erica74 wrote: » Just on the GP referral system and switching GPs etc - if you have a medical card, your medical card is registered to your GP, or, at least, to the most senior GP in the Practice you attend, so you can't just tip over to another GP willy nilly - how's that going to work? I think all GPs should have to provide abortion services, a refer onwards system will be too time costly when you're dealing with such a restrictive time limit.
_Dara_ wrote: » LOL. I thought she had evidence? The photos are all one tweet/retweet.
....... wrote: » This post has been deleted.
Fighting Tao wrote: » So does Charles Byrne’s intend on calling to every address to see who lives there, check their iD for date of birth, and then look for proof of emigration etc. He really needs to get the registeratiln forms from the councils if he is heading down that route. However, many of them include PPSN too. He will get nowhere with his appeal.
....... wrote: » She is basically a puppet for some well funded prolife group. She certainly isnt paying for these challenges herself. Last time her costs were in the millions and she lives in an old and council looking estate in Glenageary.
seamus wrote: » This. What use is any register without something to cross-reference it against? How is he going to prove that Paudi O'Shea in Limerick on one register is the same Paudi O'Shea from a townland 5 miles away? He can't. GDPR aside, there's also a massive issue in terms of the secret ballot - he's not just looking for the register, he's looking for the marked registers, i.e. a list of every voter in the country and whether they cast a vote or not. That is a MASSIVE ask, it compromises the secrecy of the ballot, and you would need an extraordinary book of evidence to justify such a request. My understanding is that she's representing herself; i.e. she couldn't find an ambulance chaser desperate enough to take her case on. So she's probably a zealot who's not in her full faculties and feels some duty to challenge these things. The twitter thing is probably an email address for Ms. Jordan herself or non-legal people who are helping her. Zero chance that her case will get more than an hour in court before being dismissed.
seamus wrote: » That's a new development so. Initially she was representing herself. I guess there's no legal impediment to US money funding Irish solicitors.
Ineedaname wrote: » I thought there were laws in Ireland against third parties funding cases? Wasn't there a case against DOB thrown out because of it?
uptherebels wrote: » https://www.examiner.com/breakingnews//man-refused-access-to-registers-of-voters-in-challenge-to-abortion-referendum-result-850351.html At least it looks like the nonsense challenges are beginning to fall apart
He also awarded costs against Mr Byrne of the discovery application.
uptherebels wrote: » https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/man-refused-access-to-registers-of-voters-in-challenge-to-abortion-referendum-result-850351.html At least it looks like the nonsense challenges are beginning to fall apart
ohnonotgmail wrote: » lol
ELM327 wrote: » So he has to pay the costs? How much is that likely to be for one hearing?
ELM327 wrote: » Delighted for him so. Serves him right. Hopefully theres no legal aid in it.
ELM327 wrote: » He awarded costs against him So he has to pay the costs? How much is that likely to be for one hearing?
Zubeneschamali wrote: » A day in the High court, Senior Counsel on both sides, I'd say no change out of €50K.
fxotoole wrote: » Proper bloody order. Let him take on the cost of wasting the court's time.
fxotoole wrote: » Hopefully it will also act as a financial deterrent to any other bonkers spurious challenges.
end of the road wrote: » he is taking on the costs of taking his case, which i believe is how it works where a case is dismissed or the person loses the case? so i'm afraid not proper bloody order and not let him take on the cost of wasting the court's time as that isn't what his costs will be going toards, given a person is entitled to take a case to the courts and have a judge decide on the outcome. it likely won't thankfully. and nor should it. people are entitled to take a case to the courts. if they don't have a case, it will be thrown out. works perfectly well. stupid cases will get nowhere and cases that may on the outset sound stupid may be something that forces a change in our society for the good, in relation to something we did not know was an issue.
ohnonotgmail wrote: » you're right, he wont be taking on the costs of wasting the courts time. He will be taking on the costs on wasting the defences time with his fishing expedition disguised as a motion for discovery. And quite a handsome cost it will be.
fxotoole wrote: » My bad. Either way a financial penalty is in order for such nonsense.
