Victims of the Legal Profession gangsters

by stella eaglehawk - freedom of expression Sat Sep 16, 2006 23:27

I would like to congratulate Mr John Gill and all of his public supporters all over Ireland and abroad who are striving to expose the corruption and malaise amongst the vast majority of the legal brotherhood, who are intent on lining their pockets at the misfortune and misery of others with total disregard to the ethics and laws that bind them. The latest summons issued to John Gill and the internet website, ''crookedlawyers.com'' must not be allowed to remain in place; in the interest of democracy and freedom of expression. I strongly believe that the website must remain as a vehicle of public voice and as a legitimate platform of public and national / inter awareness.

The fact that the legal profession are attempting to abuse the laws of this land, and are trying very hard to close down this web site says so much!! WE CANNOT LET THIS HAPPEN AND ASK THAT THOSE AROUND THE COUNTRY WHO VAULE THEIR DEMOCRATIC RIGHTS RALLY TO attend the 4courts on October 5 th 2006 to support Mr Gill.

This case might well have major implications on press freedom as well, and we urge the press to pursue this story and give it as much local and national coverage as possible. Long live our rights to oust the truth in the name of tolerance, justice, equality and right conduct! No man is above the law, in this case the so called legal professionals cannot be allowed to use the law to cover up their own corruption. Please support this worthy cause in any way you can..................

by Robyn Sun Sep 17, 2006 01:49 peacefulwarriorprincess at yahoo dot com dot au Australia

Hear hear!

Its high time the evil double crossing moneygrabbers were publicly exposed. Time to end their free ride on the gravy train of injustice.

I'm interested in setting up a similar project in Australia. I have experience with a few female Family Court so-called lawyers who I would be interested in informing the public to steer clear of.

Highly unethical behaviour has been observed from both of them. Yet when I complained to our local Legal Practitioner's Conduct Board, dead silence.

I witnessed a scam that Family Court lawyers have cooked up to defraud taxpayers by illegally granting legal aid to separated mothers who have a financial interest in divorce property settlements. This scam enables these mothers to illegally get public funds to pay for their psychologically destructive legal campaigns to destroy the relationship between their children and their non-custodial fathers.

I wrote to the Legal Services Commission and local politicians asking them to investigate and stamp it out, but they did nothing. To my knowledge the scam continues, I wonder how widespread it is in the industrialised divorce industry world. I won't detail it here, don't want to give ideas if other countries haven't already dreamed it up. Too many kids are having their lives shattered by being forcibly removed from their fathers already in state sanctioned kidnap already.

cheers,
Robyn

by helpfull Sun Sep 17, 2006 12:15

The rateyoursolicitor site that is the subject of the High Court hearing on 5th Oct is still available and active at the following link. The site is still fully functional without its name at http://207.210.96.145

To read the remarks that are the subject of the defamation proceedings and attack on the web site go to the comments on Catherine Allison, Dundalk.

Enjoy

by DM Sun Sep 17, 2006 16:00

Brilliant! Brilliant! But I believe they have nothing on certain Derry Solicitors for corruption and incompetence.

by mac consaidin Sun Sep 17, 2006 17:33

In its short few months of operation Rateyoursolicitor had over 600,000 hits. It is doing important work. After decades of Irish people being afraid of the legal profession, they now have an outlet to express their pent up feelings.

Things cannot go backwards. The muck cannot be put back under the carpet. The muck must be addressed. This will be difficult for the legal fraternity just as it was for the Church, the polititions and the other pillars of society who have had to clean up there acts in recent years. But it has to happen, the site is part of that clean-up and the site must not be supressed.

In the euphoric, first flush of freedom, comments that are childish or lower than necessary may occur. This may or may not have happened in this case, although in an age of rampant sexuality, a young man or woman being called a stud or a ride or a village bicycle can be seen as complimentary. If it doesn't interfere with their ability to be a good lawyer, where is the problem?

Apparently the post was put up by a young male fellow lawyer. He may had a few drinks on him and acted out of jealous ardour for his obviously attractive young colleague. All this may be true. It may be uncomfortable for those at the centre including the totally innocent John Gill & the seven who now find themselves in the dock on 5th Oct.

We don't knock down walls because of things that may be written on them. We don't suppress technologies such as TV or film because they have been used for undesirable purposes. We cannot allow the web site to be knocked down because of these two young lawyers private antics.

by Even more helpful Sun Sep 17, 2006 20:45

The correct related link is http://www.crookedlawyers.com

by court reporter Mon Sep 18, 2006 11:29

"Rate my solicitor" ( before it's cowardly progenitors pulled it from the web, rather than facing the consequences of their 'convictions' -such as they are) has perhaps done us a favour insofar as it again highlighted the problem of abuse of the internet to lie, defame, promote hate, racist abuse, etc.

The sad thing about ratemysolicitor is that it did nothing of the sort. There are truely bad and inefficient lawyers out there. However, the late unlamented website was merely a vehicle for vindictive group of people whose real bone of contention is that the legal system refused to assist them in their pursuit of the victims of their various obsessions. The solicitors named in their website as bad, were most often the solicitors who represented the vindicated victims and opponents of these people, or the solicitors who had the temerity to tell them that the purpose of the law and the courts is not to assist private vengeance against whosoever these people hate. And having seen some of the names behind "ratmysolicitor" in action, I suspect that the purpose is not to expose graft and inefficiency but to widen their private war beyond the private individuals whose intended victimization originally brought them into the courts.

Ironically, "ratemysolicitor" impugnes some truely excellent lawyers while giving recommendation to at least one solicitor who is (in my humble opinion) grossly inefficient. But, as I have said the real purpose of these people is not to rate solicitors in a fair and honest manner, but to impugn lawyers whom they hate. In fact, having seen the names of the persons behind the website, I suspect that the public would not be far wrong in assuming that any solicitor impugned by these people is probably a good solicitor!

Anyhow, if you want to find a good lawyer the best way is to 'ask around' - just like you would do with any professional service-provider. Referring to "ratemysolicitor" would be a bad move.

This commentator is a legally-unqualified court clerk based in the Mid-West who has in his career seen a lot of solicitors in action. I have also seen some of the individuals behind "ratemy solicitor" performing.

by Bored with Screwballs Mon Sep 18, 2006 14:52

I think "sadly" has hit the nail on the head. There's a desperate need for a serious ratemysolicitor.com and the existing one appears to be the hostage of irrational people who don't understand that evidence and fairness towards the accused is necessary for the success of the project. For anyone that's interested the site is still up, accessible by its IP address and a Google search of the apparent registrant (according to the Independent) reveals the "quality" of the reviews of solicitors
http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=site%3Arateyoursolicit...ll%22

A good and necessary idea ruined by irresponsibility, vindictiveness and foolishness apparently. The state needs people like this as the clownish face of opposition in order to demonstrate that at least it's better than them.

If you think this is harsh then click on the cached results of the Google search linked above and make your own mind up about the postings by "John Gill".

by vindictive clown Mon Sep 18, 2006 18:14

The previous two posts seem to be absolutely certain that the lawyers are always right and the people who have attended the numerous VLPS meetings around the country are wrong or as you put it "Vindictive clowns".

Such righteous certainty about the personalities of those on both sides of the debate in the face of so much personal misery and evidence to the contrary is astounding.

Have either of the previous posters been at a VLPS meeting to hear the sad stories of broken families and dispossessed people mainly of middle age and older. Large numbers of people "done out of their property" by developers/solicitors/auctioneers colluding together to clear people out to make way for their profitable developments.

One of the posters admits to being a clerk in the Courts service. Our courts service is straight out of the seventeenth century with bowing and scaping lawyers in old fashion clothes shaping before their retired colleagues on the bench like Uriah Heep. Judges sending people to prison just because they are not represented by one of their colleagues or because their dress or manners or speed of speech does'nt fit the outdated class defined decorum "expected" in "their" courtroom. We, tax payers pay them and pay for "their" courtroom and for the prison service that has to cope with the unfortunates incarcarated for "contempt".

Just look at the O'Flaherty case and the Curtain case and tell us that there is no need of reform!

You refer to John Gill in a disparaging manner. John emigrated from Mayo to Canada in the sixties. He followed the emigrants dream to make something of himself and come back to his own country. He came back, bought a bit of land and set up in his trade as a builder. He had been out of the country too long to know how the small town (and big town)developer/solicitor/auctioneer cartels work in this country. If you don't fit their plan, they take you out. They took John out and stole his land. He has spent years fighting them and he still has posession of his land. John Gill is an inspiration to all of us who have been similary "screwed". If we are bitter, we have the right!

by Bored with Screwballs Mon Sep 18, 2006 19:36

I think that vindictive clown epitomises what is wrong with ratemysolicitor.com in that s/he makes wild allegations. For instance s/he characterises my and sadly's criticism as "absolutely certain that the lawyers are always right " when in fact sadly says "There are truely bad and inefficient lawyers out there" and I say "There's a desperate need for a serious ratemysolicitor.com". I am sure there are loads of useless and a few actually corrupt solicitors out there. They now get to avoid public exposure because of the vindictive clowns that write things like:
9th of Jul, 2006 John Gill Horrible,Rotten,Disgusting,Corrupt, not fit for spreading pig slurr

There's lots more there to read at the cached Google search links I put up above, including the description, apparently of a female lawyer in wholly sexual terms that have nothing to do with her professional competence.

I stand by the description "vindictive clowns" and think that given the evidence of your own misrepresentation of what has been written above that you are right to adopt it as your moniker.

by vindictive clown Mon Sep 18, 2006 21:16

My dear friend, I hate no one.

However, I do want the best for my country, my children and the ordinary man and therefore I do hate certain actions eg
1. Alteration of contracts and wills by law officers to whom they are entrusted for safe keeping
2. Spiriting away/destruction of evidence held for Court by officers of the Court
3. Lies and perjury by a group of professonals who have "priveledge" as officers of the Court
4. Lawyers who use their professional priveledge and insider knowledge f vulnerable property owners to go into business with developers in making millions.
5. "professional" bullies

There is more, but I hope that is enough to be going on with. By the way if you tell us to go to the Law Society or the Court Service with our proofs of all of the above, we have done it but they "Hear no evil,see no evil" where their colleagues are concerned. Hence the admittedly over the top feelings that come through in the Web Site.

If you want to see proof, come to the next VLPS meeting or put your real e-mail address up here and I will contact you and show you.

by Bored with Screwballs Mon Sep 18, 2006 23:25

There is more, but I hope that is enough to be going on with

Based on the other material that I read on the site I don't believe you for a minute. It might be true, but by associating it at the same level with the sexual insults and the other insults I wouldn't trust anything published by you. It is immaterial who or what you hate as long as you tell the truth, or at least make a reasonable effort to do so.

I have absolutely no doubt that the person you are alleged to have published these scurrilous accusations about will triumph in court and you'll have succeeded in creating your very own self-imposed chilling effect which will deter those with genuine complaints.

by vindictive clown Tue Sep 19, 2006 19:44

Your last post suggested that you think I am an owner of the site. I am not!

However, I do think that it, or something like it, is the only way left to people to warn others about mistakes they have made and about the legal people they have put their trust in.

I certainly would not have put up the comments you refer to, though I put to you that you would hear far worse in any pub, club or crossroads in the country and isn't the internet just an electronic extension of ordinary conversation. Isn't that what makes it so interesting. You can write or read it all and make your mind up accordingly. What is wrong with that?

I have great sympathy or editors/moderators of web sites. The fact of editing or moderating implies taking responsibility. If you don't edit or moderate then it seems to me that you are no more responsible than the owner of a wall is responsible for graffitti placed on the wall.

Certainly, the ease with which legal people can sue, means that an editor moderator would be so constrained as to make the site useless.

So on balance, I have come down on the side of free speech and I retain the right (as you clearly do) to question things I read on the internet. Where we would seem to part company is that you would wish to censor the writings of anyone that you deem to be a vindictive clown (your words).

I hope I am not wronging you there!

by Just Bored Tue Sep 19, 2006 20:04

I put to you that you would hear far worse in any pub, club or crossroads in the country

And anyone speaking the same words would be prosecutable (and rightly so) if they can be shown to have been doing so falsely and maliciously. And I would give as much credence to what I hear some old drunk raving about in a pub as I do to the website (which you are not the owner of) e.g. fuck all. And the more I heard him and his friends speaking like that the more I would disbelieve everything they said and assume that the people they were talking about were probably in the right because these people were so foul mouthed and ready to repeat any old rubbish. Your analogy is perfect. As regards your graffiti analogy, yes, the website would appear to aspire to the same level of usefulness as a jacks wall that says "call Brian at xxx-xxxxxxxx for a good time".

Freedom of speech is a precious right and tool. Prosecution of those that lie during their Freedom of Speech (can you think of any more effective way to make FoS useless than allowing completely repercusionless speech?) is useful to all of us that want to know for real who are the bad solicitors, teachers, politicians or whoever.

This site, and the attitude of people like you, strikes me as parochial, gossiping, bad-mouthing old Ireland catapulted into an electronic medium. The complete triviality and childish imbecility of the comments HAS helped me make my mind up.

I think the young woman in question should sue the arse off the website's maintainers and I hope a whole load more solicitors get into the act. Then they can go after the cretins that posted the comments.

I see a cabal of lunatics out riding their hobby-horses and not caring who they run over in the process.

Dressing it up as Free Speech is pointless. You've got Free Speech. You've used it. Now pay the price.

and isn't the internet just an electronic extension of ordinary conversation
And that is true and is precisely fuck all use to your argument because you can be held legally accountable for your lies in ordinary conversation.

by vindictive clown Tue Sep 19, 2006 20:44

I pleed guilty to all you accuse me of. I don't seem to stand a chance of a fair trial, so I might as well pleed guilty. I'll just say nothing and keep my head down.

Two final points before I leave you to your preconceptions:

There are 600 solicitors listed on the site with a rough average of 10 comments per solicitor. That is 6000 posts. Only a tiny minority fit the descriptions you care to use. Many posts, including my own are there under own names. People like us are not born bitter, we are made bitter by betrayal of those we have trusted.

Finally, If you succeed in shutting up and shutting out the experiences of those of us who have had bitter first hand experience with lawyers, you or yours will have to learn your own mistakes, the hard way. Experience is the greatest teacher. Shout down or shut up those with experience and you will have to learn the lessons yourself.

But then maybe you are a lawyer and you know it all already?

by W. Finnerty. Tue Sep 19, 2006 21:08

I am still waiting for a reply from Minister for Justice McDowell TD to the letter I sent him on August 4th last.

As can be seen at the address below, I have pointed out to him that he and his colleagues in Government appear to be violating Bunreacht na hEireann (the Constitution of Ireland) in a number of major ways.

I find it VERY interesting that neither Justice Minister McDowell himself, nor any of the other senior public officials the e-mail below was copied to (some of them lawyers like himself), are denying ANY of my allegations regarding their completely outrageous and wholly unlawful behaviour relating to Bunreacht na hEireann. Please see items listed 1) to 4) at following address:

http://www.europeancourtofhumanrightswilliamfinnerty.co...r.htm

by number 6 - legalise freedom campaign Tue Sep 19, 2006 23:06

Firstly, REGISTER your Letters to Ministers. They are the forensic Defendant of the Constituted Citizen. The Book stops with them. Hold them accountable.It (registered letter) puts the issue' on the recored'. Vital. And C.c. it (cover copy) to other People where necessary.

Secondly, there is NO Solicitor MY Solicitor. They are all sworn Officers of the Court. NOT, to the Constituted Citizen-------YOU.

Thirdly, Give WRITTEN Instructions to the Solicitor YOU engaged.

b.c.n.u.

by puzzled Wed Sep 20, 2006 16:06

I have been trying to find the wording of this "oath" that you say solicitors have to take. If you have the wording, can you post it up here please? have even asked the Law Society for the wording but those answering the telephone were not able to help. It is a bit of a mystery.

by pat c Wed Sep 20, 2006 16:16

The relevant legislation: SOLICITORS (AMENDMENT) ACT, 1994 does not appear to specify an Oath of Office for solicitors.
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1994_27.html

by puzzled Wed Sep 20, 2006 18:45

Thanks pat c,

That confirms my bit of research also. The question is, Do solicitors take an oath and what words are in the oath?

If anyone has the answer please post here.

by court reporter Thu Sep 21, 2006 17:17

Solicitors are not 'office-holders' in the sense that judges and government-ministers are. They do not take an oath of office. Solicitors are governed by a code of ethics and practice and by the provisions of the solicitors acts - in addition to the ordinary law of the land.

by Andresky - Noe Fri Sep 22, 2006 05:25

I am in agreement with you where I see corruption in the legal system here in Jacksonville Florida. I see these legal gansters lining their pocket with the perpetual cycle created by the court system to provide continual income to these gangsters and peacosks. We have malpractice suits for doctors and every other king of profession where are the malpractice suits for those gansters who call themselves lawyers?

by court reporter Fri Sep 22, 2006 12:22

'Malpractice suites" as you call them, are not unknown in Irish law. That is why practicing lawyers are obliged to carry insurance. Moreover, if Irish lawyers (as a few do every year) commit a malpractice which falls short of behaviour which would ground a civil-liability action if mounted against a 'lay' person, they are still likely to find themselves before the disciplinary tribunals which regulate the legal-professions. These tribunals can disbar and strike-off as well as order compensation.

by number 6 - legailse freedom campaign Fri Sep 22, 2006 20:02

I don't see anyboby devulging the Oath out there.

But , members of 'THE BAR' do make an Oath, ' .........This Case is not to be cited or Published'.
Meaning; if a Case of National importance is before the Courts , it is kept 'off the record' by not appearing in Transcript , denying any Precedent for all. Hence the imperative that such Cases are Documented in open Court by an independent Stenographer.

bcnu

by mac consaidin Fri Sep 22, 2006 21:24

The following is a true account of an Irish solicitor’s handling of an alleged court order.

A professional couple with 4 children got into marriage difficulties. The family home was on a small farm of valuable land on the edge of a growing town. One spouse went to court for a separation order. As part of the settlement the other spouse offered a couple of sites from the family farm. The Court made the order of settlement including these terms.

Now the solicitor that got the Court Order is selling by private treaty, the entire farm of about 25 acres which is now extremely valuable. Both spouses and all the children (all over 16) are totally opposed to this sale going ahead. They have tried everything to stop the sale including going to High and Supreme Courts. They have also tried to get sight of the original written Court Order but without success. They are now trying to appeal to the European Court.

This proves that valuable property can be stolen from a family against their will by a solicitor who says he has a court order to do it but who cannot produce the writ and the Circuit Court office has no record of it either. The private treaty sale means that it can be sold to whoever this Solicitor likes at whatever price he likes, in secret and the family have no say at all in the matter.

Can someone please assist this unfortunate family.

by Bikerider Sat Sep 23, 2006 01:08

Expose the solicitor in quesiton.

by paul Sat Sep 23, 2006 09:55

Put this Solicitor's name and address up on www.rateyoursolicitor.ie. This site was closed but is still available from this site. Also publish it here, for starters.

by mac consaidin Sat Sep 23, 2006 14:09

The link below is the family's own story.

Most people don't know that when a couple go to Court for a Judicial Separation Agreement, the court and its officers (solicitors & Clerks of Court) take over all family property and debts etc. It is akin to the liquidation of a business. Banks and other creditors are involved in the final Court Order.

The reference to Dynamo's etc is a local soccer club who were privately sold some of the farm by the solicitor, Terence English.

http://www.crookedlawyers.com/uploads/case13.htm

by Paul Sat Sep 23, 2006 14:28

A very disturbing Story indeed. If you have to use your signature in future on any Documents , do sign above it ,'without prejudice'.or ' all rights reserved'. Will be in contact again.

by number 11 - legalise freedom campaign Sun Sep 24, 2006 12:58

'Your' Solicitor wilfully violated Section 6 Criminal Justice Act 2001 when he/she altered your Deeds or refused to devulge them to you.
Get a Copy and read. I will try to post up a copy on the site.
b.c.n.u.

by mac consaidin Wed Oct 04, 2006 18:12

Tomorrow, 5th Oct, at 10.30 in the High Court the case of Jayne Mansfield V John Gill & Oths will commence. In an interim judgement the Judge ordered that the web site www.rateyoursolicitor.com site be taken down. Further details can be read on the newswire section of Indymedia.

The web site is now available at www.rate-your-solicitor.com
Since the proceedings were commenced and the web site "taken down" it has got 250,000 hits.

Geraldine Kennedy and the Irish Times destroyed documents to prevent the Court viewing them and thus gave the two finger salute to the Irish Court system. Is it any wonder then that people who have been abused by the Courts, their officers and officials should also give the two finger salute?

Come to the four courts tomorrow. It should be a sight to behold.

by Hanora Brennan - Kilkenny Advocacy Team Sun Dec 17, 2006 10:13 bogtrotter at eircom dot net 11 Greenfields, Freshford Road, Kilkenny 056 7771719

We are supporting a client in Kilkenny who sought the legal services of the aforementioned. She has danced to and fro to Carlow at his whim and call. He has continuously lied to her and in the end we had to resort to ringing the barrister at the law library as he refused to listen to us. She did not want the client going elsewhere as it 'was such a good case' (hmmm!) and four months down the line and three years waiting for another court date it is STALEMATE!

The Law Society appear to be powerless to assist. All you have to do is analyse the squirming that occurred by ther representative when the Redress scandal was exposed!

Perhaps I am lucky in that I communicate with my solicitor. Perhaps if society removed them from the pedestal (oh so high!) we might go forward doing what we do best and TALK to each other. Forget the legal jargon and qualitfications (though I've yet to see SHIT feature anywhere!) and get it out in the open.

Hanora Brennan

by W. Finnerty. Thu Jan 25, 2007 14:07

Re: Legal Aid application for High Court constitutionality challenge (Reference AL541/WL7678)
 
This Legal Aid application text, which directly pointed out some extremely blatant violations of the United Nations Aarhus Convention Agreement, can be seen at: http://www.annmariekelly.org/LegalAidApplication/3Novem...4.htm .
 
Nevertheless, the application for Legal Aid aid at the above address was refused completely.
 
Could this total refusal represent anything other than rampant and systemic corruption in the legal profession?

Please note that Minister for Justice Michael McDowell TD was one of three senior government ministers who was sent a copy of the application text in question - as can be seen at the above address. (Prime Minister Bertie Ahern TD and the then Deputy Prime Minister Mary Harney TD were the other two.)
 
1) The government (executive), and the legislature (Dail Eireann & Senate Eireann), "undermines" the Aarhus Convention Agreement (in fact between them they have completely destroyed it to date by hiding all knowledge of it from the voters); 2) the ENTIRE legal profession (including the judiciary) inappropriately provides both the executive and the legislature with rock-solid support by every means available to them, with no regard whatever for the "tripartite (legislative, executive, and judicial) separation of powers principle" which is deeply embedded in Bunreacht na hEireann (Republic of Ireland's Constitution); and, 3) at the same time, the "establishment media" keep the voters completely in the dark regarding virtually EVERYTHING to do with the Aarhus Convention Agreement, since the Republic of Ireland signed it in June 1998 - well over eight years ago now.
 
Related link (involving The Irish Times and other "establishment media" organisations): http://www.constitutionofireland.com/ 

What an amazingly potent recipe the Republic of Ireland now has for yet more corruption, bullying, and tyranny by so called "public servants": and just the kind that the "tripartite separation of powers principle" was designed to prevent?

The "1st example" of undermining the Aarhus Convention Agreement by the Republic of Ireland, sent some days ago to the "Crooked Lawyers Yahoo Group", can be viewed at:
http://www.europeancourtofhumanrightswilliamfinnerty.co...l.htm  

by Damien Thu Jan 25, 2007 17:01

"Could this total refusal represent anything other than rampant and systemic corruption in the legal profession?"

Yes it could represent a decision by the legal aid board that the proposed constitutional challenge was unreasonable. I don't see why tax payers should have to fund every application that is made for legal aid.

by W. Finnerty. Fri Jan 26, 2007 11:27

To Damien (please see above):

So what do you think?

Do you think Ms Kelly is a crackpot for having made the application for legal aid that she actually made?

Or, are you just someone perhaps who gets a buzz out of making unfounded and cowardly personal attacks on people from behind a curtain of anonymity?

by Damien Fri Jan 26, 2007 14:22

William,

I can't see which part of my post represented a personal attack.

You seem to be suggesting that Ms Kelly is somehow legally entitled to legal aid to mount any case she wishes. If this were the case the taxpayer would be simply lining the pockets of lawyers and barristers.

The legal aid board make decisions on which cases to fund based a number of criteria, some of which are outlined at http://ec.europa.eu/civiljustice/legal_aid/legal_aid_ir...n.htm

by Seamuseen Sat Jan 27, 2007 15:14

I would say that tax payers money spent on flushing out systemic corruption in the legal profession would be money VERY well spent, and that such expenditure is now well overdue - allowing for all the irrefutable evidence which has built up in recent years that the legal profession is surreptitiously abandoning Bunreacht na hEireann (the basic legal document of the Republic of Ireland): and without holding any constitutional referendums of course.

Who do these people think they are exactly?

by Damien Sat Jan 27, 2007 15:50

I agree investigations into the behaviour of the legal profession are necessary, but how this has anything to do with legal aid being refused to an applicant is beyond me.

Do you even know what legal aid is? The idea that the way to flush out corruption of solicitors is to pay them more money is pretty silly ..... think about it for a moment - the more corrupt they are the more money they get. Hardly an incentive for reform !

by Rose of Tralee Sat Jan 27, 2007 16:14

Have you read the actual text of Ms Kelly's application for Legal Aid?

The address is provided above (i.e. http://www.annmariekelly.org/LegalAidApplication/3Novem...4.htm ).

If you have not read the text she sent through the registered post, why you are you so keen and in such a hurry to comment so stridently on her and on her efforts?

And if you have read the application text at the above address why are you asking the questions you are asking?

by Damien Sat Jan 27, 2007 16:57

William ( We all know the posts are from you ) ,

Stop trying to hijack this story to talk about Ms Kelly. Ms Kelly has not been a victim of the legal profession.

Her only complaint with the legal profession seems to be that she was refused legal aid. This refusal is in line with the relevant legal aid legislation, which I have already directed you towards.

by W. Finnerty. Sun Jan 28, 2007 12:21

An effort has been made to bring the undermining of the Aarhus Convention Agreement DIRECTLY to the attention of some of the leading members of the legal profession who are believed to be turning a blind eye on that whole situation.

This has been done partly for the purpose of trying to prevent the recently used "Sir Ronnie Flanagan" type of get-out whereby senior public officials often claim "I didn't know anything about it".

They know now - or at least they have been informed in a way which will make it very difficult for them to deny at a later date.

A copy of the e-mail used to inform them last Friday afternoon, which shows the Yahoo message identification and tracking information, can be viewed at:
http://www.europeancourtofhumanrightswilliamfinnerty.co...l.htm

Important though it is by itself, undermining the Aarhus Convention Agreement is just part of the overall problem though. Undermining Bunreacht na hEireann (Constitution of the Republic of Ireland) is something far more serious: and there is no doubt whatever in my mind that this is the particular crime (treason) the leaders of the legal profession MOST need to be challenged on just now.

By surreptitiously playing the "lead role" in the insidious undermining of Bunreacht na hEireann, in the way which they are, and particularly with regard to the crucially important area of human rights law, the leaders of the legal profession responsible are also of course undermining the soverign state of the Republic of Ireland in a very major, sinister, and worrying manner.

Why they are doing this is a mystery to me, but as I believe it highly unlikely that they are all complete fools, I feel sure that some of them at least must be benefiting in some major way. Blackmail, intimidation, and such like, are among the many other possibilities of course. Plus, there are also such things as one or other of the many socially destructive combinations of arrogance, ignorance, and stupidity - and "tin gods" of all types, assuming there are one or more among the higher ranks of the legal profession, are well know to be very vulnerable to such afflictions. In addition, it is also well know that bullies are highly allergic to human rights law (for obvious reasons) - and this fact provides a valuable clue as well maybe?

As crime of this seriousness and magnitude, which is obviously being perpetrated by the leaders of the legal profession behind the scenes, and behind the backs of the voters, is something which should (I believe) be setting alarm bells ringing and red lights flashing in the minds of all Republic of Ireland voters, and with a general election due in a few months time, the list of addressees for the e-mail at the above Internet location also includes some leading members of the so called "opposition" parties.

by Damien Sun Jan 28, 2007 13:19

William,

What has an UNRATIFIED treaty got to do with the rateyoursolicitor.com website? Do you even know what unratified means?

Why do you continue to pollute this story with your emails to Al Jazeera and George Bush?

by Damien Sun Jan 28, 2007 13:51

William,

Just to save you the bother of using a dictionary, the meaning of unratified is Lacking legal authority.

Have you any idea of the legislative process? How can you think that a civil servant can enter the country into such important treatys without approval from cabinet??

Signatories to treaties are not bound to the treaty until it is ratified, and in some cases also until a quorum of signatories has been reached. Their only obligation is to support the treaty, until they signal an intent not to ratify it, at which time they are no longer bound by this obligation.

As you always do, I presume you will misunderstand, so I will explain what it means for the signatory to support the treaty - signatories must not do anything to encourage other nations not to sign. It does not mean, in any way shape or form that they must abide by the terms of the agreement.

Consider the proposed european constitution. It was signed in 2004, but in a number of countries it was never ratified, as referendums were failed. Are you trying to suggest that France and Holland are still bound by the constitution????

by Eugene Kellett Thu Feb 22, 2007 02:45 eu.kellett at yahoo dot com

Thanks to your site I was able to identify which solicitors to avoid but also which one to choose. I chose Paul Mc Nally of Windmill road and may I say what an excellent service he provided for myself and my son. He dealt with both properties in an orderly and satisfactory manner. His staff were very dedicated. It is great to be able to recommend this office as reliable and trustworthy.

Eugene Kellett

by lm - VLPS Thu Feb 22, 2007 19:49

The VLPS campaign in 2007 has so far involved 5 regional meetings, five pickets on selected solicitors offices around the country, numerous one to one advisory sessions and 5 court days in support of lay litigants.

An example of how the pickets are effective is that on Tuesday 20th February, VLPS activists from 6 counties, led by John Gill, assembled outside the town centre office of John A Sinnott & Co, Solicitors, Enniscorthy. The picket was requested by a local person who had been trying, over many years to get Solicitor John Murphy to return his property deeds that were being held without any cause. The picket assembled at 12.30pm and after approaching the receptionist to formally request the deeds, they withdrew and silently stood outside the premises with plackards. The solicitor sent for the Guards, falsely claiming his receptionist was intimidated. After brief inquiries, the guardai were satisfied that there was no such intimidation or illegal activity and left the scene. The local papers took photographs and interviewed the VLPS activists. Solicitor Murphy sent out his junior, a Solicitor O'Connor, who threatened legal action and used his own camera to photograph the people on the picket but this failed to intimidate the VLPS picket who politely invited him to stand in with them in the photograph. Meanwhile numerous passers-by jeered at solicitor Murphy as he glared out the window ( reputedly he has bullied and done a lot of damage to many people over many years and passers-by were delighted to see people stand up to him). Finally, at around five o'clock, part of the property deeds were handed over. Solicitor Murphy was told clearly that If the remaining items are not handed over by tomorrow, the picket will resume on Monday.

Last month, a young Wicklow builder, having built his first house, was having trouble getting the deeds from a solicitor so he could sell it. He attended a VLPS meeting in Enniscorthy and was clearly upset as he was in danger of being bankrupted due to the refusal of this solicitor to give him the deeds of the site the young builder had purchased and borrowed money to build on. The VLPS picket was threatened and set to be held when the young builder was given his deeds the night before the picket was to be mounted.

This type of action is the only way many solicitors can be persuaded to hand over documents. Fair play to those VLPS activists who are prepared to give up there time, travel from all over the country and stand out in the rain, to help others get their property back from bad solicitors. Look out for VLPS pickets outside solicitors in your town. If you see them, Please thank them for their generosity.

The next VLPS meeting is in Hayes Hotel, Thurles next Tuesday 27th Feb at 8.00pm. If you have a problem with a lawyer, go along and share it and you will get support and help.

by Colin Peters Wed Jul 25, 2007 16:10 cp014d2774 at blueyonder dot co dot uk

I have been trying to access the website, 'Victims of the legal professional society' for some time now without success. My interest in this organisation is that I too have suffered injustice at the hands of corrupt and dishonest lawyers and professionals in England.

My own website is http://colinpetersbd40jh.tripod.com and I would be grateful if anyone could put me in contact with John Gill.

Yours Sincerely,

Colin Peters

by Lilith Thu Nov 01, 2007 01:37

I am writing to say that from my experience secret family courts and most agents of the state were totally corrupt.

It took a while to figure the game out that they were playing, because it is a game to them.

Solicitors etc play a game of setting partners against each other and then drag the case out for as long as possible- making as much money as possible in the process.

The self professed experts to the courts also play along and make money.

All this happens behind their clients back- so the court performance is just a set up and all prepared in advance.

So when they say never trust a lawyer- it is true.

This is especially true in secret SS family law courts where there is no accountability.

No records are kept, nothing written down most times.

In all of this lives are ruined by the trauma created by the system- a system we took from the British.

We had our own Brehon Justice System which is more evolved than the barbarian system used by the British elite to suit themselves.

I have witnessed the perjury therein and proven it, but nothing was done.

The best way forward is to self represent and the lawyers loose out on money.

It is all about MONEY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

So, please don't feed the gremlins.!!!!!

I self represented and it is an experience not to be missed.

by W. Finnerty. Thu Nov 01, 2007 14:52

Lilith (Thu Nov 01, 2007 02:37 above),

The situation regarding corruption in our legal profession is far, far worse than you (and many others) possibly realise: as it is SYSTEMIC, and not by ANY means restricted to "Family Courts", or any other particular "area" of law.

Like some monstrous, insidious, out-of-control social "WEED", or cancer, the rot appears - without doubt - to have now reached "all parts" of our society.

Consider for example my ongoing situation with our Chief Justice John L. Murray: who continues to COMPLETELY ignore the letter I sent to him through the registered post on August 28th last: http://www.europeancourtofhumanrightswilliamfinnerty.co...r.htm

I assume Mr Murray is completely ignoring the above mentioned letter for the simple reason I have not received any reply from him regarding it.

Allowing for the contents of the letter reproduced at the above Internet address, which is available for all the world to see of course, what more is needed in terms of evidence of the systemic corruption I refer to? (Please note: telling the truth is NOT libellous these days; and if it was, or if it could be made so, I believe my several web-sites would all have been taken "off-air" a long time ago.)

For good measure though, and a different "view" of the same systemic corruption in question, you might also like to consider the situation outlined at http://www.indymedia.ie/article/84864#comment211130 as well?

by Stephen - Integrity Ireland Sat Apr 27, 2013 13:29

Please join us at www.integrityireland.com and help us get the balance right. I-I is a citizens-driven network of concerned citizens who are proactively coming together to tackle the endemic corruption and cronyism in our legal system, law enforcement and the Courts.

"One by one we CAN make a difference!"

by W. Finnerty Wed May 01, 2013 07:52

Our judges (in the Republic of Ireland) wish to be "independent" for the purpose of doing whatever they like it seems to me, though they claim they use it in the best interests of justice.

That claim might be true on some occasions, in connection with legal issues and cases which are of very little or no interest to the "money power" banksters for example: but they NEVER use their "independence" it seems to me when it comes to preventing and/or stopping serious GOVERNMENT CRIME, and especially when the government crime in question is supportive of the banksters (in one way or another).

It's entirely the opposite in fact, in that our red-rotten-with-corruption judiciary is using its "independence" to SUPPORT government crime, and to do so with COMPLETE impunity: and, obviously, nobody knows how to stop them.

Not surprisingly perhaps, though EXTREMELY WORRYINGLY nevertheless, our entire legal profession follows in the path of our judges; and, those (non-judge) members of our legal profession most supportive of our grossly corrupt judiciary, are the ones most likely to get jobs as judges themselves later on.

It was with such thoughts in mind that I sent an e-mail yesterday to a group of about 80 or so of our TDs ("elected representatives" so called), in the hope that a few of them at least might be able to make some use of the information in the section below, which formed part of the overall e-mail message-text.

I was thinking particularly of the recent (April 23rd 2013) statement "This meeting is being hosted by four Independent TDs" at:
http://www.indymedia.ie/article/103567
and, the "Public Meeting on Corruption in Irish Society and Government" title, of the article in question.

=== === ===

"The most important constitutional issues of this generation concern the meaning of the rule of law and the ability of the people to enforce true law by restraining runaway activist judges. For decades, such judges have been simply making up law. What is worse, liberal and conservative lawmakers have been reinforcing such behavior by treating such rulings as if they are legitimate. Today, one in every three Americans have been killed by abortion simply because a handful of unelected officials said it was acceptable for these Americans to be killed. But issues like abortion and homosexual marriages can be resolved immediately, without special constitutional amendments, if we will simply avail ourselves of the measures given to us by our Founding Fathers to hold renegade and lawless judges accountable for their behavior. In this brilliant, accessible, and documented work, Dr. Edwin Vieira offers us the best researched and clearest overview to date of the power of the people to control a runaway judiciary."

The above excerpt is from the following www location:
http://www.newswithviews.com/HNB/Hot_New_Books20.htm

Three Related Links:

1) "Republic of Ireland bank bailouts, Article 6.1 of the Constitution of the Republic of Ireland, Human Rights Ireland, William Finnerty ..."
http://tinyurl.com/cl7aax3

2) "Democracy will rise superior to the money power, Republic of Ireland, Human Rights Ireland, William Finnerty ..."
http://tinyurl.com/dyezhr5

3) "Money will cease to be the master and become the servant of humanity, Abraham Lincoln, Human Rights Ireland, William Finnerty ..."
http://tinyurl.com/bo527sz

=== === ===

The full text of the e-mail sent by me yesterday to the TDs can be viewed at:
http://www.humanrightsireland.com/Dail31TDs/Group1of2/3...l.htm

Related Link:
"Judicial and legal profession corruption, crime and impunity in the Republic of Ireland, Human Rights Ireland, William Finnerty ..."
http://tinyurl.com/cu64ppp

by Jack Mon Jun 10, 2013 17:59 total_cons at hotmail dot com

Hi,

I am interested in hearing from clients or others of Solicitor John Murphy of John Sinnott & Co Solicitors in Enniscorthy Co. Wexford
who believe they have suffered damages or experienced unprofessional conduct as a result of his actions or handling of their cases.

I was recently a client of his and cancelled his retainer. I am interested in the opinions of others to see if there is a common tread here,

Regards,

Jack