Leo Varadkar story in The Village??? - Mod Notes and banned Users in OP updated 16/05

blanch152 · 29-03-2021 11:45AM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Missed this yesterday.

Benefit, advantage or financial gain is assumed, and it is up to the defendant in a case to disprove it, as outlined in this legal opinion:

So if the file that goes to the DPP includes evidence that Varadkar did it for political advantage then it is up to him to prove otherwise.

https://www.dppireland.ie/app/uploads/2019/03/Directors_Speech_at_Burren_Law_School_-_1_May_2010.pdf

Oh dear, oh dear. You are relying on a 2010 interpretation of an Act that was repealed in full in 2018!!!! Yes, the act referred to in the Directors Speech at Burren Law School is no longer law in Ireland. Hilarious.

It was replaced by the CRIMINAL JUSTICE (CORRUPTION OFFENCES) ACT 2018. This section of that Act sets out in full those acts that have been repealed:

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2018/act/9/enacted/en/print#sched2

I think it is safe to say that you don't know what you are talking about.

Here is the full Act:

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2018/act/9/enacted/en/print#sched2

The relevant sections of the Act are:

"An Irish official who uses confidential information obtained in the course of his or her office, employment, position or business for the purpose of corruptly obtaining a gift, consideration or advantage for himself or herself or for any other person shall be guilty of an offence."

Section 14 relates to presumption. However, subsection (3) of that Section limits the applicability of Section 14. Good luck if you want to make an argument that Section 14 applies.

So, to sum up, the court case would have to prove the following:

(1) the information was confidential (and that the Taoiseach of the day could not declassify it). Interestingly, confidential isn't defined in the Act.
(2) the Taoiseach acted corruptly (defined in the Act as "“corruptly” includes acting with an improper purpose personally or by influencing another person,")
(3) there was an advantage to the Taoiseach in doing so (again advantage is not defined in the legislation)

I still hold to my view that there will not be a prosecution.

Rows Grower · 29-03-2021 11:49AM

blanch152 wrote: »

Oh dear, oh dear. You are relying on a 2010 interpretation of an Act that was repealed in full in 2018!!!! Yes, the act referred to in the Directors Speech at Burren Law School is no longer law in Ireland. Hilarious.

It was replaced by the CRIMINAL JUSTICE (CORRUPTION OFFENCES) ACT 2018. This section of that Act sets out in full those acts that have been repealed:

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2018/act/9/enacted/en/print#sched2

I think it is safe to say that you don't know what you are talking about.

Here is the full Act:

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2018/act/9/enacted/en/print#sched2

The relevant sections of the Act are:

"An Irish official who uses confidential information obtained in the course of his or her office, employment, position or business for the purpose of corruptly obtaining a gift, consideration or advantage for himself or herself or for any other person shall be guilty of an offence."

Section 14 relates to presumption. However, subsection (3) of that Section limits the applicability of Section 14. Good luck if you want to make an argument that Section 14 applies.

So, to sum up, the court case would have to prove the following:

(1) the information was confidential (and that the Taoiseach of the day could not declassify it). Interestingly, confidential isn't defined in the Act.
(2) the Taoiseach acted corruptly (defined in the Act as "“corruptly” includes acting with an improper purpose personally or by influencing another person,")
(3) there was an advantage to the Taoiseach in doing so (again advantage is not defined in the legislation)

I still hold to my view that there will not be a prosecution.

His goose is cooked I'd say.

blanch152 · 29-03-2021 11:51AM

Muahahaha wrote: »

Youve missed the point, Leo knew he was being lobbied by O'Tuathill to try to get the GP contract. All Leo had to do was look up the Lobbyists Register and he would have seen that O'Tuathill was not a registered lobbyist, therefore he couldnt legally lobby him as per legislation. I would have thought that the Taoiseach of the day would be smart enough to ensure he wasnt being lobbied by someone who was breaking the law, if only for the purposes of avoiding political scandal further down the road. Its pretty simple due diligence for a politician not to be getting involved in something that could later blow back on them.

But of course we all know that o'Tuathill was seen as Varadkar as a friend rather than a lobbyist. He wasnt even bothered to make sure that anyone lobbying him was legally permitted to do so. He's got six special advisors on massive salaries and not one of them thought to do this most basic of due diligence either. It really speaks to the culture at play here, they all knew that the legislation for lobbyists exists but they couldnt care less about it.

It doesn't work like that. Lobbying happens all day every day.

https://www.lobbying.ie/media/6270/regulation-of-lobbying-annual-report-2019-final-web.pdf

There are over 3,000 returns per quarter. Most of these are organisations with multiple employees engaged in lobbying. No Minister or Taoiseach is going to check through 3,000 returns when they get a phonecall, email or text that the person is registered.

That is just silliness.

thomas 123 · 29-03-2021 11:55AM

blanch152 wrote: »

Oh dear, oh dear. You are relying on a 2010 interpretation of an Act that was repealed in full in 2018!!!! Yes, the act referred to in the Directors Speech at Burren Law School is no longer law in Ireland. Hilarious.

It was replaced by the CRIMINAL JUSTICE (CORRUPTION OFFENCES) ACT 2018. This section of that Act sets out in full those acts that have been repealed:

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2018/act/9/enacted/en/print#sched2

I think it is safe to say that you don't know what you are talking about.

Here is the full Act:

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2018/act/9/enacted/en/print#sched2

The relevant sections of the Act are:

"An Irish official who uses confidential information obtained in the course of his or her office, employment, position or business for the purpose of corruptly obtaining a gift, consideration or advantage for himself or herself or for any other person shall be guilty of an offence."

Section 14 relates to presumption. However, subsection (3) of that Section limits the applicability of Section 14. Good luck if you want to make an argument that Section 14 applies.

So, to sum up, the court case would have to prove the following:

(1) the information was confidential (and that the Taoiseach of the day could not declassify it). Interestingly, confidential isn't defined in the Act.
(2) the Taoiseach acted corruptly (defined in the Act as "“corruptly” includes acting with an improper purpose personally or by influencing another person,")
(3) there was an advantage to the Taoiseach in doing so (again advantage is not defined in the legislation)

I still hold to my view that there will not be a prosecution.

Because they are not defined would mean the judges interpretation would be key.

There likely is a formal declassification process which was not followed - or else that would have been the end of this.

On your last point I’d imagine the advantage could go both ways - if it was advantageous to tut then Leo should still be culpable as if he gained from it.

FrancieBrady · 29-03-2021 11:56AM

blanch152 wrote: »

Oh dear, oh dear. You are relying on a 2010 interpretation of an Act that was repealed in full in 2018!!!! Yes, the act referred to in the Directors Speech at Burren Law School is no longer law in Ireland. Hilarious.

It was replaced by the CRIMINAL JUSTICE (CORRUPTION OFFENCES) ACT 2018. This section of that Act sets out in full those acts that have been repealed:

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2018/act/9/enacted/en/print#sched2

I think it is safe to say that you don't know what you are talking about.

Here is the full Act:

http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/eli/2018/act/9/enacted/en/print#sched2

The relevant sections of the Act are:

"An Irish official who uses confidential information obtained in the course of his or her office, employment, position or business for the purpose of corruptly obtaining a gift, consideration or advantage for himself or herself or for any other person shall be guilty of an offence."

Section 14 relates to presumption. However, subsection (3) of that Section limits the applicability of Section 14. Good luck if you want to make an argument that Section 14 applies.

So, to sum up, the court case would have to prove the following:

(1) the information was confidential (and that the Taoiseach of the day could not declassify it). Interestingly, confidential isn't defined in the Act.
(2) the Taoiseach acted corruptly (defined in the Act as "“corruptly” includes acting with an improper purpose personally or by influencing another person,")
(3) there was an advantage to the Taoiseach in doing so (again advantage is not defined in the legislation)

I still hold to my view that there will not be a prosecution.

Presumption and burden of proof on the defendant is STILL the same.

Section 14 sets out a presumption of corruption for gifts, considerations or advantage. It states that where a gift, consideration or advantage has been given to an official and the person who gave the gift had an interest in the discharge by the official of their functions there will be a shift in the burden of proof and the advantage will be presumed to have been given and received corruptly unless the contrary is proven.

https://hayes-solicitors.ie/News/The-Criminal-Justice--Corruption-Offences--Act-2018-

If accused by the DPP of receiving an advantage, Varadkar will have to prove he didn't.

blanch152 · 29-03-2021 11:56AM

Muahahaha wrote: »

The CEO of the NAGP Chris Goodey doesnt seem to think so, he registered himself as a lobbyist and made several returns anytime he did any lobbying on behalf of the NAGP. The NAGP lobbied the government 53 times during their short existance so there are multiple entries there showing them meeting lots of politicians. They saw themselves as lobbyists and therefore logged their lobbying activity as per the law.

O'Tuathill was lobbying both Simon Harris and Varadkar on behalf of the NAGP but he didnt even register as a lobbyist dont mind make any actual returns. Which would mean he is in breach of the Register of Lobbyists Act. Didnt he say on Twitter that he is thinking of emigrating to Australia? The Gardai might have something to say about that.

That again depends on what they were lobbying about. For example, SIPTU have made 97 returns on the lobbying register from areas around budgetary matters to housing, health and transport. They are only exempt in relation to issues around employment terms and conditions. So the NAGP probably did lobby about lots of things.

https://www.lobbying.ie/app/home/search?currentPage=0&pageSize=10&queryText=siptu&subjectMatters=&subjectMatterAreas=&period=&returnDateFrom=&returnDateTo=&lobbyistId=&dpo=&publicBodys=&jobTitles=&client=

thomas 123 · 29-03-2021 11:57AM

blanch152 wrote: »

It doesn't work like that. Lobbying happens all day every day.

https://www.lobbying.ie/media/6270/regulation-of-lobbying-annual-report-2019-final-web.pdf

There are over 3,000 returns per quarter. Most of these are organisations with multiple employees engaged in lobbying. No Minister or Taoiseach is going to check through 3,000 returns when they get a phonecall, email or text that the person is registered.

That is just silliness.

Pity he doesn’t have reams of staff to do that for him.

FrancieBrady · 29-03-2021 11:59AM

Beechwoodspark wrote: »

Unfortunately paddy, politicians in the public eye have been on the receiving end of public anger for at least 10-15 years now.

The public are very angry over a multitude of issues.

I disagree with much of the manifestations of the anger but it ain’t going away any time soon I fear pintman

Much longer than 10-15 years. Politicians have always been shouted at and abused. Charlie Haughey was attacked several times, here in 1981.

https://www.rte.ie/archives/2016/0519/789604-paint-thrown-at-haughey/

It's not right and never is, but to say it is unique is totally wrong.

blanch152 · 29-03-2021 12:04PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

Presumption and burden of proof on the defendant is STILL the same.

https://hayes-solicitors.ie/News/The-Criminal-Justice--Corruption-Offences--Act-2018-

If accused by the DPP of receiving an advantage, Varadkar will have to prove he didn't.

From your own link:

"Section 14 sets out a presumption of corruption for gifts, considerations or advantage. It states that where a gift, consideration or advantage has been given to an official and the person who gave the gift had an interest in the discharge by the official of their functions there will be a shift in the burden of proof and the advantage will be presumed to have been given and received corruptly unless the contrary is proven."

The first step is to demonstrate that Section 14 applies and that subsection (3) in particular applies. Secondly, you have to prove there was a gift, consideration or advantage given to the Taoiseach. It is not sufficient that the DPP accuse the then Taoiseach of receiving an advantage, they have to prove it. Once proven, the Taoiseach has to prove it wasn't given corruptly.

You have got it wrong again.

blanch152 · 29-03-2021 12:07PM

thomas 123 wrote: »

Pity he doesn’t have reams of staff to do that for him.

I can picture it now.

Phone rings.
Taoiseach answers.

"Hello"
"Good morning Taoiseach, hope your Saturday is going well, This is Joe McJoe from the society of Grasscutters and I want to seek your help in changing the law so that the local authorities change the required grasscutting height"
"Hang on a minute there Joe, while I check whether the Society of Grasscutters and you are registered for lobbying"

Yeah right.

FrancieBrady · 29-03-2021 12:10PM

blanch152 wrote: »

From your own link:

"Section 14 sets out a presumption of corruption for gifts, considerations or advantage. It states that where a gift, consideration or advantage has been given to an official and the person who gave the gift had an interest in the discharge by the official of their functions there will be a shift in the burden of proof and the advantage will be presumed to have been given and received corruptly unless the contrary is proven."

The first step is to demonstrate that Section 14 applies and that subsection (3) in particular applies. Secondly, you have to prove there was a gift, consideration or advantage given to the Taoiseach. It is not sufficient that the DPP accuse the then Taoiseach of receiving an advantage, they have to prove it. Once proven, the Taoiseach has to prove it wasn't given corruptly.

You have got it wrong again.

'Your honour, the DPP believes the then Taoiseach got political advantage for his party in return for releasing a confidential government secret. Namely, the support of the organisation represented by Mr O'Toole'

Judge: How speak you Mr Varadkar.................

blanch152 · 29-03-2021 12:12PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

'Your honour, the DPP believes the then Taoiseach got political advantage for his party in return for releasing a confidential government secret. Namely, the support of the organisation represented by Mr O'Toole'

Judge: How speak you Mr Varadkar.................

Wrong again.

'Your honour, the DPP believes the then Taoiseach got political advantage for his party in return for releasing a confidential government secret. Namely, the support of the organisation represented by Mr O'Toole'

Judge: Do you have proof of political advantage? If not, get out of my court, and stop maligning the good name of the defendant.

FrancieBrady · 29-03-2021 12:14PM

blanch152 wrote: »

Wrong again.

'Your honour, the DPP believes the then Taoiseach got political advantage for his party in return for releasing a confidential government secret. Namely, the support of the organisation represented by Mr O'Toole'

Judge: Do you have proof of political advantage? If not, get out of my court, and stop maligning the good name of the defendant.

there will be a shift in the burden of proof and the advantage will be presumed to have been given and received corruptly unless the contrary is proven."

McMurphy · 29-03-2021 12:22PM

All of a sudden the narrative changed.

No longer are we discussing the document that wasn't really confidential, and Leo was always allowed to leak it at his own discretion, as he had given himself permission in his own head.

Now it seems to be accepted that the documents were indeed confidential, and Leo hypothetically will be arguing the fact in court, about him having/having not any advantage in doing so.

Progress.

thomas 123 · 29-03-2021 12:31PM

blanch152 wrote: »

I can picture it now.

Phone rings.
Taoiseach answers.

"Hello"
"Good morning Taoiseach, hope your Saturday is going well, This is Joe McJoe from the society of Grasscutters and I want to seek your help in changing the law so that the local authorities change the required grasscutting height"
"Hang on a minute there Joe, while I check whether the Society of Grasscutters and you are registered for lobbying"

Yeah right.

You see he wouldn’t be answering the phone(otherwise all he would do is answer phones) - but in this case it was through his personal channels(mobile phone probably) - political position used for personal gain through personal media.

Keep digging though blanch

RandomName2 · 29-03-2021 12:39PM

McMurphy wrote: »

All of a sudden the narrative changed.

No longer are we discussing the document that wasn't really confidential, and Leo was always allowed to leak it at his own discretion, as he had given himself permission in his own head.

Now it seems to be accepted that the documents were indeed confidential, and Leo hypothetically will be arguing the fact in court, about him having/having not any advantage in doing so.

Progress.

Well there's actually two separate arguments, one relates to the official secrets act, the other to corruption. There's some overlap but they are distinct, in particular in terms of the secrecy of the data involved. To this end corruption legislation places a far lighter burden. Its focus is instead on material gain.

There was some attempts to shift the narrative to include ideas concerning lobbying which was interesting, but ultimately not that relevant I think. Official Secrets and Corruption are far more important than reading between the lines in relation to lobbying.

FrancieBrady · 29-03-2021 12:42PM

McMurphy wrote: »

All of a sudden the narrative changed.

No longer are we discussing the document that wasn't really confidential, and Leo was always allowed to leak it at his own discretion, as he had given himself permission in his own head.

Now it seems to be accepted that the documents were indeed confidential, and Leo hypothetically will be arguing the fact in court, about him having/having not any advantage in doing so.

Progress.

The interpretations of the legislation on this thread have been way off the mark since this started.
The legislation was 'interpreted'/slanted to say that this would go away in a week/the Gardai would not proceed because... etc etc etc.

We are now at the last barricade it seems.

'The 'legislation' will ensure this doesn't make it into court'

FrancieBrady · 29-03-2021 12:44PM

RandomName2 wrote: »

Well there's actually two separate arguments, one relates to the official secrets act, the other to corruption. There's some overlap but they are distinct, in particular in terms of the secrecy of the data involved. To this end corruption legislation places a far lighter burden. Its focus is instead on material gain.

There was some attempts to shift the narrative to include ideas concerning lobbying which was interesting, but ultimately not that relevant I think. Official Secrets and Corruption are far more important than reading between the lines in relation to lobbying.

You have put the word 'material' in there and it is not just material gain. Read the legislation, it clearly says:

either directly or indirectly corruptly offering/giving or corruptly requesting/accepting “a gift, consideration or advantage

jmcc · 29-03-2021 12:45PM

RandomName2 wrote: »

Well there's actually two separate arguments, one relates to the official secrets act, the other to corruption. There's some overlap but they are distinct, in particular in terms of the secrecy of the data involved. To this end corruption legislation places a far lighter burden. Its focus is instead on material gain.

There was some attempts to shift the narrative to include ideas concerning lobbying which was interesting, but ultimately not that relevant I think. Official Secrets and Corruption are far more important than reading between the lines in relation to lobbying.

Wasn't there a letter to Martin Heydon (?) outlining the effects of MO'T's organisation campaigning against FG?

Regards...jmcc

RandomName2 · 29-03-2021 12:54PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

'Your honour, the DPP believes the then Taoiseach got political advantage for his party in return for releasing a confidential government secret. Namely, the support of the organisation represented by Mr O'Toole'

Judge: How speak you Mr Varadkar.................

'You honor the DPP believes the then Taoiseach got political advantage by reducing taxation, thereby increasing support for his party. We can clearly demonstrate this by looking at polling conducted before and after the announcement, which was made through a journalist friendly to the then Taoiseach.'

Judge: How speak you Mr Varadkar

Varadkar: literally all actions of a politician have a bearing on their public popularity. The legislation is clearly related principally to the idea of personal political gain, which the journalist in this case had no power to provide, even were he willing to do so. He is a friend, but not a close friend. The information provided in relation to taxation had been discussed at length with myself and Pascal Donohoe. I didn't tell the minister I was disclosing this to the press prior to his official announcement, but I contend that it was already public knowledge that there were going to be tax decreases for middle income families, and greater detail of these matters were, I contend, for the public good.

'The journalist might have asked everyone in the office to vote for Fine Gael though.'

'And what if he did? They could vote anyway they would choose either way. There is a private ballot you know. The journalist was often called Bluey by his colleagues for a reason, and it wasn't entirely good natured.

FrancieBrady · 29-03-2021 12:57PM

RandomName2 wrote: »

'You honor the DPP believes the then Taoiseach got political advantage by reducing taxation, thereby increasing support for his party. We can clearly demonstrate this by looking at polling conducted before and after the announcement, which was made through a journalist friendly to the then Taoiseach.'

Judge: How speak you Mr Varadkar

Varadkar: literally all actions of a politician have a bearing on their public popularity. The legislation is clearly related principally to the idea of personal political gain, which the journalist in this case had no power to provide, even were he willing to do so. He is a friend, but not a close friend. The information provided in relation to taxation had been discussed at length with myself and Pascal Donohoe. I didn't tell the minister I was disclosing this to the press prior to his official announcement, but I contend that it was already public knowledge that there were going to be tax decreases for middle income families, and greater detail of these matters were, I contend, for the public good.

'The journalist might have asked everyone in the office to vote for Fine Gael though.'

'And what if he did? They could vote anyway they would choose either way. There is a private ballot you know. The journalist was often called Bluey by his colleagues for a reason, and it wasn't entirely good natured.

What?

Reducing taxation is not illegal.

Argument over, come back when you wish to genuinely debate the issue.

McMurphy · 29-03-2021 01:06PM

jmcc wrote: »

Wasn't there a letter to Martin Heydon (?) outlining the effects of MO'T's organisation campaigning against FG?

Regards...jmcc

Yeah you are correct jmcc.

A letter of 11 February 2019 to Martin Heydon, Chairman of Fine Gael from Matt O Tuathail expressly threatened that a meeting was needed to “avoid further escalation in the dispute about representation and reform” – that they “will individually [campaign] against their local Fine Gael TDs, Councillors and Senators”.

RandomName2 · 29-03-2021 01:09PM

FrancieBrady wrote: »

What?

Reducing taxation is not illegal.

Argument over, come back when you wish to genuinely debate the issue.

I actually think that disclosing Cabinet information about the Budget prior to a Dail vote would be more serious, but you do you.

FrancieBrady · 29-03-2021 01:15PM

RandomName2 wrote: »

I actually think that disclosing Cabinet information about the Budget prior to a Dail vote would be more serious, but you do you.

Whether it is or isn't, is not the point of this discussion.

If this proceeds to a court, it will be because Varadkar is accused of an illegal act.

In that case the law states that if he is accused of gaining an advantage then the burden of proof is on him...advantage is 'presumed'.

Rows Grower · 29-03-2021 01:19PM

McMurphy wrote: »

Yeah you are correct jmcc.

That's the nail in the coffin right there.

jmcc · 29-03-2021 01:24PM

Rows Grower wrote: »

That's the nail in the coffin right there.

I would have to be investigated and the only way out for FG and Varadkar would be if it could be established that Varadkar was unaware. Perhaps that's why the mobile devices have been interrogated.

Regards...jmcc

Rows Grower · 29-03-2021 01:31PM

jmcc wrote: »

I would have to be investigated and the only way out for FG and Varadkar would be if it could be established that Varadkar was unaware. Perhaps that's why the mobile devices have been interrogated.

Regards...jmcc

It wouldn't surprise me in the least if Leo helped him word that letter.

McMurphy · 29-03-2021 01:32PM

jmcc wrote: »

I would have to be investigated and the only way out for FG and Varadkar would be if it could be established that Varadkar was unaware. Perhaps that's why the mobile devices have been interrogated.

Regards...jmcc

Trawl of Heydons emails?

He sounded fierce nervous on the wireless with McInerney there tbh.

McMurphy wrote: »

Martin Heydon challenging Maria Bailey for the most cringe radio interview ever.

I thought he was going to cry on a number of occasions.

https://www.rte.ie/radio/radioplayer/html5/?s=08#/radio1/21924573

McMurphy wrote: »

Have a listen again, shortly after 5 mins in.....

Heydon "the hypocrisy of the Sinn Féin party here, is outstanding"

McInerney "Martin, I don't know why you're bringing it back to Sinn Féin, I want to talk about the investigation....."

Heydon "Ummm, because, because, because..... they're the ones laying the charge here"

McInerney "Dafuq you talkin about*, the Gardai are investigating, that's sweet eff all to do with Sinn Féin....."

*that bit isn't exactly what she said, but you can tell it's what she wanted to say. The whole "but Sinn Féin" is familiar to me...... No idea why.

Who thought it was a good idea to let him near a mic FFS?

jmcc · 29-03-2021 01:35PM

McMurphy wrote: »

Trawl of Heydons emails?

He sounded fierce nervous on the wireless with McInerney there tbh.

Sarah is probably one of the best journalists in RTE. She has an instinct for news.

Regards...jmcc

skimpydoo · 29-03-2021 01:52PM

jmcc wrote: »

Fascinating how the the FG supporting media are trying to change the narrative from Varadkar being under criminal investigation to Varardkar getting homophobic abuse. The same attempt to distract from Varadkar being under criminal investigation is evident here. The McEntee puff piece appeared in the ironically named "Sunday Independent", didn't it? No doubt this and the Varadkar homophobic abuse will be pushed as talking points for the media today.

Regards...jmcc

That's the squirrel I had mentioned.

Leo Varadkar story in The Village??? - Mod Notes and banned Users in OP updated 16/05

Comments