nor has such an
inquiry been pursued. Rather, what has been inquired into
is whether IIU/Mr Desmond went through the evaluation
process. The Tribunals inquiries, insofar as they have
focused on the composition of the ESAT Digifone
consortium, which was subject to competitive evaluation,
have not been directed to the conduct of IIU/Mr Desmond,
but to the conduct of the Department after the
involvement of IIU/Mr Desmond emerged, and whether
that conduct was influenced, in any respect, by any
actions or omissions on the part of the then Minister, Mr
Michael Lowry.
34.
In the above connection, it has also been
submitted by the Department, with some force, that the
issue which falls for determination by the Tribunal is not
what was contained in the opinion, but what those who
received the opinion believed that it contained. The
Department has observed that the departmental officials
have given evidence regarding what they believed at the
time, and that the substantive issue to be addressed by
the Tribunal revolves around the credibility of those
witnesses. Their credibility has been fully tested both in

examination by the Tribunal and in cross-examination,

including cross-examination by Counsel on behalf of Mr
OBrien who had access to the entire opinion.
35.
In conclusion, it is the Tribunals view that the
OCallaghan decision has no application to privileged
documents, and that there are no principles of
fundamental fairness recognised in that decision which
would warrant a dilution of the Departments right to
exclude from disclosure the privileged communication
which it received.
Other legal considerations justifying disclosure of Opinion
36.
It has been submitted on behalf of Mr OBrien,
that the purpose for which the opinion of 9th May, 1996
was sought is distinguishable from the investigations of
the Tribunal, and the consequences of those
investigations, and that having regard to the Tribunals
obligation to discover the facts surrounding the issue of
the second GSM licence, the balance between the
Tribunals obligations, and the privilege attaching to the
opinion, shifts in favour of disclosure. In this regard,
reliance is placed on a decision of the English Court of
Appeal of Parry-Jones v. Law Society[7]. In response to that
aspect of Mr OBriens submissions, the Tribunal has
received submissions from the Attorney General on behalf
of the Public Interest which are confined to this single
issue. The public interest submissions contend that the
authority relied upon by Mr OBrien has no application to a
tribunal, such as this Tribunal, established under the
provisions of the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act, 1921,
and further that it is clear from the provisions of that Act,
and has been authoritatively recognised in this
jurisdiction, that the powers conferred on the Tribunal to
direct the production of documents are circumscribed by
legal professional privilege irrespective of the purpose for
which the document may have been generated.
37.
Mr OBriens submission rests on the
presumption that the purpose for which the opinion was
sought was the protection of the Department in the event
of a subsequent Court challenge to the Departments

actions in awarding the licence to ESAT Digifone leading to

an Order invalidating the licence. It is contended that this
purpose is distinguishable and independent of the
functions of the Tribunal, which are to inquire pursuant to
its Terms of Reference, and to make findings of fact which
cannot impact on the validity of the licence. It is further
submitted by Mr OBrien that such distinction is
comparable to that considered by the English Court of
Appeal in the Parry-Jones case in which a solicitor, under
investigation by the English Law Society, in its regulatory
capacity, unsuccessfully claimed legal professional
privilege in respect of documentation over which his client
would have been entitled to claim privilege. Lord Denning
MR held that the Law Societys statutory powers of
investigation overrode any privilege or confidence that
might otherwise have subsisted between Solicitor and
client. What is contended by Mr OBrien is that the inquiry
being conducted by the Tribunal is analogous to that which
was being conducted by the Law Society in that case.
38.
It is submitted on behalf of the Public Interest
that the decision of the English Court of Appeal must be
viewed in the light of the statutory framework under which
the English Law Society was operating. The Public Interest
has drawn the Tribunals attention to the passage of the
Judgment of Lord Denning MR in which he interpreted the
effect of the English legislation and rules under which the
Law Society operated, as entitling the Law Society, in
certain circumstances, to require a Solicitor to produce his
books, as overriding the privilege or confidence that might
otherwise subsist between Solicitor and client. Lord
Denning M.R. further noted that the documents received
could be used for the purposes of the English Law
Societys investigation and for any subsequent application
to the Law Societys Disciplinary Committee but that in all
other respects
the usual rules of legal professional privilege apply, see
Section 46(6) of the Act.
44.
The Public Interest distinguishes that statutory
regime from the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Acts, 19212004, being the statutory regime under which the Tribunal

operates. In particular, it is asserted, and the Tribunal

believes correctly, that by reason of Section 1(3) and
Section 1(4) of the 1921 Act, it is clear that persons before
a Tribunal of Inquiry are entitled to invoke legal
professional privilege on the same basis as parties to
proceedings before the High Court.
Section 1(3) of the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) Act,
1921 provides:A witness before any such Tribunal shall be entitled to the
same immunities and privileges as if he were a witness
before the High Court or Court of Session.
Section 1(4) of the Act, as inserted by Section 2 of the
Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence) (Amendment) Act, 1997,
provides:A person who produces or sends a document to any such
Tribunal pursuant to an Order of that Tribunal shall be
entitled to the same immunities and privileges as if he or
she were a witness before the High Court.
39.
It is the Tribunals view that it follows from the
provisions of both Section 1(3) and Section 1(4) of the
1921 Act, that a person who produces documents to a
Tribunal either under compulsion of an Order of the
Tribunal, or voluntarily, does so on the same footing, and
with the self same immunities and privileges as a party
disclosing documentation in the course of High Court
proceedings.
40.
Whilst the Tribunal has been referred to
authorities, including a decision of the Privy Council in the
New Zealand case of B. v. Auckland District Law Society
(PC)[8] and of the Court of Appeal in Three Rivers District
Council v. Governor and Company of the Bank of England
(NO 6). [9], neither of those authorities address the
specific statutory scheme under consideration, and in
particular S.1 (4) of the 1921 Act.
41.
No distinction can be drawn by reference to the
purpose for which the privileged communication was

made, as this would be contrary to the decision of the

Supreme Court in the case of Smurfit Paribas Bank Limited
v. AAB Export Finance Limited (No. 1)[10] in which it was
established that legal professional privilege is not confined
to communications generated in contemplation of
furtherance of legal proceedings but is applicable to all
communications containing legal advice The principle was
stated as follows by Finlay C.J.:where it is established that a communication was made
between a person and his lawyer acting for him as a
lawyer for the purposes of obtaining from such lawyer
legal advice, whether at the initiation of the client or the
lawyer, that communication made on such an occasion
should in general be privileged or exempt from disclosure,
except with the consent of the client at p.478.
42.
It has never been doubted by the Courts in this
jurisdiction that persons before Tribunals of Inquiry are
entitled to invoke legal professional privilege on the same
basis as parties to proceedings before the High Court. The
decision of the High Court in Miley v. Flood[11], although
involving the unsuccessful invocation of a right to legal
professional privilege in relation to the identity of the
applicant solicitors client, proceeded on the footing that a
person compelled to produce documentation to a Tribunal
of Inquiry was entitled to invoke the protection of legal
professional privilege. In the course of his Judgment, Kelly
J. reiterated the conclusion which he had reached in
Duncan v. Governor of Portlaoise Prison[12] (which
decision he noted had been upheld by the Supreme Court
in an ex tempore decision [13]) that:Legal professional privilege is more than a mere rule of
evidence. It is a fundamental condition on which the
administration of justice as a whole rests.[14]
43.
that:-

Kelly J. also noted in the course of his judgment

Legal professional privilege is also protected by the

European Convention on Human Rights. In Niemitez v.
Germany (1992) 16 EHRR 97, the European Court of

Human Rights took the view that a warrant which

permitted the search of a lawyers officer was not
necessary in a democratic society. The power, which took
no account of any special protection which might be
desirable in relation to the lawyers premises was
disproportionate to its purposes. The Court took the view
that where a lawyer was involved ..An encroachment on
professional secrecy may have repercussions on the
proper administration of justice and hence on the rights
guaranteed by Article 6 of the Convention.
44.
Similarly, the invocation of legal professional
privilege on the self same terms as applicable in Court
proceedings, was also recognised, and upheld in a further
decision of Kelly J. in Irish Haemophilia Society v.
Lindsey[15].
45.
The Tribunals attention has also been drawn
by the Public Interest to passages from the leading English
text on privilege, Passmore[16], in which, having noted
that Parry-Jones was almost certainly the first reported
decision of an English Court dealing with the assertion of a
claim of privilege outside the confines of a Courtroom, it is
observed that statutory powers that have conferred rights
of compulsory evidence gathering do not appear to have
raised issues over privilege:
Either because the nature of things for which the warrant
authorised a search to be undertaken made it unlikely
they would be found in a lawyers office, or because in
virtually every English statute in which compulsory
information gathering powers have been given to
regulatory bodies that operate extra-judicially. Parliament
had (with very few exceptions) expressly provided (in what
are referred to in this work as privilege preservation
provisions) that such statutory powers do not include the
right to seek privileged materials or documents or
statements that evidence them.
Section 1(3) of the 1921 Act is specifically referred to, in a
footnote to the text, as containing privilege preservation
provisions, and the Tribunal accepts the submission on
behalf of the Public Interest that Passmore accordingly

recognises that the Parry-Jones decision has no application

to a Tribunal of Inquiry having regard to the provisions of
Section 1 of the 1921 Act.
46.
Finally, it has been submitted on behalf of the
Public Interest that the reasoning of the Court of Appeal in
the Parry-Jones case has recently been doubted by the
English House of Lords in the recent case of R.(Morgan
Grenville and Company Limited) v. Special
Commissioners[17], and that this has followed the
recognition by the English Courts that privilege is more
than a rule of evidence, but has a substantive content, as
already recognised by the Courts in this jurisdiction as in
Miley v. Flood and Duncan v. Governor of Portlaoise Prison.
It is accordingly submitted that even if the Parry-Jones was
applicable to the facts under consideration by the Tribunal,
it is doubtful that it correctly reflects the law in this
jurisdiction.
47.
Having regard to all of the foregoing
consideration, the Tribunal is satisfied that it is clear, by
virtue of Section 1 of the Tribunals of Inquiry (Evidence)
Act, 1921, that a party appearing before a tribunal is
entitled to the self same privileges (including legal
professional privilege) as a party to litigation before the
High Court. Section 1(3) and Section 1(4), both individually
and collectively, constitute privilege preservation
provisions as described by Passmore. The Tribunal is
bound by the decision of the Supreme Court in the Smurfit
Paribas Case, so that the purpose for which the privileged
communication was made is immaterial to the rights of
the person invoking the privilege, provided there is a
validly subsisting claim to privilege. It is further clear to
the Tribunal that the Parry-Jones case, irrespective of its
status in Irish law, has no application to a tribunal of
inquiry established under the 1921 Act.
48.
In summary, it is the Ruling of the Tribunal that
as there has been no waiver of privilege by the
Department over the Opinion of 9th May, 1996, that as the
decision in the case of OCallaghan v. Mahon is not
applicable to privileged documents, and that as the
purpose for which the opinion was sought has no bearing

on the Departments right to claim privilege before the

Tribunal, that access to the Opinion must be denied.
[1] [2006] 2 IR 32
[2] [2001] 1 IR 378
[3] [2005] 1 IRLM 357
[4] Schneider v. Leigh (1955) 2 Q.B.195
[5] [1992] 2 IR 542
[6] [2006] 2 IR 32
[7] 1 (1969) 1 CH 1
[8] (2003) 2 AC 736.
[9] (2004) 2 WLR 1065
[10] [1991] 1R 469
[11] [2001] 2 IR 50.
[12] [1997] 1 IR 558
[13] Unreported Supreme Court 5th March, 1997,
[14] At p65.
[15] Unreported 16th May, 2001.
[16] Passmore Privilege, Second Edition, 2006 at page 13.
[17] (2002) 2 WLR 1299
RULING OF MR. JUSTICE MICHAEL MORIARTY
SOLE MEMBER OF TRIBUNAL OF INQUIRY
29th September, 2005
Caution:
1.1
In any ruling or response to any submissions in any
Tribunal, no more than in any Court, there is always a
danger that no matter what care is taken in the use of
language certain expressions may be open to being
construed as suggesting that final conclusions have been
reached or final findings made. I wish to make it clear that
I have reached no final conclusions nor made any final
findings of fact nor formed any fixed opinions and this
ruling should be read accordingly.
2.

Preliminary

2.1
In these remarks I intend to deal with the
submissions invited by the Tribunal in response to a
request from Counsel for Mr. Denis O'Brien that I should
express a view on the probable non-availability of Mr.
Michael Andersen. In response to this invitation,
submissions were received from Counsel for the Public
Interest, Counsel for Telenor, Counsel for Mr. Michael
Lowry and Counsel for Mr. Denis O'Brien. Counsel for the
Department, whilst reserving the position of the
Department made a proposal concerning the procedure
the Tribunal might adopt in its continuing sittings, a
proposal to which I will return below. Mr. Denis O'Brien
and Mr. Michael Lowry (in submissions with which Counsel
for Mr. Dermot Desmond and IIU agreed, although not
making substantive submissions and ultimately reserving
their position) and to a lesser degree Telenor, raised other
matters, primarily contentions of breach of fair procedures
on the part of the Tribunal notably, inordinate and
inexcusable delay. Additional matters were also raised
with respect to the proposed evidence of Mr. Peter Bacon
in resumed public sittings. Although not related to the
question upon which the Tribunal invited submissions, I
propose to address all of these additional matters in broad
terms in the course of these remarks.

3.

Duration of the Tribunal

3.1
Firstly, lest references in the course of these
submissions to indeterminate eight year duration of the
Inquiry with no prospect of finality be ascribed weight
certain factors should be borne in mind. These remarks
were made in the context of submissions in connection
with the portion of the Tribunal?s inquiries dealing with the
GSM process. As the Tribunal?s inquiries into that process
did not commence until in or about May, 2001 the
references to that extensive period are of course
inaccurate.

3.2
In addressing the complaint of delay, the extended
duration of the Tribunal has to be considered, firstly, in the
context of all of the work upon which it has been engaged
since October of 1997 and, secondly, in the particular
context of the inquiries relating to Mr. Michael Lowry, to
which the GSM portion of the Tribunal?s public sittings
relates specifically. The Terms of Reference of this Tribunal
are very extensive and to date have involved a number of
wide-ranging, although interdependent, inquiries, each of
which in itself might have warranted a full-scale Tribunal of
a more limited duration. The inquiries concerning Mr.
Charles J. Haughey involved, firstly, the examination of his
bank accounts and other sources of income; secondly, an
inquiry into aspects of the operation of Ansbacher Bank
within this jurisdiction and the role of the Central Bank in
relation to those activities; thirdly, the examination of the
conduct of the Leader?s Allowance Account in connection
with payments to Mr. Haughey; fourthly, the examination
of Mr. Haughey?s relations with the Revenue
Commissioners. To this must be added those aspects of
the Tribunal?s inquiries concerned with Mr. Michael Lowry.

3.3
On three occasions since the commencement of its
work the Tribunal has been obliged to respond to
substantive legal challenges. These arose from Court
proceedings instituted by Mr. Charles Haughey, Mr. Dermot
Desmond and Mr. Denis O?Brien. While not suggesting
that any of these individuals were not entitled to avail of
their legal right of access to the Courts to challenge any of
the Tribunal?s procedures or proceedings, the litigation
which ensued consumed a significant amount of the
Tribunal?s time and resources. From shortly after the
Tribunal?s work commenced, Mr. Haughey?s litigation, in
the form of a constitutional challenge involving both the
Tribunal and the State absorbed the preponderance of
1998 and precluded the commencement of public sittings
proper until before the end of January of 1999. Thereafter
the Tribunal?s hearings, concerned with payments to Mr.
Haughey, the operation of the Ansbacher accounts, the

Leader?s Allowance and Mr. Haughey?s dealings with the

Revenue Commissioners, were more or less concluded by
the 30th May, 2001, retarded of course by the unavoidable
health issues concerning Mr. Haughey.

3.4
The Inquiry?s dealings with Mr. Lowry?s affairs
have undoubtedly been the longest and most extensive of
those to date undertaken by the Tribunal. The evolution of
those inquiries has been alluded to in litigation in which
the Tribunal has been involved during the conduct of those
inquiries and while it has also been referred to from time
to time in the course of the Tribunal?s public sittings, it is
appropriate that it should be referred to extensively at this
point in the context of what I propose to say below
concerning the approach to be adopted to the conclusion
of those hearings.

3.5
The Tribunal?s first public sittings dealing
substantively with the Terms of Reference applicable to Mr.
Michael Lowry commenced on the 22nd of June, 1999.
The duration of those sittings was a mere five days.
Having regard to the evidence given it seemed reasonable
to infer that the bulk of the Tribunal?s work in relation to
Mr. Michael Lowry had been concluded in those sessions.
Of the matters outstanding at that time the most
substantive, and the only one which at that stage it could
definitively be predicted would involve public sittings was
Term of Reference (j) relating to the collection of income
tax by the Revenue Commissioners. In an Opening
Statement delivered on the 22nd June, 1999 it was stated
that in endeavouring to establish whether any substantive
payments were made to Mr. Lowry and in endeavouring to
establish the source of funds held in Mr. Lowry?s bank
accounts, the Tribunal had sought to assemble all of the
available financial information concerning Mr. Lowry?s
affairs and that to that end, it had sought, and (as far the
Tribunal understood) been given full access to all
information regarding Mr. Lowry?s accounts, both his
accounts within the State and accounts he held off-shore.

In the course of hearings on that day, evidence was given

by Mr. Denis O?Connor who agreed that he had been
retained by Mr. Lowry in 1996 to carry out a full review of
Mr. Lowry?s financial affairs and to reconstruct and to
prepare a record of his finances and that in carrying out
his work, he had been given full access to all information
regarding Mr. Lowry?s finances including all accounts held
by him in banks within the State and off-shore. It should
be noted at this point, that of the matters listed by the
Tribunal as warranting attention, the last itemised was the
purchase of a property at Carysfort Avenue in Blackrock by
Mr. Lowry. The relevant witnesses in connection with the
Tribunal?s inquiries relating to Mr. Lowry at that stage had
concluded their testimony by 23rd June, 1999.

3.6
On Monday the 18th of December, the Tribunal
resumed public sittings to hear evidence connected, in the
main, as it was put in the Opening Statement, with the
Revenue Commissioners. Evidence dealing with Mr.
Lowry?s relationship with the Revenue Commissioners was
not reached until the 23rd of March, 2001. The evidence
thereafter given was considerably truncated due to a
problem which arose concerning the extent to which it was
either fair or appropriate to proceed with a public
examination of Mr. Lowry?s dealings with the Revenue
Commissioners in circumstances where he was actively
involved with the Revenue Commissioners in
endeavouring to resolve a number of outstanding
difficulties. It was also felt that apart from any question of
appropriateness or fairness, the public intervention of the
Tribunal at that stage might not be helpful to the
expeditious conclusion of Mr. Lowry?s personal income tax
dealings.

3.7
By the time the Tribunal had resumed sittings in
May of 2001, a significant amount of new information had
become available concerning a number of financial and
property transactions which appeared to involve Mr. Lowry
and with which certain other individuals appeared to be

connected in one way or another. These individuals were

the late Mr. David Austin, Mr. Aidan Phelan, Mr. Kevin
Phelan, Mr. Denis O'Brien and Mr. Christopher Vaughan.
By that time, there had also come to the attention of the
Tribunal, through media reports, the broad details
regarding what has come to be known as the Telenor/ESAT
$50,000.00 payment intended for the Fine Gael Party.

3.8
As I have already indicated above, the Carysfort
transaction had already been mentioned in the course of
the Tribunal?s proceedings and it was effectively the last
of the matters dealt with in the course of what the Tribunal
believed to be its concluding hearings concerning Mr.
Lowry?s financial affairs. No mention had been made by
Mr. Lowry, or Mr. O?Connor, of the fact of Mr. Lowry having
received a loan of 147,000.00 to pay for repairs and
renovations to that property. Nor had any reference been
made by Mr. Lowry or Mr. O?Connor to the role of Mr.
David Austin in connection with this sum of money. Nor
was any information made available to the Tribunal
concerning the circumstances surrounding the payment of
147,000.00 into an off-shore account of Mr. Lowry?s in
the Isle of Man, the payment having been transmitted
from an off-shore account of Mr. David Austin in the
Channel Islands.

3.9
The Cheadle and Mansfield transactions likewise
had not been brought to the attention of the Tribunal in
the course of the original examination of Mr. Lowry?s
financial affairs or at any relevant time thereafter until the
Tribunal, by other means learned of the details of the
transactions. Indeed, these transactions were in train
both while the Tribunal was engaged in private
investigations and while it continued to hear evidence
concerning Mr. Lowry?s financial affairs including in
particular his dealings with the Revenue Commissioners.

3.10 A thread running through all of the Tribunal?s

inquiries in these matters and which will require special
consideration is not merely the need to review the earlier
evidence in the light of the later or newer evidence but in
so reviewing it to consider the manner in which the
additional or new evidence came to light and, also, to
consider whether steps had been taken to prevent new
evidence coming to light so as to conceal the true nature
of the relationships of the individuals involved in these
transactions.

3.11 The Tribunal?s inquiries into the $50,000.00

Telenor/ESAT payment involved not merely the payment
itself but the apparently covert route by which the money
was transferred from Telenor to an off-shore account of Mr.
David Austin, the initial rejection by Fine Gael of this
payment and subsequently the apparently secretive
manner in which the payment, disguised as an altogether
different donation, was transmitted to Fine Gael. In the
course of the Tribunal?s private investigatory work in
relation to this payment, it came to light that an internal
inquiry had been conducted by persons involved in the
initial public offering (IPO) of shares in ESAT Telecom in
1997, a public offering the main attraction of which was
the ESAT Telecom holding in ESAT Digifone. This inquiry
involved not just directors of ESAT Telecom but also the
representatives of the shareholders in ESAT Digifone
namely, of Mr. Denis O'Brien?s interests, the interests of
Mr. Dermot Desmond and of Telenor. In the course of that
private investigatory work, the Tribunal was informed by
Mr. Barry Moloney (although not by anyone else) of
remarks made to him by Mr. Denis O'Brien concerning two
100,000.00 payments one of which was referable (as has
been confirmed both by Mr. Moloney and by Mr. O?Brien)
to Mr. Michael Lowry.

3.12 In a further Opening Statement on 14th June, 2001,

it became necessary to refer to this additional material
obtained from Mr. Moloney and to the need to conduct a

much more wide reaching inquiry into the events

surrounding the 1997 IPO. By October of that year, the
Tribunal had embarked on the examination of another
payment which came to light in the course of public
sittings connected with the IPO. This involved share
transactions connected with Mr. David Austin and as was
pointed out at page 19 of Day 41 of the transcript of the
Tribunal?s public sittings, the task for the Tribunal was to
endeavour, so far as practicable, to establish the true
nature of the transaction involving some 12,000 shares
and to endeavour to establish whether in the light of an
apparent conflict between Mr. O?Brien?s evidence and Mr.
Aidan Phelan?s evidence, the purchase of these shares in
Mr. Austin?s name was in error; whether a transaction
which on its face resulted in the benefit to Mr. Austin of
some $300,000.00 was not erroneous or whether in fact it
was intended to confer a benefit on Mr. Austin and
whether there were any connections between such a
transaction and other payments to Mr. Austin which
appeared to have links to Mr. Lowry.

3.13 The Tribunal?s sittings in 2001/2002 were

concerned with the examination of the IPO, with the
Carysfort loan and with the Cheadle and Mansfield
transactions. In the course of examination of those
matters, the file of Mr. Christopher Vaughan, Solicitor was
made available to the Tribunal. In 2002, certain
correspondence was brought to the attention of the
Tribunal which warranted a certain focus on Mr. Vaughan?s
role in handling the Mansfield and Cheadle transactions
and in particular, certain correspondence appearing to
suggest, firstly, the involvement of Mr. Michael Lowry and,
secondly, an attempt to conceal that involvement. This
correspondence, described in the course of the evidence
as the ?long form/short form letters? was touched on in
July, 2002. One of the features of the Tribunal?s inquiries
in connection with the Cheadle and Mansfield transactions
was the mention on a number of occasions of what has
now come to be known as the Doncaster transaction.
This, according to information and evidence given to the

Tribunal by both Mr. Lowry and Mr. O?Brien was exclusively

an O?Brien interest.

3.14 It will be recalled that the Tribunal?s inquiries into

the transaction were prompted in the first instance by the
publication in the Irish Times of the contents of a letter of
September, 1998 from Mr. Christopher Vaughan to Michael
Lowry suggesting an involvement by Mr. Michael Lowry in
the Doncaster transaction. What the Tribunal has since
learned is that this letter appears to have been produced
in London in the course of mediation proceedings in 2002
connected with the purchase of the Doncaster Rovers
Stadium property. It would appear therefore that from
that date, whatever the position may have been prior to
that date, the existence of this letter and the contents of it
were known to Mr. O?Brien and those agents of his acting
in connection with the mediation. From other information
made available to the Tribunal, it would appear that in the
course of preparations being made by English Lawyers for
the mediation (and related litigation), there had been
references to an involvement on the part of Mr. Michael
Lowry in the Doncaster transaction. These references
were attributed to Mr. Denis O?Connor. The letter of the
25th September, 1998 from Mr. Christopher Vaughan to
Mr. Michael Lowry together with the other references to
Mr. Lowry?s involvement in the Doncaster transaction
were referred to in an Opening Statement on 15th
September, 2004. It will be recalled that, although this
letter had at the very latest come to the knowledge of Mr.
O?Brien and presumably a number of his advisers and
assistants in 2002, at no point in the course of any
evidence given in that year in connection with the not
dissimilar long from/short form letters was any reference
made either by Mr. O?Brien or Mr. Lowry or Mr. O?Connor
to the letter of the 25th of September, 1998.

3.15 In the Opening Statement made in September,

2004, the Tribunal alluded to the fact that the examination
of the evidence connected with the Doncaster transaction

would involve a re-examination of all previous evidence

concerning English property transactions. Public sittings
concerning the Doncaster transaction must now await the
High Court Order in proceedings instituted by Mr. O?Brien
to restrain the Tribunal from examining the Doncaster
transaction. Those proceedings have been unsuccessful
but until an Order of the High Court is made and the
question whether any such Order is to be appealed is
disposed of, it would be preferable to limit references to
the Doncaster transaction.

3.16 One of the questions which will ultimately fall to be

determined is whether, regardless of any other
conclusions I may reach, all of the additional material
which has come to light since 1998 could have been - and
if so ought to have been - brought to the attention of the
Tribunal prior to that date, and if so, to what extent and by
whom. What is clear is that had that material been
brought to the attention of the Tribunal, a considerable
amount of time and effort might have been saved in
dealing with the business of the Tribunal since that date in
2001.

3.17 One of the features of all of this material, from the

information regarding the $50,000.00 Telenor/ESAT
payment, the Carysfort transaction and the related
147,000.00 loan from Mr. Austin, the Doncaster, Cheadle
and Mansfield transactions is, as has been pointed out in
Opening Statements, the apparent connections between
individuals all of whom were involved or connected with
the ESAT Digifone bid for the GSM II licence. A further
dimension of this sequence of transactions which is
explored in the course of the inquiry and which will have
to be addressed in any conclusions I may reach concerns a
statement attributed to Mr. O?Brien in the course of the
internal inquisition at the time of the IPO that he had
contemplated a payment to Mr. Lowry and that he had in
his mind earmarked money for that purpose in
Woodchester but that that money, to use the expression

recorded at the time, ?got stuck? with an ?intermediary?.

It will be recalled that in the course of the IPO internal
inquisition queries were raised concerning movements on
Mr. O?Brien?s account. Sometime shortly before the time
of that inquisition, but not disclosed to the inquisition,
there had been a transfer out of an account in
Woodchester under the control of Mr. O?Brien, the RINV
account, of a sum of 407,000. It appears that this money
was transmitted, at the direction of Mr. Aidan Phelan, to an
account opened for the purpose of receiving it in the Isle
of Man. Amongst a number of allocations from this
account the sum of 50,000 firstly and secondly the sum
of 100,000 were transmitted to an account opened by Mr.
David Austin in the Channel Islands, again, opened
specifically for the purposes of receiving these monies.
The Tribunal has been informed by Mr. Denis O?Brien that
these monies were transmitted to Mr. David Austin in
consideration of the sale by Mr. Austin of a townhouse he
owned in Spain, to Mr. O?Brien. These monies paid to Mr.
Austin by Mr. O?Brien were then transmitted (in fact
147,000 of the funds, not the entire 150,000) to an
undisclosed off-shore account of Mr. Lowry in the Isle of
Man, opened, at a time when he was still a Minister, and
apparently expressly for the purpose of receiving these
funds. According to Mr. Lowry these funds were to be
used in the renovation of his Carysfort Avenue property.
However, sometime shortly after a contract was entered
into for the renovation of that property the entire
transaction was reversed, in fact on the day of the
establishment of the McCracken Tribunal by the re-transfer
of those monies back to the Channel Island account in the
name of Mr. Austin where they appear to have remained.
One of the questions that arises in light of the remarks
made by Mr. O?Brien in the course of the IPO inquisition, is
whether the subsequent property transactions, namely,
Doncaster, Cheadle and Mansfield (and the related
financial transactions) were intended as a substitution for
the payment that ?got stuck?, i.e., for the 147,0000
payment that was reversed (if that is an appropriate
conclusion to reach in relation to that payment); and/or
whether all of those transactions from the reversed
Carysfort transaction onwards were part of a train of

transactions related to the conferral of a benefit on Mr.

Michael Lowry.

4.

The GSM II Process

4.1
While undoubtedly always recognised as a major
decision involving Mr. Michael Lowry, and therefore as
something potentially likely to be of interest to the
Tribunal, the Tribunal?s extensive inquiries into the GSM II
process were prompted by the connections between the
individuals apparently involved in the financial and
property transactions mentioned above and the ESAT
Digifone bid for the GSM licence.

4.2
From general knowledge of the process, gleaned
from press reports and to some extent from parliamentary
debates, the GSM process appeared to have been a
seamless and technically irreproachable one, a process
that was bound inexorably to reach an objective
conclusion, one that had been described as being
effectively hermetically sealed from outside interference.
In order to understand the process, the Tribunal felt it was
necessary to embark first upon an exhaustive preliminary
investigation followed by lengthy public hearings with a
view to elucidating the evolution of the scoring system, of
the evaluation structure proceeding to the actual conduct
of the evaluation followed by the negotiation of the
licence. In examining the process, the Tribunal has set its
face against endeavouring to substitute its view for the
views of the evaluators as to the result of the competition.
From the documents prepared by the PT GSM Team, from
the information and documents provided by Mr. Michael
Andersen and from the evidence given by Officials
connected with the process it appeared that the process
may not have been as streamlined as at first it seemed.

Moreover it appeared that the process did not proceed as

seamlessly from the evolution of the evaluation structure
to the ultimate result as may have appeared from public
statements in the Dail and elsewhere concerning the
conduct of the evaluation. It was clear from the Tribunal?s
preliminary examination and from the evidence heard in
the course of the Tribunal?s sittings devoted to the GSM
process that the quantitative evaluation carried out, as
initially envisaged by the evaluation model, resulted in a
wholly different ranking to that ultimately adopted by the
PT GSM. Apart from the fact that this suggested a less
than streamlined process and a less than seamless
evolution of the process from a substantive point of view it
warranted an extensive inquiry with a view to
understanding the process.

4.3
The same goes for the alteration in the approach
taken in the evaluation process to the measurement and
scoring of the internal rate of return (IRR). Without going
into excessive detail, it would appear that the values
submitted by the various applicants in respect of their
IRRs were recalculated by the evaluator to reflect a ten
year planning period as opposed to a fifteen year period
as was originally requested. While not entirely clear, it
appears from the documentation available to the Tribunal
that this was done because of inconsistencies in the
manner in which one or more of the applicants had
calculated IRR, although the applicant or applicants in
question were never asked to correct the problem. One
effect of this recalculation was to alter significantly the
corresponding scores that each applicant was entitled to
receive in respect of IRR. For the purposes of the Tribunal?
s inquiries, it was of particular interest that ESAT Digifone
would only have been entitled to an E grade if scored on
the IRR value submitted with their application, whereas, as
a result of the recalculation, they were ultimately awarded
an A. Once again this underlined what appeared to me to
be legitimately characterised as possible defects in the
process.

4.4
What follows is an itemised, but not an exhaustive,
list of the main aspects of the process covered in the
course of the Tribunal?s sittings:-

1.

Development of a set of criteria;

2.

Incorporation of the criteria in an RFP;

3.

The retention of an expert;

4.

The adoption of an evaluation model;

5.
The adoption of a weighting system for the
quantitative criteria;

6.
The recasting of the competition in the light
of the intervention of the European Commission;

7.

The re-balancing of the weights;

8.
adopted;

The application of the evaluation model as

9.
the model;

Difficulties encountered in the application of

10.
The course taken in response to these
difficulties leading ultimately to what is described as the
withering of the quantitative evaluation;

11.
The re-balancing of the evaluation as a
primarily qualitative evaluation;

12.
The application of weights to the qualitative
evaluation;

13.
The approach to scoring at various levels of the
process and the different approaches to scoring adopted
near the conclusion of the process;

14.

The preparation of a final report;

In addition the Tribunal also examined the following

further matters, continuing the numbering above:-

15.
Contacts between the Minister and Civil
Servants;

16.
Contacts between the Minister, or his officials,
with applicants or others;

17.
The period of the negotiation of the Licence
including also the issue that arose concerning the
identification in the Dail and elsewhere of the proposed
Licensee as defined in paragraph 3 of the RFP and the
question concerning the difference between the persons
so identified in the ESAT Digifone application and the
make up of the proposed licensee at the time of the
announcement of the result of the competition.

18.
The composition and capital configuration of
the Licensee at the time of the granting of the Licence.

5.
Submissions on Procedure to be followed in
concluding examination of GSM II Process

5.1
At this stage I should mention some of the remarks
made by Counsel for the Department that the Tribunal
should indicate how, regardless of Mr. Andersen, it intends
to proceed to conclude the evidence in relation to the GSM
II process. He has, as I understand it, effectively invited
the Tribunal to indicate how it intends to proceed, along
the lines of an Opening Statement given by the Tribunal on
1st April, 2003 in which the Tribunal refined the focus of its
view of the process. I think at this time also I should
mention the submissions made by Mr. McGonigal on behalf
of Mr. O?Brien to the effect that the Tribunal should set out
the allegations it was making. He submitted that the
Tribunal should now set forth what it believes to be any
allegations which it says entitles it to continue with a
public inquiry into the GSM licence. Mr. McGonigal also
said that if that is done, then his client will be in a position
where he can properly defend himself against any of those
allegations by way of cross-examination, by calling

witnesses or otherwise. He further submitted that the

Tribunal has not indicated how it proposes to afford Mr. O?
Brien the In re. Haughey rights to which he is entitled in
the event that adverse findings are made against him.

5.2
In approaching these matters and in
endeavouring to refine the focus of the Tribunal?s inquiries
I think it is important to emphasise that this Tribunal is not
concerned with allegations, in the sense that it does not
proceed from a set of allegations; it was not established to
examine a set of allegations; and it was not established or
mandated in its Terms of Reference to formulate a set of
allegations to be examined in the course of its public
sittings. It is in the purest sense an inquisitional or fact
finding exercise. It is not involved in the administration of
justice. As Denham J. explained in Lawlor v Flood [1999] 3
I.R 107 at 137:

?The difference between proceedings in Court (and being

a party thereto) and a Tribunal of Inquiry to which a person
is called to give evidence is important. The Tribunal
hearing is not a criminal trial nor is it even a civil trial, nor
is the person a party. The hearing is an inquiry to which
the person is a witness.?

In this connection, it is also useful to refer to the following

passage in a recent ruling of the Blood Sunday Inquiry in
which reliance was placed on the well known decision of
the Supreme Court of Canada, in Canada (Attorney
General) v Canada (Commission of Inquiry on the Blood
System) 1997 3 S.C.R.440 as follows:-

?In this connection we have found assistance in the

approach taken by the Supreme Court of Canada in
Canada (Attorney General) v Canada (Commission of

Inquiry on the Blood System) 1997 3 S.C.R. 440, a case

concerned with the Krever Inquiry into the blood system in
Canada after many had contracted HIV and Hepatitis C
from blood or blood products. Although the Act under
which this Inquiry was being conducted differs in many
respects from the Act under which we are operating, the
observations of Cory J (who gave the judgment of the
Court) at paragraphs 34-54 seem to us to have general
application. As he pointed out, the findings of a
commission of inquiry relating to an investigation are
simply findings of fact and statements of opinion reached
by the commission at the end of the day; and though they
may affect public opinion, they are not and cannot be
findings of criminal or civil responsibility?.

5.3
While engaged in a fact-finding exercise I
recognise that the Tribunal is nevertheless bound by the
principles enunciated in re: Haughey [1971] 1R 217. The
procedures I have adopted to date have provided for
representation for persons affected by evidence given at
this inquiry or likely to be given at this inquiry. I also wish
to make it clear at this stage that before reaching any
conclusions on the evidence given at this inquiry I intend
to enunciate a procedure whereby persons likely to be
affected by any adverse findings will be given notice of
conclusions, which if reached, would be adverse to them
so as to enable them to make submissions in relation to
those proposed conclusions. I would also envisage, so as
to protect the interests of any such persons, that notice of
any proposals to make any such adverse findings is given
in writing and not enunciated in public thereby protecting
persons in respect of whom such conclusions might
ultimately not be reached from the risk of the
promulgation of any such adverse findings. I would also
envisage that submissions in relation to any such
proposed adverse findings would be addressed to the
Tribunal in writing so as once again to avoid unnecessary
and potentially damaging publication. Depending on the
circumstances, it may entail the recalling of certain
witnesses for additional cross-examination as suggested

by Mr. McGonigal.

5.4
Turning to the evidence given in connection
with the conduct of the GSM Competition and the
negotiation of the Licence it may be reasonable to
conclude that there were defects in the process. I
recognise that no such process is or can be expected to be
perfect. The presence of defects, even very serious
defects is not necessarily evidence of improper
intervention or interference in any such process.
However, I have already alluded to the extent to which in
a number of respects the evaluation model as originally
envisaged may not have been followed. It is necessary to
consider whether there were any significant deviations
from the evaluation model which were prompted by
outside interference or outside influence however slight.
Drawing on some of the language used by Mr. Brennan in
his evidence, interference or influence in this case may
range from the stark or blunt type of interference to the
mere massaging or nudging of a process. In this context
my reference to outsiders embraces, (I do not think that
this could be criticised by anyone affected by the inquiry),
any individual outside of the GSM Project Group.

5.5
I now propose to list, though not perhaps at this
stage in exhaustive detail, a number of matters which will
ultimately require consideration and a finding of fact or an
expression of opinion on my part as to whether they point
to interference. The first such area concerns the strict
cautions incorporated in the confidentiality protocol
promulgated at the outset of the competition. It was
detailed in a memo of Mr. Brennan dated 6th March, 1995
following a meeting of the GSM Project Group. The memo
states:

?We agreed that as a matter of prudence, contacts with

potential bidders should respect the following ground

rules;

1.

Always at least two people present on our side.

2.
Always stress that discussion is by way of informal
clarification subject to formalisation in the written
information round provided for in the competition.

3.
Always produce a brief record of attendance and
discussion.

4.
As a general rule contact to be ?in the office? and
thus avoiding social exchanges which, almost by
definition, cannot be controlled?.
5.6
This protocol was designed to protect the process
from interference. Obviously its effectiveness was
dependent on strict adherence to its terms of the protocol.
Notwithstanding the terms of the protocol it would appear
that there may have been the following significant
breaches, subject to any further submission and most
importantly, the evidence of Mr. Lowry;
1. A meeting between Mr. Lowry and Mr. Tony Boyle on
16th August, 1995 at the Killiney Castle Hotel;

2.
A phone conversation between Mr. Lowry and
Mr. Fintan Towey in or about September, 1995 in which Mr.
Lowry conveyed to Mr. Towey certain apprehensions he
had based on representations he had received from
interests connected with the process. That conversation
could be characterised as involving the conveying by Mr.

Lowry of his state of mind regarding the outcome or

potential outcome of the process;

3.
A meeting with Mr. Anthony JF O?Reilly at the
opening of the Arcon Mine in or about 15th September,
1995 at which, if Mr. O?Reilly?s evidence is accepted, Mr.
Lowry made reference to the process of the competition
and the views of the evaluators concerning a presentation
made by the Consortium with which Mr. O?Reilly was
associated; suggesting, if Mr. O?Reilly?s evidence is
accepted, that Mr. Lowry had access to information
concerning the progress of the competition which went
beyond mere pro forma accounts of the critical path of the
process and may have included detailed information
concerning either the evaluation of the Irish Cellular
Telephones application or even other applications;

4.
The evidence, of a meeting in Hartigans
Public House on Sunday, 17th September, 1995 between
Mr. Lowry and Mr. Denis O?Brien which, if certain
descriptions of the meeting contained in evidence from
and documents provided by Telenor were accepted, would
suggest that Mr. Lowry had discussed the ESAT Digifone
application and the views of the evaluators concerning the
ESAT Digifone presentation with Mr. O?Brien and
furthermore that he may have made a suggestion as to
how a perceived defect in the ESAT Digifone application
could be rectified;

5.
If the evidence of Mr. Mark Fitzgerald is
accepted concerning a meeting between himself and Mr.
Lowry at the K Club in or about 16th October, 1995 and his
evidence concerning a subsequent meeting with Mr. O?
Brien, this would suggest that Mr. Lowry was in receipt of
information concerning the views of the evaluators
regarding the ESAT Digifone application;

6.
The evidence, if accepted, of Mr. Arthur
Moran, Solicitor for Telenor, as evinced by his attendance
note of 10th October, 1995, that Mr. Per Simonsen appears
to have been aware not only of the intended or advertised
date for the conclusion of the process but the accelerated
date, the actual date as agreed by the Minister and his
officials;

7.
It would also appear that following the
suspension of the original competition and prior to its
being revamped on foot of the EU intervention part of a
document, a confidential letter from the relevant EU
Commissioner, Commissioner Van Mert, to Mr. Michael
Lowry, and containing what could be regarded as valuable
information regarding the re-weighting of the evaluation
criteria, was in the possession of Mr. Jarlath Burke, Chief
Legal Counsel of ESAT Telecom, Mr. O?Brien?s own
company and an individual associated with aspects of the
ESAT Telecom/Communicorp part of the ESAT Digifone
Consortium. It has to be stated of course that this may
have involved not so much the disclosure of confidential
information from within the Department but the disclosure
rather of such information from within the Commission.

5.7
Allied to these apparent deviations from the
confidentiality protocol, or what might be termed
indicators of the permeability of the process and of the
extent to which the process was capable of being
penetrated, in particular by the Minister, are the following
further features of the competition which will in due
course require special consideration:-

(i).
What was envisaged as a three stage process
embracing a quantitative, qualitative and ultimately a
combined quantitative and qualitative evaluation appears

to have been abandoned in favour of a somewhat loosely

contrived qualitative evaluation embracing some
individual elements of the original quantitative
measurements. While it would not be appropriate at this
point to conclude even tentatively that this was a defect in
the process it seems reasonable to suggest that it may
have undermined the integrity of the process as originally
envisaged. Whether it is indeed even appropriate to
describe this as a deviation, without more, from the
original process as yet awaits a conclusion and is
something upon which ultimately there will no doubt be
submissions. At the same time it appeared to prompt an
adaptation of the process to the new situation resulting in
an approach to the weighting of the qualitative evaluation
or at least the subdivision of the weightings in the
qualitative evaluation in Copenhagen in or about the
28th / 29th September, 1995 in a way which did not
involve a consensus of all of the Project Team.

(ii).
At Copenhagen a tentative scoring or ranking
was proposed. However, according to the evidence of Mr.
Brennan and Mr. Towey they were unable to recognise a
ranking. At that point two steps were taken with a view to
clarifying the grading on the one hand and secondly the
ranking or scoring of the applications. The order in which
these steps were taken is not clear but from the evidence
it would appear that it was at Copenhagen that the
weighting of the three subdivisions of the primary
criterion, in Tables 17 and 18 of the first draft of the
Evaluation Report, was distributed equally. In numerical
terms they each were accorded a weighting of ten. This
appears to be the first time that an overall qualitative
weighting had been applied, or at least the first time that
a subdivision of the weights applicable to the various
elements of the different criteria was applied in the
context of the qualitative evaluation. It appears that this
subdivision of the weights was inconsistent with the
original evaluation model. If the subdivision of the weights
applicable to the quantitative model were to be
transposed to the qualitative model it appears that,

whereas the subdivisions of the weightings applicable to

the quantitative model had been agreed by the entire
Project Team, there had been no similar consideration of
any such subdivision by the entire Project Team in the
context of the qualitative evaluation; nor of course any
consensus as to the subdivision. A further concern is that
it appears that the report may have been drafted so as to
obscure such inconsistency and suggest such consensus.

(iii).
It would appear that prior to the communication
of this tentative first draft result to the Project Team the
ranking had been communicated to the Minister who, if
the evidence of Mr. McMahon?s notes is accepted, directed
that the process thereafter be accelerated.

(iv).
From this point onwards there appears to have
been on the one hand both a certain acceleration of the
process and on the other a degree of confusion on the part
of a number of members of the Project Team concerning
the course the process had taken, and the steps required
to conclude the process together with certain reservations
concerning both the acceleration of the process and the
manner in which the scoring and ranking had been
concluded. In general I will be obliged to address myself
in reaching any conclusions concerning the latter part of
the competition to the question whether, by reason of the
acceleration of the process or any other interventions by
the Minister one of which will be referred to below, there
was a reluctance or a certain disinterest on the part of
officials to scrutinise certain aspects and more specifically
certain weaknesses in either of the leading two
applications.

(v).
One of the matters to which I will be obliged to
address my attention is whether I should in considering
this aspect of the process attach significance to the
evidence, primarily from the notes of Ms. Margaret O?

Keeffe, that the Minister may have intervened intimately

in the deliberations of the Project Team by urging Mr.
Brennan to ensure that the Report, as the note put it, did
not argue against itself, suggesting an approach which
may have disregarded the tenor of Appendix 10 proposed
by Mr. Andersen and further by proposing an alternative
solution, characterised by the use of the expression ?
bankability? to dispose of the issues identified in Appendix
10.

(vi).
In due course it will be necessary, subject, most
critically to the evidence of Mr. Lowry, to consider whether
the manner in which the result was brought to
Government avoided scrutiny which a more orthodox
approach to the adoption of the Report might have
entailed. In this context it will be important to determine
to what extent attention should be paid to the remarks of
Mr. Greg Sparks.

(vii).
I have already alluded to the evidence of a
meeting between Mr. O?Brien and Mr. Lowry in Hartigans
Public House on 17th September, 1995 and a question
upon which I will be obliged to reach a conclusion is as to
whether, and if so to what extent, the involvement of IIU
or of Mr. Dermot Desmond was discussed at that meeting
and further the extent to which any such discussions were
reflected in steps taken between 18th September, 1995
and 29th September, 1995 to substitute IIU/Mr. Dermot
Desmond for the four financial institutions notified in the
bid document.

(vii)
Particular attention will be paid to the period
between the announcement of the winners of the
competition and the actual formal granting of the Licence.
While the competition was designed to identify a
candidate for a Licence, to whom the State was prepared
to grant an exclusive negotiation privilege, considerable

controversy arose, in particular in late 1995 and early

1996 concerning the identity of the competition winners
and whether the exclusive negotiation privilege had been
granted to an entity other than that which had been
evaluated.

5.8
I think it appropriate that I should mention that a
number of matters dealt with in the course of the evidence
would not now appear to me, subject to what may
transpire during the remainder of the Tribunal?s work, to
warrant further consideration as indicators of any
interference or any intervention in the process by the
Minister or any outside third party. This is not to say that
the same conclusion could not be reached in relation to
any of the matters mentioned above. However, in relation
to these matters it is possible to be rather more definitive
at this stage and I think it only right that they should be
set out. They are as follows:-

a.
The extent to which the intervention of the
EU and the consequent delay, which may have benefited
some applicants, was in any way prompted by any
improper intervention by any outside third party.

b.
The change in the manner of the
measurement and scoring of IRR which appear to have
benefited certain applicants but which, so far as I can see,
from the evidence to date, arose purely fortuitously.

c.
The extent to which ESB was obliged by the
Minister to facilitate the State?s conclusion of licence
negotiations with ESAT Digifone although ESB was itself a
participant in another consortium, which was unknown to
it, ranked in second place.

6.
Bacon

Proposal to introduce Evidence of Mr. Peter

6.1
At this juncture I want to refer to the Tribunal?s
proposal to hear the evidence of Mr. Bacon. Before doing
so I wish to deal with a submission that because I have
been in receipt of reports or opinions from Mr. Bacon I
have abdicated my responsibility, a responsibility that is
mine alone, to reach conclusions on the evidence, to an
outsider. It has also been submitted that the access to Mr.
Bacon?s expertise enjoyed by the Tribunal without
witnesses having had similar access was an unfair
procedure. These submissions are misconceived for the
following reasons. The Tribunal is not engaged in an
adversarial contest with persons affected or likely to be
affected by evidence given at its public hearings. Nor is it
engaged in an adversarial contest with witnesses
testifying at those public hearings. The Tribunal is
engaged in a fact finding exercise. The presentation of
evidence directed to that end is a matter solely for me.

6.2
The private investigative phase of the Tribunal?s
work enables me to arrange and to configure material for
presentation at the Tribunal?s public hearings in a way
which is best suited to achieving the ends set out in the
Tribunal?s Terms of Reference. The fact that in the course
of the private investigative work I may have obtained
some assistance in considering the material does not
mean that I have substituted the views of experts or
others for my own views. By reason of my training and
experience as a Barrister and as a Judge I am keenly
aware of the difference between evidence upon which my
determinations must exclusively be based and any other
information I may have obtained in the course of the
private investigations I have carried out, or otherwise. As

will appear below there was no question of Mr. Bacon?s

views being substituted for my views and further, as will
appear, the line of questioning adopted by the Tribunal
was devised exclusively under my supervision and without
regard to Mr. Bacon?s views. This is not to say that I did
not regard the contact with Mr. Bacon as being of value. It
is for me however to decide to what extent information
obtained in the course of the private investigative phase
should, if at all, be ventilated in public as part of the
Tribunal?s public sittings.

6.3
To this end I think that I should indicate in broad
terms how Mr. Bacon became involved with the Tribunal.
The Tribunal in the course of the preliminary private
investigative stage in connection with the examination of
the GSM process developed a number of lines of inquiry
concerning aspects of the evaluation process. These were
based on a common sense approach to the evaluation
process and to the contents of documentation provided by
the Department including the draft evaluation reports and
the final evaluation report. They were informed by a very
close scrutiny of the draft reports and the final report and
the computations upon which they were based.

6.4
During the Tribunal?s private examination of this
matter, the Tribunal?s grasp of technical matters (i.e.,
technical aspects of the process as opposed to the
technical aspects of cell phone technology) was informed
by assistance and guidance provided by the officials
involved in the PT GSM and by Mr. Michael Andersen and
one of his colleagues. I was anxious to ensure that the
approach being adopted was not based on a simplistic
appreciation of the technical aspects of the evaluation.
For this reason Mr. Bacon?s services were retained. By that
time, the Tribunal?s appreciation of the technicalities of
the evaluation was quite highly developed.

6.5
Mr. Peter Bacon?s first report arose from
information identified by the Tribunal. Once his Report
was received in or about March of 2003 the question
whether it would be necessary to introduce expert
evidence was considered. A decision on that matter was
deferred at that point. Having concluded the bulk of the
technical evidence in relation to the GSM process it was
considered desirable to have the assistance of an expert.
The Tribunal?s request to Mr. Bacon for a report to be
introduced at public hearings as expert evidence by him
was based on the lines of inquiry developed by the
Tribunal and on his Report of March, 2003.

6.6
It is my view, therefore, subject to any submission
which may be made, that if conclusions are to be drawn
having regard to the line of questioning pursued by the
Tribunal in dealing with technical matters it would be of
value to have the evidence of an expert.

6.7
I understand Mr. Bacon to be an expert in this area.
Like Mr. Andersen, he is an Economist by training with, like
Mr. Andersen also, a background in Government service.
While he has not conducted a competition of the GSM II
type, i.e., a competition to identify a first private
enterprise competitor to a Semi-State organisation in a
particular communications arena, he has experience of
competition processes, including a number in the
telecoms/IT area. He has not been asked to conduct an
audit of the GSM II process. Nor has he been requested to
examine the evaluation with a view to concluding whether
the correct result was reached by the evaluators. He has
however examined aspects of the evaluation methodology
and the way in which that methodology was applied. He
has been directed to and has agreed to provide responses
to a number of questions crafted along the lines of the
questioning pursued with officials involved in the PTGSM.
It is important that his evidence, if adduced, should be
subject to scrutiny by Counsel for those persons likely to
be affected by any conclusion which could be critical of

the process and in particular, by Counsel for the

Department.

7. Absence of Mr. Michael Andersen

7.1
Mr. Andersen assisted the Tribunal during its initial
investigative work. He attended a series of private
meetings with members of the Tribunal legal team; he
provided an initial report for the assistance of the Tribunal
outlining the evaluation process (the cost of which was
met by the Department); and through his Solicitors he
furnished written responses to various queries raised by
the Tribunal. All of this assistance was provided over a
twelve month period from June, 2001 to June, 2002.
During that time the Tribunal understands that Mr.
Andersen was also engaged in consultancy services on
behalf of AMI with the Communications Regulator.

7.2
In June, 2002, AMI?s Solicitors requested a meeting
with the Tribunal legal team which was also attended by
Ms. L. Bork of AMI. The Tribunal was informed that Mr.
Andersen had sold his interest in AMI to a Norwegian
company, Merkantildata and that in providing assistance
to the Tribunal over the previous twelve months he had
been acting as a consultant to AMI and that his fees for
such assistance had been discharged by AMI.
Merkantildata had decided to dispose of its interest in AMI
and the Tribunal was informed that it did not intend to
incur any further expense in connection with Mr.
Andersen?s assistance to the Tribunal in the absence of a
full Indemnity or guarantee from the Tribunal in relation to
its continuing costs including Mr. Andersen?s ongoing
consultancy fees.

7.3
The Tribunal did not consider that it was in a
position to provide such a wide ranging indemnity to AMI
and it proceeded to correspond directly with Mr. Andersen
and with his Solicitors in Denmark, Bech Bruun Dragsted,
with a view to securing Mr. Andersen?s assistance in his
personal capacity. Mr. Andersen?s response to that
request was that he was in dispute with Merkantildata in
relation to their acquisition of his interest in AMI and that
any assistance he might provide to the Tribunal personally
would be treated by AMI/Merkantildata as an
acknowledgement by him of a liability for the consultancy
fees that he had been paid in respect of the assistance
provided to the Tribunal from June, 2001 to June, 2002.

7.4
In an effort to meet Mr. Andersen?s stated
concerns, the Tribunal took the matter up with
AMI/Merkantildata?s Irish Solicitors and this resulted in
confirmation from AMI/Merkantildata by letter of 5th
December, 2002 they did not wish in anyway to obstruct
Mr. Andersen giving evidence; that they understood that
the Tribunal was seeking assistance from Mr. Andersen in
his personal capacity; that they had no objections; and
that it was a personal matter for Mr. Andersen.

7.5
As the above confirmation appeared to the Tribunal
to meet Mr. Andersen?s apparent concerns, the Tribunal
forwarded a copy of that letter to his Solicitors and asked
them to confirm that in the light of its contents Mr.
Andersen would be agreeable to attending to give
evidence at public sittings. Mr. Andersen was not satisfied
by that confirmation. The Tribunal was informed that his
position has not altered but that he did not rule out the
possibility of assisting the Tribunal once the financial and
legal issues with AMI/Merkantildata, which had been
referred to a commercial arbitrator in Denmark, had been
resolved.

7.6
In July, 2003 the Tribunal renewed its efforts to
secure Mr. Andersen?s agreement to attend at public
sittings and wrote to his Solicitors, on 29th July, 2003
clarifying the extent to which the Tribunal was agreeable
to meeting Mr. Andersen?s legal and incidental costs and
again referring to the letter of 5th December, 2002 from
AMI/Merkantildata in which they had confirmed that they
had no objection to Mr. Andersen assisting the Tribunal
personally and that they accepted that it was a personal
matter for Mr. Andersen. This approach did not advance
matters as Mr. Andersen?s Solicitors reiterated that he
would not be in a position to assist the Tribunal until the
disputes between himself and AMI/Merkantildata had been
resolved and that a decision from the Court of Arbitration
was expected at the beginning of 2004 at the earliest.

7.7
The Tribunal persisted in its efforts to deal with Mr.
Andersen?s concerns as explained to the Tribunal and to
encourage his attendance and by letter of 3rd October,
2003 wrote to Mr. Andersen indicating that it proposed
seeking a detailed assurance from AMI/Merkantildata that
any assistance rendered to the Tribunal by Mr. Andersen
would not be understood by AMI/Merkantildata as an
acknowledgement by him of a liability for the cost of the
assistance rendered to the Tribunal prior to June, 2002.
This proposal was not acceptable to Mr. Andersen who
continued to insist that he could not consider any request
from the Tribunal until the completion of the pending
arbitration.

7.8
By that time, the Solicitors for Mr. Denis O?Brien
had made known to the Tribunal their view that in the
absence of Mr. Andersen?s evidence the Tribunal might
not be able to continue its inquiries into the second GSM
Licence and the Tribunal brought that matter to Mr.
Andersen?s attention and informed him that in the light of
Mr. O?Brien?s view the Tribunal was obliged to endeavour
to clarify the situation regarding Mr. Andersen?s

intentions.

7.9
Following that approach, Mr. Andersen agreed
to meet with members of the Tribunal legal team in
Copenhagen and this was arranged for Wednesday, 29th
October, 2003. The purpose of the meeting was in part to
discuss the terms that might govern Mr. Andersen?s future
assistance to the Tribunal. In the course of the meeting it
became apparent that in addition to the earlier
preconditions of Mr. Andersen?s assistance, namely, an
indemnity in relation to his costs and the postponement of
any assistance until the completion of the commercial
arbitration, he was now seeking a much broader indemnity
from the State in respect of any claims against him,
whether direct or indirect, arising out of the evidence he
might give or arising from any proceedings connected with
the process leading to the granting of the second GSM
Licence (such an indemnity to extend to Merkantildata,
the then owners of AMI).

7.10 What was apparent from the Tribunal?s dealings

with Mr. Andersen dating from June, 2002 was that his
stated reasons for non- attendance as a witness to the
Tribunal and the matters which he was stipulating as
conditions to his attendance altered as each such
condition appeared, at least to the Tribunal, to have been
met. His initial objection was that his assistance to the
Tribunal would be interpreted by AMI/Merkantildata as an
assumption by him of liability for the consultancy fees
which he had been paid for the assistance provided under
the aegis of AMI from June, 2001 to June, 2002. When it
appeared to the Tribunal that that concern had been met
by the confirmation received from AMI/Merkantildata by
letter from their Solicitor dated 5th December, 2003, Mr.
Andersen was not prepared to accept that such
confirmation met his concerns and he stipulated that he
could not consider providing any assistance until the
commercial arbitration pending between himself and
AMI/Merkantildata was complete. When the Tribunal then

sought to clarify the terms on which he would attend as a

witness after the completion of the arbitration, a further
condition was introduced, namely the furnishing of a
blanket indemnity from the State in respect of any liability
that Mr. Andersen might have arising from evidence he
might give to the Tribunal or arising from any other
proceedings connected with the second GSM evaluation
process.

7.11 The Tribunal proceeded to relay Mr. Andersen?s

requirement for an indemnity from the State to the
Government. Following receipt of an opinion from Mr. Oluf
Engell, of Hjejle, Gersted & Mogensen that a procedure
might be available under Danish Law whereby Mr.
Andersen on a request from the Irish Authorities might be
compelled to attend before the Danish Courts for the
purposes of giving evidence, the Government decided that
it would defer a decision on Mr. Andersen?s request for an
indemnity pending the bringing of proceedings before the
Danish Courts to seek to compel the provision of Mr.
Andersen?s evidence.

7.12 The Tribunal also retained Mr. Engell to advise on

the compellability of Mr. Andersen and the prospects of
securing evidence through Danish Court process in a form
which would be of assistance to the Tribunal. The Tribunal
received an initial opinion from Mr. Engell in May of 2004.
In that opinion Mr. Engell emphasised that while there was
a procedure that might be available at the behest of the
Tribunal, there was no guarantee that the Danish Courts
would act upon such a request and that a successful
outcome would depend on a novel development of Danish
Law. There were a number of substantive and technical
issues of concern to the Tribunal in relation to the
procedure potentially open to it and following Mr. Engell?s
initial opinion, there were a number of exchanges between
the Tribunal and Mr. Engell addressed to those matters.
Ultimately, Mr. Engell attended a consultation with the
Sole Member and members of the Tribunal legal team in

Dublin in March, 2005. In order to ensure that there was

no misunderstanding or confusion regarding Mr. Engell?s
advice and in order to ensure that the Tribunal had a full
understanding of all the issues, both substantive and
technical, the Tribunal wrote to Mr. Engell on 7th April,
2005 setting out the Tribunal?s precise understanding of
the matters which had been discussed and of Mr. Engell?s
advice on those matters and asked Mr. Engell to confirm
that the Tribunal was correct in its understanding of all of
the advices he had furnished dating from May, 2004. By
letter of 15th April, 2005 Mr. Engell confirmed that the
matters set forth in the Tribunal?s letter constituted a
correct understanding of his advices.

7.13 It was apparent from Mr. Engell?s advices that there

was no realistic prospect of the Tribunal securing Mr.
Andersen?s evidence through procedures before the
Danish Courts. The Tribunal accepted Mr. Engell?s advices
and conveyed the position to the Government and the
Government then proceeded to a decision that it would
not grant the indemnity sought by Mr. Andersen.

7.14 The Tribunal duly informed Mr. Andersen of the

position and inquired as to whether notwithstanding he
would be prepared to make himself available as a witness.
The Tribunal received no response to its initial letter and
wrote again informing Mr. Andersen that in the absence of
a response to its previous correspondence the Tribunal
would proceed on the assumption that he would not be
attending to give evidence or otherwise assisting the
Tribunal. The Tribunal has received no response from Mr.
Andersen and has accordingly proceeded on that
assumption.

7.15 I accept the legal submissions made on behalf of

the Attorney General representing the Public Interest as to
how I should be guided in approaching the question of the

consequences of the absence of Mr. Andersen. I am

fortified in that view by the principle that in criminal and
civil cases the death, or the mere absence, of a witness
does not, in general terms, even in the case of a person
facing a murder charge, compel the abortion of the legal
process. This principle, in the context of inquiries
conducted by a Tribunal established under the 1921 Act is
exemplified in the passage from the judgment of
Geoghegan J. in Goodman International v. Hamilton (No. 2)
[1993] 3 I.R. 307, to which I was referred by Counsel for
the Public Interest.

7.16 From this vantage point the absence of Mr. Michael

Andersen does not constitute a basis for terminating the
inquiry. Obviously, his absence may have an impact in
relation to the Tribunal?s capacity to reach certain
conclusions or in relation to the confidence with which
certain conclusions can be reached but it would be
impossible at this stage to predict with any precision what
conclusions might be liable to be so affected. A distinction
has to be made between Mr. Andersen?s Reports, i.e., the
evaluation reports and the draft Evaluation Reports
together with Mr. Andersen?s audit of the evaluation
process and advice or information provided by him to the
Tribunal either at meetings or otherwise in the course of
the investigative process. The latter class of information,
standing alone, could not now be taken into account or
regarded as evidence for the purposes of any findings I
may be obliged to make. That is not to say that it could
not be used to form the basis of questions for witnesses.
In particular, I see no reason why, subject to any
submissions that may be made, it would not be
appropriate that any such information should be put to Mr.
Bacon for comment, or used in challenging any views
expressed by him in evidence.

7.17 So far as the ultimate conclusions that I may have

to reach are concerned I may in due course require
submissions as to whether Mr. Andersen?s absence as a

witness and in particular the conditions subject to which

he has indicated a willingness to give evidence warrant
any criticism that might tend to reflect on the evaluation
process.

7.18 I have considered the proposal of Counsel for

Telenor, Mr. Fitzsimons, that Mr. Bacon be asked to speak
with or make contact with Mr. Andersen. In the event of
Mr. Andersen agreeing to this course the question arises
whether Mr. Bacon?s views as tempered or qualified or
otherwise affected by his dealings with Mr. Andersen could
be regarded as evidence to which I should have regard. I
feel that I am correct in assuming that no person likely to
be affected by such evidence would be prepared to
consent to such a course until Mr. Bacon had given
evidence of the results of or the impact of any such
contact and this strikes me as a course unlikely to be of
practical benefit.

8.

Further approach to the Government

8.1
It has been submitted that the Tribunal write to the
Government to request the Government to revisit the
issues of the provision of an indemnity. Having regard to
the formal Government decision on the matter I do not
think that there have been any material changes in the
relevant circumstances upon which I could reasonably
base a request to the Government to reconsider the
matter.

9.

Telenor proposal that Insurance he put in place

9.1
I have given consideration to the proposals put
forward on behalf of Telenor that the Tribunal explore the
possibility that an insurance arrangement could be put in
place to satisfy Mr. Andersen?s requirement for an
indemnity. I have taken this matter up with the
Government and in due course will make known the
results of my own and the Government?s deliberations.

10.

Delay and cross-examination

10.1 In submissions made to the Tribunal on behalf of

Mr. Denis O'Brien, it was suggested that the Tribunal has
delayed unreasonably in concluding its inquiries into the
licensing process and that no explanation for such delay
has been provided. While there has undoubtedly been a
lapse of time between the conclusion of the Tribunal?s last
public sittings and its intended resumption on 21st
September last, that delay occurred for reasons outside
the control of the Tribunal. As persons with whom the
Tribunal is dealing will be aware, the Tribunal had intended
to deal with the balance of its inquiries into the process in
conjunction with separate inquiries in relation to
Doncaster Rovers Football Club. As there are witnesses
common to both inquiries, notably Mr. Denis O'Brien and
Mr. Michael Lowry, it seemed sensible to the Tribunal and
fairer to those witnesses (who had already given evidence
on previous occasions) to hear the entire of the balance of
their evidence in relation to both matters at the one
sitting. The Tribunal commenced sittings on 15th
September of 2004 to deal initially with Doncaster Rovers
Football Club matter and to move on to hear evidence in
relation to the outstanding aspects of the GSM inquiry.
The Tribunal was also mindful of the need to dispose of its
sittings in relation to the Doncaster Rovers Football Club
matter as it was concerned about the availability of
witnesses who were outside the jurisdiction and whose

attendance was not compellable by the Tribunal.

10.2
Judicial Review proceedings were issued by Mr.
O'Brien which effectively prevented the Tribunal from
continuing with those sittings. Mr. O?Brien was refused
leave to seek Judicial Review in the High Court and the
Tribunal expected to be in a position to proceed with its
sittings and complete the GSM inquiry without further
significant delay. Following the delivery of the High Court
judgment on the 26th November, 2004, Mr. O?Brien
appealed to the Supreme Court which delivered judgment
on the 12th May, 2005. That judgment enjoined the
Tribunal from proceeding with public sittings in connection
with the Doncaster Rovers Football Club transaction until
the completion of Mr. O?Brien?s current application for
Judicial Review. The Tribunal also considered that, insofar
as was feasible, it was preferable not to hear evidence in
connection with Mr. O?Brien?s affairs during the currency
of those proceedings.

10.3 In the interim, the Tribunal had proceeded with its

private inquiries which involved lengthy exchanges of
correspondence and the close scrutiny of information and
documentation. While inquiries continued in connection
with the Doncaster Rovers Football Club transaction the
Tribunal also commenced private investigations in relation
to a number of other matters pursuant to the paragraphs
of its Terms of Reference which relate to Mr. Charles
Haughey.

10.4 As of May, 2005, when the Supreme Court

judgment was delivered and it was apparent that it would
not be feasible for the Tribunal to postpone hearing the
balance of the evidence in relation to the GSM inquiry
pending the final disposal of Mr. O?Brien?s proceedings,
certain aspects of the Tribunal?s inquiries in relation to
matters pertaining to the affairs of Mr. Charles Haughey

had reached an advanced stage and the Tribunal

proceeded to hear evidence at public sittings in relation to
those matters in June, 2005 which sittings were completed
on 1st July, 2005. The Tribunal then envisaged the 21st of
September last as the commencement date for the
resumption of its sittings to hear the balance of the
evidence in relation to the GSM inquiry.

10.5 It has been submitted that this delay has deprived

Mr. Lowry of his right to a meaningful cross-examination of
Mr. Boyle and Mr. O?Brien. The same submission has been
made on behalf of Mr. O?Brien in respect of his Counsel?s
continuing of his cross-examination of Mr. Boyle.

10.6 I have considered the evidence of Mr. Boyle.

Primarily it concerns remarks allegedly made by Mr.
Dermot Desmond and a meeting between Mr. Boyle and
Mr. Lowry. The remarks allegedly made by Mr. Dermot
Desmond refer to Mr. Denis O'Brien and Mr. Lowry. Mr.
Dermot Desmond denied the making of any such remarks
and has given evidence to that effect. In the examination
of Mr. Boyle by Counsel for the Tribunal and in crossexamination by Counsel for Mr. Desmond it emerged that
such remarks, assuming they were made, was capable of
a non-pejorative interpretation at least in the judgement
of the witness. In the event that I deem it necessary to
make a finding in relation to the making and/or the
meaning of these remarks, it will be for me to conclude
whether, on the basis of an appropriate standard of proof,
they could only bear a pejorative interpretation.

10.7
Nothing has been submitted to me to warrant
my deciding at this stage that the rights of Mr. O?Brien or
Mr. Lowry to cross-examine this witness have been
nullified by reason of delay. Of course in the event, that
upon any examination of this witness it appears that in
fact that those rights have been nullified or seriously

diminished, I will of course be obliged to disregard the

evidence of such witness in any conclusions I reach or any
findings I am obliged to make or any views I may be
obliged to express in my report.

10.8 The other area where Mr. Boyle gave evidence

concerning Mr. Lowry involved a meeting which he had
with Mr. Lowry in the Fitzpatrick?s Castle Hotel. Mr. Lowry
has not given evidence in relation to this meeting. He has
however furnished the Tribunal with a Memorandum of
Intended Evidence in which he has informed the Tribunal
that such a meeting did take place and of what transpired
at that meeting and his account is not materially in
conflict with the evidence given by Mr. Boyle. It is
therefore difficult if not impossible to conceive how any
cross-examination rights of Mr. Lowry could be affected by
delay.

10.9 Mr. Lowry has also submitted that the deferral of

the resumption of evidence in relation to the GSM process
has deprived him of his right of cross-examination in
respect of the evidence of Mr. O?Brien. Mr. O?Brien has
not yet completed the balance of his evidence he, having
requested when last under Oath, an adjournment to
enable him to consider certain documents. From a review
of the evidence of Mr. O?Brien, it would appear that Mr. O?
Brien made no remarks critical of or in any way reflecting
on Mr. Lowry?s reputation and it is therefore difficulty if
not impossible to conceive how any cross-examination
right of Mr. Lowry could have been affected by delay.

11.

Four miscellaneous points

11.1 I want to mention four other points which seem to

me to be of importance in the more general submissions
made on 13th September.

11.2 Firstly, it has been submitted and I think correctly

that there is no general entitlement to investigate the
GSM process. The Tribunal in a ruling on procedures on
29th September, 1998 indicated how it proposed to
approach the sequencing of inquiries. It will be recalled
that I indicated that the Tribunal would in general proceed
from the money trail to examine decisions. Counsel for
Mr. Lowry has in his submission drawn my attention to the
fact that in examination of a decision the Tribunal should
only proceed from a situation in which there were financial
links with the beneficiaries of decisions. While I would not
be prepared to accept that the Tribunal was bound to
reach a conclusive view as to the nature of financial links
with beneficiaries of decisions before proceeding to
examine those decisions, I do think that this is
nevertheless an attractively compendious way of
describing the actual process whereby the Tribunal
proceeded from an examination of property and financial
transactions, ranging chronologically from the
ESAT/Telenor payment of $50,000.00 in October, 1995
through the Carysfort transaction, the David Austin share
transaction, the Doncaster transaction, the Cheadle
transaction and the Mansfield transaction to the
subsequent examination of the decision with which most
of the individuals involved in those financial transactions
were linked. In this connection I think it is also important
to draw attention to the fact that however tempting, and I
acknowledge understandably tempting, it may be to refer
to the work of the Tribunal as involving an inquiry into
malfeasance or corruption or untoward acts on the part of,
in this case, Mr. Lowry, that formulation is inappropriate.
It was used by Counsel for Mr. Desmond/IIU in the course
of his submissions and, while for the reasons hinted at a
moment ago, I appreciate how easy it is to fall into a
somewhat causal approach to the Terms of Reference, the
fact remains that in this context what the Tribunal is

mandated to inquire into is, on the one hand, any

substantial payments made to Mr. Lowry in circumstances
giving rise to a reasonable inference that the motive for
making the payment was connected with any public office
held by him or had the potential to influence the discharge
of such office, or the sources of any money held in certain
bank accounts under Terms of Reference (e) and (f) and,
on the other hand, any acts done or decisions made by
him to confer any benefit on any person making such
payment or any person who was the source of any such
money under Term of Reference (g). In reaching any
conclusions on the evidence, I will be focusing on those
provisions of the Terms of Reference.

11.3
Secondly, it has been submitted that the
Tribunal should apply to the Oireachtas for the provision of
an indemnity. I have no standing to make any application
to the Oireachtas to the effect that the Oireachtas should
take any such step. It would be a usurpation of the role of
the Oireachtas on my part to make any pretension to
suggest to the Oireachtas how it should proceed other
than within the strict confines of my Terms of Reference.
This is quite apart from the fact that the introduction of
any measure in the Oireachtas is a matter, in the first
instance, and in practical terms, for the Government and
in any case theoretically only for any other member of the
Oireachtas.

11.4
Thirdly, it has been submitted that the Tribunal
should have issued or should now issue an Interim Report.
I understand this submission to refer to a substantive
Interim Report and not the type of Interim Report
envisaged in the last substantive portion of the Terms of
Reference which provides as follows:-

?And that the Tribunal be requested to conduct its

inquiries in the following manner, to the extent that it may

do so consistent with the provisions of the Tribunals of

Inquiry (Evidence) Acts, 1921 and 1979;

(iv).
To report on an interim basis, not later than three
months from the date of establishment of the Tribunal or
the tenth day of any oral hearing, whichever shall first
occur, to the Clerk of the Dail on the following matters:

The numbers of parties then represented before

the Tribunal;

The progress which has been made in the hearing

and work of the Tribunal;

The likely duration (so far as that may be capable

of being estimated at that time) of the Tribunal
proceedings;

Any other matters which the Tribunal believes should be

drawn to the attention of the Clerk of the Dail at that
stage (including any matter relating to the Terms of
Reference);?

11.5 This provision of the Terms of Reference has been

complied with. I am satisfied from my reading of the
Terms of Reference that there is no basis upon which the
Tribunal can issue an Interim Report. I am also satisfied
that my interpretation of the Terms of Reference gives
effect to what I believe to have been the intention of the
Oireachtas in drafting the Terms of Reference. The Terms
of Reference regarding each of the two named individuals,

the primary focus of the inquiry, together with the

recommendatory provisions, are so interdependent that it
would be inappropriate to distinguish between them and
in addition could be unfair to those individuals.

11.6
Finally, both Mr. O?Brien and Mr. Lowry took
exception to what was contended to be the unwarranted
adverse consequences of the length of Tribunal hearings
particularly in the context of the former?s on-going
business activities and the latter?s requirement to offer
himself as a Dil candidate in North Tipperary. In this
respect, it may be noted that neither the conclusions of
that constituency electorate, nor the preponderance of
media reports, lend support to a view that the reputations
of either have been unfairly damaged by dealings with the
Tribunal. In the one case Mr. Lowry has been returned to
the Dail and I note from recent reports that Mr. O?Brien
has been appointed to one of the most responsible
positions in Irish business.
MICHAEL MORIARTY

Billionaire Irish businessman Denis OBrien has been named

in a Donald Trump attack on Hilliary Clinton, as Trump
launched a series of negative statements on the Democratic
candidate.
The extensive press release featuring Mr OBrien - one of a
series released by the Trump campaign targeting the Clintons
links to rich and powerful donors - presents a list of links to
media articles detailing Mr OBriens business dealings and his
close relationship with the Clintons.
That relationship included a period working together in Haiti
after the 2010 earthquake there.
No direct quotes from Donald Trump are included in the
statement. It references the Moriarty Tribunal which found,
after 14 years of investigations, that former communications

minister Michael Lowry imparted information to Mr O'Brien that

was of benefit to him in securing Ireland's second mobile
phone licence.
Denis OBrien continues to challenge the findings of the
Tribunal.
The Clinton Foundation website lists Mr OBrien and Digicel as
contributor in the 10m - $25m bracket for 2016, including a
contribution in the second quarter of this year.
Mr OBrien (pictured below) has made no comment on the
Trump campaign statement.

Separately, another Trump campaign statement released as

part of the same attack on Hillary Clinton lists 10 foreign
governments that have contributed significant sums to the
Clinton Foundation.
The Irish Government is fifth on the list, with donations
totalling between $5m to $10m between 2001 and June 2016.

DOB is becoming an international joke at this point. I wonder

has he figured out if he continues this other countries are
going to start looking into his business dealings and that
sooner or later he is going to make the government look so
weak they are going to have to really go after him if they want
to even stand a chance in the election.

Broadsheet refused to remove the link, and of course DOB

threatened their ISP so their ISP forced them to remove the
satirical article.

But he can't stop the Internet! Especially since in America they

have Freedom Of Speech.
https://archive.is/5bGkd
https://twitter.com/hashtag/JESUISWWN?src=hash
Can't wait until we hear he is trying to sue an American person
or news outlet, they will crush him, and then make sure the
entire world reads about it.
.It is the findings concerning the scale of the elaborate deception
and lying in which Denis OBrien and his associates engaged the
tribunal did not actually state that Denis OBrien lied, but it rejected
almost every piece of evidence he gave to the tribunal under oath,
which surely is the same thing.
The tribunal found that a payment of 172,000 (147,000) was
made by Denis OBrien to Michel Lowry through two intermediaries
during a period when Michael Lowry held public office (paragraph
16.62).
It found that Michael Lowry had purchased a property in Mansfield,
England, largely with funds from an account of Denis OBrien in
Crdit Suisse First Boston in London (16.78)
It found that Michael Lowry had bought a property in Cheadle,
England, largely funded from that same London account of Denis
OBrien (16.89).
It found that Michael Lowry had secured a loan from Woodchester
bank of 420,000 on the basis of an understanding that Denis
OBrien was backing the loan (16.89).
It found that the files in the office of a London solicitor, Christopher
Vaughan, were falsified to obscure from the Tribunal a clear
connection between Mr Denis OBrien and Mr Michael Lowry and the
payments by the former to the latter (16.97).
There is a further extraordinary finding. It reads: The Tribunal has
further concluded that the payment of Stg150,000 to Mr Kevin
Phelan by Mr Denis OBrien, through Westferry [a company owned
by Denis OBrien] was primarily intended to ensure that Mr Kevin
Phelan would not further undermine the false version of Mr Lowrys
involvement in the UK properties already tendered in evidence to
the Tribunal in 2001 and the false explanation already presented,
with the complicity of Mr Kevin Phelan, for the existence and
provision to the Tribunal of the falsified short form correspondence
[this relates to the solicitors files which were falsified] (16.126).

The report also finds that Michael Lowry went to considerable effort
to assist Denis OBrien in securing the mobile phone licence, in
disclosing to him confidential information concerning the criteria
that would apply to evaluating applications for the licence and in
advising him to bring Dermot Desmond on board to secure the
financial status of Denis OBriens company.
This latter advice resulted in Denis OBriens company improperly
contacting the evaluating committee with additional information
after the deadline of this had expired.

Or this from RTE on the Tribunal findings...

Moriarty Tribunal publishes final report - RT News
Ireland's second mobile phone licence was awarded to Denis
O'Brien's Digifone in 1995. Mr Lowry was Communications Minister
when the mobile phone licence was granted.
The report states that it is 'beyond doubt' that Michael Lowry
imparted substantive information to Denis O'Brien which was 'of
significant value and assistance to him in securing the licence'.
1435 When Jarleth Burke, a young lawyer who represented Denis
O'Brien in 1995, produced his documents to the Tribunal they
contained a fax dated 24 July 1995 from Mr Burke to the then
Director of Esat Telecom.
It contained a copy of the front page of a letter sent from the
European Commission to the Department on 20 July 1995 which
mentioned some highly sensitive and confidential information about
the weighting matrix to be used.
The report found that this was an important and valuable piece of
information that should not have been available to the consortium.

The Tribunal even had a fecking infographic displaying how

money moved from DOB to Lowry...

Something else most people seem to be missing - Lowry was

in FG at the time and most of the money displayed in that
graphic from the Tribunals findings directly implicate more
members of the FG party...
The report points out that two further payments were made to
Fine Gael - one of which was greater than the aggregate
amount of all recorded donations.
It notes that this payment, by Telenor on behalf of Esat
Digifone, was made in unusual circumstances in December 1995.
A donation of $50,000 for a Fine Gael fund-raising dinner in
New York was made by Telenor into an off-shore account of
the late Mr David Austin, a close personal friend of Mr Lowry
and a member of the organising committee for the NY event.
The report notes that the payment was transferred to Fine Gael
on 6 May 1997 via a cheque from David Austin to
longstanding Fine Gael supporter Frank Conroy

Denis OBrien Wakes

Up From Horrible
Dream In Which Garda
Pursue Moriarty
Tribunal Findings
November 27, 2015

SHINING beacon of egalitarian business dealings Denis

OBrien awoke from a horrible dream this morning which
saw him pursued by the Garda who were acting on the
findings of the Moriarty Tribunal.
Fixing himself upright and screaming loudly, OBrien was
heard by staff in the east wing of his Maltese home crying
out no, Mammy, dont let them take me away several
times before realising the nightmarish circumstances of
his dreams were simply manifestations of an overactive
imagination.

Boss man wet bed, explained an employee at the telecom

tycoons home on the Mediterranean island. Not first
time and not last.
Among the conclusions made by the Moriarty Tribunal in
2011 included assertions that OBrien made two payments
to Micheal Lowry totalling 500,000 and that Lowry
secured the winning of Irelands second mobile phone
licence for OBrien in 1995 in Lowrys capacity as then
Minister for Communications.
It is thought these conclusions were the source of
OBriens nightmare in which he was also chased by a giant
duck before all his teeth fell out into a sink.
I tell boss, Garda no investigate findings, Garda have four
years with the tribunal evidence and do nothing, the staff
member told WWN, adding OBrien had to be given a hot
water bottle and his favourite teddy bear in order to calm
him down.
http://waterfordwhispersnews.com/2015/11/27/denis-obrien-wakesup-from-horrible-dream-in-which-gardai-pursue-moriarty-tribunalfindings/

has ye guys in his pocket as well. SHAME

I'm looking forward to your piece about freedom of speech

in Ireland.

8 Reasons Why We
Need To Stop
These Labour
Censorship Laws
APRIL 20, 2015 / SOUNDMIGRATION

Support independent media with the like and share

buttons below and the donate button at the side.

Last week Labour politicians presented two

separate bills aimed at shutting down online public
conversation. Unelected Labour Senator Lorraine
Higgins posted the Harmful And Malicious
Electronic Communications Bill 2015. Pat Rabbitte
published The Public Electronic Communications
Networks (Improper Use) Act 2015 on the same
day.

Both can be read in full at the bottom of this post.

Why two separate censorship bills were brought
forward by the same political organisation has not
been made clear. A cursory reading of both show
that not only are they dangerously wide open for
interpretation, but that they both seek to make it a
crime to cause any offence to powerful interests and
politicians.
1 These proposed laws are Orwellian in nature.
They seek to make causing offence,
annoyance inconvenience and alarm an
offence punishable by fines and imprisonment.
From Higgins bill For the purposes of this section an electronic
communication shall be considered malicious
where it intentionally or recklessly causes alarm,
distress or harm to the other
..A person guilty of an offence under this section
shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not
exceeding 5,000 or imprisonment for a term not

exceeding 12 months or to both.

From Rabbittes Bill
A person who (b) for the purpose of causing
annoyance, inconvenience or needless anxiety to
another
(i) sends or causes to be sent, by means of a public
electronic communications network, a message that
the sender knows to be false,
(ii) persistently and without reasonable cause
makes use of a public electronic communications
network, is guilty of an offence.
Pretty alarming and offensive right? These bills
enable the squashing of public discussion and
dissent. They provide for the legal regulation of
online political speech. In a society that already has
draconian libel laws to protect the powerful from
written or spoken criticism, this is a clear attack on
our already delimited democratic sphere.
It gives politicians the ability to censor all online
public criticism which might cause them alarm
annoyance or inconvenience. Higgins bill allows
for fines up to 5,000 and prison sentences of 12
months. Not to be outdone Pat Rabbittes proposed
law seeks to have fines up to 75,000 and 5 years
imprisonment.
The level of punishment sought by the Labour party
can only have a chilling effect on many people using

social media to engage in public debate. The only

possible outcome, if these bills are passed into law,
is an increase in the totalitarian potential of the
nation state.

2 They want to take away your communication

tools too.
Even the wide ranging vagueness of offense and
alarm isnt enough. Say you are found not guilty
after being dragged through the courts on foot of
the new offenses they laws would create. It has
been declared that have done nothing illegal. Yet
still you arent free to express and communicate
without interference from the state and criminal
justice system. Under Ancillary Orders of Higgins
bill, people can be forced by the courts to remove
their own content even though you are not guilty of
anything.

Ancillary Orders
5. (1) If on the evidence the court is not satisfied
that the person should be convicted of an offence
under sections (3) or (4), the court may
nevertheless make any of the following upon
application to it in that behalf if, having regard to the
evidence, the court is satisfied that it is in the
interest of justice so to order:
(a) that the person remove or delete specific
electronic communication(s);(b) that the person
shares an apology or correction as the court deems
appropriate in the circumstances;(c) that the person
shall not, for such period as the court may specify,
communicate by any means with the other person
or that the person shall not approach within such
distance as the court shall specify of the place of
residence or employment of the other person.
It gets worse. Pat Rabbittes bill allows the state to
seize laptops, mobiles phones and modems etc etc
to be taken from you.
So imagine you send a tweet sugggesting Pat
Rabbitte was a bit of a hypocrite condemning
political organisations with links to paramilitaries
who murdered people, given his own political
history. Granted that might be hard to fit into 140
characters, but imagine it was possible for the sake
of an example. And say Pat Rabbitte was a litigious

sort of character who didnt want to be publicly

associated with any of the murders, bank robberies
or lots of stuff the Official IRA was involved in when
he was member of the Workers Party, the political
wing of the OIRA.
I guess youd be into a couple of tweets now,
something that might be construed by Rabbitte and
his expensive legal team and barristers as
persistent and without legitimate cause. It
probably might not matter that you feel it
important to public discourse that many younger
people ought know that that a former minister
responsible for promoting austerity and a gagging
law was once a member of a politico-paramilitary
organisation that murdered people. You might even
infer that the Stalinist tendencies embodied in
WP/OIRA back in the day could be found in a bill
that seeks to quash public online political dissent
today by actually making it illegal to be a political
nuisance.
So you are taken to court and found guilty. Say your
day job was a graphic designer, or architect or any
other job that requires a laptop and/or mobile phone
and access to the net. Your ability to earn a wage
(or get donations) relies on these things. Rabbittes
bill allows for a judge to remove that wage earning
ability by seizing the tools of your trade. See:

(6) On convicting a person for an offence under

subsection (1), the court may, in addition to any
other penalty imposed for the offence, order any
apparatus, equipment or other thing used in the
course of committing the offence to be forfeited to
the State.

3 This is bigger than these two bills. This is

about what type of society we want and how we
can get there.
These bills are merely the latest manifestation of

senior politicians seeking to criminalise public

questioning. For the past few years there has been
a continual attempt by politicians to shut down
public anger, despair and frustration. Especially
when that coaleses into social action. This anger,
expressed on the streets as well as on social media
is rooted firmly in the inability and unwillingness of
current political actors to tackle the causes of
inequality and face up to the failure of
representative democracy. Instead of taking note of
these voices from below, people are called fascists
and nazis by the very people imposing inequality
upon them.
It is demanded that people play nice, suppress their
emotions, individualise and internalise their own
insecurities. We are expected to respect
respectability and applaud green shoots of
arithmetical recovery. We all know that these green
shoots will never feed us properly, will not undo the
loss of mass emigration and suicides. These green
shoots and smoke-and -mirror GDP figures wont let
us escape shitty short terms jobs or a pension-less
future. On the one hand our politicians applaud our
sacrifices, but on the other they are telling us to
shut the fuck up. And that is precisely what this bill
will be used for.
4 Far bigger communication crime are

happening today and the Labour Party are part

of the problem.
I was aware there was a gap in our legislative
armour and I was keen to cover this because I feel
a duty as an Oireachtas member. Modern
democracies require modern laws and why should
Ireland be any different in terms of international best
practice? Lorraine Higgins at the bill launch.
Isnt that what you tend to do during an election?
Pat Rabbittes response to accusations of lying to
the public in run up to last election.
Lorraine Higgins has ran in 8 elections and been
rejected every time, yet shes able to push forward
this bill, because she was appointed to the Senate.
Higgins likes to talk about her constituency in
Galway but was never voted into the Dail. In a clip
seen tens of thousands of times on YouTube, Pat
Rabbitte made clear that lying is part of modern day
electoral strategy.
This is Irelands modern democracy. But what
does a modern democracy even mean?

Modern in the sense that all our electronic

communications, every phone call, email, our
browsing histories, each Facebook update and
Twitter direct message, all our location-tracking
data, menstrual cycle app info and Snapchat sexy

shots, etc. etc. etc. are intercepted, filed and stored

by the UK intelligence agencies at GCHQ and
shared with the US intelligence gatherers of the
NSA?
Modern in the sense that none of the main political
parties felt the call of duty to speak out about this,
never mind publicly condemn other states for
abusing the privacy of its own population? From this
alone it is completely reasonable to assume that
Higgins, Rabbitte and the majority of political
organisations in this state dont give one flying bollix
about what modern democracies actually means for
the most of the population. They are the managers
of our total surveillance. These censorship bills are
yet another expression of nation state surveillance
and control that we can see growing across the
globe. Across the EU we are seeing laws to
criminalise online organising, and political protest.
All the while agencies of the US and UK are
supported by client regimes to achieve total
surveillance of global populations.
5 New Laws, Old Practices
These proposed laws reflect the deeply reactionary
and authoritarian nature of the Irish state its
relatively closed political classes. As much as we
can all see many positive social changes in
attitudes and practices which are exclusively

rooted in peoples collective struggles rather than

benign political leadership the Irish state remains
instinctively reactionary and under the control of
wealthy vested interests. Since the inception of the
state, successive governments and powerful elites
have used censorship around political speech, free
discussion and free assembly and the sharing of
knowledge.
Ireland is one of the few *ahem* modern
democracies to retain blasphemy laws. This was
conveniently omitted from most of the commentary
surrounding politicians leveraging the murders in
Paris earlier this year to laud themselves supporters
of free speech.
During the financial crisis, new censorship laws
within The Credit Institutions (Stabilisation) Act
2010 were used to hide decisions from public view
around bank restructuring. Section 60 of the act
made it illegal to disclose what decisions the
Finance Minister ordered, but also made it illegal to
report that Section 60 was being invoked. In effect
this was a super injunction stopping journalists
reporting on the fact that they were not allowed to
report. Brian Lenihan used this act to block
reporting on 3,700,000,000 of our taxes being
handed over to Allied Irish Bank in mid December
2010.

As well as refusing women reproductive control over

their own bodies, Ireland still bans the sharing of
knowledge about abortion. As things stands a
doctor can give advice on abortion if a woman
seeks an abortion outside of Ireland, but we cant
legally tell each other arsing from Article 26 and
the Regulation of Information (Services outside the
State for the Termination of Pregnancies) Bill 1995,
In Re [1995] IESC 9; [1995] 1 IR 1 (12th May,
1995). This censorship of course is very difficult to
police but the intention is more about shutting down
the free sharing of essential and important
information than locking people up. In our modern
democracy is just not politically possible to lock
woman up like this anymore.
(As a quick aside for readers outside Ireland its
worth noting that for the first half of respective
parties existence Fianna Fail and Fine Gael
supported locking women up for being, well
women. These organisations today raise questions

about the legitimacy of Sinn Fein given its (past)

links with the PIRA. And its totally fine and
reasonable in a democratic space to do so.
However FF and FG themselves were not engaged
in a wrongheaded low level war with a sectarian
state and against a government that organised
murders gangs all through the period they were
locking innocent women and kids up in workhouses
and prisons. There was no external factor enforcing
their silence and complicity. This was actual state
policy supported and run by FF and FG political
organisations. Yet somehow the legitimacy of these
political organisations is never really questioned.)
The books Abortion Internationally, Abortion:
Right or Wrong. and Abortion: Our Struggle for
Control are all banned in Ireland. Whilst not
exclusively covering abortion The Complete Guide
to Sex is also banned. Though in fairness Im not
sure any of us have book shelf strong enough to
hold what must be a pretty hefty tome. The fact that
these books are undoubtedly shared in digital forms
shows how obselete the censorship of artifacts is.
6 Communication tools are important tools in
the struggle for social justice.
Social media tools used within an increasingly
networked public sphere afford many of us a low
cost ability to engage in critical political enquiry and

debate about the world we live in. If our

conversations and the tools themselves are
regulated by government struggles for social
justice and equality will be hampered.
Official narratives and meaning making of our lives
is still delivered to us by large for-profit media
corporations and state run media. For the most part
these tend not to reflect our lived reality. Thousands
of us across the country blog, tweet and post
updates that are rich with political analysis,
opinions, sets of ideas and visions. Across all of
these is robust criticism of specific politicise and as
well as the clear visible failings of representative
democracy to deliver real social transformation.
They also include articulations of what a genuine
democracy of equals could look like.
We share our thoughts, report on local struggles,
give our own context to our lived experiences and
challenge common sense on a daily basis. It is not
the place of nation state governments to regulate
our thinking, our communications with each other,
or our plans for changing things, simply on the basis
that they find it offensive or that it causes them
alarm.
Many of us are engaged in campaigns, projects and
struggle against the causes of inequality and social
injustice. In almost all cases, the main political

organisations within the state are barriers to

solutions long before they are forced to assist. It
stands to sense that they are going to be offended.
But if members of the professional political classes
dont want to be offended or alarmed, maybe they
should drop the sense of duty bollix and think about
joining these struggles. Or simply get the fuck out of
the way.
Either way we dont need new laws and regulations
to demand we speak without causing offence.
Discourse etiquette has a social context. We live in
a neoliberal Ireland, an Ireland wholly captured by
the whims and demands of undemocratic financial
capital, an Ireland shaped by the same forces and
ideology causing social and environmental
destruction across Europe and our wider world.
Making it illegal not to be alarmed or
inconvenienced by criticism in this social context is
akin to demanding someone stop giving you dirty
looks while you keep punching him in the balls. And
when he doesnt to bring him to court to get his balls
punched some more by the criminal justice system.
Fuck that.

7 Laws already exist to deal with threats and

intimidation
To be clear, I see no point in threatening violence
against a politician. The usual media practice is to
seek condemnation. Growing up in the north during
the 70s, 80s and 90s Im well versed with the
pantomime of condemnation. For the most part its
circular time filling. Threats to Higgins as she
descibed them on RTE Morning are vile, and
disgusting. And they almost certainly fall under
existing legislation. There is no need for new
legislation to address someone threatening you
online. All this is covered by S5 & S10 Non Fatal
Offences Against the Person Act 1997.
8 These laws need to be defeated and not
passed and we need to start making some noise
now if we are to ensure they are.

Ireland | This video does not exist.

DRAFT
/
HARMFUL
AND
MALICIOUS
ELECTRONIC COMMUNICATIONS BILL 2015
_______________________
Bill
entitled
An Act to protect against and mitigate harm caused
to individuals by all or any digital communications
and to provide such individuals with a means of
redress for any such offending behaviours directed
at them.
Be it enacted by the Oireachtas as follows:

PART I
Preliminary and General
Short title and commencement
1. (1) This Act may be cited as the Harmful &
Malicious Electronic Communications Act 2015
(2) This Act shall comes into operation on such day
or days as the Minister may appoint by order or
orders either generally or with reference to any
particular purpose or provision, and different days
may be so appointed for different purposes or
provisions.
Interpretation
2. (1) In this Act
electronic
communication
includes
a
communication of information in the form of data,
text, images or sound (or any combination of these)
by means of guided or unguided electromagnetic
energy, or both;
explicit content includes images, video or sound
(or any combination of these) of a sexual or intimate
nature;
shares includes sending, posting, distributing or
publishing on the internet an electronic
communication.

PART II
Offences
Harmful Electronic Communication
3. (1) A person who, without lawful authority or
reasonable excuse, intentionally or recklessly
shares a harmful electronic communication shall be
guilty of an offence.
(2) For the purposes of this section an electronic
communication shall be considered harmful where it

(a) incites or encourages another to commit suicide;

or(b) incites or encourages another to cause
serious harm to themselves; or(c) includes explicit
content of the other;
and it intentionally or recklessly causes alarm,
distress or harm to the other.
(3) A person guilty of an offence under this section
shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not
exceeding 5,000 or imprisonment for a term not
exceeding 12 months or to both.

Malicious Electronic Communications

4. (1) A person who, without lawful excuse,
persistently
shares
malicious
electronic
communications regarding another shall be guilty of
an offence.
(2) For the purposes of this section an electronic
communication shall be considered malicious where
it intentionally or recklessly causes alarm, distress
or harm to the other.
(3) A person guilty of an offence under this section
shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not
exceeding 5,000 or imprisonment for a term not
exceeding 12 months or to both.

PART III
Jurisdiction and Procedure
Ancillary Orders
5. (1) If on the evidence the court is not satisfied
that the person should be convicted of an offence
under sections (3) or (4), the court may
nevertheless make any of the following upon
application to it in that behalf if, having regard to the
evidence, the court is satisfied that it is in the
interest of justice so to order:

(a) that the person remove or delete specific

electronic communication(s);(b) that the person
shares an apology or correction as the court deems
appropriate in the circumstances;(c) that the person
shall not, for such period as the court may specify,
communicate by any means with the other person
or that the person shall not approach within such
distance as the court shall specify of the place of
residence or employment of the other person.
(5) A person who fails to comply with the terms of
an order under this section shall be guilty of an
offence.
(6) A person guilty of an offence under this section
shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not
exceeding 5000 or imprisonment for a term not
exceeding 12 months or to both.
PUBLIC
ELECTRONIC
COMMUNICATIONS
NETWORKS (IMPROPER USE) BILL 2015 Bill
An Act to provide for certain offences in connection
with the improper use of public electronic
communications networks; and to provide for
related matters.
Be it enacted by the Oireachtas as follows:
Amendment of section 13 of Post Office
(Amendment) Act 1951

1. The Post Office (Amendment) Act 1951 is

amended in section 13, as substituted by section 4
of and Schedule 1 to the Communications
Regulation (Amendment) Act 2007, by the
substitution of the following section:
Offences in connection with public electronic
communications networks 13.
(1) A person who
(a) sends or causes to be sent, by means of a
public electronic communications network, a
message or other matter that is grossly offensive or
is indecent, obscene or menacing, or
(b) for the purpose of causing annoyance,
inconvenience or needless anxiety to another (i)
sends or causes to be sent, by means of a public
electronic communications network, a message that
the sender knows to be false,
or (ii) persistently and without reasonable cause
makes use of a public electronic communications
network, is guilty of an offence.
(2)
In
subsection
(1),
public
electronic
communications network means an electronic
communications network (within the meaning of the
European
Communities
(Electronic
Communications
Networks
and
Services)
(Framework) Regulations 2011 (S.I. No. 333 of
2011)), that is provided wholly or mainly for the

purpose of making available to members of the

public, whether on payment or otherwise, electronic
communications services (within the meaning of
those Regulations). 3 5 10 15 20 25 30
(3) Subsection (1) does not apply to the
transmission, distribution or relay of a broadcasting
service, within the meaning of the Broadcasting Act
2009.
(4) A person guilty of an offence under subsection
(1) is liable
(a) on summary conviction, to a Class A fine or to
imprisonment for a term not exceeding 12 months,
or to both,
(b) on conviction on indictment, to a fine not
exceeding 75,000 or to imprisonment for a term
not exceeding 5 years, or to both.
(5) An offence under subsection (1) is an offence
under the Post Office Act 1908.
(6) On convicting a person for an offence under
subsection (1), the court may, in addition to any
other penalty imposed for the offence, order any
apparatus, equipment or other thing used in the
course of committing the offence to be forfeited to
the State..
Short title 2. This Act may be cited as the Public
Electronic Communications Networks (Improper
Use) Act 2015.

https://soundmigration.wordpress.com/2015/04/20/labourcensorship-ireland-social-media/

I haven't been sued by Dennis O'brien yet. Am I normal?

Sincerely,

Denis OBrien lawyers

demand removal of
broadsheet.ie article
Site republishes piece removed from Waterford Whispers
News site after legal letter
Fri, Aug 7, 2015, 20:28 Updated: Fri, Aug 7, 2015, 20:34

The broadsheet.ie website has received a legal letter from solicitors for Denis
OBrien after reprinting a piece removed from a satire website on Thursday
following contact from the businessmans legal representatives.

The broadsheet.ie website has received a legal letter

from solicitors for Denis OBrien after it republished a
piece removed from a satirical website on Thursday
following contact from the businessmans legal
representatives.
The article, initially published on Waterford Whispers
News, focused on the awarding of the States second
mobile phone licence to Mr OBrien and the findings of
the Moriarty tribunal in relation to his dealings with
then minister for communications Michael Lowry.
It was accompanied by a digitally altered image of Mr
OBrien, and the piece was apparently set in a parallel
universe.
Following the removal of the article from the
Waterford Whispers News website on Thursday,
broadsheet.ie republished the piece.
On Friday evening, broadsheet.ie published a letter it
said was received from Mr OBriens representatives,
Meagher Solicitors, which stated that you have chosen
to republish a Waterford Whispers News article that is

grossly defamatory of our client.

Malicious decision

It continued: This was a calculated and malicious

decision to compound the damage to his good name
and reputation.
We call upon you to immediately remove this article
from your website, Facebook, Twitter and all other
social media platforms. If you fail to do so then we
have instructions to take all necessary steps to protect
our clients rights.
In its response, broadsheet.ie said the article in
question was satire and that Waterford Whispers News
was a fake news website. Broadsheet.ie said it was
not asserting that the contents of the article were true.

Not been defamed

Accordingly your client has not been defamed and

there are no grounds to remove the article, it said.
A request for comment was made to Mr OBriens
spokesman, but a response had not been received at
the time of publication.
Social Democrat TD Roisin Shortall on Friday said
recent developments involving Mr OBrien taking legal
actions were of grave concern to all publishers.
Speaking to Today FM, which is owned by Mr OBriens
Communicorp Group, Ms Shortall called for the States
defamation laws to be updated after a series of legal
manoeuvres by the businessman.
Mr OBrien is currently suing the Oireachtas
Committee on Procedure and Privileges, accusing it of
interfering with the courts and breaching his
Constitutional rights.
He took the action after the committee ruled that
Independent TD Catherine Murphy and Sinn Fin TD
Pearse Doherty did not abuse Dil privilege when they
made claims about his banking arrangements with the

IBRC in the Dil chamber.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/denis-obrien-lawyers-demand-removal-of-broadsheet-ie-article1.2310440#.VcXIYHybHvo.twitter

Denis O'Brien's Message to Waterford

Whispers News
Apr 2, 2012
Watch the full show here: http://www.rte.ie/player/#
Republic of Telly, Mondays, 9:55, RT TWO

https://www.youtube.com/watch?
v=3TH5Hn4TwBA

Evil overlord threatens to sue satirical website

Denis O'Brien has asked

Waterford Whispers News to
remove an article
The billionaire asked his legal team to protect his good name and
reputation.
Aug 6th 2015,

LAWYERS FOR DENIS OBrien have sent a cease and

desist letter to Waterford Whispers News, asking for an
article in which he features to be removed from the
satirical website.
The piece, which was published yesterday and referenced a
parallel universe, was taken down this evening.
Publisher Colm Williamson tweeted an image of the letter
he received from solicitors acting for OBrien this evening.
The legal team asked for all references to the article to be
taken down from the site, as well as Twitter and Facebook,
by 6pm today. It is understood their client gave
instructions to take all necessary steps to vindicate his
good name and reputation if this was not done.
Waterford Whispers News has previously made
international headlines for pieces on the Charlie Hebdo
massacre and for fooling people into thinking North Korea
had reached the sun.

Cult leader is a lady known as 'Denise O'Brien'

Tangled Clinton Web:

Firms tied to Clintons
profited in post-quake
Haiti
Published April 24, 2015

On Jan. 12, 2010, Haiti suffered a devastating

earthquake. More than 200,000 died, and over
100,000 buildings and homes were destroyed.
Within four days, U.S. Secretary of State Hillary

Clinton arrived to survey the damage.

Clinton assured the Haitian people that, "the
United States is a friend, partner, and a
supporter."
The government of Haiti set up the IHRC -- the
Interim Haiti Recovery Commission -- to
coordinate the nation's recovery.
Former President Bill Clinton was named cochair of that committee. He expressed hope
that the island nation would be, "rebuilt in a
much stronger, much sustainable way. I think
the Haitians want that."
But Peter Schweizer, author of the new book
"Clinton Cash," that investigates the tangle of
money, politics and personal interest that has
come to characterize the Clintons' interactions
around the world, says that: "What quickly
became apparent to many people was that if
you ... wanted to do business in Haiti, you had
to have relationships with a Clinton. That was
absolutely key."
Watch "Fox News Reporting: The Tangled
Clinton Web" at 10 p.m. ET on Friday, on
Fox News Channel.
Perhaps the most celebrated project of all was
Caracol Industrial Park.
Its grand opening was as glitzy as a Hollywood
premiere.
"You had Bill Clinton there," said Schweizer. "You
had Hillary Clinton there. You had Donna Karan,
the fashion designer. You had Ben Stiller. You
had Sean Penn."
The anchor tenant of Caracol Industrial Park is a
Korean manufacturer who is also a big Clinton
supporter.

And then there was Digicel. It helped create a

system to transfer money via cell phones. In the
six months running up to September 2012, it
took in more than $50 million in revenue in
Haiti.
Digicel is run by Irish billionaire Denis O'Brien.
He set up lucrative speeches for Bill Clinton and
donated millions of dollars of his own money to
the Clintons' foundation.
There was also a plan to raise money by
exploiting Haiti's rich mineral wealth.
One company that got a rare gold permit was
VCS mining. It didn't actually have much mining
experience, but it would soon have Hillary
Clinton's brother, Tony Rodham, on its board.
"Tony Rodham has no background in Haiti and
he has no background in mining," said
Schweizer. "Why on earth is he on the board
and in this position to profit from VCS's mining
gold exploitation permit in the first place?"

Moriarty Tribunal
The Moriarty Tribunal's second and final report found that
Michael Lowry, Ireland's then energy and communications
minister, assisted O'Brien in his bid to secure a mobile
phone contract for Esat Digifone, a key foundation of
O'Brien's personal wealth. The tribunal found that this
happened after Lowry received a $50,000 payment from
O'Brien via a circuitous route involving a complex
arrangement of third parties and offshore accounts. It said
that it was "beyond doubt" that Lowry gave "substantive
information to Denis O'Brien, of significant value and
assistance to him in securing the [mobile] licence" during
at least two meetings between the two. The Tribunal was
not a court of law; its findings were "legally sterile".On 15
October 2011, Today FM confirmed Sam Smyth's Sunday
radio show was being dropped. He had been presenting it
for 14 years. Smyth had previously offended his bosses by
commenting in a newspaper and on television about Today
FM's owner O'Brien's involvement in the Moriarty Tribunal.
Smyth said on air the next morning that he had been told
not to talk about the end of his show and stopped one of
his guests from talking about it too "before someone
comes downstairs and pulls a wire we better move onto

something else." The National Union of Journalists (NUJ)

said it was concerned at the development, but Today FM
stated that "the decision was made to address a decline in
listenership and was part of an initiative to improve
programming quality." The Today FM board supported the
decision, which was one of several programming changes
made by Willy O'Reilly The Irish Independent, of which
O'Brien is a leading shareholder, reported that Anton
Savage was being lined up to replace Smyth.
O'Brien owns Communicorp, a media holding company
which operates across Europe, particularly in Ireland
where it dominates national radio (apart from RT)
including stations like Newstalk and Today FM. The New
York Times has described him as "the biggest player in
Ireland's media landscape" and notes that "his
Independent News & Media group controls the Irish
Independent as well as the Irish Daily Star, the Sunday
Independent (Ireland), the Sunday World, Dublin's Evening
Herald and regional newspapers," through his minority
shareholding in the group. According to Fintan OToole,
O'Brien has "been allowed to take effective control of the
largest Irish newspaper group and of two of [Ireland's]
three national talk radio stations." O'Brien also owns
telecoms provider Digicel, which operates in 31 markets
across the Caribbean, Central America and
Oceania.O'Brien set up and chaired the Esat Digifone
consortium which acquired a mobile phone licence in the
1990s. The Moriarty Tribunal found almost beyond doubt
that O'Brien's was awarded this contract due to payments
he made to Michael Lowry, the then communications
minister, who unduly influenced the bidding process. This
contract formed the basis of O'Brien's fortune. O'Brien
established Communicorp in 1989, with the company
currently owning 42 radio stations in eight European
countries. In 1999, he founded the international
commercial aircraft company Aergo Capital registered in
Dublin, with offices in Johannesburg, Nairobi, Santiago and
Singapore. In 2001, he founded telecoms provider Digicel
in Jamaica. He also owned Topaz Energy from 2013 until
early 2016 and has a "significant interest" in Sterling
Energy.After the sale of Esat, O'Brien moved to Portugal
where he owns the Quinta do Lago golf complex. He later

took up residency in Sliema, Malta. His spokesperson is

James Morrissey.
995, O'Brien set up and chaired the Esat Digifone
consortium, which submitted a bid for the second Irish
GSM mobile phone licence. Esat Digifone's bid defeated
five other applicants, some of whom included major
international operators, in controversial circumstances
that became the subject of investigation by the Moriarty
Tribunal.Court action on the awarding of the license by the
Persona grouping has been signaled. The Esat Digifone
consortium was 40% owned by O'Brien's interests, 40%
owned by Telenor, the Norwegian state telecoms operator,
with the balance being owned by International Investment
and Underwriting (IIU), an investment vehicle owned by
Dermot Desmond.On 7 November 1997, Esat Telecom
Group plc held an initial public offering and was listed on
the Irish Stock Exchange, London Stock Exchange, and
NASDAQ Stock Markets. There were differences between
O'Brien and Telenor, however, ESAT Digifone boomed.
Telenor made a bid for control of the company, but O'Brien
chose to sell to BT in 2000. Esat became a wholly owned
subsidiary of BT Group plc and was delisted from the stock
market. O'Brien personally netted 317 million from the
sale.
After exiting the Irish mobile phone market, O'Brien
started to compete for mobile phone licenses in the
Caribbean through his company Digicel. O'Brien is
involved in the Pacific with operations in Samoa, Vanuatu,
Fiji, Tonga, Nauru and Papua New GuineaO'Brien is the
owner of Haiti's largest telecom company, Digicel. O'Brien
pledged an immediate 3.5 million of his money to assist
desperate Haitians within hours of the 2010 Haiti
earthquake. Two of Digicel's 900 staff members in Haiti
died in the earthquake. Digicel is Haiti's largest single
investor. Digicel was involved in an extensive court battle
with the Jamaican Office of Utilities Regulation (OUR)
throughout the 2000s. The issue originally arose after
Phillip Paulwell, the then Jamaican minister of industry,
commerce and technology, instructed the OUR to refrain
from interfering with the pricing policies of Digicel, after
the regulator had itself instructed Digicel to amend its
interconnectivity fees. Although Paulwell was ruled to have

had no power to issue the instruction to the OUR, Digicel

unsuccessfully appealed the ruling first at the Jamaican
Supreme Court, which overturned the ruling, though it was
subsequently upheld by Court of Appeal after a counterappeal by OUR, and then at Jamaica's Privy Council.The
issue came under some scrutiny in 2011 when it emerged
via Wikileaks that US officials based in Jamaica's Kingston,
Jamaica capital had described Paulwell as a "conflicted
and meddling" minister. The diplomatic cable, despatched
in 2007, detailed Paulwell's alleged mismanagement of
the Universal Access Fund, which was set up by the United
States Federal Communications Commission in 1997 to
meet Congressional universal service goals as mandated
by the Telecommunications Act of 1996. It also
documented how he had paid attorney Minette Palmer, his
former personal advisor, almost US$450,000 over a 19month period, despite that no internet facilities had been
provided in schools during that time as the scheme
intended. To further compound matter was the revelation
that Paulwell had recently awarded a cellular licence to a
company controlled by Palmer and her husband.In January
2014, the Financial Timess Telecoms Correspondent wrote
of O'Brien's intention to expand Digicel into nextgeneration mobile and fixed line services, with O'Brien
quoted as being excited by the prospect of a "world order
[that] is changing."Shortly after the 2016 Olympics,
Jamaican sprinter Usain Bolt spoke of his close relationship
with O'Brien. Speaking on Newstalk, he said: "Hes my
boy, you know what I mean.Hes really a nice person
and obviously he has faith in me, he has made me a job
for life.The nine-time Olympic gold medalist is a lifetime
Digicel ambassador and will be the chief speed officer.
When asked what this means, he said, It gets things done
and gets things done fast and precise.
O'Brien owned Topaz Energy until early 2016, having
bought 300 million of its loans from Irish Bank Resolution
Corporation (IBRC). In May 2014, O'Brien appointed former
Taoiseach Brian Cowen to the board of Topaz to join
himself, his nephew (who was also CEO of Smiles Dental),
Sean Corkey (CEO of O'Brien's SiteServ), Lucy Gaffney
(chairperson of O'Brien's Communicorp) and Colm Doherty
(former managing director of Allied Irish Banks). In

December 2014, Topaz's parent company Kendrick

Investments announced it would buy all of Esso's Irish
operations. Profits at Topaz increased between April 2013
and March 2014.The sale of Topaz was announced in
January 2016. It is estimated that OBrien sold the network
of 444 filling stations for about 450 million, more than
double what he paid to gain control of it from the special
liquidators of the state-owned Irish Bank Resolution
Corporation (IBRC) in 2013.The sale also included a
commercial fuels operation, with over 30 depots and two
owned terminals.In February 2016, Alimentation CoucheTard, a Canadian company that operates more than
15,000 convenience stores worldwide confirmed that it
completed the acquisition of Topaz after European
competition regulators approved the deal.Emmet ONeill, a
nephew of OBrien and formerly chief executive of Smiles
Dental, stepped down as Managing Director of Topaz
following completion of the transaction. His replacement
Niall Anderton joined Topaz as Chief Financial Officer in
2015. He previously held senior executive positions in
Primark/Penneys, O2 and Brown Thomas.Topaz has more
than 2,000 employees and close to 35 per cent of the
consumer market in Ireland.In addition, O'Brien is listed as
having a "significant interest" in AIM-listed Sterling Energy.
The company has production in the United States and a
wide portfolio of exploration interests, mostly in West
Africa.
O'Brien formed Communicorp in 1989. It launched its radio
operations in Ireland that same year and entered the
Czech Republic in 1992. It later added stations in Bulgaria,
Estonia, Finland, Hungary and Ukraine. Based in Dublin,
the company now owns 42 radio stations in eight
European countries, including Ireland's Newstalk, Today
FM, Dublins 98FM, SPIN 1038, TXFM and SPIN South West.
O'Brien owns a majority of Ireland's radio stations (all
stations apart from those run by state broadcaster RT),
save some regional and local stations.O'Brien's
Communicorp was the highest bidder for Emap's Irish
operations when that company decided to sell its radio
stations, buying FM104, Highland Radio and Today FM on
14 July 2007. In October 2007, the Broadcasting
Commission of Ireland (BCI) approved Communicorp's

proposed takeover of Today FM and Highland Radio, but

not FM104. The deal was completed by January 2008. Due
to a Competition Authority (Ireland) decision,
Communicorp was required to sell-on FM104, which it did
(to UTV Media) immediately upon its acquisition. O'Brien
offloaded Highland Radio in mid-2008.
January 2006, O'Brien took a stake in Tony OReilly's
Independent News & Media (INM). At the beginning of June
2007, O'Reilly tabled a resolution to strengthen rules on
the disclosure of beneficial interests. This was regarded as
a defensive measure that would empower IN&M to
monitor any additional accumulation of shares in the
company. The resolution passed and empowers IN&M to
withhold dividends from investors who do not comply with
a request for information on the ownership of a holding of
shares. O'Brien, speaking on RT Radio, described the
resolution as a "retrograde" measure, saying that the
resolution was designed to protect the interests of
O'Reilly's family against a hostile bidder. In January 2008,
at the same time as completing the purchase Today FM
(Ireland's last national radio station independent of
O'Brien and state broadcaster RT), O'Brien increased his
INM shareholding to become that company's secondbiggest shareholder behind Tony O'Reilly.In 2012, O'Brien
seized control of INM from O'Reilly, bringing to an end four
decades of that family's ownership. Brett Chenoweth, the
chief executive of APN News and Media (INM's Australian
arm), was forced to resign in 2013. Its Chairman Peter
Hunt and three independent directors Melinda Conrad,
John Harvey and John Maasland also resigned in a
dispute with INM. Shortly before this, INM announced it
would sell South African arm of its business for 146
million to a consortium fronted by Iqbal Surv, a former
doctor of Nelson Mandela. This followed the 2010 sale of
The Independent and The Independent on Sunday to
Russian billionaire Alexander Lebedev for 1.As of May
2012, O'Brien holds a 29.9% stake in INM, making him the
largest shareholder. This compares to the O'Reilly's family
stake of around 13%.On the evening of Friday 7 December
2012, O'Brien's friend and solicitor Paul Meagher
contacted the Sunday Independent with orders from
O'Brien to 'kill' a story concerning environment minister

Phil Hogan.On Saturday 19 July 2014, group editor of INM

Stephen Rae (editor) ordered the presses to be stopped to
amend a column written by Sunday Independent editor
Anne Harris (journalist) which featured references to
O'Brien. Copies of the original article did however appear,
allowing comparisons between the two. Harris originally
wrote: "Denis O'Brien is the majority shareholder in INM. In
theory, with 29% of the shares, he does not control it. In
practice, he does." Rae had the last sentence deleted.
Harris also wrote: "The question is whether he
understands newspapers. In order to confront the truths in
our society, we must have a free press. With the restrictive
charter for journalists proposed last year, and some
garrotive (sic) new structures, Denis O'Brien does not
make this easy." This was changed to: "The question is
whether he understands newspapers. In order to confront
the truths in our society, we must have a free press. If the
restrictive charter for journalists proposed last year, along
with some other structural changes, are anything to go by,
it might be instructive for him to listen to journalists,
troublesome and all as they are."
O'Brien has threatened to sue the journalist and
broadcaster Vincent Browne; as the Sunday Independent
wrote at the time: "Suing the individual journalist is a
tactic usually designed to instill a fear of financial ruin into
the writer of the allegedly offending article, especially
when the potential litigant is somebody of Mr O'Brien's
means."On 14 February 2013, O'Brien sued the Irish Daily
Mail for defamation over his numerous appearances in RT
news reports on the relief effort after the Haiti earthquake
in an attempt to use the publicity to deflect attention from
the Moriarty Tribunal. The court awarded O'Brien
150,000. The case was a landmark one as it was the first
time a journalist had attempted to use the honest opinion
defence. The newspaper's solicitor said it was a sad day
for Censorship in the Republic of Ireland.On 6 August
2015, Waterford Whispers News (a satirical website similar
to America's The Onion) editor-in-chief Colm Williamson
received a cease and desist order from a solicitor acting
on O'Brien's behalf, for a satirical article published on the
website regarding O'Brien. Soon after lawyers for O'Brien

also demanded that a report of the Waterford Whispers

News story also be removed from under the treaty of legal
action, which has yet to be complied with.In response to
such actions - in particular those relating to the threat of
legal proceedings against satirical websites - the
comments sections of various Irish related social media
outlet featured many negative comments chastising Mr
O'Brien for his constant issuing of threats of legal
proceedings. Some even went as far as setting up pages
dedicated to such criticisms and featured harsh satirical
postings such as . The Save Denis From Satire Facebook
page contains such satirical posts as: Thank God that
Malta gave Denis O'Brien... - Save Denis From
SatireFacebookurl:
https://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?
story_fbid=1657913364421691&id=1657897631089931&
pnref=storywebsite:www.facebook.comaccessdate:201508-08Timeline Photos - Save Denis From
SatireFacebookurl:
https://www.facebook.com/1657897631089931/photos/a.1
658181031061591.1073741828.1657897631089931/1658
180854394942/?
type=1&pnref=storywebsite:www.facebook.comaccessdat
e:2015-08-08Timeline Photos - Save Denis From
SatireFacebookurl:
https://www.facebook.com/1657897631089931/photos/a.1
658181031061591.1073741828.1657897631089931/1658
213467725014/?
type=1&pnref=storywebsite:www.facebook.comaccessdat
e:2015-08-08
IBRC controversy and RT injunction
2015, arguing that revelation of his relationship with his
bank was an invasion of his privacy, O'Brien successfully
applied for an injunction against RT preventing the state
broadcaster from airing a report on how O'Brien was
allegedly receiving, on foot of a claimed but disputed
verbal agreement with a former CEO of the Irish Bank
Resolution Corporation (IBRC)the former Anglo Irish Bank,
and another senior executive, a rate of approximately
1.25% when IBRC "could, and arguably should" have been
charging 7.5%. This alleged rate applied to "outstanding

sums of upwards of 500 million", or "over 300 million"

according to the RT producer's court affidavit. O'Brien
then allegedly wrote to IBRC's special liquidator Kieran
Wallace to demand that these same favourable terms that
were granted him by way of verbal agreement be
continued. The Irish government later appointed Kieran
Wallace to conduct a review into various IBRC
transactions, including the sale of Siteserv by IBRC to
Denis O'Brien. Acting as IBRC special liquidator, and in
order to protect the confidentiality of IBRC's relations with
its customers and of any legal advice given to it, Wallace
then joined with IBRC and Denis O'Brien to seek an
injunction in Ireland's High Court (Ireland) to hide this
information from the public. High court judge Mr Justice
Donald Binchy granted O'Brien the injunction and told the
court that certain elements of the judgement would have
to be redacted. The Irish media therefore could not report
on details of the injunction.Independent TD Catherine
Murphy (politician) attempted to raise this in the Dil on
27 May 2015. Sen Barrett (Fine Gael) silenced her and
called her contributions "out of order". Catherine Murphy
then attempted to raise the matter again the following
day, this time with more success. OBrien "claimed the
information was false and that it was an abuse of Dil
privilege." (The former chief executive of IBRC, Mike
Aynsley, also took issue with other comments by Deputy
Murphy). Lawyers acting for O'Brien immediately forced
much of the country's media to censor its own coverage,
with some media outlets confirming they had received
warnings from O'Brien's lawyers. RT reporter Philip
Boucher-Hayes tweeted that Drivetime (RT) would play
Murphys speech; in the event, Murphy's speech was not
broadcast and his tweet was later deleted. Tonight with
Vincent Browne (with Browne absent and instead
moderated by Ger Colleran, editor of INM's Irish Daily Star)
featured Colleran reading a statement from TV3
management asserting that no discussion about Murphy's
comments would be allowed following letters from
O'Brien's lawyers. At least one foreign commentator
covering these events for the international media
suggested that in Ireland "the bedrock of any society
claiming to be democratic" had been "wiped away at a

stroke". Some enterprising citizens received a positive

response by printing Catherine Murphy's speech from
foreign media coverage and handing copies to passers-by
on the streets of the nation's towns and cities in an
attempt to inform those relying on state media.The Irish
Times stated that "it is an unprecedented development
that the mainstream media have been prevented from
publishing privileged remarks in the Dil due to the threat
of legal action". However it also added that Deputy
Murphy's Dil speech was still available on the Oireachtas
website, and that the website Broadsheet.ie had ignored a
request by solicitors to remove a copy of her speech.
Broadsheet.ie rejected the request by referring to Article
15.12 of the Irish Constitution - this states "All official
reports and publications of the Oireachtas or of either
House thereof and utterances made in either House
wherever published shall be privileged." Former Attorney
General of Ireland Michael McDowell (politician) indicated
that parliamentary privilege does not grant "absolute
impunity", but that he expected it would apply in this
case. In the High Court the following Tuesday (June 2,
2015), Mr Justice Donald Binchy stated that it was "never
intended nor could it have been intended that any order of
this court would impact upon entitlements of deputies to
speak as they see fit or the entitlement of the media to
report on those utterances", but added that it was
"entirely understandable" that RT had sought court
clarification on this.When giving written reasons for the
injunction (with "fairly minimal" redactions) a few days
later, Judge Binchy said "there was no allegation
whatsoever of any misconduct or wrongdoing on the part
of Mr O'Brien". Earlier O'Brien had defended himself in an
Irish Times article, stating that he had been shocked that
somebody took confidential files from a bank, tampered
with them, and then leaked them, that he had done much
to try to help the Irish economy and the stability of its
banking system in recent years, that the 'throwing to the
wolves' of decent Irish borrowers by institutions like
National Asset Management Agency had ruined many lives
and led to suicides, and that he was being vilified to an
unprecedented degree by enemies, competitors, publicityseeking politicians, and social media cowards, for trying to

defend his privacy.On 17 June 2015, RT published what it

stated was "a curtailed version of the story RT sought to
publish last month. Two paragraphs of the original planned
story cannot be published as they are still covered by the
injunction granted to IBRC against RT in May." The
curtailed version was accompanied by an alleged "timeline
of events". The omissions were not due to O'Brien's
lawyers, but to objections by IBRC to publication of
reported legal advice given to IBRC that was not already in
the public domain.
Commission of Investigation into IBRC
10 June 2015, a Commission of investigation (Ireland)
(OKeeffe Commission) was established to inquire into the
wider issue of certain transactions of IBRC under the
Commission of Investigation (Irish Bank Resolution
Corporation) Order 2015 passed by Dil ireann and
Seanad ireann. This was partly as a result of controversy
over the sale by IBRC of Siteserv to a company controlled
by Denis O'Brien, and of complaints by Deputy Catherine
Murphy that IBRC special liquidator Kieran Wallace, who
had originally been asked to conduct an inquiry into such
matters, could no longer credibly do so after he had joined
with O'Brien in his #IBRC Controversy and RT injunction.
Lawsuit against the State
6 June 2015 Counsel for Mr O'Brien informed the High
Court (Ireland) that he was suing the Houses of the
Oireachtas Commission, Ireland and the Attorney General
of Ireland over remarks made by Independent TD
Catherine Murphy (politician) and Sinn Fin TD Pearse
Doherty about his banking affairs (following his #IBRC
Controversy and RT injunction) in an alleged breach of
parliamentary privilege, violating his constitutional rights
and his rights under the European Convention on Human
Rights. The Oireachtas Committee on Procedures and
Privileges had previously rejected O'Brien's claims that
Deputy Murphy's allegations were a breach of
parliamentary privilege.
O'Brien is a member of the Bilderberg Group group and
Trilateral Commission. He regularly attends the World
Economic Forum's annual winter meeting in Davos,
meeting Hungarian-American billionaire George Soros
among others.In 1999, O'Brien founded aircraft leasing

company Aergo Capital registered in Dublin, with offices

in Johannesburg, Nairobi, Santiago and Singapore. It owns
and operates a fleet of 103 commercial aircraft. The
company is valued at US$250 million and has debts in the
region of US$166 million. O'Brien controls about 83 per
cent of Aergo and, along with his father, sits on the
company's six-member board. Aergo's clients include
Alitalia, Jet Airways, South African Airways, KLM and DHL
Aviation. In July 2008, Aergo acquired the Safair aircraftleasing division of Imperial Holdings for 110 million,
taking over the division's 33 planes and leasing a further
nine aircraft from the parent company. In November 2010,
Aergo sold Safair, netting $35 million. Accounts filed in
late-2011 showed pre-tax profits increased to $29.4
million over the previous 12 months from $2.68 million in
2009, with the number of employees decreasing from 166
to 15 over the same period.O'Brien supported the 2003
Special Olympics World Summer Games, holding the title
"Chairman of Council of Patrons." He is also a Director on
the U.S. Board of Concern Worldwide.In September 2005,
O'Brien was named Deputy Governor of the Bank of
Ireland. Simultaneously, he moved his residence from
Portugal to Malta, for tax reasons. He resigned as Deputy
Governor, and as a member of the Bank's board or court,
on 12 September 2006. The Bank of Ireland issued a
statement describing his resignation as due to "his
growing international business interests together with the
demands of an extensive travel schedule, meant that he
could no longer devote the time required to the ever
increasing workload of the court." O'Brien also resigned
from the Norkom Group and the Michael Smurfit Graduate
School of Business. His spokesman said these resignations
were unconnected with the work of the Moriarty
Tribunal.On 13 February 2008, Football Association of
Ireland chief executive John Delaney (football
administrator) confirmed that O'Brien was funding the
wages of Ireland national soccer team manager Giovanni
Trapattoni. O'Brien's soccer interests also extend to being
a minority shareholder in Scottish club, Celtic.O'Brien's
Siteserv provides services to the Irish State including the
installation of water meters, and 'modular homes' through
subsidiary RoanKabin.In 2011, O'Brien donated 2,500 to

the campaign of Mary Davis (activist) for the Irish

presidential election, 2011.
O'Brien and the Clintons
O'Brien and the Clintons were prominent investors of time
and money in Haiti following the 2010 Haiti earthquake.
U.S. government agency United States Agency for
International Development, overseen by the State
Department and headed at the time by Hillary Clinton,
donated millions of U.S. tax dollars to O'Brien's Digicel
company. USAID's "Food for Peace" scheme transferred
money over Digicel's mobile network, with citizens of the
stricken country being given mobile phones and free
Digicel accounts, which led Digicel to "significantly
expand" its customer numbers. Bill Clinton also oversaw
the building and then opened a luxury Marriott Hotel in
Haiti; this hotel was owned by Digicel, which made a $45
million contribution (compared to a $26.5 million
contribution from the World Bank-affiliated International
Finance Corporation).In 2011, Bill Clinton flew to Ireland on
O'Brien's private jet to attend the Global Irish Economic
Forum.In 2012, Clinton bestowed upon O'Brien the title
"Clinton Global Citizen" as part of an awards scheme
connected with the Clinton Global Initiative think
tank.According to The Irish Times, Clinton's 2013 speaking
engagement at Dublin's Conrad Hotels was "facilitated
largely by his friend" Denis O'Brien. When opening his
speech, Clinton personally thanked O'Brien "for the
invitation." According to U.S. accounts, Clinton's average
speaking fee for the previous year a minimum of close to
$200,000 (though he had received multiples of that fee at
some corporate functions).O'Brien has sued his first cousin
in California. That cousin, Donald MacAllister, is the son of
O'Brien's paternal Aunt Maureen, who was killed in a
collision with a car driven by a 36-year-old Michael Smurfit
in Dublin's Foxrock suburb in 1972. The case centred on
private e-mails MacAllister sent to American, Irish,
Jamaican and Burmese politicians and media (among them
Michel Martin, Vincent Browne and Aung San Suu Kyi).
Statements such as O'Brien being the largest contributor
to the Clinton Foundation and O'Brien telling MacAllister
that Smurfit had financed O'Brien's first radio station were
not denied by O'Brien.O'Brien's "arrangement" of

speeches for Clinton is covered in Peter Schweizer's book

Clinton Cash. Clinton has also praised O'Brien in Time
(magazine), while U.S. media have referred to O'Brien as a
"Clinton crony."In September 2016, during the 2016 US
Presidential election, Republican Party (United States)
candidate Donald Trump's campaign produced a lengthy email to the media criticising Hillary Clinton's relationship
with O'Brien.
Forbes estimates O'Brien's wealth as aprroximately $6.8
billion. Forbes also lists O'Brien as being richer than such
billionaires as Richard Branson, Bernie Ecclestone, Donald
Trump and Oprah Winfrey, as well as Sultan bin
Mohammed bin Saud Al Kabeer and Russian oligarchs like
Alexander Abramov.O'Brien took up residency in Portugal
some time before Esat Telecom's sale to BT in 2000. He
netted more than 300 million from that sale but paid no
capital gains tax due to a then-existing provision in the
Irish-Portuguese tax treaty. While considering the flotation
of Digicel on the New York Stock Exchange in 2006, it
emerged in public that O'Brien had taken up residence in
Malta. O'Brien's move to Malta was revealed in a March
2006 filing to the Companies Registration Office (Ireland)
(CRO), which listed O'Brien's residential address in Malta.
Malta charges no tax on worldwide assets or income
brought in by permanent residents. Residence, for tax
purposes, means renting or buying a property with a
minimum value and visiting Malta at least once within one
year of becoming a resident.
He was appointed goodwill ambassador for Port-au-Prince
by the city's mayor and deputy mayor in recognition of his
efforts to rebuild Haiti and attract foreign direct
investment in the aftermath of the devastating earthquake
on 12 January, and on behalf of the Clinton Global
Initiative. He is Chairman of the Haiti Action Network,
which coordinates the activities of approximately 80
support organisations in Haiti. Most recently, O'Brien
reconstructed the March en Fer in Haiti's capital Port-auPrince, the first public building in the city to be rebuilt
since the earthquake. He has also contributed to building
50 primary and secondary schools in 18 months following
the earthquake.
2012, President Michel Martelly of Haiti awarded O'Brien

with the National Order of Honour and Merit for his

investments, contributions and promotion of the country.
@an0:Profile of Denis O'Brien@an0:Denis O'Brien
Companies@an0:"Don't Worry, Be Happy"@an0:"Blood.
Money. Billionaire."@an0:"Catherine Murphy TD
introducing a bill to Dil ireann to permit the C&AG
investigate Siteserv and other transactions made by Denis
O'Brien" Category:1958 births Category:Living people
Category:Alumni of University College Dublin
Category:Boston College alumni Category:Businesspeople
from County Cork Category:Irish billionaires Category:Irish
businesspeople Category:Irish chief executives
Category:Irish expatriates in Malta Category:Irish
expatriates in Portugal Category:Irish Independent people
Category:Irish mass media owners Category:Irish media
company founders Category:People educated at The High
School, Dublin Category:People from Sliema
Category:People of the Year Awards winners
Category:Recipients of the National Order of Honour and
Merit
Content:@an0:Creaton, Siobhnurl:
http://www.amazon.com/Blood-Money-Billionaire-ShockingBillionaire-ebook/dp/B00A3235EIBlood. Money. Billionaire.:
The Shocking Cases Against Sir Michael Smurfit and
Billionaire Denis O'Brien@an0:Schweizer,
Peter@an0:Clinton Cash: The Untold Story of How and
Why Foreign Governments and Businesses Helped Make
Bill and Hillary Rich

Catherine Murphy introduces a bill to

permit the C&AG investigate #Siteserv
and other transactions
May 28, 2015
Catherine Murphy introduces a bill to permit the C&AG
investigate #Siteserv and other transactions.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?
v=cT3KLVWc5tk

Denis OBrien set to make

30m from office sale
Global French fund CNP Assurance buys Dublin 2 office
building for 85m
Sat, Mar 12, 2016, 01:00

Jack Fagan

Construction at the junction of St Stephens Green and Earlsfort Terrace in

Dublin. Photograph: Cyril Byrne

The telecoms billionaire Denis OBrien is expected to

make a profit of more than 30 million on the sale of a
new landmark office building he funded at the junction
of St Stephens Green and Earlsfort Terrace in Dublin
2.
The investment has just been sold for over 85 million
to the global French fund CNP Assurance in a deal
which will show a net yield of about 4.3 per cent.
The sale is subject to the approval of the Mergers
Division of the Competition and Consumer Protection
Commission. CNP has assets of over 300 billion.
Mr OBriens successful sale is largely attributable to
his early decision to redevelop Canada House at a time
when construction activity was at a standstill in the
city.
U

Cantillon: Canada House deal is just latest OBrien asset

sale

He engaged Bernard McNamara to handle

development work and, within a few months of going
on site, the newly named LXV block was pre-let to one
of the worlds largest aircraft leasing companies,
Aercap, at a new benchmark rent of 645 per sq m
(60 per sq ft).

The 25-year lease will include a break option in year 15.

Soaring value

Mr OBrien has watched the capital value of his new

building rise over the past 12 months as an everincreasing number of Irish and overseas funds
competed for prime office investments.
LXV has been considered one of the best investment
opportunities because of its location, high-quality
finish and the strength of the covenant.
The rundown Canada House was bought by the
businessman in 2001 for 25 million and experts
estimate he spent 30 million on redeveloping it.
Declan OReilly of Knight Frank and Richard Strappe
of Island Capital Services have been advising Mr
OBrien.
The rent for the 5,574sq m (60,000sq ft), six-storey
block will come to about 3.6 million per annum while
the 41 car parking spaces in the double basement will
account for a further 164,000 annually.
The sale comes as several other developers including
Green REIT, Hibernia REIT, IPUT Property, Larry
Goodman and a consortium headed by Johnny Ronan
prepare to launch new office developments at rents at
or above 645 per sq m.
http://www.irishtimes.com/business/commercialproperty/denis-o-brien-set-to-make-30m-from-officesale-1.2569788

Denis OBriens 60m jet

delivered to Dublin Airport

Aircraft bears an Isle of Man registration but displays an
Irish Tricolour
Sat, Nov 21, 2015, 02:00

Colm Keena

New Denis OBrien Gulfstream has been delivered to Dublin Airport

Businessman Denis OBriens new 60 million-plus

Gulfstream jet has been delivered to Dublin Airport.
The aircraft, which has been described in online
reviews as the jet that all billionaires want, replaces
an earlier 2013 Gulfstream he was using and which he
has put up for sale.
The new jet, which bears an Isle of Man registration
but has an Irish tricolour on the tail wing, is said to be
the fastest and most luxurious business jet on the
market. The G650ER is the flagship model in the
Gulfstream range and can travel more than 8,500
miles at more than 660 miles per hour.
Mr OBrien, owner of 29 per cent of Independent News
& Media and a number of radio stations in the
Republic, has business operations around the globe
and has had his own jet for a number of years.

He frequently visits the Caribbean and the Pacific

islands, where his mobile phone company Digicel
operates. Mr OBrien is also a regular traveller to the
the United States and and Asia. Such is the amount of
travel he does that the succession of jets he has owned
are understood to have run up more air miles than
similar jets of the same model and age owned by
others.

Selling

Pilot Nick Robshaw, speaking on a video on the

website of the US company that is selling Mr OBriens
former Gulfstream jet, said it can comfortably go
from southeast Asia to Europe in one trip and that, as
well as such journeys, it was also used to hop around
Europe. It can travel up to 7,000 miles carrying eight
passengers at up to 580 miles an hour.
Mr Robshaw, on the OGara Jets website, said the jet
typically flew for 900 hours a year probably about
double what other Gulfstream aircraft do.
The new Gulfstream can sleep up to 10. The jet comes
with an option of 12 pre-designed floor plans or the
possibility to customise its interior.
Business jets can significantly reduce how tiring
travelling can be and the cabin of the G650ER is
replenished with 100 per cent fresh air every two
minutes, according to the Gulfstream website.It comes
with two multichannel satellite communications
systems and a wireless local network.
There is reportedly a three to four-year waiting list for
the jet, which is made in Georgia, US.
http://www.irishtimes.com/business/transport-and-tourism/denis-o-brien-s-60m-jetdelivered-to-dublin-airport-1.2438581

OBrien, the memory stick

and a claim of conspiracy to

defame
Wed, Oct 28, 2015

His battle continues as he seeks full access to Red Flags

web search, download history
Tue, Oct 27, 2015, 06:00 Updated:, 17:35

Peter MurtaghFollow @PeterMurtagh

Denis OBrien: It is clear to me that this is part of a campaign to undermine

me and to disseminate false statements about me. Photograph: Patrick
Fallon/Bloomberg

In the sweltering Caribbean heat and humidity of an

October day, 223 people gathered on the lawns of
Kings House, the official residence of the governorgeneral of Jamaica.
The three-storey mansion on Kingstons Hope Road
looks everything one would expect from a colonial
statement erected in 1872 and rebuilt in 1907, after an

earthquake destroyed it.

Gleaming white, it is set in substantial grounds, a mix
of rolling lawns and beds full of flowering shrubs, and
is approached by a mile-long driveway named Palm
Tree Avenue.
The garden party atmosphere on Monday, October
19th, was completed by the crisp movements of the
governors military guard of honour dressed in brightred tunics, white gloves and smartly pressed black
trousers with crimson stripes down the sides.
When his name was called out, Denis OBrien stepped
forward and the governor general, Sir Patrick Linton
Allen, placed over his shoulder and across his chest, a
sash emerald green, yellow and black, the colours of
Jamaica.
OBrien then bowed his head and Sir Patrick placed a
green ribbon and medal around his neck, before
handing him a small, burgundy tube, the scroll
containing his award: an honorary Order of Jamaica,
the equivalent of the British knighthood.
The citation read for his sterling contribution to the
development of the telecommunications industry in
Jamaica through his company Digicel.
Behind the bestowing of the honour lay appreciation
for 1,500 Digicel jobs in Jamaica and the support the
companys foundation has given on the island to
education, special needs and entrepreneurship.
The Irish billionaire may now style himself, should he
so choose, as the Honourable Denis OBrien. He is
already being described as Denis OBrien, OJ in
invites for a conference to be held later this week.

Frenetic activity
The poised, elegant calm of the governors mansion
and marquees was in stark contrast to the frenetic
activity that had by then been unleashed back in
Dublin by OBriens latest foray into the Irish courts.
Six days before his Kingston investiture, OBrien had
sworn a 21-page affidavit in the Singaporean offices of
Kuek Cheow Kiong, a notary public, alleging that he
had been the victim of conspiracy, defamation,
malicious falsehood, and unlawful conduct.
OBriens complaints were global in their reach: In
recent times, and particularly in the last 12 months, I
have become conscious that there is a campaign to
damage me personally and professionally and to
damage my business interests.
Specifically, I have been the subject of targeted
campaign to undermine me and to disseminate false
statements about me.
In addition to this, confidential information relating
to me has been leaked and/or attempts have been
made to leak such information.
This false information has been disseminated in
numerous ways, which prevent me from dealing with
the false allegations made about me, the affidavit,
which has been seen by The Irish Times, reads.
I am satisfied that this campaign has been ongoing for
some time, he went on, [It] is evident from the
frequency with which I find myself subject to such
negative comments.
Similarly, the manner in which I find myself targeted
made me believe that is was a structured and organised

campaign. For example, there were many instances

over the last 12 months where I would receive similar if
not identical questions from reporters within the same
day, as if information was being disseminated in a
patterned way.
As OBrien was receiving his Jamaican honour, the
billionaires lawyers and IT specialists were by then
already working hard against the target of his ire the
Dublin offices of Red Flag Consultants.
Prompted by a High Court order granted on Friday,
October 16th, staff from the public affairs company
were already flying into Dublin, some from offices in
London and Brussels.
Including the companys non-executive chairman, Los
Angeles-based Gavin OReilly, they had come back so
that their Macbook Air computers could be examined
along with computers in Red Flags Ely Place offices,
and also their smartphones.
Waiting for them were OBriens IT experts from
Espion, a Dublin-based firm of computer forensic
investigators and data analysts. Red Flag had theirs
too, from the London-based Stroz Friedberg, both
adept at extracting digital information.
The High Court order granted to OBrien directed that
certain information held by Red Flag be preserved for
later examination when the substance of OBriens
assertion that there is an unlawful and defamatory
conspiracy against him can be tested in court, though
a more draconian legal instrument sought by OBrien
was refused.
Several of the people named in the order have strong
historical connections to Independent News and Media
(INM), control of which OBrien wrested from Gavin
OReillys father, Tony OReilly, after a long, and at
times bitterly fought boardroom and shareholder
battle.

The others are: Gavin OReilly, a former chief executive

of INM; Karl Brophy, chief executive of Red Flag and a
former executive of INM who departed after OBrien
gained effective control of INM; Samus Conboy, Red
Flag director of client campaigns; Brd Murphy, a Red
Flag account manager and social media specialist
employed previously with Fine Gael; and Kevin Hiney,
a Red Flag account executive with prior experience, as
an Irish diplomat, of the British and European
parliaments.
At the core of OBriens concerns is a dossier of 339
files contained in 40 folders on an encrypted SanDisk
USB memory stick most are PDFs, bar four Word
documents, four Powerpoint presentations and two
videos.
The overwhelming majority are newspaper cuttings
detailing OBriens business and humanitarian
activities, though three entitled Who is Denis
OBrien?, Denis OBrien IPO Experience, and The
Moriarty Tribunal Explainer are original texts.
In the words of a source, who has spoken to The Irish
Times on condition of anonymity, the latter are a
Fisher-Price guide to Denis OBrien written for people
who have never heard of Denis OBrien.
Nonetheless, the only person known to have obtained
access to the dossier outside Red Flag, prior to Denis
OBrien receiving a copy, is UK-based freelance
journalist Mark Hollingsworth, who received it from
Red Flag via Dropbox, the file-sharing internet service.
Sometime after Hollingsworth got the dossier, and
after Denis OBrien had hired private investigators,
OBrien says he received the memory stick
anonymously. The memory stick contained the same
files as in the Dropbox dossier.
I received an envelope anonymously, said the
businessman. I do not know who sent me this

envelope.
"Red Flag Consulting Ltd" you see, it's a bunch of commies
trying to take down Denis! "
But it's not only the name "Mr OBriens barrister, Michael Cush SC, said the material
was in a dossier including eight Microsoft Office
documents on a memory stick"... fucking Microsoft Office
and a memory stick, only a commie wouldn't have a
iPhone
***
http://www.irishtimes.com//denis-o-brien-accuses-prfirm-o
Why would a PR firm ever try to convince people of
anything... sure madness...
You fools have harassed Denis enough so he won't float
DigiCell on Earth! Well he'll have the last laugh - instead
he's going to float it on the water they found on Mars...
hope your happy with yourselves...

Anton Pillar order

Denis OBriens Singapore affidavit, which gave his

Maltese address as his home, formed the core of his
October 13th bid in the High Court to seek an Anton
Pillar order effectively a civil law search and seize
warrant. Failure to comply leaves the person against
whom such an order is made in contempt of court.
The High Court refused this from OBrien, granting
him instead an order that seeks to preserve intact the
evidence the dossier he argues will prove his
conspiracy case.
OBriens contention of a conspiracy was fuelled by
events last May and June, when RTs David Murphy
received documents from a trusted source allegedly
detailing aspects of the businessmans arrangements
with the Irish Bank Resolution Corporation (IBRC),
the successor bank to Anglo Irish that the Government
put into liquidation in February.
They concerned OBriens contention of a verbal
agreement to extend payback time on loans and the
rates of interest to be charged by the bank.
Asked to comment by RT, OBrien reacted by
obtaining an injunction gagging the broadcaster. A few
days later, however, speaking with the protection of
Dil privilege, Catherine Murphy TD revealed some of
the details.
OBrien responded by threatening legal action against
media outlets publishing reports of her remarks. The
Irish Times was warned by OBriens solicitors William
Fry to remove a report from its website or face the
consequences.
The injunction against RT was clarified shortly
afterwards by the judge, who said the original order
had not been intended to restrict Oireachtas reporting.

However, OBrien has initiated a separate legal action

against the Dil Committee on Procedures and
Privileges because it refused to sanction Catherine
Murphy and, as OBrien sees it, uphold his
constitutional right to a good name.
In the wake of these controversies, several players in
the drama began to receive emails in late July from
Mark Hollingsworth, who said he was writing a story
about OBrien for The Sunday Times magazine. The
newspaper has since said Hollingsworth was not
working for it.
David Murphy consulted his boss, Kevin Bakhurst,
RTs head of news and current affairs and deputy
director general, who told him he could engage with
Hollingsworth but only on information that was
already in the public domain.
Murphy in due course spoke to Hollingsworth by
telephone for about 30 minutes. RT sources say the
conversation was as expected between two journalists
until the point when Hollingsworth asked for access to
the source for Murphys IBRC information. Murphy
refused.
Other people approached by Hollingsworth in July
included Rory Godson, a PR consultant and former
Sunday Times business editor; Catherine Murphys
communications adviser, Ann-Marie McNally; Lucinda
Creighton and several other journalists.
After the summer, Hollingsworth followed up his
earlier approaches by telling people he was coming to
Dublin, which he did on September 7th and 8th.
RT sources say he met David Murphy for coffee in
Fixx, a cafe at the corner of Dawson Street and
Molesworth Street and again, Hollingsworth sought
access to sources. During a lunch in the Voila Cafe on
Lower Baggot Street, Hollingsworth told the Renua TD
Lucinda Creighton he was doing a big, big splash on

Denis for The Sunday Times. Some days later,

Creighton thought it odd when she met a Sunday
Times journalist on an unrelated matter only to
discover the journalist said she knew nothing about a
big, big splash on OBrien.
But Hollingsworths September visit to Dublin was not
all wasted as he obtained the Red Flag dossier of
newspaper cuttings and profile-cum-assessment
material on OBrien. By October 9th, the memory stick
containing the dossier was with Espion and names
were emerging. They included Alan Hynes,
parliamentary assistant of Colm Keaveney, the Fianna
Fil TD for Galway East, who made comments in the
Dil on June 9th.
In his speech, Keaveney characterised OBrien as
obtaining favours from the government and being
enriched by government decisions. He spoke of
criminality and corruption in relation to OBrien and
asked why the Garda Sochna had not investigated the
findings of the Moriarty tribunal.
Forensic analysis of metadata suggested Keaveneys
speech had been edited by Karl Brophy and Samus
Conboy. In fact, Keaveneys Dil speech was not the
edited version on the memory stick; the TD has said
the speech delivered was authored wholly by himself.
Other names to emerge included Brid Murphy and
Kevin Hiney, both, like Brophy and Conboy, employees
of Red Flag.
Espions analyst, Dr Damir Kahvedzic, suggested that
for a full forensic investigation of who wrote or edited
the documents on the memory stick, and with whom
they were shared, access would be needed to all
computers, phones and memory storage systems
connected to the documents.
Espions report was with OBrien on October 12th. The
next day in Singapore, he swore his affidavit.

Having considered the contents of the memory stick, I

was shocked as they were simply extraordinary. It is
clear to me that this is part of a campaign to
undermine me, which has been on going for some time
and which is calculated to cause me maximum
damage, he swore.
The three most crucial documents are those profiling
his career, his IPO experience and the Moriarty
tribunals findings.
Quoting these, OBrien identifies the most egregious
of the highly defamatory and entirely false
allegations against him to be as follows: that a
government minister helped secure a state contract
for me; that I stopped the presses to alter a news
report; that I had gotten journalists fired from their
jobs; that I was given huge writedowns on debts
owed to a State bank; that I use philanthropy as a
PR tool; and that I had tried to silence the Irish
parliament.
I deny each and every one of these allegations, says
the affidavit.
The affidavit claims defamatory innuendo in the
assertion that Digicel, OBriens mobile phone
company which operates in Central America and the
Caribbean, including Jamaica and Haiti, targeted poor
countries with even poorer governments.
Such statements amount to allegations of unethical
behaviour and potentially criminal wrongdoing, which
I say and believe are severely defamatory, says
OBrien, who also rejects a claim in the documents that
he is only in favour of [my] own speech being free.
On the Moriarty tribunal, OBrien asserts in his
affidavit that, in documents on the memory stick, I am
accused of perjuring myself by providing false
testimony and falsifying documents. He says this is
mild compared to the claim, which he says is in the

documents, that the awarding of the licence was in

monetary terms, the largest single act of public
corruption in the history of the State and that it was
undoubtedly criminal.
Elsewhere, the affidavit rejects unsubstantiated
assertions about substantial debt writedowns by
IBRC, which is described in one of the documents as a
subsidy from the Irish State for one of Irelands richest
men.
He rejects also that he received unwarranted debt
writedowns and/or went on to receive corruptly
awarded State contracts in relation to his purchase of
Siteserv, Topaz and Ocean Blue.
OBrien describes the Keaveney speech, which went
on to be delivered in Dil ireann as defamatory and
written with the intention that it was delivered with the
protection of parliamentary privilege.
There is a clear possibility, OBriens affidavits
swears, that the dossier was prepared to damage the
stock market flotation of Digicel, through which he
hoped to raise some $2 billion but which he aborted on
October 6th.
The High Court battle about the Red Flag files resumes
today, when OBriens lawyers are expected to seek
access to all internet search and download history for
all computer equipment in Red Flag and all related
metadata.
If the action proceeds to a full hearing that is, an
examination of any evidence suggesting an alleged
conspiracy much that Denis OBrien has sought to
keep out of the public domain, or consigned to fading
memory, is likely to be put under the spotlight.
That would include his banking arrangements with
IBRC and the findings of the Moriarty tribunal, which
concluded that Michael Lowry, in the course of his
ministerial office, as Minister for Transport, Energy

and Communications, by his acts and decisions, [had]

conferred a benefit on Mr Denis OBrien, a person who
made payments to Mr Lowry.

Claim of grudge
https://soundcloud.com/irishtimesbusiness/denis-obrienproperty-latest

The OBrien affidavit is candid in acknowledging what

he himself describes as the strained personal history
between himself, Gavin OReilly and Karl Brophy.

The Second, Third and Fourth Named Defendants

(Karl Brophy, Samus Conboy and Gavin OReilly)
are aggrieved by me and have a grudge against me,the
affidavit reads.
It was calculated to cause damage to my business at a
time when I was conducting an IPO and intended to
float my business on the New York Stock Exchange. I
believe that the contents of the memory stick or like
information has been circulating in relation to me for
some time, and certainly some of the contents of the
memory stick have been disseminated in the last 12
months, the billionaire goes on.
Describing the dossier as being part of something
clandestine and shrouded in unfairness and
dishonesty, OBrien says it was prepared with a view
to advancing somebodys interest. The question is:
whose interest?
Similar attention will be focused on the memory stick
now in the safe keeping, by order of the High Court, of
OBriens solicitors, Eames. Who copied files on to it
and when?

http://www.irishtimes.com/business/mediaand-marketing/o-brien-the-memory-stickand-a-claim-of-conspiracy-to-defame1.2406766

References
County CorkIrelandShrewsbury RoadDublin 4BBC
NewsBBCUniversity College DublinBoston CollegeJames
MorrisseyChairmanDOB GroupDOB InvestmentsBBC

NewsBBCUniversity College DublinBoston Collegehonorary

doctorateCommunicorpNewstalkToday FMThe New York
TimesIrish IndependentIrish Daily StarSunday
IndependentSunday WorldEvening HeraldThe New York
TimesFintan OTooleThe GuardianGuardian Media
GroupDigicelEsat DigifoneMoriarty TribunalMichael
LowryAergo CapitalJamaicaTopaz EnergySliemaMaltaThe
Daily TelegraphTMGLondonJames MorrisseyEsat
DigifoneTelenorDermot DesmondIrish Stock
ExchangeLondon Stock
ExchangeNASDAQBTDigicelHaiti2010 Haiti
earthquakePhillip PaulwellWikileaksKingstonGleaner
CompanyKingston, JamaicaUnited States Federal
Communications CommissionTelecommunications Act of
1996Financial TimesFinancial TimesMichael LowryMoriarty
TribunalTopaz EnergyIrish Bank Resolution
CorporationTaoiseachBrian CowenAllied Irish
BanksEssoAlimentation Couche-TardCzech
RepublicBulgariaEstoniaFinlandHungaryUkraineNewstalkTo
day FMDublins 98FMSPIN 1038TXFMSPIN South
WestEmapFM104Highland RadioBroadcasting Commission
of IrelandCompetition AuthorityUTV MediaTony OReillyRT
RadioToday FMIqbal SurvNelson MandelaThe
IndependentThe Independent on SundayAlexander
LebedevThe GuardianGuardian Media GroupThe
GuardianGuardian Media GroupPhil HoganStephen
RaeAnne HarrisThe GuardianGuardian Media GroupVincent
BrowneIrish Daily Mailfreedom of expression in
IrelandWaterford Whispers NewsWaterford Whispers
NewsIrish Bank Resolution CorporationAnglo Irish BankThe
High CourtIrish TimesThe High CourtHigh CourtCatherine
MurphyDilSen BarrettDil privilegePhilip BoucherHayesDrivetimeTonight with Vincent BrowneGer
ColleranThe Irish TimesOireachtasIrish
TimesBroadsheet.ieIrish ConstitutionBroadsheet.ieOffice of
the Attorney GeneralAttorney GeneralMichael
McDowellIrish IndependentRTRTNAMAIrish TimesRTMr
DohertyCommission of InvestigationOKeeffe
CommissionDil ireannSeanad ireannabove lawsuit
against RTHarry McGeeIrish TimesHigh CourtHouses of
the OireachtasIrelandAttorney GeneralCatherine
MurphySinn FinPearse Dohertyabove lawsuit against

RTEuropean Convention on Human RightsRTIrish

ExaminerBilderbergTrilateral CommissionWorld Economic
ForumDavosGeorge SorosAergo CapitalAlitaliaJet
AirwaysSouth African AirwaysKLMDHLSafair2003 Special
Olympics World Summer GamesConcern WorldwideBank of
IrelandUCD Smurfit School of BusinessFootball Association
of IrelandJohn DelaneyGiovanni TrapattoniMary DavisIrish
presidential electionHaiti2010 earthquakeUSAIDHillary
ClintonFood for PeaceBill ClintonWorld BankInternational
Finance CorporationThe Washington Free BeaconGlobal
Irish Economic ForumClinton Global InitiativeConrad
HotelCaliforniaMichael SmurfitFoxrockMichel
MartinVincent BrowneAung San Suu KyiClinton
FoundationPeter SchweizerClinton CashTime MagazineThe
Washington Free Beacon2016 US Presidential
electionRepublicanDonald TrumpRTForbesRichard
BransonBernie EcclestoneDonald TrumpOprah
WinfreySultan bin Mohammed bin Saud Al
KabeerAlexander AbramovPortugalNew York Stock
ExchangeCompanies Registration OfficePort-au-PrinceIron
MarketMichel MartellyNational Order of Honour and
MeritMoriarty TribunalOKeeffe CommissionCreaton,
SiobhnSchweizer, PeterClinton Cash: The Untold Story of
How and Why Foreign Governments and Businesses
Helped Make Bill and Hillary
RichDigicelForbesCategory:1958 birthsCategory:Living
peopleCategory:Alumni of University College
DublinCategory:Boston College
alumniCategory:Businesspeople from County
CorkCategory:Irish billionairesCategory:Irish
businesspeopleCategory:Irish chief
executivesCategory:Irish expatriates in MaltaCategory:Irish
expatriates in PortugalCategory:Irish Independent
peopleCategory:Irish mass media ownersCategory:Irish
media company foundersCategory:People educated at The
High School, DublinCategory:People from
SliemaCategory:People of the Year Awards
winnersCategory:Recipients of the National Order of
Honour and MeritCategory:Sunday Independent (Ireland)
people

Call for review of Ireland's defamation laws

after legal threat from Denis O'Brien
07/08/2015

A media lawyer says the latest legal dispute surrounding Denis

O'Brien is a reminder that satire websites do not have any
special legal protection.
There have been calls to overhaul Ireland's defamation laws
after the businessman threatened legal action against the
Waterford Whispers website over a news article.

Media lawyer Sarah Kieran says publishers need to be aware

that presenting a piece as satire doesn't mean they're immune
from legal claims:"We dont have a legal defensive satire.
There is one in Australia and New Zealand, but it doesnt exist
here.
"So everything that a person says they have to be able to
prove is true if they have published something that is
complained of as defamatory.
"Its a very difficult position to be in in this country because
theres a fine line with what one person would consider to be
defamatory and what another would take on the chin."

An opposition TD says the latest legal threats to the Irish

media mean it's time to review Ireland's libel laws.
Roisin Shortall of the Social Democrats says the action is
needed after a legal threat by Denis O'Brien against the
Waterford Whispers news website.
The satirical website has removed an article which the
businessman's lawyers said was malicious and defamatory.
Deputy Shortall says it may be time to review the laws under
which the media operates:"I think there is a serious imbalance
in our defamation laws at the moment that need to be

addressed urgently.
"We cant have a situation where outlets involved in satire or in
reporting of any kind can be threatened.
"There is a very important principle that we must uphold in
relation to freedom of speech, but also there are issues which
arise out of control of the media."

http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/call-for-review-ofirelands-defamation-laws-after-legal-threat-from-denisobrien-690118.html

Denis OBrien To Sell

Off Counties Leitrim,
Roscommon And Louth
In Landmark Deal
June 13, 2014

IRISH billionaire Denis OBrien has reportedly sold off

three republic of Ireland counties which he owned in a
landmark deal with investors from the UK.
The sale is the first of its kind in the country and will
make the business man an estimated 2.3bn richer
through his tax-free Isle of Man company Kendrick
Investments Ltd, which was only incorporated last year.
Mr. OBrien currently owns six counties in Ireland,
excluding the three sold today.
It is believed the investors involved in todays sale are
based in London and there is no clear plan as to what they
will do with the land, or the residents who live on it.

Some business analysts speculate the counties could be

used to house livestock or even nuclear waste, as one of
the investors named is a a large shareholder in a
multinational power plant waste disposal company.
Residents in the three counties have voiced their concern
of the purchase, with many now unsure about their rights
or even their current nationality.
We have been told nothing about the sale. stated Leitrim
man Finbar Rice. Are we still part of Ireland or not? Ever
since OBrien bought the county in two thousand and six
we have been left in limbo here. The government refuses
to reply to any of our letters, phone calls or emails. All we
want is security.
Sources claim that OBriens remaining county portfolio
may also be sold on to UK and Chinese investors next year.
These counties include: North Tipperary, Wexford, West
Meath, Meath, Longford and county Sligo.

What we need is at least one day a week for all Irish media
to be devoted to Denis... Call Enda, Call Independent News
and Media, Call Batman... just help get it done!

Image a world without Denis - without him as supreme Job

Creator! Nothing would get done... no engineer, no
scientist, no shop keeper would know what to do with
themselves or where to even start! Your mobile phone
wouldn't work, the taps would all be broken... society
would just turn into a bunch of people behaving like
vultures! Sure how would you even get a bag of chips after
a night out on the lash? Steve Jobs.... DENIS JOBS MORE
LIKE IT!

You know the mega-rich are often so misunderstood. They

work so hard and sometimes in the public sphere seem
cold, tyrannical, even maniacal. But you don't see the
private side and Denis can squeeze a puppy with the BEST
OF THEM - in fact rumor has it that Denis received this
puppy from Silvio after Denis told Silvio he wasn't
squeezing it hard enough. Silvio knew the puppy needed a
better squeeze - BUT YOU NEVER WRITE ABOUT THAT
IRISH TIMES, RTE, VINCENT BROWNE!!! NO, NO IT'S ALL
CONSPIRACY, POWER, AND EVIL DENIS TRYING TO TAKE
OVER A COUNTRY AND EVIL SILVIO TRYING TO TAKE OVER
ITALY - LOOK AT THE FUCKING PUPPY IRISH TIMES/RTE/SAM
SMYTH/VINCENT BROWNEWaterford Whispers News....
LOOK... AT... THE... FUCKING... PUPPY!

The Cuffs Are For the Craic and not BDSM (Bondage,
Dominance, Sadism and Masochism) - while vicious
rumors have been circulating that a certain unnamable
billionaire has set up a support group called Big Denis
Small Member.... this is totally untrue and another sign of
the crazy unhinged and dangerous rumor mill that is the
Irish Media and Pseudo-Media. In addition, it must be
stated that a large media empire is not a cover for
emotional or physical shortcomings.
Sadly Denis O'Brien has not managed to buy Coillte in
order to secure enough paper for the issuing of solicitors
letter - why not you might ask - our obstructionist
government has block the move in order to allow Irish
Water to keep issuing endless bill and summonses... what
is going on in the Emerald Isle at all! We're going to need
a pulp bailout from Norway because you all won't leave
Denis alone and pay your water charges!

3 Ways to Put
Manners on
Denis OBrien
Irish oligarch Denis OBrien is in the news
again for issuing legal threats against
satirical website Waterford Whispers.
Only weeks after the #redacted scandal
when he made similar threats to most of the

media outlets he doesnt own as well as

independent MP Catherine Murphy and
days after he opened proceedings against the
Irish Parliament itself, OBrien has again sent
in the lawyers to protect his good name and
reputation. The response online has been
predictably viral.
But despite his ongoing battle with the
Streisand Effect, OBrien remains a major
player in Irish political life.
With an election coming up in the Republic
how can this litigious billionaires influence
on public life be curbed?

1. Break up his media empire.

Denis OBrien is a major media mogul
owning all of Irelands national radio stations
(NewsTalk, Today FM) apart from the state
broadcaster, as well as the countrys biggest
weekly (Independent) and Sunday broadsheets
(Sunday Independent), a 50% share of its most
well-read tabloid (Daily Star) and numerous
other outlets. In total, Independent News and
Media accounts for 40% of all national
newspaper sales.
The National Union of Journalists in Ireland
has criticised the concentration of media
ownership in the Republic for decades, saying
it has passed from one baron to another.
The union has called out the political
cowardice shown by successive governments

in refusing to tackle the concentration of

ownership which directly influences the media
landscape and the news we receive and do
not receive every day.
Instead of introducing new guidelines for the
future, leaving OBriens media empire today
untouched (as proposed by Communications
Minister Alex White), the NUJ proposes an
independent commission to examine all
aspects of media ownership and control.
If this commission had terms of reference with
an emphasis on safeguarding the production
and circulation of information from being
captured by powerful individuals and the
ability to recommend legislation strictly
limiting how much media any organisation
could own, it would be a good first step.

2. Tear down the defamation

laws he uses to intimidate.
Irelands defamation laws are some of the
most plaintiff-friendly in Europe. So much so,
in fact, that we may expect libel tourism from
big-wigs whose own countries laws dont give
them enough space to throw their weight
around.
Among the many problems with the 2009
Defamation Act are its ridiculously complex
list of factors for what can be considered fair
and reasonable publication, a flimsy defence of
honest opinion and an absence of a

requirement for litigants to prove that any

defamation caused serious harm.
These conditions provide the basis for
OBriens notoriously litigious behaviour,
leading to a situation where its hard to know if
hes employing or suing more journalists at
any given moment.
The next Irish government should respond to
this string of controversies, not only from
OBrien but also high-profile cases like
Pantigate, by radically overhauling the
defamation laws and introducing First
Amendment-style protections for free speech.

3. Take on the tax exiles.

Despite his inordinate influence on Irish
public life, Denis OBrien isnt tax resident in
the country, preferring the sunnier (and
substantially cheaper) climes of Malta.
In an era of austerity, with his right-wing
hyenas in the press crying out for further
swingeing cuts, it only makes sense that
Irelands richest man should be made to cough
up.
A 2012 report by the governments Tax
Strategy Group suggested some ways this
could be achieved.
One proposal was a citizenship or passport tax
like exists in the US making sure everyone
pays a proportion of their income regardless of
their location. Another was a change to the

residency rules, introducing a place of abode

clause to catch out bogus exiles. Then there is
the option of tightening up the criteria or
increasing the cost for Irelands domicile levy.
Of course, all of these are relatively modest
proposals. A more aggressive one would be to
explore a significant tax increase with a
penalty of stripping citizenship altogether if he
doesnt comply.
The Tax Strategy report warned that many
Irish tax exiles would sever their ties to the
country if its proposals were introduced. But,
in Denis OBriens case, that would be a plus!
If he does throw a strop and divest, it will leave
us all freer to say and read what we like.

An anti-OBrien platform for

the election.
These are only the first steps of what a
government serious about taking on Denis
OBrien would do.
The state could seriously pursue the findings
of the Moriarty Tribunal that OBrien paid off
a government minister to acquire a mobile
phone licence. Theres also his involvement
with water meter installer Siteserv which
could be scuppered by scrapping Irish Water
and the charges.
New fitness-for-ownership laws for the media
wouldnt go amiss, nor would further
limitations on who can give (and how much) to

political parties.
But this would be a start.
Theres a general election coming up in a few
months and the Boy Named Sue has to be
stopped. These are three simple proposals to
put some manners on him. Ask your local
candidates about them.
It hasnt gone away you know. While not
enjoying the spotlight it hogged at the tail end
of last year, Irish Water remains a constant
presence in the Irish political landscape.
Protests have continued around the country,
and several incidents have propelled the issue
to the front pages in the last few months. The
recent release of payment figures and the
news that the company has failed a key
market test are merely the latest indications
that, although it has struggled on this far,
Irish Water is ultimately doomed.

1. No one is paying.
The official figures suggest that only 43% of
people have paid their first bills for water,
which were sent out in April. Out of 1.5m
households, 675,000 have paid up. Having
planned to take in 66.8m during its first
three months, Irish Water has instead
collected 30.5 million 46% of the expected
total. Of course, these are the official figures
do take them with a pinch of salt.

2. The stick hasnt worked.

In recent months, the Department of the

Environment, with responsibility for water
charges, has stepped up its efforts to force
people to pay. The introduction of the civil
debt legislation will, according to Minister
Alan Kelly, significantly reform the way all
civil debt is treated in Ireland and move it
away from what is a currently excessively
bureaucratic procedure. In practice this
means a few concrete changes in the process of
recovering money from non-payers.
Firstly, under the proposed bill, creditors may
apply to the courts for an order enabling either
attachment of earnings or deductions from
social welfare payments for the payment of
civil debt, meaning theyll try to take it out of
your wages or benefits.
Secondly, the liability for a water charge will
transfer to the owner of a property wherever a
tenants details have not been given to Irish
Water, and if a tenant doesnt pay the charges,
a landlord can keep their deposit. This leaves
tenants at the mercy of landlords who dont
want to pay two bills, or need another excuse
to withhold a deposit. This is also a concerted
targeting of working class people on lower
incomes renters and those on social welfare
who are recognised as being at the heart of
the non-payment movement. Still, these scare
tactics havent worked.

3. The carrot hasnt worked.

The so-called Conservation Grant is an
annual payment of 100 to households who
have registered with Irish Water. It is little
more than a bribe, an attempt to sweeten the
deal for those who were considering not
paying. Bad as that is already, no one thought
to tie the grant to payment of bills, only to
registration. So people who registered
including many who werent liable for a bill in
the first place, and many who were registered
against their will but dont pay will still
receive their 100. This blatant (and
expensive) handout has failed to convince
people they ought to pay. Rather, it has merely
shown how incompetent and condescending
this government is.

4. The balance sheet

manipulation hasnt worked.
The setting up of Irish Water as a separate
entity from the state was justified by the
government as it would allow the company to
raise money on the international markets and
it would keep the initial state investment off
the national balance sheet. With strict controls
still in place post-bailout, the government has
limited wiggle room when it comes to
investment, so if there was to be any flexibility
in upcoming budgets, Irish Water would have

to stay off the governments spreadsheets.

For all this to work, Irish Water had to pass
the Market Corporation Test posed by
Eurostat, the EUs statistics agency, which
would decide if the company was sufficiently
independent from the government to be
counted as a real company. As of Tuesday
morning, we know that Irish Water failed this
test and the money spent on it must count
towards the annual deficit and national debt.
Though no reasons have yet been given for the
failure, its widely assumed that the
Conservation Grant, the final desperate sop to
potential customers, ruled out any chance of
Irish Water being understood as separate from
the state. Failing this test has fatally
undermined the official justification for Irish
Waters existence.

5. Siteserv has become

common knowledge.
Writing about the corruption and cronyism
surrounding Irish Water last year, the details
of the purchase of Siteserv by Maltese
billionaire Denis OBrien were far from well
known. Now, thanks largely to the efforts of
TD Catherine Murphy, the shady dealings that
resulted in a 100m gift from the state to
OBrien have been exposed to far greater
scrutiny. Murphys work in the Dil, and the
reactions of both the government and OBrien,

have made it clear to people that Irish Water

has been rigged from the beginning to line the
pockets of a wealthy elite.

6. Alan Kelly is a liability.

Whether illegitimately dishing out over 1.5m
in grants to towns in his own constituency, or
saying the state builds libraries, yet people
pay to take books out in an effort to get
people to pay water charges (while also
campaigning against library fees), Alan Kelly,
Minister for the Environment, has been a
controversial figure at the heart of the Irish
Water saga.
Kellys youthful prominence within the Labour
party and his gusto in going along with Fine
Gaels plans probably one of the best
governments in the history of the State has
made him a perfect fall guy when things go
wrong, and things have gone very wrong
indeed since he took the poisoned Irish Water
chalice out of Phil Hogans hands in last July.
There has probably never been a politician
who has become so widely derided, so utterly
disliked, in such a short space of time.
However, with a nickname like Big Balls
Kelly, hes probably well able to take the heat.
Whether his party can survive the same
pressure is another question altogether.

7. Its about to become an

election promise.
Irish Water, I believe, should be abolished.
No, not some radical anarchist or hardcore
trade union pinko, but Barry Cowen brother
of (and parliamentary successor to) former
Taoiseach Brian Cowen. In keeping with
Fianna Fils long-term strategy of saying
whatever it needs to say in order to get votes,
and with an election no more than eight
months away, Cowens views are probably
widely held within the party. Seasoned
politicos like these know not to look a gift
horse in the mouth, particularly when they can
forget all about keeping their promises should
they end up with any power.
Outside of the centre-right, the likes of Sinn
Fein, the independents, and the new Social
Democrats are all likely to make abolition a
central part of their campaigns. Pearse
Doherty, Paul Murphy and Joe Higgins have
all made renewed statements in the last 24
hours arguing the case for wrapping up the
Irish Water debacle. If anyone except the
government parties advocates anything other
than abolish Irish Water over the next few
months, it will come as quite a surprise.

Alan Kelly TD, Minister for the Environment,

Community and Local Government (right)

Environment Minister Alan Kelly has been

slammed for dishing out more than 1.5million
in grants to towns in his own constituency.
The Co Tipperary politician was put in charge of
funding for a campaign to get commuters
walking and cycling instead of driving.
He gave 1million from the active travel town
scheme to Tipperary town Clonmel and
500,000 to Thurles last year.
An independent assessment group had
pinpointed projects in other areas that needed
the grant more. A scoring system was released
under the Freedom of Information Act which
gave other towns higher points.
Fine Gael Louth TD Fergus ODowd, based in
Drogheda, said he is disgusted about the
revelations.
He added it was not fair that Kelly had ignored
the scoring system put in place by the
independent group.

He fumed: Its the wrong type of politics. He

was elected to provide new politics and hes got
to be accountable as a minister for the whole
country. Im disgusted at this.
There were dozens of applications from towns
all over the country for the 6.5 million active
travel fund.Mr Kelly, who was Transport Minister
at the time, gave most of the funding to the six
highest-scoring small and medium-sized towns,
in line with the groups recommendations.
But he then departed from the groups scoring
system to dole out 1.5million for projects in
Clonmel and Thurles in his newly enlarged
constituency. A spokesman for the minister
insisted he had not ignored the expert advice
because he has given funding to all the highest
ranking towns.
He said Mr Kelly had considered a spread of
project types, and had given priority to places
that had not received funding under previous
programmes.
The expert group gave the Thurles project just
56 marks out of 100, saying it had little in the
line of behavioural change to get people
walking and cycling instead of using their cars.
Towns that scored higher included Drogheda, Co
Louth, Athlone, Co Westmeath, Killarney, Co
Kerry, and Newcastle West in Co Limerick.

Water has been the main issue in Irish politics

for the past few months. The development of
Irish Water a semi-state company tasked
with implementing metered water charges as
agreed with the EU and IMF as part of the
bailout in 2010 has prompted large-scale

protests and shaken the government. Though

it has yet to issue its first bills, Irish Water
has been described by one member of
government as an unmitigated disaster, and
it has illuminated many issues that go to the
heart of Irish politics today.

1. Civil disobedience is on the

rise and making a difference.
Resistance to Irish Water has united people
across class boundaries in a way that is rare in
Ireland. Almost 100,000 people protested
against water charges in Dublin this October,
while upwards of 150,000 people came out for
90 different protests around the country on 1
November.
These demonstrations have built on and
combined smaller protests which are
continually happening in local communities
across the state. While the water charges
themselves are integral to the protests, its also
important to understand this visible anger in
context of six years of austerity, and the slow
build of organised movements over that time.
Though the establishment parties would prefer
to put the protests down to a sinister fringe
made up of terrorists, communists and
anarchists, the fact that fewer than half of Irish
households have returned their registration
packs suggests a much wider base of dissent.
These protests have caused the government to

recant on the plans laid out in the budget last

month and they now hope to simplify the
charges greatly, capping them at a fixed annual
rate of around 200 per household, for at least
a number of years. Whether this will placate
the protesters remains to be seen.

2. The government isnt

communicating
The government has attempted to put the
failure of Irish Water so far down to a
communication problem, and thats certainly
been a contributing factor. People have gone
months without confirmation of even basic
questions like how much they are to be
charged. Stories abounded that a call-out to fix
a leak could cost hundreds of euro, even if the
leak was outside a persons property. People
who have to boil their water before using it
didnt know if theyd have to pay or not. No
one knew how landlords would deal with
tenants bills. People feared for the safety of
delicate personal information, as registration
forms asked for their childrens PPS numbers
(equivalent to Britains National Insurance
numbers).

3. and fears of privatisation

as proliferating.
One major concern has been that Irish Water
will be sold off to a private company as soon as

possible. Leaked documents from Irish

Waters PR strategy showing the desired
transition from citizen to customer only
served to highlight the schemes neoliberal
endgame, putting no ones mind at ease.
A Seanad (Senate) motion calling for a
referendum to enshrine the public ownership
of Irish Water in the constitution caused the
government parties to split. Labour senators
supported the idea, but theres no sign from
the government that any such referendum will
actually be held.

4. The police are making

matters worse.
Videos of considerable police presence in
housing estates across the country have been
filling up Facebook feeds for months now, as
An Garda Siochna (National Police Service)
are mobilised to make sure water meters get
installed where they arent wanted. The heavyhanded way the police have been dealing with
protesters (as well as the demonisation of
protesters in the media) will be familiar to
anyone who remembers the Shell To Sea
protests at Rossport in County Mayo, but the
proliferation of footage online has made it
significantly more visible this time around.
The sight of ordinary people, often outside
their own homes, being thrown around,
pepper-sprayed and hit with shields has

shocked many who might previously have

trusted the police to act in the publics best
interest, and caused them to question how
dozens of officers can be available for
managing small protests while over 100 rural
police stations have been closed down in
recent years. A concerted media strategy
suggesting three officers were being assaulted
every day failed to convince most people, and a
report published last week detailing
widespread corruption, negligence and
ineptitude throughout the police force has only
worsened their image.

5. Cronyism is being exposed

again
Denis OBrien, Irelands second most famous
tax exile, bought Siteserv, a company that
specialises in installing water meters, from the
Irish Bank Resolution Corporation (a stateowned zombie bank) shortly before winning
three separate contracts each worth 62m
to install water meters on behalf of the state.
Before the deal, Siteserv owed the IBRC (i.e.
the Irish citizenry) 144m. OBrien purchased
the company for a mere 45m, while the state
writing off the 100m difference even
though his offer wasnt the highest bid
received.

6. and again

John Tierney, managing director of Irish

Water, caused outrage when he let slip the
bonus scheme for the semi-state companys
employees, which could see them earning up
to 14% extra on top of their salaries even if
their performance is under par. Tierney
himself was once the Dublin City Manager,
and he was responsible for wasting 96m on
the Poolbeg incinerator project, before being
promoted into his current position.

7. and again.
Both Jerry Grant, Irish Waters head of asset
management, and Elizabeth Arnett, head of
communications and corporate services,
previously worked for RPS Group, a
consultancy firm that had advised the state in
the setting up of Irish Water part of a
consultancy package that has so far cost the
state 85m. RPS also made some 30m out of
its consultancy contract on the Poolbeg
project, a contract the European Commission
described as an illegal situation.

8. The social media storm is

uncontainable.
While people like OBrien and Tierney have
previously been able to hide in plain sight
the former due in part to his firm grip on large
portions of the national media information
about their dealings has spread mostly

through social media, enlightening anyone

who wants to find out more. It doesnt take
much work to join these dots, and more people
than ever before are doing so.
JUST UNDER HALF of Irish Water customers paid their
water charges so far, new figures show.
The figures, which were due to be released tomorrow
morning, show that 46% of the charges owed were
collected during the first three months of the year.
A government source told TheJournal.ie that this was
above the level of the household charge at the same stage.
They also described this as quite a decent start.
A spokesperson for the Department of Environment
declined to comment on the figures.
Out of 1.5 million households, 675,000 (43%) paid their
bill.
The total amount collected by Irish Water over the initial
three month period comes to 30.5million.
Massive victory for anti-water charges
movement
In a statement, the Anti-Austerity Alliance encouraged
people to maintain the boycott and encouraged those
who were scared into paying the first bill to join the
boycott.
Paul Murphy TD described the payment figures as a
massive victory for the anti-water charges movement and
for people power.
He described this as a major political crisis for the
government and a crisis for Irish Water.
Sinn Fin Deputy Leader Mary Lou McDonald said, This
is a serious embarrassment to the government who have
done their best to denounce and belittle the resistance to
their introduction of water charges.
The defiance of the Irish people tells them in no uncertain
terms that water charges are unwelcome and that they will
not be cowed by threats, be they of supply cut off or
attachment orders.

Ruth Coppinger TD said:

We need to make sure that the boycott is maintained. We
need to try to convince those who have paid to not pay the
second bill. Why would they pay the second bill when they
see the mass boycott and that the government is helpless
to do anything against it?
Joe Higgins TD said that the anger against the water
charges and austerity is clear by the sheer scale of the
figures.
It is important now that we maintain the boycott until the
General Election so that it is the key issue. This will mean
that any government which is elected in the face of a
massive boycott will be forced to abolish the charges.
Head-to-head
Earlier in the Dil, during a head-to-head with Paul
Murphy the Taoiseach Enda Kenny said of the
customer payment details:
I understand that Irish Water will provide that
information for everybody tomorrow.
This was one of a number of occasions where Murphy had
tried to find out how many people have paid their water
charges.
Murphy said he had also unsuccessfully tried to get
payment figures via a Freedom of Information request and
through the Department of the Environment.
Its quite a saga in order to get very simple information,
he said.
An Irish Water representative could not be reached for
comment.

http://www.thejournal.ie/irish-waterpayments-2216990-Jul2015/

IRISH WATER HAS again rejected Paul Murphys attempt

to find out just how many people have paid their water
charges.
The Anti Austerity Alliance TD has been attempting to get
the controversial utility to disclose how many people have
paid their water bills after the first ones were issued in
April.
After Irish Water officials refused to tell him, Murphy
submitted an Freedom of Information request which was
then rejected on the grounds of, amongst other things, the
public interest.
Murphy appealed this decision to the internal Irish Water
FOI appeals officer who has again rejected the request.
The Dublin South-West deputy has now lodged an appeal
with the Information Commissioner.
Background: Why wont Irish Water tell us how many
people have paid their bills?
In his decision issued to Murphy on Tuesday, Irish Waters
internal reviewer Gerry Galvin said he agreed with the
original assessment of the request that the utility is still

in the middle of its billing cycle.

Some bills are being cancelled if they have been issued to
householders who are not customers but who are now
informing Irish Water of this fact for the first time, Galvin
said.
In addition, a customer who received a default bill but
who then contacts Irish Water to register their correct
circumstances has or will also have been re-issued with a
new, accurate bill.

Galvin said it is understood that Irish Water will be in a

position to publish the information once it is fully collated.
He also wrote that he is in agreement with the original
decision maker that the public interest is best served by
affording Irish Water a normal degree of confidentiality.
Irish Water should be afforded the opportunity to begin
operating as a commercial utility company and to bring
about reform of Irelands water sector on behalf of all the
Irish people, he continued.
The public interest is therefore best served in this instance
by not releasing at this time the information requested in
the third part of your FOI request.
Murphy, who strongly advocates that water charges be
boycotted, described the latest response from Irish Water
as incredible given this has been a major political issue

for the past year.

He added:
Rather than strengthening their position their refusal to
release these figures undermines their position further as
feeds into everyones suspicion that the payment rates are
at a really low level.
Having been repeatedly thwarted in his attempts to find
out how many people have paid their bills, Murphy
believes the refusal to disclose payment rates is politically
motivated.
A spokesperson from the Department of the Environment
has previously told TheJournal.ie that were not hiding
payment rates and insisted thats a matter for Irish
Water.

Huge Dil row after Enda tells Paul

Murphy where to go
ENDA KENNY TELLS TD MURPHY TO TODDLE ALONG
May 13, 2015

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C1Awg3QzfBk
i wouldn't wipe my hole with Ur face you west of Ireland fucker
ha ha you mayo wanker
Nuff'? You're a fucking retard MAYO KENNY
Yeah but you are a Felcher. Did you see the cute good wink
from Ends Kenny? He is a bogtrotter!

Galvin said it is understood that Irish Water will be in a

position to publish the information once it is fully collated.
He also wrote that he is in agreement with the original
decision maker that the public interest is best served by
affording Irish Water a normal degree of confidentiality.
Irish Water should be afforded the opportunity to begin
operating as a commercial utility company and to bring
about reform of Irelands water sector on behalf of all the
Irish people, he continued.
The public interest is therefore best served in this instance
by not releasing at this time the information requested in
the third part of your FOI request.

Murphy, who strongly advocates that water charges be

boycotted, described the latest response from Irish Water
as incredible given this has been a major political issue
for the past year.
He added:
Rather than strengthening their position their refusal to
release these figures undermines their position further as
feeds into everyones suspicion that the payment rates are
at a really low level.
Having been repeatedly thwarted in his attempts to find
out how many people have paid their bills, Murphy
believes the refusal to disclose payment rates is politically
motivated.
A spokesperson from the Department of the Environment
has previously told TheJournal.ie that were not hiding
payment rates and insisted thats a matter for Irish
Water.
When she refused to resume her seat, Barrett suspended
the Dil for ten minutes.
Upon resumption, Shortall immediately asked Kenny to
withdraw the remarks again.
Then then had essentially the same conversation, with the
Ceann Comhairle telling the Dublin North West TD: You
are not getting away with it. Its none of your business,
with all due respect.
When Murphy raised the issue of water charges, he
claimed more people have failed to pay than the
government had hoped, otherwise they would be shouting
from the rooftops.
He asked when the legislation in relation to getting the
money from people who dont pay will be brought before
the Dil, asking if the delay was intentional as it would
be political suicide to pursue court charges before a
general election.
At this rate Godot himself may ramble by before the
legislation comes before the house.
When told to direct his question to Irish Water, Murphy
said:

A bit like Blue Peter we prepared in advanced and we

asked Irish Water what the figures are.
He added that the utility refused to give him the numbers.
Kenny went on to compare Murphy to Julius Caesar,
saying he likes to dictate.
The Taoiseach said the government expects to have
legislated for this before the summer recess, adding he
looks forward to hearing Murphys constructive
suggestions
Responding to Coppinger, Kenny said the purpose of
Leaders Questions is to inform deputies of things they
may not know and tell them where to go.
He seemed pretty happy with that remark, giving a little
wink.
After the second suspension, Coppinger accused the Ceann
Comhairle of viewing some TDs as more important than
others.
He was not impressed, calling on her to withdraw the
remark.
In response, Coppinger said the whole situation was an
absolute farce.

It is ironic that O'Brien silenced

as he is a champion of human
rights

is pathetic. A total embarrassment to Ireland's media. A

green Rupert is born.

1400 Mr Lowry had full knowledge of a decision to falsify files in

2001 to conceal a 'clear financial connection' with Mr O'Brien.
The documents were contained in files belonging to English solicitor
Christopher Vaughan concerning Mr Lowry's involvement in property
transactions in Cheadle and Mansfield.
1352 The money trail:
Dealing with the money trail, the Tribunal says 'no conclusion can be
arrived at, other than that repeated and clandestine courses of
actions were adopted by persons intimately associated with Mr
O'Brien, to confer payments or other benefits upon Mr Lowry on
behalf of Mr O'Brien'
1317 During the period of the competition for the mobile phone
licence and subsequent licensing negotiations (March 1995 to June
1996), Denis O'Brien or his companies supported 14 Fine
Gael fundraising events, and contributed a total of 22,140
by way of donations to Fine Gael. (Chapter 61.11 page 1064)

I mean, it's obvious why this government won't stand up to

him - they were in bed with him for years, taking all of his
money. But the question remains now:
Why is DOB suing everyone who mentions this instead of the
Tribunal or government itself who ran the Tribunal? If these

accusations are false, then isn't his issue with the Tribunal?
People are only stating the facts, as they were reported from
the Moriarty Tribunal. You cannot sue someone for reporting
on documents the government has released. Well, you can in
efforts to silence them, but its a bit like whack-a-mole - unless
he can prove the Tribunal was wrong, then he really has
absolutely no case against anyone who mentions the findings.
...and just look at how involved Fine Gael was with DOB during
the whole event and know there is absolutely no way they will
say boo to him as he obviously has enough incriminating
information on them to sink their entire party.

OBrien dismisses Moriarty

findings as fundamentally
flawed
The chief of the Esat telephone consortium says the findings of the
Tribunal are based on the opinions of its legal team.
Mar 22nd 2011

The following is the full text of a statement released on

behalf of Denis OBrien, in response to the findings of the
Moriarty Tribunal being published this morning.
My initial reaction to the final report from the Moriarty
Tribunal is that is that it is fundamentally flawed for the
simple reason that it is based on the opinions and theories
of Mr Justice Michael Moriarty and his legal team.
It is extremely disturbing that the Chairman of this
Tribunal would choose to ignore the sworn evidence of the
Department of Communication, Department of Finance,
17 civil servants, five Government Ministers, two barristers
from the Office of the Attorney General, one former
Taoiseach, one Senior Counsel to the Irish State and
Professor Michael Andersen, Principal of AMI the
internationally-renowned world experts in this field.
It is also of great concern to the reputation of this country
that the Civil Service which is unique for the respect it has
earned over many decades has been impugned and
discredited by the findings which are without foundation.
I wish to state in the most categoric terms once again that
I never made any payment to Michael Lowry in his
capacity as a government minister, as a public

representative or as a private citizen.

It is worth noting that the Chairman of the Tribunal, a
High Court Judge of many years, admitted last year to
making two not insignificant errors, both of which had
been used to substantiate false theories. I believe it is
unprecedented in the history of this country that a High
Court judge would make such fundamental errors which
went to the heart of the credibility and integrity of a
Tribunal process.
The reason these errors were admitted was only because
they had been uncovered by the diligent work of members
of the legal profession.
Furthermore, it is noteworthy that the Chairman makes no
reference to the concealment of crucial correspondence by
the Tribunal from the office of the Attorney General over
an 8-year period.
It has been evident from the outset to me and to many
other witnesses before this Tribunal that the final report
would be designed to damage the reputations of many
reputable people.
I believe it is now incumbent on the judiciary to
investigate the conduct of Mr Justice Michael Moriarty
and the Tribunal legal team for the manner in which they
conducted themselves.
It is my intention to study the report in detail today and I
will deal with specific issues comprehensively later today.

http://www.thejournal.ie/obrien-dismissesmoriarty-findings-as-fundamentally-flawed-201103/
THE TRIBUNAL RESUMED AS FOLLOWS ON THURSDAY, 31ST MAY 2001

http://www.moriartytribunal.ie/images/transcript_164.pdf

People should remember there are some legal cases coming up

against the State driven by the companies who lost out on the
mobile phone license due to the obvious illicit behaviour of
Lowry/DOB. The Govt are making it very difficult for these
people to get into Court as their case looks very strong and
major compo looks inevitable but you can be sure teflon man,
DOB, will walk away none the poorer.
Would think any actions on Moriarty must wait until these

cases pass.
Rarely, if ever, can there ever have been a man who rapes the
State so nonchalantly, day after day, tax-free, he is picking up
companies on the cheap, heavily discounted, using funds from
banks who owe their very existence to the State.
No way should one man be allowed to bully the State and its
people as he does, Govt has to grow a pair fast or become his
eunuch.
As long as politicians such as Lowry can thrive with such
impunity, there will be guys like DOB to benefit.

THE MORIARTY TRIBUNAL has released its report on

alleged payments to politicians including the former
communications minister Michael Lowry in findings
that offer a stinging criticism of Lowrys role in the
awarding of the mobile phone licence to Esat Digifone in
1996.
In two mammoth documents with a combined total of
around 2,400 pages Justice Michael Moriarty found that
Lowry had conferred a benefit on Mr Denis OBrien, a
person who made payments to Mr Lowry, within the

meaning of [the tribunal's] terms of reference.

The tribunal also found that substantive information was
also made available to Mr Lowry who, contrary to his
testimony to the Tribunal, was far from being a
disinterested Minister whose sole anxiety was to secure
a competitor for Eircell, which at the time was the sole
mobile phone operator in Ireland.
Lowry had, rather, exhibited an appreciable curiosity
about the substantive process, as it was proceeding, and
on a number of occasions sought, and was provided with,
information by members of the Project Group that had
been tasked with identifying the successful bidder for the
contract.
It added that in the last three days before the issue of the
second GSM mobile phone licence to Denis OBriens Esat
Digifone consortium in May 1996, there were many
meetings between Esat Digifone and the Department of
which were was no documentary record or reference on
Departmental files, including a meeting between Mr Denis
OBrien and Mr Lowry on Tuesday, 14th May 1996 just
two days before the report was issued in full.
That announcement of the awarding to Esat had come as a
result of a guillotine forcibly applied on the process by
Lowry who had exerted what the Tribunal condemned as
an insidious and pervasive influence on the process of
Esat being awarded the licence.
Exerting such a guillotine had thereby not only
influenced, but delivered, the result of the bidding
process.
On another occasion, the Tribunal found that when Lowry
met Anthony OReilly who had led one of the defeated
bidding consortia he had told him, Your fellas didnt do
too well yesterday implying a knowledge of how his bid
had been assessed, in breach of an intended seal of
confidence.

Far below what could be expected

The general management of Lowrys personal finances,

meanwhile with the former minister having had up to 19

separate accounts in his name, some of them offshore

disclosed palpably inadequate book-keeping, a want of
transparency in his dealings, and a disposition to declare
and discharge his tax liabilities far below what could be
reasonably expected from a holder of public office.
The Tribunal also discusses remarks made by OBrien to
Barry Moloney about two 100,000 payments one of
which was referable to Mr Michael Lowry.
A further payment made by businessman Ben Dunne to
Lowry, amounting to 15,000, further demonstrated the
covert arrangements devised by Mr Dunne and Mr Lowry,
to remunerate Mr Lowry in a manner that would enable
him to evade tax.
The Tribunal also investigated a $50,000 donation made
by Esat to Lowrys former party, Fine Gael, which had
been made by Esat via its Norwegian bidding partner
Telenor.
This donation had been made to a Fine Gael fundraiser,
David Austin, ostensibly made towards a Fine Gael
fundraising dinner in New York in 1995 that Austin now
long deceased was organising.
Austin had sent Telenor an invoice for $50,000 for
consultancy services, asking that payment be made to a
dollar account he held with Bank of Ireland in Jersey.
Telenor was reimbursed for this payment by means of
three separate invoices to Esat.

A marked reluctance to engage

Austin told then-Taoiseach John Bruton that some

funding was available to FG from Esat, but Bruton insisted
that it not be accepted and told Austin to leave it where it
is.
But in late April 1997, in the run-up to the general
election, Austin called FG general secretary Jim Miley and
informed him of his desire to make a substantial personal
donation to the party.
Austin then told Frank Conroy a longstanding FG
supporter, and a friend of Lowrys to tell him he was
sending him a donation relating to the NY dinner. Austin

sent Conroy a cheque for the punt equivalent of $50,000,

which Conroy then forwarded to the party.
Telenor became concerned at how this donation was
handled and in 1998 sought a direct receipt for the
donation from Fine Gael, as well as deliberating whether
the payment was to be referred to the tribunal. Fine Gael
also considered referring the payment.
Neither referred the payment to the tribunal, however.
Neither Esat, Denis OBrien, or any of the numerous
directors and personnel of those companies, who had a
deeper knowledge of the circumstances, brought it to
Tribunal attention.
Fine Gael returned the payment to Telenor in March 1998,
and Telenor having been reimbursed forwarded it to
Denis OBrien of Esat.
There then commenced a fractious discourse of dealings
between the Esat Digifone shareholders, which led to the
cheque being returned to Fine Gael when last mentioned
in evidence [the cheque] had come to rest somewhere in
Esat Digifone.
Lowry claimed not to have known about the donation until
it was revealed in the media in 2001.
The Tribunal has rejected as spurious and untenable the
suggestion made, in the course of public sittings, that the
payment by Telenor was legitimate, as an expression of
interest in Irish affairs, but not by any other entity or
shareholder within the Esat Digifone consortium.
The decision not to refer the payment to the tribunal
even though Lowry was the Chairman of the Trustees of
Fine Gael at the time the Esat donation was made
betrayed a marked reluctance to engage with the
Tribunal.
More generally, by their conspicuous support of Fine Gael
fundraising events from early 1995, Mr OBrien and Esat
succeeded in raising their profile with Fine Gael to an
appreciable degree, and, on the evidence, to an extent not
remotely matched by members of other bidding criteria.
OBrien has rejected Justice Moriartys findings, saying

they were fundamentally flawed and represented

Moriartys personal opinions.
Lowry, too, has rubbished its findings saying they were
factually wrong and deliberately misleading.
Among the Tribunals recommendations are reforms to
the political donations systems to remove the dependence
of political parties on corporae donations, and that future
tribunals be allowed to ask the Oireachtas to appoint other
forms of inquiry where such moves would better help to
achieve its goals.
It also asks that, in future, the state work to harmonise EU
rules so that EU citizens can be compelled to appear
before tribunals.

Queries by Dil about Moriarty

Tribunal deflected
Tuesday, January 05, 2016

Repeated Dil attempts to find out if there has been any

progress in acting on the Moriarty Tribunal findings have
resulted in the same holding statement response from the
Government since May 2012.

A series of parliamentary question responses to TDs

across the political divide have each led to the same
coalition response that garda have not started a full
investigation because they are still waiting for the DPP to
decide if one can be opened. Since May 2012, 15 months
after the 100m state-funded 14-year investigation
published its findings, members of Fianna Fil, the Social
Democrats, Sinn Fin and Independents have asked
whether any progress has been made.
However, on each occasion a near identical Government
response has been issued by various cabinet members
stating that further inquiries into the findings of the
corruption investigation have stalled.
On May 1, 2012, Fianna Fil leader Michel Martin was
asked for an update on what actions had been taken, but
was told by then Fine Gael justice minister Alan Shatter: I
am informed by the Garda authorities that, following their
examination of the report of the Moriarty Tribunal, the
advice of the director of public prosecutions has been
sought on the findings of that examination, with a view to
determining whether or not a full garda investigation
should now be commenced.
The exact same statement was issued to Sinn Fins
finance spokesperson Pearse Doherty when he asked for
an update seven months later, on December 12, 2012,
and was repeated in April 2013 and May 2014 when the
same question was asked by Fianna Fil health spokesman
Billy Kelleher.
After Mr Shatter was replaced by Frances Fitzgerald as
Justice Minister, Mr Doherty asked the question a second
time on June 24, 2014. He was given the same response.
When then Independent TD, now joint leader of the Social
Democrats, Roisin Shortall, sought answers on the
question on May 12, 2015, the wording of the statement
changed slightly.
However, the Government position remained identical: I
am informed by the Garda authorities that, following the
examination by An Garda Sochna of the report of the
Moriarty Tribunal, the advice of the director of public
prosecutions was sought with a view to determining
whether or not a full Garda investigation should be
commenced. As this process is ongoing it would not be

appropriate for me to comment in further detail at this

time, Ms Fitzgerald said.
This new wording of the same statement was repeated
when, on June 16, 2015, Mr Martin asked the same
question he first asked without receiving a successful
response three and a half years ago. His justice
spokesperson Niall Collins repeated the query two days
later.
Under the rules of the Moriarty tribunal, the statute of
limitation on the findings of the report which have been
disputed, contradicted and criticised by those named in it
in public statements and through the courts will run out
in March 2016. This means any information uncovered by
the investigation cannot be used in potential subsequent
actions by the garda or DPP.
http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/queries-by-dailabout-moriarty-tribunal-deflected-374414.html

Billionaire Irish businessman Denis OBrien has been named

in a Donald Trump attack on Hilliary Clinton, as Trump
launched a series of negative statements on the Democratic
candidate.
The extensive press release featuring Mr OBrien - one of a
series released by the Trump campaign targeting the Clintons
links to rich and powerful donors - presents a list of links to
media articles detailing Mr OBriens business dealings and his
close relationship with the Clintons.
That relationship included a period working together in Haiti
after the 2010 earthquake there.
No direct quotes from Donald Trump are included in the
statement. It references the Moriarty Tribunal which found,
after 14 years of investigations, that former communications
minister Michael Lowry imparted information to Mr O'Brien that
was of benefit to him in securing Ireland's second mobile
phone licence.
Denis OBrien continues to challenge the findings of the

Tribunal.
The Clinton Foundation website lists Mr OBrien and Digicel as
contributor in the 10m - $25m bracket for 2016, including a
contribution in the second quarter of this year.
Mr OBrien (pictured below) has made no comment on the
Trump campaign statement.

Separately, another Trump campaign statement released as

part of the same attack on Hillary Clinton lists 10 foreign
governments that have contributed significant sums to the
Clinton Foundation.
The Irish Government is fifth on the list, with donations
totalling between $5m to $10m between 2001 and June 2016.

Further details on the $50,000 donation

made by Denis O'Brien to Fine Gael can be
found here
1309 Statement from Denis O'Brien
He says the report is 'fundamentally flawed'
because 'it is based on the opinions and
theories of Mr Justice Michael Moriarty and
his legal team.'

1307 Brian Dowling: The report raises

profound questions about Michael Lowry's
capacity to stay in public life. It is a very
damning report for Mr Lowry.
1302 Chapter 16 in Volume II deals with
growing dissatisfaction from Norwegian
partner in the licence bid, Telenor, at what it
saw as the lack of a sufficient funding
arrangement underpinning the Esat Digifone
application.
The Tribunal agrees that such an uncertain
funding arrangement could scarcely have
met the procurement process's condition of
demonstrable financial capability.
The report says the fact that financial
backing was so uncertain was not disclosed
in the Esat Digifone application.
1301 Read the statement issued on
behalf of Michael Lowry.
1254 Speaking to RT a short time ago, Ben
Dunne said the Moriarty Tribunal never acted
upon a medical report which said he was
unbalanced and unwell' during the 1990s.
Mr Dunne said the report stated he was using
'mind altering substances' which affected his
memory and behaviour.
Mr Dunne said the tribunal never spoke to his
medical team or psychiatrist.
1251 At a meeting between departmental
officials and the advisors in Copenhagen on
28 September 1995, 'significant departure

was made in the weightings applied at

this decisive point in the evaluation
process' The report says the reason for the
changes were never adequately explained.
(Chapter 61.138 page 1107)
1250 Michael Lowry told RT News this
afternoon that he was unaware the report
was to be published today.
1235 Contacts of the type which
occurred between Mr O'Brien and Mr
Lowry on 4 April 1995 were inevitable
and had been anticipated by Mr Loughrey
when he had briefed Mr Lowry on the
importance of dealings with interested
parties.
The report adds that - while it was perhaps
inadvisable and possibly indiscreet for Mr
Lowry to engage with Mr O'Brien in relation
to the GSM process and to disclose
information to him which can only have
emanated from within his own Department Mr Lowry no doubt recognised that the
information was hardly confidential, it did not
relate to any aspect of the project group's
work and that the exchange between them
occurred well before the closing date of the
competition process proper.
But it says what it does suggest to the
Tribunal is that there was an inclination
on the part of Mr Lowry to be less than
discreet and less cautious in his
dealings with interested parties than
might have been advisable. (Chapters

12.13-12.14 page 203)

1233 Mr O'Brien instigated a payment of
$50,000 payment to Fine Gael two
months after his company ESAT Digifone won
the second mobile phone licence.
Mr Lowry was then Minister for
Communications and a Fine Gael TD but the
Tribunal found he did not personally benefit
from the donation.
The donation was made by ESAT's Norwegian
partners Telenor but reimbursed by Mr
O'Brien's company.
During its public hearings the report noted
that the origin of the donation involved a
considerable conflict of evidence as to
whether it came from ESAT or Telenor.
The Tribunal also found that businessman
the late David Austin - a close friend of
then Mr Lowry - was a conduit for the
donation and the money held in an off shore
Jersey Island account before being passed on
to Fine Gael as Mr Austin's own donation.
The Tribunal found that when this 'tortuous
process' became known neither the donor
nor the recipient of the donation wished to
keep it.
1230 It is 'wholly incredible and
inconceivable' that the GSM process was not
raised and discussed at informal meetings
between then Mr Lowry and Mr O'Brien.
One of these occurred at Hartigans pub in
Dublin after the all-Ireland football final in
1995.

The Tribunal 'rejected the evidence of both

men in this regard and considers that the
only realistic inference to be drawn from it' is
that Mr Lowry 'volunteered' information
to Mr O'Brien on how the project group
assessing the GSM application was
viewing Esat Digifone's bid.
This may have prompted Mr O'Brien to
contact Dermot Desmond with a view to
strengthening 'the Department's perception'
of Esat's finances and his side of them.
(Executive Summary II page 1097).
1229 The responsibility for Mr Lowry's
breaching of confidentiality of the award
process rested with him, but also with
systemic failures within the Department.
The report states that greater
precautions ought to have been taken
to segregate those conducting the
evaluation of the process from their
political master.
The report finds those officials conducting the
review had no means of knowing that Mr
Lowry was conveying information to Mr
O'Brien, or any other interested party, and
had no reason to suspect Mr Lowry's motives.
(Chapter 60.35 page 1055)
1225 Department's co-operation
criticised:
Moriarty strongly criticised the level of
cooperation it received from the Department
of Transport Energy and Communications in
its investigation.

The Tribunal says that when was first

instructed to investigate the matter, it
received assurances from the then Secretary
General of the Department John Loughrey and two centrally involved officials - that the
procedure had been 'exemplary'.
Having received such a positive
commendation from the Department, the
Tribunal decided no further preliminary
investigations were necessary or justifiable.
When it subsequently reactivated its
enquiries in May 2002, it discovered that no
systematic record of the process had
been kept by the Department.
Over the ensuing months, 119 files
incorporating 30,000 pages of documentation
were produced to the Tribunal - but without
any guidance or assistance as to their
contents.
The Tribunal says that with certain notable
exceptions, its efforts to progress its inquiries
were met with a degree of engagement on
the part of Department personnel which was
'significantly less than what should have
been forthcoming.'
It was also in marked contrast to the
constructive engagement experienced in
dealing with other government departments.
It also refers to the delay by Danish
consultant Michael Andersen in making
himself available to give evidence.
It describes Mr Andersen as having
'substantially disengaged' from the tribunal

in mid-2002, and as having declined to give

evidence unless furnished with a
comprehensive state indemnity.
He only agreed to give evidence seven years
later after receiving an equivalent indemnity
from Mr O'Brien.
In the meantime, the Tribunal had been
forced to defend proceedings instituted by Mr
O'Brien in late 2005 arising in part from Mr
Andersen's non-availability as a witness.
(Volume 2, Chapter 1, pages 1-4)
1210 A payment of 147,000 was made
by Mr O'Brien to Mr Lowry through Mr
Aiden Phelan and the late Mr David Austin
during a period when Mr Lowry held
public office in circumstances giving rise
to a reasonable inference that the
motive for making the payment was
connected with the public office of the
Minister for Transport Energy and
Communications then held by him.
The report says the evidence surrounding this
payment disclosed that it was a 'carefully
planned and covert payment.' However,
the Tribunal says it was hastily repaid out of
fear of possible disclosures at the time of the
establishment of the McCracken Tribunal.
1147 Mr Lowry's actions in influencing
the awarding of the mobile phone
licence were 'disgraceful' and
'insidious'.
The Tribunal found that his influence was
both direct, in his 'disgraceful action in

bringing a guillotine down on the work of the

Project Group' and 'indirect and insidious',
arising from his interaction with the chairman
of the Project Group, and his intimation of his
views on the second-ranked consortium and
on how Esat Digifone's financial problems
could be met. (Chapter 60.34 page 1054)
1144 The dealings between Michael
Lowry and Denis O'Brien regarding
France Telecom:
Shortly after the announcement of the
competition on 2 March 1995, The Project
Group adopted a protocol to regulate contact
with potential bidders.
The Tribunal is satisfied that Mr John
Loughrey Secretary General of the
Department brought to the attention of Mr
Lowry in early March 1995 and had advised
Mr Lowry to exercise caution around contacts
with declared contestants and potential
participants and understood that Mr Lowry
had accepted that advice (Volume II, Chapter
12.08 page 202 )
The report says that unless references to Mr
Lowry in Mr O'Brien's fax to Mr Prelz and
diary entries for 4 April 1995 were what it
describes as figments of Mr O'Brien's
imagination - of which it says there was no
suggestion - there can be no doubt that Mr
O'Brien did meet Mr Lowry on 4 April 1995
and that Mr Lowry did inform Mr O'Brien that
France Telecom had no partner for the GSM
competition. (Volume I, page 203)

That was information, which on the

basis of the evidence heard by the
Tribunal, could only have been learned
from Mr Lowry from within his own
Department which had received a
delegation from France Telecom some five
days earlier.
1141 Mr Lowry deprived the
Government of its decision-making
function.
Lowry is described has having a 'strategy' of
depriving Government of an opportunity to
scrutinise and review the result of the
process.
When Lowry learned that Esat Digifone had
emerged as leader in the comparative
process but that there was a financial
obstacle, he ignored government policy and
proposed a bankability solution.
Lowry 'misled' the party leaders as to the
clarity and certainty of the result that he had
recommended.
The report finds that 'most reprehensibly' Mr
Lowry sought to overreach his own party
leader, John Bruton, by 'intimating that the
Government should have no discretion' in the
matter. (Chapter 60.31, page 1054)
1140 The ESAT Telenor $50,000
donation to Fine Gael:
A $50,000 donation made through Telenor
was made on behalf of ESAT Digiphone to
Fine Gael.
The Tribunal says it was 'regrettable'

that no disclosure whatsoever was

made to a public tribunal of enquiry
concerning the donation 'notwithstanding
a substantial degree of knowledge
concerning the clandestine circumstances of
the payment' it says this observation applies
to Fine Gael who both in government and in
opposition was instrumental in establishing
the Tribunal.
The Tribunal says the failure of those
concerned in not referring it to the tribunal
was to have regard to the significance of Mr
Lowry's position who, at the time of the
donation (December 1995), was chairman of
the trustees of Fine Gael and an account
holder on behalf of the party.
'This omission betrayed a marked reluctance
to engage with the Tribunal and a sensitivity
surrounding the circumstances of the
payment'
The Tribunal found that this payment was not
one ever intended for Mr Lowry personally
1138 Michael Lowry is not in Ireland at the
moment and says he was unaware the report
would be published today.
Denis O'Brien - who is in the country - is
returning to Dublin to consider the issues
involved.
1137 Making reference to contact Mr Lowry
had with the project team deciding on the
winning bid for the GSM licence, the Tribunal
says an account of a phone call between the
Minister and Fintan Towey of the project team

- given by Mr Lowry - was 'wholly

unconvincing' and the account furnished
by Mr Towey 'more cogent and
persuasive'.
Mr Lowry had spoken to the officials in regard
to whether a decision had been made already
on the winning bid. (Executive Summary
page 1093)
1135 In advance of the closing date of the
competition, Esat Digifone had available to it
confidential information regarding the
weighting matrix adopted by the project
group that it was not entitled to have and
which could have conferred an advantage on
the constortium.
But the Tribunal says it is unable to conclude
how Esat got this information.
Had this circumstance become known to the
Department at the time, it would have seen
that fairness and the integrity of the process
would have dictated at a minimum that this
information be share with other potential
bidders.
It adds that the department would have been
obliged to inquire into the precise
circumstances in which the confidentiality of
its process had been breached to consider
any culpability on the part of Esat Digifone
and to determine the appropriate course to
be taken to regularise matters. (Chapter
61.43 page 1075)
1133 In June of 1995 a press release from
the Department said the mobile licence

process was being delayed whilst 'certain

aspects' of the process were discussed with
the European Commission.
The Commission had written to the
Department in April taking exception to a
number of issues with the tender process
including, the ranking of licence fee criterion
ahead of issues such as coverage and
performance. It also took exception to the
non-disclosure of weightings which would be
applied to evaluation criteria.
The report comments that documents in
the possession of East Telecom were
'never intended to any applicant', the
documents were confidential correspondence
between then Minister Michael Lowry and EU
Commissioner Van Meirt.
The documents had made their way to the
tribunal via Mr Jarleth Burke who had
represented Mr O'Brien's interests in dealing
with the Commission and the Department,
the Tribunal said they were documents which
Mr Burke had 'no business having in his
possession'.
The documents contained 'sensitive
information' on the weighting adopted by the
project group.
1132 The Marlborough house
arbitration:
Mr Lowry sought to procure unwarranted
rent increases that over a seven-year
period would have improperly enriched Mr
Ben Dunne.

Mr Lowry sought to influence the outcome of

an arbitration being conducted in 1995 in
relation to the rent payable by the tenant
(Marlborough House) to a company owned
and controlled by Mr Dunne in which he had
acquired a landlord's interest.
Tribunal finding re Marlborough House rent
review:
'What was contemplated and attempted on
the part of Mr Dunne and Mr Lowry was
profoundly corrupt to a degree that was
nothing short of breathtaking'
1129 The 'most pervasive and abusive
instance' of Michael Lowry's influence on the
awarding of the mobile phone licence to Esat
Digifone was his action in withdrawing time
from the Project Group, when they had
requested an extension to their work because
they were not convinced that Esat Digifone
should be nominated as the winner.
The Group had asked for extra time because
they were confused about the weightings
applied and how the result had emerged, and
wanted an opportunity to revisit and review
the evaluation.
1124 It is 'beyond doubt' that Mr Lowry
imparted substantive information to Mr
O'Brien which was 'of significant value and
assistance to him in securing the licence'.
(Chapter 60.23, page 1051)
1122 Michael Lowry used a 'groundless
rumour' relating to the Persona consortium
to his advantage.

The rumour related to the assertion that if

Persona won the contract it would lead to a
'nest egg' for a former prominent Fianna Fil
politican.
The report found that Mr Lowry relayed this
to the then Taoiseach John Bruton in
endeavouring to convince him that there was
'no room for Government discretion on his
recommendation' that Esat Digifone should
be awarded the contract. (Chapter 60.20,
page 1050)
1119 The report makes reference to Mr
O'Brien's companies contributing
22,140 in donations to Fine Gael
between 1995 and 1996.
Observing their 'conspicuous support' of Fine
Gael fundraising events in early 1995
'succeeded' in raising the his company profile
to an 'appreciable degree' which was not
'remotely matched' by members of other
bidding consortia.
1118 Michael Lowry, TD, displayed 'an
appreciable interest' in the process and
had 'irregular interactions with
interested parties at its most sensitive
stages'.
It also found that Mr Lowry sought and
received substantive information on
emerging trends and made his preferences
on the leading candidates known.
He conveyed his views on how the financial
weaknesses of East Digifone should be
countered.

Mr Lowry proceeded to bypass

consideration by his Cabinet colleagues
and thereby not only influenced, but
delivered the result that Esat Digifone
had won the evaluation process which
ultimately led to the licensing award.
The report describes these matters as
elements of Michael Lowry's 'insidious and
pervasive influence' on the process.
1111 The Moriarty Tribunal refers to
contact between Michael Lowry and Denis
O'Brien during 1995 and ahead of the
awarding of a GSM licence as
'inadvisable and possibly indiscreet' on
Mr Lowry's part.
They spoke about the project at a Fine Gael
function in March 1995.
However the tribunal on page 1073 says it
recognised "the information conveyed was
hardly confidential".
1100 Moriarty Tribunal has published its
findings in a two-part report on its website.

Trump attacks
Clinton over links
to O'Brien
Updated / Sept. 29, 2016

The Republican party's US presidential

candidate Donald Trump has launched a fresh
attack against Hillary Clinton because of her
relationship with Irish businessman Denis
O'Brien.
In a lengthy email to the media, headlined
"Follow the Money", Mr Trump's campaign
makes several disparaging comments about
Mr O'Brien.

Denis O'Brien is aware of the remarks but his

representative told RT News that the
businessman would not be making any
comment in relation to them.
The press release, sent from the Trump
campaign team, details links between Hillary
Clinton and her "friend" the Irish
businessman.
It outlines in considerable detail the
relationship between Mrs Clinton, her
husband Bill Clinton and Mr O'Brien, including
his donations to the Clinton Foundation and
work he has carried out in Haiti.
The statement draws attention to the period
while Mrs Clinton was US secretary of state,
when Mr O'Brien was awarded funding to

develop mobile phone services in Haiti from a

fund administered by the US Agency for
International Development (USAID), which is
overseen by the State Department.
The funds were, however, provided by the Bill
and Melinda Gates Foundation.
It also details legal actions between Mr
O'Brien and Irish media organisations.
The Trump campaign also provided links to
newspaper articles about trips that the
former US President Bill Clinton has made to
Ireland, supported by Mr O'Brien, and
mentions a dinner hosted by the
businessman for Mrs Clinton on another
occasion.

Caitriona Perry
@CaitrionaPerry

RTE:Donald Trump launches fresh attack on Hillary

Clinton in Wisconsin

Visit rte.ie

Caitriona Perry
@CaitrionaPerry

RTE:Donald Trump launches fresh attack on Hillary

Clinton in Wisconsin

Caitriona Perry
@CaitrionaPerry
Follow

With "Follow the Money" campaign

@realDonaldTrump attacks @HillaryClinton
for her links to Denis O'Brien. More on
https://
twitter.com/i/web/status/7
81369379522916352

10:45 PM - 28 Sep 2016

It goes into detail of many of Mr O'Brien's

business operations in Ireland including
references to the awarding of the second
mobile phone licence to Esat Digifone in
1995.
It also singles out Mr O'Brien's interactions
with former communications minister Michael
Lowry, referencing findings from the final
Moriarty Tribunal report published in 2011
which stated that it was "beyond doubt" that
Mr Lowry had imparted substantive
information to Denis O'Brien which was "of
significant value and assistance to him in
securing the licence".
These are findings which Mr O'Brien
continues to challenge.

The statement also details legal actions

between Mr O'Brien and Irish media
organisations.
It also includes mention of the controversy
relating to Mr O'Brien's purchase of Siteserv.
The statement does not contain any direct
quotes from Donald Trump and contains
several lengthy quotations from articles
featured in Irish and international
publications, and includes links to those
articles.
The email was just one in a series issued by
the Trump campaign late yesterday all
headlined "Follow the Money", as part of
Donald Trump's latest attack on his
Democratic rival for the White House.
Following the first presidential debate on
Monday, he has come under pressure to
make sharper attacks on Mrs Clinton.
This campaign seeks to highlight her
connections to wealthy business people,
donors to the Clinton Foundation, and Wall
Street banks during her time in office.
There is no proof of direct favours granted by
Hillary Clinton to Clinton Foundation donors
while she was secretary of state, although
access to her was sought and sometimes
granted to big contributors while she held
office.
Mr Trump delivered a passionate speech on
the theme in Wisconsin last night, saying
"Everything you need to know about Hillary

Clinton can be understood by this simple

phrase - follow the money".
He then went on to repeat that phrase
several times throughout his speech.
He did not mention Denis O'Brien by name
during his address at the rally in Waukesha.
Mr O'Brien has a well-publicised relationship
with the Clintons.
He is, both personally and through his
business Digicel, a generous donor to the
Clinton Foundation.
On its website, the Clinton Foundation lists its
donors, by using wide-ranging donation
brackets for how much they have donated. It
includes Mr O'Brien and Digicel in the bracket
of "cumulative lifetime donations" of between
$10-25m as of June 2016.
The Irish Government is also mentioned as
part of Donald Trump's "Follow the Money"
campaign.
In another of the themed emails yesterday,
the Trump campaign listed donations by
foreign governments to the Clinton
Foundation as one of "Ten Inconvenient
Truths about the Clinton Foundation".
It lists 19 countries that have donated to the
Clinton Foundation, and Ireland is fifth on the
list with donations to the Foundation falling
into the $5-10m bracket over the course of
the lifetime of the Foundation, up to June
2016.
The foundation was set up in the wake of Bill
Clinton's presidency in 2001. It does not

detail when exactly any donations were

made.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2016/0928/8
20019-trump-clinton-obrien/
Eamon Dunphy claims Dennis O'Brien is intimidating
Jan 2008

Dunphy on his last show claimed Dennis O' Brien owns

politicians. He claimed Sam Smith was sacked from his
radio show at Newstalk for going after Lowery and
O'Brien. He also said that the referendum on the
Oireachtas to conduct inquiries was bad and stated that
Micheal Mcdowell used his position as minister for
justice vindictively to get at journalists. A file was sent
to the Garda after the moriarty tribunal found that both
men, O'Brien and Lowery had "corrupt relationship" but
as usual nothing happened.
The freedom of speech doesnt exsist in this country.
No one with a counter opinion to the norm gets air time, from
our very few media outlets.
The editor of the star Ger ? made a good point about the lack
of free speech in our society.
The Irish Times - Thursday, March 24, 2011
Moriarty report to be referred to DPP
THe Moriarty report is to be referred to the Director of Public
Prosecutions and the Garda Commissioner, the Taoiseach has
confirmed in the Dil.
During Leaders Questions, Enda Kenny also said the report
would be debated in the Dil next week. The 2,348-page
document, published on Tuesday, found that former minister
for communications Michel Lowry, now an Independent TD for
Tipperary North, had secured the winning of the States
second mobile phone licence for Denis OBriens Esat Digifone.
Mr Kenny said the incident concerning the $50,000 donation to
Fine Gael was wrong, adding: I regret the circuitous route
that it had to follow before it was sent back to Mr OBrien.

The report can be used by Garda as a road map to a

Garda investigation.

Martin Callinan was studying a review of the Moriarty

findings by a special team of officers he appointed to
examine the report last March.
It had initially been expected that the garda review would
be completed within a month.
But a senior officer pointed out that the fact that it took six
months indicated the complexity of the issues under
review.
It is now likely that the commissioner will hold discussions
shortly with the DPP, James Hamilton, who was also
issued with a copy of the report
Further dialogue will also involve members of the review
team before a final decision is made.
The review team, led by the head of the Criminal Assets
Bureau (CAB), Det Chief Supt Eugene Corcoran, was
tasked with sifting through the 2,400-page report and
examining statements made by witnesses, documentation
and the conclusions and observations of Mr Justice
Michael Moriarty.
The review was completed late last week and its
conclusions were forwarded to garda headquarters at the
weekend.
The team included other members of the CAB, who
focused on potential issues such as unjust enrichment,
corruption and tax, while officers from the garda fraud
bureau took a close look at possibly suspicious financial
transactions.
Their objective was to establish if the tribunal findings
formed the basis for a criminal investigation into key
players such as Independent TD Michael Lowry and if
there was sufficient evidence to warrant fresh garda
inquiries.
Evidence
Under the tribunal's legislation, gardai are prevented from

using any of the evidence given to Moriarty unless they

can establish independent verification of the details.
However, they are allowed to use the findings to help them
plot a way forward and the evidence could also be used as
a guide in seeking the production in court of other
matters, such as documentation.
Mr Callinan has already indicated that sufficient resources
would be made available for a full criminal investigation if
needed.
Mr Lowry has challenged the CAB and the DPP to look
into his dealings and said: "There will be no money trail."
Disgraced former Fine Gael minister, fundraiser and tax evader
Michael Lowry made his second appearance at the Moriarty
Tribunal this week. Two years have passed since Lowry
appeared and in that time an ever growing web of his complex
and at times bizarre financial transactions have been prized
open to public scrutiny.
Up for debate first at the Tribunal was Lowry's involvement in a
$50,000 donation to Fine Gael from Telenor, one of the
communications companies who successfully won the lucrative
second mobile phone licence, awarded coincidentally by Lowry.
Next up were the details of Lowry's personal finances, which
saw an array of transactions involving business acquaintances
who just happened to be either employees of Esat Digifone,
winners of the second mobile phone licence, and its founder
Denis O'Brien.
Lowry was adamant that the awarding of that mobile phone
licence was not subject to interference by him. He said that
there was "outrageous innuendo and gossip" about the
awarding of the licence to Esat. Lowry had no problem with
accepting the $50,000 donation from Esat because of the fact
that he was "the one who knew exactly what happened".
"Acts of friendship" was how Lowry described his bizarre
property and financial dealings. Michael, it seems, wanted to
buy a house in Dublin, so rather than approach an auctioneer
like you or me he went to ten property developers to keep an
eye out for a suitable property.

One such developer found a house for Lowry, bought it and in

a market where property prices were rising rapidly, sold the
house to Lowry for cost at 200,000. David Austin, who had
received the $50,000 donation from Esat and who had also
bought a Spanish holiday home from Esat chief executive
Denis O'Brien, lent Lowry 147,000 to renovate his new home.
The loan details were handwritten in a short note, which Lowry
never revealed to any of his legal or financial advisers. Lowry
himself had 140,000 in a Channel Islands account hidden
from the Revenue Commissioners. The fact that he forgot to
tell this to the Tribunal in 1999 was "unintentional". That's all
right so, Michael. We all forget about the odd 150,000 now
and then. Something tells me this will not be Lowry's last
Tribunal appearance and one wonders what unintentionally
overlooked details will come up
You're very fond of the special effects.

O'Brien letter to Moriarty called tribunal

THE BUSINESSMAN Denis OBrien wrote a personal

letter to the chairman of the Moriarty tribunal, Mr
Justice Michael Moriarty, in February, in which he said
the tribunal was totally biased.
The founder of the Esat Digifone consortium also said
the tribunals activities really reaches a new low in
Irish judicial history, Mr Justice Moriarty said at the
outset of yesterdays hearing.
Addressing counsel for Mr OBrien, Jim OCallaghan
SC, the chairman said he was not going to be
disconcerted by such sideshows and that he did not
believe Mr OCallaghan would countenance his client
in another matter writing to the judge.
After lunch, Mr OCallaghan said he and Gerry Kelly
SC, for Mr OBrien, as well as Mr OBriens solicitors,
Meaghers, had not known the letter was being written
by Mr OBrien.
The chairman said he was happy to hear that.
A number of parties at the outset said they wanted Mr
Justice Moriarty to rule on certain issues before
evidence was heard.

John ODonnell SC, for the Department of

Communications, said that last July the suggestion had
been put to Richard Nesbitt SC, when giving evidence,
that his evidence was not credible.
There were no evidential grounds for this suggestion,
Mr ODonnell said, and it was a matter of the utmost
concern to the department and to the Attorney
General, that this serious suggestion had been made.
The sworn testimony of an eminent and respected
senior counsel has been challenged and rejected by the
tribunal without any basis for so doing. It was the
departments view that the evidence was not accepted
because it differed from the tribunals working
hypothesis on the matter. The evidence represented
an inconvenient truth for the tribunal.
Evidence was going to be given by two officials from
the office of the Attorney General which would support
Mr Nesbitts evidence. He wanted a ruling now that
any challenge to the testimony that was about to be
heard, would be based on evidence rather than
conjecture.
He said he would object if he believed there were unfair
challenges being made and would take further steps
if he believed it necessary.
Bill Shipsey SC, for businessman Dermot Desmond,
expressed astonishment that it was now being
disclosed that officials from the Attorney Generals
office had met the tribunal in October 2002. He
wanted to know when the chairman became aware of
the existence of a note of this meeting. The document
was highly relevant to the evidence given by Mr
Nesbitt.
When Mr OCallaghan rose to speak, the chairman said
he did not want a regurgitation of contributions and
press releases by Mr OBriens public relations adviser,
James Morrissey.

Mr OCallaghan said he was offended by the

suggestion. I dont think I should be regarded as a
mouthpiece for a PR representative. Mr Justice
Moriarty said he was not suggesting that.
The chairman said he would not be commenting on
particular minute aspects of the proceedings. His
report would be founded unequivocally on evidence
and not on speculation and working hypotheses.
He was a judge for 23 years and bemused by some of
the remarks being made outside the tribunal, to the
effect that he was trying to cobble together a report
that will unjustly condemn people on flimsy
evidence.
He was mystified as to why this unthinkable
suggestion should be made concerning someone who
had been appointed by both Houses of the Oireachtas.
He had learned as a judge to be big enough and
humble enough to correct errors but he was not saying
errors had been made and important matters remained
to be canvassed in evidence.

ONLY TAXPAYERS PAY

Wednesday, March 23, 2011

By Sen McCrthaigh and Shaun Connolly

TAXPAYERS could be facing multi-million euro

compensation claims from losing bidders for the states
second mobile phone licence after the Moriarty Tribunal
found that former Fine Gael minister Michael Lowry had
helped Denis OBriens Esat consortium win the lucrative
competition.

A series of findings against Mr Lowry has led to calls for

his resignation from the Dil after the tribunal found he

had passed on sensitive information to Mr OBrien during

the licence process in 1995.
The explosive report also heaped pressure on Taoiseach
Enda Kenny, after the tribunal criticised Fine Gael for
failing to reveal a $50,000 donation it received from the
consortium just two months after Esat had won the
competition.
In its 2,400-page second and final report, the tribunal
described Mr Lowrys actions as reprehensible and
likened them to former Taoiseach Charles Haughey.
The tribunal concluded that Mr Lowry had beyond doubt
imparted substantive information to Mr OBrien of
significant value and assistance to him in securing the
licence.
It found Mr Lowry had benefited from a number of British
property deals worth in excess of stg720,000 which were
linked to Mr OBrien.
It also revealed how Mr Lowry, when communications
minister, unsuccessfully tried to ensure that Telecom
ireann paid higher rent on a building owned by Ben
Dunne, which would have benefited the businessman by
7.35m.
The tribunal said the actions of Mr Lowry and Mr Dunne
were profoundly corrupt to a degree that was nothing
short of breathtaking.
The tribunal also presented the Government with its first
major controversy after criticising Fine Gael over its failure
to disclose to the legal team the $50,000 donation.
Tribunal chairman Mr Justice Michael Moriarty said such an
omission was regrettable and betrayed a marked
reluctance to engage with the tribunal.
Taoiseach Enda Kenny who in 1996 defended Mr Lowry
following his resignation from Cabinet as a man of the
highest integrity and honour was accused of evading
questions on the report yesterday.
Fianna Fil leader Michel Martin insisted the Taoiseach
had serious issues to explain regarding the money, which
was eventually handed back by Fine Gael.
But Mr Kenny said he had not yet read the report and
needed time to do so.
Among the reports main findings were that:
* Mr Lowry had irregular interactions with interested

parties at the most sensitive stages of the competition.

* Esat had a copy of a letter sent by the European
Commission to Mr Lowry which contained crucial
information on the weighting criteria used to assess the
bids.
* Mr Lowry and AIB officials knowingly and improperly
concealed details of his offshore bank accounts from the
authorities.
But Mr OBrien last night denied ever paying one red
cent to Mr Lowry and lashed out at the tribunal.
The businessman, who made a personal profit of 292
million after he later sold Esat Digifone to British Telecom,
described the report as fundamentally flawed.
In a statement, Mr Lowry said the tribunals findings were
factually wrong and deliberately misleading.
But there are now fears the findings about Mr Lowrys
insidious and pervasive role in the licence process could
trigger legal actions against the state.
One unsuccessful bidder, the Persona consortium, will
begin a Supreme Court challenge tomorrow against the
awarding of the licence to Esat based on evidence
uncovered by the tribunal. Another losing bidder,
Comcast, which is linked to businessman Declan Ganley, is
considering a similar action.
http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/only-taxpayers-pay149090.html

Moriarty Tribunal Report Part II Volume 2

https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/75621/moriarty
2.pdf
I stand by what I said which is that in a prosecution the
evidence adduced in the Moriarity Inquiry cannot be used.
The Gardai can use a TomTom or a Garmin as a roadmap for
all the good it will do them. There will never be any
prosecution, let alone a conviction, arising out of the granting
of the second mobile licence.
If Moriarity couldn't find a smoking gun after all those years
and with a much lower bar (than in a criminal prosecution),
how will the DPP get a jury to convict anyone?
clever misspellings of Dennis O'Brien, Michael Lowery and Sam
Smith.

"Dennis" probably has some goon scouring the net daily for
references to him or his mates/current enemies so he can
intimidate mods ad posters with threats of libel actions.
Anyway, that's all from me, except to give a prediction: with
all the dough he's got, I'm sure his mates in Government will
have him back on a pedestal within 3 years.

FORMER MINISTER Michael Lowry has criticised the

Moriarty tribunal for the conduct of its investigation,
the 300 million cost of the inquiry and the fact 40
million has been paid to its own legal team.
In a lengthy statement of more than 3,400 words,
issued in advance of the impending publication of the
tribunal report, Mr Lowry said that he had been denied
the opportunity to address the evidence given since
2005 about the issuing of the mobile phone licence in
1996.
The tribunals registrar, Siobhn Hayes, had no
comment yesterday as to when the report might be
published, or on Mr Lowrys statement.
Government sources said the tribunals report was still
expected to be published next month.
Mr Lowry said the main allegation the Moriarty
tribunal had made against the licence process related
to the involvement of Dermot Desmond as a 20 per
cent shareholder in Esat Digifone, which the tribunal
claimed breached the rules of the competition. Mr
Lowry said this theory was overturned last year when
the State counsel, Richard Nesbitt, gave evidence of
written and oral legal advice he provided to the office
of the attorney general one week before the second
mobile phone licence was awarded to Esat Digifone.
Nesbitts advice to the government was perfectly clear.
That was to issue the licence and that there was no
problem about this ownership issue. The licence was

issued on foot of Nesbitts advice, he added.

The Moriarty tribunal is perfectly happy to make
outrageous allegations against me . . . based on theory
and hypothesis and to put these allegations into the
public domain in a fanfare of devastating publicity.
However, they are not too keen on giving me the
opportunity to properly defend myself . . . It is an
injustice.
The former minister insisted he had no role in the
decision-making process on the licence and that had
been confirmed by all 17 civil servants involved in it.
It was not possible for me as minister to meddle in the
process or direct a result without the collusion of a host
of civil servants. I sincerely hope that the civil servants
involved in this process will finally have their
reputations vindicated.
There is not a shred of evidence since 2001 to indicate
that I influenced the licence process. This is simply
because it never happened.
Mr Lowry gave details of his business dealings since
1996 and said there had been no financial benefit to
him in any of them.
All monies examined by the Moriarty tribunal and
credited to my personal and business accounts are tax
compliant. My taxation affairs are in order. I am in
possession of tax clearance certificates for my business
and as an individual.
He said that for 15 years he had been subjected to
unrelenting, extensive investigations by several State
agencies and now earnestly hoped that he could finally
gain closure and enter the future free from institutional
scrutiny.
Some parts of Mr Lowrys statement have not been
reported by The Irish Timeson legal advice.

Dont repeal Right to Life. Reduce

poverty, invest in maternity, perinatal

and childcare instead'
Sinn Fein TD, Peadar Toibin, reveals why he is not
supporting calls to repeal the Eighth Amendment of the
Constitution.

First of all this is an enormously difficult topic. There are

many tragic, difficult, scary, challenges facing mothers,
fathers and unborn children every day. There is no doubt
that these challenges create enormous stresses and
strains on their lives.
I believe that our approach to these families; our friends,
relations and neighbours, should be dedicated to focusing
on solutions which ensure that equality and compassion
are at the heart of laws and that all the necessary health
and financial supports be made available to ensure the
best outcome for mother and child.
I have many colleagues who are prochoice and while I
disagree with them fundamentally on this issue I know
that for the majority, their perspective is motivated by a
desire to help mothers and children in these difficult
cases. This will be a long campaign and this issue is
extremely emotive and no matter what side you are from I
appeal to all that we treat each other with respect and
decency when we discuss this issue.

My own party Sinn Fin believe that the 8th Amendment

should be repealed and that Abortion should be made
available in cases where there is a life limiting disability,
rape and incest and if there is a threat to the health of the
mother.
I have a different view. A 100 years ago through the
Proclamation, Republicans from throughout Ireland set
forth a progressive vision for a new independent Ireland.
Equality was at the centre of that new vision. At the heart
of the proclamation is the objective to cherish all the
children of the nation equally. This Republican objective is
at the heart of my viewpoint.
An unborn child is an individual living human being and
therefore entitled to Human Rights. I believe Human
Rights should be universal and that the most vulnerable
sections of humanity should not be removed from these
rights.
In countries where they have removed sectors of humanity
from the right to life we see that sector extended over
time. In Britain 90% of all unborn children diagnosed with
Downs Syndrome are aborted. Shockingly its expected
that Denmark will Downs Syndrome free by 2030.
I have had the honour of meeting a wonderful girl called
Kathleen Rose Harkin. She has a condition called Trisomy
13. Diagnosed in the womb her condition would be
described as a fatal foetal abnormality. Yet she is 9 years
old. I think Kathleen Rose should have an equal right to life
as you or I. The truth is, in abortion regimes you are far
more likely to be aborted if you are disabled.
Abortion also discriminates against minorities. More black
babies are aborted in New York City than are born.
Abortion discriminates against the poor. In the US if you
are from a poor family you are far more likely to be
aborted than if you are from a rich family. In fact if this
government seeks to really help women, targeted funding
to lift families out of poverty along with childcare and a
decent living wage for working mothers are pivotal.
Shockingly some on the extreme Right in America favour
abortion because they say that it reduces the number of
poor people and crime.
Maybe most disturbing of all is the fact that abortion

discriminates against girls. Because of Sex Selective

Abortions it is estimated that over 100 million women are
missing throughout the world.
In recent weeks a study was carried out into the effect of
the 8th Amendment. Ireland has an abortion rate of
roughly 5% of pregnancies, these are the numbers of Irish
people seeking abortion in Britain and the Netherlands
each year; this compares to over 20% in a host of other
similar countries but with abortion regimes. This
differential because of the 8th Amendment and our
subsequent prolife culture means that there are well over
200,000 Irish people alive today who would have had their
lives ended.
Thats 1 in every 25 Irish people. These people are your
friends, your colleges, your teammates, previous class
mates, work mates, your doctors, your nurses and your
care givers. It may even be you.
I am a firm believer that most Irish people are prolife.
Ireland has one of the best records on maternal health in
the world. The demand for abortions by Irish people is
falling significantly every year. Most Irish people rightly
seek to help families in very difficult cases.
The best way to help and improve on these figures is to
maintain our legal and cultural respect for all Human Life,
lift mothers and children out of poverty and to radically
increase investment in to maternity services in this state.

This is a speech Peader Toibin delivered at a recent

Meath Right to Life Campaign Public Meeting.
http://www.irishexaminer.com/viewpoints/analysis/dont-repeal-rightto-life-reduce-poverty-invest-in-maternity-perinatal-and-childcareinstead-423089.html

POWERFUL, must-read article from Peadar Tibn in the

Irish Examiner which says we must support women and
babies RATHER than repeal the right to life

Water charges

Fianna Fail TD Barry Cowen has accused Sinn

Fein of pulling a PR stunt by calling for water
charges to be immediately dumped.
The party will table a motion asking for the
hated tap tax to be totally abolished when the
Dail returns on September 27th.
But Mr Cowen - whose party agreed to just
suspend the water levy - says its not realistic
to just bin the tax.
The Offaly TD said: Sinn Fein come out from
under the rocks now and again. We will not
support the motion because it has now basis in
law, its not a money Bill.
Its a stunt. Its a PR exercise to give the
impression that this can be done in such a
simple fashion. Thats not how this works.
They (water charges) have been taken off the
market to allow an expert commission the time
and the space to put forward real alternatives
for the way in which our water is paid for.
A government formation agreement between
Fianna Fail and Fine Gael earlier this year saw
water bills suspended.

Barry Cowen TD
READ MORE

Q
Minister warns householders they won't get away with not
paying water bills - and that goes for TDs too

But the future of the disastrous utility firm is still

up in the air.
Fine Gael is determined to keep the tax while
Fianna Fail wants them suspended
Speaking to Sean ORourke on RTE Radio 1 on
Monday morning, the brother of former
Taoiseach Brian Cowen insisted his party has
not done a u-turn on water charges since the
general election in February.
Its not a u-turn. I dont know any party that
can give a commitment beyond the term of
government. We dont expect to tell people
what is going to happen for the next ten years.
Our position is exactly as it was in our
manifesto. In order to facilitate the government,

we recognised that this issue had to be dealt

with," he said.
Separately, Fianna Fail has demanded that
Minister for Finance Michael Noonan adds an
extra 5 per week to the old age pension to
make up for savage cuts in the past.
The partys finance spokesman Michael McGrath
said: We make no apologies for prioritising the
needs of elderly people who have taken really
savage cuts in the past few years - the
household benefits package, the telephone
allowance was taken away, the reduction in
electricity units, prescription charges.
Sinn Fein Deputy Eoin Broin said: If Fianna
Fil were serious about ending water charges
they would support the Sinn Fin motion that
would force the Government into introducing
the necessary legislation.
Given the latest shift in Micheal Martions
position on water charges it is now clear that
there is no need for Commission or a special
Dil committee to examine the issue further.
All those TDs who support the full abolition of
water charges should support the Sinn Fin
motion.
Collins Photo Agency

06/08/2015 Sinn Fein MEP Lynn Boylan

Sinn Fein MEP Lynn Boylan added: The reality is

that we do not have to wait nine months for a
so-called expert commission to recommend the
scrapping of water charges.
The Dil can vote in favour of abolition as early
as next week and, in doing so, deliver what
people actually voted for at the General Election
in February.
They didnt vote for a suspension of water
charges. People want to see them scrapped.
Irish Water are spending 120,000 a year on
renting car parking spaces for its corporate
headquarters in Dublin.
Bosses at the hated utility are splashing the
money on 50 car parking spaces for Colvill
House on Talbot Street in the city centre.
The Irish Daily Mail reports that each space
costs 2,500 to rent annually.
Irish Water signed a new 16million, ten-year
lease for its corporate headquarters in Dublin

earlier this year despite water charges for

households being suspended.
The building is located close to a number of
modes of transport, including Connolly train
station and the Luas line.
start of widget id: 8038267, name:
relatedContents, view: readMoreLinks
READ MORE

Irish Water payments down almost 50% in April and

Q
May

end of widget id: 8038267, name: relatedContents, view:

readMoreLinks

A spokesperson for Irish Water defended the

huge amount of money being spent on the
parking spaces.
They said: "There are 50 car parking spaces at
Colvill House where almost 500 staff are
located.
"The spaces are part of the final lease terms
and the cited figure is correct and in line with
the average cost of parking in the city centre.
"There are 480 members of staff working out of
the building as well as visiting staff or
contractors on any given day.
"Staff are encouraged to use public transport
where possible with the provision of the Tax
Saver Scheme and Ervia also operate a Cycle to
Work Scheme to encourage cycling.
"It is however sometimes necessary for
business reasons for staff to drive including to
allow for attendance off-site meetings at remote
and inaccessible locations such as construction
sites."
EU bigwigs have warned the government that

we are under strict requirements to pay water

charges.
The warning to avoid becoming noncompliant came in a letter to Environment
minister Simon Coveney two months ago.
EU Environment Commissioner Karmenu Vella
said Ireland cannot abolish the hated tap tax
without breaching European law.
He was responding to a letter from Mr Coveney
about the legal position in relation to Irish
Water.
Commissioner Vella said Ireland could not be
exempt from charging for water because it has
no become the established practice to do so.
He wrote: I trust that the above mentioned
legal clarifications are helpful and will be fully
taken into account in the ongoing discussions in
order to avoid any non-compliance.
In response to this warning, it is understood that
Mr Coveney has asked for time and space
while a new Irish Water model is established.
He explained to Commissioner Vella that Fine
Gael suspended water charges because it was
necessary in order to form a minority
government with Fianna Fail earlier this year.
Mr Coveney told Mr Vella that Ireland is fully
committed to water charges, the Irish Daily
Mail reports.
The Fine Gael TD replied: Compliance with the
WFD, to which Ireland is fully committed, will be
fully taken into account in the work ahead.
Meanwhile, Sinn Fein MEP Lynn Boylan said the
EU should not be sticking its nose into Irish
politics.
She lashed: The European Commission needs

to take a cold hard look at itself, that at a time

when disengagement between citizens and the
Brussels elites is at its highest, it deems it
appropriate to stick its nose into Irish domestic
politics when it is fully aware that a review into
water charging is ongoing.

Simon Coveney

Sinn Fein MEP Lynn Boylan

Minister warns householders they won't get away with not

paying water bills - and that goes for TDs too
end of widget id: 8038267, name: relatedContents, view:
readMoreLinks

The increasingly political interventions we are

seeing now from the Commission are therefore
particularly at odds with what theyve already
put on the record on this issue.
But then again, a year and a half ago the
prospect of Irish water charges being abolished
probably seemed a distant possibility to Mr Vella
and the Fine Gael government.
Contrary to what Fine Gael and the European
Commission would like us to believe, Irelands
hands are not tied regarding abolishing water
charges.
They have previously stated that we can do so
with the only thing changing since then is the

very real possibility through the Expert

Commission that they could be abolished.
Ireland cannot be lectured to by an EU which
seems to change its mind to suit the
government of the day.
Just over half of the country paid the second
round of water bills, according to reports today.
Hated utility Irish Water saw just 43% of those
eligible to pay the tax cough up the funds by
July, when the first payment figures were
revealed.
Now it appears that only an extra 100,000
homes have joined that number, bringing the
total to "at least" 775,000 - out of over 1.5m
households.
The Irish Times reports that the company said
some people paid both bills at the same time.
The first round covered the first three months of
the year, while this new second round of
charges was for April, May and June.
The new figures would put the compliance rate
for the water charges at about 51% of the
nation. However, all of the bills have not been
sent out.
The paper says that Government sources hope
that this will rise to about 60% by the next
general election - by next June.
Anti-water charges figures seized on the inital
reports of payments in July to describe the
utility as an "unmitigated disaster".
More than 80,000 people then flocked to Dublin
city centre on August 29 to vent their fury at the
controversial charges, after Environment
Minister Alan Kelly warned anyone who tries to
"pull a fast one" will end up forking out more

money in the long run.

Irish Water was branded a "total farce" by
Fianna Fail, and was also recently accused of
calling pensioners in a bid to frighten them into
paying their water bills.
The Government has been dealt a hammer blow
as it has emerged that less than half of the
country has paid their very first water bills.
It has been revealed that just 43% of those
eligible to pay the hated tax had forked out the
money.
Irish Water had calculated that over 65 million
should have been paid in the first four months
of the year - but just a little over 30 million had
gone into the bodys coffers.
The figures show that out of the 1.5 million
homes who are required to pay the hated levy,
only 675,000 have put their hands in their
pockets.
While the coalition had expected to see
somewhat of a shortfall in the first taking, the
meagre returns are a sure sign that the water
protestors are a more formidable force than
what they Government anticipated.
The figures are expected to be officially
released on Wednesday.
The protests against the charges will also be
ramped up in the next six weeks.
Those attached to the Right2Water campaign
have vowed to stage another massive
demonstration in the capital on August 29.
A spokesman said: Its very clear this
government believes the water charges issue
has gone away. Were saying very firmly that it
hasnt and this will be the biggest issue when it

comes to the next general election.

On Saturday, 29th August we intend to show
this government that water charges are still the
number one item on the agenda and we have
no doubt this will be our biggest event yet.
The group said the recent actions of the
government have forced their hand.
They said they were particularly disgusted by
how the coalition gave the courts the ability to
attach unpaid water bills to earnings in two
years time.
The spokesman added: People are outraged.
The government obviously recognise they have
lost the debate. Nobody wants these unfair
water charges because they see it for the scam
that it is.
We already pay for our water and sanitation
through general taxation, which is progressive
and fair and we want it to remain that way.
Instead of listening to us, this government
wants to intimidate and threaten people with
court dates and attachment orders, but were
not falling for it.
We will continue to build and articulate our
ideals for a better, fairer Ireland that doesnt put
a monetary value on everything including
turning our water into a profitable resource to
be privatised in the future.

The public should not pay their water charges

as they are wasting their money on a failed
company, a TD claimed.
The call from Anti-Austerity Alliance TD Paul
Murphy came as it emerged 46 per cent of
people have paid their first bills a figure
deluded Environment Minister Alan Kelly is
hugely satisfied with.
Deputy Murphy described the figure as an
unmitigated disaster for Irish Water and a
massive victory for the anti-water charges
movement.
He urged those who had paid their first water
bill to stop throwing good money after bad.
He told Morning Ireland: Its clear we can win
this so dont pay more money for these water
charges. Theres no more big sticks coming
down the line.
Dont spend 65 on another bill. Join the
boycott. Dont pay.

Deputy Murphy said it was now clear the

majority of Irish people were refusing to pay
water charges.
Today, an online poll conducted by Newstalk
radio asking do you plan on paying your next
Irish Water bill? found that 90.8 per cent dont
intend paying while just 9.2 per cent intend to
pay.
There had been speculation in recent weeks
that the majority of homes being forced to pay
Irish Water were refusing to do so.
Now the company has admitted it has received
fewer than half of the water charge payments
due in its first billing cycle but still described
this as a solid start.
Of the 1.5 million homes who are required to
pay the hated levy, only 675,000 have decided
to cough up.
The exact figure collected was 30.5million
which amounts to just 46 per cent of the
66.8million that was due to the hastily set up
utility.

Alan Kelly

The bungling firm sent out bills to more than 1.7

million households during in the last few months
and there is suggestions that the percentage of
those refusing to pay may be much higher.
Environment Minister Alan Kelly , who recently
introduced laws to take the charge from wages
and benefits, threatened the public he will make
them pay up.
He said one way or the other, everyone will
end up having to pay.
He told the Pat Kenny show on Newstalk that
those who havent paid their bills were being
led up the garden path by the leaders of the
anti-water charges movement.
He said: Theyre going to have to write
cheques for a lot of people who have been

taking their advice.

The Labour Minister, whose party promised
there would be no water charges before the last
election, attacked those opposing the charge,
saying people following the militant
opposition should look at Syriza in Greece.
He insisted he was happy with the number that
less than half of those levied with the charge
have actually paid.
He said: I want to get this message out quite
loud and clear. I am hugely satisfied with this
figure.
In recent days it was revealed that more
massive anti- water charge demonstrations are
planned for the end of August.
The Government is to review its programme of
installing water meters across the country.
The move follows the planned suspension of
water charges as part of the Fine Gael-Fianna
Fail agreement.
Details of the review are contained in a briefing
document for Simon Coveney, the new Minister
for Housing, Planning and Local Government.
To date, around 820,000 of the 1.05million
planned meters have been installed.
Eoin O Broin, Sinn Feins spokesman on water,
called on Irish Water to abandon their
programme completely.
He said: We and other Right 2 Water TDs will
be tabling a private members motion calling for
the abolition of water charges and Irish Water.
As a majority of TDs in the 32nd Dail
campaigned to end the charges we expect the
motion to be passed.

Sinn Fein TD Eoin O'Broin

The Ministers document says early funding

decisions would be needed to ensure Irish Water
remained on target to meet its goals.
These include eliminating water contamination,
lifting boil water notices, reducing leaks and
preventing the discharge of untreated water at
44 locations.
The metering programme, which led to major
protests, has cost the State more than

500million so far.
The Government will have to make up the cost
to Irish Water of suspending charges, estimated
to be 115million in 2017.

EU chiefs issue warning to Irish

government over 'non-compliance'
with water charges

Water charges could be the sticking point over

Government formation

EU bigwigs have warned the government that

we are under strict requirements to pay water
charges.
The warning to avoid becoming noncompliant came in a letter to Environment
minister Simon Coveney two months ago.
EU Environment Commissioner Karmenu Vella
said Ireland cannot abolish the hated tap tax
without breaching European law.
He was responding to a letter from Mr Coveney

about the legal position in relation to Irish

Water.
Commissioner Vella said Ireland could not be
exempt from charging for water because it has
no become the established practice to do so.
He wrote: I trust that the above mentioned
legal clarifications are helpful and will be fully
taken into account in the ongoing discussions in
order to avoid any non-compliance.
In response to this warning, it is understood that
Mr Coveney has asked for time and space
while a new Irish Water model is established.
EU bigwigs have warned the government that
we are under strict requirements to pay water
charges.
The warning to avoid becoming noncompliant came in a letter to Environment
minister Simon Coveney two months ago.
EU Environment Commissioner Karmenu Vella
said Ireland cannot abolish the hated tap tax
without breaching European law.
He was responding to a letter from Mr Coveney
about the legal position in relation to Irish
Water.
Commissioner Vella said Ireland could not be
exempt from charging for water because it has
no become the established practice to do so.
He wrote: I trust that the above mentioned
legal clarifications are helpful and will be fully
taken into account in the ongoing discussions in
order to avoid any non-compliance.
In response to this warning, it is understood that
Mr Coveney has asked for time and space
while a new Irish Water model is established.

He explained to Commissioner Vella that Fine

Gael suspended water charges because it was
necessary in order to form a minority
government with Fianna Fail earlier this year.
Mr Coveney told Mr Vella that Ireland is fully
committed to water charges, the Irish Daily
Mail reports.
The Fine Gael TD replied: Compliance with the
WFD, to which Ireland is fully committed, will be
fully taken into account in the work ahead.
Meanwhile, Sinn Fein MEP Lynn Boylan said the
EU should not be sticking its nose into Irish
politics.
She lashed: The European Commission needs
to take a cold hard look at itself, that at a time
when disengagement between citizens and the
Brussels elites is at its highest, it deems it
appropriate to stick its nose into Irish domestic
politics when it is fully aware that a review into
water charging is ongoing.

Simon Coveney

Sinn Fein MEP Lynn Boylan

Minister warns householders they won't get away with not

paying water bills - and that goes for TDs too
end of widget id: 8038267, name: relatedContents, view:
readMoreLinks

The increasingly political interventions we are

seeing now from the Commission are therefore
particularly at odds with what theyve already
put on the record on this issue.
But then again, a year and a half ago the
prospect of Irish water charges being abolished
probably seemed a distant possibility to Mr Vella
and the Fine Gael government.
Contrary to what Fine Gael and the European
Commission would like us to believe, Irelands
hands are not tied regarding abolishing water
charges.
They have previously stated that we can do so
with the only thing changing since then is the

very real possibility through the Expert

Commission that they could be abolished.
Ireland cannot be lectured to by an EU which
seems to change its mind to suit the
government of the day.
The Government has defeated an attempt by
Sinn Fin to abolish Irish Water and scrap
charges immediately.
Fianna Fil abstained from voting on Wednesday
night.
In the end the Governments counter-motion which basically outlined the compromise deal
reached with Fianna Fil - passed by 59 votes to
38.

09/03/15 Paul Murphy TD pictured this morning at a

protest outside Irish water HQ, Talbot Street, urging
consumers not to pay theri Water Bills, which have
been sent out this week.. Picture Colin Keegan,
Collins Dublin.

Read More: Dail to vote on binning water

charges for good as dozens of TDs back motion
to scrap utility charge immediately

The motion, from four opposition parties, called

for the utility to be abolished, and for domestic
water charges to be immediately scrapped.
Both the government and Fianna Fil tabled
their own counter-motions.
Water charges will be suspended from July for at
least nine months.
But householders are still expected to keep
paying their bills until then.

Minister for Housing, Planning and Local

Government: Simon Coveney TD pictured with
President Michael D Higgins and Taoiseach Enda
Kenny

The future of water charges may be in doubt but people won't get away with not paying what

they owe so far, Simon Coveney has warned.

The Government this week announced that
water charges will be suspended for nine
months at the end of the current billing cycle in
June.
However, the newly appointed Housing Minister
said people who have paid their bills to date
'shouldnt be disadvantaged financially in any
way'.
Speaking to Sean O'Rourke on RTE radio one
this morning he said: "People will not be allowed
to get away without paying.
"What we have agreed is that I will introduce
legislation to suspend water charges for nine
months.
"In that period well have an expert commission
and well have an Oireachtas Committee
making recommendations to the Dail as to how
we should move forward.
"Up until the end of June, people have an
obligation to pay their bills and we will ensure
that people who are good citizens whove paid
their taxes will not be disadvantaged.
"At the end of nine months, depending on the
decision of the Dail at that stage in terms of the
future of domestic water charges, well have to
make some decisions in terms of how we recoup
money thats owed."
The news comes after Independent Alliance TD
Finian McGrath revealed he hasnt paid his
water charges, prompting calls from Labour TD
Alan Kelly for his resignation.
Commenting on the Row Mr Coveney said:
Government ministers should lead by example.
It is the law to pay your taxes and Government

Ministers should pay their taxes including water

charges.
If youre a law maker you need to be a law
keeper.

Fianna Fil will scrap water

charges despite legal advice
Publication of Irish Water legal advice criticised by Sinn
Fin
Tue, Mar 29, 2016, 16:30 Updated: Tue, Mar 29, 2016, 22:44

Sinn Fein MEP Lynn Boylan said this legal opinion is leaked at a time when
Fine Gael and Fianna Fail are being forced to speak to one another.
Photograph: David Sleator/The Irish Times

Fianna Fil has insisted it will abolish water charges

despite legal advice given to Irish Water warning there
is no possibility under European law for the State to
suspend or scrap the charges.
The party came under renewed pressure yesterday
(Tues) to outline its position on the levies after details
of the legal advice provided to Irish Water became
public .
The partys public expenditure spokesman Sean

Fleming said Fianna Fails position had not changed.

He said: We absolutely contest the legal advice being
put forward by Irish Water.
It is important to recognise that this legal advice was
commissioned by Irish Water, and it should be
examined with caution in light of this.
Its extraordinary to see Irish Water quoting EU rules
as sacrosanct considering they failed to meet the key
Eurostat market test last year.
The legal advice commissioned by Ervia, the parent
company of Irish Water, argues that there is no option
under EU law to return to the practice of not charging
for water. The advice was delivered after the recent
general election.
It says the default position in the EU directive is that
member states must recover the costs of water services.
Water-pricing policies are intended to contribute to
environmental objectives, it adds.

No reason

The position places a great deal of pressure on Fianna

Fail, who has insisted it will abolish charges if in
government. Mr Fleming said there is no reason to
conclude this cannot be done by a future government.
He said: In fact, we believe it is entirely possible for
the next government to suspend water charges and
invest in our water infrastructure.
The Fianna Fil position on water charges has not
changed. We do not support the continued imposition
of water charges on households.
Sinn Fin MEP Lynn Boylan called on the company to
publish the advice given to it by senior counsel Garrett
Simons and Michael M Collins.
She insisted the advice did not tally with that of the
European Commission and claimed the information

was being published to suit the political agenda of

certain parties.
It is very suspicious the timing of this leaked legal
opinion because it falls nicely into the hands in terms
of forming a government for Fianna Fail to get them off
the hook and say it is nothing to do with us, it is the
legal opinion, she said.
I would be very suspicious of the timing of this leak. If
Irish Water have nothing to hide then let us see the
legal opinion.
Ms Boylan claimed the legal opinion, details of which
were published in yesterdays Irish Times, was being
leaked at a time when Fine Gael and Fianna Fail were
being forced to speak to one another.
Anti-Austerity Alliance TD Paul Murphy said 70 per
cent of the electorate had voted for parties in favour of
abolishing water charges.
He said in response Irish Water had engaged in a
desperate rear-guard action to try to maintain itself.
Mr Murphy said: I dont trust Fianna Fil as far as I
can thrown them. The only way to ensure abolition is
to do two things. One is to step up the boycott and the
second thing is we need a massive, united
demonstration on the streets.
Fine Gael has said water charges will continue.
http://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/fianna-fil-will-scrap-watercharges-despite-legal-advice-1.2590924

Alan Kelly claims freeing people

from water charges for nine
months is an act of "sabotage"
Q 27 APR 2016

Environment Minister Kelly is angry that the

public will escape water charges and warns that
the deal between Fine Gael and Fianna Fail
could lead to water shortage

Deputy Labour leader Alan Kelly

Alan Kelly said the suspension of water charges

to secure a minority government is political,
economic and environmental sabotage.
The Labour deputy leader launched a withering
attack on former cabinet colleagues, Fianna Fail
and opposition TDs over their attitude to Irish
Water and fees for drinking water.
The deal which is set to be be finalised today
will suspend charges for between nine months
and two years while a commission examines

how the semi-state operates.

Mr Kelly said if such a deal were done it would
throw Ireland back to the 19th century.
In a rambling speech he said: "I believe we are
about to witness the triumph of mediocrity over
modernism, of short-termism over common
sense and immaturity over innovation.
"If the scrapping of Irish Water goes ahead, let's
call this what it is, political, economic and
environmental sabotage."
Mr Kelly likened the reported deal to the
abolition of household rates in 1977 by Fianna
Fail which ultimately created a mass hole in the
country's finances and led to crippling income
tax rates of up to 60% in the 1980s.
"We risk repeating that mistake again. Every
other EU country has some type of domestic
charge on water," the acting minister said.
Mr Kelly launched his tirade as negotiations
between Fine Gael and Fianna Fail continue and
acting Taoiseach Enda Kenny's parliamentary
party meets to discuss the proposals.
They also include an option to refund about two
million payments people have made for water
services since the utility was created.
Mr Kelly said he wanted to "nail a few myths"
and claimed lifting the charging regime would
lead to water shortages in Dublin in the future
and continue the pumping of 20,000 tonnes of
sewage into Cork harbour every day.
Earlier former Justice Minister Alan Shatter
predicted trouble ahead in what he described
could be an uncivil partnership between Fine
Gael and Fianna Fail.
He said: If a government is created and its a

minority, I personally dont believe it will last 12

months.

Former Justice Minister Alan Shatter

Insofar as this might be described as some sort

of partnership arrangement, this is going to be a
very uncivil partnership.
Mr Shatter also warned Fine Gael that doing a
deal on water charges with Fianna Fail could
have serious consequences for the party at the
next election.
He said: In relation to deals being done
between Fianna Fail and Fine Gael the great
concern of many of my former parliamentary
colleagues will have to look over their shoulder
if any deal is done on Irish Water.... how
damaged will they be should an election take
place within 12 months in the eyes of those who
did support them in the more recent election.

He told Today with Sean ORourke on RTE Radio

1 that Fine Gael have a very major problem to
make sure they dont betray their supporters
who did pay their water charges.
He added: I dont see a government lasting 12
months. It may well be that a more honourable
position for the Fine Gael party would be to say,
well, if the only way we can get into
government is to suspend water charges
perhaps we should stand back from the process
and recognise we actually lost the election and
theres a overwhelming majority of members of
the Dail that would otherwise do business with
each other.
He added: Alternatively, a second election
wouldnt be the worst thing that could happen.
Fianna Fail leader Mr Martin said: "This is very
far from being the single most important issue
facing our country, however it is important and
the handling of it in recent years represents a
dramatic public policy fiasco."
But he added: "The policy we are committed to
remains a scrapping of the commercial state
firm, no charges for at least the duration of this
Dail and a major national investment
programme in developing this vital public
service,"

Dear Friends and Colleagues,

I thought I had seen it all but if the media
reporting is accurate then we are going back to
the past.
If so, I believe politics is failing. The issue been
a consistent blight on the political system for
many years and we do have to recognise that it
has recently divided society as it followed a
period of horrendous austerity where Irish
taxpayers were lumbered unfairly with major
bank debt which my party voted against.
I believe we are about to witness the triumph of
mediocrity over modernism, of short-termism
over common sense and immaturity over
innovation.
If the scrapping of Irish Water goes ahead, lets
call this what it is, political, economic and
environmental sabotage.
Let nobody think we are in anyway experiencing
new politics here and this is the birth of a new
political maturity, if the current speculation is
accurate. This is 1977 all over again.
Groundhog day. When unpopular local rates
were abolished by Fianna Fail and people paid
income tax rates of up to 60% in the eighties.
We risk repeating that mistake again. Every
other EU country has some type of domestic
charge on water.
Fianna Fail had the chance to make a stand on
mental health services, on renewal of rural
Ireland, to end child poverty or to institute a
living wage, yet they have made a stand on an
issue that costs people 3 a week. Priorities?
Lets be clear on the decision that may be made

shortly.

Share Vine

A suspension or scrapping of charges will lose

billions of potential investment in water and I
believe we will have water shortages in Dublin
in future years.
It is not only the amount of investment that
matters, but investing in the right places at the
right time - getting the balance between new

capital projects, upgrades and planned

maintenance.
The aforementioned independent assessment
and countless Environmental Protection Agency
reports pointed to the need, not only to address
an infrastructural deficit but also to improving
the standards of operation.
Given what Im hearing if there is any fairness,
the law-abiding people who could afford to pay
and did pay will have to get their money back.
That will mean Irish Water will have to reprocess
well in excess of 2million financial transactions.
Is that common sense?
Read More: Kenny and Martin accused of
holding country to ransom over Irish Water
But whether the charge is being suspended or
abolished, I believe Fianna Fail and Fine Gael
need to tell people how and when they will give
them back their money.
The loser in this is not any political party, it is
the environment and those who depend on a
clean water supply.
The 20,000 tonnes of sewage that pour into the
Cork Lower harbour each day will continue in
the constituency of Fianna Fails party leader,
the boil water notices will continue and Dublin
will not have a secure water supply into the
future.
So what has Irish Water actually done to date?
Irish Waters investment has delivered 34 new
treatment plants (26 for wastewater, 8 for
drinking water) and 73 upgrades (51 for
wastewater, 22 for drinking water).
A further 47 water conservation projects have
been completed, with 452 km of pipe

remediated.
Irish Water is also targeting investment to
improve water quality.
Look at the improvements it has made to the
lives of 17,300 people in Roscommon who were
on boil water notices, with the residents of
Castlerea, for example, subject to a boil water
notice from November 2009 to June 2013.
Those people can now turn on the tap without
having to turn on the kettle.
Its implementation of disinfection technologies
has meant 300,000 less people are now
dependent on supplies in need of remedial
action, as defined by the EPAs Remedial Action
List.
The urban areas with no wastewater treatment
are the focus of Irish Water with the investment
being made aimed at protecting the public
health and environment of people in those
communities.
Two of the required plants are complete and in
operation, with another six in construction.
It is addressing the unacceptably high level of
leakage.
Through meterings identification of customerside leakage, Irish Water has been able to offer
householders a first fix repair on leaks
between the boundary of a property and that of
a house.
Through the repairs conducted by Irish Water
under the scheme, and those by customers of
internal leaks, identified through meters, 34
million litres of water were being saved per day.
That is enough water saved every day to supply
all of County Wicklow.

Staff in both Irish Water and their contractors

must be reeling today 500 of which are based
on the Southside of Cork City in the backyard
of the Fianna Fail leader.
I wonder what the 5,000 who work in the water
and waste industry think of the latest
development? The Labour party stands in
solidarity with those workers today.
The funding model to modernise our water
system is based on three components,
subvention, commercial charges and domestic
charges.
To replace one of these, we will have to eat into
the now famous fiscal space, so funding that
may be available for housing, education or
welfare will not be there.
Over 1.4 billion will have to be found for Irish
Waters running costs and modernisation
programme out to 2021 if domestic charges are
ceased.
Sewage treatment plants dont easily compete
with hospitals or houses when it comes to
political choices.
Thats why it must be taken out of politics and
into a utility.
The people who paid of which there are
approximately 950,000 households may be
about to be made fools of and the 340,000
people who already paid for water are being
given nothing but disregard by Fianna Fail.
Whats more, Irish Water reported to me that
during the election the payment rate actually
increased and while not all the data was
collected, it was likely that a payment rate of
70% was likely.

Then Prime Time on the 1 of March happened!

It is my view that if the suspension/abolition
goes ahead, this will cost us more in the longrun.
There is one vital question and it is the
following, Are Fianna Fail and Fine Gael acting
within the law?
Does the decision to suspend water charges run
contrary to EU law and in particular article 9 of
the Water Framework directive?
Let the records show that Ireland did have a
derogation from water charges, but it was
signed away by none other than Fianna Fail in
2010 who committed to domestic water charges
then.
We should note that that directive institutes the
principal that the user pays and costs must be
recovered from the user or polluter of water.
The failure to do this will likely result in
substantial EU fines in the years ahead. Do we
have the now famous fiscal space for that?
Both Greece and Italy were both hit with
millions of euros in fines that were increasing by
the day until environmental issues were tackled
by the European Court of Justice.
And why would other countries that routinely
pay for water grant us a new derogation?
Furthermore, the European Commission has
described the metering programme as a basic
pre-requisite of implementing the directive.
Many people in this house have no idea what
Irish Water actually do and there are quite a few
who chose not to learn what they do.
I agree with former Minister Noel Dempsey that
it has been almost impossible to have a rational

debate on water for the last few years, so Im

going to take this opportunity to nail a few
myths that have built up.
Firstly, nobody pays for their water twice.
Does our water system with boil water notices,
leaking pipes and insecure supply look like
something that we have paid for?
Even in Northern Ireland, every home pays their
local rates of which 200 goes to the water
company along with general taxation.
The prospect of privatisation is another myth.
I cannot imagine any private entity ever
wanting to own thousands of kilometres of
Victorian pipes while having to adhere to strict
regulations set down by the EPA and the HSE on
water quality.
However, a referendum on future public water
ownership may help to address peoples
concerns and the Labour party will support it, if
that finally puts it to bed.
I am concerned that the deal between Fianna
Fail and Fine Gael has not been made with any
kind of engineering expertise or with the
knowledge of the people who have to
implement water investment.
Did the negotiators even engage with Irish
Water management?
And I would say to those on Right2water that if
they really believe water is a human right, I
could not agree more, but maybe they might
pay attention to the United Nations.
Their definition of access to water is not free
water for everyone, but affordable water where
the costs of providing it does not go above 3%
of peoples incomes.

Protecting water as a resource is also essential

in tackling climate change as energy use in
water treatment is a major contributor to
greenhouse gases.
Another fact that has been lost by the so-called
left in this debate.
Decisions on Irish Water were rushed too quickly
after the last Government came in.
I believe we are rushing this decision too.
I fear we are about to throw that away and keep
our water system in the 19th century.
The Labour party stands by the people who
chose to pay.
We further stand behind acting responsibly and
based on our values regardless of the political
consequences.
If you dont govern by your values and govern
based on public opinion alone, then you will
never achieve anything.
A former politician once stood in this house and
accused Fianna Fail of economic treason today
I believe Fianna Fail are guilty of environmental
treason and Labour party stands behind the
important public service of water provision.
Politics is failing the people of the country
again. Utopian populism is winning again. Its
Groundhog day.
We will regret it, just as we did in 77.
Water charges could be gone for at least two
years after Fine Gael and Fianna Fail appeared
to be reaching a deal after late night talks.
It is believed there has been significant progress
made in negotiations between the two parties
allowing the charges to be scrapped for the
foreseeable future.

But the future of Irish Water is still unclear as it

is believed that Fine Gael is determined that the
hated utility remain while Fianna Fail want it
abolished.
But it is understood that Fine Gael TDs have
been told that the only way of keeping the
company it is to agree to a deal where water
charges will be suspended.
Earlier Fianna Fail said that the Dail could have
the final say on water charges after the party
indicated that it might be the only way to allow
a minority government be formed.
Micheal Martins party said it could no longer
support Fine Gael in blocking Dil motions on
Irish Water and asked for a Dail debate on the
issue on Wednesday.
Fianna Fil negotiator Michael McGrath said it
was his partys view was that the Dil should be
the final arbiter in relation to Irish Water.
He said: It is no longer tenable that Dail
Eireann is not allowed to debate the issue of
water and we would like to see that debate
happen as quickly as tomorrow and we will vote
in the order of business if that is necessary and
would vote accordingly in the order of business
if that was necessary to accommodate such a
debate.
Earlier Fianna Fil negotiator Barry Cowen said if
Fine Gael did not accept his partys will in the
current talks it might accept the will of the Dil.
Pressure had been mounting for such a debate
from the Anti Austerity Alliance-People Before
Profit groups (AAA-PBP) and from Sinn Fein after
an attempt to hold a debate on Irish Water
failed on Tuesday.

AAA-PBP TD Richard Boyd Barrett said there was

cynical collusion between Fine Gael and
Fianna Fil to keep the debate on Irish Water out
of the Dail.
In a statement he said: The debate around
water charges is being very cynically
manipulated by Fianna Fail and Fine Gael.
It is absolutely clear to me from the whips
meeting last week that the two big parties are
actively colluding to keep the issue of water
charges off the Dail agenda.
This cynical collusion by Fine Gael and Fianna
Fail exposes the lie behind all the talk after the
election about Dail reform and a new kind of
politics.
The two parties have not changed their spots
in the slightest and are engaged in an elaborate
and cynical charade that is directed purely at
maximising political advantage and drowning
out the voice of new political forces on the left
and the mass popular movement against water
charges.
Water charges could be gone for at least two
years after Fine Gael and Fianna Fail appeared
to be reaching a deal after late night talks.
It is believed there has been significant progress
made in negotiations between the two parties
allowing the charges to be scrapped for the
foreseeable future.
But the future of Irish Water is still unclear as it
is believed that Fine Gael is determined that the
hated utility remain while Fianna Fail want it
abolished.

But it is understood that Fine Gael TDs have

been told that the only way of keeping the
company it is to agree to a deal where water
charges will be suspended.
Earlier Fianna Fail said that the Dail could have
the final say on water charges after the party
indicated that it might be the only way to allow
a minority government be formed.
Micheal Martins party said it could no longer
support Fine Gael in blocking Dil motions on
Irish Water and asked for a Dail debate on the
issue on Wednesday.
Fianna Fil negotiator Michael McGrath said it
was his partys view was that the Dil should be
the final arbiter in relation to Irish Water.
He said: It is no longer tenable that Dail
Eireann is not allowed to debate the issue of
water and we would like to see that debate
happen as quickly as tomorrow and we will vote
in the order of business if that is necessary and
would vote accordingly in the order of business
if that was necessary to accommodate such a
debate.
Earlier Fianna Fil negotiator Barry Cowen said if
Fine Gael did not accept his partys will in the
current talks it might accept the will of the Dil.
Pressure had been mounting for such a debate
from the Anti Austerity Alliance-People Before
Profit groups (AAA-PBP) and from Sinn Fein after
an attempt to hold a debate on Irish Water
failed on Tuesday.
AAA-PBP TD Richard Boyd Barrett said there was
cynical collusion between Fine Gael and
Fianna Fil to keep the debate on Irish Water out
of the Dail.

In a statement he said: The debate around

water charges is being very cynically
manipulated by Fianna Fail and Fine Gael.
It is absolutely clear to me from the whips
meeting last week that the two big parties are
actively colluding to keep the issue of water
charges off the Dail agenda.
This cynical collusion by Fine Gael and Fianna
Fail exposes the lie behind all the talk after the
election about Dail reform and a new kind of
politics.
The two parties have not changed their spots
in the slightest and are engaged in an elaborate
and cynical charade that is directed purely at
maximising political advantage and drowning
out the voice of new political forces on the left
and the mass popular movement against water
charges.

Talks: Enda Kenny and Micheal Martin

Stubborn Enda Kenny and Micheal Martin have

been accused of holding the country to ransom

over Irish Water - as a second general election
looks increasingly likely.
Talks between Fine Gael and Fianna Fail broke
down again at the weekend after negotiating
teams hit another wall on hated water charges.
Fine Gael has warned it will not budge on the
tap tax but Fianna Fail said it cannot reverse its
promise to voters that water charges would be
abolished for five years.
Green Party leader Eamon Ryan said today: It is
madness that the whole country is being held to
ransom for the sake of such short-term party
political rivalry.
Once a generous allowance system is put in
place it makes real sense to put in place a
charge on the wasteful use of water.
We do not want to go back to the old ways
where there is no incentive to protect our
environment and use our natural resources
wisely.

The Green Party returns to the Dail

Treating water seriously is about looking after

our own health and it is vital for the future
success of our economy. Using it as a political
football for perceived electoral advantage will

cost us a lot more in the end.

More Government formation debates are set to
continue tomorrow.
But with no deal in sight two months on from
the General Election in February, another one is
looking increasingly likely.
People Before Profit TD Richard Boyd Barrett
said he spent the weekend printing leaflets in
preparation for another campaign.
However, Micheal Martin said he hopes
negotiations on the formation of a minority
government can come to a conclusion this
week.
I think the situation has to be resolved fairly
soon, said Deputy Martin.

Fianna Fail leader Micheal Martin

I think there will be further engagement and

well see what comes from that.
The positions are very clear, we would hope we

can bring about a resolution early next week.

It is understood both parties have agreed to the
establishment of a commission to examine Irish
Water.
The two parties are also at odds over the
provision of school guidance counsellors,
mortgage interest relief, funding for deprived
areas and rural crime.
On Saturday, Sinn Fein chief Gerry Adams
lashed out at Micheal Martin during his partys
Ard Fheis in Dublin.
Collins Photo Agency

Sinn Fein Leader Gerry Adams TD

He insisted Mr Martin could not fail on his Irish

Water pledge to voters.
He said: I have a message for Teachta Martin.
You promised in your manifesto to abolish Irish
Water and to scrap water charges. So, water
charges must go. Irish water must go.

Michel Martin said he would not put Enda

Kenny back into government. But putting Fine
Gael back into power is exactly what he is
negotiating.
Thats not in the national interest.
Water charges could be gone for at least two
years after Fine Gael and Fianna Fail appeared
to be reaching a deal after late night talks.
It is believed there has been significant progress
made in negotiations between the two parties
allowing the charges to be scrapped for the
foreseeable future.
But the future of Irish Water is still unclear as it
is believed that Fine Gael is determined that the
hated utility remain while Fianna Fail want it
abolished.
But it is understood that Fine Gael TDs have
been told that the only way of keeping the
company it is to agree to a deal where water
charges will be suspended.
Earlier Fianna Fail said that the Dail could have
the final say on water charges after the party
indicated that it might be the only way to allow
a minority government be formed.
Micheal Martins party said it could no longer
support Fine Gael in blocking Dil motions on
Irish Water and asked for a Dail debate on the
issue on Wednesday.
Fianna Fil negotiator Michael McGrath said it
was his partys view was that the Dil should be
the final arbiter in relation to Irish Water.
He said: It is no longer tenable that Dail
Eireann is not allowed to debate the issue of
water and we would like to see that debate
happen as quickly as tomorrow and we will vote

in the order of business if that is necessary and

would vote accordingly in the order of business
if that was necessary to accommodate such a
debate.
Earlier Fianna Fil negotiator Barry Cowen said if
Fine Gael did not accept his partys will in the
current talks it might accept the will of the Dil.
Pressure had been mounting for such a debate
from the Anti Austerity Alliance-People Before
Profit groups (AAA-PBP) and from Sinn Fein after
an attempt to hold a debate on Irish Water
failed on Tuesday.
AAA-PBP TD Richard Boyd Barrett said there was
cynical collusion between Fine Gael and
Fianna Fil to keep the debate on Irish Water out
of the Dail.
In a statement he said: The debate around
water charges is being very cynically
manipulated by Fianna Fail and Fine Gael.
It is absolutely clear to me from the whips
meeting last week that the two big parties are
actively colluding to keep the issue of water
charges off the Dail agenda.
This cynical collusion by Fine Gael and Fianna
Fail exposes the lie behind all the talk after the
election about Dail reform and a new kind of
politics.
The two parties have not changed their spots
in the slightest and are engaged in an elaborate
and cynical charade that is directed purely at
maximising political advantage and drowning
out the voice of new political forces on the left
and the mass popular movement against water
charges.

Micheal Martin and Enda Kenny

Several Fianna Fail TDs have dug their heels in

on Irish Water today causing a major stumbling
block in government formation talks.
Leader Micheal Martin told his parliamentary
party meeting that he is willing to be flexible on
the issue in the interests of the country.
Five other deputies said they were also
prepared to soften on the deal.
But up to 12 TDs insisted they wouldn't budge
on the promise made to the electorate that they
would suspend the tap tax for five years.
Limerick TD Willie ODea said he cannot
understand Fine Gaels stubborn stance on Irish
Water.
He said: Its difficult to understand why Fine
Gael are committed to a course of action that

has been rejected by 70 per cent of the

population.

Willie O'Dea, TD

He told Live 95 Limerick radio: To hang your

hat on something like that is extremely foolish.
Talks on the future of Irish Water will continue
tomorrow after parties sought expert advice.
Agriculture Simon Coveney said he is hoping
both Fine Gael and Fianna Fail will have talks
wrapped up by Saturday.

He said: is hoping the has said he hopes talks

between Fine Gael and Fianna Fil can be
wrapped-up by Saturday.
He also believes the two parties can form a
minority government despite little progress on
an agreement being reached on Irish Water.
"We wouldn't be involved in this process if we
didn't believe it was possible. That's not to say
it is easy or straight forward - it is not," Mr
Coveney said.
If an agreement cannot be reached on the issue,
then it is highly possible that a second general
election could be called as early as May.
TD Barry Cowen said: If we havent reached
agreement tomorrow, well be back here the
next day.
Some proposed changes include offering a
generous water allowance to householders and
turning the company into a full State-owned
facility.
Discussions about the state of the health
system and childcare are also top of the list.

People Before Profit TD Richard Boyd

Barrett said that anything short of a
complete abolition of Irish Water is a
betrayal of voters.

Brothers in arms: Michael and Danny Healy-Rae

arrive at Dail Eireann

Michael Healy Rae has defended his brother

Danny for signing a deal with Irish Water
despite campaigning against it.
The Independent Kerry TD said that while both
him and his brother are very critical of the semistate body, their family has a long history of
repairing water pipes in the area.
Speaking on RTE Ones The Week in Politics,
Michael Healy-Rae insisted: Our view on Irish
Water, my view on Irish Water is very clear.

Irish Water

Read More: 'Irish Water's 317,000 waste'

I was totally against the installation of water
meters, I think its ridiculous the way it has
been handled, it has created a monster that I
didnt agree with.
And if work that was being done before for
Kerry County Council is now being done through
Irish Water, being tendered through Irish Water,
thats just the way it is.
But when you talk about the Healy-Raes doing
work with regard to water projects, it goes back
to 50 or 60 years, its not in the last number of
months, or the last number of years.
Mr Healy-Raes remarks come as it emerged

that his brother Danny, who was elected as a TD

for Kerry in 2016, listed a contract with Irish
Water in a declaration of interest with Kerry
County Council.

People Before Profit TD Richard Boyd Barrett

He stormed: There is no reason whatsoever for

the issues of water charges to be a stumbling
block to government formation.
The issue should be completely disentangled
from talks between Fine Gael and Fianna Fail.
All they need to do is to allow the Dil to decide
and let all TDs vote on this issue in line with the
pledges they made in election 2016.
On this basis water charges would be
abolished.
Speaking before entering talks today, Acting
Finance Minister Michael Noonan said talks have
been quite good.
He added: Since they [Fianna Fil] moved away
from the position of sending responsibility of
Irish Water back to Local Authorities, and
agreed to a national utility - that has been a bit
of a game-changer.

Ivan Yates

Broadcaster and former Agriculture Minister

Ivan Yates reckons ANY new government will be
a lame duck.
And he believes the party leaders will be ousted
in the near future - with Enda Kenny being the
first to go.
The ex-Fine Gael Minister said: The Taoiseach is
now basically a dead man walking and those
around him know it. Hell be given some time to
leave of his own timing but I cant see him
being there by January 01, 2017.
Speaking in his latest Paddy Power blog, Ivan
Yates went on: I fully expect Fine Gael to get
over the line with the Independent Alliance and
form a minority government in the 32nd Dail.

Talks: Enda Kenny and \Micheal

He predicts Independent TDs Shane Ross,

Michael Fitzmaurice , Michael Healy-Rae and

Katherine Zappone will get Cabinet positions.

He continued: And that suits Fianna Fail just
fine for now. Theyll support the new
arrangement initially, but make no mistake, it is
for purely party political reasons.
At the first opportunity that gives the Soldiers
of Destiny maximum advantage theyll take it
out The prize that party leader Michael Martin
and senior strategists are banking on is that this
rejuvenated Fianna Fail will be swept into power
at the next election as the main player in any
Grand Coalition and will be dictating the terms
of any temporary little arrangements.
Sinn Fin and Fianna Fil have accused each other of
having more water charges positions than the kama
sutra and of orchestrating a political stunt after a bill to
scrap the fees failed to be passed by the Dil.

The rival opposition parties clashed during a two-hour

debate seeking the immediate abolition of the unpopular
payments, which saw criticism from TDs that the row is
taking attention away from other issues directly affecting
the public.
After controversy earlier this month when Fianna Fil

leader Michel Martin said his party is now in favour of

scrapping charges completely, Sinn Fin and other
opposition TDs tabled a motion seeking the immediate
abolition of the charges.
The move has been widely seen as an attempt to
embarrass Fianna Fil, as despite formally being in favour
of the removal of the fees, the party does not want to
scrap charges until an independent commission makes a
recommendation on the matter in November.
In an attempt to highlight the criticism yesterday, Sinn
Fin and opposition TDs said if Fianna Fil is genuinely in
favour of scrapping fees, it would support the bill to
abolish charges now.
Sinn Fin TD Louise OReilly said Fianna Fil has had more
positions than the kama sutra when it comes to water
and that people can tell the difference between abolition
and suspension.
Her colleague, housing spokesperson Eoin Brioin, was
equally critical, pointing to his Fianna Fil counterpart
Barry Cowen, who was at the time the only Fianna Fil TD
in the chamber, by telling him he had a Right2Water
application form available for him to sign immediately if
he really wanted charges scrapped.
However, Mr Cowen hit back, claiming Sinn Fin has been
undergone its own U-turns, with TDs initially paying
charges, wanting a commission and seeking fee refunds
all issues it now opposes. Play your games, have your
stunt, well clear the stage. You can strut your stuff and
flatter to deceive because thats all youve ever done, he
said.
The debate on the water bill, which did not result in a Dil
vote after a Government counter-motion saying no
decision should be made until the independent
commission reports in November, was backed by AAA-PBP
TDs but criticised for using up parliamentary time by
Labour and Independent TD Dr Michael Harty.
Its a total waste of time, this is contrived, said Labours
Jan O Sullivan, before referencing Ms OReillys kama sutra
comment by saying that after seven months of postelection groundhog day debate. the row does not have
the same excitement as the ancient Indian text.

Newcomer: Katherine Zappone

The Newstalk Breakfast host is also of the belief

that any Government is unlikely to last a full
term saying: Personally, I cant see the new
departure lasting to the Local and European
Elections in May 2019 at the very, very latest.

Victims of paedophile Bill

Kenneally want Fianna
Fail, the Catholic church
and Gardai to be
investigated over the
abuse
Q 25 SEP 2016
Q BY SAOIRSE MCGARRIGLE

They are now pushing for a Commission of

Investigation into who knew and turned a blind
eye

L to R: Paul Walsh, barrister Darragh Mackin, Colin

Power, Jason Clancy

Victims of paedophile Bill Kenneally have

described the outcome of the case taken

against him as a form of window dressing.
Six have said they now believe senior gardai,
members of Fianna Fail, the Catholic Church and
staff at the South Eastern Health Board were
told about the abuse but failed to act.
They are now pushing for a Commission of
Investigation into who knew and turned a blind
eye.

Search in Tyrone for girl missing for over 20 years ends

with nothing suspicious being found

Belfast-based human rights lawyer Darragh

Mackin is representing them.
In the past week Mr Mackin has written to

Justice Minister Frances Fitzgerald to bring the

case to her attention.
Victim Jason Clancy said: I dont know whats
more hurtful, the abuse or the fact that people
in authority knew that I was being abused and
did nothing.
They could have taken me out of my misery at
any stage but they chose not to.
Kenneally was convicted at Waterford Circuit
Criminal Court on February 19, when he pleaded
guilty to 10 sample counts of indecent assault.
He is now serving a 14-year prison term but is
appealing the severity of the sentence.
Mr Mackin said: The prosecutorial process
merely examined one aspect of the
circumstances that give rise to our clients
concerns that there existed a clear policy and/or
state practice to deliberately prevent the
identification and punishment of Mr Kenneally at
an earlier stage.
His victims describe it as a deliberate cover-up
that facilitated Kenneally continuing to abuse
for years.
READ MORE

Gay Irish couple claim activist urged them to quit parish

choir: 'We only wanted to provide a music ministry'

Although the prosecution did not begin until

2013, it is alleged gardai knew about the abuse
as early as 1985, when one victim reported it to
an officer at Waterford Garda station on the
same day he collected his Inter Cert results.
Meanwhile, another victim, Paul Walsh, claims
when he was 14 two gardai approached him and
warned him to stay away from Kenneally. He
said: Back in 1987 when a guard stopped me in

the pub and told me that there was a file as

long as your arm in the station about him I
actually thought fair play to him.
At the time I was 14 and I naively thought that
meant that it was all going to stop.
Then on a separate occasion Kenneally was
questioned at Waterford Garda station in 1987
on foot of a complaint from another boys
father.
Despite admitting to handcuffing, blindfolding
and abusing boys when interviewed by Supt
Sean Cashman he was released without charge
and continued to prey on his victims.
Kenneally, an accountant from the well-known
Fianna Fail family in Waterford his uncle Billy
Kenneally was TD for the city used money and
alcohol to entice boys.
Some, but not all of them, were basketball
players he coached.
In November 2012, dad of four Jason Clancy
said he went to gardai and told them he had
been repeatedly abused by Kenneally on a
weekly basis for three-and-a-half years in the
mid-1980s.

Pictured are victims of sports coach Bill Kinneally:

Colin Power, Jason Clancy, Kevin Keating and Barry
Murphy.

start of widget id: 8038267, name:

relatedContents, view: readMoreLinks
READ MORE

Parents of murdered Swiss teen vow never to forgive

her evil Irish killer
end of widget id: 8038267, name: relatedContents, view:
readMoreLinks

He also gave officers a list of names of other

men that were also abused in their teens.
Shortly after Mr Clancy made a statement,
gardai raided Kenneallys house at Laragh,
Summerville Avenue, Waterford, and during the
search he admitted to abusing up to 20 boys.
Kenneally offered to give officers a list of the
names of the boys he abused.
But Mr Clancy claims five months passed by and
detectives attempted to contact a couple of the
men on the list Mr Clancy had given them but

then stopped making enquiries.

They did not return to collect the list which
Kenneally had volunteered to give them. Mr
Clancy said he was forced to speak to a
journalist in order to get his abuser removed
from a youth basketball club.
He said when he first contacted Waterford
Garda station he was told Kenneally had never
appeared on our radar.
Mr Clancy then gave a statement to two female
officers who were trained in dealing with sexual
assault cases.
He also gave gardai a list of names of other
men who were abused by Kenneally around the
same time and asked detectives to contact
them. One of the people Mr Clancy asked
officers to contact in mid-December 2012 had
not heard anything by the middle of February
the next year.
This other victim began trying to contact
Waterford Garda station by phone himself in
order to arrange to make a statement.
He lives abroad and wanted gardai to request
through Interpol he be facilitated to give his
statement at his local police station.
start of widget id: 8038267, name:
relatedContents, view: readMoreLinks
READ MORE

11-year-old boy killed in Offaly road collision

end of widget id: 8038267, name: relatedContents, view:
readMoreLinks

It was only when the story broke in the public

domain a requisition letter was sent to Interpol
to arrange for the statement to be given. One of

the main causes of concern is a number of

questions left unanswered about a video tape
discovered in the search of Kenneallys house.
Mr Clancy said: I was told by two separate
gardai a paedophilia video was found in the
search.
But in the court case the detective said nothing
of a paedophilia nature was found.
The two gardai that I gave my statement to,
however, told me that they found a video tape
wrapped up in Sellotape and I even know who
the victim was on that video and I know that he
was a minor when Kenneally made that video of
him. I want to know why they withheld this from
the DPP.
And also about a month before the trial the
gardai told me there is a chance that this man,
who abused and tortured me, could walk away
from a jail sentence.
All because there was no evidence to prove
that he had continued abusing after 1987 when
they let him go from the station but all that time
they held the piece of evidence that proved he
did.
http://www.irishmirror.ie/news/irish-news/victims-paedophile-billkenneally-want-8909334

Got a letter from SW last week saying they wanted to see

bank statements, for a review of my rent supplement.
Naturally, i contacted bank and CU and aksed for paper
statements to be sent out, so i could forward them to SW.
This week i get a letter from another member of staff at
SW informing me they are reducing my payment by 20
euro a week, they have not yet received the paperwork
they asked for yet! FFS.... Anyways in the meantime, i
have been trying to put money away, to make sure that
wee can keep a car on the road. looks like i am going to
have a battle on my hands, between trying to work out

whom i should be liasing with, let alone what my

"entitlement" is? And as for being "permitted" to save to
stay mobile??? How do they expect me to get colin to
appointments at hospital and mind him. kids are sitting LC
this year and i cant even drive them to school at the
moment, as colin needs a bit of extra care, since his
epilepsy diagnosis... the old fight or flight syndrome is
really playing out it stress levels on my body, ready to
crack. feels like i am watching the last 17 years work
rearing the kids go down the drain. not fucking good.
Update: what it feels like IS a lie!!! lol, nearly got sucked
into a dark cloud. last 17 years work is very safe and done,
what ever tabout the LC, my girls a fucking brilliant young
"learner" ladies, period. Proud of my girls
something is wrong somewhere. just calming down a bit more first
and sorting breakfast n clothes to wear ect. keeping calm is key to
not sounding like a deranged loony, lol. colin really could do without
all this too, but at least its an excuse to leave the house.

Mary Lou McDonald T.D. questions Garda

Commissioner at Public Accounts
Committee
Feb 23, 2014
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kBe34Mq5TrE

Garda Whistleblower, John Wilson, Calls

for the Resigination of Alan Shatter, 192-2014
Feb 19, 2014
Garda whistleblower, John Wilson, on the sacking of Oliver

Connolly, a lawyer who was appointed to hear complaints of

malpractice from serving garda:
"I met Mr Connolly on a number of occasions and I found him in
all occasions to be a decent and honourable man," he said.
"I am very disturbed at the manner of his dismissal.
"As confidential recipient, he couldn't investigate the
allegations that members of the Garda Sochna had made. He
was purely the postman."
Mr Wilson added: "I believe there is a very unhealthy
relationship that exists between Garda Commissioner Martin
Callinan and Mr Shatter."
http://www.irishexaminer.com/breaking...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?
v=U4XTIpsADsA

nothing changes......the scum media, garda and government

are not the one's lying.......but the whistle blower is....what
a joke.....our government and garda along with rte are
probably the most corrupt in the western world.........the sick
fucks they actually think the people belive the crap where
spoon feed.....next they'll be telling us our credit rating will be
in the red because with didn't pay our water bills

GSOC investigate Garda

Feb 14, 2014
Garda Commissioner Martin Callinan has said he's satisfied
that the force didn't bug the offices of GSOC.
Speaking alongside Justice Minister Alan Shatter at an event in
Templemore today, Callinan said:
"I want to unequivocally state that at no stage was any
member of the Garda Sochna Ombudsman Commission or
any of its members under surveillance by An Garda Sochna."
"That was not the case and I relayed that to the Chairman of
the Garda Sochna Ombudsman Commission when he came
to see me last Tuesday and the Chairman in turn assured me
that having carried out their investigations that there were no
matters of concern arising for An Garda Sochna".
hmmmmmmmmmm nothing?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2x7qGdMVW-E

The final speech by Garda commissioner

Martin Callinan that
Mar 25, 2014
Garda Commissioner delivers he's famous speech at public
accounts committee, and says the words DISGUSTING that
ultimately brings him to resign weeks laters, about the two
whistle blowers, garda's Maurice McCabe and John Wilson re
the corruption of penalty points been wiped from the system
by superior officers in the force without reason, and ignored by
Alan shatter minister for Justice Ireland.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ISRwk1nYk2w

Garda Commissioner Martin Callinan

before Committee of Public Accounts
Feb 22, 2014
Garda Commissioner Martin Callinan appears before
Committee of Public Accounts
January 23, 2014
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QCE3TA7mkMg

Garda Commissioner Martin Callinan

Interview
Jan 24, 2014
Garda Commissioner Martin Callinan is interviewed by Pat
O'Connell on the anniversary of the cold blooded murder of
Det. Gda Adrian Donohue at Lordship, Co. Louth.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7j_Ksga7CjE

SEP 14th 2014

Former Commissioner of the Garda Sochna Martin
Callinan - The Fennelly Commission - Garda Sochna
Converts to a Private Corporate Militia - Vancouver,
Canada to Cork, Ireland - University College Cork and Bord
Iascaigh Mhara Collusion - 6 Million Out of EU Horizon
2020 Project Into UCC Coffers (Vitamin D Group) Harvesting Food or "Harvesting" an Entrepreneur's Idea "Pissing Down a Man's Back and Calling it Sweat" - Breach
of Confidentiality - Insiders Cutting Deals Among
Themselves - B.C. Canada's CA$6 Billion Marijuana

Industry and Vancouver's 4/20 Day

Martin Callinan was Ireland's Commissioner of the Garda
Sochna
Something foul in its stench is blowing with the wind from
the core of the Irish Criminal Justice System. This foul
smelling wind has blown from the Taoiseach onto the
Minister of Justice, past the president of the High Court,
into the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, and into the
offices of the Fennelly Commission of Inquiry. These types
of commissions are British-style coverups, and most
everyone by now is fairly savvy to the commission game
being played, knowing full well these commissions are
never transparent. These commissions are also very
selective and prejudiced on what is used as evidence in
their investigations, as we will see. For the Fennelly
Commission, there is a file of documents that is being
ignored, a very important file that contains photos taken
of the complainant sitting inside the offices of GSOC, the
Irish equivalent to the Independent Police Ombudsman to
Ireland. One of the photos shows the complainant on
March 24, 2014 at 14:10pm ready to submit a file that
could possibly result in no confidence in Fine Gael.
Taoiseach Enda Kenny
Martin Callinan (not friendly to whistleblowers) is the
former Commissioner of the Garda Sochna, which is
Ireland's national police force. Martin Callinan retired in
March 2014, although controversy remains about whether
Callinan actually retired of his own accord or if he was
forced to resign. Garda Sochna is more commonly
referred to as the Garda, or "the guards"; in American
lingo, the cops. The service is headed by the
Commissioner of An Garda Sochna who is appointed by
the Irish government. Its headquarters are in Dublin's
Phoenix Park. Martin Callinan is a two-time graduate of the
US's Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) National
Academy in Quantico, Virginia, qualifying in law

enforcement management. It is alleged that Taoiseach

Enda Kenny personally contacted Martin Callinan and
suggested that Callinan retire. Americans would say: "Take
a hike, you're fired." In Ireland, there is a complete and
continuing breakdown in the confidence the Irish people
have in their government and Garda Sochna. One has
wonder whether the roughly 39.6 million Americans who
claim Irish heritage don't have the exact same sentiments
about their government and police, including the FBI that
the Irish have? A notable Irish American who felt that way
was John O'Neill, and he ended up dead in the rubble of
the WTC towers.
As it stands right now, the people of Ireland do not have a
police force that is there to protect them. Garda Sochna
has become more of a private commercial militia for
private financial interests, very similar to what the FBI in
the US has become. Sort of makes one wonder what kind
of tips Callinan picked up while at the FBI? They probably
have a course at the FBI titled: "How to Handle
Whistleblowers." All protections to safeguard openness,
transparency and protection of the Irish people within
Garda Sochna (the "Guards") have been eviscerated.
Part of the reason for the Fennelly Commission being set
up by the government of Ireland, was to investigate Martin
Callinan's alleged forced "resignation."
"Civil servant" Brian Percell was sent to Martin Callinan's
home and the message seemed clear: "Was he given a
whiskey and a revolver and told to make a choice"? Sinn
Fein leader Gerry Adams said, "the power to remove a
Garda commissioner could only be taken by Cabinet, and if
the Taoiseach acted alone it would be unlawful." One of
the reasons given for Callinan's resignation, was a claim
that Callinan was too close" to Alan Shatter. Too close?
Alan Shatter is a Jewish (Irish) Fine Gael politician. Shatter
was once the Minister of Justice and Equity from March
2011 until May 2014. Justice for who? Equity is selective
with these people. Try blowing the whistle in Ireland to see
just how much "justice" and "equity" there really is.
The controversy hanging over Ireland's Garda Sochna

has to do with the "Garda phone recordings controversy."

Unauthorised recordings made since the 1980s of
conversations between some 28 Garda stations around
Ireland of targeted individuals. These allegations could
have a very serious impact on the outcome of
prosecutions since the 1980s. This is criminal behavior on
the part of Ireland's Garda Sochna since the 1980s.
Garda Sochna since the 1980s, had been illegally
tapping into private telephone conversations to obtain
evidence. Law and justice in Ireland have become worse
and has it stands now, there is no transparency or
accountability. According to a recent discussion with a
journalist in Ireland, the laws have become "unacceptable
and only becoming worse." The telephone recordings
controversy came about during the investigation into the
death of Sophie Toscan du Plantier. (Edited: The French
police are in Cork, Ireland interviewing people on the
murder of Sophie du Plantier as of September 30, 2015.)
The Fennelly Report was released on September 1, 2015,
with most people's eyes simply glazed over when they
saw this investigative 300 page boiler plate report. On
September 2, 2015, Fianna Fil and Sinn Fin, announced
plans to table motions of no confidence in Taoiseach Enda
Kenny, following the publication of the interim report of
the Fennelly Commission. And that has been the way it is
the past ten years in Ireland investigating crime and
corruption: One investigation after another with a
continuing ineffectual litany of superfluous "official
reports" offered solely to appease the public.
To "investigate" serious allegations of fraud and continuing
police corruption, the Fennelly Commission was
established April 2014, by the government of Ireland. The
Fennelly Commission is headed by its sole member, Nial
Fennelly, a retired justice of Ireland's Supreme Court. Nial
Fennelly identified three separate areas within the
Fennelly Commission's investigations:
1. Garda phone recordings controversy: unauthorised
recordings made since the 1980s of conversations to and
from some Garda stations (other than 999 emergency
telephone number calls, recorded as a matter of course).

2. Death of Sophie Toscan du Plantier: evidence from

phone recordings at Bandon Garda station of misconduct
in the investigation.
3. Martin Callinan: circumstances of his retirement as
Garda Commissioner in March 2014.
Earlier this year on March 23, 2015, Jack Healy-O'Connor
provided a detailed and well documented packet of
information given to the offices of An Taoiseach Enda
Kenny, with the request that his packet of documents
related to the case the Fennelly Commission was
investigating (the Fennelly Commission report was
released on September 1, 2015) concerning Martin
Callinan, be forwarded to the Fennelly Commission. The
assistant private secretary to the Taoiseach,
acknowledged receipt of Jack's documents on March 23,
2015, and then the file was thought to have been
forwarded to the Minister for Justice Frances Fitzgerald as
the point of contact. As Jack later informed GRECO (Group
of States Against Corruption) in his contacting GRECO
seeking help, which will be explained later, none of the
documents were ever forwarded to the Fennelly
Commission. In these two videos immediately below, Jack
Healy-O'Connor explains his circumstances
Jack Healy's continuing updates can be followed at twitter:
Fennelly Commission
Three months later, on June 3, 2015 at 15:50pm, Jack
Healy-O'Connor went into the Fennelly Commission offices
to physically hand his file of documents directly to the
Fennelly Commission. After handing the file of documents
to the secretary working in the offices of the Fennelly
Commission, Jack asked for a written receipt from the
secretary. She told Jack that rather than a written
statement of receipt, she would send Jack an email
confirming receipt of the documents. Forty-five minutes
later, after Jack checked, there was no email sent
confirming receipt of the file.
Since no email was sent confirming receipt of Jack's file,
he went again to the offices of the Fennelly Commission

the next day on June 4, 2015 at 10:00am, inquiring about

his file of documents prepared for the Fennelly
Commission that was left the previous day. Jack wanted
his file of documents returned to him, or he wanted a
written acknowledgment of their receipt. While at the
Fennelly Commission office videotaping the confrontation,
Jack Healy had the unexpected opportunity to briefly meet
with Justice Nial Fennelly outside his offices recorded in
the video clip immediately below. Jack Healy is in the clip
inquiring about the file he prepared for the Fennelly
Commission. Information in the file included documents
regarding a number of serious complaints about Martin
Callinan and Garda Sochna.
Jack Healy comments in the video clip that "this is a
commission set up to look into police corruption, and
unbelievably enough, the office where the Fennelly
Commission is headquartered doesn't even have a
telephone number that can be accessed." The Fennelly
Commission offices are located at a semi-secret location;
there is no publicly accessible website, and there is no
phone number available to contact the commission. The
domain name for the Fennelly Commission website,
fennellycommission.ie, is registered with the Taoiseach
Enda Kenny's office but is not accessible.
The following video recording was taken inside the
Fennelly Commission of Inquiry offices on June 4, 2015,
when Jack Healy went personally to inquire about his
information he documented on Martin Callinan and police
corruption. Nial Fennelly does not acknowledge any
confirmation of Jack Healy's documents being received,
and states he knows nothing about the documents Jack
submitted. According to Jack Healy, this video allegedly
proves that An Taoiseach Enda Kenny, and Minister for
Justice Frances Fitzgerald, were deliberately preventing
Nial Fennelly from receiving Jack's file of documents.
Taoiseach Kenny & Frances Fitzgerald acting criminally &
"Ultra Vires"

The entire country of Ireland is presently wanting to know

the facts surrounding the reason why the Chief of Police of
Ireland Martin Callinan was "sacked", and the specific
reasons behind his alleged resignation, as well as the
endemic corruption that is becoming worse. What the
people of Ireland want to know is, did Taoiseach Enda
Kenny have Martin Callinan sacked, and if he did, why and
for what reasons? Did Taoiseach Enda Kenny quash any
and all attempts to forward Jack's file of documents
concerning his legitimate complaints of police corruption
to the Fennelly Commission when Jack tried submitting
them to the offices of Taoiseach on March 23, 2015? A
serious question for the Fennelly Commission is, if An
Taoiseach Enda Kenny had Martin Callinan sacked, was
Callinan being forced out covered up by the Supreme
Court Justice of Ireland Susan Denham, with the
cooperation of the President of the High Court of Ireland
Nicholas Kearns, and the Minister for Justice Frances
Fitzgerald?
The other serious concern the Irish people have is the
actual legitimacy of the Fennelly Commission. Did the
commission with its sole member, Nial Fennelly, present
conclusive evidence of criminal behavior in the final report
to indict individuals incriminated by the investigation? Of
course not. That proposition isn't a very likely outcome of
this commission. In the history of "commissions," there
has never been a favourable outcome benefiting "justice"
or "equity." The opinion the Irish have of Nial Fennelly is
that not only is he an honest man, but so is his brother
and family. In fact, Nial Fennelly may actually be such a
gentleman that he could be "fooled quite easily by
imposters of his own ilk." It may also be quite possible and
plausible, that Justice Nial Fennelly was too rushed in his
review of Jack Healy's well documented complaint of
police corruption. It was officially confirmed by him as
being received at 10am on June 4th, 2015 (please see
video immediately above of Jack Healy video taping his
brief but polite encounter with Nial Fennelly at the
Fennelly Commission office), and that Justice Fennelly in
essence, did not read pages 33 thru 66 which all came
within the terms referenced in the Fennelly Commission of

Inquiry.
From the looks of what Jack Healy discovered after
personally going to the commission's office to inquire on
the status of his documents, this commission set up to
"investigate police corruption," was not very concerned
about receiving any evidence in the form of what Jack
Healy had submitted. After following up, Jack Healy's file
was briefly reviewed by Nial Fennelly, and then quickly
dismissed the same day June 4, 2015, without any further
review or consideration, saying Jack's documented
complaints were "inadmissible to the terms of the Fennelly
Commission."
Jack Healy alleges in his complaint to GSOC on March 24,
2014, that Martin Callinan and Eamon Gillmore (Former
Minister of Foreign Affairs) were possibly in receipt of
some type of financial incentive structured (politically
expedient to provide Canadian passports to Irish looking
for work in Canada) between the governments of Canada
and Ireland, to cover-up the Vancouver police being in
Ireland, Dublin and Cork, or agreements were made to
allow Vancouver police into Ireland. These are very serious
accusations, however, Jack feels this was a possibility.
These possible "bribes" Jack asserts, were provided to the
Irish police and possibly others in the government of
Ireland, in order to allow the Vancouver, Canada police to
enter Ireland on several occasions from September 2011
to July 2015, for the specific purpose or intent, to either
physically abduct or make attempts on Jack's life. Jack
makes this inference because he was offered a bribe on
April 21, 2010 over the phone recorded at 19:08pm, when
Jack exposed serious deficiencies regarding the Vancouver
Police Department (VPD) while in Canada. Although no
amount was offered to Jack, he was continuously asked in
response to questions about young girls he witnessed who
were drugged with potent doses of marijuana on April 20th
2010 in Vancouver, "What do you want? What do you
want," as if to get Jack to be quiet or disappear (please
read Jack's experiences below in the section on
Vancouver).

The other allegations are that while Jack was in Canada,

drugs were planted on him in order to set him up, and also
getting him involved in fraudulent businesses that go back
to April, 2010. Jack Healy claims he was involved in the
coverup, which occurred on April 21, 2010, involving a
victim who was a Vancouver police officer alleged to be
scapegoated at the time Peter Hodson. Hodson had been
under investigation for marijuana sales for two months
prior to April 20, 2010, but was arrested the very same
day Jack Healy contacted the Vancouver police with his
complaint about the events on 4/20 Day. As a result of Jack
exposing children given potent doses of marijuana
attending the 4/20 Day event in Vancouver on April 20,
2015, this exposure embarrassed and compromised the
Vancouver police, where Jim Chu was the chief of police at
the time (retired May 2015).
After exposing police complicity and incompetence in
Vancouver in 2010, Jack has been continuously harassed
and maliciously targeted by the Vancouver police from
August 26, 2010 until he was forced to flee Canada on
October 24, 2010. Please see the written explanations and
documentation of Jack's claims here. Jack alleges that
after fleeing Canada, he went back to Ireland, and then
seven months later to Germany. Jack suspects the
Vancouver police, or possibly the police in Ireland,
contacted the German police, and an attempt was made
to abduct him in Germany. As soon as Jack arrived in
Germany, he went to an internet cafe where two men
walked in shortly after him, one who looked particularly
"aggressive and brutish," began scrutinizing Jack.
This was all provided to GRECO and the Fennelly
Commission and neither GRECO or the Fennelly
Commission acted on Jack's allegations of police
corruption, possible bribery, collusion and criminal intent
to maliciously threaten Jack's life. This has all been
ignored by the Fennelly Commission as a commission
ostensibly set up to investigate police corruption; all the
while police from Vancouver, Canada were in Ireland's
jurisdiction and suspected of colluding with the Irish police
concerning Jack's activities both in Vancouver, Canada and

in Ireland. All records of Jack Healy contacting the

Vancouver police about some serious events Jack
witnessed while at the 4/20 Day event in Vancouver,
Canada, held on April 20, 2010, written about in the
section below on Vancouver have been quashed.
One of the more serious allegations, were that possibly
minors, 16 years old and younger, who were in attendance
at the April 20, 2010 4/20 day event (a one day event that
has just gone completely over the top for cannabis
smoking cultural revelers), could have possibly been
victimized by pedophile rings operating in Vancouver.
There is also an ongoing cover-up on the activities of the
Vancouver police to destroy Jack's life and attempts to
possibly have him killed. This also may be related to
burying evidence of then Vancouver Police Chief Jim Chu's
covering up the reporting of incidents that occurred on
April 20, 2010 related to the framing, firing and
subsequent jailing of Peter Hodson, who by the way in
2011 was almost killed in a knife attack.
On September 2, 2015 Jack Healy emailed the Fennelly
Commission of Inquiry with all the admissible documents
they chose to ignore on June 4, 2015. Jack received
acknowledgment of his email from the executive secretary
working at the Fennelly Commission office on September
2nd. Then, a newspaper report appeared reporting that
the Minister for Justice Frances Fitzgerald, had said on
September 4, 2015, "there is evidence that the Chief of
Police Martin Callinan had instructed a junior officer to
dispose of (shredded) between eight and ten black bags of
personal files including his sim card". The Minister of
Justice had been apparently in possession of Jack's file he
had originally submitted to Nial Fennelly's commission on
March 23, 2015. The executive legal secretary at the
Fennelly Commission office, did not herself pass on the file
Jack had submitted on March 23, 2015 for Judge Nial
Fennelly's commission. The Justice Minister Frances
Fitzgerald herself is guilty of either destroying Jack's file or
suppressing his file between March 23, 2015 and June 4,
2015.

After Jack Healy had sent a followup email to the legal

executive at the Fennelly Commission office on the same
day the 2nd of September, a news article, "Justice minister
says shredding of Martin Callinan's personal papers needs
to be examined," appeared in the journal.ie changing the
story suggesting that the personal papers of Martin
Callinan that were shredded "should be examined."
Despite what is being reported about the sacking of Martin
Callianan and police corruption, there is no mention at all
of Jack Healy's complaint that was well documented and
provided to the Fenelly Commission acknowledged by the
legal executive at the Fennelly Commission office
confirming receipt.
Bringing this up to date, on September 1, 2015, an article
was released by RTE News, titled "Taoiseach receives
Fennelly Commission report", reporting that Taoiseach
Enda Kenny, Teachta Dla, received the report from the
Fennelly Commission on the departure from office of
former Commissioner of the Garda Sochna Martin
Callinan. While Jack was being targeted and victimized by
Prime Minister Enda Kenny and Martin Callinan, Jack was
advised by a commercial lawyer named Paul Sreenan,
barrister in the Dublin Law Library, who Jack thought to
report his concerns to about the Vancouver Police being in
Ireland to his local police station, to not aggregate the
situation any further in Vancouver. So instead, Jack wanted
to concentrate on creating a source of revenue to protect
himself from these matters, should they persist.
And so Jack Healy-O'Connor set up a food company which
is now the subject of an enormous EU fraud investigation
involving the Prime Minister of Ireland, Minister for
Agriculture, Food and Marine Simon Coveney, and the
President of University College Cork Michael Murphy, seen
below in an image celebrating their coup over Jack Healy's
commercial business on January 31, 2014 at UCC.
Introducing the European Union Horizon 2020: Horizon
2020 is the biggest European Union Research and
Innovation program ever with 80 billion of funding
available over 7 years made available between 2014 to

2020. This EU incentive program comes out of tax payer

funding. Not only is this tax money of 80 billion available,
but the spinoff opportunities are expected to attract
further private investment to the EU. EU Horizon 2020
according to their website, "promises more breakthroughs,
discoveries and world-firsts, by taking great ideas from the
lab to the market." We would like to draw the reader's
attention to the description: "from the lab to the market,"
because this is paramount to Jack Healy's case. As we will
see, the European Union Horizon 2020 program is more
like having a monopoly on new businesses and products
by insiders having access to that 80 billion in tax payer
funding.
EU Horizon 2020 is the financial instrument implementing
the Innovation Union, a Europe 2020 flagship initiative
aimed at securing Europe's global competitiveness. Seen
as a means to drive economic growth and create jobs,
Horizon 2020 has the political backing of Europe's leaders
and the Members of the European Parliament. They
agreed that research is an investment in our future and so
put it at the heart of the EU's blueprint for smart,
sustainable and inclusive growth and jobs.
On November 1, 2013, University Cork College (UCC) in
Cork, Ireland, received 6 million of the available 80
billion out of the EU Horizon 2020 Research and Innovation
program money. UCC did not declare their college had
received this 6 million (a considerable amount of money)
until an article was published almost one year later on
October 27, 2014 on the journal.ie website making
reference to the 6 million provided to UCC. The UCC
administrator's kept this from being known to the public
for eleven months. Wouldn't UCC administrators be proud
of this funding and immediately use the 6 million funding
out of the Horizon 2020 program as good PR for EU and
UCC business initiatives? The provisions of the EU Horizon
2020 project are structured so that any financing provided
must be spent within a 48 month period.

For eight months out of those eleven months, Jack HealyO'Connor was sitting on the same floor, in the same

building, enrolled in a UCC new food idea course, where

those funds were accepted out of the EU Horizon 2020
program by UCC administrators. These UCC
administrators, were also on the same floor at the
University College Cork in the same department where
Jack was developing his new product. As we will see, Jack
Healy is involved in an enormous conflict of interest
involving fraud and possible criminal collusion. The
sentence quoted here is from the thejournal.ie article,
Cork lab looks to make salmon our new source of Vitamin
D, references the 6 million provided to UCC. The reader
should pay particular attention to the content of the article
and the reference to 6 million funding for UCC:
The project's 7.95 million budget is funded by the
European Union to the tune of around 6 million.
The president of University Cork College is Michael
Murphy, who has been president of UCC since February
2007. Michael Murphy is connected to 6 million
appropriated out of the EU Horizon 2020 program
(taxpayer funded) by UCC, and then not disclosed for
eleven months until it was politically advantageous.
Further details will be outlined as we continue with the
material being revealed here. First though, a background
is required an an organization referred to as GRECO
mentioned earlier.
The Group of States against Corruption (GRECO) was
established in 1999 by the Council of Europe to "monitor
States' compliance with the organization's anti-corruption
standards." GRECO's ostensible objective is to improve the
capacity of its members to fight corruption. GRECO does
this by monitoring States' compliance with Council of
Europe anti-corruption standards through a "dynamic
process of mutual evaluation and peer pressure". GRECO
states that it helps to "identify deficiencies in national
anti-corruption policies, prompting the necessary
legislative, institutional and practical reforms." GRECO
also states that it provides a "platform for the sharing of
best practice in the prevention and detection of
corruption."

Jack Healy initiated contact with GRECO on July 3, 2015,

with his comprehensive complaint submitted to the
Fennelly Commission of Inquiry concerning police
corruption. The records of contact through correspondence
with GRECO on Jack Healy's circumstances related to the
Fennelly Commission, have all been documented and are
available for review. The following image of a letter is
reproduced immediately below. This is only the first of

many documents Jack's file contains that have been

documented and provided to GRECO, as well as being
submitted to the Fennelly Commission. GRECO was
initially contacted by Jack Healy, specifically relating to the
resignation of Martin Callinan, the former Commissioner of
the Garda Sochna. Subsequent to contacting GRECO and
the Fennelly Commission, both have done absolutely
nothing in regard to documents which proved police
corruption, fraud, collusion and criminal intent. Particularly
egregious, are several of what Jack thinks were attempts
on his life, or the very least intimidation and physical
threats against him.
On the 4th of June, 2015, Nial Fennelly deemed Jack's
entire file of documents "inadmissible and not within the
terms of the Fennelly commission." A decision made by
the sole member of the Fennelly Commission. Jack
decided to take his findings that he documented and
submit them to GRECO because of an article he read on
GRECO's June 18, 2015 article concerning "conflicts of
interest arising out of judicial inquiries and overlapping
interests of politicians." GRECO then refused to comment
on Jack's documented materials as well as Nial Fennelly
ignoring all documents Jack submitted originally on March
23, 2015, and than again directly to the Fenelly
Commission on June 3, 2015.
Coming back to Cork, Ireland in September 2012, Jack
Healy opened a farmers market in Cork, Ireland, when he
received an email from the Food Science Faculty at
University Cork College, telling Jack they were looking for
entrepreneurial people with ideas for new food products.
UCC set up a new course on "artisan specialty food"
making contact with people who might be interested in
attending this course. The Department of Agriculture, Food
and Marine under Simon Coveney, provided an incentive
program worked out with University College Cork, in which
66% of the course tuition for this new program, would be
provided to UCC for each person accepted into this nine
month diploma course. Jack Healy jumped at this offer and
after being accepted and paying 1,000, was enrolled in
this UCC sponsored "artisan specialty food course." The
incentive then came from the Administration of

Agriculture, Food and Marine offices of Simon Coveney,

that provided an additional 1,600 to UCC for the course.
Jack enrolled in the artisan specialty food course at UCC
and the course ran from October 2012 through to June
2013.
The Minister of Agriculture, Food and Marine Simon
Coveney and UCC President Michael Murphy, are both
from Cork, Ireland and both are affiliated with the same
political party. A document was released titled "Food
Harvest 2020" (PDF file) in July 2010, by Simon Coveney's
ministry along with five other entities in Ireland: Bord
Iascaigh Mhara (BIM); University College Cork (UCC);
Teagasc (Agriculture and Food Development Authority);
Enterprise Ireland; Bord Bia (Irish Food Board). A
document outlining Ireland's aspirational vision for the
agricultural and food industry. On page 53 of this Food
Harvest 2020 (This is more about "harvesting" a
potentially very lucrative and good idea from an
entrepreneur.) document, it clearly states that if anyone like Jack Healy-O'Connor - approached business agencies
in Ireland with a "seafood consumer orientated product,"
that they are to be given "special expert attention by BIM
and Teagasc."
"The development of innovative, consumer oriented
seafood products should be supported by BIM Seafood
Development Centre and Teagasc Ashtown Food Research
Centre." (page 53)
After six weeks into the "artisan specialty food" course at
UCC, out of the blue came a call from Bord Iascaigh Mhara
(BIM) on December 4, 2012, saying that they had heard of
Jack's amazing food product, and wanted Jack to come to
BIM's offices to talk about Jack's new product idea. Jack
attended an interview the next day on December 5, 2012.
Jack became a "client" as they are referred to, of BIM from
December 5, 2012 to October 14, 2013, where he says he
never once gained access to any working equipment in
BIM, but instead what Jack experienced was littered with
third party attempts to steal Jacks product which was then

to be covered up and facilitated by BIM and UCC.

On December 10, 2014 (The same day as the prolific Irish
Water Dublin Marches, just a short car ride away.), Jack
was at the head office of Enterprise Ireland (EI), with
representatives from Bord Bia, Teagasc and one other
person who Jack did not know but introduced himself as
Pat Cooney, instead of his real name Gary Bond. At this
forty-five minute meeting, Jack divulged his entire
perspective on how great his food item could be for
generating high employment figures in the Irish economy,
if Jack could get an Airline to carry his product. Ryanair
made their move on Jack's food product a few short weeks
ago on August 17, 2015. At this December 10, 2014
Enterprise Ireland vetting of good ideas, none of these
people in attendance even wanted to sample Jack's
product. and yet all of the people at this "Food Works"
course interview had participated in constructing the Food
Harvest 2020 report, where on pg 53, there is specific
reference given to their organisations to assist any food
entrepreneur like Jack Healy-O'Connor, whose product is
directly correlated to the Horizon EU Fund 2020, for access
to potentially as much as 6 million.
On December 5th 2012, Jack Healy was sitting in his UCC
artisan specialty course lectures when cold called by these
agents from BIM to meet with them the following day,
December 5, 2012. The SDC (Seafood Development
Center) facility head said straight off the bat, "his new
product would be worth millions." This was the story in
December 2012, so how far down the chain of command
inside Ireland's Enterprise Agencies must Jack's product
have gone by the time he was attending "false flag"
interviews inside Enterprise Ireland headquarters on
December 10, 2014, where none of these "experts"
associated with these organizations that prepared the
Food Harvest 2020 document, ever mentioned the
description to assist entrepreneurs on page 53 to Jack
even once. But it seems that Ryanair Ireland's success
airline story are willing to bet big on Jack's product, as
they made their move to secure a piece of this product
which is the subject of an enormous EU Public Tax Fraud

Repeated Dil attempts to find out if there has been any

progress in acting on the Moriarty Tribunal findings have
resulted in the same holding statement response from the
Government since May 2012.

Ryan Air Shot 2015-09-25 at 8.15.11 PM

Jack was in the Mayfield Police Station on August 18, 2015.

Ryanair emailed him the letter which is reproduced above,
on August 17th at 09:43am and "post dated" their letter

as 18th August. Jack feels this was was done by Ryanair to

cover their tracks and make it appear that they offered
him a commercial deal on August 18th, and therefore not
in any way designed to stop him from attending Mayfield
Police Station on August 18th. Jack feels strongly Ryanair
sent him the offer early on August 17th so as to stop him
from attending the police station the following day. Jack
departed for France on August 19th 2015.
Jack says the August 17, 2015 offer from Ryanair, was an
attempted bribe offered to him so as not to leave Ireland
on August 19, 2015, as advised by Irish Criminal Justice
lawyers who knew Jack was making the beginnings of a
criminal complaint in Mayfield Garda Station on August 18,
2015, concerning Prime Minister Enda Kenny, Minister
Simon Coveney and Michael Murphy. Jack Healy says from
France where he has been staying for safety reasons, that
Ryanair contacted him on August 17, 2015 with an absurd
letter (reproduced above) of an offer to carry his food
product on all of their flights into Europe even though
Jack's product has zero product sales anywhere in the
European Union.
Actually, what Jack says is that this was done by CEO
Michael O'Leary as a favour for his school colleague Simon
Coveney, who is also from the same area of Cork, Ireland
as Michael Murphy of UCC. The influence of a cartel of
Cork business men is rampant in this case concerning the
circumstances of Jack Healy.
Minister of Agriculture, Food and Marine Simon Coveney
(Chairman of High Level Implementation Committee),
Minister for Enterprise Richard Bruton and Michael
Murphy, President of UCC, were all working together to
make University College Cork a "globally branded food
university as the 4th largest food research University in
the world and the 1st in Ireland." Is it any wonder Jack's
ideas for his new food product were stolen from him? He
was repeatedly misdirected by these people so that they
could walk off with Jack's new food product idea he was
promised he could "make millions off," suggested by
Susan Steele at BIM in their first meeting on December 5,

2012?
These are the senior people from the above government
start up agencies where there was a systemic failure by all
of these people concerning Jack's work who are being paid
at a minimum of 90,000 per year to 240,000 per year,
to stimulate the Irish food sector for the benefit of Ireland:
1. Susan Steele - BIM Head of SDC (Seafood Development
Center)
2. Paul Ward - BIM New Head of SDC
3. Aileen Deasy - BIM project liason
4. Donal Buckley - BIM Overall Head of SDC
5. Kieran Calnan - Senior BIM Executive with IGNITE
6. UCC Ignite Food Technology Transfer Depart
7. Eamon Curtain - Ignite program director
8. Gerry Boyle - Teagasc's top man
9. Pat Daly - Teagasc product development officer
10. Eileen Bentley - Bord Bia/Food works
11. Maeve Connaguy - Enterprise Ireland
12. Food Works Course for new food products
13. New Frontiers Enterprise Ireland course
Jack was provided with a 5,000 "voucher" which he was
required to pay a VAT tax on, from Enterprise Ireland (Irish
tax money), a government initiative for people with good
ideas to explore concepts by applying the Enterprise
Ireland's voucher program. The only way to obtain a
voucher though, is for the applicant to have a limited
liability company (LLC) in place. BIM would be the "expert
knowledge provider" to assist Jack develop his concept
further to becoming a marketable product.
There were actually two 5,000 Euro programs Jack was a
participant on from October 2012 until July 2014. Each
program or duration was either a voucher at BIM worth
5,000: or 5,000 cash injection provided through UCC's
"graduate business accelerator program," IGNITE. In the
UCC IGNITE program, for every work idea the student
presented, he or she was provided 1,000 as a payment
during the five installment payments in UCC IGNITE
program.
On January 31, 2013 according to the Seafood

Development Center(SDC) under the BIM voucher system,

Jack established a company to continue with his product
development. The voucher scheme would then be
facilitated between Jack's limited liability company (LLC)
and BIM. BIM had made agreements in which BIM would
fulfill a certain percentage of the work required to bring
Jack's product to completion. BIM sends invoices to EI for
payment on the vouchers in this system. BIM started
demanding payment from Enterprise Ireland (EI) on the
5,000 vouchers. So, during this time Jack is trying to get
trials done on his product, BIM continued billing Jack for
work BIM did not complete. There existed options as
explained by EI to Jack that were attached to the these
vouchers, and BIM would not adhere to them, instead, BIM
would not cooperate with Jack on these voucher options
and billed him 1,150. Jack was billed this amount, despite
a smoker that malfunctioned, preventing Jack from
continuing his work. Without the proper smoker it was
impossible for Jack to prepare the product anywhere near
what he demanded.

Circumstances started deteriorating and becoming even

more suspicious with BIM and SDC (Seafood Development
Center). These organizations apparently forged documents
suggesting that these two organizations had been working
with Jack on his food product and business ideas for a six
month period prior to Jack establishing his company. Jack
experienced this fraud in BIM/SDC (December 5, 2012
through October 14, 2013) at the same time as he was a
student in UCC's artisan specialty food diploma. Overall,
Jack said he had a good experience enrolled in the UCC
artisan specialty food course program. The dates they
came up with on the documents did not correspond at all
using dates that preceded the time when Jack started up
his own company to take advantage of the voucher
system. This was a complete obfuscation of the facts
concerning BIM's responsibilities. Jack has demonstrated
through documentation that it is legally impossible to

support their position. Jack claimed this was "fraud,

sabotaging his efforts and criminal collusion."
On September 7, 2013, when Jack started the IGNITE
program, much to Jack's dismay, BIM suddenly said at this
time their office was overloaded with other projects and
didn't have time to work with Jack. Why the sudden
change? Jack was accepted by the IGNITE program and
enrolled in this business accelerator program with primary
sponsors being UCC, the Bank of Ireland along with Cork
Local Enterprise (government start up business agency).
Jack became excited when he found out the most senior
executive at BIM, Kieran Calnan, through the IGNITE
program manager, told him that Calnan was a panel board
member of the IGNITE program. Jack was earlier promised
he would have access to Calnan for consultation at
anytime during the nine month UCC food course.
On October 14, 2013, Jack received an unexpected phone
call from an employee of BIM. Jack says he was a "decent
enough skin," and called Jack to give him a "heads up on a
breach of confidentiality" he discovered going on involving
an unknown person who was a food processor who was at
a "disastrous meeting" that had taken place in earlier in
August Jack attended. Jack then asked the IGNITE program
manager to see Kiernan Calnan. Jack was denied a
meeting with him. What we see happening here are
insiders in the IGNITE program, UCC and BIM colluding to
heist Jack's new food product and breaching confidentiality
agreements. When Jack contacted SDC (Seafood
Development Centre which comes under BIM) demanding
to know why there were allegations of this breach of
confidentiality, SDC dropped Jack like a stone.
At the beginning of the year in January 2014, three
months into the program at UCC, and the IGNITE "business
accelerator program," Jack had a second meeting where
he was informed that a new product development was
urgently needed for Jack's product idea. Jack thinks what
was going on here is that insiders were getting out of Jack
all they could on his new product. With the Enterprise
Ireland voucher system available, Jack did everything that
was expected of him including starting up a company on

January 31, 2013, in order to apply for the voucher system

that was granted in March 2013. During an eleven month
period, from December 2012 (two months after he was
enrolled in the program) through November 2013, Jack's
experiences were, "littered with dishonesty, breaches of
confidentiality, lack of trust, negligent mismanagement
and fraud." It was on November 1, 2013, when Jack
learned of the 6 million appropriated out of EU Horizon
2020 program to finance the "exact same type of product,
specie, packaging, category and food product description"
Jack was working to develop.
According to Jack, it was at about this time while all this
was going on between UCC, Enterprise Ireland and BIM,
because of his experiences in Vancouver, Canada in 2010,
which are discussed in the section below, and briefly
mentioned above, that the Vancouver police from Canada
were apparently in Cork, Ireland looking for Jack Healy.
They "attempted abducting" Jack from where he was in a
park in Cork. This was another reason for Jack enrolling in
UCC's new food course after being accepted: to keep
himself "safe and sane" after what he had to endure
discussed in this expose including attempts and threats on
his life. This all goes back to Jack Healy's experiences in
Vancouver, Canada after he worked as a security guard at
the 2010 Winter Olympics in Squamish, Vancouver,
Canada and subsequent to this.
On August 27, 2010, while in Vancouver, Canada, Jack was
being followed by the Vancouver police who were chasing
him down the intersection on Burrard Street and Davie
Street. This comes from earlier attempts by the Vancouver
police trying to set Jack up by planting drugs on him. Jack
described one of the police chasing him as being 6'3 tall
and Asian and about 25-30-years-old. Jack later described
this Asian-looking man chasing him in Vancouver, as the
same man he saw in Dublin, Ireland on September 5, 2011
(Standing outside AIB headquarters, Ballsbridge, Dublin 4,
a piece of real estate recently sold to Irish developer
Johnny Ronan.) traveling to Ireland to either kill Jack or
physically threaten him.

Jack Healy was being chased at the intersection of Burrard

and Davie Street in Vancouver, Canada by the same
Vancouver policeman who was reported seen in Dublin,
Ireland by Jack Healy.
The classes at UCC in the Artisan Specialty food program
began on October 1, 2012. As the classes go on, Jack
started speaking with lecturers at UCC teaching the food
course, on a product he had an idea for called "______
Jerky." The Artisan Specialty food course program
continued while Jack continued to refine his ideas for his
new food product. The people from Bord Iascaigh Mhara
(BIM) who called Jack Healy to come to see them at BIM
described above, were Susan Steele, Aileen Deasy and
Paul Ward (Susan Steele was transferred shortly after
Jack's first contact with these people from BIM). The two
primary people at BIM who Jack alleges "screwed him"
("Criminally colluded against him?" Did they breach
disclosure agreements mentioned earlier after Jack
received a call from a man inside BIM?) between January
13 and October 13, 2013, were Aileen Deasy and Paul
Ward. Susan Steele, who Jack felt was really helpful,
described how Jack was going to "become a millionaire off
this new product he developed."
BIM Board Member Kieran Calnan, would be in the same
building as Jack, on the same floor where the IGNITE
program was being studied, on the last Friday of every
month for nine months as part of his role as a "panel
board member" to this UCC business program. All this time
Jack was denied access to Calnan. As described elsewhere
in this material, Kieran Calnan despite three requests,
never once came to any functions or the end of year
ceremony. BIM Board Member Kieran Calnan avoided Jack
Healy at all costs. In fact, Calnan had a reputation for
helping young entrepreneurs but when it came to helping
Jack, Calnan was no where around and avoided contact.
Despite Jack being the first person in the six year history
of the IGNITE program to develop a "fish product." Who
put the word out at UCC and the IGNITE program to avoid
Jack and why?

At one point, Jack had an unexpected run-in with a panel

member of the IGNITE program after it was finished. Jack
told this panel member of his experiences with IGNITE and
UCC, this IGNITE Panel Board member swears he never
even heard of Jack, or the company Jack set up. As it
turned out in meetings with the IGNITE program
managers, they never once brought up Jack's name at any
of the last Friday of the month IGNITE program panel
board member meetings. There were 9 in total. Earlier, in
December 2012 these same government representatives
from BIM informed Jack "they had heard he had an
amazing fish product," and wanted to speak with him so
as to become one of their "clients."
Were mediocre ideas for new food products passed over
with Jack Healy vetted through the new food product
course as were other students, to possibly appropriate
exceptional ideas on new food ideas for insiders at UCC,
BIM as well as the Department of Agriculture, Food and
Marine and Taoiseach Enda Kenny, all being in the same
political party in Ireland? As we shall soon see, this is a
legitimate question to ask.
On Friday, January 31, 2014, three months into UCC's
IGNITE program while Jack is working on the development
of his product, An Taoiseach, Enda Kenny Teachta Dla,
marked his first visit to University College Cork to deliver a
major speech on "public sector reform and the importance
of public service." In the image below, An Taoiseach Enda
Kenny, Michael Murphy (UCC president) and Minister of
Agriculture, Food and Marine Simon Coveney, were
together at this event held at UCC. Here is An Taoiseach,
Enda Kennedy showing up at UCC three months after 6
million is appropriated out of the EU Horizon 2020 tax
payer funded program by UCC insiders, to fund the
development of a product Jack Healy advanced to a state
of excellence, for their own personal and commercial
interests acting as "government representatives" at this
event celebrating "public sector reform and the
importance of public service." Astonishing what these
people can get away with isn't it? This surely is making a

total mockery of the Prime Ministers duties along with his

colleagues to the people of Ireland by actually giving the
lecture speech a name that was in direct contrast to their
actual motif for being in UCC that day.

Pictured L-R: Minister Simon Coveney, Minister for

Agriculture, Food & Marine, Dr Michael Murphy, President
of UCC, An Taoiseach, Enda Kenny, TD (Teachta Dla)
Cllr. Catherine Clancy, Lord Mayor of Cork, Dr Andrew
Cottey, Head of the Dept. of Government, UCC and Dr
Aodh Quinlivan, Dept. of Government, UCC (Photo by
Tomas Tyner, UCC).
There was a new program initiated between BIM and UCC
(http://www.ucc.ie/en/fitu/courses/seafood/) with many of
Jack Healys lecturers overlapping with the same Food
Science Faculty where Jack was from October 2012 until
June 2013. Isn't it plausible that the same lecturers would
have discussed Jacks product amongst themselves and
given their principal plan or specific Job remit on "visiting
or Finding" individual students who came up with good
ideas for new food products, OR was Jack's idea for a new
food product so exceptional it became the specific subject
inside UCC & BIM to heist from Jack? Bord Iascaigh Mhara
and the University College Cork work together on many
different programs including "sustainable development,"
and the partnership between BIM and UCC launched this
new innovative course which was Ireland's "first diploma
in seafood innovation" that commenced in October 2012,
the same date as when Jack began the Artisan Speciality
food course in Food Science, UCC

UCCFood Industry Training Unit Brochure FITU Brochure &

Newsletter 2013
http://www.ucc.ie/en/media/research/fitu/UCCFoodIndustryTrainingU
nitBrochure2013.pdf

New contract signed with BIM - Back row L to R: Kieran

Calnan, Chairman, BIM; Adrian Towey, Sales Manager,
Sioen & Mullion Ireland; Sean O'Donoghue, BIM Board
Member and Padraig O Ceidigh, BIM Board Member Front
row L to R: Gaetan Frys, General Manager, Sioen & Mullion
Ireland; Simon Coveney, TD, Minister for Agriculture,
Marine and Food and Michael Keatinge, Fisheries
Development & Training Director, BIM
While in this IGNITE program at UCC, Jack became friends
with a man who had his company enrolled in the same
IGNITE program. It was well into the course when this
friend of Jack's noticed at one point that contact was made
with him through the social networking site twitter by a
"follower," someone from the Vancouver, Canada-based
Fisheries Law Centre (FLC). People in the same IGNITE
course program at UCC, knew about what was going on in
Jack Healy's life since becoming friends while studying in
the program. Jack Healy in conversations with these
friends, told them of one incident of the harassment he
received by the police on March 26, 2014. On this day
according to Jack, a death threat was made against him
while he was on Sundays Well Road Cork. This threat was
made the following evening after the sacking of Martin
Callinan, on 26th of March, 2014. There was also
harassment made against Jack while on a street in Cork on
the following morning of the 27th of March.
In this March 27th 2014 incident, Jack Healy left his
friends house at 9:15am and two ambulances, a fire truck
and a van were blocking Jack's van preventing Jack from
leaving. When Jack walked out to get into his van for an
IGNITE business meeting, all these people ("staff")
responsible for these vehicles being there, were according
to Jack, "staring and looking at him strangely". It turned
out that Jack couldn't leave in his van to get to the IGNITE
business presentation meeting, so he had to walk and
ended up being late for the IGNITE pitch. Later that night,

while drinking at a pub with some of his friends in the UCC

course, Jack started talking about what he had been
involved with over the years. Jack's friend (mentioned
above who he met in the food program), sent a message
around to the group saying: "Jack, what have you got me
into?" Apparently, Jack's friend was sort of making a joke.
It appeared to the IGNITE group and Jack that someone in
the Vancouver, Canada-based Fisheries Law Centre, might
have been searching for "Jack [Healy] O'Connor" and
noticed Jack's friend enrolled in the same program.
If readers think this is an exaggeration or Jack is telling
stories about threats made against him to draw attention
to himself, think again. On May 11, 2013 Jack went into a
pub with two of his friends and his brother. When they
walked into the pub, a band was playing called Alan &
Accident. After going into the pub, Jack went to the back of
the pub to the smoking area when a member of the
Special Detective Unit (SDU) walked into the pub. How did
Jack know the guy who walked into the pub after Jack and
his friends along with his brother was SDU? Jack
recognized him instantly from another run in on
September 4, 2015 with him in which at that time, the
SDU guy was dressed in a silver coloured suit, a silver tie,
white shirt and an ear piece that was clearly visible. (This
is the uniform used by the police who prtect the prime
minister in Ireland.)
After entering the pub after Jack did, the SDU guy sat
down in the same smoking area where Jack was sitting.
The SDU guy sat directly in front of Jack so that he was
directly in front of Jack's immediate view. The SDU guy
then turned and looked directly at Jack, but not before Jack
was already intently staring at him. As Jack was staring at
him, the SDU guy turns away and then looks at Jack again
but then quickly avoids eye contact, this went on for
maybe a minute, a minute and a half at most according to
Jack. The SDU guy knew he was already made by Jack. At
that moment, Jack suddenly and intuitively felt this was a
legitimate threat and that the SDU guy was probably not
alone. This guy was definitely the same SDU guy Jack ran
into on September 4, 2011 after exchanging glances with

him.
Jack then got up from his seat in the smoking area of the
pub, and went to the front of the pub where his friends
and brother were sitting in a group listening to the band
play. Jack sat down with them as calm and as patiently as
he could considering what he perceived as being a threat.
Jack avoided telling his two friends and his brother of the
SDU guy's presence in the pub for fear of unintentionally
alarming them. Jack knew that if this SDU guy was there
then he was probably there at the pub with other police
officers. Sitting with his friends and his brother, a few
minutes later after looking around the pub, Jack noticed
another man staring at him from the back of the pub.
When Jack looked back at him, he looked away with Jack
and this guy sitting in the back of the pub, exchanging
glances about three or four times.
Jack then felt there was substantial reason to think this
was a serious threat, so he told his two friends and his
brother and they agreed the best thing to do, was to start
photographing the individuals he suspected of being
police and SDU. Jack felt now this was a very real threat
and these guys were now deliberately targeting him in the
pub. At this point, Jack asked his two friends and his
brother to support him for what was coming next. He told
them he thought the police were in the pub targeting him.
Everyone agreed, so they got up and approached the guy
in the back of the pub who was exchanging glances with
Jack with everyone ready with their cell phone cameras.
When Jack approached the man, he asked him, "Are you a
local?" After the guy said he was a local, Jack told him,
"I'm a local and I don't recognize you." Jack then asked
him what his name was. He responded with "Pat
O'Donovan," who Jack later confirmed to be a man by the
name of Johnny Burke (street thug; alleged to be on the
police force but fired 20 years ago for drug connections).
Jack then told Burke, "I don't don't believe you and I think
you are a cop, not an ordinary cop, but the cream of the
crop." The guy smirked at Jack and said, "Go on."

you do not know any man until you stand on his

toes, now smile for the camera."
The man immediately began to try and cover his face from
being photographed. At that moment, the smoking section
door opened and out walked two men. The first smaller
man deliberately "shouldered" Jack and said, "Good man,
you got your photograph this time but we'll get you next
time." Jack then followed Burke outside the pub where
they had a "row of sorts," when Burke then "admitted an
assassination attempt on Jack," and that this was being
"conducted out of Phoenix Park, Dublin." Jack asserts this
attempt on his life originated out of the Vancouver,
Canada police department. How does Jack know this was
an attempt on his life? Because two months earlier, this
pub was torched and was known to be a pub associated
with drug sales, prostitution and all and kinds of nefarious
criminal activity. It would have been perfect cover to make
a hit on Jack in which his death could have been attributed
to almost to any reason. Jack asserts the police knew he
would be at this pub that night to watch Alan & Accident
play. After Jack followed Burke outside the pub and down
the street, witnesses said they saw two men they did not
recognize try and enter the pub.

Jack standing immediately in front of the alleged SDU guy,

then tells him, "You are standing on my toes," and
continued with, "You do not know any man until you stand
on his toes." Jack then stomped on the SDU guy's foot one
time before Jack put his right arm around the guys
shoulders tightly and said, "Smile for the camera." After
five or six threatening encounters over the past four
years, including in Dublin, in Germany and in Cork, Jack
says he couldn't tolerate these threats any longer
including credible death threats which is why he acted the
way he did in this encounter in the pub.

SDU blown cover on "Pat O'Donovan"when Jack interrupts

their threats and intimidation against him sponsored out of
the Phoenix Park offices in Dublin.
Jack Healy believes that the President of University College
Cork Michael Murphy, was in contact with An Taoiseach
Enda Kenny, concerning the new food product course
initiated at UCC, about Jack's exceptional new food
product. According to Jack's relationship with UCC during
the food course he was enrolled in, he suspects the
president of UCC, Michael Murphy, was asked to "keep an
eye on Jack," and furthermore, that "lecturers in the food

course, were asked by the UCC president" about Jack

Healy. Jack kept being told he "had a very unique
exceptional product," which might have been said Jack
thinks, to encourage him to continue to develop his new
product further.
Referring back to the information on the EU Horizon 2020
program, it is alleged the President of University College
Cork Michael Murphy, made an application to the EU
Horizon 2020 program for 6 million out of UCC which the
amount was confirmed in a news article was published on
October 27, 2014 on the journal.ie website making
reference to the 6 million.

Jack was enrolled in the UCC food course program to

complete the program with a diploma three days a week
attending every three weeks, so his schedule was such
that he could visit the government offices concerned with
the fishing industry in Ireland. At this point during

attendance at UCC, Jack became extremely suspicious

about what is going on concerning his new food product
idea connected to people at UCC, as well as the people
from BIM related to the fishing industry. He spent
December 5, 2012 until October 2013, with these BIM
officials, basically, "quasi-government people with no real
work," who Jack quickly learned started "releasing
information about Jack's new food product and business
idea to fish processors." It appears from the Journal.ie
article that one of those fish processor's is the brother of
the President of UCC Michael Murphy. Surely this EU
Horizon 2020 public tax money should not have been
expended in this program at UCC with such a close
relationship to the president of UCC, unless of course they
wanted to conduct business behind Jack's back?
As time went on while Jack was in this program under
UCC's IGNITE program scheduled to use UCC facilities, as
told already, the BIM representative never met with Jack,
never turned up at any functions, and refused to return
Jacks calls over a nine month period. What was this BIM
"representative's" purpose for being there at UCC affiliated
with this IGNITE "business accelerator program," if Jack
couldn't consult with him as previously promised? This
same BIM representative connected to the fishing industry
and the director of the IGNITE program, who is paid
90,000 annually, knew for some reason in October 2013,
not to go near Jack Healy.
Jack now recognized this avoidance as possibly being
BIM's own hidden motive for avoiding Jack. Here Jack is
enrolled in an "accelerator program" to develop his new
food product, with an expert out of BIM overseeing the
program, and Jack is completely ignored by him? Wouldn't
that raise suspicions in anyone's mind? Then, on
November 1, 2013, from what Jack became aware of, 6
million from the EU Horizon 2020 program arrived at the
same department at UCC, on the same floor and in the
same building where Jack's program director was
employed.
The people working in the Food Technology Transfer
Department (the commercial food arm section of UCC)

inside UCC with a group inside this department known as

"Vitamin D Group," received the 6 million in their
account. Vitamin D was one of the concerns under the EU
Horizon 2020 program in which it was concluded Vitamin
D would be essential in the diet of Europeans. Jack's
product includes significant amounts of Vitamin D. Was
Jack's program director in this program at UCC working in
collusion with BIM? Were they that confident in the
product Jack had developed to the point where they felt
the 6 million out of the EU Horizon 2020 program could
be secured based on Jack's new product? What other
reason would insiders at UCC and BIM possibly have for
securing the 6 million out of the EU Horizon 2020
program? There was no other new food idea being
developed at UCC as unique and with such potential as
the product Jack developed.
Jack has evidence that the program director for the IGNITE
program, never discussed anything with him, or about the
company Jack started. Was his purpose for being there to
keep track of Jack's new product development? To see
where Jack was taking his new company and his new food
idea? Was he there to determine whether or not Jack was
receiving outside funding for his business? Jack thinks
what happened was that UCC applied for the 6 million
from the EU Horizon 2020 program, then using Jack's new
food product idea, while Jack was enrolled in the diploma
program, developed their own business plans. Jack also
suspects they were farming all his ideas and business
direction on his food concept idea letting Jack, unknown to
him at the time, to do all the hard developmental work for
Jack's business idea. This would include marketing ideas,
distribution, customer demographics, packaging and most
importantly for what Jack later found out about: Germany
being the number one country for his product.
During that meeting with BIM officials on December 5,
2012, Jack Healy was told by BIM people, that he would
"run a company for 2-3 years and then sell it for between
5 and 8 million." There confidence in Jack's new product
was that strong. At this point, the EU Horizon 2020
program was open and not applied for by UCC. During the

entire eleven months of the program, Jack was not given

any access to UCC facilities as promised to develop his
new product, instead, Jack's ideas were being cleverly
heisted. Insiders were pillaging all of Jack's ideas and
insights into his business and product plans.
On October 29, 2013, Jack was allowed access to a kitchen
in UCC facilities and was quoted 904 for one day of use
along with 50 salmon product samples to work with. Then,
two days later on November 1, 2013, 6 million shows up
in UCC accounts. The people with access to the 6 million
out of the EU Horizon 2020 public tax-funded program, are
the same people running the IGNITE "business accelerator
program." UCC insiders including UCC President Michael
Murphy, acquire 6 million from the EU Horizon 2020
program, yet UCC required that Jack to pay the 904 costs
for using UCC facilities for one day to develop his product.
How aggregious does it have to get before this is called
criminal collusion?
Throughout the entire previous eight months this was
concealed from Jack, while his ideas and business were
being pillaged from him. The ONLY "acceleration" Jack
received, was an acceleration out of UCC. He had to go far
away from UCC to northern Island to locate facilities and
food samples to develop his product on his own after
being sabotaged at every turn on "clinical trials" with BIM.
Of the appropriated money by UCC received on November
1, 2013, 935,000 of the 6 million from the EU Horizon
2020 program, was allegedly forwarded to a company that
was set up in Germany on February 21, 2014. This was
two days after EU Commmission President Jos Manuel
Barroso arrived in Cork, Ireland and went to the same
building in Cork at University College Cork where Jack
Healy was working on his product on February 19, 2014.
While on his visit to UCC, Barosso received an "honorary
doctorate," while Jack received the UCC door knob in his
butt walking out the door after his new product idea and
business were stolen out from under him.

Manuel Barosso accepting an honorary degree from

UCC
When asked about legal rights UCC has over Jack's
intellectual property including his new product and
business idea, Jack stated that "UCC has no legal
connection" because UCC never allowed Jack to use the
facilities to develop his product. Although Jack was
promised under the IGNITE program he would be given
access to the UCC facilities (kitchen facilities), the costs he
was quoted made it prohibitively expensive for Jack to
continue. Jack was forced to go elsewhere to locate
facilities to develop his business and product at his own
cost without UCC cooperation, while his ideas were
appropriated from Jack by UCC insiders and operatives,
then pursued with the 6 million out of the EU Horizon
2020 program.
It appears that insiders at UCC have a "racket" going on
where ideas and new business concepts are being ripped
off from unsuspecting "clients" as they are referred to.
"Clients" enrolled in UCC's IGNITE "graduate business
accelerator program" have ther ideas ripped off, and then
are passed along this insider network for development
within companies they establish through their
connections. Or was Jack a "special case?" With Jack's
product though, because it was so exceptional and the
potential lucrative, a company was structured in Aachen,
Germany structured as a "financial tax credit company."
Why Germany? Jack studied potential markets available
and out of all the EU countries, Germany had the highest

level of protein consumption meeting one of Jack's

important criteria for marketing his new product. Jack
anticipated Germany becoming the biggest market in the
EU for his unique protein-rich product. The address in
Germany of this company set up to take advantage of
Jack's product idea and manufacturing is located at:
Danziger Strae 70, 10435 Berlin.
Der Sitz ist nach Berlin (Amtsgericht Berlin-Charlottenburg
HRB 159694 B) verlegt.
Settels Ventures Ug (Haftungsbeschrnkt
The company is in Aachen (Germany) registered at:
HRB 18844
Settels Ventures UG (haftungsbeschrnkt)
Aachen, Kruppstrae 34, 52072
Aachen
On February 19, 2014, as mentioned above, the EU
Commission President Jos Manuel Barroso visited Cork to
officially open the same building where Jack Healy was
working inside developing his food product. Two days later
in Aachen, Germany, the company described above is
established with 935,000 in capital, and also with a QR
code (Quick Response). This is precisely Jack Healy's idea
of his business plan for packaging of his product. This
company in Germany does nothing until July 10, 2014. Two
days later, Jack Healy leaves UCC. Then eight months later
on March 8th 2015, what is described as a "financial tax
credit company," purchased Jack Healy's product domain
name in Germany referred to as ******Jerky.de.
The company set up in Aachen, Germany is going to be
too difficult to prove its reason for being established
unless Jack Healy can go there himself to get more
information on the nature and establishment of this
company. But the question here is, why is a "financial tax
credit company" set up in Aachen, Germany, investing
only in Jack Healy's product website domain name? It's
food product, not a financial instrument. Whoever is
behind this company in Germany were they preparing to
move on Jack's product and business idea? Jack raises
serious allegations, like what is this company in Aachen,
Germany doing with nearly 1 million? What is the

connection between the principals of this company set up

in Aachen, Germany and administrators at University
College Cork? And is this company trading or doing
anything other than buying Jack Healy's exact product
website domain name for conducting business in
Germany?
How is that for a unique perspective on theft? A slicklynamed program called "IGNITE" set up as an insider
business and new product incubator operation to possibly
heist ideas by insiders off "clients" in the program for their
own new food business development under cover of a
"university-sponsored program?" The thought that Jack's
work, his time, his energy, money and all his ideas on his
remarkably unique food product, all being appropriated
out from under him during his enrollment at UCC, with
financing being obtained to the tune of 6 million out the
EU Horizon 2020 program by UCC insiders incluind UCC's
President Michael Murphy, is appalling.

So, Jack is in this program at UCC, and there he was sitting

all the while from September 7, 2013 with the EU public
tax money sent to UCC on November 1, 2013 and Jack is
handing up all his work until July 8, 2014, with the people
connected to UCC and this program allegedly there as
"mentors and business professionals," stealing Jack's food

product idea and business with 6 million out of the EU

Horizon 2020 program, to develop Jack's product. Jack
knew these people were corrupt as hell which is why he
didn't share with them any further ideas on development
of his food product. On June 25, 2014, at UCC in front of
500 people where the President of UCC Michael Murphy
presented Jack his diploma on finishing this food course,
all Michael Murphy can say to Jack was: "I can't wait to see
clinical trials on this one." "Can't wait"? Why would that
be, Michael? Would that be why BIM backtracked on their
obligations agreed on with Jack, and then intentionally
made cost prohibitive for Jack to continue his own "clinical
trials?"
Jack Healy finished the business program on July 8, 2014,
and within two weeks, he noticed a Irish Times newspaper
article describing how UCC were developing "(redacted)
Crisps." After seeing the Irish Times article July 2014
article, Jack immediately sent to UCC, a legally worded
letter to remind UCC administrators of their confidentiality
agreement with Jack Healy (hyper linked below). UCC was
attempting to ignore the confidential agreement signed
between UCC and Jack Healy which is documented and
available for review.
Instead of Jack being recognised for his work at UCC,
Michael Murphy said to Jack on stage mentiond above: "I
can't wait to see the clinical trials on this one!" Jack
apparently did not initially understand the nature of this
remark until this news article appeared, illuminating Jack
to the utter abuse he endured while in the IGNITE
program.
Jack had just completed their "graduate business
accelerator program," where he was prevented from using
the university's kitchen facilities. This was done by giving
Jack a cost prohibitive quote for use of the facilities on
October 29, 2013, just two days before the Food
Technology Transfer Department (the Vitamin D Group)
obtained the 6 million out of a EU Horizon 2020 funding
program. This money was given to UCC on the basis they
would spend this money on small to medium-sized

enterprises that would co-operate in return for allowing

UCC'S students to be part of a co-agreement venture.
Jack Healy-O'Connor presented at the IGNITE closing
ceremony awards, a completely new food product item.
The product was considered a "global market-maker food
product item" for Jack's idea on a paleo diet product. He
received no awards at all from the judging panel, even
though Jack was showing a totally new concept to a panel
made up of the 4th largest food research university in the
world, the number 1 benefactor of food research funding
in Ireland at UCC. These award-winning producers of
previous products, all stated that Jack Healy's product was
"possibly the best product they had ever seen," even
better than their previous Gold Star Winners at the
prestigious UK Fine Guild of Food Awards.
The conflict of interest that arises here is, why did UCC not
announce in November 2013 that they had just been
awarded a significant sum of money from the EU? Surely
this was a great publicity story for the College. Why did
UCC not release this good news anytime in the early part
of 2014? Why would UCC wait until October 2014 to
release this newspaper article about funding money held
in an account on the same floor in the same building
where Jack was sitting in duress over the financial
conditions attached to the program?
This must be the most blatant conflict of interest of all
exposed by UCC's own arrogance as to have a newspaper
article produced on themselves of their self-serving
interests on "clinical trials" of this new product at Jack's
expense. This is what the excitement was about with
UCC's President Michael Murphy making the comment he
did to Jack at the diploma awards ceremony. Murphy
apparently couldn't contain himself or his intentions when
he handed Jack his certificate in Aula Maxima in UCC on
June 25th 2014.
The long wait was over for Michael, his family (especially
his brother), friends, Enterprise Agency facilitators and EU
Commission Funders!

What now seems to be a very real possibility, is that An

Taoiseach Enda Kenny, TD, does not want the people of
Ireland to know that Jack Healy has been in contact with
the Bank of Ireland to report the 6 million appropriated
out of the EU Horizon 2020 program which is public tax
fund money, by insiders connected to Enterprise Agency,
UCC and BIM, directed to facilitate the establishment of a
company to produce Jack Healy's new food product in
Europe. Jack Healy asserts that the Minister of Agriculture,
Food and Marine, Simon Coveney, is centrally involved
after exchanging with Simon Coveney, more than a dozen
letters of correspondence (see below for links to letters)
between himself and Minster Simon Coveney. Jack had
met Simon Coveney face-to-face at an event in July 2014,
referred to as the Manison House talk. When Jack returned
from this meeting, he immediately folowed up by writing a
letter to Simon Coveney.

Ireland Minister of Agriculture, Food and Marine Simon

Coveney (Teachta Dla)
In the following video done by Jack Healy, a summary
using placards for further clarity provides a concise
overview of the criminal behavior, corruption, threats to
his life, financial fraud, how Jack Healy's business was
stolen from him through powerful people connected to
University College Cork (UCC) and BIM when he was in an
advanced IGNITE business program at UCC. He further
explains how 6 million in public tax funds were
appropriated under highly questionable circumstances out

of the EU Horizon 2020 program and used to set up a

company in Aachen, Germany, to establish and facilitate a
business all based on Jack Healy's ideas and work while
attending UCC classes under confidentiality agreements.
Published on September 1, 2015 (All commentary has
been edited for further clarity)
Allegation: Peter Hodson, April 21st 2010, father of four
children, loyal husband to his wife, leader in his
community, was framed, fired, jailed, survived attempted
murder, carried out by his own force leader to protect a
child sex ring in, Vancouver , Canada. Peter Hodson's
illegal and wrong doing was carried out by Chief of Police
to Vancouver, Jim Chu, supported by Mayor Gregor
Robertson, now Justice Minister Suzanne Anton, editor to
The Vancouver Sun Newspaper Patricia Graham and staff.
Activity did not cease when presented with evidence by
Jack Healy-O'Connor at the legal offices of Terrence La
Liberte (lawyer), (Phil Rankin) and John Cheevers (Irish
Consul) in Canada.
Jack Healy-O'Connor was subsequently forced to flee
Vancouver, Canada on October 24, 2010 after seven
weeks in which two false businesses were set up and four
attempts to plant drugs on Jack Healy on two buses and
trains while in Vancouver.
Abduction attempt: June 5th 2011, Berlin , Germany. Jack
Healy fled Vancouver, Canada and left for Germany. The
allegation is that Vancouver Police were in Germany to
possibly abduct Jack Healy.
Correspondence: Correspondence to Ministry of Foreign
Affairs in Ireland after September 4th and 5th of 2011
concerning Vancouver Police alleged being in Dublin
Ireland with assistance of Irish Special Branch to plant
illegal paraphernalia in Jack Healy's rented
accommodation located at 62 Pembrooke Road,
Ballsbridge, Dublin. Jack Healy was trying to write a book
at this address about his experiences in Canada (Patrick
Kavanaghs last house, opposite Raglan Road). Documents

are avaialble at this link to prove the assertions being

made herein:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B5bw...
Second Abduction attempt: Occurred on September 2012
in Fitzgeralds Park, Cork, Ireland. Jack Healy sought help of
two lawyers in Dublin, Louis Harkin and Paul Sreenan after
this attempted abduction. The advice was given to contact
MFA (again), and to report the incident to the police
station closest to where Jack Healy's was (Mayfield;
January 14, 2013) and start to make some money to
protect himself (Good as Gold Foods LTD was established
on January 31, 2013). The allegation here is that
Vancouver police were possibly in Cork, Ireland involved in
threatening Jack Healy or setting him up for arrest to cover
up and suppress information Jack Healy obtained while
working and living in Vancouver, Canada in 2010 on
pedophile networks. (see material written up below on
Vancouver and 4/20 Day). Allegations are that the
Vancouver, Canada police were in Ireland identified by
Jack Healy maybe seven times in the last four and a half
years and one time in Germany on June 5, 2011. if this is
in fact true, it means they have access to extraordinary
resources. Jack Healy believes the resources are coming
out private donations. A club of sorts perhaps to protect a
pedophile ring operating out of Vancouver, Canada that
Vancouver Chief of Police Jim Chu might be suppressing.
Vancouver Chief of Police Jim Chu according to Jack Healy,
called the police in Cork to report that Jack Healy had been
"threatening his life." These are incredibly serious
allegations.
Please see correspondence on corruption: that has
occurred in Jack's life in Ireland at Garda Ombudsman,
Ministry of Foreign Affairs (E Gilmore), Department of
Justice (A Shatter & F Fitzgerald), Department of
Enterprise (R Bruton), Department of Agriculture, Food and
Marine (Simon Coveney), University College Cork (Michael
Murphy and UCC staff involved in food course diploma
program), Fennelly Commission of Inquiry, EU Commission
(6 million Euro Horizon 2020 Fraud) and Taoiseach Edna
Kenny's office.

Third murder attempt on Jack Healy: Plea to Northern

Ireland Assembly. No response registered post:suppressed
by DOB:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B5bw...
Plea to Public Accounts Committee Ireland: Suppressed by
EK & DOB.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B5bw...
Acknowledgement of my Fennelly Commission complaint
by return of FOI request was never passed onto the
Fennelly Commission, file suppressed by EK & FF. See
videos after documentation.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B5bw...
1: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IAZSQ... March 23rd
2015 (can be viewed above)
2: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xmq4h... June 4th
2015 (can be viewed above)
3: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wPM7e...
Explanation to my missing file (can be viewed above)
Last letter to Simon Coveney: Completely frustrated at the
level of Simon Coveney's corruption and obfuscation.
Simon Coveney and Jack Healy exchanged nearly a dozen
letters. Jack Healy exposed Coveney red handed, the
chairman of the HLIC:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B5bw...
Jack Healy pleaded with Simon Coveney to stop the
matter, literally pleading with him. The "merchant pup of
Cork". It can be ascertained how BIM attracts students in
as "clients", then vets them for ideas which then can be
appropriated by insiders and operatives on new products
and business ideas:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B5bw...
Eleven months kept inside a Bord Iscai Mhara (BIM)
Seafood Development Centre with access to no working
equipment, breach of confidentiality, fraud on the Irish tax

payers, retrofitted bills for work they never did and placed
dates of work that predate Jack Healy's company
formation: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B5bw...
Letter to CEO of Bord Iscai Mhara (BIM) after Jack Healy
received an absurd report from Simon Coveney about the
eleven months Jack Healy was deprived of any access at
all to facilities at Clonakility,West Cork, Ireland to facilitate
the advancement of his business under a UCC business
program.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B5bw...
Report from CEO to Bord Iscai Mhara (BIM):
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B5bw...
This publication is called "Food Harvest 2020" and was
published at tax payers expense in 2010 by Minister
Simon Coveney's office along with four government
related organizations concerned about food. Please look at
Page 53 and see who is specifically told to deal with such
products and new businesses reproduced here from page
53 (described above in more detail):
The development of innovative, consumer oriented
seafood products should be supported by BIM Seafood
Development Centre and Teagasc Ashtown Food Research
Centre.
There is nothing but obvious criminal collusion involved
here
C: R Bruton) Teagasc / Enterprise ireland / Bord Bia
(Suspected corruption and collusion against Jack Healy)

Welcome to Food
Works Ireland
Food Works is a government supported
accelerator programme that helps
develop the next generation of scaleable
and export driven Irish food businesses.
Food is an important part of the Irish

economy, representing 12.3% of total

export revenue today, and the industry
is projected to be worth 19 billion by
2025. So, we want to support the people
and businesses who are creating our
food future.
If you have an innovative food product
that satisfies a genuine market need,
and an ambition for global success, you
should meet with the Food Works
team. What to expect on the Food Works
Programme_.
http://foodworksireland.ie
Owners: Brian and Rachel Nolan
Nobs Frozen Goodness product is made of
coconut milk and avocado and is a truly innovative
alternative to ice cream . Aimed at those with food
intolerances and the health-conscious, Frozen
Goodness is free from dairy, gluten, refined sugar,
additives, colourings, preservatives and gums.
Frozen Goodness does not compromise on taste.
Although it is a free-from product, it has exactly
the same texture and taste as traditional ice
cream. And it is delicious, as thousands of
tastebuds will attest. In September 2014 , Frozen
Goodness was named one of the Top 50 Foods in
the UK and Ireland at the UK Great Taste Awards.
Rachel and Brian Nolan agree that participating in
the Food Works programme has been invaluable
for their business. When we applied to the Food
Works programme, our product was still at
prototype stage. While we had a clear vision on

where we wanted to go with Nob, we were lacking

in food experience and technical knowledge. Food
Works bridged this knowledge gap and provided a
huge amount of support, assistance, lectures and
education in the necessary areas.
The access to fellow food entrepreneurs and
industry experts also helped Rachel and Brian
develop their strategy. They challenged our
assumptions and forced us to ask hard questions
about where we wanted to go with our food
business.
The Food Works network also secured Frozen
Goodness an export contract to the UAE.
The standout moment for Rachel and Brian on the
Food Works Programme was the first interview. It
was the first time we had ever spoken about Nob
and shared our concept for our dairy and glutenfree ice cream made from avocado. To receive a
place on the Food Works Programme was a huge
validation for us. Having the support and backing
of Enterprise Ireland, Bord Bia and Teagasc gave us
the confidence and assurance to keep moving
forward with our business.

Startup Island

Sep 22, 2016

Have you got what it takes to survive? Startup Island is a
gritty, two-day, overnight bootcamp that will challenge the way
you think.
Leading experts will put startups through their paces and host
workshops to help you break out of the ordinary and develop
extraordinary business models. A night in the cells will give you
plenty of time to think, while networking with your inmates
could open up some unique business opportunities.
Investors, entrepreneurs, startups and experts will be thrown
together on Spike Island with no escape. Its survival of the
fittest. Not everyone has what it takes. Do you?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?
v=HrgbauubXAQ&feature=youtu.be

Big cheese: Teagasc and

Bord Bia bid to boost
artisan sector
Cheese Institute initiative aims to double sector output
from 19 million annually
Top Area
Thu, Sep 8, 2016

The Cheese Institute aims to help the Irish farmhouse cheese sector fulfil its
potential at home and abroad. Photograph: Dave Meehan.

An initiative by Teagasc and Bord Bia is aimed at

assisting the Irish farmhouse cheese sector fulfil its
potential for growth on the home and export markets.
The organisations have joined forces to form the
Cheese Institute, which aims to deliver a series of
targeted training and development programmes to the
industry.
According to Bord Bia, the 19 million sector is
running at just 40 per cent of capacity and the
institutes programmes could see a doubling of output
in the coming years.

The initiative came about as a result of research carried

out by Bord Bia in 2013 which identified underutilised
capacity in the industry, as well as some of the barriers
to growth faced by producers.
The research identified a need for training in both the
technical aspects of cheesemaking as well as in
business development, says Eimear ODonnell, sector
manager for consumer dairy with Bord Bia.
For example, if a company has a product that sells
well locally they dont have to think about how well it
will cope with extended shipping times to markets like
the US.
But while it is fabulous to develop a new cheese
product, you still have to know who will buy it and how
to sell it to them.
Bord Bia approached Teagasc with a view to creating a
series of training and development programmes which
would meet the needs of the sector.
Teagasc brought the technical expertise and we
brought the business and marketing knowledge.
The result was the establishment of the Cheese
Institute and the development of three programmes:
starter, fundamentals and advanced.

Food safety

The starter programme is a Fetac-accredited

introductory programme about farmhouse cheese
production. It provides new cheesemakers with
information about farmhouse cheese production,
marketing and consumer behaviour, as well as about
competency in building and maintaining and trade
business.
Twelve established producers have just completed the
pilot fundamentals programme.
Designed in partnership with industry, and delivered
by Bord Bia and Teagasc, the programme consists of a

series of workshops delivered over 10 months.

Each workshop includes a number of specialists and
addresses topics such as cheese production and
ripening, controlling cheese yield, batch variability,
whey utilisation, food safety and hygiene, as well as
marketing planning, pricing and negotiations, business
planning, key account management, the consumer and
market, digital content creation and management.
Irish farmhouse cheese production has great potential
to expand and, based on its positive image abroad,
opportunities for exports are strong, says Teagasc
senior researcher Diarmuid Sheehan.
Cheese offers high-end use versatility with potential
for significant added value. Cheese Institute
Fundamentals gives us the opportunity to focus on the
development of the necessary skill set and expertise
required by the industry.
We are delighted with the opportunity to address key
hurdles from quality to consistency and through to
expansion in the sector.
This is a long-term training support which provides a
great opportunity to leverage the available Teagasc
expertise and the expertise available overseas through
our international linkages.
The Teagasc Food Research Centre at Moorepark in
Fermoy, Co Cork, is acknowledged as an international
leader in cheese research and Teagascs contribution to
the Cheese Institute includes its expertise in science
and technology which underpins all aspects of cheese
manufacturing and ripening, as well as achieving
consistent quality.
The organisation also brings the skills to create new
cheeses and diversify existing ranges.
Key technical areas Teagasc has addressed within the
fundamentals course include food safety and quality
systems; cheese manufacturing including areas such as

starter technology, milk coagulation, curd handling,

salting and brining and working with seasonal changes
in milk; cheese ripening, including key biochemical
and microbial agents which influence ripening; and the
identification of the key quality indices of a product
including factors influencing shelf life and flavour
development.

International contributors

The course featured contributions from 10 speakers

with technical expertise in the area from within
Teagasc. In addition, Teagasc invited six international
contributors from the US, UK and the Netherlands.
Technical sessions were both lecture-based and
practical, held at Moorepark and off-site at a
producers premises.
The Cheese Institute initiative is aimed at helping the
sector realise its potential, Sheehan adds.
There has been phenomenal growth in cheese
production in Ireland since the 1990s with output
increasing from 80,000 tonnes to 205,000 tonnes
annually. This upward trend is continuing with the end
of the milk quota regime. But what we havent had is a
tradition of artisan or speciality cheese production.
This is changing, however, and a small but growing
group of speciality farmhouse cheese producers are
building international reputations.
There is huge export potential and great potential for
additional value, Sheehan notes.
Its at the other end of the extreme from high volume
commodity cheddar production.
The institutes next phase will commence in the coming
months with a focus on exporting.
The advanced programme has been designed to
support companies with the potential to scale their
businesses. It will consist of a series of workshops, as

well as one-to-one mentoring on technical and

marketing issues.
http://www.irishtimes.com/sponsored/big-cheeseteagasc-and-bord-bia-bid-to-boost-artisan-sector1.2781805

BioPharma Engineering to
create 70 jobs in Cork and
Dublin
by Colm Gorey

BioPharma Engineering (BPE) has announced it will

create 70 jobs across its Cork headquarters and new
Dublin office, and will be seeking highly skilled
graduates to fill the roles.
The jobs announcement at BPE, an Irish-owned
engineering design company, comes following the opening
of its new offices in Dublin.

Headquartered in Cork, BPE was founded 10 years ago

by John OReilly and Richard Holohan and currently
employs 80 people. It will create 70 highly skilled jobs over
the course of the next three years

With clients including global pharmaceutical and

bioscience manufacturing corporations, BPE has
doubled its workforce over the last 18 months.
It has also invested significantly in software and
systems to serve the 100m sector.
Recruitment for the jobs is now underway,
and the new positions will contribute to the
companys expansion into the UK and EU
markets.

Irelands reputation continues

to grow
Our company has delivered capital projects
worth more than 500m for our clients and we
continue to scale in terms of markets,
capabilities and ambition, said BPEs director,
John OReilly.
The new Dublin offices will enable us to serve
our clients better and ensure that we continue
to deliver the highest-quality engineering
design solutions which clients have come to
expect from BPE.
Meanwhile, Enterprise Irelands manager for
construction and cleantech, Stephen Hughes
added: The reputation of Ireland as a supplier
of high-end engineering services to the worlds
pharmaceutical industries has been built over
time through high levels of investment, and
continues to grow.

BPE has developed its own reputation through

winning many major contracts in Ireland and is
now winning business overseas with targeted
customers in a number of key markets.
https://www.siliconrepublic.com/jobs/biopharmaengineering-jobs-cork-dublin

Bank of Ireland's Enterprise Lounge: A

free facility for SMEs/Entrepreneurs
Mar 26, 2013
We talk to customers and visitors who are using our Enterprise
Lounge, based on Grafton Street, Dublin. This facility, which
has free Wi-Fi, meeting rooms and conference facilities is
designed for business owners and entrepreneurs who wish to
conduct business in a city centre location.
Coder Dojo, the innovative coding company regularly use the
Enterprise Lounge - in this video we talk to founder and
winning entrepreneur James Whelton.
For more information about this free facility visit:
http://allaboutbusiness.ie/enterprise...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HxfT2tHvY9A

Why Amazon scares the F out of retailers? 44% of US population is now

within 20 miles of Amazon fulfillment center

UCC joins Trinity

and UL with Athena
SWAN equality
award
by Gordon Hunt
GOOGLEOFF: ALL11 AUG 2016

Professor Caroline Fennell, senior vice president academic

and registrar at University College Cork. Image via Daragh
Mc Sweeney/Provision

Following in the footsteps of Trinity

College Dublin and the University of
Limerick (UL), University College
Cork (UCC) has become the third
university in Ireland to receive an
Athena SWAN award.

Recognising its efforts to promote gender equality in

higher education, the bronze medal, awarded to the
university last week, highlights institutions with solid
foundations in place to tear down barriers to womens
progress.
Getting women into the STEM areas of industry is a

major priority in Ireland at the moment, with a skills gap

felt acutely in computing, but also in science,
engineering and beyond.
With certain areas of STEM attracting many more male
than female entrants, arresting any issues that are
stopping women getting involved is basic common
sense.
UCC developed a three-year plan to help encourage
more women to enter these fields, with its
delivery across the university the reason behind this
award.
We are very pleased to have earned this award.
Gender inequality in senior leadership in higher
education is a challenge we face, not only in UCC, but
across the third-level sector, in Ireland and beyond,
said Professor Caroline Fennell, who led the project.
This award recognises work underway in UCC to build
the right infrastructure and supports so all members of
our academic community, and indeed all our staff, can
contribute to their full potential.
The Athena SWAN Charter was established in the UK
in 2005, branching into Ireland last year. Upon its
launch in April 2015, the initial step was the creation of
an Athena SWAN pilot.
Open to all publicly-funded universities and institutes of
technology in Ireland, all seven Irish universities, 14
institutes of technology and the Royal College of
Surgeons have committed to the charter principles.

We want to embed Athena SWAN in the culture of

higher education (in Ireland), and the pilot is a way to
kick it off, explained ECU Athena SWAN adviser Dr
Ruth Gilligan, who is co-ordinating the pilot in Ireland,
upon its launch last year.
It is not a tick-box exercise, you have to progress. You
dont get a chance to rest on your laurels you show
where you are, and you show the action plan for three
years, and then you have to come back and show what
you did.

Jan O'Sullivan, Minister for Education and Skills, addresses

attendees at the launch of the Athena SWAN Charter in Ireland, at
the Department of Education and Skills in Dublin. Photo by Jason
Clarke Photography

The Athena SWAN Charter in Ireland

will award academic institutions and

departments for cultural and
systemic changes to address gender
inequality, particularly in STEM and
medicine.
It was a packed house yesterday at an event in the
Department of Education and Skills in Dublin to
officially launch the Athena SWAN Charter for the
higher education sector in Ireland.
Seven universities, 14 institutes of technology and the
Royal College of Surgeons have now signed up to the
charter, thereby committing them to advance womens
careers in science, technology, engineering,
mathematics and medicine (STEMM) employment in
academia.

Rewarding a culture of equality

For the last decade, the Athena SWAN programme has

been looking to address gender equality in higher
education and research in the United Kingdom, where
it is run by the Equality Challenge Unit (ECU).
Participating institutions and departments assess their
culture and practices as they relate to gender equality,
they set out and implement an action plan and they
can achieve bronze, silver or gold awards based on
their progress.
A recent external evaluation found that in the UK the

implementation of the Athena SWAN charter was

having a positive impact on career satisfaction,
opportunities for training and development, knowledge
of promotion processes and fairness in the allocation of
workload.
And in a move supported by the Higher Education
Authority, the Athena SWAN Charter has now been
expanded to Ireland, formally launched by Minister for
Education and Skills Jan OSullivan, TD.

Pilot in Ireland

The initial step is an Athena SWAN pilot, which is now

open to all publicly funded universities and institutes of
technology in Ireland. The pilot will continue until April
2017 and involves each institution setting up a selfassessment team and looking at data and trends
relating to gender equality, explained ECU Athena
SWAN adviser Dr Ruth Gilligan, who is co-ordinating
the pilot in Ireland.
We want to embed Athena SWAN in the culture of
higher education (in Ireland), and the pilot is a way to
kick it off, she told Siliconrepublic.com. It is not a tickbox exercise, you have to progress. You dont get a
chance to rest on your laurels you show where you
are, and you show the action plan for three years and
then you have to come back and show what you did.

Tom Boland, chief executive of the Higher Education Authority (HEA) with
Minister for Education and Skills Jan OSullivan and David Ruebain, chief
executive of the Equality Challenge Unit, at the launch of the Athena SWAN
Charter in Ireland, at the Department of Education and Skills in Dublin. Photo
by Jason Clarke Photography

Catalyst for change

ECU chief executive David Ruebain said the initiative

in the UK had gone from involving 10 institutions in
2005 to near-saturation today. In the UK nearly every
institution that teaches STEMM is a member of
SWAN, he told the launch.
We are absolutely delighted that we have the
opportunity of working with you in developing the
charter in Ireland I describe it as a virtuous circle: I
think our experience of working with institutions here
will add value and benefit to the charter in the UK, as
well, adding depth and breadth to our knowledge and
understanding of the experiences of women in
academic positions.
Prof Eileen Drew from the Centre for Women in
Science & Engineering Research at Trinity College
Dublin who chairs the Athena SWAN Ireland
committee spoke about how the charter would act as
a catalyst for change, and how we would look back to
its introduction as a major milestone in Irish

education.

Strong messages

Representatives from higher education institutes in

Ireland were out in force for the launch, including
numerous university presidents and vice-principals of
research, and several leaders from the institutes of
technology. So what did attendees make of the new
development?
Dr Edel Healy, head of the School of Health and
Science in Dundalk Institute of Technology, believes
the launch sends an important message.
In my role I work with a large number of young female
academics in the STEMM field, she told
Siliconrepublic.com. I think that launching the Athena
SWAN Charter in Ireland signals to them the
commitment at senior level to providing them with an
equitable career structure and a work environment that
supports diversity and equality.
Prof Orla Feely, chair of the Irish Research Council
and vice-president for Research, Innovation and
Impact at University College Dublin (UCD), said that
the extension of Athena SWAN to Ireland is both
important and positive.
We know our situation at the moment is not as we
would like it to be, so this (charter) challenges us, but it
also presents us with the opportunity to benchmark
ourselves, says Feely, who chairs the Athena SWAN
committee in UCD. We are taking it very seriously, we

recognise the potential to improve our institution

through appropriately addressing gender equality and
we look forward to success in UCD and nationally.
Dr Marion Palmer, chair of Women in Technology and
Science and head of the Department of Technology
and Psychology at Dun Laoghaire Institute of Art,
Design and Technology said she was pleased to hear
about a recommitment to gender equality in the highereducation sector.
There have been lots of initiatives, but Athena SWAN
seems to be one of systemic change, and that is more
than welcome, she said, looking forward to the day
when women being in senior management in STEMM
subjects is as ordinary and commonplace as men
holding those positions.

Taking stock

Prof Christine Loscher, a member of the national

committee for Athena SWAN in Ireland, is part of the
self-assessment team at Dublin City University, where
she directs the Health Technologies Research &
Enterprise Hub. She described the launch today as a
great statement from the higher-education sector in
Ireland.
The universities and institutes of technology have
worked collectively to say we need to have the Athena
SWAN charter here, because we need to look inside
our own universities and institutes of technology and
see what are the problems and more importantly how

can we address them, Loscher tells

Siliconrepublic.com.
She notes that simple measures can have an impact,
and points to a mentoring scheme for women that is
currently in place in DCU.
Having a mentor means somebody is there as a
guide, a sounding board and in some cases an
adviser, and it enables women to benefit from women
who have been successful. Women need to be more
strategic, and a mentoring scheme can facilitate that.
Women Invent Tomorrow is Silicon Republics
campaign to champion the role of women in
science, technology, engineering and maths. It has
been running since March 2013, and is kindly
supported by Accenture Ireland, Intel, the Irish
Research Council, ESB, Twitter, CoderDojo and
Science Foundation Ireland.

CORRUPTION: JUST PART OF THE

WAY FINE GAEL AND FIANNA FAIL ARE

CORRUPTION: JUST PART OF THE WAY FINE GAEL AND

FIANNA FAIL ARE
Hugh McElvaney, the main character in the RTE Investigates Unit
programme, was a prominent figure in Fine Gael. A four time
mayor of Monaghan, he rose to becoming chair of the Local
Authority Members Association, the body representing local
councillors.
McElvaney knew there was little sanction for not properly filling out
forms and so he did not declare his property interests. Yet he owns
waste management firms that operate rubbish collection on behalf
of a number of local authorities worth more than 16 million a year.
When McElvaney encountered a fake company by RTE, his
response was priceless. You need to sweeten the man up. You
know what I mean. Asked specifically how much he was looking
for, the politician said: Ten grand would be a start.
McElvaney is typical of the gombeen politicians who dominate the
middle ranks of Fianna Fail and Fine Gael. These parties function

as corrupt cartels that look after the business interests of their

supporters.
One reason why corruption is so prevalent in Ireland is that
politicians are allowed get away with it.
In 2011, the Moriarty Report came to a decisive conclusion about
the relationship between Denis OBrien and Michael Lowry. It
found that OBrien gave Lowry 447,000 as a donation and a
further loan. Justice Michael Moriarty stated that it is beyond
doubt that Lowry provided substantive information to OBrien
which was of significant value and assistance to him in securing
the licence.
The Moriarty Report made a number of recommendations on foot
of its investigation which included the following:
All donations to political parties whether in cash or loan should
be disclosed. (Some discretion was to be allowed for very small
donations provided there was no pattern);
Details of these donations should be disclosed within a short time
frame;
There should be a voluntary scheme whereby all office holders
would have their personal accounts audited by an inspector of
SIPO;
Any representation to the Revenue Commissioners by politicians
would have to be in writing.
The Moriarty Tribunal cost 50 million and was part of a strategy
by the elite to protect their own by staging years long investigations
which could not lead directly to a trial.
Nevertheless, even the modest recommendations that came out of
Moriarty were never implemented. And the reason is not hard to
see.
The Minister responsible was Phil Hogan, the then Minister for the
Environment. He also happened to be the chief fund raiser for Fine
Gael before the 2011 election. He managed to accumulate a huge
war chest that totalled 3 million.
Hogan had not the slightest interest in disclosing who made the

donations to Fine Gael. He knew that money was given on the

quiet and certain expectations accompanied them. And he had no
interest in letting the public know who was involved.
Corruption in Ireland goes far beyond the minor dealings of
councillors because there is a very thin line between big business
and the Irish state.
Ireland operates as a respectable tax haven so a whole structure
has been set up whereby the Revenue Commissioners hold
meetings with tax planners (aka assistants in tax dodging) that is
largely outside the public view.
Feargal ORourke, the son of ex-Fianna Fail minister Mary
ORourke and cousin of the former Fianna Fail ministers Brian and
Conor Lenihan, has been described as the brainchild of Irelands
controversial tax strategies. These have enabled Google, LinkedIn
and Facebook to massively reduce their tax bills, leading US
politicians to describe Ireland as a tax haven. ORourke has
advised each company.
Google, for example, paid just 28.6 million in Irish corporation tax
on global sales of 18.3 billion last year, while Facebook Ireland
paid only 3.4 million in tax here on sales of 4.8 billion booked
through its local operations.
Moreover, the EU Commission has investigated the meetings
between Apple and the Revenue Commissioners in 1991 and 2007
and found that a tax scam had been set up.
The weakness of native Irish capitalism means that it is more
geared to property speculation than, for example, investment in
long term jobs creation. At the height of the Celtic Tiger two thirds
of all capital investment was in property.
Property speculation by its very nature leads to a desire for close
relationships with politicians who have power to re-zone or de-zone
land. The same politicians can also lease or rent out the
commercial property of the speculators, ensuring guaranteed, long
term profit.
Large sections of the Irish capitalist class are also dependent on

state handouts. They need the state or local authorities to give

them contracts for everything from plant hire to legal services. The
Healy Rae family, for example, earned 300,000 from Kerry
County Council for plant hire. The Irish state also spends 500
million a year on buying in services from the top Irish law firms.
Corruption is endemic in capitalism. It just happens to be more
prevalent in Ireland because the system is built on multi-national
tax dodging and local capitalists who thrive on state hands out.
Cleaning out the stink of corruption will mean tackling the system
that gives rise to it.

EVIDENCE UNCOVERED by the Mahon tribunal and

independently available to the DPP is more than sufficient
for a number of people to face serious charges, according to
Fianna Fil leader Michel Martin. He told the Dil: I hope
that this will be progressed urgently.
He also said no credible explanation had been given by anyone in
Government why the independent, expert and low-cost
investigations into planning decisions in six councils had been
closed down and replaced with administrative reviews.
Speaking on the opening night of the three-day debate on the
Mahon tribunal report, he said if the Government was sincere in its
response to the Mahon report then it will reinstate the independent
planning investigations.
During his speech, Mr Martin praised former taoiseach Bertie
Aherns role in the peace process. He said it was a real and
enduring achievement, but it cannot absolve him.
And he rounded on the Government parties, their fundraising
practices and their response to the Moriarty tribunal report last year,
claiming they had a strategy of deliberately seeking to minimise
its significance.
Mr Martin said Ray Burke, Liam Cosgrave, Liam Lawlor and others
had already been through the courts. People had to be careful
what they said to prevent the collapse of cases. But there was
more than sufficient evidence to prosecute a number of people on
serious charges.
He said he accepted the findings about former EU commissioner
Pdraig Flynn and they should be followed up by the appropriate
authorities.
Referring to the 50,000 donation, he said it should be received by
the State through general proceedings against Mr Flynn and he
added there is no excuse for the failure to confront Mr Flynn with
this allegation at the time. But he said the then Fine Gael leader
refused to take any action when told one of his party had sought a
bribe of 250,000.

He also highlighted the 15 donations to Fine Gael in the run-up to

businessman Denis OBriens Esat being awarded the mobile phone
licence. Referring to comments in the Moriarty report as to why he
gave out the money, Mr OBrien had said because Fine Gael asked
for it.
He added: The then taoiseach and three Ministers in Cabinet today
received donations in their constituencies which were solicited from
Esat To this day the Government has not said if it agrees with the
findings and the Taoiseach had repeatedly refused to answer
whether it was correct to seek and accept these donations.
Hitting out at the other parties, he said that funding of Tnaiste
Eamon Gilmores former party was less than transparent given the
involvement in counterfeiting. If he believed in transparency, it was
now time this was investigated.
He described Sinn Fins embrace of double standards as
particularly brazen. During the period investigated by Mahon,
Sinn Fins movement killed more than 200 people, kneecapped
and exiled many more and ran this islands largest racketeering,
kidnapping and bank-robbing network.
Referring to Mr Ahern, he said at no stage had anyone made any
allegation about any corrupt act by Bertie Ahern during any of his
three governments. He said the findings against him are serious
enough without people trying to invent others or extend them so
they can make partisan points. He said nobody elected to the
House in the last 20 years could have achieved what he did in the
peace process.
Mr Martin also said nothing was alleged by the opposition about Mr
Ahern during debates on the original or amended terms of reference
for the tribunal. He highlighted comments by Ruair Quinn when he
was a cabinet colleague of Mr Aherns and how he was shocked by
what had emerged.
DIL SKETCH: SOCIALIST PARTY TD Joe Higgins issued a
stern warning in the Dil yesterday.
A herd of elephants was stampeding from Malin Head to Mizen
Head, he said.
Fianna Fil TDs winced. The Mahon tribunal report had been out for
just under an hour and images were no doubt conjured up of a
massive hunt for errant Soldiers of Destiny.
But Higgins, to Fianna Fils relief, was using a metaphor for the
massive revolt by decent people against the household charge.
Higgins suggested to Tnaiste Eamon Gilmore that he was suffering
from a Marie Antoinette scale of delusion on the issue.
Fianna Fil kept its head down, knowing that its officer board would
meet later to consider the fallout from Mahon, leading to some
inevitable political beheading.
Higgins then moved on to the report, suggesting that it would
remind people of the enormous greed and corruption of a tiny elite.

As Fianna Fil TDs shifted uneasily in their seats, there was a rare
moment of agreement between Gilmore and the Socialist Party TD.
Deputy Higgins is correct in stating that the matters the tribunal
was asked to investigate are not unrelated to the difficulties this
country faces today.
Gilmore referred to a financial institution which was the piggy bank
for the property bubble that brought the country to its knees.
Then it was back to the household charge and the inevitable
collapse of the brief Gilmore-Higgins dtente.
Gilmore claimed that following Higginss advice would mean the
country running out of money.
He recalled the influence of the militant left on British politics.
The only occasion on which the deputys people ran anything was
in the 1980s, when they ran the city of Liverpool, thundered
Gilmore. The city ran out of money. One Friday afternoon, he
added, when there was no money to pay the wages of the
gravediggers, the road workers and other employees, the deputys
people were obliged to hire taxis to deliver P45s to those
individuals. Higgins observed: The Tnaiste should take the advice
he offered to others two weeks ago and take his head out of the
archives. Gilmore shot back that he had another link for Higgins in
respect of a matter not unconnected to the tribunal.
His people in Liverpool were also subsequently found to be
corrupt. Higgins observed that the Tnaistes desperation had
gone too far.
Entering the fray, People before Profit TD Richard Boyd Barrett
asked: What about the Tnaistes people in the former Soviet
Union? Independent TD Michael Healy-Rae outlined a scenario
whereby Ministers and TDs would be looking skywards because of
the theft of scrap and precious metals.
Must we wait until the roof has been stolen from this building and
Government Buildings before the Government introduces
legislation? In one of the rare positive notes of the day, Minister for
Justice Alan Shatter issued a statement reminding people that
Summer Time would come their way on Sunday with clocks and
watches put forward one hour.
Meanwhile, Fianna Fils political winter of discontent continues.
Irish political party Fianna Fail has said it will seek to expel
its former leader and prime minister Bertie Ahern in the
wake of the Mahon Tribunal.
The tribunal found that Mr Ahern failed to truthfully account for a
number of financial transactions, but did not make a corruption
finding against him.
Mr Ahern said he had never received a corrupt payment.
However, the party said the findings regarding Mr Ahern constituted
conduct unbecoming a member of Fianna Fail.
The Irish government has asked the Irish police to look at the

findings of a report into corruption in the Republics planning

process.
In its report, the Tribunal rejected the former Taoiseachs evidence
about the sources of money in his bank accounts.
In a statement on Thursday, the former taoiseach said he had never
done anything to demean any office he had held.
After spending over a decade of inquiries and countless millions of
euros, the tribunal has not made nor could it make a finding to
support the scurrilous and untrue allegation allegation that I had
been given a corrupt payment by Mr Owen OCallaghan, said Mr
Aherns statement, given to RTE.
I hid nothing. I gave the tribunal unfettered access to all my
financial records, and after years of investigation, this tribunal has
not made any finding of corruption against me.
I have told the truth to this tribunal, and I reject strongly any
suggestion that I sought to mislead it.
Fianna Fail party officers held an emergency meeting on Thursday
evening to discuss the findings.
__________
Key findings
Former taoiseach Bertie Ahern failed to truthfully explain source
of money
The tribunal rejected Mr Aherns evidence of dig-outs
Former EU Commissioner Padraig Flynn wrongly and corruptly
sought donation from developer Tom Gilmartin
The late Fianna Fail TD Liam Lawlor accepted inappropriate and
corrupt payments from Arlington PLC
Former Fianna Fail TD GV Wright received a IR5,000 corrupt
payment from Christopher Jones
Findings of corruption have been made against 11 Irish councillors.
Five cannot be named because they are before the courts. The six
named individuals are Fianna Fails Finbarr Hanrahan, Cyril
Gallagher and GV Wright, Fine Gaels Tom Hand, Labours John
OHalloran and Independent Pat Dunne
__________
Party leader Micheal Martin said the national executive would meet
on 30 March to discuss the report and to ensure swift and decisive
action was taken.
Although the central allegation against Bertie Ahern was not
sustained, the evidence confirmed by the tribunal and its comments
relating to him are extremely serious, he said.
The report records that Bertie Ahern gave a significant amount of
evidence to the tribunal which, in the opinion of the tribunal, was
untrue.
It is a matter of profound personal and professional regret to see
confirmed in this report the extent to which Bertie Ahern fell short
of the standard of personal behaviour which is expected of the

holders of high office.

A motion to expel Mr Ahern from Fianna Fail will be raised at the
meeting.
The party said it would also seek to expel former minister Padraig
Flynn who the tribunal found had wrongly and corruptly sought a
donation from developer.
Dail debate
The tribunal, which ran for 15 years, gathered evidence from more
than 600 witnesses and the final report runs to 3,270 pages.
It made several findings of corruption against a number of
witnesses.
An Irish government spokesperson said: The Government will refer
the report to the Garda Commissioner, the Director of Public
Prosecutions, the Revenue Commissioners and to the Standards in
Public Office Commission.
A three-day Dail debate on the report will take place next week.
The Government will consider the findings and recommendations
next Tuesday.
The tribunal found that Mr Ahern failed to truthfully account for a
total of 165,214.25 Irish punts passing through accounts connected
with him.
It also found that in relation to the B/T account, known as the
Bertie/Tim account by bank staff in the Permanent TSB, Mr Ahern
and his associate, Tim Collins, failed to truthfully account for 50,000
Irish punts lodged into this account between 1992 and 1994.
In the introduction to the report, the judges say a number of senior
cabinet ministers made sustained and virulent attacks on the
integrity of the tribunal members.
They say there is little doubt the objectives of these extraordinary
and unprecedented attacks on the tribunal were to undermine the
efficient conduct of the tribunal, erode its independence and
collapse the inquiry.
Mr Martin said Fianna Fail would not seek to hide from the
consequences of the Mahon report.
I understand the anger and disappointment that many people will
feel when reading the Tribunals report, he said.
I share it. I want to reassure them that my party is fully committed
to showing that there is no tolerance for the activities detailed in the
Mahon report.

CONNEMARA SENT a rocket to the heart of Europe yesterday.

Shockwaves coursed through the lyse Palace. President Sarkozy
summoned his senior ministers for a crisis meeting. Carla was quite
beside herself changing into black Dior to convey the gravity of
the situation.
Meanwhile in Berlin, a distraught Angela Merkel made straight for
the Bundestag. She was close to tears as an official assisted her
from her car.
How could this have happened? Its a tragedy, she said, in
German.
It was teatime in Leinster House when the news that shocked a
continent broke.
amon Cuv, aka Young Dev, had resigned as deputy leader of
Fianna Fil on foot of a helping boot from his boss.
A seismic development for Europe, Ireland and Michel Martin, who
had finally made a tough decision with the minimum of dithering
and foostering.
Given that his troublesome deputy was openly defying party policy
on the European fiscal treaty, it mightnt have been the most
difficult call for him to make.
But it was done quickly and without recourse to a consultants
report and that was enough for Martins supporters to cast him last
night as Fianna Fils new Man-of-Steel, marching with a new air of
confidence into this evenings Ard Fheis.
So what now for amon Cuv? Today, the fate of Young Dev lies in
Enda Kennys hands. Its an onerous responsibility for any man to
have to shoulder. But what the Taoiseach has to do and amon
was quite clear about this is go to Angela and Nicolas and tell
them Ireland will not accept the fiscal treaty unless there is
something in it for our cash-strapped economy.
A few little baubles like a debt write-down and assurances on
preserving our corporation tax. Then, and only then, will amon
even think about considering recommending the treaty.
And sure then he might, or he might not. He wasnt saying.
So will he be voting with Fianna Fil in favour of a referendum when
the Bill comes before the Dil? Oh yes, Im 100 per cent in favour
of a referendum on this issue, he stressed last evening.
Which means he will still remain in the parliamentary party, the only
FF backbencher in the Dil (they are so few in number that
everyone has a portfolio of sorts).
His stated intention to vote
for the referendum seemed to contradict what Martin had to say

later. The party leader seemed of the view that Cuv would vote
against the party in the next Dil vote, thus forcing his expulsion.
But Young Dev, speaking on the plinth after he stepped down from
the front bench, was speaking very much as a committed and active
member of his party.
He had to make a stand on one issue about a firm personal belief
I have. When the Government made the surprise announcement on
Tuesday that a referendum was going to be held, Martin said
immediately that Fianna Fil would back the treaty without
precondition.
This was a bit too previous for Cuv. He said yesterday: there is
no way that we can accept the proposal put before us unless certain
fundamental issues are dealt with first for this country.
As he sees it, its up to Kenny to get these issues resolved in
Brussels before Ireland signs up for anything.
The quid quo pro.
Perhaps amon thinks his resignation will spur the Taoiseach into
massive action with our European paymasters.
Its a regrettable situation that we are in, sighed Martin last night,
thinking of those terrible moments in the afternoon when he had to
relieve Young Dev of his stripes. But he didnt resist at all. (By all
accounts, principally his own, Cuv resisted with
such ferocity that he had already parcelled up the resignation and
tied it up with a bow in readiness for the handover.) I believe it is a
parting of the ways, sniffed De Valeras grandson.
So is this the end? Not really. Young Dev was infuriatingly vague
about his intentions. He wont say whether hell be voting Yes or No
in the referendum.
You cross bridges when you come to them. So for the foreseeable
future, he will remain the loneliest backbencher in Ireland, eyes
burning into Michels shoulderblades as he agonises over septic
tanks and the European question.
In fact, if Cuv is particularly angry about an issue and speaks out
at a parliamentary party meeting, it will amount to a total Fianna
Fil backbench revolt.
Cuv even found the time before Michels gentle nudge to speak
from the back of a lorry on the scandal of the septic tank charge.
Decades on from the turbulent foundation of the state, the Soldiers
of Destiny now find themselves caught up in a new civil war. And
now, Young Dev finds himself in the same position of his
granddaddy: on the anti-treaty side.
Sinn Fin are so relieved to be out of the headlines that they cant
stop smiling. Off the hook on the inkgate printer saga. A good result
for Aengus Snodaigh.
Anything else would be a mis-cartridge of justice.
Fianna Fil Leader Michel Martin TD today described the
decision to export highly sensitive documents relating to the

Irish Peace Process as ill-considered and potentially

damaging to the interests of peace and reconciliation. He
also questioned the effects of the move on future Irish
historical research.
The Fianna Fil leader has called on the Minister for Justice Alan
Shatter TD to clarify why exactly he agreed to donate documents
from the Independent International Commission on
Decommissioning (IICD), the body appointed in 1997 to oversee the
process of putting beyond use weapons used in the Northern
Ireland conflict, to Boston College.
Deputy Martin commented, The papers relating to the workings of
the IICD are highly sensitive given the nature of the organisations
work. These papers catalogue the details of the engagement of
paramilitary groups with the decommissioning process and for
reasons of security and safety it is imperative that these papers are
not made public for a sufficient period of time. What is of major
concern is that these papers have been given to an institution
outside the island of Ireland which is now involved in a major
controversy about protecting the integrity of its sealed archive.
Mr Martin referred to ongoing legal proceedings in the United States
involving Boston Colleges archives. He said that arising from a
court action in the United States, Boston College may be compelled
to open their archive on the Northern Ireland Oral History Project.
He said that clarity is now urgently needed as to whether this has
implications for the papers of the IICD also deposited in Boston
College.
He continued, Boston College is an excellent institution with an
excellent track record of interest in and support for Irish affairs.
However, the fact that there is a question mark over the ability of
Boston College to protect sensitive political papers in their archives
from premature release is an issue of real concern. Alan Shatter
needs to clarify on what basis he agreed to give hugely sensitive
papers relating to the decommissioning process in Ireland to Boston
College rather than entrust them to the Irish National Archives. He
needs to explain whether there are implications for the
decommissioning papers arising out of the legal proceedings
ongoing in the United States.
I am calling on him to clarify what measures he has taken to
protect the integrity and security of the decommissioning archive.
Mr Martin also said he disagreed with the decision to give the IICD
papers to Boston College from a historical research perspective. He
said that he believed that these papers should have been given to
an archival institution on the island of Ireland.
These papers are integral to the history of the Irish peace process
and will be of immense historical significance. I strongly believe that
they should have been kept on the island of Ireland as they are a
key component of our modern history and, in particular, to an

understanding of the resolution of the conflict in Northern Ireland.

There are a host of suitable archives on the island where he could
have deposited the papers and which would have been delighted to
receive them. I want Alan Shatter to explain why he did not insist
on these important records being kept in Ireland. His decision not to
keep the papers in Ireland is a bad one in terms of access for future
historians and students of the Irish peace process. It means that
anyone in the future wishing to undertake serious research on the
peace process will, most likely, have to have the financial means to
visit Boston. I believe Alan Shatter has shown little regard for Irish
historians or the many fine archives we have on the island and he
should explain his position.

DAIL COMMENTS ON THE MORIARTY REPORT

Speaking In Dail Eireann, March 30th 2011:
The massive Moriarty report before us is an horrific reflection on
the former Minister, Deputy Lowry, Mr. Denis OBrien, the Fine
Gael Party, the Department of Transport, Energy and
Communications, and indeed the rainbow Government of the mid1990s itself. In another of his poetic-type speeches the Taoiseach
referred to key catchphrases of the McCracken, Mahon and other
tribunals. He could have added another from the Moriarty report,
namely Denis was behind it, as the conclusions of this report are
certainly summarised in the phrase.
At the outset let me salute Mr. Justice Michael Moriarty for his
remarkable diligence, courage and great determination throughout
the long lifetime of the Moriarty tribunal. Deputy Lowry referred to a
Sunday Tribune poll of Deputies towards the end of the 30th Dil
asking if they had confidence in Mr. Justice Moriarty. I am proud to
say that I was one of the 20% or so who answered the
newspapers question in the affirmative. The very comprehensive
and painstaking report Mr. Justice Moriarty has produced is a clear
vindication of that confidence. I accept its well researched and
strongly argued conclusions and on behalf of my constituents I
thank Mr. Justice Moriarty and his team for their service to the
nation.
We have rightly had lengthy discussions about the great cost and
duration of tribunals. I strongly favour the parliamentary reporterstyle of Oireachtas investigations promoted by the Labour Party in
the past and I admire the investigating magistrate-style of inquiries
in civil law administrations such as France, Italy and Spain. Of
course, we also now have the better focused commission of
investigation-style inquiries under the McDowell legislation. As Dr.
Elaine Byrne noted in a recent article in The Irish Times, the likely

cost of the Moriarty, Flood and Mahon tribunals are still much lower
than the billion euro or so of unpaid and evaded taxes revealed by
tribunals such as that conducted by Mr. Justice Moriarty.
The second GSM mobile licence was a licence to print money.
Everybody knew it at the time. I remember the atmosphere at the
start of my first Dil, the 27th Dil, with programme managers and
various flunkies running around the Dil with their ears glued to
mobile phones and the constant refrain in Fianna Fil, Fine Gael
and the media to the effect that the new technology and EU
regulations meant the inevitable sale of Eircom and an exciting
competitive fixed line and mobile market.
It therefore beggars belief that the Department of Transport,
Energy and Communications and the rainbow coalition
Government decided to issue a second GSM licence for derisory
sums of between 5 million and 15 million. The system that was
designed to sell off the second GSM licence is described by Mr.
Justice Moriarty on page 1,062 of Volume 1 of the report as a
hybrid auction and beauty contest approach.
Yet, the process for the six applicants was essentially a beauty
contest with all the serious difficulties of such competitions without
the huge financial benefits which a simple auction would have
brought the Irish people. I was the communications spokesman for
the Labour Party in the 29th Dil and it is clear that the auction
approach has always ensured the absolute maximisation of
revenue for the State for such valuable public commodities. A
comprehensive 2001 review by the University of Virginia of the
European mobile 3G universal mobile telecommunications system,
for example, contrasts the beauty contest approach versus the
auction approach.
The report describes how the beauty contest approach with its
lack of transparency means that government-favoured firms will
be more easily able to win. It also states beauty contests are in
fact tacit attempts by the government to provide state aid. In fact,
beauty contests appear to have most often been used in other
states to favour an incumbent telecoms operator, which of course
Esat was. In this case however, the Moriarty report clearly finds
that the beauty contest approach favoured by the former Minister,
Deputy Lowry, and the then Department of Transport, Energy and
Communications provided the circumstances whereby the former
Minister, Deputy Lowry, by his insidious and pervasive influence
helped to deliver the second GSM licence to Esat and
Communicorp.
The debacle of the sale of the second GSM licence is, in fact, a

case study in the massive inherent flaws in a beauty contest style

approach. The first auction of 3G licences in the UK had 150
rounds of bidding by 13 companies over seven weeks and the
process raised $35 billion for the British Treasury. The Minister,
Deputy Rabbitte, spoke of a hermetically sealed competition
process and that the Moriarty tribunal finds that the process itself
worked.
In fact, the opposite of these two propositions is true. The trail of
influence and delivery of key information to Esat and Mr. OBrien is
well documented in the report and the baffling and astonishing
decision to change the quantitative weightings in Copenhagen in
late September 1995 conferred a deeply unfair advantage on Esat.
The profound differences in the project team clearly needed
intense further research and deliberation, which did not happen.
The leadership of the Department of Transport, Energy and
Communications appears in a very poor light in the report. The
disgraceful decision to guillotine the process by the former Minster,
Deputy Lowry, was outrageous and the then Secretary General
John Loughrey allowed himself to be bamboozled by the Minister.
The then Secretary General seemed more concerned with
presenting the result than inquiring whether it was the correct one.
Even after the announcement in October 1995, the deeply flawed
process was haunted by the changes in the financial structure of
the Esat bid following the involvement of Mr. Dermot Desmond.
In many internal Labour Party debates I described Fianna Fil and
Fine Gael as the two side of the same coin and argued strongly
against going into Government with either, especially as a minority
party. It is therefore no surprise that Mr. Justice Moriarty draws a
similar analogy in regard to payments to Mr. Haughey and Mr.
Lowry and to Fianna Fil and Fine Gael.
During the period of the issuance of this second GSM licence, Fine
Gael was busy rebuilding its finances and raising millions from big
business. Deputy Michael Lowry was the chair of Fine Gael
trustees and worked closely with the then Taoiseach, John Bruton,
and his then right-hand man, the current Taoiseach, Deputy Enda
Kenny. It is in this context that the saga of the disgraceful $50,000
dollar contribution from Denis OBrien through Telenor must be
placed. Mr. OBrien, who ironically was thought to be a Fianna
Filer by the new Fine Gael Administration, immediately made it
his business to get close to Fine Gael upon its entry to
Government, and hence the sorry saga investigated by Mr. Justice
Moriarty began to enfold.
Fine Gaels handling of the $50,000 donation was of course

disgraceful as was its efforts to conceal it from the tribunal for as

long as possible. I have always believed that he who pays the
piper calls the tune and hope that all corporate, including trade
union, donations will be banned. In the lifetime of Deputy Lowrys
ministry, the then Taoiseach, John Bruton, did not seem to have
these concerns, although he knew the Minister had availed of the
tax amnesty.
The earlier part of the Moriarty tribunal report recounts the detailed
way that Mr. Justice Moriarty clearly identifies and proves the
money trail that existed and led from the head of Esat Digifone, Mr.
Denis OBrien, in particular, to the former Minister, Deputy Lowry.
Mr. Justice Moriarty clearly concludes that a number of significant
payments including 150,000, 300,000 and a benefit equivalent
to a payment for a 420,000 loan, were received by Deputy Lowry
through complex transactions involving third parties or companies
the source of which was Mr. Denis OBrien.
Mr. Justice Moriartys damning conclusion is that a reasonable
inference can be assumed that these payments were connected
to the public office that Deputy Lowry then held, in particular as
Minister for Transport, Energy and Communications, and with the
sale of the GSM licence. There is absolutely no doubt that Mr.
Justice Moriarty has produced overwhelming evidence in this
massive report to back up his key conclusions on the outrageous
and completely unacceptable ongoing financial connections and
payments between Deputy Lowry and Mr. Denis OBrien of Esat
Digifone which followed the award of what should have been a
multi million pound licence.
Mr. Justice Moriarty notes that Deputy Lowry summarily
announced Esat Digifone as the successful bidder and on page
1,131 states: The matter was not considered by Government until
26th October 1995, the day following the public announcement
when it proceeded to Government merely to note the result already
announced by Mr. Lowry. Of course colleagues clearly rely on
accurate information being provided to them by other colleagues in
the Government system or on any board or organisation. Those of
us who served on boards will realise that. It is very unfortunate that
the Cabinet was not made aware of the concerns of certain
members of the Project Group, as Mr. Justice Moriarty puts it
including, the significant departures which had been made from
the evaluation methodology adopted prior to the closing date of the
competitive process and possible consequences of those
departures.
It is appalling, however, that a decision of this magnitude for a

contract that was so valuable was announced at a Cabinet subcommittee called to examine aviation matters and including Deputy
Lowry, the then Taoiseach John Bruton and then Ministers Dick
Spring, Deputy Ruair Quinn and Proinsias De Rossa, MEP. It is
reported that the Department of Finance opposed the beauty
contest and wanted an auction. If this is the correct view, why did
the Department and the then Minister, Deputy Quinn not insist on
the auction route?
Clearly the deep concerns of citizens about the fitness of purpose
of the Department of Finance during the Celtic tiger bubble years
will not be alleviated by this report. Of course recent reports have
shown that Ministers were given correct advice in the Celtic tiger
era but perversely chose to ignore it. Sadly, the conduct and
conclusion of the 2G licence process again casts a poor reflection
of the competence of the rainbow coalition Government.
I have always been opposed to the practice of political donations
from whatever source. Mr. Justice Moriartys report again highlights
the appalling and pernicious effect of donations to political parties
on Irish public life. From the recommendations section of the
report, many citizens will angrily conclude that given the details of
the corporate donations, there must be no continuation of the old
Fianna Fil or Fine Gael style politics as usual. A major good that
can come from this shocking expose of another disgraceful
episode in Irish public life if it is to end once and for all the
destructive and pernicious influence of corporate donations on
political parties and public life.
In the concluding portion of the report, Mr. Justice Moriarty outlines
a comprehensive series of recommendations that must be
considered with the utmost urgency, given the gravity of the
matters referred to. In terms of political donations, I have already
indicated what action the judge believes should be taken. I hope
that Mr. Justice Moriartys recommendations on strengthening
company law in line with the 2006 UK Companies Act on additional
implementation and enforcement measures as well a control of
political donations and expenditure are adopted. There are a
number of important recommendations in terms of the Revenue
Commissioners too, in particular the recommendation that there
should be an amending statutory provision to ensure the total
independence of the Revenue Commissioners.
I welcome Mr. Justice Moriartys comprehensive and far-reaching
report. I commend him and his team for delivering it and hope that
the House and Oireachtas will act urgently on the
recommendations in the report.

FIANNA FIL energy spokesman amon Cuv has called on

Minister for Energy Pat Rabbitte to initiate a far more
extensive review of fracking than that already
commissioned.
Mr Cuv said he also believes there should be a moratorium on
any State licensing related to the activity, pending publication of
such a review.
The study of the techniques impacts, which Mr Rabbitte
commissioned late last year from the Environmental Protection
Agency, has been contracted to the University of Aberdeen. That
study is due shortly, but opponents of the practice in the northwest
say the universitys close links with the oil and gas industry
compromise its independence.
Fracking involves injecting large volumes of water, chemicals and
sand into rock formations to break them open and extract
previously inaccessible fossil fuel deposits, such as shale gas.
It has not yet been licensed here, but onshore petroleum licensing
options allowing for shallow geological sampling have been
awarded by the energy department to three companies for the
Lough Allen and Clare basins, an 8,000sq km area covering 12
counties.
Mr Cuv said that a policy examination of fracking in terms of its
impact on society, community, the environment and the long-term
effect that an extractive industry might have on other industries in
an area needs to be carried out.
Jessica Ernst, a biologist and environmental consultant to the oil
and gas industry, yesterday warned that there is no safe way to
conduct fracking.
Ms Ernst, who has launched a multimillion dollar lawsuit against the
exploration firm Encana for contamination of her property and
drinking water from its fracking programme in Alberta, Canada, is in
the country to speak at a number of events organised by the
umbrella group Good Energies Alliance Ireland.
Speaking at a press conference in Dublin yesterday, she said,
communities need to look at what they stand to lose rather than at
what companies are promising.

GSOC probe into Garda

whistleblowers complaint delayed two
years over files
Thursday, September 29, 2016
Michael Clifford

An investigation into a Garda whistleblowers complaint

has been stalled for two years because of a failure by the
force to hand over documents to the Garda Sochna
Ombudsman Commission (GSOC).

Garda Keith Harrison first met with GSOC in August 2014

and was told a probe into his complaints of malpractice in
the force would be immediately investigated.
Earlier this month, his solicitor wrote to GSOC chair Mary
Ellen Ring, complaining that virtually no progress had
been made.
In a response seen by the Irish Examiner, a GSOC
investigator informed Garda Harrison and the solicitor that
they are still awaiting compliance on a request for
documents before it will be possible to advance the
investigation.
The Irish Examiner understands members of GSOC have
expressed frustration at the extent of the delay over the
supply of information.

Garda Harrison had complained of malpractice in his

previous posting in the Midlands, where he had prosecuted
a fellow officer for drink driving, in a case that was
ultimately dismissed in the District Court. He also
complained that he had been subjected to harassment
since he made his official complaint.
During that time, he has been subjected to a disciplinary
inquiry, although the grounds for the inquiry are unclear.
He was also told that he was to be the subject of a
possible criminal investigation but that was halted after he
brought judicial review proceedings.
Garda Harrison has been on sick leave since he made his
complaint and is anxious to get back to work, but claims
that any return has been blocked.
Our client is presently on sick leave and his employer
have effectively done everything in their power to force
him to resign as a member of An Garda Sochna. The
failure of the commission to advance their investigation
has seriously undermined and prejudiced our clients
position in circumstances where he and his partner and
their children are suffering ongoing victimisation and
harassment, his solicitor wrote in the letter to Ms Ring.
The reply from GSOC indicated that the inordinate delay
was attributable to the failure of garda to supply
information.
Last week, Ms Ring told an Oireachtas committee that
GSOC had experienced delays in getting information from
the garda. She said it was an ongoing difficulty and GSOC
lacked the powers required to impose a penalty if the
information was not promptly provided.
http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/gsoc-probe-into-gardawhistleblowers-complaint-delayed-two-years-over-files-423334.html

Homeless mans final meal was fire

lighters, inquest told
The tormented final hours of a homeless man unfolded
yesterday.
Thursday, September 29, 2016
Jimmy Woulfe, Mid-West Correspondent

The coroner said Christopher Kelly's death was due to the

affects of
Christopher Kelly, 50, who originally lived at St Marys
Park, Limerick, was pronounced dead on March 30.
After taking huge amounts of drink and drugs, his final
meal consisted of sticks of domestic fire lighters.
While sleeping rough the night before, Mr Kelly consumed
large amounts of canned beer having failed to secure a
bed in a city centre homeless centre.
His gruesome, final, day was recalled at an inquest before
Limerick coroner, John McNamara. A friend told the
hearing how he met Mr Kelly around 2pm off St Johns
Square at the homeless centre. While the friend got a bed,
Mr Kelly didnt.
They later met up and went to a laneway where they
drank cans of beer. Volunteers running a soup kitchen
arrived about 7pm. Mr Kelly got the price of a few more
cans and went off drinking. Later, the pair met a woman
they knew who brought them to her house in Kennedy
Park.
There, they sat around drinking beer, but due to shaking
bouts, Mr Kelly took Xanex tablets, known on the street as
Upjohn 90s.
The woman gave him her vodka which he drank from the
bottle. He took 11 Xanex tablets overall along with
methadone.
The friend who brought him to the house went to bed

upstairs and came down a few times to check on him. He

found Mr Kelly at one stage during the night eating
firelighters because he was so hungry. The friend took the
firelighters off him and gave him some pretzels.
After Mr Kelly became sick, he was turned on his side. In
the morning, the friend discovered Mr Kelly was not
breathing and called an ambulance.
He had died on a kitchen floor, alone.
Pathologist Dr Vourneen Healy said she found Xanex
tablets in one of Mr Kellys socks. Blood samples contained
toxic levels of an anti-depressant along a large amount of
methadone and alcohol, with a toxic level of 185. Death,
she said, was due to the affects of drugs and alcohol. Mr
Kelly, she said, had been unconscious when he died.
Recording a verdict of misadventure, the coroner said Mr
Kelly did not intend to die and described it as an
unexpected tragedy.
The Government says 1,350 people have exited
homelessness in the first six months of the year.
Housing Minister Simon Coveney has announced that
more rapid-build homes, and an additional 230 emergency
beds for rough sleepers, will be made available between
November and January.
He has reiterated his commitment to end the use of hotels
for homeless accommodation, except in limited
circumstances by the middle of next year.
Minister Coveney admits tackling the homeless issue is
not an easy task.
He said: "In the first half of this year 1,350 sustainable
exits have been achieved and by the end of the year they
said there will be over 2,700.
"That is more people being taken out of homelessness in
Ireland this year than ever before, ironically at a time
when we have more people who are homeless.
"We are running to stand still in some ways at the moment
and so further accelereation is needed to start reducing

those overall numbers."

Minister Coveney said that the Housing Agency has

already bought 171 properties and more than 730 homes
have been offered to the agency for sale.
He also said that so far this year more than 450 tenancies
have been secured and he said "we are confident we will
exceed the target for this year". He said that 69% of the
households accommodated under the pilot are families
with children.
Some of the Action Plan's main commitments are:
* We aim to ensure that by mid-2017, commercial hotels
will only be used in limited circumstances to
accommodate homeless families.
* We are accelerating the provision of the Rapid Build
programme. By the end of 2018 at least 1,500 units will be
provided. This year we will have some 300 homes under
construction or completed by the end of the year. We have
projects in Ballyfermot, Drimnagh, Belcamp and Finglas
which have had enabling works carried out and
construction is expected to commence next month.

* We are expanding HAP Homeless Tenancies to deliver

550 in 2016 and 1,200 in 2017.
* Additional 200 emergency beds for rough sleepers to be
put in place before end of year at a cost of up to 4m.
* The Housing Agency will purchase 1,600 vacant
properties and a number of these will be used to provide
permanent homes for homeless families.
* The increased supply of social housing targeted in the
Plan - 47,000 homes by the end of 2021 will also ensure
that more homes are provided for those who are homeless
and for those at risk of homelessness.
* Rebuilding Ireland also includes a range of important
measures aimed at supporting homeless families with
children in emergency accommodation, including the
provision of dedicated child support workers, home-school
liaison staff, access to free public transport, access to
crches and pre-school services and measures to address
their nutritional needs.
* We are strengthening our effort to provide rough
sleepers with a home, by tripling the target for the
Housing First teams in Dublin from 100 tenancies to 300
tenancies and by strengthening the housing-led approach
in other urban areas. HSE funding will increase from 2m
this year to 6m next year to provide health, mental
health and addiction supports to rough sleepers and
people in emergency accommodation, who often have
complex needs that must be addressed in tandem with the
provision of stable housing.
* We must continue to prevent people from becoming
homeless. People in serious mortgage arrears will be
provided with increased access to legal and financial
advice and more households will be facilitated under the
Mortgage to Rent scheme, while existing measures to
protect tenants in the private rented sector will be
extended nationwide.

Homeless children will get free school transport from midOctober but Children's Minister Katherine Zappone was
forced to defend plans to give their families free travel
passes for day trips.

"Clearly what we're trying to do is make it easier to cope

with a very difficult circumstance and several children and
young people we have spoken to have said that would be
a great thing for them," she said.
The number of social houses being built is to increase from
74 last year to more than 1,500 this year and another
2,300 next year.
"That on top of a more aggressive acquisition programme,
getting voids back into use, we are going to see a
dramatic increase in the availability of social housing," Mr
Coveney said.
Elsewhere, Tusla is to be asked to support about 40 young
people who leave state care each year as they begin to
search for accommodation.
Other commitments pledged by the Government in July
were also repeated including only allowing limited use of
hotels and bed and breakfasts for emergency homeless
accommodation by the middle of next year.

Campaigner Fr Peter McVerry said: "Until we see the

monthly figures of the homeless reducing I will reserve my
applause."
The charity chief also hit out at continued plans to develop
dormitory-style accommodation for rough sleepers, which
he said many refuse to use for fear of being robbed or
targeted by drug dealers.
Focus Ireland's director of advocacy Mike Allen said: "The
minister has repeatedly referred to tackling homelessness
being like trying to empty the bath with the taps full on
but there is very little in this plan to turn off the taps now."
http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/homeless-mans-final-mealwas-fire-lighters-inquest-told-423272.html?
utm_source=link&utm_medium=click&utm_campaign=nextandprev

Quango Hammer tidyup exercise

Eastern Regional Fisheries Board
Economic and Social Research Institute
Economic and Social Research Institute Committee on TopLevel Appointments in the Civil Service
Commission on Public Service Appointments
Education Finance Board
Eirgrid
Employment Appeals Tribunal Recommended for merger with
the Labour Court and the Labour Relations Commission in the
June 2009 'An Snip Nua' report. No indication that these
mergers have taken place.

Engineering and Technology (Board? Sensecheck)

Enterprise Ireland
Chairman Hugh Cooney Official biog http://www.enterpriseireland.com/en...gh-Cooney.html
November 2008; A POLITICAL donor to Taoiseach Brian Cowen
has been given a prestigious State agency job. Hugh Cooney, an
accountant and former Offaly minor footballer, gave a political
donation of 1,000 to Mr Cowen before the last general
election. He was named yesterday as chairman of the State's
job creation body, Enterprise Ireland. But the move has been
criticised by the Opposition, who said the lack of a transparent
appointments process gave rise to accusations of "cronyism"
and "jobbery". A Government spokesman confirmed that Mr
Cooney was one of 18 election donors who gave 1,000 each to
Mr Cowen after a golf fundraiser in 2006.
http://www.independent.ie/national-n...m-1532780.html
July 2010 Mr Cooney, who is a financial contributor to
Taoiseach Brian Cowen, named KPMG and BDO Simpson Xavier
as accountancy companies where he may have a potential
conflict. Mr Cooney is a consultant and former partner at
accountants KPMG, which received gigs to the value of 83,000
last year from EI. http://www.independent.ie/business/i...t2254178.html
Chief Executive Frank Ryan As CEO, Frank is appointed by the
Minister for Enterprise, Trade and Innovation, is a member of
the Board of Enterprise Ireland and is an ex-officio member of
the Board of Forfs. Frank held a range of senior positions in
the Industrial Development Agency (IDA Ireland).
October 2009. At Enterprise Ireland, CEO Frank Ryan is paid
222,000 a year. He has a company car, receives vouched
expenses and will also retire on a whopper of a pension.
http://www.independent.ie/national-n...e-1903854.html
July 2010. Smaller personal interests were named by Intel's Jim
O'Hara and Mr Ryan, who doubles up as a director of the Digital

Hub. http://www.independent.ie/business/i...t-2254178.html
Michael Buckley is a former Chief Executive of Allied Irish
Banks and, prior to that, Managing Director of NCB Group. He
is the non-executive Chairman of DCC plc and is a nonexecutive director of a number of other quoted companies as
well as being a senior advisor to a number of Irish and
international businesses.
July 2010 Former AIB boss Mr Buckley has declared close to
1m of transactions presenting a possible conflict. As a
shareholder in Kingspan, Mr Buckley has revealed that EI gave
payments to the publicly quoted company of 26,000, plus
415,000 to subsidiary Kingspan Century. He has also listed
Zamano Solutions, a mobile company assisted by EI to the
extent of 350,000. http://www.independent.ie/business/i...t2254178.html
Dr. Catherine Caulfield is the Co-Founder of BiologicalLaboratories Limited, Ballina, Co Mayo. The company was sold
to Charles River Laboratories Inc. in 2002. Official biog
http://www.enterprise-ireland.com/en...Caulfield.html
Gearoid Doyle was appointed to the board of Enterprise
Ireland in 2007. He is the founder of Kinsale Capital
Management, a leading hedge fund company with a global
investor base. He previously worked for Merrill Lynch in
London and Chicago where he ran the international equities
group. Prior to setting up Kinsale Capital Gearoid was a director
and Head of Equities Sales and Trading at Goodbody
Stockbrokers.
There is a bit of a mystery around Kinsale Capital
Management. Given that Elan have a shareholder activist
currently targeting alleged mismanagement at board level and
noting that Elan CEO G Kelly Morgan appeared as a backer of
Kinsale Capital Management on their website only to disappear
from the text when questions arose concerning possible
conflicts of interest with Elan privileged information. Given that
Enterprise Ireland has significant dealings with Elan it would
seem appropriate that Mr Doyle be very careful about

commenting on any Elan connected support proposed at

Enterprise Ireland.
Kinsale Capital Management are rumoured to have significant
BankOfAmerica Merrill Lynch and Deutsche Bank connections
so this one might keep the governance directors at Enterprise
Ireland on their
toes.http://www.investorvillage.com/smbd....sg&mid=8540394
Michael McLoone (brother of outgoing IMPACT union General
Secretary and Chairman of the ICTU Peter McLoone) retired
from the post of Donegal County Manager in July 2010. He
served as Donegal County Manager since 1994. An
Environmental Health officer, he spent his early career in Public
Health Services. Michael has also served in a number of public
sector roles including:
Chairman, Donegal County Enterprise Board
Chairman, Letterkenny Institute of Technology
Member, Western Development Commission
Chairman, Irish Blood Transfusion Board
Member, Health Service Executive
Chair, Donegal Airport Board
Member, Ulster-Scots Agency Board
As County Manager, Michael has undertaken a series of
reforming initiatives, including the decentralisation of Council
services to new Public Service Centres in each electoral area.
June 2010; THE manager of Donegal County Council, Michael
McLoone, has defended himself following a damning report
detailing 2.5m in payments to consultants including bills for
expensive wines and tips to waiters. The internal audit relates
to the company One Sigma Ltd which was put in place to design
a new management system at the council. Highly critical of the
use of the company, the auditor detailed fees paid to One
Sigma and to other companies associated with consultants
Stephen Cang and David Stroll. Concerns began earlier this
year when it emerged that proper tendering procedures were
not used in the procurement of the consultants.The report
noted that while the government had ordered a curb on local

authority spending on professional fees in 2009, money paid to

the company increased by 50% in the same year. There were
also concerns about advance payments made in 2008 due to
"cash flow problems" with the company. At the same time the
council was operating from an overdraft and was in the process
of redundancies. A clause in the contract insisted the council
foot the bill for business class flights between Belfast and
London, first class rail tickets and hotels that must be of four
star quality. http://www.tribune.ie/news/article/2...onsultantsfe/
Bob Savage is Vice President and General Manager, EMC
Ireland Centre of Excellence. Official biog
http://www.enterprise-ireland.com/en...ob-Savage.html
Liam Meaney was appointed to the Enterprise Ireland Board in
2007. Liam has over 40 years experience with major multinational organisations. He has worked in the Drinks industry
for over 30 years, 20 of which at Board level. Liam is a fellow of
the Marketing Institute of Ireland.
July 2010; Other directors to confront possible conflicts by
virtue of their positions as directors included drinks industry
veteran Liam Meaney, who named Ryanair, Grafton and AIB as
potential flashpoints. http://www.independent.ie/business/i...t2254178.html
Mire N Thuathail, A native of Tourmakeady in Co Mayo, is the
founder and Managing Director of EO Teilifs. Official biog
http://www.enterprise-ireland.com/en...Thuathail.html
Maires company EO Teilifis was awarded the contract for a
Gaelic language newspaper by Foras na Gaeilge, announced
November 2010. Torann na dTonn Teoranta, the entity
awarded the contract is a joint enterprise between the
Connacht Tribune and EO Teilifis.
http://www.gaelport.com/default.aspx...ewsItemID=3432
Helen Nugent was appointed to the Board in March 2008. Ms
Nugent is a Principal Officer at the Office of Science and
Technology, Department of Enterprise, Trade and Innovation.
Jim OHara is vice president, Technology Manufacturing Group,

Intel Corporation and Intel Ireland general manager. Official

biog http://www.enterprise-ireland.com/en...Jim-OHara.html
Rita Shah was appointed to the Board in October 2010. She is a
co-founder of the Monaghan based Shabra Plastics/Recycling
Group. A multi-award-winning entrepreneur, Rita has since
steered the company through vertical integration, innovation
and R&D, to become an industry leader in the clean technology
sector through plastic recycling, reprocessing and
manufacturing of recycled bags and sacks, thus closing the
loop. With a client list that includes blue-chip companies, the
company is able to export recyclate material worldwide, which
has enjoyed rapid growth over the past few years. Rita has
strategically placed the company to ensure this trend is set to
continue well into the future. Rita was appointed onto the Small
Business Forum in 2006 and worked with Plastics Ireland and
also the RX3 Working Group. For the past number of years, Rita
has been a judge on the Small Business Firms awards. She has
taken on the role of mentor and advisor for Women in Business
via the Growing for Growth Programme for the past three
years. Rita is also actively involved in the Monaghan Business
Leaders Forum on Economic Strategy.
Shabra Plastics/Recycling Group are in receipt of a 3.5 million
Enterprise Ireland-backed investment.
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/...278565595.html
With Enterprise Ireland being mooted as a new super-quango
and according to Colm McCarthys An Snip Nua Report due to
take over the work of a number of other semi-state bodies it
would be advisable that Enterprise Ireland makes sure it has
proper corporate governance procedures in place as they are
perilously close to charges of cronyism and misunderstandings
may arise should Enterprise Ireland Board Members become
involved in any conflicts of interest with their own investments.
It seems odd that EI should not have expertise on an advisory
board but possible conflicts are a little too close when actual EI
Board Members are discussing issues which affect their own
investments in various sectors.

It is proposed that the County and City Enterprise Boards, the

Business Innovation Centres, the Western Development
Commission and the enterprise functions of dars na
Gaeltachta, Shannon Development, Bord Iascaigh Mhara,
LEADER and Teagasc, as well as sector-specific agencies such as
the Irish Film Board, should be merged within a re-constituted
Enterprise Ireland. The streamlined agency should also lead to
major savings in overall administration costs including staff
numbers. The Group considers that the new enterprise body
should operate a regional office network based upon the nine
Gateways identified in the National Spatial Strategy, leading to
savings in local office accommodation costs. Savings in
overseas office costs would also arise. (page 15
http://www.finance.irlgov.ie/documen.../bl100vol1.pdf)
Environmental Information Service
Environmental Protection Agency
Mary Kelly, Director General No fees payable. The Director
General and Directors are paid salaries as they are executive
members of the agency.
Laura Burke
Padraig Larkin
Dara Lynott
Larry Stapleton
Former Directors
Declan Burns
Ann Butler
Gerry Carty
Iain MacClean
Liam McCoumiskey (Deceased)
Marie Sherwood
Equality Authority
ESB

Equality Tribunal
European Regional Development Fund
European Social Fund Financial Control Unit
Expert Group on Future Skills Needs

BERTIE, BRUTON & THE JUDGE;

KNOBILITY OR TREASON
June 4, 2016
end post header

What services to the Crown, City of London that merited a

knighthood for Bruton, Bertie and a district court judge Patrick
Clyne?
Breech of article 40.2 of the CONstitution. Executive and government
approval must be granted to receive titles of nobility.
Knights are nobles.
http://tinyurl.com/jhzt82w
misprision of treason act 1939 still enacted;
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1939/act/10/enacted/en/print.html
the deliberate concealment of ones knowledge of a treasonable act or a
felony.
Knight Grand Cross with Gold Star
*HE Mr Bertie Ahern*, GCCO, former Taoiseach of Ireland,
*HE Mr John Bruton*, GCCO, Vice-Delegate for Ireland of the Sacred
Military Constantinian Order of Saint George, former Taoiseach of
Ireland,Head of I.F.S.C.
http://tinyurl.com/smcosg
The Delegate expresses his gratitude to the following knights whose
terms
on the Council of the Delegation concluded on 23 April 2015 St
Georges Day.
*His Honour Judge Patrick Clyne*, MStJ, KM, KCMCO,
and sure where would we be without an Irish District Court judge being
this
well connected too as per link above.
now check out his appointment in 2015.freeman of city of london,
knight
of malta, member of three livery companies in city of londonamong
many other titlesand hes a District Court Judge!!!! bit low down the
pecking order, or maybe thats intentional..

http://www.independent.ie/regionals/sligochampion/news/nominat
ed-as-judge-27521088.html
now how does that square up with titles of
nobility and 37 CONstitution.did the bertie and the bruton get
government
consent beforehand, as surely they would lose all their state benefits if
they took these honours in contravention of the ol CON-stitution.or is
the fact they most assuredly didnt get consent imply the CON-stitution
is
not the ruling document on this land.

{Insignia of a Knight of St Patrick: Gold crowns above a green shamrock

on a red Cross of Saint Patrick.
Saint Patricks Flag: a red
saltire on a field of white}
Within the Delegation of Great Britain and Ireland the following knights
and dames are current members of the Sacred Military Constantinian
Order of Saint George the second Order of Knighthood of the Royal
House of Bourbon Two Sicilies. Within the Order are three categories of
membership Justice, Grace and Merit with each consisting of several
grades. The Order includes a three grade Bronze, Silver and Gold
Benemerenti Medal.
http://www.constantinian.org.uk/members-of-the-sacred-military-

constantinian-order-of-saint-george/
THE REAL PRINCE CHARLES;
As Grand Master of the Sacred Military Constantinian Order of Saint
George he promotes and coordinates the humanitarian and cultural
activities of this ancient knightly order.
http://www.realcasadiborbone.it/hrh-prince-charles-of-bourbontwo-sicilies/
The Church of England and The Catholic Church(Jesuits) agree on
Canon Law where over 700 times we are classed as things.
Refer also to the Red Mass at the church of St. Michans ritual on the
grounds of the High Court Dublin where the Judges etc seek and pray
for guidance from the Holy Spirit ahead of the start of the court year.

PETER
SUTHERLAND~GOLDMAN~STATE
EU TREASON
June 26, 2016
end post header

Peter Sutherland~Captain of Trinity Rugby Team and The Holy See.

Goldman Sachs.Whos buying Ireland? Sutherland definitely selling
Chairman of Goldman Sachs International Was Until Last Year Also
Chairman of BP
Behold the man who is Chairman of Goldman Sachs, a kind of
international bookies for casino-capitalism, described as a vampire
squid on the face of humanity for its part in the world-wide crisis; a
company which is currently urging austerity on the people who are
paying a penalty-premium to ECB loan-sharks , in order to bail out the
private losses of his firms!
Janine Wedel has written extensively on how the shadow elite rule the
world and about the flexians the movers and shakers of the shadow
elite who glide across borders, and structure overlapping (and not fully
revealed) roles in government, business, media, and think tanks to
serve their own agendas.
Wedel says that flexians wear many hats both within and outside of
government, and use their networks of contacts to influence policy are
warping our democracy and the rule of law.
Peter Sutherland is the quintessential flexian.

Peter Sutherland, Irelands former

attorney-general and European Union commissioner, and Lord Camoys,
a veteran UK banker, were brought in to advise the Administration of the
Patrimony of the Apostolic See (Apsa), which acts as a central bank.
According to his September 2009 bio:
Peter Sutherland is chairman of BP plc (1997 current). He is also
chairman of Goldman Sachs International (1995 current). He was
appointed chairman of the London School of Economics in 2008.
Before these appointments, he was the founding director-general of the
World Trade Organisation. He had previously served as director general
of GATT sinceJuly 1993 [and was] chairman of the Board of Governors
of the European Institute of Public Administration (Maastricht) 19911996.
Sutherland resigned as BPs chairman in 2009, but apparently still
serves in various key capacities.
Sutherland is managing director as well as chairman of Goldman
Sachs International (Goldman Sachs International is the very powerful
subsidiary of the Goldman Sachs Group, of which Lloyd Blankfein is
CEO). Sutherland is also an Advisory Director of the Goldman Sachs
Group itself.
And he was/is European Chairman for the Trilateral Commission.Denis
and Endas Adviser/Comptroller.
He has, at various times, attended meetings of the Bilderberg group,
with a pet in arms.
He is also one of the chief money laundering/pay offs financial advisers
to the Vatican.
Vatican to tackle money laundering

By Giulia Segreti in Rome

Published: December 29 2010 19:35 | Last updated: December 29 2010
19:35
The Vatican will establish a new authority to combat money laundering
as the tiny state seeks the blessing of international regulators who have
refused to include it on lists of countries compliant with international
norms (http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/de6bc4e0-2b78-11de-b80600144feabdc0.html#axzz19WyHNAJD).
In a papal document to be published on Thursday, the Vatican will
promise to adhere to European rules targeting money laundering. The
decree, or motu proprio, will apply to all government bodies at the Holy
See including the Vatican Bank, also known as the Institute for
Religious Works (IOR).
The Vaticans new Financial Information Authority will enforce rules
concerning the prevention of illegal financial activity and join the fight
against money laundering and terrorism financing, the Holy See said in
a statement on Wednesday.
Cardinal Attilio Nicora, head of the body responsible for Church
properties and funding, will oversee the new anti-money laundering
regime.
The Vatican covets inclusion on lists compiled by bodies including the
Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development and the
Financial Action Task Force of jurisdictions deemed to be compliant
with international money laundering norms.
The announcement comes three months after court officials in Rome
launched an investigation into the Vatican banks top two officials
Ettore Gotti-Tedeschi, chairman, and Paolo Cipriani, director-general
for suspected breach of anti-money laundering norms.
Both men have denied any wrongdoing. Mr Gotti-Tedeschi has said the
case arose from a misunderstanding between the Vatican bank and
Credito Artigiano
(http://markets.ft.com/tearsheets/performance.asp?s=it:CRA), an
Italian bank, over a money transfer.
Following concerns from Italys central bank over two transfers of
Vatican funds to unnamed beneficiaries, magistrates seized a total of
23m ($30m) from an IOR account at Credito Artigiano.
In October, an Italian court ruled against an appeal by the Vatican,
which had sought the release of the frozen funds.
The motu proprio is a clear confirmation of what we have been saying
until now the Catholic Church wants to be included in the list of states
dedicated to combating terrorism and money laundering and has no
intention to get involved in any money laundering, Vincenzo
Scordamaglia, a lawyer representing the IOR, told the Financial Times.
Italy will not be able to say any more that the Holy See does not want
to follow the rules. We have had so many obstacles in the past . . . If

this motu proprio had arrived earlier, [the probe] never would have been
launched.
Bankers estimate that the IOR, which does not publish its accounts,
holds assets worth about $5bn. It is administered by five cardinals, has
no shareholders and disburses its profits to charities.
The motu proprio will be Pope Benedict XVIs seventh since he
succeeded Pope John Paul II in April 2005.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/fd156970-137d-11e0-a36700144feabdc0.html
As if that is not enough, Sutherland also serves in the following
capacities;
as an Attorney General of Ireland and also served as European
Commissioner from 1985 to 1989 where he was responsible for
competition policy. He serves as the Chairman of British Petroleum,
BP Amoco PLC and United Kingdom. From 1989 to 1993, he served as
the Chairman of Allied Irish Bank. . He serves as a Non-Executive
Director of Telefonaktiebolaget LM Ericsson. He serves as a Director of
Goldman Sachs International. He has been Member of Supervisory
Board at Allianz SE since January 2010 and serves as its Member of
International Advisory Board . Mr. Sutherland served as a Non
Executive Director of BP Plc since July 1995. He serves as a Member of
Foundation Board of World Economic Forum. He served as an
Independent Non Executive Director of National Westminster Bank PLC
since January 2001. He served as an Independent Non Executive
Director of The Royal Bank Of Scotland Plc from January 2001 to
February 6, 2009. In addition, he serves on the board of Allianz, Koc
Holding A.S. and is a member of the advisory board of Eli Lilly. He
served as a Director of LM Ericsson Telephone Co since 1996, Ericsson
SPA since 1996 and Investor AB since 1995. He served as a Non
Executive Director of Royal Bank of Scotland Group plc from January
2001 to February 6, 2009.
Sutherland is literally like Lloyd Blankfein and Tony Hayward rolled
into one. But unlike Blankfein and Hayward, he has also held numerous
powerful governmental and quasi-governmental positions.
Goldman head offices
Peter Sutherland since 1995, was executive director of Goldman Sachs
International, but had key roles in the European institutions: it was
European Commissioner for Competition, Director General of GATT
(General Agreement for Trade and Traffic), Secretary General from
2006 United Nations Organisation for Migration, the 2008 president of
the London School of Economics, President of the Federal Trust and
member of the European Policy Centre, in addition, between 2001 and
2009 was president of the British section of the Fund for Ireland.
These are some names, the most common, but the list is really long and

mingling between national institutions, Europe is really impressive, so

much so that it is difficult to speak of a mere coincidence.An answer to
a parliamentary questions revealed that in 2010 the NTMA paid 6.2
million to bond traders and wealth managers Rothschild for advice on
burning bondholders from the very same bondholders.
Given all this, we understand what is behind the scene that promises to
power: the banks, in particular, and particularly a bank, Goldman Sachs,
but behind the Goldman Sachs who is or are? the men that move the
ranks of world power? as some of the characters that we encountered
so far: Mario Draghi, Mario Monti, Lucas Papademos, Petros
Christodoulou, Otmar Issing, etc. are not the architects of the grand
design of Goldman Sachs, but ARE instruments of the same plan?
by Oisin
Behold the man who was previously on the board of the now troubled
Allied Irish Bank, which wrote off the substantial debts owed by the
former Prime Minister, Garret FitzGerald, and other people who
gambled on the stock-market, and lost; but who now tells us that debts
imposed on us taxpayers, because of private, foreign and domestic
banks that also gambled, these are sacrosanct and no cheeky
questions from you peasants, either
Sutherland opposes the banking inquiry. This is hardly surprising
from a former chairman of AIB who appeared at the 1999 public inquiry
into the Dirt tax evasion scandal.
It would have been better not to have an inquiry at this time We
need to look to the future [Irish Times]
Before we avert our gaze at this glorious future which is coming, why
not look at some of his past performance, though? Behold the man who
was one of the directors of the Royal Bank of Scotland until 2009; this is
the same bank that is number one of the top ten Irish government bond
(debt) holders; those same bondholders that Pete is pontificating must
be reassured by imposing austerity on us peons; behold the man
who was
a board member at Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS) during the financial
meltdown when the UK bank collapsed into state arms after a frenetic,
debt-fuelled growth. Of the banks 2007 role in the 71 billion
acquisition of Dutch bank ABN Amro, the biggest ever banking
takeover, Sutherland says it made the mistake of buying at precisely
the wrong time when the world was falling off the back of a bus. [Irish
Times]
Or as Zerohedge puts it

Lack of revisionism is not too surprising coming from a person whose

personal, and future, fortune, is based on the past generosity of
American, and now Irish taxpayers. Because his wealth is certainly not
due to his skill at anything related to his actual career.
Behold the man who has used every opportunity to browbeat Ireland
about the necessity of greater EU integration for example, the
adoption by Ireland of the Euro; who now tells us
We have to recognise that as currency devaluation is not an option,
downward flexibility in wages and prices is essential to avoid
unemployment [Irish Times]
Which is only what every thoughtful opponent of Maastricht and every
other such treaty was trying to warn about but was shouted down by
the Great and the Good such as Sutherland, Fitzgerald etc., and their
apologists, enablers, & messenger boys in Official Ireland.
Despite all the huffing and puffing by the Loyal Opposition, still
beholden to the Permanent Government, the only person in the Dil
that we are aware of who has made a substantive public address on
this is Martin Ferris and this has then only been reported abroad.
Think about this really, really hard, the next time that RTE, the Media, or
anyone else respectable puts that kind of person up on a pedestal.

There is honour amongst thieves.

Illegal Evictions?Game Over!You Be

The Judge
June 9, 2016
end post header

ALL EVICTIONS ARE ILLEGAL SINCE 1851- The burden of proof is

now placed upon the plaintiffs, the BAR, the Court Services (Statutory
Court Corporation), the Garda Siochana Corporation, Royal Oireachtas,
and all those protecting, and representing the fraud,in what is just
deceit.
Defendant is Respondent and Plaintiff is Claimant in our realm of
innocence;
At Section 59 it seems the assistant barrister (Judge) can sue or be
sued in the nearest county to him/her by a party, i.e. perhaps by a
defendant in a Possession case progressing in a Court where it should
not be ?

At Section 96 the Defendant is afforded all opportunities of

defence as at equity and the title cannot be impugned etc. How does
this square with the butchery of summary judgement in the present
Circuit Court?

At Section 100 it seems a Defendant can require his/her case to

be heard by jury- again how does this square with summary judgement
where a case is over in seconds.

At section 139 it seems an order for possession, in effect for one

year, cannot thereafter be renewed. Of course said order had to be

signed by the Judge in the first instance to make it valid as per this
section. How many Judges sign Possession orders in Ireland from
Circuit Courts in 2016?

At section 148 no Sheriff, or any other party, shall seize goods or

cattle after sunset and before sunrise without being guilty of an offence.

At section 157 anyone guilty of swearing a false oath will be held

liable for perjury what of the infamous Bank Deponent character in
Ireland in 2016?
GAME OVER
Circuit Court, Civil Bill Court, Sheriff, Evictions
2.21 In the Consultation Paper, the Commission considered the issue
of the Circuit Courts jurisdiction, including its general monetary
jurisdiction and jurisdiction in land-related and equitable matters.
2.23 The Commission considered concerns that were expressed during
the consultation process after the Consultation Paper was published
about the transparency for parties in establishing whether the
Circuit Court has jurisdiction in property matters, because of the
archaic origins of the rateable valuation threshold and the possible
difficulty of objectively establishing market value, as against the 3
million threshold introduced by the Civil Liability and Courts Act 2004,
which has not at the time of writing (November 2010) been
commenced. That jurisdiction is at present determined by reference to
rateable valuation and gives the Circuit Court jurisdiction where the
rateable valuation does not exceed 253.95. The Valuation Act 2001
provides for a new valuation system which will more accurately reflect
current property values and the courts jurisdiction needs to be modified
to reflect this. These sections change the jurisdiction limit of 253.95
(200) rateable valuation to a market value of 3,000,000.
2.24 The Commission notes that the Circuit Court is somewhat unusual
by international standards in having a full equitable jurisdiction up to a
monetary limit. The practice in many other common law jurisdictions,
including several states of the United States, is to confine equitable
jurisdiction entirely to superior courts (such as the High Court), so as to
require the proceedings to be brought in a superior court if equitable
relief is sought or an equitable interest in real property is potentially in
issue, so no valuation based threshold is needed; . it might be
considered necessary to empower the Circuit Court to decline
jurisdiction (much as the District Court does if it concludes that a
criminal offence is not minor), which would be uncertain, inconvenient
and involve potential for additional cost where cases were opened but
later sent forward to a higher court.
2.26 In the absence of an obvious alternative which would appear
readily workable and capable of securing widespread support, the

Commission has concluded that nothing further is appropriate for the

present, other than noting the concern but maintaining the current
provisions. Source: Page 22 Law Reform Commission
(Consolidation and Reform of the Courts Acts, LRC 97 2010)
From above we can see that even within the Legal System there is
much confusion regarding the concept of there being Jurisdiction or not
in the Circuit Court once disputes arise related to property. It seems the
underlying message is that Ireland is unique in allowing Courts of
limited Jurisdiction (Circuit Courts) to hear these cases up to certain
limits, especially when based on such an archaic provision as rateable
valuation of land.
The civil jurisdiction of the Circuit Court is a limited one unless all
parties to an action consent, in which event the jurisdiction is unlimited.
The limit of the courts jurisdiction relates mainly to actions where the
claim does not exceed 75,000 and the rateable valuation of land does
not exceed 253.95. Source: Civil Business Circuit Court
Homepage.
The Circuit Court does enjoy unlimited jurisdiction if both parties to a
dispute Plaintiff & Defendant -consent. This is legislated for as per
section 48(1) of the Courts of Justice Act 1924, duly amended by s. 3 of
the Courts (Supplemental Provisions) Act, 1961; particularly s.22(1)(b)
of the said 1961 Act. The Form of consent mentioned therein is Form
No. 1(A) of the Schedule of Forms to the Circuit Court Rules, as
described at Order 5, rule 8 of Circuit Court Rules, which is to be lodged
with the County Registrar, at any time during proceedings.
However, it gathers dust. It is not being used. Defendants in Possession
cases, so new to this whole legal world, are not even informed of their
power to refuse jurisdiction to Summary Possession in the Circuit Court.
At Summary Possession there is no Defence; delay in timing of the
Possession Order being delivered is the only block to the Plaintiff or
their Agents.
In the absence of said consent of the part of both Plaintiff and
Defendant the Circuit Court is then bound by the Rateable Valuation
clause or by the monetary Jurisdiction of the Court (75,000), as it is
now a Court of limited Jurisdiction as per its own rules. What legal
Professional does not know that Rates on Dwellings have been
abolished since 1977? Following on from this what legal professional
believes that the value of most dwellings in Ireland in the 21st Century is
less than 75,000? Considering all of Solicitors, Registrars, Barristers or
Judges have been University educated, with the latter two categories
gaining further training at Kings Inns, it would be assumed they
possess a sufficient intellect to grasp the implications of there being no
consent in place to expand jurisdiction, of there being no rates on
dwellings and that almost 100% of dwellings in Ireland are valued
higher than 75,000? The net result is that the Circuit Court in Ireland

DOES NOT enjoy jurisdiction to hear Possession cases. Yet in 2016

Possession Orders for dwellings from said Courts fly around Ireland like
Confetti.
But, is it the Circuit Court that is hearing the case? After all, suing is by
way of a Civil Bill for Possession.
Justice Noonan in Bank of Ireland Mortgage Bank v. Hanley & Giblin
[2015] IEHC 738 of 26/11/2015 gives us a history of the evolution of the
present Circuit Court from 1851-2016. From reading said Judgement
one gets the strong impression that the Circuit Court of today is exactly
the same as the Civil Bill courts pre independence. Also, in the Law
Reform Commission report referenced above Consolidation and
Reform of the Court Acts LRC97-2010,at page 13, it is stated that since
the Civil Bill is unchanged since pre 1922 that indeed the Current Circuit
Court Jurisdiction derives mainly from the 1851 Civil Bill Courts (Ireland)
Act & County Officers & Courts Act 1877. That being the case, all
references to jurisdiction in those two Acts all clearly reflect that High
Court Jurisdiction is conferred on the local Civil Bill Court, but again
restricted by a monetary limit and by a rent value on land, which is
exactly the scenario present to this day with the Circuit Court.
Both those Acts still remain on the Statute books. It is wondered how
Section (3) 1851 Civil Bill Courts (Ireland) ACT 1851 (which has not
been repealed or amended up to 1/1/2016) squares with Article 34
Section 6(1) of Bunreacht na h-ireann?
Section3. Civil Bill Courts (Ireland) Act, 1851
No assistant barrister* already appointed, if removed to any other
county or riding, nor any assistant barrister hereafter to be appointed,
shall proceed to act as assistant barrister until he shall have first taken
the following oath before the Lord High Chancellor or Keeper or any
Commissioner of the Great Seal of Ireland for the time being; which
oath the said chancellor, keeper, or commissioner is hereby empowered
to administer; that is to say,

I, A.B., do swear, that I will execute the office of

assistant barrister for the county of
[or riding of the
county of
], and for any other county or riding to
which I may be hereafter appointed, diligently, justly and
impartially, and without favour, affection, or malice, do
equal right to all the Queens subjects that shall come
within my jurisdiction; and that I will in all things, to the
best of my skill and power, faithfully execute all the
duties imposed or that shall hereafter be imposed on me
in virtue of such office.
So help me God.

Article 34 Section 6(1) of Bunreacht na h-ireann

Every person appointed a judge under this Constitution shall make and
subscribe the following declaration:
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.
[*Assistant Barrister is referring to a Judge of the Civil Bill Court. ** See:
Circuit Court Judge]
Indeed if both Oaths are in place could Circuit Court Judges be taking
both Oaths? If so which one is taken first and which takes precedence?
If a Judge is acting outside his Jurisdiction he is liable. If he/she is a
Circuit Court Judge and he/she is allowing Civil Bill for Possession
cases to progress in his/her Court knowing that there are no rateable
valuations of dwellings, that the value of the dwelling exceeds 75,000
and that there is no consent from either party before him/her to expand
the jurisdiction, then he/she is acting outside their jurisdiction. Could
their assurance that they are still within Jurisdiction be because they are
acting in a different Jurisdiction, one of Civil Bill Court Judge, whose
allegiance is to another? After all, as per said oath they will faithfully
execute all the duties imposed or that shall hereafter be imposed on
me in virtue of such office?
Furthermore, from reading the Oath from Bunreacht na h-ireann it
seems they are upholding the constitution. Could that be a different
Constitution to Bunreacht na h-ireann? After all, the constitution is not
named. Could it be a separate Court constitution?
From a reading of both 1851 Civil Bill Courts (Ireland) Act and the
County Officers & Courts Act 1877 on the face of it, it seems the Civil
Bill Court is still a Court of limited jurisdiction, again bound by an upper
monetary limit, or by rateable value of lands. Somewhere therein
judges/registrars of the present Circuit Court may be relying on some
section that indeed may grant them perceived unlimited jurisdiction?
Who knows, unless one of these Judges wishes to disclose? For now
they seem content to act outside the jurisdiction of the Irish Circuit Court
rules and outside statutory powers binding them. If this extra cloak of
protection they believe they have is not from Civil Bill Court Jurisdiction,
then the question to be asked is where does it stem from? After all Irish
legislation only allows for Courts of limited jurisdiction, yet is a British
Act like above saying and allowing for something different to Judges
who may as per Section 3 be swearing allegiance elsewhere outside
this island?

M
M

M
M

Of course this Act works both ways and it may be prudent to look at
some of the more public friendly un-repealed sections of the said 1851
Act.
At Section 59 it seems the assistant barrister (Judge) can sue or
be sued in the nearest county to him/her by a party, i.e. perhaps by a
defendant in a Possession case progressing in a Court where it should
not be?
At Section 96 the Defendant is afforded all opportunities of
defence as at equity and the title cannot be impugned etc. How does
this square with the butchery of summary judgement in the present
Circuit Court?
At Section 100 it seems a Defendant can require his/her case to
be heard by jury- again how does this square with summary judgement
where a case is over in seconds.
At section 139 it seems an order for possession, in effect for one
year, cannot thereafter be renewed. Of course said order had to be
signed by the Judge in the first instance to make it valid as per this
section. How many Judges sign Possession orders in Ireland from
Circuit Courts in 2016?
At section 148 no Sheriff, or any other party, shall seize goods or
cattle after sunset and before sunrise without being guilty of an offence.
At section 157anyone guilty of swearing a false oath will be held
liable for perjury what of the infamous Bank Deponent character in
Ireland in 2016?
Referring back to the Law Reform Commission saying that, it might be
considered necessary to empower the Circuit Court to decline
jurisdiction,certainly portrays the legal system in a very poor light. If
these Judges know they do not have jurisdiction, could this be saying
they cannot voice that fact. That, indeed they are bound to continue
regardless of the odious consequences. In short many questions arise
and remain unanswered for Circuit Court Possessions.
_________________________
Moving on we introduce the character of Sheriff. This office has been
operational since at least 1215. In early years it was a High Sheriff with
under-sheriffs performing the ground work. In all recent Statute
Revisions many of the older Acts and Statutes related to the role of
Sheriff in Ireland pre 1922 were also retained.
Once again we see references to Oaths to foreign crowns as per Sheriff
Act 1634, 1725 & 1785. It is noted that Comprehensive information is
not available on whether sections of these ACTs are repealed or not.
However, in the Sheriffs Ireland ACT 1835 we see Section V. (not
repealed) again referencing Oaths as follows;
And be it further enacted, That each and every Person so appointed
Sheriff and Under Sheriff as aforesaid shall before he enter upon the

Execution of his Office take the Oath heretofore and now required by
Law, which Oath shall be fairly written on Parchment, without being
subject to Stamp Duty, and signed by him, and shall and may be sworn
before the Barons of His Majestys Exchequer, or any of them, or before
the said Chief Remembrancer, or any Commissioner for taking
Affidavits in said Court, and the same shall be thereupon transmitted to
the said Secondary, who is hereby required to file the same among the
Records of his Office, for which he shall be entitled to demand and
have from such Sheriff or Under Sheriff the Sum of Five Shillings, and
no more; and no Sheriff or Under Sheriff shall act as such until such
Affidavit shall be lodged with such Secondary, on pain of Forfeiture for
any Act so done a Sum of One hundred Pounds to any Person who
shall sue for the same.

To A. B. of

&c.
Whereas We have been pleased to nominate
and appoint you for and to be Sheriff of the County of
during His Majestys Pleasure: These are therefore to
require you to take the Custody and Charge of the said
County, and duly to perform the Duties of Sheriff thereof
during His Majestys Pleasure, and whereof you are duly to
answer according to Law.
Dated this
Day of
One
thousand eight hundred and
By His
Excellencys Command,
C.D.
[When the Appointment shall be by any other or
others than the Lord Lieutenant the Form shall be altered
accordingly.]
In 1925 the Free State Government made the following
order: S.I. No. 65/1925 The Sheriffs (Ireland) Act, 1920
Adaptation Order, 1925. In this Statutory Order it states
the following;
1.The reference contained in Section 4 of the Sheriffs
(Ireland) Act, 1920, to the Lord Chancellor shall be
construed and take effect as a reference to the Minister for
Justice.
Section 4: Sheriffs (Ireland) Act, 1920:
4. Every under-sheriff appointed under this Act shall,
before entering into the execution of his office, take the
oath by law required to be taken by under-sheriffs and
give security for the due performance of the duties of his
office to such amount and in such manner as may be
prescribed by the Lord Chancellor.

The implications of this is that in 1925 when S.I. No: 65/1925 (not
repealed by 2016) was made the Under-Sheriff was then required to
take the Oath of office and to answer to the Minister for Justice. Surely
this is the Oath from 1835 as quoted above as no new Oath was set
forth in either the 1920 Sheriff Act, or in any new Saorstt ireann
Sheriff legislation. Is this tacit proof that the Sheriff is still taking Oaths to
foreign Crowns?
As an aside it is worth noting that there was an Act to remove the Oath
to foreign Crowns introduced as, CONSTITUTION (REMOVAL OF
OATH) ACT, 1933. However, that was for TDs and for Senators and
made no reference to Judges or to Sheriffs. It is also worth noting that
as per that Acts description it was for members of the Oireachtas and
Ministers who were not part of the Executive Council. Does that mean
that members of the Executive Council were still required to take that
Oath? Are they (cabinet of 2016) still required to do so? That is surely
for another story!
As per the Ireland Act 1949 (British legislation) at Section 2(1) it said
that, even though the Republic of Ireland was no longer a British
dominion, it would not be treated as a foreign country for the purposes
of British law. Is there something to this? From the British point of view
we are not alien to their laws; we are not foreigners, by inference could
we then be legally deemed not outside their State? In a purely legal
contextual concept like that could Oaths to foreign crowns still be
happening in Ireland in 2016, despite the real world absurdity of even
voicing the idea that such an action could be happening?
_______________
The main office of Sheriff was abolished in 1926, but the role of UnderSheriff per county were saved by both the 1926 & subsequently the
1945 Court Officers ACTs. Interspersed with this we have the role of
County Registrar post 1926, which has dovetailed with said Office of
Under-Sheriff. Except for the Counties Cork and Dublin and the Cities
of Cork and Dublin, all other Counties enjoy the unusual situation
whereby the County Registrar also occupies the role of Under Sheriff of
the County of XXXX; effectively a dual mandate.
Interestingly Sheriff is the word that has entered modern lexicon.
However, the authorities and powers etc. are conferred on the UnderSheriff, in all but the two counties of Cork & Dublin. It is worth noting if
correspondence from these offices is from the actual statutory office
holder, or indeed is it from aliases?
XXXX COUNTY SHERIFF is an alias with no powers
OFFICE OF XXXX SHERIFF is an alias with no powers
SHERIFF OF COUNTY XXXX is an alias with no powers (etc. for any
other combination of same)

UNDER SHERIFF OF THE COUNTY OF XXXX The only legal entity

whose name may execute valid Court Orders, i.e. the office holder with
statutory authority. [Note: XXXX denoting any County in Ireland,
except for Cork and Dublin.]
Similarly, for the two main cities the Sheriff is entitled, SHERIFF OF
THE COUNTY BOROUGH OF (CORK/DUBLIN), and for the two
counties of said cities as SHERIFF OF THE COUNTY OF
(CORK/DUBLIN).
Correspondence from an alias, or any actions perpetrated in the name
of said alias, would then be Ultra Vires, i.e. outside of jurisdiction, for
which they would be liable. So many questions abound and go
unanswered around this character who presents him/herself as Sheriff,
while often mixing it with the role of County Registrar.
_____________________________________
Conclusions:
In Ireland in 2016 we see a situation where the actions being
undertaken in the name of Law & Order in the Circuit Courts in relation
to property is nothing short of Wild West banditry. Nobody or nothing is
as seems. Actors slink in and out, paper work is always defective, no
one will put their name to anything and stealth, deceit, sleight of hand
and a nod and a wink seems to be the order of the day.
Orders are being made by Courts with no jurisdiction to do so. Orders
are now being made without the alleged Defendants even being
informed a Court case is afoot. Locks are being changed on family
dwellings by persons unknown, most likely not on the true authority of
the Under Sheriff or Sheriff when no one is home, using wholly
defective paper work that can never stand to even the merest
semblance of scrutiny or due diligence. When people rightfully correct
this trespass and unlawful entry to their dwelling they are then being
dragged back into the Circuit Court as being in need of Attachment &
Committal to prison for breaking these alleged Court Orders that had no
jurisdiction or validity in the first instance! It is all a blueprint for a truly
dystopian society.
We are now a mere step away from complete tyranny being exercised
from said legal system. Since orders can be delivered to dwellings
without the people knowing a case has been taken, then the last step is
to not deliver said orders at all, but to merely change locks when
someone leaves their dwelling; all based on a hidden single piece of
paper. Within weeks these people could then find themselves in jail for
breaking a Court order for changing their locks back. It is that depraved
and all actors involved believe they enjoy full immunity for these actions.
All are being paid by the tax payer in one form or another and all are
masquerading behind public authority as mandated by these same tax
payers.

It is wondered exactly what kind of World the actors wish to create? If

you support the implementation of full tyranny, then you are also
accepting it as your own destiny. In time the actors will find that their
own dwellings will one day be under threat, while they themselves are in
absence. By then who will speak for them?
The good news is that it will not come to that as every day that passes
more of the farce is exposed and is no longer being tolerated. Those
abusing the people in service to some hidden master, whomever that
may be, will not continue to do so without being exposed and then
stopped.
Civil Bill Courts (IRELAND)Act 1851
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1851/act/57/enacted/en/print.html

Contracting you under Garda Oath

May 28, 2016
end post header

This document has been carried to Limerick Court and all other courts
we regularly attend and has been handed to the Gardai on duty? but
refused every time in the last two years. At the Statutory Court
Corporation where I believe they are hired into a different jurisdiction,
similar to when they are booked for football matches, concerts, evictions
where the system pays 20 p.h. for each Gardai and his services.
Taxpayers pay the Gardai and the guards themselves do not get paid
the money- so where does it go ?
Veritas~
~Truth
~Justice~
~Aequitas
Not only must Justice be done; it must also be seen to
be done
THE CIRCUIT COURT-Limerick 6th May 2016
SOUTH WESTERN CIRCUIT -COUNTY OF
LIMERICK
By hand to members of an Garda Siochana -all Registrars Court
sittings Limerick since September 2015;
All members of an Garda Siochana present are contracted with the
state through their oath of office and are duty bound to uphold the
Law of the State. Failure to do so leaves all members of an Garda
Siochana open for civil and criminal prosecution for failure to
uphold their contractual obligations with the women, men and
State and have no authority to accept any unlawful orders from
judges or registrars as to do so is a crime in itself.
We are acutely aware that there is a shameful epidemic of suicide
in this country and it has been reported that the rising levels are
directly attributable to the banking crisis, this crisis resulting from
corrupt banking practices, negligent oversight and regulation by
the authorities, the subsequent implementation of severe austerity
programme by government to bail out the same banks along with
foreign interests, to the detriment of the people.All of those in the

cases of family homes have undoubtedly been the subject of

threatening/harassing communications by legal firms (Officers of
the Courts) acting for the banks not to mention the direct
communications from the banks themselves. Their relentless
pursuit and abuse of their unfair advantage and easy access to
courts has resulted in many unfortunate and untimely deaths.
Garda Oath 2005 Act on Irishstatutebook.ie
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2005/en/act/pub/0020/sec0016.html#
sec16
16.(1) On being appointed, each member of the Garda Sochna
shall make before a Peace Commissioner a declaration in the following
form:
I hereby solemnly and sincerely declare before God that
I will faithfully discharge the duties of a member of the Garda
Sochna with fairness, integrity, regard for human rights, diligence and
impartiality, upholding the Constitution and the laws and according
equal respect to all people,
while I continue to be a member, I will to the best of my skill and
knowledge discharge all my duties according to law
We have No Contempt for the Court or Garda Sochna and come
and go in peace.
We are collectively searching for justice and the truth using the
keys of education.
Declaration of Professional Values & Ethical Standards
http://www.garda.ie/Documents/User/declarationvalues.pdf
CIVIL SERVICE CODE OF STANDARDS AND BEHAVIOUR
http://hr.per.gov.ie/files/2011/06/Civil-Service-Code-of-Standardsand-Behaviour.pdf
Did you know
14.(1) The Minister may with the consent of the Minister for Finance
by order appoint and from time to time revise
(a) scales of fees and expenses to be charged by and paid to undersheriffs for their services in or about the execution of execution orders,
and
(b) scales of fees to be charged by and paid to specified officers of any
court for the account of the under-sheriff, and
(c) scales of fees and expenses to be charged by and paid to
members of the Grda Sochna in respect of the execution of
execution orders which under this Act are to be executed by them.
.
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/1926/act/18/section/14/enacted/e
n/html#sec14
Chief Justice Susan Denham
NOTICE OFTHE PROPER LIMITS OF CRITICISMWe remind you in
spite of the judges or registrars role as legislator, justice must be
administered according to law, not according to the judges individual

sense of justice. The power a judge has to affect the life and future of
individuals and society is tremendous. The judges legislative
competence is narrower than that of the legislator. His/her role is to
legislate between the gaps, to fill the open spaces in the law. Thus the
rule of law is maintained
In searching for the truth, as a serious question, with regard to many
having witnessed what some perceive having attended your court as
dishonour, we bring to your attention the many occasions where you the
learned Registrar with knowledge did err in the Acts, Statutes, Circuit
Court Rules, Duty of Care of the Court, aiding the Banks/Plaintiff,
Solicitors and Barristers, along with disregard for Codes of Conduct and
Practice.
With respect we seek to remain within the proper limits of criticism of
judicial performance and specifically in this Registrars Court. We must
now attempt to outline these limits in addition to what we have
witnessed in the court of Mr. Patrick Wallace where your acts and
omissions of which some of many are listed and noticed herein;
(i) The notion of legitimate criticism
The best starting-point for analysing the notion of legitimate criticism is
Lord Atkins statement in Ambard v Attorney-General
But whether the authority and position of an individual judge, or the due
administration of justice, is concerned, no wrong is committed by any
member of the public who exercises the ordinary right of criticising, in
good faith, in private or in public, the public act done in the seat of
justice. The path of criticism is a public way: the wrongheaded are
permitted to err therein: provided that members of the public abstain
from imputing improper motives to those taking part in the
administration of justice, and are generally exercising a right of criticism,
and not acting in malice or attempting to impair the administration of
justice, they are immune. Justice is not a cloistered virtue: she must be
allowed to suffer the scrutiny and respectful, even though outspoken,
comments of ordinary men.
We can no longer overlook the number of family homes being
possessed by fraudulent paperwork originating from Civil Bills which are
being mass produced by agents without Deeds or Letters of
Appointment from the Plaintiff/Bank.
The traditional perspective sends a clear message that a registrar or
judge must be restrained in most matters and where possible errs on
the side of caution. We also remind you the burden of proof is on the
Plaintiff/Bank in your court.
Judges are prized for their impartiality and willingness to listen to
all sides of an argument with an open mind. Allegations of bias or
partiality would be fatal to public confidence in the judiciary, so
cautious restraint is seen as the best road to neutrality.
In analysing this issue of alleged perceived bias by the Judge, it is a
matter not only for the parties, or the trial judge, but there is the

fundamental concern for the manifest impartial administration of justice,

and the confidence which the People rest in the judiciary. Judicial
impartiality is the fundamental principle upon which the administration of
justice proceeds, upon which rests confidence in the judiciary, and upon
which rests the rule of law.
In other words, justice must not only be done, but be seen to be done.
It is accepted that the offence of scandalising of a judge may be
committed only so far as it relates to conduct in the judges official
capacity.
In The Queen v McHugh,37 Lord OBrien said:
n his personal character a Judge receives no more protection from the
law than any other member of the community at large; and, even in his
judicial character, he should always welcome fair, decent, candid, and, I
would add, vigorous criticism of his judicial conduct
There is undoubtedly a balance to be found between freedom of
expression and contempt of court. In In Re Kennedy and
McCann.105 Chief Justice OHiggins distinguished between contempt of
court and reasonable criticism. Freedom of expression which goes
beyond acceptable limits is criticism which brings the administration of
justice into disrepute and undermines the confidence which people
should have in judges appointed under the Constitution to administer
justice in the courts.
I do not see why a judgment cannot be criticised, provided it is not done
in a manner calculated to bring the court or the judge into contempt. If
that element is not present there is no reason why judgments should
not be criticised. Nor does the criticism have to be confined to scholarly
articles in legal journals. The mass media are entitled to have their say
as well. The public take a great interest in court cases and it is only
natural that discussion should concentrate on the result of cases. So
criticism which does not subvert justice should be allowed. Even though
this programme was, in my opinion, unbalanced in relation to the
judgment of [the Circuit Judge] it did not pass over the boundary of
acceptable limits. I do not believe that any of the criticisms or
allegations by the plaintiff concerning contempt of the court or of [the
Circuit Judge] amount to contempt of court.
This following passage would also appear to mean that criticism, even
though wrongheaded, should not constitute contempt, provided the
speaker neither acts with malice nor attempts to impair the
administration of justice, and provided that he or she does not impute
improper motives to those taking part in the administration of justice.
In these circumstances, Finlay CJ preferred to refuse the order on the
basis of delay. He added:
There are two conflicting constitutional questions which arise here. One
clearly is the question of the right to citizens to express and have views
and the giving of information and views to them and the other is the

protection of the plaintiffs good name. In my view there are not grounds
for interfering having regard to the delay.
In a short concurring judgment, McCarthy J stated that, in his opinion,
The Constitutional guarantee of the vindication of the good name of
every citizen must be read in the context of the constitutional guarantee
of freedom of expression. That good name can be vindicated in
damages but a restraint on freedom of expression cannot be similarly
remedied.
PLEASE SEE FULL MOTION OF THE PROPER LIMITS OF
CRITICISM
Signed:-______________________
Date 6th day of May 2016
QUI VULT DECIPI, DECIPIATUR. Let Him Who Wishes to be Deceived,
Be Deceived.
Anti-Eviction Taskforce
Distressed Mortgage Holders Kerry-Cork- LimerickGARDAI V PSNI -both jerseys sponsored by

DENIS O BRIEN TOPAZ SPONSORING AND BRIBING THE LAW NOW

https://brianmc10.wordpress.com/2016/05/28/contracting-youunder-garda-oath/

. Irish Exa

Simon Coveney: Marine industry is

vital to Irelands development
Monday, September 28, 2015
Simon Coveney

The success of the recent SeaFest conference at

Ringaskiddy, which included three days of marine related
events including; a major international marine conference,
the official opening by An Taoiseach of the 15m UCC
Beaufort Marine Energy Research Building, and the
associated SeaFest maritime festival open day attended
by thousands of families, has reaffirmed my view that we
are now in a new era of significant re-engagement with
the sea.
Recent research at NUI Galway indicates that Irelands
blue economy has been growing nearly twice as fast as
the general economy. The latest indicators show that
Irelands maritime economy grew by 9.2% between 2010
& 2012 with a further impressive 8.2% growth for the
period 2012to 2014. Also during this time employment has
also increased from 17,425 to 18,480.

This growth of the marine economy has occurred during a

period of significant domestic and global economic
challenges. Irelands recent blue growth shows the
enormous potential of our incredible marine resources.
Governance of our oceans and enhancing Europes
maritime competitiveness, whilst continuing to protect the
environment will present significant challenges in the
years ahead. Sustainability must be central to our thinking
in terms of developing the blue economy.
The maritime research, ocean energy, shipping/transport
and food production (both sea fisheries & aquaculture)
sectors all have significant potential for future
development provided that development potential is
appropriately balanced with the need to protect the ocean
environment.
This is underscored by the fact that Irish coastal
communities are now benefiting from increased tourists
along our Wild Atlantic Way and environmentally
sustainable fisheries are also at the heart of radical and
challenging reforms to the EUs Common Fisheries Policy,
negotiated under Irelands EU presidency.
A 241m Seafood Development Programme up to 2020
will represent one of the largest ever single investments in
the marine sector. The programme will provide the capital
to assist seafood enterprises to sustainably grow their
production and add value to our seafood exports.

Vimeo

Follow

Bord Iascaigh Mhara

Significant progress made on marine policy - Minister
Simon Coveney at conference
http://
bit.ly/1pmw4uR
http://
bit.ly/1lEJjpf

3:11 PM - 19 Jun 2014

Retweetslikes

Bord Bia in collaboration with BIM continues to broaden

and tailor its seafood export programme to capitalise on

the growing demand for premium; quality assured seafood

in emerging seafood markets in the Asia Pacific and other
non EU markets.
In 2014, Irish seafood exports delivered a solid
performance reaching 533million.
Notable growth was seen in African markets, such as
Nigeria, Cameroon and Egypt, as well as in Asia,
particularly in China, Hong Kong and South Korea.
If we are to realise the potential that the Irish marine has
to offer, we need to create more success stories.
The framework provided by the recently published task
forces reports will help provide the sound administrative
and economic basis upon which those future success
stories may be built upon.
Introducing an agreed marine spatial planning process,
strengthening established marine industries while
simultaneously developing our untapped natural resources
or the existing resources in new ways are all now part of
the mainstream policy thinking in terms of the marine.
The recently announced review of taxation supports
available to the marine sector is expected to deliver
innovative strategic financial proposals for the marine in
time for the next Budget.
The continuing importance which the European
Commission attaches to the Atlantic Strategy and Action
Plan is something that is also welcome. This new strategy
will see the EU working closely with the US and Canada.

Simon Coveney TD Minister for Agriculture, Food and the

Marine and EU Commissioner Karmenu Vella at the
Harnessing our Ocean Wealth conference taking place in
Cork Harbour today. Pic Darragh Kane.
The Naval Services role in the successful Imerc marine
cluster at Ringaskiddy is a sign of integration and
innovation replacing stagnation and the end of limited
thinking in terms of the potential for our marine is also to
be welcomed as is the continued Naval Service Ships
Replacement Programme which continues to move ahead
In setting out our new vision for our marine resource in
Harnessing Our Ocean Wealth, we set ambitious targets to
increase the turnover from our ocean economy to exceed
6.4billion by 2020 and to double the value of Our Ocean
Wealth to 2.4% of GDP by the year 2030.
We now have solid and positive evidence from the NUI
Galway report that our policies in terms of the marine are
working.
The next question is what kind of growth we can project
for the future. I believe that the outlook for the sector is
really exciting and new possibilities are emerging all the
time.
The challenge now for us is to make the marine sector a
leading contributor to the future of the Irish economy and
to then recognise the potential we have as an island
nation to be a major player in the sector internationally.
http://www.irishexaminer.com/viewpoints/analysis/simon-coveneymarine-industry-is-vital-to-irelands-development-356130.html

Fitzgerald announces new

Garda recruitment campaign

Frances Fitzgerald, Local TD and Tnaiste and Minister for

Justice and Equality, today announced the launch of a new
recruitment campaign for members of An Garda Sochna.
This new campaign will continue the ongoing accelerated
recruitment to fulfil the Governments commitment to increase
the strength of An Garda Sochna to 15,000 members.
Announcing the new campaign Fitzgerald said: Today is a
very important day for An Garda Sochna. It marks the
formal launch on www.publicjobs.ie of the commencement
of a recruitment campaign for new members of An Garda
Sochna. It reflects the Governments commitment to
seamless ongoing recruitment to An Garda Sochna to
ensure that the service is renewed and has the capacity to
provide visible, responsive and effective policing to every
community throughout the country.

Read more
Email This
BlogThis!
Share to Twitter
Share to Facebook
Share to Pinterest

+1 Recommend this on Google

07 September 2016

Appointment Management
System for Burgh Quay
Immigration Office to launch
tomorrow

An Appointment Management System for registrations at the Burgh

Quay Immigration Office in Dublin will launch tomorrow (Thursday 8
September).
The Office which deals with the Registration of non-EEA persons
living in the Dublin City and County area transferred from the Garda
National Immigration Bureau to the Irish Naturalisation and
Immigration Service (INIS) over the course of the summer. At the
end of 2015 the number of non-EEA Nationals with permission to
live in Ireland was 115,000 and the Burgh Quay Office processed
over 75,000 of these.
When customers log on to the new system they will be able to make
an appointment in a one hour time slot starting from Thursday 15
September. The previous arrangements whereby people queued for
a ticket to be served will cease on that day.
The address for the new online system can be accessed from the
INIS website at:
http://burghquayregistrationoffice.inis.gov.ie/
The new system operates on a just in time basis so there will be no
need for customers to queue or arrive prior to their allotted time
slot.
The transfer of the registration function to INIS and the introduction
of the new online appointment booking system forms part of the
wider reform programme of immigration services.
This includes the major programme of civilianisation of front-line
port of entry immigration functions which commenced with Terminal

1, Dublin Airport last year.

This will be extended to Terminal 2 later this year by which time
over 120 civilian staff will be deployed at the airport giving rise to
the release of an equivalent number of Garda resources for
operational duties. Also, an on-line appointment service for re-entry
visas has been in operation since November 2015.

Keynote Address:
International Conference on
Women and Leadership in a
Changing World

Keynote Addressby the Tnaiste and Minister for Justice

and EqualityFrances Fitzgerald TD
International Conference on
Women and Leadership in a Changing World
Queens University Belfast

23 September 2016
Thank you, Professor Millar, for your kind
introduction.

I would like to start by expressing my thanks

to Professor Patrick Johnston and Professor
Yvonne Galligan for their invitation to address
the conference. I must also congratulate
Queens University, the University of
Massachusetts and Allstate Insurance for
organising this event. As Tnaiste, Irelands
deputy prime minister, and Minister for Justice
and Equality, I am delighted to have the
opportunity to give the keynote address this
evening on an issue which is very close to my
heart.
In 1995, I attended the UN Fourth World
Conference on Women in Beijing as a member
of parliament. One of the objectives was there
should be equality for women in power and
decision-making. Hillary Clinton memorably
declared what was possible, saying: human
rights are women's rights and women's rights
are human rights, once and for all.
Did the Beijing vision materialise? Did things
change? It is fair to say that some progress has
been made. Hillary Clinton could be elected as
the 45th President of the United States. She
could join Prime Minister May in the United

Kingdom and Chancellor Merkel in Germany

as powerful women in leadership positions. A
woman could take her place as leader of the
most powerful country in the world.
But Secretary Clinton, Prime Minister May,
Presidents Robinson and McAleese are still
exceptions. They are extraordinary not because
they are women, but because they are women
who made it.
Last Monday, I addressed the UN Summit of
Large Movements of Refugees and Migrants. I
subsequently addressed President Obamas
Leaders Summit on Refugees last Tuesday.
What struck me forcibly was that both were
predominantly male zones. Female leaders
were in a very small minority at both events about 12% at the Obama summit. Political
leadership remains a male preserve
internationally.
That Beijing Platform for Action had made a
difference. Many speeches referenced the
particular needs of women and girls. They
highlighted the specific risks of trafficking and
sexual exploitation. However, it was still a

case of men speaking on behalf of women for

the most part at that summit. That would not
be acceptable for other groups. People with
disabilities have championed the motto
nothing about us without us. Yet, society can
accept of that as a fact of life decisions will be
made about women in their absence. Women
are often absent from the decision-making
table. This has to change.
I believe firmly that we have to empower
women to become leaders. We have to
communicate the message as a society that
leadership is for women and men equally.
We all know that women make great leaders.
What we havent fully figured out is how to
support women to become leaders.
Your conference has valuably focused on
female leadership in business, the judiciary,
community organisations and the public sector.
I want to look particularly at empowering
female leadership across all decision-making
sites in our societies. I want women to be
enabled to put themselves forward as leaders
in their workplaces, in community

organisations, arts organisations, agriculture

and financial services. I want to see women in
leadership positions in the media so that news
coverage recognises the diversity of women
and the scale of womens achievements. I want
to see women as leaders of sporting
organisations, cutting the deals with media
organisations to give female sports proper
visibility. For too long, international sports
have been controlled by powerful men. I want
the Ireland of five years time to be a place
where decision-making belongs to women as
much as it belongs to men.
Why is female leadership so important?
Because, otherwise, someone else takes the
decisions. Women end up walking in shoes
made for someone else. They can pinch after a
while. You are less able to walk that mile. You
start to hobble a little.
It is not enough to get one or two women into
leadership positions. We have to achieve a
critical mass. As former Irish President and
United Nations High Commissioner for
Human Rights Mary Robinson has said, that
It's only when you have a critical mass of

women in politics that you get women's issues

attacked.
Getting that critical mass of women into
positions of power and decision-making has
been disappointingly slow. It requires
sustained effort over a considerable period of
time to change the ingrained practices and
attitudes in society which have been holding
women and girls back from achieving their
true potential.
The traits of leadership have been defined by
men. That was understandable until the middle
of the last century. The problem is that it is
still acceptable.
The possibilities of the present must translate
into opportunities for women across Ireland.
And if we have to redefine the traits of
leadership to be a little less combative and a
little more collaborative - then so be it.
Justice is the classic example. It's traditionally
patriarchal and hierarchical. But of course,
effective justice in modern Ireland is as much

about collaboration and inter-agency

cooperation to deliver safe communities, as it
is about traditional command structures.
My portfolio is Justice and Equality - and
equality is core to my vision as a politician and
it is my core vision for Ireland.
It is the reason why I took my first steps into
the world of advocacy and campaigning as a
social worker in London.
It is the reason I joined the Womens Political
Association when I returned to Dublin in the
1980s.
It is the reason I decided to go for the Chair of
the National Womens Council and seek
election to the Dil.
The pursuit of equality is the reason I am here
today and will be somewhere else tomorrow.
Equality benefits everyone. Gender equality
brings benefits for organisations as well as for
society. Gender balance on executive boards is
positively linked to organisational

performance. The risks of stagnation

associated with groupthink mentalities are
reduced by diversity and gender balance.
That is why a feminist lens is more vital than
ever in our decision-making.
That is why I want to encourage decisionmakers across Ireland politicians,
businesspeople, community leaders to take
action to maximise opportunities for women
and to break down remaining barriers.
I know that this will have been discussed quite
a lot yesterday, but Id like to reflect on some
of the barriers to women's leadership, and
what weve learned about working to
overcome them.
Concerns have been expressed over many
years about the lack of participation by women
in politics in Ireland.
I have to stress this point - female participation
in politics does not happen by accident.
I remember being elected to Dil ireann

almost 25 years ago. I was shocked at the

under-representation of women. While matters
have improved, young women today are still
shocked when they actually see how few
women are among their public representatives
and how male-dominated the Oireachtas still
is.
I have to remind myself from time to time that
a full generation of Irish girls and boys were
born and grew up under female Presidents.
Because of Mary Robinson and Mary
McAleese, Irish voters now take it for granted
that a woman can be President of Ireland, and
expect to see women candidates included for
their consideration.
In 2009 and 2010 the Oireachtas used its
cross-Party Committee structure to explore the
reasons for poor female membership in the
Irish Parliament. It published two reports of its
findings, which identified the barriers and
recommendations to overcome them. A key
outcome was the identification of a set of
obstacles popularly known as the five Cs
Cash; Childcare; Confidence; Culture and
Candidate selection procedures. I want to

touch on two of these this afternoon;

confidence and candidate selection.
Confidence is crucial to convincing a female
candidate to take that crucial first step into
politics. It can enable the woman to dream the
impossible, to surmount seemingly impossible
hurdles. I think of Ellen Johnson Sirleaf, the
president of Liberia, the first democratically
elected female Head of State in Africa and
2011 Nobel Peace Prize. She has said: "Just
because something has not been done yet,
doesnt mean it cant be. I was never deterred
from running for president just because there
had never been any females elected head of
state in Africa. The size of your dreams must
always exceed your current capacity to
achieve them. If your dreams do not scare you,
they are not big enough."
Confidence is crucial but positive action is
also needed. That is why I am in favour of
gender quotas for candidate selection.
We took a bold step in 2012. We enacted a
ground-breaking provision in the Electoral Act
2012 which made receipt of full State funding

under the electoral Acts contingent on a

qualified political party fielding at least 30%
women candidates and at least 30% men
candidates at the general election. This quota
rises to 40% in seven years time. Parties who
fail to meet the gender balance targets face
losing half of their State funding, and not just
for one year but for the lifetime of a Dil. To
put the potential impact of non-compliance
into perspective, the total amount available for
disbursement to qualified parties in 2016 is
some 5.9 million. So the consequences for
political parties of not having sufficient
women and men candidates at a general
election are significant.
The new legislative provisions were designed
as an incentive to encourage political parties to
apply gender balance in the selection of
candidates put forward at Dil general
elections.
At last Februarys general election the impact
of these new gender provisions were clear to
see. 163 women contested the election,
representing 30% of the 551 candidates. This
was a significant increase over the 2011

general election, where only 15% of the

candidates were women. In 2016, 35 women
were elected to Dil ireann. This represents
22% of the total membership, compared with
15% in 2011. An increase of 7% may not seem
significant. However, it is a major
improvement. Previously, it took a decade for
the percentage to increase even by 1%. But
let's be clear. For a developed country like
Ireland this is dismal.
One area in which we are strongly pressing for
greater representation of women is in the
administration of the State. I am pleased that
the justice sector is now a role model for other
areas. Quite uniquely among countries, women
now occupy the positions of Chief Justice,
Attorney General, Garda Commissioner,
Director of Public Prosecutions, Chief State
Solicitor, State Pathologist and myself, as
Minister for Justice and Equality. All are
leading substantial change programmes in
their organisations to ensure that the Irish
justice system is responsive to Irish society as
it continues to evolve.
The task now is to ensure this is not a

convenient coincidence, but rather a hint of the

future.
The Government is also seeking to promote
greater gender balance in senior ranks of the
Civil Service through the Civil Service
Renewal Plan. This is the programme of
change aimed at creating a more professional;
responsive and accountable Irish Civil Service.
The Plan commits us to improving gender
balance at each level of the Civil Service, and
particularly at leadership level. Although
women account for 60% of all staff across the
Civil Service, they are under-represented at
senior level. The female representation reduces
at each step up the hierarchy, with 38% at
Principal level, 31% at Assistant Secretary
level, and 22% at Secretary General
equivalent. There's that figure again - 22%.
What is stopping is from getting to 50?
I want to see an improvement in these figures.
I want to send a strong message to women
who have ambition and talent that we will
address any barriers that may prevent them
from applying for senior positions. The

Government has agreed a programme of

initiatives which are intended to increase the
representation of women at senior decisionmaking levels in the Civil Service. The
initiatives are intended to support women to
advance up the career ladder. Focus is being
placed on providing training for interview
boards on unconscious gender bias.
Departments will also apply a gender lens to
job assignments so that women are not
segregated into positions that are less likely to
translate into promotions. Individual
Mentoring programmes are also essential.
I firmly believe that government has a strong
role in promoting gender equality. I am
speaking to you today with an eye to one of
the key justice and equality initiatives in our
Programme for Government, namely the
renewal of Irelands National Womens
Strategy. My ambition for the new Strategy is
that it should speak to the society of today and
target the barriers to women's achievement of
their full potential and their enjoyment of
equality with men. Work has begun on
preparing the Strategy. A wide-ranging
consultation process will be launched shortly.

We will be seeking views from a wide

diversity of women. I anticipate that issues
such as access to work, caring responsibilities
and pensions will continue to be areas for
concern. However, I also think that the
Strategy will need to address emerging issues
such as revenge porn and body shaming. The
Strategy will have to work for women across
all ages, classes and situations.
Research shows that where a country performs
well in terms of social progress, it tends also to
perform well in attracting foreign direct
investment. Irelands situation as a member of
the European Union and as a small open
economy which has benefitted greatly from
engagement with the wider world has provided
access to a wealth of new ideas and modern
business practices from across the globe.
Gender equality is increasingly viewed as a
key issue to be addressed in order to deliver on
the vision of becoming a global innovation
leader.
There are lessons to be learned from the
innovative and growing sector of social
entrepreneurship, which is leading the field in

providing opportunities for female business

leadership. The creativity and business acumen
of women is abundantly displayed every day
across the wide variety of community and
voluntary groups operating across Ireland, and
in many of our family-run businesses and
SMEs. Why then are women not leading
enterprises and establishing their own
businesses at the same rate as men?
This is a question that occupied the Oireachtas
Joint Committee on Jobs, Enterprise and
Innovation in its 2015 report on female
entrepreneurship. The Committee identified
problems with access to finance, tax
disincentives, a need for greater networking
and mentoring opportunities, and the
prevalence of a largely male-dominated
business culture, all of which impact on
opportunities and on confidence for women
starting their own business. Similarly,
Enterprise Irelands research points to barriers
in the form of low self-confidence and lower
levels of risk taking among potential women
entrepreneurs, as well as a lack of role models,
a shortage of female networking opportunities,
less access to finance, and a lack of technical

expertise. However the good news from

Enterprise Ireland is the big increase in their
female start ups since 2011.
Lets also face this fact. Barriers to women
excelling in business, political or voluntary
roles are practical ones. When I was
Chairperson of the National Womens Council
I remember taking calls at half eight in the
morning as I was making the school lunches
for my boys. That was the early 1990s, a time
when most men didnt have to factor ham
sandwiches into their days. To be fair we see
more sharing of responsibilities today.
What was a major help to me in my early
career was the Mater Hospital's decision,
where I was a social worker, to give me the
first ever job sharing position.
The Mater helped me overcome that barrier of
managing to combine work and family life and
gave me the opportunity ultimately to become
a woman in a position of leadership.
The collective task for Government, business
and the community is to continue to break

down those barriers. The most difficult

message to get across at times is that opening
up opportunities for women in society is not a
zero sum exercise.
Gains for women do not equate to lost
opportunities for men, but to increased
opportunities for greater economic prosperity
for all. For an increasing number of men, the
penny has dropped and they see the benefit of
gender equality. We now have an expanding
cohort of senior business leaders, male and
female, who recognise gender equality as a
necessity to access the very best talent the
workforce has to offer.
They are working, individually and through
initiatives such as the 30% club in the UK and
Ireland, and Board Diversity Ireland, to
advance women into decision-making roles
within their organisations. This determination
is making its impact felt. In two years, female
representation on the boards of the largest
public companies listed on the Irish Stock
Exchange has risen from 11% to 16%. While
much remains to be done, things are going in
the right direction.

If I might reflect further on another theme you

have debated today, I agree with you on the
importance of womens roles in advancing
peace and security. The empowerment and
participation of women in decision-making is
at the very heart of Irelands Women, Peace
and Security agenda, which stems from UN
Security Council Resolution 1325. Ireland has
actively supported the Women, Peace and
Security agenda since its inception. We are
currently implementing our second National
Action Plan which works collaboratively with
NGOs to achieve a range of objectives. The
Plan encompasses four pillars:
Prevention of conflict, including genderbased violence and sexual exploitation and
abuse in conflict;
Participation and representation of women
in decision-making;
Protection from gender-based violence and
sexual exploitation and abuse and other
violations of womens human rights and
international humanitarian law, and relief,
recovery and rehabilitation of victims; and

Promotion of the women, peace and

security agenda in international regional and
national arenas.
Gender is one of the main priorities of
Irelands international development policy.
While we work to ensure that all of our
humanitarian relief and development
initiatives are gender sensitive, we have also
funded extensive work on sexual- and genderbased violence, as well as working with a
range of NGOs and international organisations
supporting women to participate in conflict
resolution, mediation and reconciliation.
Through this funding, women have been
empowered to take part in conflict resolution
processes in settings as diverse as Nigeria,
Burundi, Turkey and Colombia. I am proud
that Irelands international focus is so strongly
on promoting gender equality.
Gender equality gains are hard-won. The
struggle for equality is far from over and the
gains so painfully earned can easily be
reversed. But the rewards are immeasurable,
not only for individual women and girls, but
for the societies in which they live.

How are we going to ensure at global and

international level that women are
participating at the tables where decisions
about security, conflict and peace are made?
Leadership is not a male preserve. The late
great Geraldine Ferraro, whom I had the
honour to meet many years ago, famously
quipped that some leaders are born women.
Too often, society teaches girls that it is not
OK to be a born leader. Too often, society is
blind to a girls leadership skills. I share Sheryl
Sandbergs wish that I want every little girl
who is told that she is bossy to be told instead
that she has leadership skills. It is in our
hands. We today can encourage all of those
little girls to dream the impossible, to hold
onto their courage and to become the leaders
of tomorrow. Our futures will be the better for
it.

Appointment Management
System for Burgh Quay
Immigration Office to launch
tomorrow
An Appointment Management System for registrations at the Burgh

Quay Immigration Office in Dublin will launch tomorrow (Thursday 8

September).
The Office which deals with the Registration of non-EEA persons
living in the Dublin City and County area transferred from the Garda
National Immigration Bureau to the Irish Naturalisation and
Immigration Service (INIS) over the course of the summer. At the
end of 2015 the number of non-EEA Nationals with permission to
live in Ireland was 115,000 and the Burgh Quay Office processed
over 75,000 of these.
When customers log on to the new system they will be able to make
an appointment in a one hour time slot starting from Thursday 15
September. The previous arrangements whereby people queued for
a ticket to be served will cease on that day.
The address for the new online system can be accessed from the
INIS website at:
http://burghquayregistrationoffice.inis.gov.ie/
The new system operates on a just in time basis so there will be no
need for customers to queue or arrive prior to their allotted time
slot.
The transfer of the registration function to INIS and the introduction
of the new online appointment booking system forms part of the
wider reform programme of immigration services.
This includes the major programme of civilianisation of front-line
port of entry immigration functions which commenced with Terminal
1, Dublin Airport last year.
This will be extended to Terminal 2 later this year by which time
over 120 civilian staff will be deployed at the airport giving rise to
the release of an equivalent number of Garda resources for
operational duties. Also, an on-line appointment service for re-entry
visas has been in operation since November 2015.
17 August 2016

Job Vacancy in My Office Secretarial Assistant

Job Description - Secretarial Assistant
This role involves supporting the administration and
organization of my busy Constituency Office, managing
correspondence, dealing with constituency queries,
organising Constituency Advice Clinics, maintaining an
efficient database and filing system and other general
office duties.

Applicants for this position should be interested in political

and community issues, have excellent interpersonal skills,
an ability to work as part of a team whilst also being a
good self-starter.
Previous experience in similar or relevant roles is
desirable but not essential.
A full driving licence would be desirable but not essential.
If you are interested in being considered please submit an
up to date CV together with names of two referees to
Frances.Fitzgerald@oir.ie or by post to 9 Main Street,
Clondalkin, Dublin 22. Applications close on FRIDAY
26th August, 2016.
Remuneration will be based on a scale as set down by the
Houses of the Oireachtas - Scheme for Secretarial
Assistance

Successful candidates will be subjected to full Garda

Vetting.

Interview with Sunday

Business Post
Following the end of the Dil term, the
Tnaiste and Minister for Justice and Equality,
Frances Fitzgerald TD was interviewed by
Hugh O'Connell for the Sunday Business Post.
The interview can be accessed online at this
link
http://www.businesspost.ie/frances-fitzgeraldthe-first-role-of-government-is-to-keep-ourpeople-safe/

Frances Fitzgerald: Weve seen very good female leaders around the
world and were going to see more

The Tnaiste and Minister for Justice believes that the

political road is punctuated by events and opportunities
It wasnt until she was 42 that Frances Fitzgerald decided to get
into politics. There was, she claims, no grand plan or strategy to
work her way up the ladder.

I am not a huge believer in thinking that you can plan hugely in

politics because I think it is very much events. Its such a complex
career path, such a complex web we weave in politics, she said.

Comptroller and Auditor

General defends expertise
of team that investigated
Project Eagle
Cormac McQuinn Twitter
PUBLISHED
29/09/2016

1
Seamus McCarthy, the Comptroller and Auditor General. Pic Tom
Burke

THE Comptroller and Auditor General

(C&AG) Seamus McCarthy has defended the
expertise of his team that investigated
Project Eagle.
The C&AGs report into the sale of Nama's Northern
Ireland loan book found that agency incurred a potential
loss to the taxpayer of 190m (223m) in the deal.
Nama has rejected the findings claiming its based on an
incorrect assumption of the discount rate used in the sale.
Mr McCarthy said that the 190m figure that the report
came to represents a "probable loss".
He said it would be "impossible" to say for sure if it is the
ultimate figure and that there is could be a "margin"
around it.
It also criticised the C&AG probe saying it was carried out
by staff with no market experience of loan sales.
Mr McCarthy is this morning appearing before TDs at the
Dil's Public Accounts Committee (PAC).

He has insisted that the team he appointed are "all

qualified accountants, with significant audit and
evaluation experience, including audit of Nama."
He said it was led by John Riordan "who has worked on all
my Offices examinations of Nama since its inception."
"I am satisfied that the team tasked to carry out the
Project Eagle examination had the requisite skills,
knowledge, experience and expertise to do the required
work," he added.
Fianna Fil's Shane Cassells referred to what he described
as the "unprecedented standoff" between the C&AG and
Nama over the report.
He asked if Mr McCarthy was "standing firm" on its
contents amid the "onslaught" against his office.
Mr McCarthy said: I'm happy with the report I've
presented".
He acknowledged that there have been "disagreements"
however he said he felt it was his "duty" to examine the
matter and to publish the report.
The PAC meeting continues in Leinster House.
Nama chairman Frank Daly and chief executive Brendan
McDonagh are to appear later today.
http://www.independent.ie/business/irish/comptroller-and-auditorgeneral-defends-expertise-of-team-that-investigated-project-eagle35088876.html

Trump email series

attacks Hillary Clinton
over links to Denis
O'Brien and Irish
Government

Independent.ie Newsdesk Twitter

EMAIL
PUBLISHED
29/09/2016

1
Republican US presidential nominee Donald Trump reacts during
the first debate with Democratic US presidential nominee Hillary
Clinton at Hofstra University in Hempstead, New York

The campaign of Republican Presidential

nominee Donald Trump has dragged Denis
O'Brien and the Irish Government into his
attacks on Hillary Clinton.
Mr O'Brien was the focus of a lengthy email which was
issued to the media last night headlined 'Follow the
money'.
The email is from a series issued yesterday as part of the
Republican nominee's ongoing attacks on Mrs Clinton.
There are no direct quotes from Donald Trump in the

email which is part of a campaign to highlight connections

between Mrs Clinton and wealthy business people and
Wall Street banks during her time in office.
The emails are believed to be a response to his debate
performance on Monday, after which he came under
pressure from his party to issue sharper attacks on Mrs
Clinton.

Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump clash in first

presidential TV debate
At a campaign rally in Wisconsin last night Mr Trump
referenced the emails, however did not talk about Mr
O'Brien.
Mr O'Brien has a well-publicised relationship with the
Clintons.
He is listed by the Clinton Foundation as having made
between $10-25m in donations to the charity as of June
2016.
The foundation, set up after the end of Bill Clinton's
Presidency in 2001, focuses on humanitarian efforts
worldwide.
The Irish Government is also mentioned as part of Donald
Trump's "Follow the Money" campaign.
In another of the themed emails yesterday, the Trump

campaign listed donations by foreign governments to the

Clinton Foundation as one of "Ten Inconvenient Truths
about the Clinton Foundation".
It lists 19 countries that have donated to the Clinton
Foundation, and Ireland is fifth on the list with donations
to the Foundation falling into the $5-10m bracket over the
course of the lifetime of the Foundation, up to June 2016.
The foundation was set up in the wake of Bill Clinton's
presidency in 2001. It does not detail when exactly any
donations were made.
http://www.independent.ie/business/irish/trump-email-seriesattacks-hillary-clinton-overlinks-to-denis-obrien-and-irishgovernment-35088635.html