Judge Mary Fahy describes the Lawlessness of Procedures in her Galway District Court as - "Normal"!
galway |
rights, freedoms and repression |
news report 
Tuesday September 05, 2006 19:24
by Niall Harnett
Owen Rice again remanded in custody - trial hearing adjourned till 26th Sept '06.
'Our justice system may be equipped to administer the law but they are not equipped to deliver justice'. This quote, from a man who spent three months in jail last summer for protecting his community in N.W. Mayo, makes an important distinction in terms of what to expect from the justice system in this country. My own experience of Galway District Court yesterday leads me to disagree and say this. They are not even equipped to administer the law, let alone justice. Assaults by Garda Sgt No:RG33 Mick Clesham on Owen Rice's legal assistants and friends in the court lobby, denials to Owen Rice of private legal consultation, threats of contempt against friends and Indymedia writers taking notes in court, objections to and intimidation of a privately employed stenographer and the denial of Owen Rice's right to cross-examine prosecution witness Detective Sergeant Mick Coppinger are all considered 'normal' procedure at Galway District Court according to Judge Mary Fahy and Galway Court Service Officer Ray Burke.
Owen Rice, after 3 weeks in custody on remand, was in Galway District Court yesterday 4th Sept '06 to answer and contest charges arising out of an EU summit protest in Galway in Jan 2004. Owen was in the court lobby, accompanied by three police officers, waiting to go into court.
On arriving at the court myself I saw Owen's 'McKenzie friend' & lay-legal assistant, (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/McKenzie_Friend), Kevin Tracey attempting to talk to Owen and the police were denying him this consultation. I saw Kevin Tracey being assaulted by one of the police officers who slammed his hand into Kevin's chest and pushed him violently away. As I approached to greet Owen, I was assaulted myself, no questions asked, with another violent hand into the chest shoving me back. Owen was taken away from the lobby and brought downstairs while Kevin Tracey and myself asked the offending police officer to identify himself which he then refused to do. On challenging him on his behaviour he replied: "I don't care what ye think, I'm being paid". We now know this bully to be Garda Sergeant No:RG33 Mick Clesham.
Court Service Officer Ray Burke arrived on the scene to discourage any protests against this thuggish behaviour of the Gardaí saying things like. 'There's no point lads, they're not going to listen to you'. 'I've been working here for years, this kind of thing happens every day, you're not going to change anything'. 'It's just the way it is'. The unacceptable becoming acceptable. Ray was good-natured towards us but, as I told him, even he is immune to it now!
In court Owen's case was called and put back until after lunch, but Owen, who is defending himself, was allowed to make an application (ask) for a private consultation with his McKenzie friend which was refused by Judge Mary Fahy, without any reference to the law but on her 'understanding' that Owen was not entitled to a private consultation with anyone other than a member of the legal profession.
After lunch, on the judge's return to court she announced that she had been made aware that there was a stenographer and other people chewing gum in class, no ... sorry my mistake, I meant to say ... taking notes in court!! "And would these people stand up please?" She then went on to make a ruling that no-one other than an "accredited journalist" or a "stenographer from a reputable company" was entitled to take notes in court. After much to-do and objections by the state prosecutor to the stenographer, and to her embarrassment at being faced with a barrage of childish questions as to her pedigree, the judge finally conceded to Owen's application to allow the stenographer record his case's proceedings. When questioned by Owen Rice and myself on the legality of her assertions of 'no entitlement for anyone else in the court to make notes' she refused to give any legal grounding to her decision saying only that she had made her ruling and "any repeats of these type of questions would be treated as contempt of court".
Later on, when the case finally started at about 5pm, only to be adjourned an hour later because of the time, Owen got a chance to cross-examine the evidence of Detective Sergeant Mick Coppinger who was involved in Owen's arrest. Owen had received Det. Coppinger's sworn statement previous to this court date, under the 'Gary Doyle' order of disclosure he had applied for, and proceeded to question the detective on his sworn evidence given in that statement. Judge Mary Fahy made several attempts to stop him from doing this, again without any legal grounding, but insisting “on her understanding” again that it was “normal” for witnesses only to be questioned on evidence given to the court on that day. When Owen disputed her assertions, again she could quote no law on this but just suggested that what she was saying was “normal” procedure.
Finally, impatient and unsure of herself legally, in my opinion, at 6pm she adjourned the case until 26th Sept. Owen made an application (asked) for bail, which was contested by the state prosecutor, and which she denied him on the basis that a colleague in a previous district court had ruled against bail. Owen was taken back into custody, hand-cuffed, remanded until the 26th Sept.
What happened in Galway District Court yesterday, in my opinion, is a joke.
The disorder and legal chaos we all experienced there, is testament to the ineptitude of all involved in that system from the police to the solicitors and to the judge, and a sad indictment of them all who's only expertise is to impose suffering on people of integrity like Owen Rice, integrity they fail to see, they are so blinded by the sickness of their ignorance and lack of conscience. There is no rule of law there, and certainly no justice, only abuse of power in the bullying of defendants and the public alike, knowing that if anyone dares voice any dissent, one is faced with 'a court ruling on the matter' and a threat of contempt, the consequence of which is prison, for even asking a question on legal grounds. Like kids at school being told to act in a certain way by bullying teachers who say it's right "cos i said so". Only in the district court the judges' power comes from the fact that they can send you to jail for contempt of a 'cos I said so', legal, illegal or plain just made up cos it suits them.
What an abuse? What a curse you people are?
Comments (32 of 32)
Jump To Comment: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32Surely once they've demonstrated a complete ignorance of the law there's some way of removing people that are appointed as judges? The whole thing sounds completely shocking and the Det. Sgt in the picture is right to hang his head in shame.
Owen was in the high court today to appeal against district court decisions to remand him in custody and to apply for bail.
Bail has been granted and he has just been released in the last few minutes.
He is now out of jail and in good spirits in Dublin with friends, thankfully.
I have a funny feeling that Mr harnett may be getting some legal papers from the photographed slandered Detective sergeant, who was probally only doing his job in the face of arrogant anti war dole collecters. Rice is an ass by all accounts, think it is a disgrace that photos like this can be published, I hope he sues.
You seem very sure that it's slander Betty. I think it's probable that the person posting this has a very strong belief that they're going to be able to back it up. Also , please remember, it's not slander if it's published, it's libel.
My heart sank when I read that Owen was remanded in custody til Sept 26.
But rose again nicely when I read Niall's later comment that he got out.
Some honest feedback/a question for whoever decides on headline news on indymedia.ie...
Why wasn't this case being given higher priority? It's a bad precedent seeing Owen getting locked up like this. I thought it deserved more coverage on indymedia.ie.
Welcome back to the matrix Owen.
"Some honest feedback/a question for whoever decides on headline news on indymedia.ie...
Why wasn't this case being given higher priority?"
So even Indymedia are in on the conspiracy. You didn't shout loud enough in support of Owen.
I admire Owen for his Anti War stance and his actions but why this bizarre behaviour? Why not get a solicitor? The cops would not get away with assaulting a solicitor. But thats out of the question because you seem to mistrust every solicitor in the country. Why was there a need for a seperate stenographer? What reason do you have for believeing that the court stenographer, a low level public servant was corrupt?
I condemn the assaults on Owens supporters and on Indymedia reporters but this circus is not going to win over ordinary people. Nor is the suggestion that this little event in a local court is the most important news that occurred yesterday throughout the island. A modicum of humility would not go amiss.
He didn't want a big fuss made, for his own reasons. Let's leave it at that.
There is absolutely no reason whatsover why Owen shouldn't be allowed defend himself in court and anyone should be allowed take notes. That is the whole point of having a public gallery and all the rest.
"There is absolutely no reason whatsover why Owen shouldn't be allowed defend himself in court "
I support his right to do so. But I wonder if its the best option. Owen and his associates appear to mistrust every solicitor. One of the functions of their LSG is to advise people on how to deal (mistrust?) with solicitors. Theres no reason whatsover why I shouldnt query this.
"and anyone should be allowed take notes."
I whole heartedly agree with you. But why call your note taker a stenographer? Owen didnt call himself a solicitor. To become a stenographer you have to pass exams and reach a certain standard. If you felt there was a need for a "stenographer" then why not get a qualified one? Was there a particular reason why you mistrusted the stenographer in the court?
There was only one stenogragher in the Galway court and that was Owen's stenographer. Court stenographers do not attend the District Court. Owen and his friends trust and know many solicitors but do a better job in court exposing the truth.
I normally just read the articles, but I have to post.
I'm working a 55 hour week, paying tax, and generally law abiding, I don't even make it to protests, but I sign the odd petition on my way home from work if I pass one by the GPO, and I admire people who take the time to try to change anything. I have respect for Gards and Judges in general, but i'm sick of hearing them sitting on their asses, and making things up to suit themselves. If I'd been in that court room, and decided write in my own notebook, with my own biro, she'd be telling me not to do it, while I'm paying for her to be there? I don't tell them how to do her job, so why should she interfere with the public in the public gallery quietly witnessing.
What does she have to hide from us, the peope who pay for the well padded seat she's on?
Anyhow, lunch break almost over. Well done that man Niall for standing up for public access, and to Owen for his many stands.
"Owen and his friends trust and know many solicitors but do a better job in court exposing the truth."
Once again I am overcome by your humility and modesty. I wish I was perfect like you guys. No need for solicitors or barristers, you just need Owen and friends. Why bother spending years studying law? Just do it yourself!
So there was only one "stenographer" in court. When did this person qualify as a stenographer?
So, if someone decides to exercise their right to represent themselves in court, as a normal citizen, that means that they are arrogantly intruding on the legal profession?
how does the law exist for? just for the lawyers to earn money, or for people to assert their rights when they are wronged?
If someone needs a lawyer, then they can hire one. One person deciding to represent himself does not equate to a massive threat to the legal profession, who are comfortable fed from the legal aid funds (i.e. our taxes)
If they feel they don't need a lawyer, then they are entitled to represent themselves, and if they want to hire a professional stenographer, then they are entitled to do that too. It helps a case to have an accurate record of what was said.
Somehow, this is offensive to someone?
Only the members of the legal profession can be trusted in court?
Only the mainstream media may take notes and choose what to report to the public?
Fine viewpoint on 'justice appearing to be done'.
Good to see you still fighting the good fight. Read what I wrote, I did not deny anyone the right to defend themselves ib court. I just mused as to whether it was the best possible choice. You can go through life mistrusting everyone if you so wish. You have every right to spend each waking hour certain that someone somewhere is plotting against you.
As for the stenographer, I dodnt oppose this. I was wondering if the person was actually a qualified stenographer or a notetaker. I never suggested that only the mainstream media could take notes. Why are you putting words into my mouth?
You say the judge was made aware that someone was taking notes?
Do you know the name or rank of the person who told her? I'm just curious as to who it was that got so alarmed that a pen and pad were being wielded.
Did I say I was responding only to your points?
I responded to a few things raised by the article and by comments.
I didn't attribute them all to you. You are not the centre of the universe.
But why do you bring up the point about qualified stenographers?
And not hiring a solicitor is not being paranoid. I don't know Owen's reason for not hiring one, but if he feels he doesn't need one, then that's his decision to make. In a lot of cases in District Courts, the cops and solicitors are on first name terms, and they can be just too damn placid when it's a case of garda intimidation. They're very slow to accuse anyone of perjury for example even if it's fairly obvious. A lay defendant does not depend on any ongoing working relationship with the prosecuting gardai for any other cases, so (s)he doesn't have any other considerations other than putting forward the best defence (s)he can. Those are my own observations.
John, the judge was made aware by a number of her willing army of wannabe class captains in blue, whose arses make buttons at the sight of any member of the public doing anything that may give them an excuse to execute some harassment.
And then ... wee wee wee ... they go squealing to the court clerk and the judge to tell tales!
Honestly, that's the way it is, the truth is stranger than fiction!
"You are not the centre of the universe."
I never said I was. Its Owens supporters who are upset because this article was not better placed on Indymedia. That little tiff in a District Court yesterday was the most important event which occurred in Ireland.
"But why do you bring up the point about qualified stenographers? "
Because a "stenographer" is a skilled person. I pointed out that Owen did not describe himself as a solicitor so a note taker should not call her/himself a stenographer unless they were qualified.
"And not hiring a solicitor is not being paranoid."
I agree. But being suspicious of all solicitors is. Advising people on how to deal with solicitors as the LSG do makes you wonder why the LSG dont campaign for the abolishing of all lawyers.
Advising people on how to deal with solicitors is not the same as advising people NOT to deal with them.
I advise people on how to deal with their landlords. I don't advocate the abolition of landlords, I just explain how best to approach them, their rights and duties as tenants and the rights and duties of landlords and the potential pitfalls. Same applies in a client-solicitor relationship.
Only a fool would think that EVERY solicitor is capable and reliable. It's very important that people get a good defence. Some solicitors take a keen interest in serving their clients well, others see you as just another lunch ticket, and don't give your case the time it deserves, because they're taking on as many clients as they can get paid for. Some just turn up and do a bit on the case and bill you for hours that they never worked on your case. Advising someone on how to make sure that their solicitor is doing the job properly is not anti-solicitor. If your solicitor does a bad job, they still get paid, and you get the consequences. Being cautious is not the same as mistrusting.
"One of the functions of their LSG is to advise people on how to deal (mistrust?) with solicitors. " are your words, not theirs, as far as I can see.
Talk about putting words in people's mouths!
Well you certainly go on a lot about solicitors. There is a certain group of people who post on Indymedia who have a fetish about solicitors. I have never seen an article posted about Owen or LSGwhich didnt have a few digs at the legal profession. This goes far beyond mere suspicion, it amounts to an obsession.
""One of the functions of their LSG is to advise people on how to deal (mistrust?) with solicitors. " are your words, not theirs, as far as I can see. "
Well, I put the "mistrust ?" in brackets, thats my word. But I think the rest is a fair summation of previous postings by LSG partisans. Heres an example: "Briefly, we support each other in court give advice on dealing with solicitors," by Mary Kelly Mon Aug 21, 2006 18:18
The LSG supporters even suspect An Post workers: " I will be writing to the ICCL and the Irish Human Rights Commission ( REGISTERED LETTERS) and I would strongly recommend that all those concerned with basic civil rights do likewise. " by Mick Butler Sun Aug 20, 2006 21:36
They see conspiracy everywhere, murder, corruption, only Owen can sort it out: "Currently, Owen is working on two cases in particular, that involve murder and planning corruption." by Seán Ryan Sun Aug 20, 2006 18:41
Now we really know why Owen was arrested!
--Heres an example: "Briefly, we support each other in court give advice on dealing with solicitors," by Mary Kelly Mon Aug 21, 2006 18:18
Again, that doesn't amount to paranoia. Giving advice on dealing with estate agents is not crazy either.
-The LSG supporters even suspect An Post workers: " I will be writing to the ICCL and the Irish Human Rights Commission ( REGISTERED LETTERS) and I would strongly recommend that all those concerned with basic civil rights do likewise. " by Mick Butler Sun Aug 20, 2006 21:36
Are you mad? Using registered letters indicates distrust of An Post? Why would An Post run a service which had a purpose of labelling them as untrustworthy? The idea of a registered letter is so that you can prove the date that it was delivered in the event of a dispute with the recipent, or to prove to a third party, not a dispute with the postal service!
If you haven't grasped that idea, then I'm wasting my time trying to explain it further.
I don't pretend to know you, but seeing as you didn't know that lowly District Courts do not normally use stenographers, (or that it's not difficult to hire a profesional stenographer to come and work for you in court for the day) I gather that you don't have much experience of the district court, and the farce that passes for administration of justice, and also the huge range of competence that exists in the lawyers practising there. Some are great, and some should be avoided like the plague. I saw one slack jawed lawyer advising his client to plead guilty and beg for the courts mercy. His client sacked him on the spot, defended himself and had the case struck out. In other cases, a good solicitor made a massive difference, but most people dropped unwillingly into the middle of a case wouldn't be able to tell the difference between a good solicitor and a bad one. Giving practical advice on this is hardly the equivalent of donning a red cape, blue tights and sticking a big red "S" on yer chest!
Could someone clarify what LSG is please?
Always important to clarify ANY abbreviations. Unless you're in the know they're meaningless and frustrating.
Glad to answer your question.
I thought it might have been Law Society Gazette!... I was googling!!
For the benefit of those not aware there was a hired professional stenographer working on behalf of Owen in addition to his McKenzie friend taking notes.
Judge Fahy allowed the stenographer only when her qualifications were checked by the chief clerk Mr Peter Rafferty. The judge told the stenographer to leave the court and have her qualifications checked by him as she did not trust that she was a genuine stenographer.
It was Mr Rafferty who told Judge Fahy that people were taking notes and that one had a camera with him. This person with the camera was Niall.
The McKenzie friend was requested by Owen and the judge asked the gardai had they any objection to this. Imagine the crooked gardai having the say. Did this judge read the Morris report. They could not say no as there was an official stenographer there in any case on behalf of Owen.
I would suggest people to go to rateyoursolicitor.com and read the horror stories about ongoing corruption in the legal profession in this country - "the island of saints and scholars".
"--Heres an example: "Briefly, we support each other in court give advice on dealing with solicitors," by Mary Kelly Mon Aug 21, 2006 18:18
Again, that doesn't amount to paranoia. Giving advice on dealing with estate agents is not crazy either. "
But you claimed (just scroll back up) that those were my words rather than those of the LSG.
"-The LSG supporters even suspect An Post workers: " I will be writing to the ICCL and the Irish Human Rights Commission ( REGISTERED LETTERS) and I would strongly recommend that all those concerned with basic civil rights do likewise. " by Mick Butler Sun Aug 20, 2006 21:36
Are you mad? Using registered letters indicates distrust of An Post? Why would An Post run a service which had a purpose of labelling them as untrustworthy? "
But your friends put it in CAPITALS. I think that suggests a certain frame of mind.
"I don't pretend to know you, but seeing as you didn't know that lowly District Courts do not normally use stenographers, (or that it's not difficult to hire a profesional stenographer to come and work for you in court for the day) "
But was the note taker a qualified stenographer? Why not answer that? Somehow I reckon the "stenographer was a friend who was taking notes.
" I saw one slack jawed lawyer advising his client to plead guilty and beg for the courts mercy. His client sacked him on the spot, defended himself and had the case struck out."
If the client was innocent then he did the right thing.
"but most people dropped unwillingly into the middle of a case wouldn't be able to tell the difference between a good solicitor and a bad one."
But the LSG would?
" Giving practical advice on this is hardly the equivalent of donning a red cape, blue tights and sticking a big red "S" on yer chest! "
It may well be. What legal training do the LSG have? By what mystical process do they tell a good lawyer from a bad one?
=But you claimed (just scroll back up) that those were my words rather than those of the LSG.
You said it was paranoia, that one can spend every waking hour thinking there's a plot. There's a difference between mistrusting a lawyer, and not trusting them entirely. It's sensible to follow up a few things with a solicitor, to ask questions, did they do that thing I asked, and if they never seem to able to show that they did lodge an important application, or get you a copy of the statements, well, they're not helping to prepare you or your case.
===But your friends put it in CAPITALS. I think that suggests a certain frame of mind.
Yes, it's call emphasis. Make sure it's registered, and not just ordinary mail. They were being very clear about what to do and how, unlike vague statements like 'certain frame of mind'.
===But was the note taker a qualified stenographer? Why not answer that? Somehow I reckon the "stenographer was a friend who was taking notes.
Well, you've been told different, someone DID answer it, a couple of posts up, there was a stenographer, and also people taking notes as mentioned in the article. the note takers were told to stop, and the stenographer allowed to continue. It's written in simple english. If you want to believe it or not, it's no skin of anyone else's nose now is it?
" I saw one slack jawed lawyer advising his client to plead guilty and beg for the courts mercy. His client sacked him on the spot, defended himself and had the case struck out."
==If the client was innocent then he did the right thing.
Exactly my point, he looked at the approach of the lawyer, who wasn't even willing to put up a defence and decided best get rid of him.
"but most people dropped unwillingly into the middle of a case wouldn't be able to tell the difference between a good solicitor and a bad one."
==But the LSG would?
Through learning it the hard way It's possible they can tell you what to look for, yes. It's not a crystal ball.
" Giving practical advice on this is hardly the equivalent of donning a red cape, blue tights and sticking a big red "S" on yer chest! "
It may well be. What legal training do the LSG have? By what mystical process do they tell a good lawyer from a bad one?
Oh, F.F.S. ... when you're buying a car do you only talk to car salesmen, or would you also talk to previous customers???
For a start, a lawyer who actually takes notes from you on the case would be a good sign, a lawyer who is willing to stand up for you would be even better, a lawyer who isn't afraid of sinking his/her teeth into perjurers would be another plus. Returning calls, billing for work they actually did,... whereas, a lawyer who doesn't even turn up for court, or doesn't have your file, or hasn't read enough to catch a blatant lie, and has to be handed a note to alert them to it, or is the type of lawyer to arrogant to take a note... and then claims that they worked so hard on your case and would like to be paid for putting in long hours that obviously were spent doing something else, would generally best be avoided.
Nowhere did they advise to avoid all lawyers, and you've been told by someone who was in court, that a professional stenographer was there, nor do they claim to be able to leap tall buildings in a single bound, see through walls, or defy gravity, is it just that you don't like the praise (some a bit hero worship) that some of their supporters put on the comments? sounds a bit begrudging.
"=But you claimed (just scroll back up) that those were my words rather than those of the LSG.
You said it was paranoia, that one can spend every waking hour thinking there's a plot. There's a difference between mistrusting a lawyer, and not trusting them entirely. "
Yes, overall, not just that sentence, take the whole approach and you get paranoia. I take it that you now accept that those were words used by the LSG?
"===But your friends put it in CAPITALS. I think that suggests a certain frame of mind.
Yes, it's call emphasis."
No. Its called shouting, normal people know that its not something you do. Putting "" or in italics is emphasis.
===But was the note taker a qualified stenographer? Why not answer that? Somehow I reckon the "stenographer was a friend who was taking notes.
"Well, you've been told different, someone DID answer it, a couple of posts up, there was a stenographer, and also people taking notes as mentioned in the article. the note takers were told to stop, and the stenographer allowed to continue."
I missed that. I'm getting a funny view of the article. Its allin white, maybe its my browser.
"" I saw one slack jawed lawyer advising his client to plead guilty and beg for the courts mercy. His client sacked him on the spot, defended himself and had the case struck out."
==If the client was innocent then he did the right thing.
Exactly my point, he looked at the approach of the lawyer, who wasn't even willing to put up a defence and decided best get rid of him. "
So what are arguing about? I agree with you. Although one solicitor is not a statistical universe.
""but most people dropped unwillingly into the middle of a case wouldn't be able to tell the difference between a good solicitor and a bad one."
==But the LSG would?
Through learning it the hard way It's possible they can tell you what to look for, yes. It's not a crystal ball. "
But how can you tell if a lawyer is crooked, incompetent, secretly working for the state? What methodology do you use?
"" Giving practical advice on this is hardly the equivalent of donning a red cape, blue tights and sticking a big red "S" on yer chest! "
It may well be. What legal training do the LSG have? By what mystical process do they tell a good lawyer from a bad one?
Oh, F.F.S. ... when you're buying a car do you only talk to car salesmen, or would you also talk to previous customers???"
The fact that you compare a lawyer to a car salesman says something about your mindset. I'll try to address some of your points below.
"For a start, a lawyer who actually takes notes from you on the case would be a good sign, "
A good lawyer wont take down everything you say, only the relevant points. Your advice could put someone off a good lawyer.
"a lawyer who is willing to stand up for you would be even better, a lawyer who isn't afraid of sinking his/her teeth into perjurers would be another plus."
It may not always be a good idea to savagely attack in court someone who is giving evidence that differs from your client. It could be counter productive. Sometimes people have different views of how something occurred. In such a case the most aggressive lawyer may not win over the jury.
"whereas, a lawyer who doesn't even turn up for court, or doesn't have your file, or hasn't read enough to catch a blatant lie, and has to be handed a note to alert them to it,"
Such a lawyer is useless. Complain them to the Law Society.
"Nowhere did they advise to avoid all lawyers, "
They imply it and their supporters suggest it.
"and you've been told by someone who was in court, that a professional stenographer was there, "
I accept it, no need to repeat yourself.
" is it just that you don't like the praise (some a bit hero worship) that some of their supporters put on the comments?"
No, just offering a few criticisms. Is that allowed?
"sounds a bit begrudging."
Some people see any criticism or disagreement as begrudgery. I sleep more soundly at night when I realise that these people are unlikely to ever get real power.
I have heard that this legal support group is comprised of some brilliant people including Mr Rice who have made great headway with a lot of serious corruption in this country that otherwise would be covered up by the legal profession.
Perjury and corruption is rife within the legal profession and the LSG aim to wipe a lot of this out.
More power to the LSG. You have my full support for your commitment and guts.
"have heard that this legal support group is comprised of some brilliant people including Mr Rice who have made great headway with a lot of serious corruption in this country that otherwise would be covered up by the legal profession."
I am delighted to hear of this. Please tell us more about these corruption cases and about the lawyers involved in covering it up.
"Perjury and corruption is rife within the legal profession and the LSG aim to wipe a lot of this out."
So Jim is wrong then. The LSG do not just advise people about solicitors, the LSG is on a mission to wipe out perjury and corruption in the legal profession. Would you tell us something about current cases of corruption or perjury being followed up by the LSG? I realise that some of these cases may be sub judice so you might deal with a few of the successful cases taken by the LSG which exposed corrupt and perjurious lawyers.
Do they have a website or are they the same as rateyoursolicitor?
thankfully we still have free speech is America so the names mugshots and photo of every garda thug and special branch infiltrators are on the Cryptonorm web site for over 5 years and nothing the brain dead can do will get those pictures off. Beware the guy in the picture is no ordinary thug he is a spook! Greeting from the USA! We know who you are pigglets because we read all your messages all the time> In God we trust every spook and gook we monitor!
Indymedia Ireland is a media collective. We are independent volunteer citizen journalists producing and distributing the authentic voices of the people. Indymedia Ireland is an open news project where anyone can post their own news, comment, videos or photos about Ireland or related matters.