Fine Gael TD sues Dublin Hotel after falling off swing

cj maxx

iamwhoiam wrote: »

https://www.dublinlive.ie/whats-on/food-drink-news/maria-bailey-swing-dublin-pub-16351758

Sounds very like white russian

gormdubhgorm

Snow Garden wrote: »

This case is fast becoming one of the biggest political stories over the last 10 years. It really is an Irish classic. I truly believe there are more revelations to follow.

It could be a short film.

Saorise Ronan as Maria Bailey

Baz Ashmawy as Leo Varadkar

John Connors as a solicitor from Madigan's

ChikiChiki

InTheShadows wrote: »

I'm beginning to think Madigan is knee deep in this also. Varadkar should have kicked Bailey out and made a statement yesterday now this could snowball out of his PR teams hands. As they say it's the little things that trip you up.

And there was word Kate O'Connell may have been present.

gormdubhgorm

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

I did not realise Alan Shatter wrote a book about his 'political assassination'


Frenzy and Betrayal: The Anatomy of a Political Assassination

https://irishacademicpress.ie/product/frenzy-and-betrayal-the-anatomy-of-a-political-assassination/

'Compelling and sardonic, Frenzy and Betrayal is the deeply disturbing story of how a dedicated, truthful and progressive Irish cabinet minister was falsely accused of wrongdoing and unjustly hounded from office in twenty-first-century Ireland, and his traumatic five-year battle for vindication and the truth.'

I am just wondering can he give Maria Bailey any advice on writing a book?
She might as well start now...

What title would it be?

WKD swings?

Jaysus 45 chapters. I'd say it's a right slog to wade through

seamus

Johnny Dogs wrote: »

Hasn't Madigan basically admitted that she was Bailey's lawyer ?




If she's not your client, what confidentiality would you be breaking?


Why couldn't she just deny it if she's not involved?

Genuinely - because she may have been her solicitor at one stage but not for this. Or if Madigan is a partner in her husband's firm, then she is technically Bailey's solicitor whether or not she personally advised her.

So if she was to reveal whether she did or didn't, she potentially breaching her obligations.

gormdubhgorm

cjmc wrote: »

Sounds very like white russian

That's gas contains - Vodka, Tia Maria, Baileys

suicide_circus

InTheShadows wrote: »

Wouldn't it be nice just the once to hear a politician come out and admit they where in the wrong and resign from their position. These feckers are meant to lead from the front as an example. Personal responsibility is non existent to them.

their chief concern is to hang on to power at all costs. Integrity and the national interest are foreign concepts.

The Rape of Lucretia

Shefwedfan wrote: »

All to cover up the main facts which are
1. She lied
2. She lied to cover up the lies
3. She forgot the original lies and then lied some more to cover up those
4. Another FG politician gave bad legal advice....
5. Leo will never make a decision in his life
6. FG as standard are as crooked as every and are trying to cover this up

To be fair, that's all at best conjecture, or at worst, incorrect, unjust, blind party prejudice, and politically childish.

McMurphy

seamus wrote: »

Genuinely - because she may have been her solicitor at one stage but not for this. Or if Madigan is a partner in her husband's firm, then she is technically Bailey's solicitor whether or not she personally advised her.

So if she was to reveal whether she did or didn't, she potentially breaching her obligations.

I thought it was the brothers firm, that she left two years ago?

Also, what's to stop Bailey exonerating Madigan, assuming she's not had any involvement in the case?

We already know Madigans are the firm involved, I just don't know why Maria Bailey wouldn't just say it was Madigans, but my solicitor isn't/wasn't Josepha.

mikemac2

Stop moaning ffs wrote: »

Or the guy in Australia who sued himself and won. He threw a boomerang and it came back and hit him. He sued himself for negligence and injury and won. His insurance company had to give him a huge payout. Clever of him.

Clever story. Snopes says it is false though

The Rape of Lucretia

Suckit wrote: »

.
Hopefully Madigan is hung with her.

With many facts not in the public domain, how can you possibly wish something like that?

With all the clamour about wanting clean politicians and justice, jumping to such conclusions suggest the popular views on summary justice are far more off piste than that of any politician.

VinLieger

Suckit wrote: »

Shatter was on SOR this morning and said that as a solicitor he would have asked his client if they understood what they were suing for, what the outcome may be and to go over ever little detail etc.
He said that he would have serious questions for whatever part member or lawyer gave her legal advice.

Hopefully Madigan is hung with her.

Shatter has a serious axe to grind in this case as Josepha Madigan nabbed a seat ahead of him in the new constituency created in the last election.


TBH id always be looking for the agenda behind anything Shatter utters, hes an arrogant so and so who much like Bailey always plays the victim.

The Rape of Lucretia

mikemac2 wrote: »

Clever story. Snopes says it is false though

Not so easy to do either - getting a boomerang to come back is no cinch.
My boomerang won't come back.
I've waved the thing all over the place. Practiced till I was black in the face.

cj maxx

ChikiChiki wrote: »

And there was word Kate O'Connell may have been present.

Just googled her . Might start hanging around there for a odd pint !

odyssey06

zell12 wrote: »

"Humanity has been crossed"
I'm still guffawing

We have been crossed... by our most deadly enemies... inanimate swings!

Has the swing sold their side of the story yet?
Well I was just sitting there minding me own business, when yer wan approaches me... and I think to meself, he comes trouble.
Turn to page 6 for more.

ToBeFrank123

ToBeFrank123 wrote: »

She'd probably have a reasonable chance of winning that case to be fair.

At what stage does the Law Society of Ireland get involved or what role should they play in all this?

They can sanction the solicitor concerned. I remember with horror that I found a solicitor I was using (connected with family) had been sanctioned. I had been curious as to why they went absent for a while, and it didn’t seem to be illness, so I took a look at Law Society website, and it took a bit of going through this to see my solicitor had been sanctioned on account of defrauding somebody. Then heard through family that they had got into debt from buying property during “boom” and defrauded a member of their own family...meaning to pay them back, but all got out of hand. I had wondered why my solicitor, having had their own practice, was now working for another solicitor. They can practice, but must always be a supervised employee of another solicitor.

cj maxx

First thing I’d do with ‘our legal system is being able to fire judges . Then start striking off solicitors if they bend the rules .nothing to do with MB really but I’m fuming at contempt these basterds have for ordinary people. IMO of course!

Suckit

VinLieger wrote: »

Shatter has a serious axe to grind in this case as Josepha Madigan nabbed a seat ahead of him in the new constituency created in the last election.
TBH id always be looking for the agenda behind anything Shatter utters, hes an arrogant so and so who much like Bailey always plays the victim.

It came across like that. You could tell he was targeting her. But to be fair, he's not wrong.

FishOnABike

cjmc wrote: »

First thing I’d do with ‘our legal system is being able to fire judges . Then start striking off solicitors if they bend the rules .nothing to MB really but I’m fuming at contempt these basterds have for ordinary people. IMO of course!

Or simply automatically award costs agsinst the state to the applicant if a judicial review of a judge's decision is successful.

Seemingly neither a judge, nor the state as their employer, can be held financially accountable for legal costs where a judicial review of the judges decision is successful. This means that though in theory a Judicial Review provides a legal remedy, in practice - unless you have a reasonable five figure sum to spare - it is not accessible.

VinLieger

cjmc wrote: »

First thing I’d do with ‘our legal system is being able to fire judges .

Ahhh yes the tried and true first step to any effective dictatorship.


Not saying our judges arent **** but they also need way better direction from government via legislation and sentencing guidelines.



Simply firing the literal arbiters of law because you don't like what they think isn't a great idea.

Snow Garden

iamwhoiam wrote: »

https://www.dublinlive.ie/whats-on/food-drink-news/maria-bailey-swing-dublin-pub-16351758

They said: "It’s ironic how we are launching this cocktail on the same day we have to yet again write a cheque for a €600 administration fee​ to the Personal Injuries Board to facilitate another spurious claim against us in the coming months.​
"Yes, that’s right. ​We have to pay for the pleasure of helping someone sue us."

An insane judicial system that is closing businesses the length and breadth of the country.

Businesses are really angry about this incident and insurance fraud.

I don't think even Fine Gael realise the damage she has caused.

joe40

Raisins wrote: »

BattleCorp wrote: »

Yes I’m familiar with the section I agree with that - I was pointing out it’s not simply a contempt of court situation but I understand now that wasn’t the point you were making.

If it was claimed you couldn’t run for three months and you then got into the witness box and this was discussed and at that stage under cross examination you again insisted you were injured for 3 months and then a defendant produced evidence of your race time 1 week after the accident, you would find it very hard to explain it away as a genuine error.

The point is that her claim is portrayed as a demonstration of a corrupt / rotten legal system.

You appear to have some legal knowledge and I admit I don't.
So just to make sure I have it right, If I am wilfully dishonest in an actual court case that is an offence, but false information I give beforehand in court documents is not an offence.

I would love to know how the conversation with the solicitor went at the beginning. Was she encouraged or coached in any way to say she could not run for three months even though this was blatantly false.
Just put in in we can change it later.. is that the sort of advice that is given.

Again apologies I'm not familiar with the legal system, and maybe "rotten" is a bit strong, but definitely reform is needed.
The details can be worked out by the people tasked to do, legislators and legal system. I'm not terribly optimistic though.

Tin Foil Hat

VinLieger wrote: »

Ahhh yes the tried and true first step to any effective dictatorship.


Not saying our judges arent **** but they also need way better direction from government via legislation and sentencing guidelines.



Simply firing the literal arbiters of law because you don't like what they think isn't a great idea.

In fairness, having judges who are notoriously generous with other peoples money isn't great either.

cj maxx

VinLieger wrote: »

Ahhh yes the tried and true first step to any effective dictatorship.


Not saying our judges arent **** but they also need way better direction from government via legislation and sentencing guidelines.



Simply firing the literal arbiters of law because you don't like what they think isn't a great idea.

Not even when they’re mentally incapacitated, breaking laws themselves.
It shouldn’t be easy to do , but an option available at the same time

FishOnABike

FishOnABike wrote: »

Seemingly neither a judge, nor the state as their employer, can be held financially accountable for legal costs where a judicial review of the judges decision is successful. This means that though in theory a Judicial Review provides a legal remedy, in practice - unless you have a reasonable five figure sum to spare - it is not accessible.

Plenty of judicial reviews are paid for by civil legal aid, or are taken on a pro-bono basis, and costs will almost always go against the State where the State fails in its defence. JUst like in any civil litigation.

I think everyone agrees that legal costs in Ireland are spectacularly high, but I'm not sure how judges are to blame for this...

Scoundrel

gormdubhgorm wrote: »

I did not realise Alan Shatter wrote a book about his 'political assassination'


Frenzy and Betrayal: The Anatomy of a Political Assassination

https://irishacademicpress.ie/product/frenzy-and-betrayal-the-anatomy-of-a-political-assassination/

'Compelling and sardonic, Frenzy and Betrayal is the deeply disturbing story of how a dedicated, truthful and progressive Irish cabinet minister was falsely accused of wrongdoing and unjustly hounded from office in twenty-first-century Ireland, and his traumatic five-year battle for vindication and the truth.'

I am just wondering can he give Maria Bailey any advice on writing a book?
She might as well start now...

What title would it be?

WKD swings?

Another insufferable entitled pr1ck Fine Gael really does attract them.

VinLieger

cjmc wrote: »

Not even when they’re mentally incapacitated, breaking laws themselves.
It shouldn’t be easy to do , but an option available at the same time

It already is an option


https://aji.ie/the-judiciary/removal-from-judicial-office/

Suckit

Scoundrel wrote: »

Another insufferable entitled pr1ck Fine Gael Politics really does attract them.

FYP.

FishOnABike

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

Plenty of judicial reviews are paid for by civil legal aid, or are taken on a pro-bono basis, and costs will almost always go against the State where the State fails in its defence. JUst like in any civil litigation.

I think everyone agrees that legal costs in Ireland are spectacularly high, but I'm not sure how judges are to blame for this...

Where the judicial review is against a state body, costs may be awarded against the state but aparently not when the judicial review is against a judges decision.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/state-not-liable-for-costs-in-judicial-review-proceedings-1.784367?mode=amp

Our judiciary enjoy a quasi-immunity against the awarding of costs, one of the few or possibly only professions to do so. This has a significant effect on the accesability of the theoretical remedy of judicial review.

ToBeFrank123

Interesting precedent for bogus claims.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/solicitors-offices-searched-by-gardaí-in-bogus-claims-crackdown-1.3871865

The Law Society has said it has never received a single complaint against a solicitor being knowingly involved in fraudulent personal injury claims.
On Wednesday, four law offices were searched by gardaí in a new crackdown on suspected bogus claims, many of which involved false identities.
While solicitors acting in the cases were targeted as part of the newly formed Operation Coatee, which is investigating insurance claim fraud, it is understood this was most likely part of a dragnet to gather evidence against the claimants.
Solicitors are required by law to check and maintain proof of identity of clients where financial transactions take place, as a stipulation of money-laundering protections. However, there is no such legal obligation in personal injury cases.

Note the role of the solicitor firm in this instance, not bothering to check the identity of the claimants. In otherwords they were facilitating fraudulent activity without conducting due diligence, a common theme it seems from these solicitor firms.