garda corruption alive and well

makeorbrake

Guy:Incognito wrote: »

Who do I talk to about choosing what line up of Gardai I want in my local station and which judges man the courthouses of Dublin? If someone could maybe do me up a folder of the various peoples strengths and whatnot to help my decision.


Thats how it works isnt it? I moan and I get to make all the decisions, right?

And how many amongst our judiciary have been impeached since the foundation of the state? I guess none of them have ever erred to such an extent.

And there I was thinking to err is human. I guess it must be the fantastic selection criteria that have consistently led to the consistently unblemished record of our judiciary. You know the system whereby our politicians decide on judicial appointments....:p

makeorbrake

Seo.OBriain wrote: »

I'd love to know where some of the posters on here are coming from as some of the arguments seem really biased, defensive, irrational and are flimsy and unreasonable at best.

I just wonder how many people on here are possibly defending themselves, friends or family etc. that might be Garda or even politicians related to it in some way.
Maybe there's a couple of people from the other side too not being completely honest about their bias's.

I've been accused of being J.D. here and then of being a member of I.I. I'm on record as stating that I'm neither albeit that I'd be quite happy to sign up. :-)

I'll let other contributors declare their interest.

makeorbrake

Seo.OBriain wrote: »

All jokes aside, I can't take you seriously on any of this.

Yet again what you've said has so many holes in it I don't have the patience to go through it with you.(I don't want to get sucked into one of the many tit for tat black holes on here)

Like a few other posters, you clearly have not watched any of main three, four or five of the videos published by Integrity Ireland and J Doocey with an open mind or at least an unbiased view on the character of the people involved.

If you listen to what they say, how they say it, how they articulate the details of the facts as they have seen them from their own point of view, how they repeatedly explain themselves even asking rhetorical questions about what and why this is happening and then offering their best guesses to the answers while constantly trying to avoid any misunderstanding or misrepresentation the whole time then this should be obvious to you.

It's obvious to me that despite there always being a chance this is all nonsense by some "loons" and "their ilk" many of you are just being narrow minded, dismissive and even worse some of you are just taking the cheap and easy road of criticising them based on your own superficial opinion of first impressions, their appearance, stereotypes, accent, video production skills etc. while at the same time, trying to argue your own flimsy points ad hominem to undermine them and maybe score some likey-points and cheap laughs for the lads on the interwebs.

I see that it's potentially a huge scandal that in exposing some of the serious problems with the very nature of how this state is managed and governed may lead to some form of positive change. If you can't see the gravity of this if it's proven to be true or you don't care and you're just here for trolling, fine but I am genuinely concerned that you may actually believe what you are saying.

One of the main arguments made by a few people about proof is just hilarious. Repeatedly demanding that before you can take them seriously, they must give conclusive proof all the time while they themselves are repeatedly(and in some cases illegally) denied return of their own personal property, denied a fair audience for over a dozen witnesses to be heard in a court hearing and denied any real independent, unbiased assistance from the state just makes you look even more dismissive, lazy and ignorant in your thought process and arguments.

You are condemning them for not doing something that they are obviously trying very hard to do themselves... which is extremely difficult to deal with if you think about it.

Hmmm... State their case and prove to the state that they have been unfairly treated by the state and then get the state to help them deal with the state's corrupt practices and fix the state so it does not happen to anyone else in the state. All without help from any independent authority within the state that has any power to act for the good of the state when the state itself needs to be saved from the state of affairs that it's currently turned into an awful state.

It's the united states of insanity... but all you want to hear is conclusive proof.

WE ALL WANT TO HEAR PROOF AND SO DO THEY THAT IS THE WHOLE PROBLEM

Listening to your arguments and this "burden of proof" nonsense makes me understand a little bit more how this kind of situation has happened before and will continue on again. Assume for a minute that they are you and your family or friends, do you really think the state is a push over, that it does not retaliate and any honest citizen could not be unfairly treated or intentionally prevented from proving their innocence or even singled out and made an example of in the worst possible way. You are naive and unaware of reality if you believe this to be the case. I hope you at least have the bliss part to rely on.

The legal system takes a long time to process most things and even longer and more muddled when it's dealing with anything that threatens against itself and any corrupt practices it has committed historically or presently continues to perpetuate. The system does not want to deal with this at all if it can get away with it and it's trying to see how stubborn these people are rather than look at the facts and evidence in a fair and legal process. The only "burden" on them is to force the system into a corner so that it has to be dealt with properly and openly with all the nasty truths laid bare for people to see.

I don't know if it's a problem of empathy or understanding but it's cool, I get it, you don't have enough proof, maybe you don't understand or don't care either way and however sad and true it may be that's fine.

All I know is that this is serious for those people and it's in everyone's best interest for this to go to a hearing and be hammered out with fair and honest due legal process and lock them up if they are nuts, have harmed anyone else or have broken any just laws.

Anyway, if something like this were to happen to you, my lovely buddddyy. I will look past all this and still do my best to be there for you. I will prove that even though you are a "loon" like some people are bound to say anyway(many are on this thread already) and even though you have not been able to provide any evidence whatsoever to prove you are not indeed the giant "looney tune" that so many believe you are....

I will stand by you regardless brother, because.....

Even "loons" whether real or imaginary, still deserve a fair hearing and their day in court.

Well penned. Couldn't have put it better myself, Seo.OBriain.

makeorbrake

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

Still no proof. Still no motive.

Integrity Ireland have posted a big tell all piece about one of their enemies. (Proof to follow apparently)

http://www.checkpoint.ie/page10.html

https://www.facebook.com/IntegrityIRL

TLDR: Every bad thing that has happened to the senior members can be linked to one guy with no position of power.

And it seems that he has followed up with one of those links - with others to follow.

Of course, if he has defamed any of those gentlemen, I guess they should sue.

Any of you lot brave enough for a side wager - as there isn't a hope in hell of any one of them suing S.M. for what he has just published.

If someone published something defamatory about you, wouldn't you sue? If not, you'd have to ask why not, right?

makeorbrake

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

It won't run anywhere. Any reasonable minded person can look at the history and see it for what it is. He has convictions for stalking a woman and has a vendetta against her Garda friend who likely helped her during his prosecution. There has still been no motive presented for why the full Garda force as well as the revenue service and government offices have decided to join this imagined harassment. The fact that you would accept his excuse that the threatening emails were sent to a judge from his computer because the Gardaí hacked it or that he ran into a Garda with his car because he was afraid he would be taken to some Irish version of Guantanamo Bay just goes to show the mental gymnastics you will engage in to justify believing him and furthering your own well documented bias.

Sure, and that's why The Sunday Times ran with the story.:rolleyes:

ArmaniJeanss

makeorbrake wrote: »

Any of you lot brave enough for a side wager - as there isn't a hope in hell of any one of them suing S.M. for what he has just published.

If someone published something defamatory about you, wouldn't you sue? If not, you'd have to ask why not, right?

What are SMs assets? Theres little or no point sueing someone if you don't get paid a penny even if you win. He seems to have a transient lifestyle that would make the chances of payment negligible so why sue him?
Btw both sides (SM & the Collins) seem to be a fairly vile set of characters, not sure why any independent observer would choose to support either.

Re the Joe Doocey stuff.
I can actually accept as plausible enough that a few local cops have the hots for him and have made his and his families life miserable - wouldn't be the first time. He should have left the story there though, its too much to think that every department of the gardai inc the Dublin based armed response unit, drug squad and computer hacking departments have ganged up on him, along with a variety of senior politicans, civil servants and multiple members of the judiciary. For no particular reason whatsoever.

3 possible explanations - Either he's telling the truth, he's willfully lying or is living a fantasy where he genuinely believes its the truth. We can't discuss the last option as per mod instruction even though its the most plausible explanation so the thread should prob be locked.

mynamejeff

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

What are SMs assets? Theres little or no point sueing someone if you don't get paid a penny even if you win. He seems to have a transient lifestyle that would make the chances of payment negligible so why sue him?
Btw both sides (SM & the Collins) seem to be a fairly vile set of characters, not sure why any independent observer would choose to support either.

Re the Joe Doocey stuff.
I can actually accept as plausible enough that a few local cops have the hots for him and have made his and his families life miserable - wouldn't be the first time. He should have left the story there though, its too much to think that every department of the gardai inc the Dublin based armed response unit, drug squad and computer hacking departments have ganged up on him, along with a variety of senior politicans, civil servants and multiple members of the judiciary. For no particular reason whatsoever.

3 possible explanations - Either he's telling the truth, he's willfully lying or is living a fantasy where he genuinely believes its the truth. We can't discuss the last option as per mod instruction even though its the most plausible explanation so the thread should prob be locked.

i insist you stop that right now !! this thread is no place for some one to be making sense :pac::pac::pac:

its all true and any one who says different is in on the conspiracy :cool::cool::cool::cool::cool::cool:

makeorbrake

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

What are SMs assets? Theres little or no point sueing someone if you don't get paid a penny even if you win. He seems to have a transient lifestyle that would make the chances of payment negligible so why sue him?

If by 'transient' lifestyle, you mean events outlined have forced him to move a couple of times, then yes, he has a 'transient' lifestyle. I've got no notion of the man's net worth. He was awarded a substantial sum in damages arising from some of the events he outlined - that's the sum total of my knowledge of his finances - although I think it's pretty relevant to mention given the fact that people keep asking for proof. I guess he must have had the proof that day? Whether or not he is or isn't a 'mark', there will be NO defamation suit as it would only serve to shine a light on a cluster f**k of wrongdoing.

ArmaniJeanss wrote:

Btw both sides (SM & the Collins) seem to be a fairly vile set of characters, not sure why any independent observer would choose to support either.

SM is vile how precisely?

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

Re the Joe Doocey stuff.
I can actually accept as plausible enough that a few local cops have the hots for him and have made his and his families life miserable - wouldn't be the first time.

Well, I guess that's progress on this thread. What functioning oversight is there to ensure that it's the last time? Many on here seem to think that nothing untoward could ever happen - something that really does enter the world of Peter Pan.

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

He should have left the story there though, its too much to think that every department of the gardai inc the Dublin based armed response unit, drug squad and computer hacking departments have ganged up on him, along with a variety of senior politicans, civil servants and multiple members of the judiciary. For no particular reason whatsoever.

Well, one can only assume that Mr. Doocey isn't the writer of the 'story'. There are other participants. If you are saying that the garda NBCI have had no involvement, then perhaps you might write to the Sunday Times and set them straight on their lack of fact checking - as they've reported as much.

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

3 possible explanations - Either he's telling the truth

Well, at least you consider it a possibility.

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

he's willfully lying

Well, if you claim that, then you claim by default that his 77 year old father is lying and his partner, Ann , is also lying.

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

We can't discuss the last option as per mod instruction even though its the most plausible explanation

Well, if you claim that, then his 77 year old father and partner, Ann, must be similarly afflicted. :rolleyes:
With regard to such references, Seo.OBriain called it right. It's a case of argumentum ad hominem.

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

so the thread should prob be locked.

Locking this thread would be an affront to free speech. Furthermore, we have not heard the last of this by any stretch of the imagination. However, I can see how locking this thread would suit a certain agenda...

ArmaniJeanss

makeorbrake wrote: »

If by 'transient' lifestyle, you mean events outlined have forced him to move a couple of times, then yes, he has a 'transient' lifestyle. I've got no notion of the man's net worth. He was awarded a substantial sum in damages arising from some of the events he outlined - that's the sum total of my knowledge of his finances - although I think it's pretty relevant to mention given the fact that people keep asking for proof. I guess he must have had the proof that day?

As I understood it he was awarded a sum total of zero by the courts. He won the initial case and was awarded a sum of money - it was appealed successfully and that initial award was thrown out?
It was then settled out of court and the details aren't public, it could have been €lots to SM, it could have been both sides backed off and agreed to pay their own lawyers. I don't know the details, but I sure wouldn't be sueing him on the basis that theres a pot there.

Any link to the ST article about Doocey, I'd be interested to see whether it's a classically neutral piece where they just outline his case in a 'he said' way, or whether they actually come down on his side?

makeorbrake

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

As I understood it he was awarded a sum total of zero by the courts. He won the initial case and was awarded a sum of money - it was appealed successfully and that initial award was thrown out?
It was then settled out of court and the details aren't public, it could have been €lots to SM, it could have been both sides backed off and agreed to pay their own lawyers. I don't know the details, but I sure wouldn't be sueing him on the basis that there's a pot there.

He was awarded damages of approx. 40K initially. Ultimately, he won his case despite appeals, judicial reviews, etc.
http://checkpoint.ie/MediaReportsFeb21st2012.pdf

If you want to go into it in more depth, then there's a chronology of events here.

Whether he is or is not a financial 'mark', you can rest assured there will be NO defamation suit taken against him. Incidentally, people do take defamation actions for other reasons aside from pursuing financial redress...reasons such as defending ones own good name. From his blog: "Stephen Manning refuses to accept any monies that come from Achill Rovers’ funds on the basis that the club should NOT be penalised for the criminal actions of one or two lead Defendants."
Is this the 'vile' individual you are referring to? You'd imagine at least one or two on Mr. Manning's 'list' would believe in defending their 'good' names? One wonders....

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

Any link to the ST article about Doocey, I'd be interested to see whether it's a classically neutral piece where they just outline his case in a 'he said' way, or whether they actually come down on his side?

The Sunday Times is pay-walled. Of course it's neutral - isn't that what journalism is supposed to be about - reporting the facts? However, if you think they didn't put in a call to the NBCI, then you really should complain. :-)
The ST thought it worthy of reporting. The Indo and IT didn't. Go figure...
I guess the Sunday Times is a British rag and the SIndo/Indo/IT are refined quality Irish newspapers. :P
( Frank McBrearty Jnr. on the Irish Media. - skip forward to 16:54 )

makeorbrake wrote:

SM is vile how precisely?

?

ArmaniJeanss

makeorbrake wrote: »

He was awarded damages of approx. 40K initially. Ultimately, he won his case despite appeals, judicial reviews, etc.
http://checkpoint.ie/MediaReportsFeb21st2012.pdf

Ultimately theres nothing there to suggest he 'won', maybe the settlement was €10K and €9.8K went to lawyers. Maybe they agreed on a €1B. I'm not acquainted with him and neither are you. Remember our conversatin is about whether he has enough known assets such that he should be sued by anyone who feels slandered by his recent exposes. Who knows?

makeorbrake wrote: »

If you want to go into it in more depth, then there's a chronology of events here.

I'll be frank here with you, I'm highly dubious of links to the checkpoint.ie website.
The whole thing looks like an absolute mess to me - The Collins unfairly accused SM of being a perv, then SM accuses the Collins of being pervs. Has it occured to anyone in Achill that maybe no-one did anything wrong because people of all ages play sports and sometimes you walk into the wrong dressing room and everyone moves on because no harm was meant?

makeorbrake wrote: »

The Sunday Times is pay-walled. Of course it's neutral - isn't that what journalism is supposed to be about - reporting the facts? However, if you think they didn't put in a call to the NBCI, then you really should complain. :-)
The ST thought it worthy of reporting. The Indo and IT didn't. Go figure...
I guess the Sunday Times is a rag and the Indo is a refined quality newspaper. :P

I felt you made it out to be a big ST investigative expose that would prove JD correct -so are we still back to JDs allegations being completely unproven and unsubstantiated outside his immediate family?

makeorbrake wrote: »

?

I'm happy to stick with 'vile', its purely a personal opinion based on the youtube videos he has put up.

makeorbrake

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

Ultimately theres nothing there to suggest he 'won', maybe the settlement was €10K and €9.8K went to lawyers. Maybe they agreed on a €1B. I'm not acquainted with him and neither are you. Remember our conversatin is about whether he has enough known assets such that he should be sued by anyone who feels slandered by his recent exposes. Who knows?

Whether he is or is not a financial 'mark', you can rest assured there will be NO defamation suit taken against him. Incidentally, people do take defamation actions for other reasons aside from pursuing financial redress...reasons such as defending ones own good name. From his blog: "Stephen Manning refuses to accept any monies that come from Achill Rovers’ funds on the basis that the club should NOT be penalised for the criminal actions of one or two lead Defendants."
Is this the 'vile' individual you are referring to? You'd imagine at least one or two on Mr. Manning's 'list' would believe in defending their 'good' names? One wonders....

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

I'll be frank here with you, I'm highly dubious of links to the checkpoint.ie website.
The whole thing looks like an absolute mess to me - The Collins unfairly accused SM of being a perv, then SM accuses the Collins of being pervs. Has it occured to anyone in Achill that maybe no-one did anything wrong because people of all ages play sports and sometimes you walk into the wrong dressing room and everyone moves on because no harm was meant?

Matters were taken further than simply accusing SM. I guess you wouldn't have any issue with me if I send out a letter to a number of your peers containing that which would be perceived to be evidence of you being a kiddy fiddler of some sort?
As regards it being a 'mess', I'm sorry it doesn't fit your world view. I'd imagine that family wish it hadn't have been (and continue to be) such a 'mess'. I'd imagine if known thugs were contracted to do serious harm to you and yours, you'd label it a 'mess' also?

ArmaniJeanss wrote:

I felt you made it out to be a big ST investigative expose that would prove JD correct -so are we still back to JDs allegations being completely unproven and unsubstantiated outside his immediate family?

I'll ask again. Do you think that the ST didn't contact the NBCI for comment? If you believe they didn't, then you should either complain to them or the NUJ for crimes against journalism. Remember, this was mentioned in the context that you said, he (Joe Doocey) should have left the story be - before bringing the NBCI (and others) into it...and of course, there's this =>

makeorbrake wrote:

The ST thought it worthy of reporting. The Indo and IT didn't. Go figure...
I guess the Sunday Times is a British rag and the SIndo/Indo/IT are refined quality Irish newspapers.
( Frank McBrearty Jnr. on the Irish Media. - skip forward to 16:54 )

ArmaniJeanss wrote:

I'm happy to stick with 'vile', its purely a personal opinion based on the youtube videos he has put up.

Well, I figured as much [that it was your own personal prejudice creeping in]. Notwithstanding that, you inferred that SM is equally vile as the other party.
Was Mr. Manning ever alleged to have hired thugs to break anyones legs?
Was he ever alleged to have been involved in the drugs trade at a serious level?
Was he ever alleged to have passed himself off as a practising solicitor [or barrister] in an irish courts process?
I could go on. Suffice it to say that your bias has led to an inequitable comparison of character.

Little CuChulainn

makeorbrake wrote: »

And it seems that he has followed up with one of those links - with others to follow.

Of course, if he has defamed any of those gentlemen, I guess they should sue.

Any of you lot brave enough for a side wager - as there isn't a hope in hell of any one of them suing S.M. for what he has just published.

If someone published something defamatory about you, wouldn't you sue? If not, you'd have to ask why not, right?

There would be two problems with suing. Firstly, he is unlikely to have any assets. Second, a defamatory statement must lower your reputation in the eyes of your peers. Since most people recognise the claims to be the ravings of a loon then proving that anyone took them seriously would be difficult.

makeorbrake

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

There would be two problems with suing. Firstly, he is unlikely to have any assets.

Do we know that? Why is he 'unlikely' to have any assets? Do you have any assets?

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

Second, a defamatory statement must lower your reputation in the eyes of your peers.

Yeah, that's generally the way it works.:o

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

Since most people recognise the claims to be the ravings of a loon

I see. So you don't recognise the court judgement that vindicated Mr. Manning then? When the judge described the defamatory letter that was circulated as "utterly malicious and false", was or is he also a 'loon' in your view and can we assume that to be the opinion of 'most people'.
On that 'most people', that's established how exactly? If you are using this thread as a barometer in that respect, it would be prudent to remember that this thread (regrettably - as it's a serious matter - or indeed matters) is located in the 'after hours' section of boards. Secondly, if you are basing that on coherent contributons to this discussion, I don't think it's a case of 'most people', is it? Thirdly, I'd wager that the 'most people' you have inaccurately referred to have not taken anything more than a 'superficial' look at the detail (yes, the very same people that go on about 'proof').

Finally, was there not a mod warning to desist from labelling anyone as a 'loon', 'crazy' or mentally ill, etc? Its ironic, but you once wrongly admonished me for using what you alleged was "a pathetic insult to deflect a question" yet here you are - between you and your co-travellers, I've lost count of the number of attempts you've made to smear Joe Doocey (and by implication, Dermot Doocey and Ann Edwards), Stephen Manning & Integrity Ireland with the 'loon' reference. That my friend is the lowest form of debate. I've got to quote Seo.OBriain on that as he articulated it so adeptly;

Seo.OBriain wrote:

It's obvious to me that despite there always being a chance this is all nonsense by some "loons" and "their ilk" many of you are just being narrow minded, dismissive and even worse some of you are just taking the cheap and easy road of criticising them based on your own superficial opinion of first impressions, their appearance, stereotypes, accent, video production skills etc. while at the same time, trying to argue your own flimsy points ad hominem to undermine them and maybe score some likey-points and cheap laughs for the lads on the interwebs.

Little CuChulainn

makeorbrake wrote: »

Do we know that? Why is he 'unlikely' to have any assets? Do you have any assets?


Yeah, that's generally the way it works.:o


I see. So you don't recognise the court judgement that vindicated Mr. Manning then? When the judge described the defamatory letter that was circulated as "utterly malicious and false", was or is he also a 'loon' in your view and can we assume that to be the opinion of 'most people'.
On that 'most people', that's established how exactly? If you are using this thread as a barometer in that respect, it would be prudent to remember that this thread (regrettably - as it's a serious matter - or indeed matters) is located in the 'after hours' section of boards. Secondly, if you are basing that on coherent contributons to this discussion, I don't think it's a case of 'most people', is it? Thirdly, I'd wager that the 'most people' you have inaccurately referred to have not taken anything more than a 'superficial' look at the detail (yes, the very same people that go on about 'proof').

Finally, was there not a mod warning to desist from labelling anyone as a 'loon', 'crazy' or mentally ill, etc? Its ironic, but you once wrongly admonished me for using what you alleged was "a pathetic insult to deflect a question" yet here you are - between you and your co-travellers, I've lost count of the number of attempts you've made to smear Joe Doocey (and by implication, Dermot Doocey and Ann Edwards), Stephen Manning & Integrity Ireland with the 'loon' reference. That my friend is the lowest form of debate. I've got to quote Seo.OBriain on that as he articulated it so adeptly;

Feel free to link any judgement which vindicates Manning. Although I'll point out it's Doocey that is making the claims. They guy with convictions for stalking a woman and who is currently wanted for trying to run over a Garda who stopped his car. That same guy who believes the entire state is out to get him because he dated a Gardas ex girlfriend. That's pretty mental by most peoples standards. And you are right, this thread is in AH. After Conspiracy Theories, this is the place they'd most likely get support. The thread on Legal Discussion is much less kind to I.I. and Manning et al.

You can quote what you want from OBriain. He has consistently avoided the one problem with all the claims. Other than the videos making the claims, there is absolutely zero proof to support anything Doocey has said. And that is why people are so easily dismissing it.

makeorbrake

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

Feel free to link any judgement which vindicates Manning.

Here you go - The Sunday Business Post, 11th May 2014.
Having now provided you with same, I revert back to the original question..

makeorbrake wrote:

When the judge described the defamatory letter that was circulated as "utterly malicious and false", was or is he also a 'loon' in your view and can we assume that to be the opinion of 'most people'?

Is there an answer imminent?

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

Although I'll point out it's Doocey that is making the claims.

Try to keep up. The discussion in more recent posts had turned to Manning - and his grievances.

Little CuChulainn wrote:

They guy with convictions for stalking a woman

This would be the same matter (or matters related) he has been pursuing through the courts? In that regard, I'll rely on the comments of SEO.OBriain once more;

Seo.OBriain wrote:

do you really think the state is a push over, that it does not retaliate and any honest citizen could not be unfairly treated or intentionally prevented from proving their innocence or even singled out and made an example of in the worst possible way. You are naive and unaware of reality if you believe this to be the case. I hope you at least have the bliss part to rely on.

It's common knowledge that there is no proper oversight when it comes to state bodies and functions.

Little CuChulainn wrote:

...who is currently wanted for trying to run over a Garda who stopped his car.

That's an allegation - that's not established in fact.

Little CuChulainn wrote:

That same guy who believes the entire state is out to get him because he dated a Gardas ex girlfriend.

You've been called on this old chestnut multiple times already (as well you know). Doocey alleges no such thing. He alleges that he has a legacy grievance with gardai locally which stretches back many years. He is on record as saying that any attention from Dublin (i.e. the NBCI, the CCU, etc.) is as a consequence of his involvement in Integrity Ireland. Some of you are in denial that there is any such involvement from this lot...and with that, you are calling other witnesses to the events as liars and loons. So now how many people are liars and loons?

Little CuChulainn wrote:

That's pretty mental by most peoples standards.

That's right. Keep smearing...the lowest form of 'debate'.

Little CuChulainn wrote:

The thread on Legal Discussion is much less kind to I.I. and Manning et al.

There is NO thread dedicated to Integrity Ireland in the Legal Discussion sub-forum.
Secondly, my understanding is that Integrity Ireland - just like the I.M.F. and other commentators - take issue with the Legal Profession in this country. I would say that one of it's main aims is to shine a light on that 'profession'. It doesn't exactly serve you well to go scrambling for corroborating viewpoints from that cheesy crevice.

Little CuChulainn wrote:

You can quote what you want from OBriain.

Yes, I will. I guess this is a snapshot of what you are referring to;

SEO.OBriain wrote:

while at the same time, trying to argue your own flimsy points ad hominem to undermine them

Little CuChulainn wrote:

He has consistently avoided the one problem with all the claims. Other than the videos making the claims, there is absolutely zero proof to support anything Doocey has said.

What is consistent is that you and your co-travellers are alleging that alongside Joe Doocey, Dermot Doocey, Ann Edwards and others are either lying or 'loons'. How many witnesses are necessary in the court of little chu chu before something is established in fact? Yes, we've been here before. One of your co-travellers retorted that they weren't the right type of witnesses. :rolleyes:

Little CuChulainn wrote:

And that is why people are so easily dismissing it.

People? You can count on the fingers of one hand the number of people who have managed to make a coherent point here on the topic. Of anyone who is not personally vested (ala connections in any way with gardai, members of the legal profession, the judiciary, etc) in this item (or items), who has spent more than a cursory glance at examining the facts, I think you'll find that you don't necessarily have the numbers.

Little CuChulainn

makeorbrake wrote: »

Here you go - The Sunday Business Post, 11th May 2014.
Having now provided you with same, I revert back to the original question..
Is there an answer imminent?

What has that got to do with the state? Those are allegations made by local people.

makeorbrake wrote: »

This would be the same matter (or matters related) he has been pursuing through the courts?

No. These are his past convictions for stalking a woman. The current matters are in relation to his harassment of judges.

makeorbrake wrote: »

That's an allegation - that's not established in fact.

You mean like every single claim you have made and the claims you support from Doocey?

makeorbrake wrote: »

You've been called on this old chestnut multiple times already (as well you know). Doocey alleges no such thing. He alleges that he has a legacy grievance with gardai locally which stretches back many years. He is on record as saying that any attention from Dublin (i.e. the NBCI, the CCU, etc.) is as a consequence of his involvement in Integrity Ireland. Some of you are in denial that there is any such involvement from this lot...and with that, you are calling other witnesses to the events as liars and loons. So now how many people are liars and loons?

Nobody has suggested the NBCI were not involved in the investigation of threats against Judges. What's disputed is Dooceys account of events.

makeorbrake wrote: »

There is NO thread dedicated to Integrity Ireland in the Legal Discussion sub-forum.

You're right, but he is being discussed in the Freeman thread.

makeorbrake wrote: »

Secondly, my understanding is that Integrity Ireland - just like the I.M.F. and other commentators - take issue with the Legal Profession in this country. I would say that one of it's main aims is to shine a light on that 'profession'. It doesn't exactly serve you well to go scrambling for corroborating viewpoints from that cheesy crevice.

The legal system is far from perfect but the biggest issue that Doocey and Manning and I.I. have is that they believe the law should be interpreted differently to how it is. Because they are in a very small minority in this belief, they cry foul.

makeorbrake wrote: »

What is consistent is that you and your co-travellers are alleging that alongside Joe Doocey, Dermot Doocey, Ann Edwards and others are either lying or 'loons'. How many witnesses are necessary in the court of little chu chu before something is established in fact? Yes, we've been here before. One of your co-travellers retorted that they weren't the right type of witnesses. :rolleyes:

How about a witness without a personal involvement? Just one. Or even an account that does not have inconsistencies. The fact that Doocey had to continuously prompt his girlfriend throughout her account should at least give you pause for thought.

makeorbrake

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

What has that got to do with the state? Those are allegations made by local people.

Do try and keep up. Recent posts turned to the subject of Stephen Manning - something that was brought up by ...hang on, you brought it up. Post number 262. I'll quote it for you, shall I?

Little CuChulainn wrote:

Integrity Ireland have posted a big tell all piece about one of their enemies. (Proof to follow apparently)
http://www.checkpoint.ie/page10.html
https://www.facebook.com/IntegrityIRL
TLDR: Every bad thing that has happened to the senior members can be linked to one guy with no position of power.

So you attempt to discredit Joe Doocey by implication that he's involved with Stephen Manning's Integrity Ireland Project. It has to do with your assumptions, inferences and downright lies.
Don't make points on a discussion board that you're not capable of defending.

Little CuChulainn wrote:

No. These are his past convictions for stalking a woman. The current matters are in relation to his harassment of judges.

Really? That's NOT what you said. Let me remind you;

Little CuChulainn wrote:

That same guy who believes the entire state is out to get him because he dated a Gardas ex girlfriend.

Which is it, then? Which 'convenient truth' are you running with now?
It's a good segway to recall this segment of discussion;

ArmaniJeanss wrote:

He should have left the story there though, its too much to think that every department of the gardai inc the Dublin based armed response unit, drug squad and computer hacking departments have ganged up on him, along with a variety of senior politicans, civil servants and multiple members of the judiciary. For no particular reason whatsoever.

Are we still disputing the involvement of Dublin based Gardai, Armani? If you could see that it was plausable that local gardai had it in for him, is it such a stretch to acknowledge that 20 armed gardai raiding the mans house makes NO sense?

Little CuChulainn wrote:

You mean like every single claim you have made and the claims you support from Doocey?

I see. So the reader can take this in the first instance as an acknowledgement that what you have written in this regard is NOT established in fact - just like I said.
With regard to my 'claims', I guess the difference between my 'claims' is that I'm referring to the main character in this affair and his Claims. In tandem with that, I'm referring to the independent witnesses who attest to same. The only thing missing from their deponent video testimony is an oath - they have not as yet been afforded such a luxury.

How Little CuChu et al Establish 'FACT'

Little CuChulainn wrote:

You're right, but he is being discussed in the Freeman thread.

On 09/06, the first mention of Integrity Ireland in the 270 odd page 'Freeman' thread in the Legal Discussion forum;

relax carry on wrote:

Anyone know anything about this integrity Ireland crowd that this guy Doocey is connected to...would they qualify as Freemen?

Bearing in mind that one of the main aims of Integrity Ireland is plainly to expose wrong-doing in the legal profession, not one responds in the affirmative to this question.
No less than 24 hours later, the very same guy then posts the following on this thread;

relax carry on wrote:

If you have a quick perusal of the Freeman thread in the legal section you might find that group are veering towards the Freeman woo

So he's gone from asking to being an authority of confidence - without a shred of evidence to support it.
In the ping pong of posts that follow, Little CuChu attempts to smear Integrity Ireland with the Freeman badge - based on nothing but lies!
For example...

Little CuChulainn wrote:

If he is mixing with the Freeman crowd he probably doesn't have tax or insurance either.

Is that the inequity that you and your merry men believe in?

Little CuChulainn wrote:

Nobody has suggested the NBCI were not involved in the investigation of threats against Judges. What's disputed is Dooceys account of events.

Okay, so this was a blatant untruth =>

Little CuChulainn wrote:

That same guy who believes the entire state is out to get him because he dated a Gardas ex girlfriend.

...or an error of judgement. I can find more posts along a similar vein from your co-travellers seeing as you insist on having 'proof' served up to you?

Little CuChulainn wrote:

The legal system is far from perfect

Far from perfect? Please?:rolleyes: Don't insult peoples intelligence.
Rotten to the core is the phrase you were looking for. The I.M.F. knows it. The dogs on the street know it - and this is as close as you can come to acknowledging it?

Little CuChulainn wrote:

but the biggest issue that Doocey and Manning and I.I. have is that they believe the law should be interpreted differently to how it is.

That's an untruth and you well know it as we've already had this 'conversation' on this thread. You claimed that I.I. exploit 'loopholes' and you proposed that such loopholes should be 'closed'. One of those 'loopholes' seems to be the right of a citizen (as enshrined in irish law) to ask a question before the courts. And you call that a loophole!...that needs closing? Do me a favour...:rolleyes:
Should we abolish the Seanad and the Dail while we're at it? Nobody would ever affront democracy with such a suggestion...?
No need to touch the Legal Profession as it's already autonomous and self-governing.

Little CuChulainn wrote:

How about a witness without a personal involvement? Just one.

Oh I see. We're back to 'the wrong type of witnesses'. Tell me, which modern democracy shares your views on 'the wrong types of witnesses'?

Little CuChulainn wrote:

Or even an account that does not have inconsistencies. The fact that Doocey had to continuously prompt his girlfriend throughout her account should at least give you pause for thought.

Yes, I encourage people to view the very same video. Who was it that had an issue with how things are interpreted? Was that I.I. or is that you, right now?
And his 77 year old father was coerced into that video testimony also I suppose?

Little CuChulainn

Your arguments are all over the place. You are linking posts of mine and then claiming they say stuff they don't. You are throwing in irrelevant stuff like the judges comment about some letter someone posted about Manning and presenting it as evidence of completely different matters. I doubt we'll come to any kind of consensus here so I'll leave you to your beliefs. I will only advise you to look beyond what I.I. feed you into other sources.

makeorbrake

Little CuChulainn wrote:

Your arguments are all over the place.

I address each and every one of your 'points' individually - line by line. On that basis, it's simply impossible to interpret my argument as being 'all over the place'.

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

You are linking posts of mine and then claiming they say stuff they don't.

You're referring to this =>

Little CuChulainn wrote:

That same guy who believes the entire state is out to get him because he dated a Gardas ex girlfriend.

There's nothing ambiguous in what you stated - it's there in black and white and you're well aware of it as it's designed to mislead. You're not the only one guilty of that same deed on this thread.

Little CuChulainn wrote:

You are throwing in irrelevant stuff like the judges comment about some letter someone posted about Manning and presenting it as evidence of completely different matters.

Oh, I see. So you didn't post this then (post no. 262 on this thread)?

Originally Posted by Little CuChulainn
Integrity Ireland have posted a big tell all piece about one of their enemies. (Proof to follow apparently)
http://www.checkpoint.ie/page10.html
https://www.facebook.com/IntegrityIRL
TLDR: Every bad thing that has happened to the senior members can be linked to one guy with no position of power.

Apparently, it's 'TLDR' but you can still make comment on it - even though you didn't read it? I'm referring explicitly to items YOU brought up.

Little CuChulainn wrote:

I doubt we'll come to any kind of consensus here so I'll leave you to your beliefs.

I understand fully. You can't deal with the hard questions.

Little CuChulainn wrote:

I will only advise you to look beyond what I.I. feed you into other sources.

I'll keep an open mind alright. I'll leave you to contemplate those hard questions that you couldn't manage to answer...

mynamejeff

jesus dont you people have anything better to do ?

obsessed much ?

no way some one with out a massive personal vested intrest would spend so much time on the rantings of a mayo man

Dan_Solo

mynamejeff wrote: »

jesus dont you people have anything better to do ?

obsessed much ?

no way some one with out a massive personal vested intrest would spend so much time on the rantings of a mayo man

Hey, no need to bring Enda Kenny into this unless you think it goes all the way up to him!
Whereas all the obvious "skanky piggies" (your phrase) or their mates/family who come on here wouldn't be biased at all I suppose?

mynamejeff

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Hey, no need to bring Enda Kenny into this unless you think it goes all the way up to him!
Whereas all the obvious "skanky piggies" (your phrase) or their mates/family who come on here wouldn't be biased at all I suppose?

like trying to talk to a bold teenage girl :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:


ever find any of that evidence to support this mans allegations or counter arguments for the easily explained misconceptions ye fell over ?


no didnt think so

makeorbrake

mynamejeff wrote: »

like trying to talk to a bold teenage girl :rolleyes::rolleyes::rolleyes:

Is that what your contribution amounts to, Jeff?

mynamejeff wrote: »

Ever find any of that evidence to support this mans allegations or counter arguments for the easily explained misconceptions ye fell over ?

no didnt think so

Talking to yourself?...careful now. Don't trip over the irony in either of the above statements.

I believe Post No. 242 was designed with you in mind (albeit it's not entirely exclusive territory).

mynamejeff

makeorbrake wrote: »

Is that what your contribution amounts to, Jeff?


Talking to yourself?...careful now. Don't trip over the irony in either of the above statements.

I believe Post No. 242 was designed with you in mind (albeit it's not entirely exclusive territory).

so ............ no proof or evidence what so ever then . ok

ps whats the matter with dan he has nt thanked your post yet ? is he ill ? :rolleyes:


MOD: Take a week off.

Mightydrumming

Is Doocey back in the country or still in hiding?

Little CuChulainn

Mightydrumming wrote: »

Is Doocey back in the country or still in hiding?

He's in hiding, awaiting assurances from the government he won't be assassinated if he returns.

Mightydrumming

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

He's in hiding, awaiting assurances from the government he won't be assassinated if he returns.

It's crazy! I've only started to get into the integrity videos the past week or so, Stephen Manning always has a cool head. I suppose there was nothing done about them initiating citizen's arrests on the 3 or more guards at the court house a few months back?

makeorbrake

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

He's in hiding, awaiting assurances from the government he won't be assassinated if he returns.

My understanding is that he is in another jurisdiction and is awaiting assurances that his personal safety will be safeguarded. Insofar as I'm aware, no such assurance has been offered.

Otherwise, I understand that he has given Stephen Manning Power of Attorney in his absence so as to follow up on a number of items in the meantime. That's based on information disseminated by I.I. online - so before anyone asks, I don't know specifically what way this is being tackled.

Of course, the Gardai could seek his arrest and extradition via a European Arrest Warrant. However, that's NOT going to happen - as who knows what sort of embarrassing facts may seep out in a legal system which is not controlled.

It's suggested that Mr. Doocey is preparing a criminal complaint (don't quote me on that - I think that was the terminology used) in relation to the events that transpired in Ballina - more recently.

In the meantime, it's suggested that the car was the property of Mr. Dermot Doocey and that despite repeated requests, the Gardai will not return his property.

Mightydrumming wrote: »

I suppose there was nothing done about them initiating citizen's arrests on the 3 or more guards at the court house a few months back?

I believe that he is pursuing the matter through the courts system. However, these things tend to get buried in process and only the extremely motivated will manage to pursue to a point of same being addressed.

Mightydrumming

I'm guessing Doocey's belongings that were seized in the house raid were still not given back either along with I.I's files?