Dolores Cahill

aido79

I apologise if this has been asked already. I have just watched this video and while I do not believe a single word that comes out of her mouth I'm wondering if anyone can tell me if there is any truth in what she is saying from a legal point of view? Why would anyone in New Zealand or Australia be quarantining if she's right?

https://youtu.be/Idbgk-BMsBc

hullaballoo

Can someone, maybe the OP who has already watched the video, give a synopsis of what legal rights she is purporting to rely upon to avoid quarantine obligations?

I tried watching it but it seems the limits of my patience have been reached already.

Gatling

hullaballoo wrote: »

Can someone, maybe the OP who has already watched the video, give a synopsis of what legal rights she is purporting to rely upon to avoid quarantine obligations?

I tried watching it but it seems the limits of my patience have been reached already.

Go as far as natural laws .turned off straight away

Caranica

If it's the video from a few weeks ago, The Journal did a fact checking article on it and tore it apart.

Not clicking on the link to add views

aido79

To be honest I didn't watch the whole video...just enough to get the gist of it. She's been detained and arrested at airports and she manages to basically talk her way out of it by telling the police they're not allowed touch her, cuff her and she's videoing them from what I can make out. She says something about them engaging in a contract with her if they push it further and she can charge them a rate of whatever she want. I think she mentions something about €4000 an hour.
It's not the video that the journal debunked. That was just embarrassing for her.

I have absolutely no time for her but I just really want to know why or how she is getting away with this kind of thing when travelling to countries which have travel restrictions in place and blatantly ignoring them.

Is there any evidence she ever did any of the things?

Sounds like 'Freeman on the land' type guff, or Freewoman in this case. There's a thread in here full of that sort of stuff, it never flies in the real world.

Note - I haven't watched the video because she's poisonous, apologies if I'm wrong.

aido79

[Deleted User] wrote: »

Is there any evidence she ever did any of the things?

As I said I don't believe a word that comes out of her mouth so I don't know. I wouldn't be surprised if she was making it all up because I wouldn't make sense that she can just flout covid travel restrictions and then threaten to charge police for her time if they push it further.
My only hope is that if she is attempting to do what she says she does that it backfires on her and she lands herself in hot water.

Rodin

This prison she threatens Gardai with... how does that sit with her concept of 'natural law'... that would be depriving someone of their freedom.
Under her bull5h1t concept... there wouldn't be a prisoner in the country...

Id say she hasn't tried travelling to China/Russia

Ahh Dolores Cahill, that well known legal brain.
I believe the Attorney General liaises with her on all new legislation.

endofrainbow

Is she related to Gemma Doherty ?

Lenar3556

The poor thing, whatever happened her......?

In short answer to the OP, the ‘inalienable’ constitutional rights she refers have been found by the courts not to be quite so absolute.

Legislation and regulations have been enacted/made which makes much of what she proposes a criminal offence and with penal consequences. This legislation has the presumption of being constitutional, and this remains the case until such time as it be found repugnant by the superior courts. Gemma is doing her best on this one! - but I would expect it to fail outright.

So spouting all of that just makes her look silly, the same consequences apply as they would anybody else. If she has the time and money she can challenge the constitutionality of it thereafter.

aido79

Lenar3556 wrote: »

The poor thing, whatever happened her......?

In short answer to the OP, the ‘inalienable’ constitutional rights she refers have been found by the courts not to be quite so absolute.

Legislation and regulations have been enacted/made which makes much of what she proposes a criminal offence and with penal consequences. This legislation has the presumption of being constitutional, and this remains the case until such time as it be found repugnant by the superior courts. Gemma is doing her best on this one! - but I would expect it to fail outright.

So spouting all of that just makes her look silly, the same consequences apply as they would anybody else. If she has the time and money she can challenge the constitutionality of it thereafter.

If that's the case then why is she getting away with it or is she spoofing?
Surely she can't continue to get away with it and offer this sort of 'legal' advice to the kind of people who believe what she has to say.

whippet

First of all you need to ask why she is spouting this nonsense ...

She is trying to sucker many gullible people in to supporting her political ambitions with a right wing Irish Freedom party.

In order to garner votes / supports she needs to play to her target market ... people who know no better and have an inherent dislike of everything from the establishment (apart from collecting social welfare for the main)

She has been debunked on just about everything she claims and hangs on to the Professor title to try and show some credibility... if you do some digging it seems that most of her peers have more or less disowned her unqualified theories on the Covid situation.

Her legal mind is learned from the same school as the likes of Ben Gilroy .. sure she was recently promoting some idealist movement who wants to limit all household earnings to €60k per annum ... so communist leanings also

aido79

whippet wrote: »

First of all you need to ask why she is spouting this nonsense ...

She is trying to sucker many gullible people in to supporting her political ambitions with a right wing Irish Freedom party.

In order to garner votes / supports she needs to play to her target market ... people who know no better and have an inherent dislike of everything from the establishment (apart from collecting social welfare for the main)

She has been debunked on just about everything she claims and hangs on to the Professor title to try and show some credibility... if you do some digging it seems that most of her peers have more or less disowned her unqualified theories on the Covid situation.

Her legal mind is learned from the same school as the likes of Ben Gilroy .. sure she was recently promoting some idealist movement who wants to limit all household earnings to €60k per annum ... so communist leanings also

She only got 521 people to vote for her in the last election so she has a lot of garnering to do. Ben only done marginally better so that shows how much support they have outside of Facebook. He comes out with the same kind of stuff when he's telling people that they don't have to legally wear masks and don't need to give a reason why if questioned on it.

I wonder if any of her audience members will try to follow her 'legal' advice. The video is also from an Australian right wing party so maybe some of their followers might test it out in Australia.

Lenar3556

aido79 wrote: »

She only got 521 people to vote for her in the last election so she has a lot of garnering to do. Ben only done marginally better so that shows how much support they have outside of Facebook. He comes out with the same kind of stuff when he's telling people that they don't have to legally wear masks and don't need to give a reason why if questioned on it.

I wonder if any of her audience members will try to follow her 'legal' advice. The video is also from an Australian right wing party so maybe some of their followers might test it out in Australia.

Austrailia would be a good test bed for these antics alright. I hope she sends the videos!

aido79

Lenar3556 wrote: »

Austrailia would be a good test bed for these antics alright. I hope she sends the videos!

I imagine her inalienable rights would be more closely scrutinised in Australia.

coylemj

aido79 wrote: »

she manages to basically talk her way out of it by telling the police they're not allowed touch her, cuff her and she's videoing them from what I can make out.

I haven't watched the video because I'm keeping an eye on my blood pressure but the notion of anyone getting away with videoing police or immigration people at a point of entry is laughable. This is one of those areas where taking photos or making audio or video recording is strictly forbidden.

If you pointed a phone at an immigration or police officer and even suggested that you were recording, you can be 100% certain that they will haul you off to their local lockup for a few hours isolation. And you'd be lucky if they didn't 'lose' your phone while you were detained.

u2me

Have not seen the video but there was an article in the journal regards one of her videos -- possibly the same one? - https://www.thejournal.ie/debunked-dolores-cahill-covid-19-video-masks-lockdown-vaccines-5315519-Jan2021/

She is more to be pitied than scorned I'd say.

Caranica

u2me wrote: »

Have not seen the video but there was an article in the journal regards one of her videos -- possibly the same one? - https://www.thejournal.ie/debunked-dolores-cahill-covid-19-video-masks-lockdown-vaccines-5315519-Jan2021/

See page 1 of this thread. I said the same thing, and it's not

nuac

Mod
Closing discussion. Thoughts?