Fine Gael TD sues Dublin Hotel after falling off swing

everlast75 · 29-05-2019 2:05pm

dublin99 wrote: »

MB swore an Affidavit of verification to support what was in the pleadings (drafted by barrister based on information given by client).
You cannot change the contents of a sworn and filed affidavit.
You can try to amend the pleadings, probably by way of a Motion, if there is no consent from the other side.
You can swear another Affidavit. In this case, if the case goes to trial, everyone will see both versions. Judge can query and Counsel can cross examine plaintiff on the material differences :-)

Fact is that she tried to force a settlement by deliberately GROSSLY EXAGGERATING the extent of her injury, as demonstrated in her Affidavit.
The case was never going to reach trial stage. It was quick money and good legal fees for Madigans who expected it to settle if they agreed to a "discount" of what they had originally claimed. In terms of Cost Benefit Analysis, these cases were low risk and low cost for lawyers. Insurers nearly always settle to avid uncertainty or incurring more legal costs in defending.

I wonder which Doctor certified the extent of her injury and advised she could not run for three months?

For the last time, the above highlighted statement is not proven. It is suspected, and rightly so, but it is not proven to be true. She said she made a mistake. Mistakes in Court documents can be amended. There is a process there. To assume that the court would refuse an application to amend, or that a judge might refuse it, is just an assumption.

You have an allegation not found in law to be true, and two assumptions following it.

Suckit · 29-05-2019 2:05pm

everlast75 wrote: »

It is, according to her, a mistake in a Court pleading about something that happened 3 years ago. That does not make it a proven lie.

A mistake in a court affidavit??

Come on.
That was going to court she was going to continue with that. But she got found out.

You will forgive me if I don't want to give her the benfit of doubt.

JeffKenna · 29-05-2019 2:06pm

everlast75 wrote: »

If that is legal grounds, then work away.

Every person has a right to issue proceedings. She can call it an error in judgement or whatever, but I just don't see that working.

No. If a person goes into Dunnes, opens a bottle of olive oil, pours it on ground, takes a few steps back and then walks onto it, falls on their ass and then sues, then that's fraud.

If the CCTV shows Ms. Bailey doing something equivalent, then its game set and match

I don't think anyone is claiming that Ms. Bailey deliberately fell off the swing.

Forgive my ignorance on legal matters but Ms. Bailey swore in an affidavit that she couldn't run for 3 months. When questioned on the fact that she was pictured after a 10k run she stated that she would amend her affidavit. How is that not lying? When would she have submitted the affidavit out of interest?

ohnonotgmail · 29-05-2019 2:06pm

Suckit wrote: »

A mistake in a court affidavit??

Come on.

Exactly. I've sworn court affidavits (high court not circuit but the point stands) and you make damn sure you have things correct before signing.

everlast75 · 29-05-2019 2:07pm

ArrBee wrote: »

At what point does it become fact?

Because if it can only become fact through a court ruling that is an incredible burden on everyday life. There needs to be ways of establishing, to a reasonable standard, if someone is lying without getting into a court room.

Sure, there should always be the right to overturn an assessment of lying through the courts, but there should be a way to establish initially that a lie has been told.

I'm thinking of employment disciplinary action for instance.

The fact that she withdrew her case is enough of an inference for most people that she was chancing her arm. And thankfully for us, we have the opportunity to vote people out.

29-05-2019 2:07pm

everlast75 wrote: »

She should have taken a week off and went to Spain. A week and things would have blown over.

Her PR advice was not good, to put it lightly.

It is, according to her, a mistake in a Court pleading about something that happened 3 years ago. That does not make it a proven lie.

Just on the 3 year thing.

When did she first go to a lawyer about this?
When did The Dean offer her €600?
Would it be common to make a brief outline of what happened and what pain you are in with your solicitor whilst waiting on medical reports?

What I’m asking is - if a case file was opened shortly after the incident and you went back a couple of years later to make an affidavit, would your solicitor not be cross referencing that from earlier notes?

ILoveYourVibes · 29-05-2019 2:07pm

Suckit wrote: »

A mistake in a court affidavit??

Come on.

A SWORN affidavit?? Its just the same as being under oath in court.

You can't use your own solicitor you have to use the commissioner of oaths or another solicitor to prove you aren't being influenced by anyone.

The information has to be factual and true its the written version of sworn testimony. She was under oath when she wrote it.

BattleCorp · 29-05-2019 2:08pm

weldoninhio wrote: »

That's absolute nonsense.

Everyone look out your windows, the sky has turned bright pink and it's raining euro's. I'll just leave this here until a judge rules if it's a lie. :rolleyes:

Bleedin' Schrodinger's lie.

It's very easy to prove if the sky is bright pink or if it's raining euros. It's much more difficult to prove that someone is telling lies rather than they made a mistake due to a lapse of memory.

I suspect the same as you, that there may have been lies told. But me suspecting isn't proof.

It's very easy to argue that someone forgot they did a 10k race when they are filling in an Affidavit a year or two after the race. Very very easy. We mightn't believe that she did forget about it, but we can't say that for sure that she lied on purpose about it.

ArrBee · 29-05-2019 2:08pm

Suckit wrote: »

...
If she ran the 10k in 3 weeks, then there is a very high chance that she was training for weeks prior to it.

I wish SOR had asked if she had ever had physio as part of her training regime.
Perhaps even if she had attended physio anytime in the 3 weeks prior to the "accident".

everlast75 · 29-05-2019 2:09pm

JeffKenna wrote: »

I don't think anyone is claiming that Ms. Bailey deliberately fell off the swing.

Forgive my ignorance on legal matters but Ms. Bailey swore in an affidavit that she couldn't run for 3 months. When questioned on the fact that she was pictured after a 10k run she stated that she would amend her affidavit. How is that not lying? When would she have submitted the affidavit out of interest?

The affidavit could have been sworn literally years after the incident.

It is possible (however unlikely given her character) that she simply made a mistake. That is what she is saying.

Unfortunately, the case is being dropped. We will never know what the Judge would have found.

We can infer all the hell we want, but that is where legally speaking it ends (subject to further information coming out)

Snow Garden · 29-05-2019 2:09pm

I don't think I have ever seen a story being discussed more in my workplace. People are livid.

givyjoe · 29-05-2019 2:10pm

everlast75 wrote: »

If that is legal grounds, then work away.

Every person has a right to issue proceedings. She can call it an error in judgement or whatever, but I just don't see that working.

No. If a person goes into Dunnes, opens a bottle of olive oil, pours it on ground, takes a few steps back and then walks onto it, falls on their ass and then sues, then that's fraud.

If the CCTV shows Ms. Bailey doing something equivalent, then its game set and match

You seem to be inferring that exaggerated claims (as it seems to be the case her with regard to her alleged injuries) are not fraud?

Deebles McBeebles · 29-05-2019 2:10pm

Snow Garden wrote: »

I don't think I have ever seen a story being discussed more in my workplace. People are livid.

Swing manufacturers?

inforfun · 29-05-2019 2:11pm

https://twitter.com/IrishJoe1/status/1133698296244056066

Needs sound.

Shefwedfan · 29-05-2019 2:12pm

You have to worry about the people of Ireland. Seriously...we now have pages of excuses for the idiot

If this was any other country she would be out on her ear. If it was in US she would be up the ying yang now in court cases against her

Ireland, ahh sure the poor wee thing, she had no idea what was going on. Sure how could she???

It is actually really insulting to women, sexist you might say. More or less the posts on here are saying she was too thick to know she was scamming the system. Sure she is a pretty little thing, she would do no wrong.

You could maybe have a case but it is fairly clear cut from the interview she knew exactly what she was doing. Just it was never supposed to go to court so an out of court settlement would be made. Very devious. Intelligent and knowledge of the claims system. Even look at the website of the legal firm she used, they confirm you can do it quickly via PIAB or use legal firm and get more money. So if she really only wanted medical fees paid then why not go via PIAB? they would make sure any medical expenses are covered....

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

She was out to screw as much as possible....simple as that. The only issue is that she got caught.....

mickdw · 29-05-2019 2:12pm

The party can throw anyone out on grounds of bringing the party into disrepute. No judge needed there only party folk.
Seeing how sitting ministers have turned on her and with her td friend removing her image from her Facebook, it would appear that there would be little resistance to a finding of bringing the party into disrepute.

JeffKenna · 29-05-2019 2:12pm

BattleCorp wrote: »

It's very easy to prove if the sky is bright pink or if it's raining euros. It's much more difficult to prove that someone is telling lies rather than they made a mistake due to a lapse of memory.

I suspect the same as you, that there may have been lies told. But me suspecting isn't proof.

It's very easy to argue that someone forgot they did a 10k race when they are filling in an Affidavit a year or two after the race. Very very easy. We mightn't believe that she did forget about it, but we can't say that for sure that she lied on purpose about it.

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.

everlast75 · 29-05-2019 2:12pm

givyjoe wrote: »

You seem to be inferring that exaggerated claims (as it seems to be the case her with regard to her alleged injuries) are not fraud?

I'm not inferring anything at all.

I could not have been clearer.

Someone asked at what point does it become fraud and I gave a clear example

everlast75 · 29-05-2019 2:13pm

Shefwedfan wrote: »

If I had one question that is all I would ask, why not just use the PIAB? which even the legal firm you used makes reference to them? She was out to screw as much as possible....simple as that. The only issue is that she got caught.....

If the Defendant contests liability, you cannot use PIAB.

everlast75 · 29-05-2019 2:14pm

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.

yes, and about 30 pages ago I said that SOR should have asked her that, amongst many other questions

ILoveYourVibes · 29-05-2019 2:14pm

inforfun wrote: »

https://twitter.com/IrishJoe1/status/1133698296244056066

Needs sound.

It honestly sounds like she was sloshed.

Shefwedfan · 29-05-2019 2:14pm

everlast75 wrote: »

If the Defendant contests liability, you cannot use PIAB.

But they only contested liability when she requested 60k? they had already offered to cover medical costs

She should have went to PIAB, let them submit claim on her behalf
If the defendant then contests you she needs to get legal involved

She went to legal first off and submitted a huge claim, no mention of medical only. That has only come out now. ]

The PIAB case would have been done and dusted 6 months after the request if medical expenses was all she wanted

WealthyB · 29-05-2019 2:14pm

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.

givyjoe · 29-05-2019 2:16pm

everlast75 wrote: »

I'm not inferring anything at all.

I could not have been clearer.

Someone asked at what point does it become fraud and I gave a clear example

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?

BattleCorp · 29-05-2019 2:16pm

Snow Garden wrote: »

I don't think I have ever seen a story being discussed more in my workplace. People are livid.

It may seem like I am defending her but that's not the case. I'm equally as livid.

But I can't say with 100% accuracy that she told lies on purpose. I can suspect it. But I can't prove it.

everlast75 · 29-05-2019 2:17pm

Shefwedfan wrote: »

But they only contested liability when she requested 60k? they had already offered to cover medical costs

again, another question I mentioned pages ago that SOR should have asked.

If she was only looking for 6k, why did she say the defendant had paid such costs, and why didn't she take the case in the District Court.

gimli2112 · 29-05-2019 2:17pm

everlast75 wrote: »

If the Defendant contests liability, you cannot use PIAB.

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.

golfball37 · 29-05-2019 2:18pm

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.

Shefwedfan · 29-05-2019 2:20pm

everlast75 wrote: »

again, another question I mentioned pages ago that SOR should have asked.

If she was only looking for 6k, why did she say the defendant had paid such costs, and why didn't she take the case in the District Court.

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.

29-05-2019 2:21pm

golfball37 wrote: »

MB also said you know me Sean a couple of times. Outside of interviewing her professionally how could he know her?

O'Rourke lives in Dún Laoghaire, Maria Bailey is his local TD. Given his profile, I'd be shocked if they didn't know one another.

Fine Gael TD sues Dublin Hotel after falling off swing

Comments