Council Of State to discuss the Criminal Law 2007 Bill

by fan - bring her back! all is forgiven! o as if. Thu May 31, 2007 13:33

you're an independent TD & Mc Dowell is coming back
Mcdowell is worse than the bogeyman. Mcdowell is farmer Jones.

2 pd's good
four td's bad

finish the job. it's no use just thinking about what the people you know who voted for you think is best now - you just think about those who not voted you into those 4 seats. No PD's means no PD's.

by C Murray Wed May 23, 2007 09:59

S.I.no236 of 2007-criminal justice act 2007-commencement order 2007.

[nice touch the '666'- the same as the Gardai number- however they are meant to
be an independent pillar of the state]

The above link is to the commencement order for the Criminal Justice 'Act' 2007.
Money to pay for the vanity project will be taken from other areas and has been
for quite some time including the provision of adequate resources to victims
and their families.
not to mention the civil liberites abuses involved in the act.

If the link does not work, the commencement order is available on the right hand
column of the home page at justice :- http://www.justice.ie

by C Murray Wed May 23, 2007 09:25

The Criminal Law 2007, mentioned at the top of this piece has been enacted in the
last 36 hours, by the present minister for Justice Michael Mc Dowell.

Where is he going to get the money and why is it not being spent on toilets in
mountjoy- they still slop out.

or rehab?
or education?

by JW Mon May 14, 2007 20:03

Mon, 14 May 2007 17:11:13 +1000

As to be expected from a TOTALLY CORRUPT JUDICIARY, John Bauskis has just phoned in to say that Justice Peter Anthony Johnson struck out the Indictment against Justice Michael Frederick Adams, this afternoon in Courtroom 11C of the Law Courts Building, Queen's Square, Sydney. 
 
Johnson endorsed the argument put by Adams's barrister, Christopher Lonergan (appointed by the Crown Solicitor...and paid for by taxpayer's money) that Judges are "immune from prosecution" and the Indictment against Adams for denying John the Right to Trial by Jury was "frivolous". 
 
Of course, John protested the whole time that there HAD TO BE A JURY to judge the Indictment and any Notices of Motion and that any precedents of rulings that Judges have Immunity were made by Judges - NEVER BY A JURY.
 
THE FIGHT IS A LONG WAY FROM OVER ....... IT'S FIGHT OR PERISH.
 
Next is the Court of Appeal...which is ruled by the same EVIL  JUDICIARY...where we expect to witness the same TREASONOUS performance.
 
Then on to the HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA....which is ruled by the same EVIL JUDICIARY.
 
IT'S US OR THEM.
 
We will fight the EVIL THAT THEY ARE.... IN OUR COURTS.
 
Yours sincerely,

John Wilson.

by C Murray Sun May 13, 2007 20:47

If you profile the regimes that have imported a facsimile of the US voting and judicial
system there are certain similarities at a global level. The governments of Blair/Reid,
Howard, Aznar, Burlusconi and Arroyo , share a similar approach to Jurisprudence
and immigration issues. itts almost a post-colonial disease.

Stories all over the community and independent media attest to the issue of changes
in accepted laws and truths, there is a brutality too in the quashing of political dissent that
was evident in the removal of the SO36 server in Germany in the last few days.

And in the Paris riots too.

I would add to the comments above , one small detail that involves all communities
that represent the voices that are not covered by mainstream media and that it
the women are a part of this too and provide a great deal of leadership
and skill to struggle situations, most evident in The Phillipines, Oaxaca and
Iran.

So the media must reflect that struggle at this level.

by JW Sun May 13, 2007 20:00

Without the RIGHT TO TRIAL BY JURY, we have NO RIGHTS, at all.
 
The RIGHT TO TRIAL BY JURY is our FIRST RIGHT as FREE MEN to protect ourselves AGAINST EVIL.
 
Tomorrow, May 14th 2007, in the Common Law Division of the NSW Supreme Court, Sydney, Michael Frederick Adams is indicted for denying John Peter Bauskis the Right to Trial by Jury when Adams imprisoned John for 14 days for wearing a T-shirt with the words, "TRIAL BY JURY IS DEMOCRACY".
 
Make no mistake....tomorrow is crucial to our FIGHT FOR FREEDOM.
 
Up to this point in time, the Australian Judiciary have been steadily and ruthlessly "advancing their noiseless step across the field of jurisdiction and become venal and oppressive", as Thomas Jefferson warned they would, and we have become nothing but SLAVES to them and their masters, the BANKS.
 
Make no mistake.....the BANKS are the greatest FORCE FOR EVIL the World has ever know.
 
NOT UNTIL we IMPOSE our INALIENABLE RIGHT TO TRIAL BY JURY and smash the "evil counsellors, judges and ministers" who are "subverting and extirpating our laws and liberties" (words from the Bill of Rights 1688), will we regain TRUTH, JUSTICE, FREEDOM and DEMOCRACY.
 
Tomorrow ?....IF a date is NOT ALLOCATED, in accordance with DUE PROCESS and the RULE OF LAW, for the EMPANELLING OF A JURY to try Michael Frederick Adams, then it can be truly said that EVIL RULES over us and our children.
 
Yours sincerely,
John Wilson.
http://www.rigghtsandwrong.com.au
 
 

by W. Finnerty. Sat May 12, 2007 17:37

Many thanks for your guidance.

I feel I should point out that - as far as I am concerned - there cannot (at this late stage) possibly be any just or safe solution to the ongoing abuse I'm being subjected to, which ignores the Republic of Ireland's "European Convention on Human Rights Act 2003".

For reasons which directly relate to the C-PTSD I now suffer from, which was caused by public officials, and which I cannot for practical reasons ignore, it is only possible for me to make progress through Article 13 of the "European Convention on Human Rights Act 2003".

Article 13 reads: "Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in this Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity."

The full text of the Act can be found at http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2003/en/act/pub/0020/ind....html .

If, as appears to be the case, the Republic of Ireland's "European Convention on Human Rights Act 2003" is just "window dressing", then I fear I will have to spend the rest of my life living in forced exile: which means the public official bullies who are abusing the law in numerous ways to bully me, can get clean away with bullying me - in an extremely powerful way - for the rest of my life.

So, allowing for the above, I believe the most helpful thing you could do when you get back, assuming you still have the time and inclination to continue with your help, is to try and find out why I cannot find a lawyer in the Republic of Ireland who is willing to help me resolve my legal and medical difficulties through the direct and straightforward use of Article 13 of the "European Convention on Human Rights Act 2003", which appears - on the face of it - to have been purpose-built for dealing with kind of problem in question.

In an effort to further clarify things, there is (from my viewpoint) no point in attempting to provide possible legal solutions to my case which ignore the C-PTSD medical difficulty I have now been saddled with. On account of the C-PTSD problem, Article 13 route is the ONLY way forward that I feel I can consider.

The trouble is, how do I get my case before the "national authority" referred to in the Article 13 text provided above? I have been trying to find an answer to this question for several years now, and the only response I have had so far from the several lawyers I have contacted is total silence. In my view, there has to be something very seriously wrong in the legal profession for this to be happening?

As I have stated above, I cannot find a lawyer in the Republic of Ireland (or anywhere else for that matter) who is willing to even discuss the Republic of Ireland's "European Convention on Human Rights Act 2003" with me - let alone use it help me resolve the inseparable combination of legal and medical problems I have been saddled with "at the hands of individuals and public officials and bodies" (Dr Michael McCavert's words).

If interested, more information on C-PTSD can be found at http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=C-PTSD%2C+BullyOnL...earch

by We the People Sat May 12, 2007 10:33

The Article 26 quoted above by w.Finnerty is not the original or correct Article 26 of the Constitution or either is any other Article quoted from Bunreacht Na h-Eireann - blue book.

For us all to get a more clearer perspective on the Law we are dealing with , it is necessary to read the original text draft.

(original text draft)

Article 34.3.3 of which reads as follows;

' No Court will have jurisdiction to put in doubt the validity of a Law, or of any provision of a Law which is a Law that the President submitted the Bill for it to the Supreme Court for decision under Article 26 of this Constitution, nor to put in doubt the validity of a provision of a Law if the President submitted the corresponding provision in the Bill for that Law to the Supreme Court for decision under that Article 26'.

Is there any elbowroom in the interpretation of Article 26 or indeed any other Article of Bunreacht?
Are Law Students familiar with the original text draft, as it differs much to Bunreacht -blue book , and if so what are the implications ,if any ,when this original version is invoked in open Court (little chance) or in sworn affidavit for the purpose of seeking ...Justice?

by law student Fri May 11, 2007 22:09

William,

I am away for the weekend and will try to reply in more detail when I get back. Please note that I am not qualified to give formal legal advice and anything I say should be regarded as mere friendly and hopefully helpful guidance. It seems to me that you need to deal with the assault charge and get that out of the way first before addressing the other things. To start with I would really suggest that you write a very brief letter to the Registrar of the District Court that issued the summons stating that you wish to apply for legal aid in respect of the assault charge. (Don't deal with the details of the offence or the other legal issues you're embroiled in.) This will enable you to get a solicitor (or even have the court appoint one for you if you can't find one yourself) and, from what you say, you appear to have a good defence to the charge. You will then be able to return to the jurisdiction and deal with the other issues in your own good time.

Hope this helps

by Kevin Walsh - Social Justice and Ethics Fri May 11, 2007 21:38

Michael
Well done on your appointment of 27 Judges - no doubt some friends from the Law Library and private school.

Fiona is on her 9th vodka cheering those who were appointed and her old friend Ambrose is walking the canal with his well bred (working class)boxers. He has been heard singing 'Limerick you are a lady'.

Michael, in the morning, my dream last night stated, you have to present yourself to Rathmines Garda Station, (nearest to your abode) for an appointment in the alleged theft and leaking of files from the Department of Justice to the Irish Independent - I am sure it is a scurrilous remark by Enda Kenny prior to an Election but if it is sanctioned by the DPP to qualify as a case and goes to court - it carries a 5 year sentence. The Law still states the Secrets Act - even for Ministers, Michael.

Anyway if all goes to slump, rumour has it that Columbia have a vacancy for a vice president. Mr Conoly will no doubt be able to assist you in any arrangements you need to make...

Before I close Michael, how is your advice to Mary during the Nurses Strike and also your old friend Bertie (who made a fool of himself at the Boyne today). You are no fool Michael, you took no gun as a gift from Mr. Paisley, there was no breaking the law for you and I hope you make Bertie decommission the gun in 48 hours, as per the new Law. We would not want the same 'cock up' to happen to Bertie, as happened to Phil Flynn.

One more question. It isn't about politics - what diet is your Jack Russell on and do you have frequent chats with him. Bertie talks to his or so they say every night. Hundreds of lonely men living in flats in Dublin 4, Dublin 6 talk to their animal and bird friends every night.

Three of the Reserve Force are in custody tonight in Clover Hill prison facing deportation for dodgy passports - what is going on in this country?

Poor Croppies ye know that your sentence has come
When ye hear the sound of the Protestant drum
In memory of William we hoisted the flag
and soon the bright orange put down the green rag
Down Down Croppies Lie Down

Popular Orange Ballad

The Day The Paisley Family came South to plant a tree at the Boyne and offer the hand of friendship to Taoiseach Mr. Bertie Ahern, and Mr. Michael McDowell.

by Michael Mc Dowell Fri May 11, 2007 16:43

Whilst all this is completely fascinating, may I just add that I appointed 27 judges to our
courts in recent days, thereby ensuring the second pillar of good governance is facilitated
wholly and completlety to locking away the scum that do mess up my well manicured
floral arrangements and windows in the Ranelagh trinangle.

Its sewn up.

Tally ho!

by W. Finnerty. Fri May 11, 2007 15:56

Law Student,

I'm genuinely very grateful to you for your efforts at explaining things.

On balance, I believe it would be better for the President to refer all controversial legislation to the Supreme Court, before it gets signed into law. I'd much prefer to see the Supreme Court throw out bad law at the earliest possible stage, than to see bad law become "established" and cause chaos, misery and confusion, in the lives of large numbers of people possibly, and which goes on for years - possibly generations - after the President has given such "law" some kind of very doubtful, "half-ass" validity with his or her signature.

As I see things, it would not be the end of the world if a new law got thrown by the Supreme Court, after the President submitted it to them for checking. All it would mean is that the legislators would have to try again, and to take account of why the Supreme Court threw out the first (second, third, or whatever) attempt. That, I believe is how the system was meant to work. New law has to be constitutional, and to make it constitutional it must go through whatever number of reiterations (back and forth between the Oireachtas and the Supreme Court) as is necessary to make it constitutional: in the eyes of the Supreme Court. Then, and only then, is it fit for "human consumption".

Using "human guinea pigs" to determine the constitutionality of new law, and using them without their permission, or even their knowledge perhaps, not to mention the possibility of driving them insane through Legal Abuse Syndrome and such-like, seems completely outrageous to me, in addition to being completely thoughtless, and totally lacking in respect for the victims of such abuse.

The way things are now, based on what you have kindly related, is that a "mindset" appears to have developed in the legal profession which seems to state that Article 26.1.1 of Bunreacht na hEireann is unusable (in effect). In turn, that seems to lead on to the notion that the President, to be "on the safe side!!" (according to this "mindset", and assuming I've got it right), should sign EVERYTHING that's put in front of him or her by way of new legislation: and that, I believe, is a recipe for bullying, tyranny, and corruption of every conceivable kind, which many public servants, operating at all levels of society, will undoubtedly indulge themselves in.

In fact, I believe this corrupting process is now well under way in the Republic of Ireland, and among the several ways it is showing its presence indirectly is in the need for more prisons, hospitals, brain drugs, more suicides, more murders, more street violence, and so on. There are not many (as far as I know) who enjoy being bullied and abused by public servants, and, among those who have given some serious thought to the subject, there are many who believe that rampant corruption and democracy can co-exist. Neither can justice and rampant corruption co-exist either (as I see things). Unhealthy law, and unhealthy society seem to me to go hand in hand - and hence the need, I believe, to block unhealthy law from getting into the social system at the earliest possible point in its formation.

Getting back to my own particular situation, and assuming you have a little more spare time to spend on it, I now feel (with the benefit of hindsight) that it might be best to take you to the "place" where I am at present totally "stuck", which is as described in my letter dated April 3rd 2007 to John Glynn (Barrister) at Hogan & Co., in County Galway. A copy of the letter can be seen at the following location: http://www.europeancourtofhumanrightswilliamfinnerty.co...r.htm .

Please note that, in so far as I can judge, and allowing for the C-PTSD (Complex-Post Traumatic Stress Disorder) I have been diagnosed with, thanks to abuse dished out by "public servants" (so called), the ONLY way I believe I can now resolve my legal difficulties is through the use of Article 13 ("Right to an effective remedy") of the Republic of Ireland's "European Convention on Human Rights Act 2003". 

As you may already know, Article 13 of this Act reads as follows: "Everyone whose rights and freedoms as set forth in this Convention are violated shall have an effective remedy before a national authority notwithstanding that the violation has been committed by persons acting in an official capacity."  (The full text of the Act can normally be viewed at http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2003_20.html , though it appears to be missing just now - or at least when I checked a few moments ago.)

Although I have already pointed out this Article 13 situation to John Glynn (Barrister), as can be seen in my letter to him dated April 3rd at the address provided above, the trouble is it now looks as though he is not going to reply to my letter. It is certainly the case that: a) I have not received ANY reply from anybody at Hogan & Co. to this registered letter; and, b) that the Post Office internet tracking service reports the letter was delivered on April 5th 2007.

Unfortunately, this is not by any means the first time this kind of thing has happened to me in recent years. My experience strongly suggests that no Irish lawyer (either North or South of the Border) is willing to even talk about human rights law in relation to my particular case, let alone use it to protect people who are impossibly trapped in my type of legal (and medical) situation.

Why is this?

Is it that "European Convention on Human Rights Act 2003" is there purely for "window-dressing" purposes only?

If so, how does the legal professions in the Republic of Ireland justify such outrageous deception? 

If you (or any of your legal contacts) can provide me with any answers to the above questions, it would be very much appreciated - particularly if your answers help me to get out of the extremely "stuck" legal (and medical) situation I am in at the present time.

by law student Fri May 11, 2007 00:00

William,

The "immune from constitutional challenge for all time" argument is not just spin, it's reality. Article 34.3.3 states "No Court whatever shall have jurisdiction to question the validity of a law, or any provision of a law, the Bill for which shall have been referred to the Supreme Court by the President under Article 26 of this Constitution, or to question the validity of a provision of a law where the corresponding provision in the Bill for such law shall have been referred to the Supreme Court by the President under the said Article 26."

While it would be open to the people to amend or delete Article 34.3.3, in the absence of a referendum to do so, it remains in effect and acts to confer subsequent immunity on a statute that survives the Article 26 procedure.

As to your own situation, it's hard to comment in detail, but it appears you are charged with assault. It also appears that you never appeared in court in response to the summons. As it is the district court that grants legal aid, it is necessary to apply for legal aid. This is normally done on appearing in the court and, in fact, the court MUST inform you of your right to apply for legal aid. This is routine and would happen in all cases of assault offences. You can also apply in writing to the Registrar of the particular District Court. Have you done this? (BTW, in law, the granting of legal aid is entirely a matter for the court and the Department of Justice and the minister have no role to play.) Once a certificate of legal aid is granted the Court will assign a solicitor to you if you don't already have one.

Your other concern appears to be time to prepare a defence. Again, the normal procedure is that the court will, on application, adjourn the case to a suitable time. In practice, this does not tend to be an issue and a court will always allow a newly assigned solicitor to meet the client and take instructions. But you, or your legal representative must make the application to the court. There's no point writing to McDowell - it's a matter entirely for the court and it would actually be wrong of him to interfere with the running of the courts.

by Sibling Thu May 10, 2007 21:37

John murray will preside over the construction of the dedicated new court
system which forms part of the importation of the military industrial complex
to ireland.

In terms of wise counsel- it is blatantly clear that the people who will habitate the
courts and cells are those who the rich would want out of the way- ie the poor.
three kids from lower socio-economic class have faced adult courts in this
country.

Their families are entitle to answers.

However- the hierarchical structure of these institutions prevents ordinary access
to liberty and justice.

Even I f Minister Mc Dowell were to lose his portfolio- these changes have been instituted
into out laws- without a bleat.

The Irish rich are betraying their own people in favour of $$.

The new criminal courts with 120 holding cells are to be bulilt in the Phoenix Park,
Dublin. Now will someone please answer the question- where have the opposition
been for nine years?
They abstained from the vote on this crucial piece of legislation.

by W. Finnerty. Thu May 10, 2007 21:15

To law student:

I have been refused legal aid in connection with the criminal charge brought against me - which arose as a direct result of I trying to challenge the constitutionality of "Waste Management (Amendment) Act 2001".

This point about legal aid has been made VERY clear in the "To Whom It May Concern Letter" from medical doctor Michael McCavert GP at the following address: which was sent to Minister for Justice McDowell TD, together with a letter from a senior social worker dated November 7th 2005. Electronic copies of both letters can be viewed at http://www.europeancourtofhumanrightswilliamfinnerty.co...r.htm

Please note Minister for Justice McDowell TD continues to COMPLETELY ignore the entire contents of Dr McCavert's letter shown at the above address, as do several of his senior colleagues in the legal profession, including Chief Justice John Murray. Incidentally, I would be very interested to know what your view is on this? Is it lawful for lawyers to completely ignore such letters from medical doctors? Personally, and although I am neither a lawyer nor a law student, I very much doubt that it could be?

I'd be very grateful if you would pass my e-mail address (newinngalway@yahoo.co.uk) on to the "eager young barristers" you refer to, as I'd be very interested in the no-foal-no-fee arrangement you have mentioned. Please note that I'm all ready to go, well prepared, and very eager - IF AT ALL POSSIBLE- to get things started BEFORE the May 24th general election campaign ends.

Without wishing to attack you personally in any way, I have to say that the "immune from constitutional challenge for all time" argument sounds very much like a mighty fine piece of "spin" to me - in other words a great excuse, but not a good reason. What about the fact that Bunreacht na hEireann (Constitution of the Republic of Ireland) can, like all other such constitutions that I know of, be changed by "constitutional referendum" - and at any time, more or less, as far as I know?

Changing the subject slightly, I've just come across the information below about yesterday's Council of State meeting, which may be of interest to some readers.

From The Irish Times:

"Current office-holders who were present included Taoiseach Bertie Ahern, Tánaiste Michael McDowell, Chief Justice John Murray and Attorney General Rory Brady."

"As Minister for Justice, Mr McDowell steered the Criminal Justice Bill through the Oireachtas but he was attending the Council of State in his capacity as Tánaiste."

Mrs McAleese decided not to refer the Bill to the Supreme Court ..."

"The President is not obliged to accept council recommendations."

There is no mention at all in The Irish Times article as to what the council's recommendations actually were? Presumably, we are all to be kept completely in the dark regarding this crucially important aspect of yesterday evening's Council of State meeting?

The full Irish Times article can be viewed at: http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/frontpage/2007/0510/11....html

by law student Thu May 10, 2007 20:18

In general, no. The Courts require cases to be real rather than hypothetical. The exception is the Article 26 provision that allows a Bill to be reviewed by the Supreme Court before being signed into law by the President. But as I pointed out, the flip[side of this is that once a bill is upheld by the Supreme Court it is then immune from constitutional challenge for all time. For this reason, there has been a tendency to use the Article 26 procedure to "fireproof" laws that the President considers desirable against constitutional challenge rather than as an attack on suspect legislation.

by Gauntlet Thu May 10, 2007 20:09

is there a way of challenging the three above mentioned tatty pieces of legislation,
without some poor kid having to act as precedent?[They are in the first paragraphs
of the report above]

We have had in two weeks- two kids being treated as adults before the court.

One Ian Horgan- who at sixteen was mistried without the required evidence from Dr Harbison.
He was put on the sex offenders register and re-tried under the Criminal law (Sexual Offences Bill)
2006- amended 2007.
He got 12 years despite the initial murder charge- the story is on the newswire.

and a 17 year old who got mandatory life for murder.
Both were of the age to accept criminal responsibility, but both were subject to
adult law. there is a class issue in both cases and the constirutionality of the
2006 Act is in question, despite being rushed through the Dail/Seanad/and the office of the President.

Can people test the constitutionality of the new laws withour human guinea pigs?

by law student Thu May 10, 2007 19:57

I am actually a law student so no need to put " " around me! The difference in this case is that because the Criminal Justice Act is, obviously, a criminal statute, any challenges that arise will be covered by the criminal legal aid system and not the totally underfunded and restrictive civil legal aid system. It's pretty much a given that every piece of criminal legislation is tested to its constitutional limits in the Courts - unfortunately the same cannot be said of dodgy civil legislation. It's also pretty much a given that every defendant will be given full legal aid.

I know nothing about the Waste Management Act or how it might be open to constitutional challenge but I do know that the law library is full of eager young barristers who would be happy to "make a name" by taking on a case on a no-foal-no-fee basis that had a fighting chance of winning.

by W. Finnerty. Thu May 10, 2007 15:07

The "law student's" theory sounds fine, but when I tried to have the constitutionality of "Waste Management (Amendment) Act 2001" checked, in practice, I couldn't find a lawyer willing to help me. More information relating to my particular efforts, which lawyer Martin Egan never replied to, can be seen at http://www.europeancourtofhumanrightswilliamfinnerty.co...4.htm

Even if I had managed to find a lawyer willing to help me, I understand it could have cost me in the region of 500,000 Euros in legal fees to have the necessary "judicial review" carried out.

A second attempt, by local law student (Ann Marie Kelly), and regarding the same "superdump" issue, can be seen at:
http://www.annmariekelly.org/LegalAidApplication/3Novem...4.htm

Please note that Ms Kelly was refused the legal aid she sought (in spite of the case she put forward at the address just above).

The Greenstar / National Toll Roads / Cement Roadstone Holdings rubbish dump in Kilconnell (County Galway) was a very "suitable case" to bring before the High Court, and if necessary the Supreme Court, or so it seems to me at least. Please note though that EVERY attempt to do this has been BLOCKED by the legal profession: and, without wishing to be in any way disrespectful towards "law student", that's where your theory seems (to me) to fall completely apart.

In a different context, and among other things, the same matter was also raised with Justice Minister McDowell TD last August, as can be seen at the following address: http://www.europeancourtofhumanrightswilliamfinnerty.co...r.htm .

Guess what? Minister for Justice McDowell TD is completely ignoring the entire contents of the registered letter reproduced at the above address; and, in so doing, he appears to have the FULL support of ALL his senior lawyer colleagues.

Related link: http://www.europeancourtofhumanrightswilliamfinnerty.co...l.htm

by law student. Thu May 10, 2007 14:10

Better that she didn't refer it. If she had it would be assessed in abstract form and it was found to be constitutional, it would be immume to further constitutional challenge for all time. This way, when suitable cases emerge, as they inevitably will, the Supreme Court will have opportunity after opportunity to find fault with the Act.

by W. Finnerty. Thu May 10, 2007 13:30

So what will the "140 barristers" who organised their "open revolt" (as reported in Irish Independent Newspaper, March 29th 2007), against Minister for Justice McDowell TD, have to say about President Mary McAleese signing this bill last night I wonder?

The same newspaper article contains the following sentence: "The right to silence, it adds, has been recognised as being protected under the Constitution" - that was the view of the "140 barristers" who signed the letter they handed to Minister McDowell on March 28th last it seems.

Undermine the Constitution (Bunreacht na hEireann) and you undermine the State? Is that what President Mary McAleese and her lawyer cronies are trying to do I wonder? Making way for their particular brand of "new world order" perhaps? - which they possibly plan to force-feed everyone with, regardless of whether the voters like it or not?, and regardless of democracy?

At this stage, and with the May 24th General Election in mind, the following piece of text may be worth thinking about:

"At the establishment of our Constitutions, the judiciary bodies (consisting mostly of the most senior lawyers presumably?) were supposed to be the most helpless and harmless members of the government. Experience, however, soon showed in what way they were to become the MOST DANGEROUS; that the insufficiency of the means provided for their removal gave them a freehold and irresponsibility in office; that their decisions, seeming to concern individual suitors only, pass silent and unheeded by the public at large; that these decisions nevertheless become law by precedent, sapping by little and little the foundations of the Constitution and working its change by construction before any one has perceived that that invisible and helpless worm has been busily employed in consuming its substance. In truth, man is not made to be trusted for life if secured against all liability to account." (Taken from http://etext.virginia.edu/jefferson/quotations/jeff1270.htm .)

A final question comes to mind: will it ever - in practice - be possible now for anyone to have the constitutionality of this new law checked by the Supreme Court? And, if not, how are any of us ever going to know whether or not this controversial new Act is legally valid?

by C. Thu May 10, 2007 09:56

Mrs Mc Aleese did not refer it to the Supreme Court.
The data base will be extended and the ongoing criminalisation of
Communities in struggle, the young and the people disenfranchised by
the introduction of a US style court/prison system is unabated.

Looking at social exclusion and disenfranchisement one of the prime causes
is the critical underspend in Health and education.

The State seems happy to create super-structures which benefit the rich .

The story is on http://www.ireland.com (front page- directly beneath the Reynolds
interview which suggests that the Spring tide government collapsed because
Bertie Ahern had possession of the Duggan files)

Said it before- the attempt by the corporations to bring in Enda who no-one likes
is on the edge of farcical (!)

by C. Wed May 09, 2007 20:35

details on http://www.president.ie

[and all the usual newsie outlets].

http://www.president.ie

by . Wed May 09, 2007 14:04

http://www.blueface.tv_player

http://www.newstalk106.ie
http://www.newstalk.ie

This chronicles the Brendan Smith/Duggan case :-

Newstalk is owned by Dennis O Brien (last seen June 16th in the company of PJ
Mara at Haughey's funeral)

not advertising ...listen.

by revelations Wed May 09, 2007 13:55

Bertie Ahern had posession of the Duggan file which led to the
fall of the Reynold's government. ( according to Albert Reynolds)

Whoever puts them in power- knows all of this.
The personages involved:- Reynolds (via Phone- Newstalk 106)- 12.30pm
Geraldine kennedy- Investigative Journalist (at time)
Dick Spring.

The Reynold's government fell , with its spring tide, ushering in the Bertie leadership.
The shit is about to hit the fan- and we must all benefit from the dirtiest election
campaign in the history of the state.

The Duggan and Father Brendan Smith files coincided, the issue was
church abuse. so far not a sniff of the Tanaiste who has been finding budgies
in Portlaoise Prison. (a few needles and some mobile phones too)

by LD Tue May 08, 2007 11:00

M. Robinson, when president, interfered in a number of national referenda, in blatant attempts to change the Constitution, completely in breach of her terms and oath of office.
By her own admission she believes that she influenced the outcome of the divorce referendum.
So what's the problem? Well, once certain boundaries have been breached they remain breached
for all succeeding presidents. Just as Robinson was a left-wing interference, another president may
become a right-wing interference. Will we then hear hypocritical cries of 'foul' from the media and political pundits who, in the past, remained silent or actively supported Robinson's actions.

by W. Finnerty. Tue May 08, 2007 10:22

I'm not sure about why "LD" seems to believe President Mary Robinson should have been impeached for "pushing out the boundaries".

I'm not trying to say President Robinson didn't do such things - it's just that I don't know anything about it, as I didn't live in Ireland during the time she was President.

I'd be interested to know more about this subject though.

However, "pushing out the boundaries" is one thing, and completely "over-stepping the mark" is another.

Please note that Fine Gael TD Michael Ring TD has described "The Planning and Development (Strategic Infrastructure) Act 2006" as "the MOST DANGEROUS legislation that has ever come before the House because it seeks to deprive people of the power to make observations and objections in regard to planning matters."

I suspect many others in the Oireachtas would have felt the same way as Mr Ring on this particular issue, but, unlike him they did not have what it takes to speak out in public regarding their true feelings.

Related link: http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Planning+and+Devel...earch

by LD Mon May 07, 2007 11:22

When M. Robinson wasn't impeached for "pushing out the boundaries" then
no president will ever be impeached

by W. Finnerty. Mon May 07, 2007 09:11

The following statements are from a report dated 05/05/2007 at http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/?jp=MHAUSNCWSNAU .

"The President, Mary McAleese is calling for a meeting of the Council of State to review the Criminal Justice Bill."

"She has convened the meeting for Wednesday next, in accordance with her powers under Article 26 of the Constitution."

"It provides that, following consultation with the Council of State, the President may refer any Bill to the Supreme Court for a review of its constitutionality. "

"The Criminal Justice Bill was passed by the Oireachtas late last month, despite protests from civil liberties groups and some members of the opposition."

Fine, but what about ALL the other very shaky and doubtful legislation President Mary McAleese has already signed into law which is probably unconstitutional?

What about, for example, the highly controversial "Planning and Development (Strategic Infrastructure) Act 2006", which was signed into law by President McAleese on 16 July 2006?

Why did she not apply Article 26.1.1 of Bunreacht na hEireann (Constitution of the Republic of Ireland) to it? She was very clearly asked to do so, in a letter sent to her by registered post on June 17th 2006, as can be seen at http://www.europeancourtofhumanrightswilliamfinnerty.co...l.htm

Article 26.1.1 (enacted by the people on July 1st 1937) reads as follows:

"The President may, after consultation with the Council of State, refer any Bill to which this Article applies to the Supreme Court for a decision on the question as to whether such Bill or any specified provision or provisions of such Bill is or are repugnant to this Constitution or to any provision thereof."

And, far more important, what happens now if (as many believe) "The Planning and Development (Strategic Infrastructure) Act 2006" really is unconstitutional, and consequently legally invalid? Similarly with the "WASTE MANAGEMENT (AMENDMENT) ACT, 2001", for example, which resulted in a huge (and very likely unlawful) rubbish dump being built by Greenstar / National Toll Roads / Cement Roadstone Holdings in Kilconnell, County Galway? More on this at http://www.finnachta.com/BordPleanalaAppeal.htm .

As some will already know, there is a 7 day limit for the President to refer doubtful (i.e. possibly unconstitutional) legislation to the Council of State, because hot-on-the-heels of Article 26.1.1 comes Article 26.1.2 which says:

"Every such reference shall be made not later than the seventh day after the date on which such Bill shall have been presented by the Taoiseach to the President for his signature."

Allowing for the above, and with a general election due on May 24th, it seems to me that ALL voters should now be giving some VERY serious thought to Article 12.10.1 of Bunreacht na hEireann, which states:

"The President may be impeached for stated misbehaviour."

As can be seen in Article 12.10.3 of Bunreacht na hEireann, "A proposal to either House of the Oireachtas to prefer a charge against the President under this section shall not be entertained unless upon a notice of motion in writing signed by not less than thirty members of that House."

by C Murray Sun May 06, 2007 11:46

http://www.eircom.net { with lovely photo of Tanaiste Mc Dowell headlining}

http://home.eircom.net/content/irelandcom/breaking/1034...omnet

The Irish Times has not reported the Calling of the Council of State on the issue
of the Criminal Justice Bill 2007:

This involves the constitutionality of certain sections of the bill, including:

The extension of the DNA Database.
A 7 day period of detention without charge.
The removal of the right to silence.
Extending the admissability of hearsay evidence.

The articles are at link above:-

I would imagine that the introduction of such anti-rights legislation (twice) is newsworthy (?)

nothing in the Irish Times or the Sunday Tribune.

The council of State will meet , most likely on Tuesday, the same day that the Dail
will meet after the lovely holiday weekend.

by C Murray Sun May 06, 2007 11:09

Tanaiste Mc Dowell has decided to stay in Government.

The Health and Justice Portfolios will remain in the greasy fingers.
The justice Minister's Insistence on Bertie's coming clean is risible ,
Minister M C Dowell has not come clean about the weeks of 22nd-29th of
May 2006.

Ms Kennedy has not come clean about the burning of evidence ,before the High Court.
In a complete turn around from the righteous indignation of yesterday ,the Tanaiste
will continue to retain the Justice portfolio.

Interestingly Carol Coleman kept calling Minister Mc Dowell - an Taoiseach!

This will continue until the election, therefore we can ignore the divorce
and get on with the politics that the Irish Times editorial agenda has refused
to cover.

There will be a meeting of the Council Of State early next week on the unconstitutionality
of The Criminal Justice Bill 2007.

The Criminal Law Sexual Offences Bill managed to criminalise Irish Kids for
early sexual activity.

There are kids on the street.
The Tanaiste is building a huge prison and courts complex in the Phoenix Park
and Thornton.

The media , including this morning's tribune are talking Rossport
in a negative way and the Rainbow are ignoring the nurses.
=business as usual.

by Jack Sat May 05, 2007 23:15

The issue of the taoiseach's finances is important because it may expose the rotten heart
of the government.
Anything which comes from that rotten heart is, surprise,surprise - rotten.

If corruption or wrongdoing is exposed then it will follow that the career of B. Aherne is built on a lie.
Because of the support for B.A. shown by party members we will see that the principles of F.F. are a sham.
The people who, knowing this, then vote for FF will be exposed for what they are.

Logical innit?

by C Murray Sat May 05, 2007 22:26

One view of an ex- civil servant who went to the then EC in the years 1974-79, [In agriculture]
is why are the media leading on the obvious scintillating briefcase details of the Ahern,
when the issue of flawed legislation is so bloody apparent?

And do they take us all for fools.?
Another is cancelling his subscrpition to The Times- its quite expensive in Belgium.

To re-iterate:- The issues are Health.Education. Flawed legislation. Hospital amalgamations.
The kids who are mainstreamed when they want to do apprenticeships. The massive
underspend in the Dept of education, the spiralling contributions parents are asked to make
towards 'free education' and today a kid who cannot get a placement with a hostel- he
is fifteen. instead we have a saliva-ridden scandal-mongering media who kow-tow
to one of the smallest political parties in Ireland and titillating soupcons of revelatory
scandal [Cunningly disguised as media soundbites]

Independent candidates press releases are not being read or given credence.
The Dail is divided into categories with revolving speakers amongst the
independent bloc, with the main parties dominating the speaking time and it
seems the press time.

Thats a lot of media penetration by a party which only seems to have one single
hyper active member. The Council of State will meet on Tuesday on the
Criminal Law 2007 Bill- previously entitled 'The Counter Gangland Measures'
Bill.[October 2006/details at links]

The Criminal Law Bill (2007) passed by 62 votes to 11.
[Sinn Fein and Green opposed/ FG and Labour abstained]
The Criminal Law (Sexual Offences) Bill (2006/amended 2007) passed
through both houses of the Oireactas on June 2nd 2006 [Joe Higgins opposed/
No amendments/ the Ombudsman for children's request for deletion of section 5
was ignored]

The Irish Times has not yet reported the calling of the Council of State.
The revelations were announced at 14.34 pm today and dominated both
TV3 and RTE news (!)

by W. Finnerty. Sat May 05, 2007 21:17

Minister for Justice McDowell himself has a long and growing string of deeply worrying questions to answer, and some of the issues concerned go back several years to when he was Attorney General.

A few of the matters in question are referred to in a letter sent to Hogan and Co (law firm) on April 3rd last, a copy of which can be viewed at http://www.europeancourtofhumanrightswilliamfinnerty.co...r.htm .

There are many other ways of being corrupt apart from shuffling around with tens of thousands of "pounds sterling" in used notes (inside plane brown suitcases), in the shoddy manner of sly Prime Minister Ahern.

So far, I have not heard a word from John Glynn (Barrister & Principle lawyer at Hogan & Co.) regarding the issues I have raised with his law firm. Perhaps he is taking instructions from fellow barrister Minister McDowell? Personally, I would not be in the slightest surprised if this was in fact the case.

As can be seen via the above address, the Post Office internet system says the registered letter in question was delivered to Hogan & Co "before 12:00 on 05/04/07".

It seems to me that both of these men share the same habit of believing their own lies? That much they really do seem to have in common.

Related link:
http://www.europeancourtofhumanrightswilliamfinnerty.co...Daily

by C Murray Sat May 05, 2007 16:53

Tanaiste Mc Dowell is heavily hinting that the Pee Dee party will remove itself
from government on the basis of the latest set of revelations , which he is hinting
at; but 'not divulging'

We should have them leaked to us by tomorrows Sunday Papers.
The blurb goes :- 'there is only one story this evening..."

At 14.24pm this was breaking news on the Irish times website.
(surprisingly)

First respondent . Enda Kenny.

Three independent or small party candidates have told me that they are press
releasing night and day to media on issues such as the nurses strike, the closure
of St Luke's, The closure (threatened ) of Crumlin Children's hospital, but there is no
pick up.

The issues are unimportant to the press, what is played out is 'negative' publicity
and its attendant attentions and the response of the proposed Rainbow alliance
between FG/Labour.

There is literally no coverage on issues regarding community access to health care
or the midwives/PNA/INO strike.

On the 29th of June last year, in the wake of the Laffoy judgement on 'A' and
'CC', there was a constitutional crisis, which saw the collapse of the 1935
legislation. That is when Mr Mc Dowell should have hung his head .

There is no level playing field in an election campaign which is completely
dominated by the smallest political party in ireland and who have sponsored
or moved three of the most flawed pieces of legislation through the houses
of the Oireachtas.

There is no balance of coverage to the smaller parties.
There is most definitely a usage of the issues by the Irish Times which seems
set on furthering the agenda of the FG/Lab party though the ground has been set by the
deeply biased editorial agenda. (and the coverage of the PD party over the
last 6-9 months)