Independent Media Centre Ireland

'Go Daddy' - John Gill At The High Court

category national | rights, freedoms and repression | news report author Friday October 06, 2006 03:38author by Seán Ryan And Elaine

Court Report

Wandering down the corridors of the four courts today we were met with a edifying sight. Dozens of John Gill's supporters had turned up. It was around 10.15am and already John Gill had a sizeable number of well-wishers around him.

He was kept busy shaking hands, greeting friends old and new and handing out copies of his affidavit to members of the press (Indy reporters included, indeed we were first to get a copy).
John Gill
John Gill

At 10.30, the appointed time for the case to begin, we were told to wait around as things were not ready to proceed.

Whilst we waited, a number of supporters came into the reception area carrying a rolled up banner on poles. How the security let them in with it is a bit of a mystery! A few minutes later a large Garda came over and demanded that the banner be removed, with an incredulous "you can't bring that into the court." The supporter carrying the banner immediately complied. The same Garda then approached another supporter carrying a large banner that was rolled up, around a long umbrella, for portability. This banner was unfurled to display part of a commercial advertisement. It bore the legend 'Gardening Now In Store'. The couple who brought it had recycled it from it's previous incarnation but didn't have time to write a slogan on it. Consequently it was allowed to stay and the Guard walked away laughing.

A few minutes after eleven we went into the Hugh Kennedy Court Room.

The first thing that stuck out was the flag that was present in the Court. It was Green, White, Orange and had a Golden trim.

Article 7 of the Irish Constitution states: The national flag is the tricolour of green, white and orange.

The small Court was so packed with supporters that they were lined up two deep along the back wall. One wag commented that the only available seat was on the registrar's lap. Even the witness had to stand at the back.

After the registrar had been called into the Judge’s chambers three times, the case finally got under way. It was 11.20am.

It began very cordially. Judge Michael Hanna wished everyone in the Court room a ‘good morning.’

The barrister, a Mr. O'Higgins, acting on the behalf of the defendant, Jayne Maguire, started out by telling the court details of the case and events that had happened since the court last sat. On that date, September 13th last, an order was made that had been served on the domain provider,, who had subsequently suspended service to the website. However, he stated that the website could still be accessed by the IP number. He also stated that the suspension of service only took place by reason of the activities of the American service provider.

Watching a man in a wig and gown use phrases like ‘Go Daddy,’ before the learned Judge was difficult to endure without breaking one’s arse laughing. The Barrister looked very uncomfortable indeed. He described new content that appeared yesterday, 4th October, on the site as the ‘grossest possible contempt for this Court.’

This comment was described as a long spiel indicating the separateness of VLPS (victims of the legal profession) and Rate Your Solicitor. Mr. O'Higgins then read from the comment, ascribed to the Rate Your Solicitor Management. It included phrases such as 'everyone is free to post comments on this site' and 'they will simply have to adjust to the fact that the Internet has changed the world quite dramatically in a very short time'. He described it as a lengthy tirade in relation to this matter and quoted from the comment along the lines of 'if proceedings continue after October 5th then any injunction granted by the Court will be ignored'.

After elaborating on this ‘threat’ to the court he went on to describe the perpetrators ‘whoever they are.’ One can only surmise that the barrister was confused as to who exactly was being litigated. At one point he gave the new web address as This is quite obviously false as the site is not in Ireland.

Mr. O'Higgins then stated that 'Mr. Gill denies any connection to this site' and later that he (Mr. O'Higgins) 'didn't realise' that he would have to ask the Court to 'take any steps today' until the new content was found on the site.

The Barrister then asked the Court for an order directing 'Digiweb Ltd.' to make discovery to trace the elusive culprit who set up RYS. This discovery order was to include all electronic records of person or persons, assigned or using IP at or on 4th October at 16:44:40 + 0100. This he said would tell us who is lawyercatcher @ lawyer(dot)com and that an account would have to be held. .

The Judge asked Mr. Gill if he understood what was happening and explained that it is an application for discovery. Mr. Gill replied that his only concern was for himself and the people around him who were being robbed of their livelihoods. The Judge commented to Mr. Gill that 'he had some grievance's and that he was 'entitled to have some grievance's but that he, the Judge, needed to hear the full particulars first. He asked Mr. Gill to 'for the moment, park that' and that 'if it turns out that Lawyercatcher is not you, then it helps your case'. He also stated to Mr. Gill that 'you and I share the same ignorance of the internet'. He then said that he was 'going to hear the evidence' and that 'apparently he is an expert' who is 'going to tell us how we find out who Lawyercatcher is'. He also stated that 'hard copies of evidence would be made available to both parties'.

He then called the days only witness.

Lawyercatcher @ lawyer(dot)com IP is to be traced by a forensic computer expert, a Mr. Andrew Harbison, a soft spoken chap with a slight American accent, who is employed by Deloitte

He told the court that RYS was registered to John Smith of Red Square Moscow.

Mr. Harbison promised to track down the elusive Lawyercatcher @ lawyer(dot)com if given permission to do so by the Court. He told the Court that he had sent an email to this email address with a ‘web beacon’ attached to it, and that he could trace the account holder if he could compare times and IP numbers with David Roze the Administrative Contact for Digiweb in Dundalk. He also stated that 'payment details' made in return for service would make it possible to trace and that it was a 'substantial chance' to discover the IP address and URL from which the mail was collected. That it records who was connected to access the mail.

The Judge then turned the forensic computer detective over to John Gill asking if he would like to ask any questions. Mr. Gill told the court that he didn’t understand ‘computer jargon.’ The Judge corrected Mr. Gill and told him that it wasn’t ‘jargon’ but ‘black and white expert' evidence.

Mr. Gill asserting (not for the first time) that he was there to represent the wrongs perpetrated on members of the public by the legal profession, told the Judge that he didn’t have enough knowledge of computers to question the computer expert.

Mr. Gill said that he didn't want to ask any questions. The Judge then said that it was 'very complicated for anyone' and that 'Judges were not excluded from that'.

Mr. O'Higgins then asked that the order comes to the attention of Digiweb at the earliest time. The Judge replied that he was going to give you your order. O'Higgins' junior then said that words may be of value linked to the digits given. To which the Judge replied that they were 'entitled to an order for discovery'. He then told the Court that he proposed to adjourn the matter but that discovery was to be made on or before next Wednesday. He won't be proceeding next Thursday but would be checking on progress. He also intended to check out the mentioned websites and asked if there was 'any objection to me surfing the net?' There wasn't.

The Judge adjourned the case until next Thursday for mention.

That Banner
That Banner

Just Walking In The Rain
Just Walking In The Rain

Supporters At The Court
Supporters At The Court

J Gill Again - Get Your Affidavits Here
J Gill Again - Get Your Affidavits Here

Comments (70 of 70)

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 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70
author by Scepticpublication date Fri Oct 06, 2006 23:19author address author phone

I just don't get it. Why should this woman's lawyers go after the people who used the lawyercatcher email address? This address is not connected to anything illegal and nobody (as far as I know) has sent any libellous emails from it. If they find the people using it, what can they accuse them of??
Apart from that, the method used by the computer expert is illegal in some countries (I wonder about Ireland!) because of the SEVERE BREACH OF PRIVACY it causes. It also seems to be not very reliable. Just Google it!
The whole thing is purely a fishing expedition by the Maguire lawyers that should not really have been allowed by the Court. The problem was of course that John Gill does not know enough about computers to realise what he was agreeing to! Can it be right for the Court to grant discovery of documents that are not relevant, because the case was about the libeling by John Gill of Ms Maguire on the RYS website (and nothing else, as judge Hanna said himself). The libel has been taken off, everybody (and especially Ms Maguire who actually knows the poster of the comment!) knew all along that that John was innocent, so what has the email address still got to do with it?? If I were in Digiweb's shoes I would refuse to give any information, on the grounds that nothing illegal had taken place as regards the lawyercatcher address.The case should really have ended yesterday. The continuing of it can only be out of spite and is simply more harassment of John Gill, after he had achieved what the court asked: the removal of the libel. Are the lawyers trying to provoke the web site people to put the Maguire comment back again and so look bad in Court? Not much chance of that gimmick working. It all goes to show that these lawyers just don't want to let go of a juicy case, as is so often complained of on the RYS web site, and of course they will keep on fighting like mad to get rid of the site altogether.
The complete statement from RYS copied by "Free speech lover" is on the link below. Just compare the "quotations" twisted out of context by the Maguire barrister to sound as bad as possible, while in fact they look quite reasonable in context.

Related Link:
author by Uber-Skepticpublication date Fri Oct 06, 2006 23:50author address author phone

Why should this woman's lawyers go after the people who used the lawyercatcher email address?

I guess they're trying to establish whether John Gill is actually connected to the website despite his denials?

This address is not connected to anything illegal and nobody (as far as I know) has sent any libellous emails from it. If they find the people using it, what can they accuse them of??

I'd assume this discovery will enable the court to establish whether or not it can be shown that some libellous emails have originated from the address.

Let's wait and see what's found out shall we?

I have a horrible feeling that the idiots at may be about to establish very negative precedent in case law for other people that operate web-based services.

author by Cynicpublication date Sat Oct 07, 2006 00:35author address author phone

I too have spent a good while researching this "Web Beacon" software that Mr O'Higgins told the Court he has used. Not only is it highly controversial and illegal in several jurisdictions, but in lay terms it is explained as being equivalent to putting a bug in somebody's house without his prior knowledge. We may assume that John Gill was not notified in advance of O'Higgins' intentions, and as we all know bugging is an actual CRIME in Ireland!
What the Maguire lawyers have done is to take away the breach of their client's privacy and in return committed some very serious breaches by themselves. But of course the law only applies to "little people" like John Gill and the VLPS members, as we also all know!
The lawyercatcher email address belongs quite openly to the VLPS and my advice to John Gill would be to immediately sue the arrogant so-and-so's for CRIMINAL breach of privacy!

author by Watchdog - Center of Free Expressionpublication date Sat Oct 07, 2006 17:44author address author phone

I have followed this case with cosiderable interest because of the free speech & privacy issues involved and I am APPALLED. According to the documents published on the Crooked Lawyers site all legal documents were to be served on mr Gill by registered letter, fax and email. As the only email address available for the VLPS and Mr Gill is the "lawyercatcher" address, the legal correspondece must have been sent there.
Is it not totally disgusting that apparently the lawyers can now use their official correpondence to spy on you with impunity?? Not just impunity, they are cocky enough to brag about it in the High court, probably feeling sure that a judge who does not know about this technology will not understand how outrageous it is what they're doing!!
This is indeed totally illegal and crimminal and I appeal to everone who wants to protect the little bit of privacy that they've left to publicize this outrage as much as they possibly can on the internet and to MAKE THEIR ANGER KNOWN TO THE AUTHORITIES when the case comes up again on Thursday. I hear that John Gill and the VLPS will be demonstrating again outside the Court.

Related Link:
author by John Murraypublication date Sat Oct 07, 2006 18:22author address author phone

Talk about freedom of communication ! Please see current issue of PHOENIX and the carry on in Galway District Court (OUR, the people's court) of judge Mary Fahy.

This public official had the Gardai drag law abiding citizens out of an open court of law for "taking notes" in court. This latter open court of law, is administered "in public" as is required by the Constitution ??? Compare and contrast Mr Gills travails with judge? Fahy's prohibition on citizens with implements such as pens in their possession.

Bannana Republic is right ! but the monkeys need manners put on them and not before time, Salute to Mr Gill etal. Is this what our ancestors fought for ? Surely not.

author by number 12 - legalise freedom campaignpublication date Sat Oct 07, 2006 19:24author address author phone

Great to see 'Constitutional awareness' budding as never before.
The Monkeys were taught manners at John Gill's hearing in Dublin and at Owen Rice's Hearing in Galway thanks to machenzie Sean Ryan.

The Judge was a very CIVIL Civil servant in the People's Court in Dublin.

I suppose the Judiciary can view a Train coming down the track with their printed mush at the Pheonix Station.

The People now realise that the Judiciary are overly Tax payer paid Civil servants sworn to uphold the People's rights enshrined in Bunreacht under Article 34.5

There were many Constituted Citizens exercising their right to 'take notes' in the People's Court (some wore T Shirts bearing an image of the Irish Constitution ), the Judge being the adjudicator in the process.

author by #13publication date Sun Oct 08, 2006 18:14author address author phone

You seem to misunderstand the term "machenzie "!

Sean Ryan has never acted as "machenzie" for Owen Rice in or out of court. The term mcKenzine refers to an asistant of a lay litigant who cannot address the court, on behalf of the lay litigant, but can quietly offer advice.

Sean Ryan was removed from the court and therefore he could not possibly act in this position.

author by number 12 - l.f.cpublication date Sun Oct 08, 2006 20:29author address author phone

Tnx. Huh. I stand corrected.

author by ganderpublication date Sun Oct 08, 2006 21:38author address author phone

Some people on this website don't seem to understand that no court in any jurisdiction will protect 'confidentiality' where so-called confidentiality is being used, not to protect 'freedom of expression', but to prevent investigation of wrongdoing (a crime or a civil wrong such as libel).

In any case, if Mr Gill has been telling the truth to the high-court he has nothing to fear - in fact, he has a lot to gain, because when the truth is out and if he has been telling the truth he will have no case to answer.

The anxiety of the RYS/VLPS people as to what might turn up from the discovery and expert investigation speaks volumes as to their own assessment of the truthfulness of Mr Gill.

But as someone in this discussion has already observed - would you prefer your case adjudicated by the indepebndent courts or by someone who thinks that calling a lady lawyer a 'parish bicycle' is fair comment.

author by Onlookerpublication date Sun Oct 08, 2006 23:05author address author phone

The Statement of Claim in the case concerns the alleged defamation of Ms Jayne Maguire BL and thats all. At present thank God it is not a crime to operate a web site dedicated to the public evaluation of lawyers or teachers or any other profession.

However, it appears the plaintiffs have misled the High Court into straying far from the Statement of Claim and now are embarking on an illegal fishing expedition to find names in order to intimidate users of such web sites.

It is illegal, because they have made the Court complicit in a crime. Under International Internet Law, It is not legal for citizens, other than police with a warrant, to insert spyware into an email, yet this is exactly what Ms Maguire is setting out to do.

For the record:

1. The web site is the same as this site. In both sites, users publish their own unedited comments directly from any computer in the world with intenet connection.

2. Whoever posted the allegedly offensive posts, did it directly to RYS. They did not do it through any third party or by posting to any email address.

3. and are completely different sites with different objectives, different histories and different ownership. The only connection is links from one to the other and the fact that they are both involved in citizens evaluation of the Irish judicial system and legal practitioners. They are just two of the thousands of interlinked blogging sies that are part of internet communication.

4. The alleged defamation did not take place on the site which has no connection at all with the alleged defamation.

5. The site is not a direct access site and citizens are invited to submit their own experiences to the site through an email address,

5. In legal terms there is NO CONNECTION between the alleged defamation/defamer and the address

6. In spite of the clear non-connection, the Court has ordered that the identity of the users of the web site be traced and named in court by putting spyware into mail submitted to that address.

So!, The email address and its IP address has nothing to do with the case. Even if they get names, the names will have been illegally obtained. Those named will have had nothing to do with the defamation that occured on a totally different site. Indeed if these names are published in connection with the alleged defamation, those named will have good grounds for a defamation suit themselves against Ms Maguire. She cannot go around breaking the law and blaming complete strangers and all and sundry for something she well knows was posted by someone much closer to her.

author by court reporterpublication date Mon Oct 09, 2006 18:45author address author phone

There is no 'international internet law'. There is no law, either domestic or international, which prevents an Irish court setting in motion such procedures as may be necessary to uncover the source of criminal or civil wrongdoing. Implying that a lady is a prostitute is defamatory and a civil wrong. To think that calling a lady a prostitute is a sacred right protected by any legal system just goes to show how distotrted the values of the people behind RYS/VLPS are!

Onlooker and his buddies in RYS/VLPS don't seem to realize that the law reflects a balance of social interests. This balance runs like a thread through all legal-systems. Democratic societies (and the legal systems which regulate such societies) place a high value on freedom of expression and a rather lesser value on 'confidentiality'. However, no legal system will allow freedom of expression or confidentiality to be used as a vehicle for criminal activity or perpetrating a civil wrong on another individual. The people who have been the subject-matter of CAB proceedings will be acutely aware of t,his 'balance of social interests'.

In any event, if , as 'onlooker' asserts, there is no connection between RYS/VLPS and the cowardly shower who are now running for cover, he and they will have nothing to fear from the high court order. The truth shalll make ye free - unless of course you have been lying.

Onlooker's hysterical reaction rather underlines the fact that he believes they have much to fear from discovery and investigation.

See you in court thursday (and don't forget your toothbrush)

author by Seán Ryanpublication date Mon Oct 09, 2006 19:47author address author phone

Let's get one thing straight - this is not a criminal case.

When the barrister was finished with the computer expert, the judge asked Mr. Gill did he wish to cross examine the expert witness. Mr. Gill told the judge that he knew next to nothing about computers and that he would not know what to ask the expert. This delighted the judge, he then told Mr. Gill that he couldn’t think of any reason as to why Mr. Gill should question the computer expert (I shit you not). “There would be no question it would benefit you to ask.”

After this the judge granted the barrister's request for discovery.

Surely the judge making such a comment is improper. Particularly so when lots of questions could have been put to the expert witness. At the very least Mr. Gill could have asked that the matter of discovery be adjourned until he decided what questions to ask. After all Mr. Gill had just been confronted with this evidence for the first time.

There may not be a law that governs the Internet, but a persons property and person are legislated for. This has been ignored thus far in this case.

If the court is still in the process of trying to ascertain who it is that they should be prosecuting, why is Mr. Gill in the court?

I'm not pre-judging this case and I don't pretend to know the details of who is to blame for the 'bicycle' comment. But I feel that because a lay litigant is supposed to be given much leeway, that this case is very unfairly stacked against Mr. Gill.

There was no stenographer present either, so there's no comeback if Mr. Gill has his rights violated.

It seems that the commenter, court reporter has a lot of respect for the legal system and indeed he/she is pushing the legalistic agenda. I suppose that's fair enough. However the failings of the legal system are very damaging and are very apparent and pointing them out should not be a prelude to rebuke but to action that helps fix the system. Remember that empty vessels make the most noise.

author by court reporterpublication date Mon Oct 09, 2006 22:26author address author phone

As you say, RYS/VLPS have been making rather a lot of noise.

The excerable and cowardly bully who thought he could abuse a woman with impunity by hiding behind the internet is about to get his comeuppance.

Of course the order of the high court will vindicate Mr Gill if he has been telling the truth. So it is rather difficult to understand why anyone would think that the high court has done anything unfair or that the deck is stacked against anyone.

On the other hand, if the wonderful Mr G is the person who posted the abusive and defamatory remark the discovery and investigation will 'out' him. In that case he will stand exposed as a liar and a bully.

The really interesting thing about 'outsider' and all the other RYS/VLPS people is how scared they appear to be of a process that will vindicate them IF THEY ARE TELLING THE TRUTH.

author by Scepticpublication date Tue Oct 10, 2006 01:59author address author phone

I notice that Court Reporter once again feels the need to defend the existing legal sytem. If he is really serious about this, he has to bear in mind, that if John Gill is vindicated by the Court (which I am fully confident that he will), he will be entitled to have the wide publicity unjustly connecting his name with making lewd remarks about a woman he didn't know from Adam (or Eve!) plus the complete assassination of his character, compensated for by VERY substantial damages payable by Ms Maguire. If this scenario unfolds as I expect, I wil also expect Court Reporter to applaud the fair workings of the legal system.

Related Link:
author by Little Divilpublication date Tue Oct 10, 2006 15:42author address author phone

"cowardly shower who are now running for cover"
Trying again to preserve objectivity, the only egregious coward in this matter who everybody very conveniently seems to forget about in the heat of the argument is THE ORIGINAL POSTER OF THE REMARK.
It simply makes no sense for John Gill to have made remarks that can only have been made by someone who knew the woman well. Apart from that Mr Gill stated in his affidavit that when Ms Maguire phoned him she told him she knew very well who posted the remark!
Conclusion: John Gill is being screwed in a big way and once his innocence is made official, he will have an excellent case against Ms Maguire for defamation of his own character.

Related Link:
author by Town Bicyclepublication date Tue Oct 10, 2006 15:50author address author phone

Along with an abject apology.

There are laws about sexual harassment- belittling women's professional
status through sexual references. There are issues of pay inequality.

If someone belittles a professional woman in a manner that references
her sexuality and causes her hurt/harm/professiona loss that is actionable.
This has been the case under equality laws for many years.
Demeaning is not allowed.

Most women would accept an apology and official recognition of hurt caused.

author by Little Divilpublication date Tue Oct 10, 2006 17:00author address author phone

The previous poster quite sensibly says:
"Most women would accept an apology and official recognition of hurt caused".
Very true. But unfortunately this case happens to concern an IRISH BARRISTER, one of the most litigious creatures on the planet!
The other, even bigger, problem is the hidden agenda mentioned in the title of this comment. The underlying reason for the whole farce is without a doubt the legal establisment's increasingly desperate (and dirty!) struggle to get rid of the RYS site.
I am confident that they will fail.

Related Link:
author by Town Bicyclepublication date Tue Oct 10, 2006 17:12author address author phone

It has been illegal for many years to refer to a woman in her work in a sexual manner.
It is both derogatry and demeaning.

The woman has every right not to accept this.
It is illegal to have nude posters or sexually derogatory materials in a shared office space.
It is illegal to give unwanted sexual attention to a woman colleague.

These are issues fought for and won by women's unions.
who ever put up a sexually derogatory comment about a woman has to own it.
apologise and issue disclaimer.

The RYS site is another story.
women's rights in the work place were hard fought and won.

The issue of equality of respect is something that the woman is entitled to fight.

RYS opened the pandora's box. that is there problem.
Moderation would appear to be lacking.

author by Eh nopublication date Tue Oct 10, 2006 17:43author address author phone

The RYS site is another story.

If the majority of your comment is about something other than the RYS site then your comment is "another story" and has no business being posted here. Either you have relevant information or you don't. If you don't then don't post it.

author by contentspublication date Tue Oct 10, 2006 19:46author address author phone

Publishing without moderation a sexually derogatory remark about a professional
woman which affects her emotionally/professionally and intimately is illegal.

Free expression is not the case here.

RYS , and it seems many on the activist scene are not aware apparently that
there are labour and defamation laws to protect rights.
Is the ability to protect the free speech of a multitude placed above the rights
of the individual?

If something is published that is sexist/derogatory and liable to cause harm without
moderating and awareness of individual right to privacy then the publisher must
take responsibility for the damage.

or in plain words. a wrong was done and reparation is required.
end of story.
Mitigating the damage would be simple.
1. Moderation.
2. awareness of labour laws.
3. apology.
4. published disclaimer and apology.

no one site on the internet has the right to publish an untruth without moderation.

read the labour laws.

fair enough , some say its a necessary service , then the suggestion would be
that the people who run it are not a bunch of hapless amateurs with little awareness
of the damage they can cause to an individual person.
In this case the individual was entirely correct to pursue her claim against RYS.
Maybe RYS should take sound legal advice on the law of harassment before
having such adventures again.

author by cainte saorpublication date Tue Oct 10, 2006 19:47author address author phone

One very worrying aspect has not received enough attention.

Last week, a firm of solicitors informed an Irish Court, AFTER the FACT, that it had embedded a spyware insertion in an email and sent it to an unknown third party email address.

The judge did not seem to comprehend the impact of this as a precedent. He did not question the legality of this or the fact that this had been done without a court order or a garda warrant.

Instead, He proceeded to grant a court order to publish the names of anyone this spyware intrusion turns up, thereby giving court authority retrospectively to the spyware intrusion.

If this is not challenged then the door is open in Irish Law for anyone to send spyware contaminated emails to anyone for any purpose.

author by Anthonypublication date Tue Oct 10, 2006 20:32author address author phone

It's not clear what the above poster "Cainte Saor" is referring to when he talks about Spyware. If he's referring to the above sentence in the original article, "He told the Court that he had sent an email to this email address with a ‘web beacon’ attached to it", then it's not spyware.

Sending an email with a web beacon is not illegal. Web beacons are commonly used by spammers, marketeers and other low-lifes (including large legal organisations such as Yahoo) and while the use of them consitutes an ethical invasion of privacy, I'm not aware of any legislation - Irish or otherwise - dealing with the use of web beacons. For tips on avoiding being caught out by such web bugs, see

Spyware (in the form of executable files or scripts as opposed to "web bugs") is another issue and I'm not actually aware of how Irish legislation deals with this. However anyone who casually runs executable files or uses an email program or web browser that runs harmful JavaScript or ActiveX will more than likely already have caught more serious viruses if they have spent a substantial amount of time on the Internet and should really know better.

Related Link:
author by cainte saorpublication date Wed Oct 11, 2006 14:15author address author phone

Thanks for distinguishing spy Bugs from Spyware. In practice, they both have similar legal implications. Anything sent to someones computer in disguise/secrecy, which then secretly sends back information is quite alarming and should not be used in an unregulated fashion.

You point out that Spy Bugs such as Web Beacon are used by "spammers and lo-lifes". We now have to add solicitors to that list. Good company? NOT

author by Scepticpublication date Wed Oct 11, 2006 17:20author address author phone

I have just heard that John Gill is finally going to demand a sworn statement from Ms Maguire explaining what, if anything, she has done so far to pursue the actual poster of the offending remark, who she told John on the phone that she knew very well (obvious really, because the remark that I saw on the RYS site could only have been written by someone who knew her very well indeed).
If, as I suspect, there has been little or no effort at all in that direction, it clearly shows that she is not particularly worried about this website remark which btw has long been removed from the site.
The only reasonable motive left for her lawsuit is then, as many of us always suspected, simply the desire to get rid of RYS at all costs.
However, as she will know herself, the law says that if your interests are being damaged in any way you have to make your very best effort WITHOUT DELAY to minimise that damage yourself. If you don't, you badly undermine the foundation for any complaint, because you showed by your lack of effort that you didn't really care about the amount of damage.
This promises to be very interesting. Ms Maguire may well find herself on the receiving end of a defamation suit in the end, when John Gill is vindicated as he inevitably must be.

Related Link:
author by Bored with Screwballspublication date Wed Oct 11, 2006 17:51author address author phone

this website remark which btw has long been removed from the site
The remark was removed when John Gill was taken to court. So, that's not very "long" is it?

You may be right about there now being a vendetta pursued against VLPS,, and It was fairly predictable that there would be a legal attempt made like this. So, it's a pity that the people/person running RYS were stupid enough to allow the publication of remarks that had nothing to do with the legal abilities of the woman in question and instead were just nasty, scurrilous gossip.

It can further be predicted that unless RYS or any other site has some pro-active moderation policy which attempts to distinguish genuine postings they will be open to the following sorts of abuse:
1. Lawyers posting fake posts about themselves so that they can sue RYS
2. Nutbags posting fake information about their cases leading to the sueing of RYS
3. Trolls posting fake information just for a laugh

RateYourSolicitor took a genuine area of grievance for many people and made the worst possible job they could of it. Hopefully their imbecility won't result in a massive set back in the area of open, accountable, public review, but this case seems like a worst possible scenario.

Even if John Gill were to win on some legal technicality the site and the people associated with it are forever known in the public mind as malicious and irresponsible. A grave disservice to all of those who are victims of legal malpractice.

author by Little Divilpublication date Wed Oct 11, 2006 18:27author address author phone

Bored's knowledge of how to do this type of thing properly instead of what has been done by all the stupid amateurs is so impressive that I suggest that he now puts his money where his mouth is and sets up a Rate Your Solicitor site himself immediately. No doubt it will be so good that the other stupid site will wither on the vine. Problem solved! Pity he didn't he do it before all this happened, but all is not lost. Is this a case for "Superbored"?

author by Bored with Screwballspublication date Wed Oct 11, 2006 19:29author address author phone

However I think that due to the actions of the RYS people it's going to be a difficult climate, both legally and in terms of attracting the input of genuine plaintiffs who need to feel secure that they're not being lumped in with people that have no reasonable basis for their complaints. I also think that the likely attitude of any jury in legal proceedings relating to something like this are likely to be fairly unsympathetic to the website. Judgements like the one below seem likely. Free speech is a precious resource not to be squandered on trivial insults like "parish bicycle".

It seems that neither you, nor "consadin" have yet grasped the utter stupidity of putting yourselves and all the people who've been short-shrifted by the legal profession into this position.

I wouldn't keep going on about it, but for the fact that you still don't appear to grasp the problem. And it's likely not to be just a problem for you, but for anyone else that wants to use the cheap, democratic publishing power of the internet for legitimate purposes.

Related Link:
author by Little Divilpublication date Wed Oct 11, 2006 20:27author address author phone

An interesting judgement indeed, and I would not disagree with it (although the amount is of course ridiculous), because it was quite properly made against the real culprit, THE ACTUAL POSTER. In the RYS case it is basically the web site that is being pursued, while the actual poster, who may well in fact have been an "agent provocateur" for the legal establishment, lies low. "Sceptic" has made a good post earlier today about this lopsided approach:
"Why has the libelled lady not done more to pursue the real poster of the remark?"
I too will be interested to hear her answer, but somehow I am afraid that it will never materialise!

author by mac consaidinpublication date Thu Oct 12, 2006 23:11author address author phone

Today, the judge declined to have anything more to do with this travesty of injustice and misuse and abuse of the Courts system. He has resigned from the case and Fair play to him!

Yesterday many heard Charlie Bird telling on liveline that after all he has been through in his life: Ruanda, Sunami, IRA secret meetings etc etc his most stressful time was the weeks he spent as a defendent in the Beverly Flynn defamation case. He said he lost 1.5 stones and broke down crying in the witness box. Any of us who have experienced the intimidating stress of Courts can associate with this.

This just highlights the indomitable courage of the man from Clare, John Gill of Victims of Legal Profession Society. As a lay litigant he has taken them all on and as an innocent man he has WON.

Read below the affidavits that he brought into Court and put before the Judge and you will understand why the Judge gave up.

Related Link:
author by Seán Ryanpublication date Fri Oct 13, 2006 03:39author address author phone

My congratulations to Mr. Gill and his associates. A job well done.

I must apologise for my inability to attend today's proceedings. I had a prior Court engagement (Mr. Gill is not the only citizen that has the State and its denizens trying to trample on his rights - as he'd be the first to tell you.)

I'm very pleased with this outcome, I've been witnessing our courts in action for some time now and I feel that we are finally on the way out of a very dark tunnel. Having said this, I must admit that I'm not as pleased as others with the Judge's performance. I'm happy for Mr. Gill and that this particular nightmare seems to be over. However, in his affidavit, Mr. Gill invokes Article 40 of our Constitution. It is my opinion that the Judge has not furthered the aims of the Constitution, by retreating rather than facilitating an enquiry as dictated by the terms of Article 40 (Mr. Gill and his good name have been under unjust attack for quite some time) and his oath (Article 34 5) to uphold the Constitution.

There are many parties named in Mr. Gill's affidavits and in my opinion the Judge was oath bound to haul each and every one of them before the Court that it is his privilege to preside over.

The Judge exited this case stage right. But Mr. Gill has been hauled before the Court and has had his rights further violated, and nobody has done a thing about this. It's all very well for the Judge to waffle on about not being a party to an unjust attack but, he is an ajudicator in this and should have sought justice above an act of self-preservation.

I understand that this was neither the High Court nor the Supreme Court and that the Judge therefore had some lattitude in his decision making. But the Constitution is very clear, and today the Court did not serve justice. Today has but facilitated the financial machine, that is the primal purpose of the courts. There's a certain Barrister who last week spoke of a 'Gross Contempt' for the court that'll need his pound of flesh, at least. It is interesting to note that the Bank of Ireland has an office within the walls of the Four Courts.

I'm reminded of Christ having the need to kick the moneylenders out of the temple.

author by court reporterpublication date Fri Oct 13, 2006 17:44author address author phone

Mc C is wrong yet again.

The case is proceeding, but before a different judge.

Judge Hanna disqualified himself because Gill in his ridiculous affidavits named a former devil of the judge as being one of the many persons the crank Gill imagines is persecuting him.

What judge H has done is normal and is not an infrequent occurance. The judiciary and court-officers observe a code which requires that there be no appearance of a conflict of interest. This ethos of integrety and even-handedness observed by our judiciary is a concept which is apparantly alien to the cranks in RYS/VLPS.

By the way, Gills three hilarious affidavits should be compulsory reading for all contributors to this discussion-line. They give an insight into the mind of a paranoid, rather stupid, obsessive who thinks that assertion is truth, and that using long words which he plainly doesn't understand, are substitutes for fact and intellegence respectively.
The orders made by judge H stand and the investigation and discovery are proceeding.

A new judge will be assigned to the case in due course and will consider the outcome of the investigation and inquiry.

author by Ann Arseypublication date Fri Oct 13, 2006 18:49author address author phone

"They give an insight into the mind of a paranoid, rather stupid, obsessive who thinks that assertion is truth, and that using long words which he plainly doesn't understand, are substitutes for fact and intellegence respectively."

Well put indeed. Your description also brings to mind another player of that game who believes that by uttering the words Section 40 he is acheiving something. He is also a philosopher, logician and one for the long words. Often used out of context of course.

If solicitors and barristers have done wrong (I am sure that some have) then these wrongs should be highlighted. Instead all we get are allegations which appear to be unfounded. Along with this there is plenty of personal abuse especially sexist abuse directed towards female lawyers.

Now these crusaders are comparing themselves to Christ driving the money changers (not money lenders) out of the Temple. Mother Ireland you are still rearing them.

author by Seán Ryanpublication date Fri Oct 13, 2006 21:30author address author phone

Speaking of context...

It's ARTICLE 40, not 'section' 40. That's completely different.

As well as that, insulting people and then moaning about sexism and the 'poor' legal profession reeks of hypocrisy.

As for money lenders vs money changers - both hang out together and in today's world and in the common tongue (of which I'm sure you'll want no part) they are essentially the same. Maybe you just missed the point.

You shouldn't moan about your country producing idiots, you should try to improve yourself.

author by Ann Arseypublication date Sat Oct 14, 2006 15:56author address author phone

"It's ARTICLE 40, not 'section' 40. That's completely different."

Its basically the same as chanting Article 40 is meaningless. You think that just by mentioning it you get some extra power. You do not. Nobody agrees with you apart from your usual acquaitances.

"As well as that, insulting people and then moaning about sexism and the 'poor' legal profession reeks of hypocrisy."

Calling a woman a bike is sexist. To condemn that sort of ignorance and misogyny is not hypocrisy.

"As for money lenders vs money changers - both hang out together and in today's world and in the common tongue (of which I'm sure you'll want no part) they are essentially the same. Maybe you just missed the point."

I have no idea what you mean by the common tongue, unless it is a patois used by you and your acquaitances. When in Ireland I usually speak English unles I'm conversing with those who also speak Irish.

"You shouldn't moan about your country producing idiots, you should try to improve yourself."

I always try to improve myself. Education is a life-long process. You should take up night classes yourself.

author by Seán Ryanpublication date Sat Oct 14, 2006 16:55author address author phone

I see you still have to grasp the fundamentals of English.

Section 40 and Article 40 are not the same. I don't get any extra power by 'chanting' about it. However my point was about not losing the power that I already have.

I have not called anyone a bicycle. My point was that you insult people and then moan about insults. That's stupid and it's overt hypocrisy.

As for the 'common tongue,' I'll not go into explaining what that is. Suffice to say you do not come up to scratch in using it. I doubt you speak proper English with your friends, you most certainly don't understand it, as proven by your last feeble attempt at it.

Education is what remains when what has been learnt is forgotten. But I suppose at least you are taking night classes and offering me encouragement to do the same. If I find a course I'd like to do, I'll probably go for it. In the mean time, good luck with the literacy classes. Remember, don't be ashamed of your illiteracy, for afterall, there are no universal definitions and standards of literacy.

Now please stop derailing this thread with your churlish crap.

author by Ann Arseypublication date Sat Oct 14, 2006 19:27author address author phone

"Section 40 and Article 40 are not the same. I don't get any extra power by 'chanting' about it. However my point was about not losing the power that I already have. "

The point is that you think you are given superpowers by Article 40. You are not. Only you and a handful of your acquaintances believe in these mystical powers.

"I have not called anyone a bicycle. My point was that you insult people and then moan about insults. That's stupid and it's overt hypocrisy."

You are supporting those who have done so.

"As for the 'common tongue,' I'll not go into explaining what that is. Suffice to say you do not come up to scratch in using it. I doubt you speak proper English with your friends, you most certainly don't understand it, as proven by your last feeble attempt at it."

A very disappointing response from you. The Peoples College give introductory English courses. There is still time for you to enlist.

"Education is what remains when what has been learnt is forgotten."

Sadly, it looks as if you have forgotten all.

" But I suppose at least you are taking night classes and offering me encouragement to do the same. If I find a course I'd like to do, I'll probably go for it."

Might I suggest Creative Writing?

"Now please stop derailing this thread with your churlish crap."

Now that is just abuse. Off you go to the Creative Writing classes.

author by Senior Counselpublication date Sat Oct 14, 2006 20:44author address author phone

We have heard much about the fabled Article 40. Here it is in full. Perhaps one of those who think that the very utterance of the words Article Forty should strike fear into the hearts of the State will elaborate on that trope.

IMHO and going on all past jurisprudence in t5his State; if you feel that a law is unconstitutional then you have to take a case, in the first instance to the High Court to challenge. If you feel that some State Official is acting in excess of their powers then you can seek permission from the High Court to seek a Judicial Review of the relevant actions or decisions. You do not ammass powers merely because you think you are entitled to them under Article 40.

Article 40
1. All citizens shall, as human persons, be held equal before the law.
This shall not be held to mean that the State shall not in its enactments have due regard to differences of capacity, physical and moral, and of social function.
2. 1° Titles of nobility shall not be conferred by the State.
2° No title of nobility or of honour may be accepted by any citizen except with the prior approval of the Government.
3. 1° The State guarantees in its laws to respect, and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate the personal rights of the citizen.
2° The State shall, in particular, by its laws protect as best it may from unjust attack and, in the case of injustice done, vindicate the life, person, good name, and property rights of every citizen.
3° The State acknowledges the right to life of the unborn and, with due regard to the equal right to life of the mother, guarantees in its laws to respect, and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate that right.
This subsection shall not limit freedom to travel between the State and another state.
This subsection shall not limit freedom to obtain or make available, in the State, subject to such conditions as may be laid down by law, information relating to services lawfully available in another state.
4. 1° No citizen shall be deprived of his personal liberty save in accordance with law. 2° Upon complaint being made by or on behalf of any person to the High Court or any judge thereof alleging that such person is being unlawfully detained, the High Court and any and every judge thereof to whom such complaint is made shall forthwith enquire into the said complaint and may order the person in whose custody such person is detained to
produce the body of such person before the High Court on a named day and to certify in writing the grounds of his detention, and the High Court shall, upon the body of such person being produced before that Court and after giving the person in whose custody he is detained an opportunity of justifying the detention, order the release of such person from such detention unless satisfied that he is being detained in accordance with the law.
3° Where the body of a person alleged to be unlawfully detained is produced before the High Court in pursuance of an order in that behalf made under this section and that Court is satisfied that such person is being detained in accordance with a law but that such law is invalid having regard to the provisions of this Constitution, the High Court shall refer the question of the validity of such law to the Supreme Court by way of case stated and may, at the time of such reference or at any time thereafter, allow the said person to be at liberty on such bail and subject to such conditions as the High Court shall fix until the Supreme Court has determined the question so referred to it.
4° The High Court before which the body of a person alleged to be unlawfully detained is to be produced in pursuance of an order in that behalf made under this section shall, if the President of the High Court or, if he is not available, the senior judge of that Court who is available so directs in respect of any particular case, consist of three judges and shall, in every other case, consist of one judge only.
5° Nothing in this section, however, shall be invoked to prohibit, control, or interfere with any act of the Defence Forces during the existence of a state of war or armed rebellion. 6° Provision may be made by law for the refusal of bail by a court to a person charged with a serious offence where it is reasonably considered necessary to prevent the commission of a serious offence by that person.
5. The dwelling of every citizen is inviolable and shall not be forcibly entered save in accordance with law.
6. 1° The State guarantees liberty for the exercise of the following rights, subject to public order and morality:
i. The right of the citizens to express freely their convictions and opinions.
The education of public opinion being, however, a matter of such grave import to the common good, the State shall endeavour to ensure that organs of public opinion, such as the radio, the press, the cinema, while preserving their rightful liberty of expression, including criticism of Government policy, shall not be used to undermine public order or morality or the authority of the State.
The publication or utterance of blasphemous, seditious, or indecent matter is an offence which shall be punishable in accordance with law.
ii. The right of the citizens to assemble peaceably and without arms.
Provision may be made by law to prevent or control meetings which are determined in accordance with law to be calculated to cause a breach of the peace or to be a danger or nuisance to the general public and to prevent or control meetings in the vicinity of either House of the Oireachtas.
iii. The right of the citizens to form associations and unions.
Laws, however, may be enacted for the regulation and control in the public interest of the exercise of the foregoing right.
2° Laws regulating the manner in which the right of forming associations and unions and the right of free assembly may be exercised shall contain no political, religious or class discrimination.

author by Seán Ryanpublication date Sat Oct 14, 2006 23:11author address author phone

Let me preface what I'm going to say in answer to Senior Counsel's request by saying that I'm giving my opinion. I am however very confident in this opinion.

Article 40 is not a fable.

Firstly, no article of our constitution should be read in isolation. So for example: 40 3. 1° The State guarantees in its laws to respect, and, as far as practicable, by its laws to defend and vindicate the personal rights of the citizen. What are 'personal rights?'

Article 40 partially defines 'personal rights' but more importantly it sets in motion the methodologies to deal with violations of them. A judicial review is indeed one of these methodologies. In my opinion however, a judicial review is a trick that the Courts use to avoid having to act as Article 40 decrees. By this, I mean firstly, that nobody has to seek leave to have their rights observed or enforced. Secondly a judicial review is not actually mentioned in Article 40; what is mentioned however is that that State 'protect as best it may from unjust attack and, in the case of injustice done, vindicate the life, person, good name, and property rights of every citizen.' I feel that a judicial review hardly accomplishes this.

Let's look at 'personal rights' some more. These are somewhat defined in article 40 and elsewhere. The Preamble (the template for the Constitution) however, defines both the 'common good' and the 'rights of the individual.' And it defines the Common good as arriving from having observed the rights of the individual.

Here's paragraph 5 of the preamble:

'And seeking to promote the common good, with due observance of Prudence, Justice and Charity, so that the dignity and freedom of the individual may be assured, true social order attained, the unity of our country restored, and concord established with other nations,'

Now let's examine this in conjunction with Article 40.

If Mr. Gill is telling the truth in his affidavits (and there's been no evidence offered to suggest he hasn't) is it true to say that he's been treated with 'due observance of Prudence, Justice and Charity,' so that his dignity and freedom are assured? Does his treatment ensure that a true social order has been attained - as it is so defined?

What about the Shell to Sea people - have they been treated with 'due observance of Prudence, Justice and Charity?' Has the Justice system or the State ensured to vindicate the life, person, good name, and property rights of every citizen? as outlined in Article 40 3 2?

Our Courts and their actions in recent times with regard to the Rights of the citizen are a joke that we stopped laughing at some time back.

author by W. Finnerty.publication date Sun Oct 15, 2006 00:04author address author phone

With Article 40.3.2 of Bunreacht na hEireann in mind, I'd be very interested to know what Senior Council thinks of the way my case is being handled by Minister for Justice McDowell TD, and his senior politician and lawyer colleagues in and around Dail Eireann?

I still have not received any reply from Minister McDowell (or from any of his colleagues my e-mail letter was copied to) to the letter I sent to him through the registered post on August 4th 2006. A copy of the letter in question can be viewed at:

As you obviously know, Article 40.3.2 reads as follows:

"The State shall, in particular, by its laws protect as best it may from unjust attack and, in the case of injustice done, vindicate the life, person, good name, and property rights of every citizen."

The "unjust attack" in my case began when, during the run-up to the 2002 General Election, I tried to draw public attention to the fact that certain alterations to the Waste Management Act made in 2001 appeared to me (and several others) to be a straightforward and blatant violation of Article 28A of Bunreacht na hEireann.

The main thrust of the "unjust attack" in my case is to keep me living in forced exile, because that is the only way I can avoid being corruptly criminalised: in circumstances whereby I cannot find a lawyer to help me who recognises my legal rights under Articles 6 and 13 of the European Convention on Human Rights Act 2003 (at ).

Related Link:
author by Caint Saorpublication date Sun Oct 15, 2006 16:34author address author phone

The piece below is copied and pasted from McCann Fitzgerald site on It was posted by John Gill himself on Friday last, 12th Oct. It begins:

Jayne Maguire v John Gill - for the information of all decent folks and peoples. McCann FitzGerald Solicitors: This is my fourth day in Court on Malicious False trumped up charges in an effort to break up our association and union. Articles 40.ii and iii of the Constitution and my rights under the European Charter of Human Rights, My Rights under Article 1.3.1 and 2 and 43. 1.1 and 2 have long since been denied me by your Union in Blackhall Place (The Law Society of Ireland). Those rights were denied me and many of our members by Perjury, Fraud and Deception willfully and maliciously to rob us of our money and livelihood. All of the Documentation served on me from the 7th of September 2006 to the 5th of October 2006 is a calculated malicious FRAUD and is a vicious last ditch effort to stop the VICTIMS OF THE LEGAL PROFESSION from exposing the Corrupt Criminal Element of your Union for stealing our money and property and destroying their wellbeing and family lives. As from the 12th of February 2001, fifty members of your Union, Solicitors, Barristers and Counsel with the full support of many Judges tried every criminal act in the Criminal Code to steal my money, my building sites, my development property and my HOME. What you McCann FitzGerald Solicitors, your Counsel Paul O'Higgins is but a continuation of what your Union Members have inflicted on me over the many years. On every occasion from the 7th of September 2006 to the 5th of October 2006 after Perjury, Lies and Deception failed you, you moved the goal posts and changed the rules to suit yourselves in an effort to defeat me, but defeat me you never will and if it happens, it will be by Fraud and Deception Perjury and Lies. You McCann FitzGerald Solicitors have done grave and serious damage to me by Character Assassination and Defamation of my Character by publishing and/or allowing to be published false and misleading Information. You have sworn false Affidavits (PERJURY). You are changing the rules at will and by their silence you have the total support of the Courts and your Union in Blackhall Place and the Bar Association of Ireland. But Perjury is Perjury and Lies are Lies and the difference between your Union and that of the Victims of the Legal Profession is obvious to all, your Union is protecting and covering up for its many Corrupt Members with the total support of a corrupt Court System and our Union is battling to expose what is without a doubt a seriously corrupt Legal and Judicial system. McCann FitzGerald Solicitors and Counsel Paul O'Higgins, you have tried and failed, you have lied, cheated, produced false Sworn Documents/Evidence to the Courts (PERJURY) and I have produced to the Court documented evidence of the Names & Addresses of some of the many examples of the Corrupt Criminal Conduct of the members of your Union, and for your information we are all equal before the LAW and I am quite conscious that I am struggling against a Corrupt Regime who will stop at nothing to defeat me. In conclusion, you McCann FitzGerald Solicitors are GUILTY OF CHARACTER ASSASSINATION AND SERIOUS DEFAMATION OF MY CHARACTER MALICIOUSLY AND WILLFULLY. JOHN GILL, 11-10-2006

author by Brass Tackspublication date Sun Oct 15, 2006 17:05author address author phone

Quite simply starting an org to offset the personal vendaetta or grievance is a BAD IDEA.

If one is putting stuff on the internet then one should be aware of the openess of the internet

Yes, there is a right to free speech.
But whats sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander- the labour laws/privacy laws
breached by an angry older man in pursuit of his objective are actionable.
Moderating a site which allows a sexually derogatory remark against a woman to stand
in the public domain screams vendetta/naivety/ ignorance.

To ensure professional recognition of the right to free-speech one cannot oppose another individuals right to privacy.

In other words:

Think before you act.
It's self-regulation.
it would have avoided the unnecessary cost and humiliation.

even in doubt get NGO/citizen advice on moderation. It is simple, the author should not have
published the insult but the owner/moderator of the site bears responsibility too.

ANGER MANAGEMENT. if someone had published a sexually derogatory remark
against Mr Gill -he too would have recourse. its equality.

author by caint saorpublication date Mon Oct 16, 2006 01:11author address author phone

Professional deficit is what it is all about. Too many Irish Legal professionals have had this glaring professional deficit for too long. They have substituted arrogance for learning, bullying for justice and quick big bucks for an honest living. No other institution in the country has the power to discipline them, they have been given the power to discipline themselves and have failed dismally. That is why "ANGRY OLDER MEN and women" have formed the VLPS and support John Gill (incidently why the ageist prejudice against older people-you will be one someday).

The real issue is why Jayne Maguire & Co took John Gill to court. John Gill did not post the remark, a Dundalk Colleague of Ms Maguires did. John Gill does not own or control or moderate any web site, he does not even have a computer. So I ask again WHY IS JOHN GILL in court?

The answer is plain and scandalous and represents an enormous "Professional Deficit" in itself. He is in court because the legal establishment wanted to threaten, intimidate and silence John Gill so that their victims/critics would return to the silent pain that had been their lot before John Gill started to speak out and organise and encourage others to do likewise. Judge Hannah knows all this and he has honourably decided he is not going along with the charade any longer, wasting public money on an outrageous organised witch hunt by his colleagues. He has referred the case up to the President of the High Court.

The case is no longer about the defamation of Ms Maguire (in fact it never was). The case is now, What will the President of the High court do about the information about the named dodgie lawyers and their cooked practices that John Gill has sworn into the court records in his affidavits.

One of the duties of the President of the High Court is the investigation of misconduct by officials and officers of the court. Will he address this duty? If he does, then it will be a sign that the legal system is prepared to regulate itself. On the other hand, If he refuses to investigate then it will be proof positive that there is something very rotten in our court/legal system.

The country is watching him!

author by W. Finnerty.publication date Mon Oct 16, 2006 10:13author address author phone

"In fact, it seems to be the case that the legal profession is the very cleverly hidden and insidious "keystone" which is powerfully supporting the whole weight of all the corruption (and bullying) that is taking place in the Republic of Ireland at the present time."

The above piece of text has been taken from an e-mail sent earlier today to a selection of "leaders and observers" which included Minister for Justice Michael McDowell TD.

The full text of the e-mail in question, together with the full list of addressees, can be viewed at the following location:

For future reference purposes, Yahoo message identification and tracking information has been included at the above address.

Related Link:
author by iolarpublication date Mon Oct 16, 2006 21:31author address author phone

The case of Jayne McGuire is alive and well and the only issue is, as always, the libelous and abusive comments published about her on the RYS website.
The inquiry and discovery are ongoing in relation to identifying the person who perpetrated the libel.

Judge Hanna disqualified himself entirely and solely because a former devil of his was named by Gill as among the legion of persons Gill imagines are persecuting him. In other words, to avoid any appearance of a conflict of interest.

The case will proceed with the President of the High Court, or another High Court Judge appointed by him, presiding.

If the discovery and investigation show that Gill isn't the author of the libel, or has a proprietory interest in the RYS website, the case will be struck out against him. Gill will not get costs because he has incurred none, having decided to represent himself. If the Judge is of the opinion that Gill obstructed the investigation, or failed to reveal information to the investigation that would have aided the investigators, he may well have costs awarded against him anyway.

If the discovery and investigation show that any other person or persons posted the libel or has a proprietory interest in the website, I would presume the proceedings will be amended or re-issued accordingly.

The reek of panic and hysteria emanating from comment to this discussion-line from the usual RYS/VLPS suspects is pretty significant. If Gill and his cronies are telling the truth the investigation and discoovery will vindicate them. The reaction of 'caint saor' and his ilk indicates that they don't believe Gill is telling the truth.

author by caint saorpublication date Thu Oct 19, 2006 00:48author address author phone

"The reek of panic and hysteria emanating from comment to this discussion-line from the usual RYS/VLPS suspects is pretty significant. If Gill and his cronies are telling the truth the investigation and discoovery will vindicate them. The reaction of 'caint saor' and his ilk indicates that they don't believe Gill is telling the truth. "

I've taken a few days to read and re-read my previous post to search for any grounds for iolar's statement. I could see no sign of panic or hysteria or any evidence that I thought, or think, that John Gill had any part in the alleged offence. But then iolar is a lawyer and overstatement and false statements are tools of that sorry trade.

If iolar had claimed the piece was alarmist, then I would accept that description. It is alarming that an innocent man, John Gill, has been branded a criminal (defamation is a criminal offence). It is alarming that without a shred of proper evidence, he has been brought to court four times. Murderers etc are only brought to court when the Book of Evidence is complete in every detail and the DPP is satisfied that the evidence is sufficient to convict. John Gill is being brought in, week after week, while the court allows the plaintiffs to desperately search for a shred of conclusive evidence. This is a travesty of a case. Iolar knows it, Judge Hannah quit because he knows it and everyone around the Four Courts knows it is totally unprecedented. Tomorrow (thursday) the President of the High Court will sit to hear the course of these proceedings. If he is to have any credibility he must throw out the case and apologise to John Gill for the way he has been treated by the court officials and officers.

author by iolarpublication date Thu Oct 19, 2006 02:16author address author phone

Defamation is not a crime, it is a civil wrong. Proof of defamation entitles the plaintiff to civil remedies, not criminal punishment of the defendant.

The idea that the poor crank Gill is being dragged into court is risible. Gill is a chronic litigant who had been into the courts in his many (unsuccessful) attempts to misuse the law to asist him in exacting vengeance against his imaginary persecutors more often than most people have had hot dinners.

As I said, the case, the discovery, and the investigation are proceeding.

Everyone in the Four Courts ( and anyone who has read the incoherent and ranting Affidavits filed by the crank Gill) knows exactly what sort of person Gill is.

Why, all the panic (and caint saor's 'contributions reek of panic) if he and his RYS/VLPS cronies believe that Gill is telling the truth?

Discovering who posted the defamation is hardly persecution of the innocents, is it?

author by Scepticpublication date Thu Oct 19, 2006 05:55author address author phone

The real problem here is that the plaintiffs have shown no particular interest in finding the real poster of the offending comment, which may also be a first in Irish legal history. Their main aim has been from the start to get rid of the RYS web site! According to the papers all they wanted to know was "who was behind RYS", NOT who posted the comment. It is highly unlikely that the people behind the web site would themselves post personal comments on people they don't know just for the hell of it!
As has been said before on Indymedia, the real culprit walks away scot-free, because nobody is really trying to find him. The whole thing may even have been set up on purpose to sabotage the site.

Related Link:
author by Dekko - Article 40publication date Thu Oct 19, 2006 12:25author address author phone

Developer Owen O’Callaghan is facing a legal bill of more than €2 million arising from his unsuccessful challenge to the Mahon Tribunal’s further inquiring into or making any findings on allegations made against him by developer Tom Gilmartin. So thats what it costs to try to defend your good name.

Another rexample of the courts being used to persecute a man. Next they will take his land off him by a CPO.

author by iolarpublication date Thu Oct 19, 2006 16:10author address author phone

But the purpose of the inquiry and discovery IS to find the real culprit.

If it isn't Gill or one of his RYS/VLPS cronies, the process will vindicate them.

So what's your problem?

Perhaps you don't believe Gill is telling the truth?

author by purturbedpublication date Thu Oct 19, 2006 23:15author address author phone

I have been following the John Gill case with interest and particularly noting the "high horse" offerings on this thread from defenders of the Irish Courts System. It brings to mind an incident that occurred about five years ago.

A friend of mine was having a legal wrangle with the Bank of Ireland. He attended the High Court for a preliminary hearing. He was representing himself. Some days later a gentleman describing himself as a High court official, arrived at his house to serve a summons from the High Court. After the formalities, as he got into his car, this gentleman told my friend that he knew people who could help him and passed him a telephone number. My friend was curious and open to all advice so he rang the number and an arrangement was made to meet in a hotel in Ashford, Co Wicklow. My friend asked me to go along with him. We were there first and we decided to just listen to what the people had to say and form our opinions later. After a while the summons server arrived along with a well built lady who he introduced as a barrister specialising in Bank cases. Both had broad Dublin accents but the lady did not have the manner or bearing of your typical barrister. The lady started putting questions and taking notes but very quickly they seemed to perceive that we were sceptical and not going to be easily taken in. The course of the meeting changed and the summons server took over. He told us in a low voice that he had friends in security in the High Court and in the Baggot St headquarters of Bank of Ireland who had access to files and who, for a fee, could do my friend a favour. My friend told them that that was interesting and that he might get back to them. In this way he terminated the meeting and we departed.

The legals and their lackies posting on this site need to come down off their High Horses. The Four Courts and its environs is populated with some of the most vile low lifes in the country. Like the Augean stables, it needs to be cleaned out. The incorruptible honesty of a man like Mr Gill, travelling up from Co Clare every week by public transport to represent himself in the Court and tell his own story, is a symbolic foil to the normal corruption around the Four Courts. I hope he will not be blackguarded.

author by COURT REPORTERpublication date Fri Oct 20, 2006 13:43author address author phone

Dear Perturbed,

if this story is true (and we will have to rely on your word) there is no evidence whatsoever that any court-official or lawyer of any sort was in any way implicated in the incident you allege. In fact, if what you say is correct, it would appear that your friend was the victim of the 'dirty tricks' dept. of the bank in question.

But we shouldn't be too surprised, bankers, unlike lawyers, are not governed by a code of ethics. The behaviour of banks is governed by fear. Higher management keeps ratcheting up the performance argets for the line managers - most of whom can only meet those targets by stealing from the customers.

I presume in the case you describe the local debt-collection manager was having difficulty in meeting expectations and decided on a little bit of entrapment.

author by Seán Ryanpublication date Fri Oct 20, 2006 17:16author address author phone

This code of ethics business is a total load of malarky.

The legal profession are not morally superior to anyone else. This code of ethics shite all but makes them immune to prosecution.

Check out the book: Lawyers can seriously damage your health - By Michael Joseph.

Excellent book that shines a big light onto the legal profession and their imaginary concept of 'moral superiority.'

author by Scepticpublication date Sat Oct 21, 2006 19:01author address author phone

I hope that Sean Ryan can enlighten us as to what exactly went on last Thursday in this all too long drawn out farce. As far as I can see there is nothing more of any substance that the plaintiff can realistically achieve. She has tried to bring down the RYS site and failed and tried without success to accuse John Gill of a libellous remark that he could not logically have made without knowing her intimately. The search for the people behind the RYS site (which was no longer relevant to the libel action anyway, because they had already removed the offending remark on the High Court's order) has also petered out. As I have said before, nobody ever seemed particularly interested in finding the actual poster of the remark, so the only matter that seems to be left is the quest that lawyers working on a "no foal, no fee" basis are the most reluctant to give up: to find someone, anyone, to pay their fees for this fiasco.
It reminds me of a court case that I was involved in myself, where the opposing vulture's last words were (I kid you not!) : "Milord, I am pleading for my fee!" Fortunately for me, his lordship was not at all impressed, but it speaks volumes about the so-called ethics and dignity of the legal profession that Court Reporter and other posters think so highly of. In my opinion no one who draws out a legal case on purpose, as is obviously happening now, should be entitled to any costs at all. In fairness he should even pay any of the other side's costs that were caused by these delaying tactics.

Related Link:
author by Seán Ryanpublication date Sun Oct 22, 2006 12:54author address author phone

I'm afraid Thursday's farce was more of the same. The case was adjourned until the powers that be can figure out how to further proceed against Mr. Gill.

The meter was left running. Meanwhile, Mr. Gill has to make his own way up to the court each time. Lay litigants cannot file for their costs. All are equal before the law me arse.

author by Scepticpublication date Sat Nov 04, 2006 14:29author address author phone

I heard some strange stories about the President of the High Court loosing his cool and making threats to John Gill and the VLPS that were not based on any evidence whatever. Does anyone have details?

Related Link:
author by court reporterpublication date Sun Nov 05, 2006 18:47author address author phone

Gill and his gang are the ones who lost their cool when they so courageously called the plaintiff a parish bicycle. They are getting less cool and more panicky by the moment as they realize that the process to unmask the cowardly perpetrator is progressing unerringly despite their whingeing.

BTW, Joe Finnegan is the coolest of cool judges. And he will remain cool when he cooly deals with the contemptable whining author of the defamation and faces him with the consequences (if not the courage) of his convictions.

Don't forget the toothbrush, me brave lads!

author by perturbedpublication date Sun Nov 05, 2006 19:55author address author phone

Dear Sceptic,
I attended court No 1 in the Four Courts on Friday as an observer. I attended the hearing of Maguire V McGill before the President of the High Court, Judge Finnegan between 12.00 and 1.00 and again between 2.00 and 4.00. There were about 30 other observers in the court room but no press or reporters for reasons that only became apparent after the Court rose at 4.00pm. It appears that the proceedings were in relation to a request from plaintiff for an injunction against the web site. The initial approx 2.5 hours was taken up by the lead counsel for plaintiff, Paul O'Higgins SC laboriously reading from the contents of a blue ring binder, a copy of which was simultaneously being read by the judge. During the reading it was obvious that Mr O'Higgins knows next to nothing about the internet. He was frequently prompted by the young solicitor and indeed at times it looked like a bad ventriloquist act. At about 3.30, Mr O'Higgins came to a part where he said that the initial offending remarks had in fact been removed some weeks ago. Judge Finnegan intervened and appeared to become very frustrated and commenced a dialogue with Mr O'Higgins asking him what he wanted the injunction for if the offending comments had already been removed. Mr O'Higgins stammered that a number of other comments had been put up in the meantime. O'Higgins mumbled about one of the comments and Judge Finnegan turned to the thirty observers and told them he was not going to send anyone to prison ( he obviously learned fom his treatement of the Rossport 5) but that he was going to take down the three(?) websites and make everyone associated with them a lot poorer by siezing their assets. While he said this, he glared at the assembled observers composed of husbands and wives, mothers and sons from all over the country.

At this point John Gill spoke for almost the first time pointing out again that neither he himself, nor anyone else in the court had any ownership or control over any web site. He also asked what were the new offending remarks that he wanted removed.

The judge turned to Mr O'Higgins who blustered that they had not brought these to court and they were not sworn in affidavit and he was not aware of what they were. The judge asked if they could be got and juniors were dispatched to find a computer to print off from the site. O'Higgins looked for, and got, a recess and the court rose for 15 minutes. (99% of cases would have been dismissed at this point)

When the court reconvened, the judge seemed to have composed himself again. He was handed 6 pages of alleged print-off and he waved them at the court and said that he judged the observers to be decent people and he pleaded that "this stuff" be removed by 5.00pm Monday 6th November. While his demeanour had improved, he did not retract his earlier threats. The implication remained that his first threats would be carried out otherwise.

As a neutral observer, on reflection and on reading the six pages, I would make following observations:
1. There is nothing personally defamatory in the six pages. In fact the six pages contain a number postings in praise of Ms Maguire's professionalism. Free speech is at issue here.
2. The press and 20 other observers were kept out of Court No1 by the ruse of leaving it off the Court lists and instructing Court staff not to tell anyone where it was. This was in defiance of an earlier court ruling that because of public interest, the case must be heard in open court. Integrity and fair process is at issue here. Corruption?
3. From the moment I entered court no1, my attention focussed on the swarthy gentleman in a gown who stood by the bench throughout and who commanded the Court to rise whenever Judge Finnegan came in. I believe he is Judge Finnegan's tipstaff (the judge's butler or batman). I knew I had seen him somewhere before. But where? Then I remembered, it was in a hotel bar in Ashord, Co Wicklow (ref my previous post). CORRUPTION? If the servant is doing this kind of thing what is his master doing?

Related Link:
author by Scepticpublication date Sun Nov 05, 2006 20:35author address author phone

I have looked at the RYS entry for Jayne Maguire:

There is only one page with two comments on it which are obviously not libel, so I wonder where the other six pages are and which wondrous tales they tell ;-)

Related Link:
author by perturbedpublication date Sun Nov 05, 2006 20:52author address author phone

As I said the judge did not make an explicit or clear direction in regard to what he wants taken down. I think this lack of clarity makes his order defective. If indeed it was a proper order at all. After all, it was made in a "secret" court session and based on unsworn evidence. The whole thing stinks.

I did not actually see the pages that were brandished in court but I think the pages may also be from the original location of the comments for Catherine Allison. As you know, when you print off from a computer there may be a number of superfluous pages aswell.

author by Scepticpublication date Sun Nov 05, 2006 22:55author address author phone

If I understand correctly what "Perturbed" is reporting, the high-integrity, high-ethics Irish legal system in the Person of His Lordship the President of the High Court Himself has actually managed to order a man to take away comments that he does not know from a website that he has never been proved to have any connection with within one working day, or else.... God help us all with a legal system like that!
Still, I suppose we can always move to China ;-)

Related Link:
author by In stitchespublication date Mon Nov 06, 2006 09:33author address author phone

I was just reading John Gill's seventh affidavit online and honestly, I just couldn't stop laughing - between the raving judge, the clueless Senior Counsel, and the representatives of a major Irish law firm running around like headless chickens, the whole affair looked more like one of the old Britcoms than a serious legal proceeding!

Related Link:
author by Bemusedpublication date Sat Nov 18, 2006 19:40author address author phone

I just find it bemusing that John Gill claims that he has no connection or control over these websites. The simple question is how is John Gill's name all over these two websites? Surely he cannot claim that he has no knowledge of the people running these websites there are numerous postings by him and his Affidavits are also displayed.

Also, there is also the claim that poor John Gill has not even got a computer! Are all his Affidavitts handwritten? Are all his comments also handwritten and converted to word by some magically software program? If such a program exists, can someone tell me where to buy it?

It just appears, on the face of things, that Mr. Gill is not being fully honest and is pleading ignorance about the internet when it suits him?

It is hard to deny that the claims that he is not involved in the website and does not control the website are quite strange. How do his postings appear on the internet? I'm just wondering and it just does not seem to add up?

I wonder will Mr. Gill ever see my comments if he does not have a computer and he knows little of the internet?

author by Scepticpublication date Sun Nov 19, 2006 06:03author address author phone

"The simple question is how is John Gill's name all over these two websites."
The answer is equally simple: The Rate Your Solicitor site (the only site involved in the present legal action) is accessible to everybody, like the Indymedia site. Mr Gill has obviously learned how to type comments as we have all managed to do somehow, or he may have asked somebody else to do it for him. The only unusual (and to me admirable) thing is that he is one of the few posters who is is not afraid to sign his own name!
As to the Crooked Lawyers site, this site is run for the VLPS, but not by John Gill in person. There is no reason why they should not publish his affidavits, the same as they do with other people's conributions. As said before, this site is not involved in any litigation.

author by Bemusedpublication date Sun Nov 26, 2006 14:35author address author phone

In all reality, can you really claim that John Gill has nothing to do with either website?????

My last post was refering to the real world, not a world in which Gill & Co. appear to hide behind an internet company based in some desert in American!

Tell us, does Santa exist or not, have you ever seen a leprechaun, or maybe the Easter Bunny, is there a pot of gold at the end of the rainbow???

Are you honestly trying to claim that Mr. Gill has NOTHING to do with either website? It reminds me of Ted trying to explain to Dougal the difference between reality and fantasy - even though Ted drew him up a little cartoon diagram for him to study to differentiate the world of reality from that inside his head he stil didn't understand.

Maybe some aliens landed in the desert and set up the website and no one in Ireland has anything to do with it!!!

author by Free Speech Loverpublication date Wed Nov 29, 2006 09:49author address author phone

The OFFENDING comment was removed from the website on the 4th of October. Later and after much ado about nothing, the judge ordered that ALL comments must be removed, which included some good ones! As far as I know, only Justice Finnegan knows WHY.

I managed to save the comments before they were deleted, see

Related Link:
author by Jerry Corneliuspublication date Wed Nov 29, 2006 11:16author address author phone

But the important thing is that her rating was left up on the site. This is an avoid at all costs rating. The judge refused to order its removal. This wasnt a total defeat for John by any means. IMHO he would have been better off if he had moderated comments on the site in the first place.

author by Bemusedpublication date Wed Nov 29, 2006 12:35author address author phone

At last, it would appear that someone has admitted that John Gill is behind the rate your solicitor website. Thank you Mr. Cornelius, I was looking for interest for payment due by the tooth fairy!

author by Jerry Corneliuspublication date Wed Nov 29, 2006 12:52author address author phone

I never said that he was behind the site. I just think he should have used his influence to ensure that all comments about lawyers posted on the site reffered to their professional abilities or lack of same.

author by Betrayed - VLPSpublication date Tue Dec 05, 2006 02:25author address author phone

The bottom line is that the effort by the legal establishment to prevent free speech and fair criticism on the internet failed. and are still available as a resource for those who have been betrayed and failed by the legal professions.

Additional resources arealso available. The VLPS are embarking on a series of local actions around solicitors offices around the country. All meetings will be between 1.30pm and 3.30 pm. Details can be found on the site.

Towns to be visited before Christmas include: Limerick, Ennis, Mohill, Ballina, Banrty, Wexford, Enniscorthy, Birr, Athlone, Castlebar, Ballinrobe

author by Catherine McGlynn - www.victimsofthelegalprofessionEXPOSED.blogspot.compublication date Tue Nov 18, 2008 01:13author address author phone

So who does own these websites? John Gill denies ownership and yet is name is mentioned as a contact in the registration details (see below), the email name for the VLPS is the same name as the contact name on the registration of the website

Mr. Gill seems to have at the very least, an incredibly close connection with both these sites.

Read the details and make up your own mind.

Is registered to: TDI, The Mill, Caher, County Tipperary
Registrar: DOTSTER Domain
Created on: 02-JUL-05 Expires on: 02-JUL-11
Last Updated on: 10-OCT-08
Administrative Technical Contact: Fitzgerald, Bill lawyercatcher @
TDI The Mill Caher, County Tipperary n/a IE +353-5242810

On a website called tcal dot net, a poster going by the name of "stella" (whose name when clicked brought me right back to the VPLS site) posted the following on the 16th of September 2006:

"The link to this article is Please note that does not belong to victims of the legal profession, it is a link upon their website."


From the Irish Independent 10th November 2005:

"A group calling itself Victims of the Legal Profession Society (VLPS) has purchased the domain name rate your solicitor .com and plans to use the site to expose "rogue solicitors"."

AND in a Donegal newspaper where members of the group were publicising the setting up of said group:

"The group have also set up their own website,, where members of the public can rate and comment on their personal experiences with a solicitor."

AND on the guestbook of the VLPS a posting from the VPLS on the 13th of September 2006:

"Please note, debates about have been moved to OUR new Forum: ..."


P.O. Box 821650 Vancouver, WA 98682 US
Registrar: DOTSTER
Created on: 24-JUL-04 Expires on: 24-JUL-09
Last Updated on: 02-AUG-07
Administrative Contact:
P.O. Box 821650
Vancouver, WA 98682 US +1.360-449-5933
Technical Contact:
CROOKEDLAWYERS.COM, P.O. Box 821650, Vancouver, WA 98682, US +1.360-449-5933

Current Registrar: DOTSTER, INC.
IP Address: (ARIN & RIPE IP search)
Record Type: Domain Name
Server Type: Apache
Lock Status: clientDeleteProhibited
Web Site Status: Active
DMOZ no listings
Y! Directory: see listings
Web Site Title: Victims of the Legal Profession Society
Meta Description: Support group for the many victims of the corrupt legal system in Ireland (including solicitors and barristers), with Case Histories written by victims.
Secure: No
E-commerce: No
Traffic Ranking: 1
Data as of: 27-Nov-2006

On the VPLS website,, the contact name is John Gill. Note too the email address. lawyercatcher. Then note the email address for the administrator of lawyercatcher.

For questions and comments regarding the legal profession, email the VLPS>
Or you can write to the VLPS Public Relations Officer:
John Gill Drumline Newmarket-on-Fergus Co. Clare Ireland
Tel.: + 353 61 360 436
Fax: 001 215 3265471

In a letter to the Revenue Commissioners dated 21/1/08, John Gill referred to the website as "OUR website".

"In the eyes of honest men and women at home in Ireland and those viewing our website all over the world there will be rejoicing at the exposure and elimination of corruption in Ireland."

From November 2005:

"Latest News

A new domain, has been purchased by the VLPS. It will be similar to the popular site. Contributions from members of the public are very welcome, please send to"

And from January 2006:

"This site (rateyoursolicitor) requires professional expertise, which of course we will have to pay for, so any donations for this will be very welcome indeed.

Please send to Mr John Gill, Drumline, Newmarket-on-Fergus, Co. Clare."

So, a man who does not own the site (he says) was asking the public to send him money? It can only be one of 2 things Mr. Gill either lied then and asked for donations even though he did not own the site or lied subsequently, particularly during the Jayne Maguire case ~ from RTE News: "Mr Gill denies being responsible for the site.".

But then of course, they change direction again. From 4th of October 2006:

"The RYS management has noted Mr. John Gill's appeal to have the original remarks posted in this place about Ms Jayne Maguire, barrister, removed in order to stop his continued harassment by Irish lawyers. This harassment is completely uncalled for, as RYS is a completely independent organization without any legal ties whatsoever to the VLPS, and neither Mr. Gill nor any other members of the VLPS committee have ever had any knowledge of or influence on RYS policies."

But then from 26th of April 2006:

"If you have a longer story that you would like to make public, consider being published in the Case Histories on our sister site,"

But then on on the 17th of September 2006, a poster calling him or herself 'Stella', whos name when clicked links directly back to says:

"The link to this article is Please note that does not belong to victims of the legal profession, it is a link upon their website. How can John Gill be held or amde (sic) accountable for public opinion. If you want the real stroy it is simple the legal profession are looking for a way to close down the web site,, because of the implications of the evidence on those web pages, and how they expose the corruption in Ireland- we cannot let this happen as it has impact on the media as well!!!

But interestingly, if you had hit 'Contact Us' link on the site on the 26th of April 2006, it would take you to ... yes, that's right, the Contact page on and John Gill's contact details!

Mr. Gill and the VLPS mantra is: You Can't Improve on the Truth.

What is the truth? Is anyone, having read all the above, in any doubt? I think not.

Related Link:

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.