Orange is the new Burke

If it was criminal law, a judge would be able to order a psychiatric assessment. I don't know about civil law.

It was hinted a few months ago that this situation could turn down the road of criminal contempt of court. So why hasn't that happened yet? It's such a serious matter but EB won't cop on and take it seriously. He's the only person in prison that can walk free if he wanted to so long as he says he will stay away from the school but he won't do that.

It's clear to me that he doesn't want it to end. Even a 3 year old will know from past behaviour that if he is warned not to do something that he shouldn't do it. Almost immediately after getting a warning from the Judge he talks over the solicitor and is removed. It seems like he is as high as a kite with all the national attention and couldn't wait to get dragged away protesting again.

When he is in jail he complains about being locked up. When he was released he complained that he was released as a trap and deliberately walked into the same 'trap'. I don't think it needs a professional assessment to see that his rational mind has gone.

Because Judge Cregan seems to enjoying the attention of the case a little bit too much.

Based on his daft actions and words.

2 weeks ago he was told the injunction was moot, he decided it wasn't. Yesterday he completely contradicted himself.

He also had a shítty little dig at the DAP yesterday.

He also called it “ludicrous” that previous iterations of the DAP have only been able to meet on Saturdays, saying they should be able to do so on weekdays as well.

“Mr Burke is languishing in jail on a contempt of court issue while parties are appointed who can only sit on a Saturday; that’s completely undesirable,” Judge Cregan said.

They are volunteers, the HC including him don't meet at the weekends.

Also Burke is languishing in prison for several reasons one being he keeps granting him nonsense injunctions and not because these volunteers can only schedule weekends.

He needs to stop trying to be the Main Character and stop giving Burke unlimited rope, including inviting him to attend court in person with the rest of his cult.

Burke and co are obviously out there….with no regard to the rule of law or anything bar their own opinions,

but… he may be correct on some things:
namely the veracity of the school's legal team, Rosemary Mallon and Mason Hayes and Curran.

And maybe that is the problem the Judges are trying to deal with, and why they can't wrap this up;
that not only have the schools legal teams not dotted i's and crossed t's, but made a mess of proper procedures,
or went over to the dark side and embellised somewhat, or massivly.

The Judges would normally just smooth things over and ignore, especially with lay litigants, but they can't this time as there is too much publicity and attention.

On this part alone, I would be inclined to strongly believe Enoch, and the previous things he said about Mallon and solicitors…though of course would not condone his actions.

https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/courtandcrime/arid-41797187.html

"He made several allegations against the school’s solicitors, Mason Hayes & Curran, including a claim that the firm had engaged in lying to the court during his High Court actions against the school."

So what if both sides are wrong, Enoch obviously, but also the schools legal team?

A Burke accusing someone else of lying in court? Oh the ironing.

Its completely a lie. He expressed his views on transgenderism to the school and wasnt jailed. He was jailed when he verbally assaulted the principal at an out of school event and didn't stay away from school as a result of THAT. People are commenting their criticisms of transgenderism online every day and aren't jailed because they are allowed to have an opinion.

He lies every time he turns up at Wilson's school and tells anyone who will listen "I'm turning up for work" or "I work here".

Please remember the Burkes hate you. Do not waste any energy on seeing their point of view on anything, they would turn on you or any member of your family in an instant if it suited their twisted view.

You say jailed for “simply wanting”, whereas I said ”there is some element of truth even if minute and convoluted...” They are fairly different things.

If saying I was jailed for robbing the bank to get money to buy a car is true - then there is still “some” element of truth in saying I was jailed for wanting a car.

I would not be lying - even though something is missing from the statement, and it is not the full truth. But not being the full truth is different to lying.

But as per my next post - there is no need to descend to his/their level - to counter lies with lies. Society would be lessened if this needs to happen or is allowed to happen.

Look at the full original post above and the attached news article, and then then the later posts, and why its going on over 3 years and the school or department are still paying him and seem unable to fire him properly, and are going to their second or third appeals panel.

You can’t really blame Enoch that he does not want to be fired.
Employment law favours the employer (it’s written by the state), so the courts will just process what comes their way, as long as it conforms to due process. Enoch should be a slam dunk case. So that just leaves the legal team and their implementation of that due process, and if they have done it fairly.

As stated in the reply’s above - even though some/many may not like it - not being fully true or even only being marginally true does is not necessarily a lie. And it is essential to treat him according to the rule of law irrespective, again even though some do not seem to like this.

Enoch, together with many lawyers, barristers twist and contort the truth to within an inch of its life to suit their beliefs, opinions or purposes, but always retain a minimum element of plausibility. To be a lie has to be 100% and provable, and generally opposite to some other statement.

How else would barristers defend people, say innocent people who accidently shoot people in the head while aiming at the sky.

Enoch is I believe an Old Testament biblical fundamentalist, none of this New Testament - love thy neighbour, love the sinner, .... I think his concept of what is true is different than ours, being biblically based but probably honestly held. However, his concept of lying probably conforms to ours so similar to perjury. I don’t see this fundamentalist view allowing outright lying.

Again, from the article above:

"Rosemary Mallon, barrister for Wilson’s Hospital School, told the court she would not address the “personalised attacks” against her and her solicitors. "

He accused the legal team of lying and they effectively took the 5’th and did not respond. Yes that is their right, but does nothing to enhance their innocence. They didn’t issue a denial, never mind a categorical denial.

So it’s obviously not 100% true or the full truth, but it is not 100% false either to be a lie.

Thankfully the law doesn't operate on absolutes. Court decisions are made based on reasonable doubt and logic based on available evidence. Its clear that Burke is a dishonest person selectively quoting the law when it suits him and ignoring it when it doesn't. Looking for absolutes and squeaky clean court decisions isn't how the real world functions. And yet you are happy to engage in speculation over the integrity of the legal team because they didnt respond to Burkes accusations - even though you admit they were fully entitled not to respond.

Another page dedicated to 2 posters who decide to tell the other to read my original post and then throw 3 paragraphs of guff.

Anyway, with regards to "lying" in court. Every case has 2 sides trying to get a decision. In most of those cases, one of the sides is lying. They can't both be true. Every barrister has gone into a court and said things that are completely false. It's the joys of our legal system and one of the reasons we're onto page 660 of this mess.

(660 pages that I've read 99% of and am enjoying thoroughly. I'll be sad when it's gone)