Fine Gael TD sues Dublin Hotel after falling off swing

BattleCorp

Shefwedfan wrote: »

If I had one question that is all I would ask, why not just use the PIAB?

She did use PIAB.

You have to make an application to PIAB first. You can't go to court without PIAB issuing a release to go to court.

There are a few possibilities.

1. PIAB refused to make an assessment and issued a release. (very unlikely).
2. The hotel refused to allow PIAB assess the case so PIAB issued a release. (very likely).
3. Bailey refused the PIAB award so PIAB issued a release (very likely).

everlast75

givyjoe wrote: »

Eh, the example you gave was completely ludicrous and absolutely nothing like this particular case. So no, it wasn't clear whatsoever.

Simple question for you, exaggerated (or completely falsified) injury claims = fraud, yes or no?

falsified claims = fraud

exaggerated however is a matter of opinion. It could be fraud, it might not be.

There are claims made in Court every day where people claim that they cannot work, their docs say that it is so, yet the Defendant's medical evidence says otherwise. The Court makes a finding.

That is completely different from a scenario of someone who claimed they couldn't walk and then was on stage doing a michael flately impersonation.

So in her case, she can say that she made a mistake in saying 3 months, she meant 3 weeks. Is that possible? Yes. You would need an awful lot more to prove that she fraudulently made false statements.

Shefwedfan

golfball37 wrote: »

She said she only wanted medical expenses - the claim signed and swore by her was for 60k.

A point Sean O'Rourke failed to mention twice. Anyone would think Sean's wife was an employee of FG the way he didn't want Alison O'Connor or the panel discussing the interview straight afterwards also? Oh wait she is...

MB also said you know me Sean a couple of times. Outside of interviewing her professionally how could he know her?
She let herself down so badly that Sean O'Rourke's performance has been forgotten, he let her off on any number of things and I believe willfully so.

Why do you think she went onto RTE?

RTE will always take the side of the FG person because they are the ones making sure the license fee is paid and keep them in their jobs


He tried numerous times to let her get out of the hole she was digging but she was too silly to notice, I would expect her PR person had given her some guidance but she went too far and made a mess....go in now Maria and be a strong. You are in the right. But instead of been strong she went nuts......


RTE will never throw a government person under the bus if they can help it. She went to the right place to do the interview, she just done the wrong interview....

Imagine she landed at Newstalk? they would have ripped her to pieces

dublin99

Shefwedfan wrote: »

Doesnt need to go to District court. That is what the PIAB is for.

If she had gone to PIAB or District Court, Madigans would have been deprived of a fat and easy Circuit Court plaintiffs legal fees as part of the settlement!

BattleCorp

JeffKenna wrote: »

Where does circumstantial evidence come into play? Aka if she decided to change the affidavit without being prompted to I would be more inclined to believe her story.

If the error in the Affidavit was a genuine error as a result of a lapse of memory, why would she change the Affidavit without being prompted. It would, according to her memory, be correct.

Whether anybody believes that it was a genuine error is a different matter.

Shefwedfan

BattleCorp wrote: »

She did use PIAB.

You have to make an application to PIAB first. You can't go to court without PIAB issuing a release to go to court.

There are a few possibilities.

1. PIAB refused to make an assessment and issued a release. (very unlikely).
2. The hotel refused to allow PIAB assess the case so PIAB issued a release. (very likely).
3. Bailey refused the PIAB award so PIAB issued a release (very likely).

Sorry never made a claim so I dont know.



The hotel has already said it would cover medical expenses. So why would they reject?

If Bailey only wanted medical expenses then why would she reject?

everlast75

gimli2112 wrote: »

I thought that too but you can use them to asses the claim even when liability is not admitted but still the defendant can just not consent to the assessment in which case you go after them with your legal eagles.

Shefwedfan wrote: »

Doesnt need to go to District court. That is what the PIAB is for.

They can provide everything.



She got legal advice, if the request was just for medical then legal advice should have been just to use PIAB


So the question is: which one of them is lying? was she given poor legal advice?
Or did she get advice but she wanted to get more money?


She seems to be saying it was poor legal advice.

She did go to PIAB.

She has to go to PIAB. See the post below from Battlecorp as to what had to happen there.

I think she completely threw the Solicitor under the bus. No Solicitor worth their salt would ever say that they had an open and shut case. To say that her Solicitor did say that, was to suggest they don't have a clue what they are talking about and that she was just the little victim here.

Shefwedfan

dublin99 wrote: »

If she had gone to PIAB or District Court, Madigans would have been deprived of a fat and easy Circuit Court plaintiffs legal fees as part of the settlement!

Oh I am aware it wasntjust Bailey, Madigan was looking for a nice juicy payout as well.....

Cienciano

Sardonicat wrote: »

She made a mistake when she told her legal team she couldn't run for 3 months. She made a mistake when she read this information as compiled by her legal team for submission and didn't correct them. She made a mistake when she raised her hand and swore it was true in front of a witness as it was being read to her. And she made a mistake when she signed it as true.

She's a crook

Don't forget the mistake to look for €60k when she said she only wanted to cover medical expenses.

BattleCorp

Shefwedfan wrote: »

Sorry never made a claim so I dont know.



The hotel has already said it would cover medical expenses. So why would they reject?

If Bailey only wanted medical expenses then why would she reject?

It's my belief that she wanted a 'hape' of money but is saying that she only wanted her medical expenses covered to make herself sound better.

Shefwedfan

BattleCorp wrote: »

It's my belief that she wanted a 'hape' of money but is saying that she only wanted her medical expenses covered to make herself sound better.

I would say "wad" of money :p:p:p

givyjoe

everlast75 wrote: »

falsified claims = fraud

exaggerated however is a matter of opinion. It could be fraud, it might not be.

There are claims made in Court every day where people claim that they cannot work, their docs say that it is so, yet the Defendant's medical evidence says otherwise. The Court makes a finding.

That is completely different from a scenario of someone who claimed they couldn't walk and then was on stage doing a michael flately impersonation.

So in her case, she can say that she made a mistake in saying 3 months, she meant 3 weeks. Is that possible? Yes. You would need an awful lot more to prove that she fraudulently made false statements.

That is completely incorrect, both a false and exaggerated claim are fraud. Both are making claims for injuries or loss that you did not suffer, hence they are both fraud. In this case she either did suffer the level of injuries she claims to (and also incurred the medical expenses to go with them) or she did not, it's one or the other and not a matter of opinion.

I guess you missed the insurance campaign a few years ago spelling out that exaggerated claims = fraud?

Suckit

WealthyB wrote: »

What I found telling was these exasperated lines from Bailey in the car crash interview:

"In my 15 years elected, one week, one week of my career, someone has tried to character assassinate me and my family"

"I have worked so hard for my career"

Therein lies a problem - people like this see public service as "their career".

When a public representative talks about public service in this way, you can be sure that personal financial well-being and career progression comes first and foremost; far ahead of pesky distractions such as the welfare of the country or constituents they purport to represent.

As for Madigan, you can be sure once the papers are done with Bailey they'll turn their attentions onto Josepha's involvement here.

It reminds me of this

"See that bridge? Built it with me own two hands. Carried the stone from the quarry on me own back, placed each one on top of th'other with great skill. Ya could drive a bloody herd of cattle over it without the least fear of damage, so strong is it. But do they call me 'McGonagle The Bridge Builder'? No! They do na!"

"See that Dock? Built it meself also. Carried the stone from the quarry on me own back, cut the wood from the local forest and dragged it over the plinths. You could drop a ship on it, and t'would be no bother to it. But do they call me 'McGonagle The Dock Builder'? No! They do na!"

"I built that house over there, through years of blood and sweat, through sleet and rain and snow. In heat that caused blisters the size of golf balls on me back with the sunburn.
So do they call me 'McGonagle The House Builder'? No! Course they do na!

But you shag wan feckin' sheep..."

BattleCorp

givyjoe wrote: »

That is completely incorrect, both a false and exaggerated claim are fraud. Both are making claims for injuries or loss that you did not suffer, hence they are both fraud.

I guess you missed the insurance campaign a few years ago spelling this out?

The world is not as black and white as you seem to think.

Firstly it's not a false claim. Nobody is denying that she fell from the swing. She believes the hotel are responsible. The hotel believe that they are not responsible. That's why we have courts - they determine who is liable.

Now on to the exaggerated bit. How do you know she is exaggerating her injury? She may have made a genuine mistake and didn't remember running the 10k race. And that was three weeks after the event. She may have been sore for three weeks. She may still be sore for all we know. People often get money for future pain and suffering and loss of ability. I've seen people miss 1 week in work and take us to court for personal injury and get awarded substantial sums of money. It's actually sickening.

Did she have a lapse in memory, I have my doubts but as I'm tired saying, suspecting something is very different from proving it.

listermint

givyjoe wrote: »

That is completely incorrect, both a false and exaggerated claim are fraud. Both are making claims for injuries or loss that you did not suffer, hence they are both fraud. In these case she either did suffer the level of injuries she claims to (and also incurred the medical expenses to go with them) or she did not, it's one or the other and not a matter of opinion.

I guess you missed the insurance campaign a few years ago spelling out that exaggerated claims = fraud?

He has been trying to twist words for days about this story.

For what end i dont know. But its ridiculously odd tbh.

Playing the neutral card but through posts being nothing but.

Frankly its tiring at this point.

She made an evidently false claim in a sworn signed affidavit. Its evidently untrue as she claimed to not have been able to perform in her chosen sporting activity for 3 months, when we have evidence that she was performing very well in that activity within weeks. And possibly due to the nature of the sport actively doing it the following week of the 'accident' .


Whether it arrived in court and had a hearing is mute, She wrote the words, had them read back answered, signed and dated it.

There is no two ways about it.

holyhead

The fact she needs a judge to adjudicate on whether her hands were occupied while trying to hold on while seated a swing stretches logic and credibility. Indeed the whole interview made for astonishing listening. Sean O Rourke was very easy on her.
Credibility and sincerity should be central planks in the basic make up of a public representative and in my opinion she lacks both. She’s a self centered spoilt Walter Mitty brat.

ohnonotgmail

BattleCorp wrote: »

The world is not as black and white as you seem to think.

Firstly it's not a false claim. Nobody is denying that she fell from the swing. She believes the hotel are responsible. The hotel believe that they are not responsible. That's why we have courts - they determine who is liable.

Now on to the exaggerated bit. How do you know she is exaggerating her injury? She may have made a genuine mistake and didn't remember running the 10k race. And that was three weeks after the event. She may have been sore for three weeks. She may still be sore for all we know. People often get money for future pain and suffering and loss of ability. I've seen people miss 1 week in work and take us to court for personal injury and get awarded substantial sums of money. It's actually sickening.

Did she have a lapse in memory, I have my doubts but as I'm tired saying, suspecting something is very different from proving it.

there is no obligation on anybody to prove she lied.

BENDYBINN

BattleCorp wrote: »

The world is not as black and white as you seem to think.

Firstly it's not a false claim. Nobody is denying that she fell from the swing. She believes the hotel are responsible. The hotel believe that they are not responsible. That's why we have courts - they determine who is liable.

Now on to the exaggerated bit. How do you know she is exaggerating her injury? She may have made a genuine mistake and didn't remember running the 10k race. And that was three weeks after the event. She may have been sore for three weeks. I've seen people miss 1 week in work and take us to court for personal injury.

Did she have a lapse in memory, I have my doubts but as I'm tired saying, suspecting something is very different from proving it.

I got seriously hurt in that hotel and and I’m demanding 60k in compo....oh hold on a minute sure I ran 10k only 3 weeks later ...I mustn’t have got hurt at all....
Genuine mistake there Leo! What was I thinking?

KildareMan

BattleCorp wrote: »

Did she have a lapse in memory, I have my doubts but as I'm tired saying, suspecting something is very different from proving it.

Problem is she made an affidavit. Those are not spur of the moment things. They are drafted and corrected before being sworn. So she's in ****e just for "lying" under oath, never mind that she didn't need to go to the higher court (circuit) to recoup just her medical expenses. Do that in the district court with room to spare.

K.Flyer

Which ever way you want to argue this, she still comes across as an entitled someone who needs to blame everyone else for her own carelessness.
Her brazen inaction of not taking responsibility for her own ineptitude has now unearthed a whole host of off-shoots showing nepotism and hypocrisy within her circles.
Varadar, always the person terrified to loose face, will have plenty of questions to answer if he is seen to go too soft on her.
Thank god for modern internet technology showing up these people for what they are. Hopefully its a lesson to any other shyster thinking of trying it on.

givyjoe

BattleCorp wrote: »

The world is not as black and white as you seem to think.

Firstly it's not a false claim. Nobody is denying that she fell from the swing. She believes the hotel are responsible. The hotel believe that they are not responsible. That's why we have courts - they determine who is liable.

Now on to the exaggerated bit. How do you know she is exaggerating her injury? She may have made a genuine mistake and didn't remember running the 10k race. And that was three weeks after the event. She may have been sore for three weeks. I've seen people miss 1 week in work and take us to court for personal injury.

Did she have a lapse in memory, I have my doubts but as I'm tired saying, suspecting something is very different from proving it.

How do I know it was exaggerated? Are you serious? She was running a 10k three weeks later at a time that was near her personal best. If she had suffered the serious and debilitating injuries she claimed, she wouldn't be able to/never mind stupid enough to try, 'dipping' her toes in. What sort of idiot runs a 10k with no training after 'seriously' injuring themselves 3 weeks earlier. She allegedly ran up 7k worth of medical bills after the injury, so it must have been serious enough to prevent her running the 10k right?

She seems to have had some serious lapses in memory as she was completely unable to answer the most basic of questions on SOR. Perhaps she's still suffering the effects of that blow to her head.

mickdw

Shefwedfan wrote: »

golfball37 wrote: »

She said she only wanted medical expenses - the claim signed and swore by her was for 60k.

A point Sean O'Rourke failed to mention twice. Anyone would think Sean's wife was an employee of FG the way he didn't want Alison O'Connor or the panel discussing the interview straight afterwards also? Oh wait she is...

MB also said you know me Sean a couple of times. Outside of interviewing her professionally how could he know her?
She let herself down so badly that Sean O'Rourke's performance has been forgotten, he let her off on any number of things and I believe willfully so.

Why do you think she went onto RTE?

RTE will always take the side of the FG person because they are the ones making sure the license fee is paid and keep them in their jobs


He tried numerous times to let her get out of the hole she was digging but she was too silly to notice, I would expect her PR person had given her some guidance but she went too far and made a mess....go in now Maria and be a strong. You are in the right. But instead of been strong she went nuts......


RTE will never throw a government person under the bus if they can help it. She went to the right place to do the interview, she just done the wrong interview....

Imagine she landed at Newstalk? they would have ripped her to pieces

SOR could have attacked her more but to be honest, I think whether it be by luck, or judgement, it couldn't have been a more effective interview- he allowed her to keep digging.
If the host was ripping her apart, she would likely have come out of it better.

everlast75

listermint wrote: »

He has been trying to twist words for days about this story.

For what end i dont know. But its ridiculously odd tbh.

Playing the neutral card but through posts being nothing but.

Frankly its tiring at this point.

She made an evidently false claim in a sworn signed affidavit. Its evidently untrue as she claimed to not have been able to perform in her chosen sporting activity for 3 months, when we have evidence that she was performing very well in that activity within weeks. And possibly due to the nature of the sport actively doing it the following week of the 'accident' .


Whether it arrived in court and had a hearing is mute, She wrote the words, had them read back answered, signed and dated it.

There is no two ways about it.

I think you've got me confused with someone else. I only asked around lunchtime today about the grounds for her being let go from FG. Where are you getting me doing this for days?

And as for me, I think she is a self-entitled, manipulative tosser. That clear enough for you?

If you can't debate the point without getting personal, then click ignore.

FFS some people lose their reason so easily online.

Cienciano

holyhead wrote: »

The fact she needs a judge to adjudicate on whether her hands were occupied while trying to hold on while seated a swing stretches logic and credibility. Indeed the whole interview made for astonishing listening. Sean O Rourke was very easy on her.
Credibility and sincerity should be central planks in the basic make up of a public representative and in my opinion she lacks both. She’s a self centered spoilt Walter Mitty brat.

That's it, the public has very little time for exaggerated injury claims. When a TD does it, that makes it worse. But to go on the radio and tell us her hands were not on the ropes and asked straight away to clarify what she just said and as she realised she shouldn't have told the truth so decided to use the "only a judge can decide if my hands were on the ropes" line is absolute shíte.
People can argue all they want about legal terms and what can be proved in a court, but the public can smell bullshíte. And her entire story is bullshíte, she knows it, her solicitors know it, her twitter friend who changed her picture knows it, every journalist that looked at the story knows it, Leo and the entire FG party know it and the public know it.

Shefwedfan

mickdw wrote: »

SOR could have attacked her more but to be honest, I think whether it be by luck, or judgement, it couldn't have been a more effective interview- he allowed her to keep digging.
If the host was ripping her apart, she would likely have come out of it better.

I am not asking to rip her apart.

He got no answers. No real clarification. Like why 60k?


Why would a judge have to answer if she was holding the wine or not?

This is simple stuff which he let her off the hook on

Kivaro

listermint wrote: »

.
.....

Whether it arrived in court and had a hearing is mute, She wrote the words, had them read back answered, signed and dated it.

There is no two ways about it.

And if she wasn't caught lying about her injuries and her statement about not being to able function for 3 months after the incident (while attending a concert within 7 days and running a 10K race 3 weeks later), I can assure you that her 3 months of debilitation claim would have remained on the court filing.

Based on that fact alone, many people call her a liar and a cheat.

dublin99

Section 26 of the Civil Liability and Corts2004 Act requires a judge to dismiss a personal injury claim if a claimant knowingly gives, or causes to be given, false or misleading evidence unless the dismissal of the action would result in injustice.

Please look up "Platt v OBH Luxury Accommodation". Platt fell in a hotel and was proven to have exaggerated his injuries.

A bit like our 10k runner here??

This is exactly the kind of exaggerated claims that the law was designed to deal with.

KildareMan

KildareMan wrote: »

Problem is she made an affidavit. Those are not spur of the moment things. They are drafted and corrected before being sworn. So she's in ****e just for "lying" under oath, never mind that she didn't need to go to the higher court (circuit) to recoup just her medical expenses. Do that in the district court with room to spare.

Without going into any specifics there is a case currently in court where ever changing sworn statements are being shown. Now have they been mistaken or were they lying to begin with

PLEASE! KEEP WHAT YOU THINK IN YOUR HEAD NOT ON THREAD. NOT THE SAME CRIME BY ANY MEASURE AND DONT WANT TGAT CASE JEOPARDISED.

But I believe Maria Bailey lied on purpose in her affidavit. But will never be proved now.

mickdw

Shefwedfan wrote: »

mickdw wrote: »

SOR could have attacked her more but to be honest, I think whether it be by luck, or judgement, it couldn't have been a more effective interview- he allowed her to keep digging.
If the host was ripping her apart, she would likely have come out of it better.

I am not asking to rip her apart.

He got no answers. No real clarification. Like why 60k?


Why would a judge have to answer if she was holding the wine or not?

This is simple stuff which he let her off the hook on

Ya fair enough but my point is that I don't think she could have come out if it much worse so whether he was going easy or not, it went so so bad for her.

BattleCorp

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

there is no obligation on anybody to prove she lied.

People seem happy enough to claim it a fact that she lied without any proof that she lied.

Did she lie, I don't know for sure. I can suspect it. But I can't say with any certainty that she did tell lies.

KildareMan wrote: »

Problem is she made an affidavit. Those are not spur of the moment things. They are drafted and corrected before being sworn. So she's in ****e just for "lying" under oath, never mind that she didn't need to go to the higher court (circuit) to recoup just her medical expenses. Do that in the district court with room to spare.

The Affidavit is based on her memory. She may have made a mistake which would make the Affidavit inaccurate but that doesn't 100% mean that she lied. A lie has to be on purpose. The error in the Affidavit may be as a result of a lapse of memory.

givyjoe wrote: »

How do I know it was exaggerated? Are you serious? She was running a 10k three weeks later at a time that was near her personal best. If she had suffered the serious and debilitating injuries she claimed, she wouldn't be able to/never mind stupid enough to try, 'dipping' her toes in. What sort of idiot runs a 10k with no training after 'seriously' injuring themselves 3 weeks earlier. She allegedly ran up 7k worth of medical bills after the injury, so it must have been serious enough to prevent her running the 10k right?

Yeah, I suspect she is full of sh1t but it is entirely believable that she was injured in the incident. How serious that injury was is not up to me to decide. She may have been sore for three weeks and then recovered enough to be able to run the race. She may be completely exaggerating and telling lies. The thing is that we don't know for certain which one it is. I know which one I think it is but that doesn't make it fact.

She seems to have had some serious lapses in memory as she was completely unable to answer the most basic of questions on SOR. Perhaps she's still suffering the effects of that blow to her head.

She was extremely stupid to go on that show. She came out of it looking 1000 times worse.