why is Seánie granted legal aid?

Hitchens · 10-09-2014 6:42pm #1

is he broke to the extent that he qualifies for it, or is it granted to everybody regardless?

salmocab · 10-09-2014 6:43pm

He just came thru bankruptcy and unfortunately its the same rules for everyone, with the obvious exception of the deserving.

Tin Foil Hat · 10-09-2014 6:44pm

He's skint.
The wife is loaded though. Handy, eh? Seanie will never want for anything.

Hitchens · 10-09-2014 6:46pm

Tin Foil Hat wrote: »

He's skint.
The wife is loaded though. Handy, eh? Seanie will never want for anything.

is the spouse's means not taken into account though?

The Peanut · 10-09-2014 6:56pm

Tin Foil Hat wrote: »

He's skint.
The wife is loaded though. Handy, eh? Seanie will never want for anything.

His wife is one cross looking lady. I wouldn't ask her for money either.

thebaz · 10-09-2014 6:57pm

should he not sell the mansion in Greystones to cover his legal bill - ah sure why bother when the irish state ( i.e its citizens) will pony up - the same state he practically bankrupt - **** sake

10-09-2014 6:57pm

He's entitled to it because he qualifies, if there's a problem with that then the criteria need to be looked at.

Hootanany · 10-09-2014 6:57pm

I believe she sucks Lemons for a hobby.

10-09-2014 6:58pm

thebaz wrote: »

should he not sell the mansion in Greystones to cover his legal bill - ah sure why bother when the irish state ( i.e its citizens) will pony up - the same state he practically bankrupt - **** sake

He wasn't found guilty of any crime, so why should an innocent person be made homeless to pay for a prosecution?

hatrickpatrick · 10-09-2014 7:00pm

Anyone found innocent should be awarded legal costs IMO. Otherwise one pays a penalty regardless of whether or not one has committed a crime, which doesn't sound like justice to me.

Molester Stallone II · 10-09-2014 7:01pm

Will he get a fresh faced & inexperienced barrister like the rest of you AH gang get, or will he somehow miraculously get a top notch barrister on free legal aid?

from_atozinc · 10-09-2014 7:02pm

Candie wrote: »

He wasn't found guilty of any crime, so why should an innocent person be made homeless to pay for a prosecution?

for fook sake

who the fug · 10-09-2014 7:02pm

Candie wrote: »

He wasn't found guilty of any crime, so why should an innocent person be made homeless to pay for a prosecution?

Because the magic circle ****ed over the country and we should shoot some top bankers to encourage the others

Also they played fast and lose with the law

salmocab · 10-09-2014 7:02pm

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Anyone found innocent should be awarded legal costs IMO. Otherwise one pays a penalty regardless of whether or not one has committed a crime, which doesn't sound like justice to me.

I think in scotland they have a system of innocent, guilty and not proven guilty.

michael999999 · 10-09-2014 7:02pm

You can smell the defence barristers in this thread!

thebaz · 10-09-2014 7:03pm

Candie wrote: »

He wasn't found guilty of any crime, so why should an innocent person be made homeless to pay for a prosecution?

what about all the pain the Anglo debacle caused throughout the country - Seanie and his cronies caused misery throughout ireland -and you sympathise for the poor man up in his mansion - give me a ****ing break

10-09-2014 7:04pm

who the fug wrote: »

Because the magic circle ****ed over the country and we should shoot some top bankers to encourage the others

The man was found innocent of the crimes he was charged with and it's important people stand by the findings of the court. Otherwise society is just a free for all of vigilante justice and a lifetime of suspicion of anyone tried but not convicted of any crime.

10-09-2014 7:05pm

thebaz wrote: »

what about all the pain the Anglo debacle caused throughout the country - Seanie and his cronies caused misery throughout ireland -and you sympathise for the poor man up in his mansion - give me a ****ing break

I sympathise with nothing. The man was found not guilty, a not guilty person should not be made homeless by defending himself against charges, regardless of the crimes or the accused.

hatrickpatrick · 10-09-2014 7:07pm

salmocab wrote: »

I think in scotland they have a system of innocent, guilty and not proven guilty.

I find that pretty f*cked up to tell you the truth, serious compromises the basic principle of innocent unless proven guilty.

thebaz · 10-09-2014 7:10pm

Candie wrote: »

I sympathise with nothing. The man was found not guilty, a not guilty person should not be made homeless by defending himself against charges, regardless of the crimes or the accused.

well you certainly come across as a Seanie sympathiser - the man is taking Ireland for a ride - most people would trade down to pay there bills , nothing about sleeping on the street (though it might do him and his cronies some good - to see what real pain & poverty is - many many people suffered due to the Anglo disaster run on Seanies watch

salmocab · 10-09-2014 7:11pm

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I find that pretty f*cked up to tell you the truth, serious compromises the basic principle of innocent unless proven guilty.

Not positive on it or how it works but maybe somebody will confirm it.

quadrifoglio verde · 10-09-2014 7:11pm

thebaz wrote: »

what about all the pain the Anglo debacle caused throughout the country - Seanie and his cronies caused misery throughout ireland -and you sympathise for the poor man up in his mansion - give me a ****ing break

Sure lets go out and stone him to death...you mightn't like him, I certainly don't like him, but our justice system has found him not guilty of the crimes that he was charged with.
If you were charged with something, it went to court and you were found not guilty, would you still expect to be punished because of a public vendetta against you? Would you find it fair?

who the fug · 10-09-2014 7:11pm

Candie wrote: »

The man was found innocent of the crimes he was charged with and it's important people stand by the findings of the court. Otherwise society is just a free for all of vigilante justice and a lifetime of suspicion of anyone tried but not convicted of any crime.

Parking loans just before the audit every year.

from_atozinc · 10-09-2014 7:12pm

Candie wrote: »

I sympathise with nothing. The man was found not guilty, a not guilty person should not be made homeless by defending himself against charges, regardless of the crimes or the accused.

I fookin hate do gooders

salmocab · 10-09-2014 7:13pm

I have a bag of stones if anyone wants to buy them

10-09-2014 7:14pm

thebaz wrote: »

well you certainly come across as a Seanie sympathiser - the man is taking Ireland for a ride - most people would trade down to pay there bills , nothing about sleeping on the street (though it might do him and his cronies some good - to see what real pain & poverty is - many many people suffered due to the Anglo disaster run on Seanies watch

No, thats what you choose to see. I never sympathised with the man or expressed a personal opinion.

He was found not guilty of any crime he was charged with and shouldn't be bankrupted by defending a failed prosecution. The principle stands regardless of the defendant or the crime, and it's an important principle.

Hopefully you'll never be charged with something you're later found not guilty of, and if that does happen, I wouldn't want to see you homeless because you defended yourself. Or anyone else.

People shouldn't be made suffer to satisfy the public thirst for blood after being found guilty by public opinion.

from_atozinc · 10-09-2014 7:14pm

quadrifoglio verde wrote: »

Sure lets go out and stone him to death...you mightn't like him, I certainly don't like him, but our justice system has found him not guilty of the crimes that he was charged with.
If you were charged with something, it went to court and you were found not guilty, would you still expect to be punished because of a public vendetta against you? Would you find it fair?

courts are a circus.

and do you seriously think that pr1ck is innocent.

who the fug · 10-09-2014 7:15pm

salmocab wrote: »

I have a bag of stones if anyone wants to buy them

Bag of stones are fine for kittens fook all use for gombeen men

10-09-2014 7:16pm

from_atozinc wrote: »

courts are a circus.

and do you seriously think that pr1ck is innocent.

Next time a guy walks free from a rape trial, would you say that about him or want him to get on with his life with his name cleared?

michael999999 · 10-09-2014 7:17pm

Candie wrote: »

No, thats what you choose to see. I never sympathised with the man or expressed a personal opinion.

He was found not guilty of any crime he was charged with and shouldn't be bankrupted by defending a failed prosecution. The principle stands regardless of the defendant or the crime, and it's an important principle.

Hopefully you'll never be charged with something you're later found not guilty of, and if that does happen, I wouldn't want to see you homeless because you defended yourself. Or anyone else.

People shouldn't be made suffer to satisfy the public thirst for blood after being found guilty by public opinion.

Wrong. He has not been found not guilty of everything he has been charged with.

There will be more court cases against him starting shortly!

10-09-2014 7:19pm

michael999999 wrote: »

Wrong. He has not been found not guilty of everything he has been charged with.

There will be more court cases against him starting shortly!

So far.

Are we going to find him guilty in advance of a trial now?

from_atozinc · 10-09-2014 7:21pm

Candie wrote: »

Next time a guy walks free from a rape trial, would you say that about him or want him to get on with his life with his name cleared?

I don't have the facts of your made up case so can't comment.

I do know the details of pr1ck face and regardless of the verdict in court and the brown paper bags, we all know he is guilty.

10-09-2014 7:22pm

from_atozinc wrote: »

I don't have the facts of your made up case so can't comment.

I do know the details of pr1ck face and regardless of the verdict in court and the brown paper bags, we all know he is guilty.

You should really have presented that evidence to the prosecution, then we wouldn't be talking about his not guilty verdict, would we?

Why didn't you?

10-09-2014 7:24pm

from_atozinc wrote: »

I fookin hate do gooders

Nothing do-goody about it, it's the rule of law we're all subject to and I didn't write it.

No need for the abusive tone either.

from_atozinc · 10-09-2014 7:24pm

Candie wrote: »

You should really have presented that evidence to the prosecution, then we wouldn't be talking about his not guilty verdict, would we?

Why didn't you?

I got bullied in to not being allowed, heavy handed stuff.

thebaz · 10-09-2014 7:26pm

Candie wrote: »

N

People shouldn't be made suffer to satisfy the public thirst for blood after being found guilty by public opinion.

nor should the people of Ireland be asked to foot the bill to save or try to save the bank - but thats what happened , now the average hard pressed taxpayers of this land , are asked to foot the legal bills of these tycoons , call me old fashioned but I object - banana Republic of the privileged greedy few

from_atozinc · 10-09-2014 7:26pm

Candie wrote: »

Nothing do-goody about it, it's the rule of law we're all subject to and I didn't write it.

No need for the abusive tone either.

yawn. suppose you think a scumbag with 70 previous convictions and then gets arrested for something similar to first 70 is innocent until proven guilty too.

10-09-2014 7:27pm

from_atozinc wrote: »

I got bullied in to not being allowed, heavy handed stuff.

Oh, of course.

Then you should have taken a prosecution of your own, or gone to the press or the police, or the British press if you felt too intimidated here. Anything but talk about the State being bankrupted and the villans walking away while you have the evidence to convict.

from_atozinc · 10-09-2014 7:30pm

Candie wrote: »

Oh, of course.

Then you should have taken a prosecution of your own, or gone to the press or the police, or the British press if you felt too intimidated here. Anything but talk about the State being bankrupted and the villans walking away while you have the evidence to convict.

how much was in your brown paper bag ?

10-09-2014 7:30pm

from_atozinc wrote: »

yawn. suppose you think a scumbag with 70 previous convictions and then gets arrested for something similar to first 70 is innocent until proven guilty too.

We're not talking about that, are we?

I've been polite with you, but since you seem hostile to someone who's opinion is different and won't extend the same courtesy to me, I won't engage with you any more.

from_atozinc · 10-09-2014 7:39pm

Candie wrote: »

We're not talking about that, are we?

I've been polite with you, but since you seem hostile to someone who's opinion is different and won't extend the same courtesy to me, I won't engage with you any more.

and is this thread about a rape case ?

who the fug · 10-09-2014 7:46pm

from_atozinc wrote: »

and is this thread about a rape case ?

Buggery would be more apt

Capt'n Midnight · 10-09-2014 7:55pm

salmocab wrote: »

I think in scotland they have a system of innocent, guilty and not proven guilty.

The Guilty Not Proven verdict was only used in Murder cases.

Hitchens · 10-09-2014 8:03pm

http://www.legalaidboard.ie/lab/publishing.nsf/content/LAB_FAQ_2

2. Is it available to everyone?
No. In order to qualify, you must satisfy a means test. Your disposable income must be less than €18,000 per annum and your disposable capital (other than your home) less than €100,000. In addition to satisfying the means test, a merits test is applied also to each individual application for legal aid.

If that is fact then how could someone as wealthy as he is qualify?

michael999999 · 10-09-2014 8:14pm

Hitchens wrote: »

http://www.legalaidboard.ie/lab/publishing.nsf/content/LAB_FAQ_2

2. Is it available to everyone?
No. In order to qualify, you must satisfy a means test. Your disposable income must be less than €18,000 per annum and your disposable capital (other than your home) less than €100,000. In addition to satisfying the means test, a merits test is applied also to each individual application for legal aid.

If that is fact then how could someone as wealthy as he is qualify?

When your a member of the establishment and you know where all the skeletons are hidden, things like getting legal aid are a formality!

quadrifoglio verde · 10-09-2014 8:15pm

Hitchens wrote: »

http://www.legalaidboard.ie/lab/publishing.nsf/content/LAB_FAQ_2

2. Is it available to everyone?
No. In order to qualify, you must satisfy a means test. Your disposable income must be less than €18,000 per annum and your disposable capital (other than your home) less than €100,000. In addition to satisfying the means test, a merits test is applied also to each individual application for legal aid.

If that is fact then how could someone as wealthy as he is qualify?

He's just out of bankruptcy...generally when you come just out of bankruptcy you've sweet **** all to your name.
While his wife might have assets, he has been found by the courts to have none.
Now if you have evidence that seanie has assets that the top accountants in the country weren't able to prove were his, do tell. I'm sure they'd be delighted to hear about them, as would I.

It's the response from this thread that I'm glad the thirtieth amendment was voted against. If it had, people would have been made guilty by popular opinion and not by the facts

wiseoldelf34 · 10-09-2014 8:18pm

don't know if it was already said but I find it a bit Irish that seanie fitz coming out of bankruptcy in time for the new and improved property bubble

Hitchens · 10-09-2014 8:22pm

quadrifoglio verde wrote: »

He's just out of bankruptcy...generally when you come just out of bankruptcy you've sweet **** all to your name.
While his wife might have assets, he has been found by the courts to have none.
Now if you have evidence that seanie has assets that the top accountants in the country weren't able to prove were his, do tell. I'm sure they'd be delighted to hear about them, as would I.

It's the response from this thread that I'm glad the thirtieth amendment was voted against. If it had, people would have been made guilty by popular opinion and not by the facts

Are the spouse's assets not taken into account?

AndonHandon · 10-09-2014 8:24pm

Like it or not, he has not been found guilty of a crime. On the other hand; career criminals who are most likely guilty based on past crimes should not be afforded the luxury of a clean slate hearing for a new crime.

michael999999 · 10-09-2014 8:25pm

quadrifoglio verde wrote: »

He's just out of bankruptcy...generally when you come just out of bankruptcy you've sweet **** all to your name.
While his wife might have assets, he has been found by the courts to have none.
Now if you have evidence that seanie has assets that the top accountants in the country weren't able to prove were his, do tell. I'm sure they'd be delighted to hear about them, as would I.

It's the response from this thread that I'm glad the thirtieth amendment was voted against. If it had, people would have been made guilty by popular opinion and not by the facts

The top accountants in the country?

Are these the same jokers that were advising the banks and the governments before they went bankrupt?

Its all a big cesspit of professional gangsters!

10-09-2014 8:25pm

Hitchens wrote: »

Are the spouse's assets not taken into account?

Why should they lose their shirt for something the other half might have done?

why is Seánie granted legal aid?

Comments