Michael Lowry's home raided by Revenue

Mr.Micro

Michael Lowry's home raided by Revenue

http://www.rte.ie/news/2013/0725/464620-michael-lowry/

Looks like the Revenue are not happy with Lowry's tax return? In the news last week he is being sued by his accountants.

http://www.rte.ie/news/player/2013/0722/3566117-michael-lowry-sued-by-accountancy-firm-over-unpaid-bill/

Does this man pay anybody? It is hard to believe that he is still a TD.

invpat

Mr.Micro wrote: »

Michael Lowry's home raided by Revenue

http://www.rte.ie/news/2013/0725/464620-michael-lowry/

Looks like the Revenue are not happy with Lowry's tax return? In the news last week he is being sued by his accountants.

http://www.rte.ie/news/player/2013/0722/3566117-michael-lowry-sued-by-accountancy-firm-over-unpaid-bill/

Does this man pay anybody? It is hard to believe that he is still a TD.

Bit late raiding it now I am sure the shredder has done its job long ago.Purely optics.

Mr.Micro

invpat wrote: »

Bit late raiding it now I am sure the shredder has done its job long ago.Purely optics.

Yes indeed, we have all become so cynical. After the horse has bolted, as in years ago, lol.

Outkast_IRE

You wouldn't know what they would find all it would take is some carelessness on his part, and a single document could be enough to catch him on.
You would be very surprised how lazy people can be with such things.

L1011

If denied a tax clearance cert, he has to resign right? Or is that the UK system?

StabiloBoss

They must have keys to his place by now

Cody Pomeray

invpat wrote: »

Purely optics.

Here we go.

What's the point in (legitimately) criticizing prosecutorial sloth in this country, when the authorities do take affirmative action and they are dismissed as engaging in "optics".

Nobody wins except the perpetual cynics, who are relieved they don't have to change their minds about anything.

invpat

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

Here we go.

What's the point in (legitimately) criticizing prosecutorial sloth in this country, when the authorities do take affirmative action and they are dismissed as engaging in "optics".

Nobody wins except the perpetual cynics, who are relieved they don't have to change their minds about anything.

Taking affirmative action long after the horse has bolted.This is just another sop for the plebs.

Cody Pomeray

yeah yeah

flutered

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

Here we go.

What's the point in (legitimately) criticizing prosecutorial sloth in this country, when the authorities do take affirmative action and they are dismissed as engaging in "optics".

Nobody wins except the perpetual cynics, who are relieved they don't have to change their minds about anything.

ah yes the case that broke down because the star witness had to go to hospital with an undeclared illness, compare that with another high profile case going on where one withness had to go to hospital, we were informed of the illness, then when a second witness had to enter hospital it was the same, the above post mentiones perpetual cynics, please change that to the perpetual lied to.

invpat

flutered wrote: »

ah yes the case that broke down because the star witness had to go to hospital with an undeclared illness, compare that with another high profile case going on where one withness had to go to hospital, we were informed of the illness, then when a second witness had to enter hospital it was the same, the above post mentiones perpetual cynics, please change that to the perpetual lied to.

Totally agree,there is always someone who stands up for this rotten system,When Lowry is resting his Armani arse in Mountjoy thats when I will lose my so called cyncism.

Mr.Micro

flutered wrote: »

ah yes the case that broke down because the star witness had to go to hospital with an undeclared illness, compare that with another high profile case going on where one withness had to go to hospital, we were informed of the illness, then when a second witness had to enter hospital it was the same, the above post mentiones perpetual cynics, please change that to the perpetual lied to.

The case apparently had to be finished by the 4th August. For I presume, The Court holidays? Why bring such a difficult case to be heard when it may take longer, allowing for illness etc and in a very limited time frame? It does not stand to reason, its not as if the prosecution does not know when the Court is closed for holidays?

Sierra Oscar

Mr.Micro wrote: »

The case apparently had to be finished by the 4th August. For I presume, The Court holidays? Why bring such a difficult case to be heard when it may take longer, allowing for illness etc and in a very limited time frame? It does not stand to reason, its not as if the prosecution does not know when the Court is closed for holidays?

I think the case collapsing has a lot more to do with the credibility of the main prosecution witness, Frank Dunlop. When he openly admitted to perjury earlier on in the week many suspected that the case wouldn't get very far.

Cody Pomeray

Mr.Micro wrote: »

The case apparently had to be finished by the 4th August. For I presume, The Court holidays?

No the trial had been ongoing for 3 weeks and it was ready to wrap up.

The circuit court can continue to sit into the long vacation where hearing has commenced during the term, when has that ever been a problem.

listen man no point in trying to just discredit absolutely everything because people just zone out. Criticism becomes background noise.

take everything

/Wonders what are the government trying to bury.

Mr.Micro

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

listen man no point in trying to just discredit absolutely everything because people just zone out. Criticism becomes background noise.

Can you clarify what you are suggesting? I would not want to get the wrong impression that you are suggesting I am discrediting everything for the sake of it.

It stated on RTE news that the trial had to be finished by 4th August. When this was not going to be the case, the prosecution wanted to continue in September, to the objection of the defence. The whole case appears to have been ill prepared, ill timed when the Court was due to close and use of a witness who has a conviction for corruption

anncoates

Mr.Micro wrote: »

It is hard to believe that he is still a TD.

His attitude is probably a prerequisite for election in his constituency.

Cody Pomeray

Mr.Micro wrote: »

Can you clarify what you are suggesting? I would not want to get the wrong impression that you are suggesting I am discrediting everything for the sake of it.

I don't know if you are, I think that general and unreasoned cynicism prevails on this section of this bulletin board quite a bit, compared with other sites. It was directed at you but is also a general observation. If it doesn't apply to you, I apologize and take it back.

It stated on RTE news that the trial had to be finished by 4th August. When this was not going to be the case, the prosecution wanted to continue in September, to the objection of the defence.

No the situation is that there would have been an unreasonable burden on the jury, some of whom had previously warned the court of prior commitments. The circuit court can and does continue hearings that have commenced in the days or weeks running into the vacation.

However, the judge cannot, under the circuit court rules just re-commence an non-urgent hearing during the long vacation. This hearing has already waited 20 years (amazingly), another nine weeks wasn't going to be fatal.

flutered

Mr.Micro wrote: »

The case apparently had to be finished by the 4th August. For I presume, The Court holidays? Why bring such a difficult case to be heard when it may take longer, allowing for illness etc and in a very limited time frame? It does not stand to reason, its not as if the prosecution does not know when the Court is closed for holidays?

tom o connell was the prosecuting council, does he only take the plum jobs, it looks like the department of the ag has some mighty egg on its face.

Judgement Day

It all smacks of the 'golden circle' at work again - one of those on trial was the son of former FG leader, ex.Taoiseach Liam Cosgrave and still a member of the Council of State. What's the bets that Dunlop makes a rapid recovery comparable to that made by the former CEO of Guinness, Ernest Saunders. Saunders was convicted of serious fraud and insider dealing but was released from prison after only 10 months due to advanced Alzheimer's disease! He is the only person in medical history to have made a complete recovery from the disease....One law for the golden circle and another for the rest of us. :rolleyes:

Mr.Micro

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

I don't know if you are, I think that general and unreasoned cynicism prevails on this section of this bulletin board quite a bit, compared with other sites. It was directed at you but is also a general observation. If it doesn't apply to you, I apologize and take it back.


No the situation is that there would have been an unreasonable burden on the jury, some of whom had previously warned the court of prior commitments. The circuit court can and does continue hearings that have commenced in the days or weeks running into the vacation.

However, the judge cannot, under the circuit court rules just re-commence an non-urgent hearing during the long vacation. This hearing has already waited 20 years (amazingly), another nine weeks wasn't going to be fatal.

People are allowed to be cynical in their opinion if they wish, and there is ample reason in Irish politics for them to have that cynicism. A younger person might not be as cynical as an older person, but time could change that, you perhaps are the former.


I know what I heard on the RTE news on at least 2 occasions, about the 4th August. In hindsight the case did collapse not just because of Mr. Dunlop but also because of the time pressure, probably on several parties. As I posted a badly prepared and timed case from the DPP.

Mr.Micro

Judgement Day wrote: »

It all smacks of the 'golden circle' at work again - one of those on trial was the son of former FG leader, ex.Taoiseach Liam Cosgrave and still a member of the Council of State. What's the bets that Dunlop makes a rapid recovery comparable to that made by the former CEO of Guinness, Ernest Saunders. Saunders was convicted of serious fraud and insider dealing but was released from prison after only 10 months due to advanced Alzheimer's disease! He is the only person in medical history to have made a complete recovery from the disease....One law for the golden circle and another for the rest of us. :rolleyes:

Imagine, he managed to get buy medical opinion from probably more than one eminent medical consultant that he had Alzheimer's.

Sierra Oscar

Mr.Micro wrote: »

It stated on RTE news that the trial had to be finished by 4th August. When this was not going to be the case, the prosecution wanted to continue in September, to the objection of the defence. The whole case appears to have been ill prepared, ill timed when the Court was due to close and use of a witness who has a conviction for corruption

Really, do you have absolutely any source for that claim??

Frank Dunlop was the key witness for the prosecution, but he has been all over the place for days now. When you self-confess as a perjurer you sort have no credibility giving evidence in a case. The prosecution knew the case was going no where, which is unfortunate as it is looking like justice may not be served.

David Acorah

Lowry gave an interview to his local radio station Tipp FM today.

It starts at 29 minutes.

Hootanany

The arrogance of that man has he no shame.

degsie

What the hell is going on in Tipp if they keep re-electing this man. Gombeen politics still alive and kicking I guess.

Grab All Association

Lowry for Taoiseach

Cody Pomeray

Mr.Micro wrote: »

I know what I heard on the RTE news on at least 2 occasions, about the 4th August. In hindsight the case did collapse not just because of Mr. Dunlop but also because of the time pressure, probably on several parties.

The time pressure came from the jurors. Two of them had holidays booked. One more had already been excused.

You're determined to see something that isn't there.

Mr.Micro

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

The time pressure came from the jurors. Two of them had holidays booked. One more had already been excused.

You're determined to see something that isn't there.

What are you on about? On second thoughts never mind.

worded

Irish politicians and justice.

Like that huge statue that holds the scales on top of the wall at Dublin castle, it has it's back to the people.

Cody Pomeray

Mr.Micro wrote: »

What are you on about? On second thoughts never mind.

I can see why you're saying never mind, because it shows you were completely wrong.

You presumed that the trial couldn't go ahead because of the long vacaction. You repeated that presumption above, saying that the trial was "ill-timed" with the court holidays.

You're completely wrong. The trial could not go past the 2nd of August because two jurors were going on holidays after that date, and one juror had already been dismissed. It was nothing to do with the long vacation.

Mr.Micro

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

I can see why you're saying never mind, because it shows you were completely wrong.

You presumed that the trial couldn't go ahead because of the long vacaction. You repeated that presumption above, saying that the trial was "ill-timed" with the court holidays.

You're completely wrong. The trial could not go past the 2nd of August because two jurors were going on holidays after that date, and one juror had already been dismissed. It was nothing to do with the long vacation.

I am not completely wrong at all. Allow me to point out a few matters which I found to be unsatisfactory with this case.

Posted by Mr.Micro
The case apparently had to be finished by the 4th August. For I presume, The Court holidays? Why bring such a difficult case to be heard when it may take longer, allowing for illness etc and in a very limited time frame? It does not stand to reason, its not as if the prosecution does not know when the Court is closed for holidays?

Posted by Cody Pomeray
No the situation is that there would have been an unreasonable burden on the jury, some of whom had previously warned the court of prior commitments. The circuit court can and does continue hearings that have commenced in the days or weeks running into the vacation.

An unreasonable burden on the jury? A burden that is self inflicted. So some on the jury are concerned about their holidays and not the job of justice, and there is no pressure then to conclude the case, so long as its done before the 4th August ,lol. As a juror one expects to have to stay for as long as it takes. Would any person want jurors putting more concern into domestic things rather than the trial. Yet the Court allows these as factors to try get the case finished by or before the 4th August? Not acceptable at all IMO. Would you be happy with such members in a jury? Which comes first my holidays or justice?

The trial was based on matters that happened 20 years ago or so and then only comes to court at the tail end of the court season, the DPP knowing full well that it would be a difficult case. Finally, the DPP relied on a person convicted of corruption as the witness. Its silly season and the chances of winning were low. Not a good day for the DPP on many levels.

Cody Pomeray

Mr.Micro wrote: »

I am not completely wrong at all. Allow me to point out a few matters which I found to be unsatisfactory with this case.

'Point out' whatever you want to whomever will give you an audience. I'm stating the fact that the dates for which trial was fixed had nothing to do with the long vacation, as you presumed.

Finally, the DPP relied on a person convicted of fraud as the witness.

There would have been no case if it weren't for Frank Dunlop.

If there was more reliable evidence, the trial could have concluded without Dunlop.

Mr.Micro

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

'Point out' whatever you want to whomever will give you an audience. I'm stating the fact that the dates for which trial was fixed had nothing to do with the long vacation, as you presumed.

There would have been no case if it weren't for Frank Dunlop.

If there was more reliable evidence, the trial could have concluded without Dunlop.

Don't patronize, and I have no desire for any audience, ( you are the only one responding to me so you are the audience), you appear to be the one continuing to be pedantic, condesending and high handed. Save the personal remarks.

There was no case then, as Dunlop was the only witness and the DPP should have weighed up the chances of winning, like it does with all cases. It got its sums wrong.

ArmaniJeanss

Mr.Micro wrote: »

I
An unreasonable burden on the jury? A burden that is self inflicted. So some on the jury are concerned about their holidays and not the job of justice, and there is no pressure then to conclude the case, so long as its done before the 4th August ,lol. As a juror one expects to have to stay for as long as it takes. Would any person want jurors putting more concern into domestic things rather than the trial. Yet the Court allows these as factors to try get the case finished by or before the 4th August? Not acceptable at all IMO. Would you be happy with such members in a jury? Which comes first my holidays or justice?

You think its unreasonable of a juror in early July to say "I have a €3K holiday for myself, the husband and the 3 kids to Tenerife booked and paid for from the 8th to 22th August, and I am 100% going on that holiday".
Seems perfectly reasonable to me, and I wouldn't hold it against that juror in any way. Would actually consider it terribly insulting if I was that juror and read guff about 'putting more concern into domestic things than the job of justice'.

Mr.Micro

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

You think its unreasonable of a juror in early July to say "I have a €3K holiday for myself, the husband and the 3 kids to Tenerife booked and paid for from the 8th to 22th August, and I am 100% going on that holiday".
Seems perfectly reasonable to me, and I wouldn't hold it against that juror in any way. Would actually consider it terribly insulting if I was that juror and read guff about 'putting more concern into domestic things than the job of justice'.

By the same token then do you think that there should be a limit on how long a jury deliberates to reach a verdict? Would anybody want a jury that is not fully concentrated on the case?

ArmaniJeanss

Mr.Micro wrote: »

By the same token then do you think that there should be a limit on how long a jury deliberates to reach a verdict? Would anybody want a jury that is not fully concentrated on the case?

As far as I know there is a limit; the judge will talk to a split jury regularly to see if there is a possibility of a unanimous verdict, then (s)he'll reduce the requirements to 11-1 or 10-2, but he'll have a rough idea in his head of how long he intends to give before declaring it hung. The jury I was on would likely still be there now (trial was May 2005) if it was unlimited.

From memory at the start the judge is told by prosecution/defence how long their case will be, and then he adds a bit for his own summing up, and a reasonable jury deliberation. And possibly adds a bit of leeway to the overall figure for unexpected things (maybe one of the legal people can confirm).

So as you are selected for the juror pool he can then say this trial is a 17 day trial or whatever and you can be excused if you have a medical appointment or big event during this time, and a different juror selected.

However if the trial goes beyond the estimate I personally don't think its reasonable to keep the jurors 'trapped'.

Mr.Micro

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

As far as I know there is a limit; the judge will talk to a split jury regularly to see if there is a possibility of a unanimous verdict, then (s)he'll reduce the requirements to 11-1 or 10-2, but he'll have a rough idea in his head of how long he intends to give before declaring it hung. The jury I was on would likely still be there now (trial was May 2005) if it was unlimited.

From memory at the start the judge is told by prosecution/defence how long their case will be, and then he adds a bit for his own summing up, and a reasonable jury deliberation. And possibly adds a bit of leeway to the overall figure for unexpected things (maybe one of the legal people can confirm).

So as you are selected for the juror pool he can then say this trial is a 17 day trial or whatever and you can be excused if you have a medical appointment or big event during this time, and a different juror selected.

However if the trial goes beyond the estimate I personally don't think its reasonable to keep the jurors 'trapped'.

Fair enough in today's modern times. Jury selection is paramount then, so as to avoid problems if the trial overruns and the jurors come under pressure, to make a decision, and any delays to not impinge on their plans and other commitments.

ArmaniJeanss

Mr.Micro wrote: »

Fair enough in today's modern times. Jury selection is paramount then so as to avoid problems if the trial overruns and the jurors come under pressure to make a decision and any delays to not impinge on their plans and other commitments.

100% agree, I think the judges in future similar trials need to build in a massive amount of leeway, they aren't normal trials in our system and estimates are likely be wrong.
There'll be a big trial of an ex banker next summer (you know the one !) and it'll probably be estimated at 3 months. But here I think the judge should excuse anyone from the juror pool who has any planned events in the following 6 months.

the_syco

take everything wrote: »

/Wonders what are the government trying to bury.

When the tapes were released, EK said they wouldn't reopen the Moriarty Tribunal. Says it all.

golfball37

Lowry is buddy buddy with the current government and very close to at least 3 cabinest ministers. When the Toaiseach ignored Moriarity he essentially gave tacit approval to Michael Lowry and all his dealings. Standing toe to toe with Dinny in NY only confirmed his shallowness.

Don't blame Lowry for taking advantage of a stacked deck. Of course his actions over the years have been reprehensible but nothing has been done about him so I don't blame him for continuing.

What a country

Twickers

Lowry complains about Revenue being "heavy handed" when paying him a visit.
If all affairs in order, why did he worry about Revenue visiting him ?

Grab All Association

Thanks to Michael we had Feile in the 90s.

worded

Chris___ wrote: »

Thanks to Michael we had Feile in the 90s.

He fixed the concert

bgrizzley

The wheels of justice seem to be moving anyway.

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/lowry-tax-probe-now-criminal-revenue-29526141.html


But it is understood their investigators have been in contact with a number of persons who they believe can help them, and are trying to interview those they believe may have relevant material or information or could be potential witnesses in any future court action.