Article: Tribunal to proceed with inquiry into Taoiseach's finances

Seth Brundle

from www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/mhkfsncwcwid/

16/07/2007 - 15:45:17
The Mahon Tribunal has decided to go ahead with its investigation into the Taoiseach's finances.

Judge Alan Mahon has dismissed a submission from the Taoiseach's legal team asking for Bertie Ahern's hearings at the inquiry, scheduled for next week, to be cancelled.

The judge says that matters concerning the Taoiseach's affairs merit public inquiry, and flow directly from the tribunal's investigations into the rezoning of land at Quarryvale in west Dublin, where the Liffey Valley Shopping Centre now stands.

Judge Mahon has rejected suggestions that the investigations into the Taoiseach's affairs are disproportionate.

Mexicola

Great news and a good decision by Judge Mahon.
I do not want to see that gob****e Ahern worm his way out of this one.

Villain

Umm not sure what the story is with discussing this topic, can a mod clarify what the story is I had a thread closed on this topic pending legal advice but no update was given in the thread.

On Topic I'm delighted that the Tribunal will investigate Bertie who imo lied to the nation before the election about his finanical dealings and I look forward to hearing him trying to talk his way out of it.

SeanW

Good. Now we can get to the bottom of this business, hopefully.

Pride Fighter

Robespierre was known as 'incorruptible'. Something you can never say about Bertie.

irish1

irish1 wrote:

Umm not sure what the story is with discussing this topic, can a mod clarify what the story is I had a thread closed on this topic pending legal advice but no update was given in the thread.

On Topic I'm delighted that the Tribunal will investigate Bertie who imo lied to the nation before the election about his finanical dealings and I look forward to hearing him trying to talk his way out of it.

The story is simple.
Discuss the topic but do not treat any allegations as proven untill the tribunal declares them as so.

kbannon-the charter prohibits posting articles sans comment-so please add your few fords as soon as possible or this thread will be closed.
I'm sure someone here will give you an aul pm to hurry you along with this,God forbid an opportunity to post the "lies" word a thousand times might pass...for people seemingly obsessed with the need for that.

I will be watching this thread very very carefully by the way,It's going to be clinically moderated when I'm around.

I'm looking foward to the tribunal evidence by Ms Larkin first and then Ahern,It should be great sport
In my opinion though they shouldn't bother with the rest of the Gilmartin "evidence" as the bulk of it lately seems so fancifull and looks so made up,it's a waste of the state pay to the legal teams.
They should get onto what they are really investigating apparently.

Villain

Tristrame wrote:

I'm sure someone here will give you an aul pm to hurry you along with this,God forbid an opportunity to post the "lies" word a thousand times might pass...for people seemingly obsessed with the need for that.

Well imo for the Taoiseach of the day to imo lie before a general election is a very serious issue and the fact that he has stated on record that he wants to deal with the issues before the Tribunal and then sends in his Legal team to try and make sure he doesn't have to answer the tough questions is laughable tbh.

The tribunal will start to look at Bertie's affairs today with AIB bank officials taking the stand. Kbannon please add some comment to save me from having to start a new thread when the hearings begin.

irish1

irish1 wrote:

Well imo for the Taoiseach of the day to imo lie before a general election is a very serious issue and the fact that he has stated on record that he wants to deal with the issues before the Tribunal and then sends in his Legal team to try and make sure he doesn't have to answer the tough questions is laughable tbh.

Why is it laughable to do a job that you are paid to do ? I suppose it is if you've already decided the outcome of this in your own mind but hey thats subjective...By all accounts he could go to the supreme court today to try to have Judge Mahons decision of yesterday revoked.
He indicated last night that he wouldn't.

Kbannon please add some comment to save me from having to start a new thread when the hearings begin.

Leave the moderating to the moderators please.I'm in no hurry to shut this thread,I'm just enforcing the charter.
I'd be surprised if kbannon didn't post in the next 24 to 48 hrs or so.

Villain

Tristrame wrote:

Why is it laughable to do a job that you are paid to do ? I suppose it is if you've already decided the outcome of this in your own mind but hey thats subjective...By all accounts he could go to the supreme court today to try to have Judge Mahons decision of yesterday revoked.
He indicated last night that he wouldn't.

Oh the legal team were just doing their job but they don't normally do anything they aren't instructed to do so hence imo it is fair to say that Bertie was trying to ensure the tribunal couldn't investigate his personal finances depsite saying he was looking forward to dealing with the issues at the Tribunal.

All they did was ask Judge mahon to clarify valid issues...(like the running order and what seemed like a similar case where the high court ruled that someone shouldn't be there) they didn't take it to another court.
If he was trying to ensure a no show,he'd be in the supreme court today.

To be fair Irish 1 I think this part is a no issue-Ahern will be before the tribunal as will Ms Larkin so lets see the outcome and discuss the proceedings.

Please be carefull with your posts though as if I see anything that might be in my opinion be construed as dodgy in them as regards being posted here,I'll delete on sight.
I cannot guarantee that I will see such posts if posted though but if I do I will.
Those are the rules within which this thread will operate.

Villain

Tristrame wrote:

All they did was ask Judge mahon to clarify valid issues...(like the running order and what seemed like a similar case where the high court ruled that someone shouldn't be there) they didn't take it to another court.
If he was trying to ensure a no show,he'd be in the supreme court today.

To be fair Irish 1 I think this part is a no issue-Ahern will be before the tribunal as will Ms Larkin so lets see the outcome and discuss the proceedings.

Please be carefull with your posts though as if I see anything that might be in my opinion be construed as dodgy in them as regards being posted here,I'll delete on sight.
I cannot guarantee that I will see such posts if posted though but if I do I will.
Those are the rules within which this thread will operate.

It might be a "no-issue" for you but to me it says a lot about Bertie, he repeated over and over again before the election that he was looking forward to dealing with the issues at the tribunal every time the issue was brought up by a journalist he said he would deal with it at the tribunal and then his legal team made a submission asking for Bertie Ahern's hearings at the inquiry, scheduled for this week, to be cancelled!!

It shows why people accuse politicians of double speak, not just Bertie though of course.

I am always careful in what I write as I am responible for what I write, I stand over everything I have said in this thread and the last thread.

irish1

irish1 wrote:

It might be a "no-issue" for you but to me it says a lot about Bertie, he repeated over and over again before the election that he was looking forward to dealing with the issues at the tribunal every time the issue was brought up by a journalist he said he would deal with it at the tribunal and then his legal team made a submission asking for Bertie Ahern's hearings at the inquiry, scheduled for this week, to be cancelled!!

Again with respect,Aherns lawyers asked Judge Mahon to rule on the comparison between this case and another.They gave their reasons and this could have been brought to another place for a definitive ruling.
Ahern last night seemed to rule that out probably because he has enough political savvy (obviously) to realise that would not be the right thing to do.

I am always careful in what I write as I am responible for what I write, I stand over everything I have said in this thread and the last thread.

Well I'd ask you and others to continue the use of "in my opinion" and not the shortened version "imo" when dealing with direct accusations in this thread-thank you.

I am requesting this as per the last post in the last thread which no doubt you read.Read it again carefully as it's telling you to express an opinion on the matter,You can post the opinion as often as you need to,but it cannot become fact minus a tribunal ruling on it, and there continues the possibility that it will never be fact.
It could just as easily be proven that Ahern (stupidly, given hindsight ,in my opinion) was not forthcoming with enough information due to his own desire for privacy.Any human being is entitled to make that kind of error should it have been made in this case.
Stating a lie as fact without the full information or the conclusion of the tribunal behind you is very dangerous territory indeed and won't be allowed here.

Now I'm not prepared to discuss that part of my post here.
There are several ways as you know for posters to express their opinion without me having to delete them.Thank you.

Seth Brundle

In my opinion I find BH to be a bit of a hippocrite. On the one hand he proclaims his desire to show his innocence and then tries to get his way out of appearing. I do feel that he has several questions to provide answers to and this time he won't get far using the style of answers that worked on Brian Dobson.

Tristrame wrote:

I'd be surprised if kbannon didn't post in the next 24 to 48 hrs or so.

I'm not sure that he will!

oscarBravo

Just to add to Tristrame's warning: policy on this forum is not to permit accusations of lying unless you can demonstrate that the accused both said something that was untrue, and that they knew it to be untrue when they said it. Given that the Tribunal is the arbiter of what is and isn't untrue in this case, accusations of lying are, de facto, unacceptable.

Prefacing an accusation of lying with "in my opinion" doesn't make it acceptable. Feel free to express opinions otherwise.

Oh, and I'm not inviting a discussion on this, I'm laying down the law.

Akrasia

http://rte.ie/news/2007/0717/mahon.html

The Mahon Tribunal has heard that Taoiseach Bertie Ahern's explanation for cash lodgements is not backed up by published exchange rates or AIB bank records.

The tribunal heard about a lodgement of nearly £25,000 to Mr Ahern's account and another of nearly £29,000 to the account of his former partner, Celia Larkin in 1994.

AIB official John Garrett admitted that the first amount would equate to £25,000 sterling and the second to $45,000 according to records and published exchange rates.
Advertisement

This would not corroborate Mr Ahern's explanation that the first amount was made up largely of Irish money and that the second was converted from sterling.

But Mr Garrett said there was a possibility that the bank records were inaccurate and that a special rate was applied to the £25,000 amount.

So two of Bertie's deposits are proving exceptionally dodgy and the bank records directly contradict his own version of events.

His only defence is that Ahern might have somehow recieved a different exchange rate on both occasions. But this itself would raise a number of questions.