Izevbakhai Case Restarts...again.

ParkRunner · 12-02-2010 02:58PM

AlekSmart wrote: »

When a Chief Justice uses phraseology as bolded above then we,the people,need to get tuned-in to the nuances......what exactly does "almost" mean.....?

The Supreme Court seems to have accepted that Izevbkhai has no chance of winning in relation to her particular case because her story has been shot to pieces, but they are going to use the opportunity to clarify at least 1, maybe 2 legal issues which impact the wider ability of failed asylum seekers to challenge their case in the High Court or seek further protection from the State when their asylum claim has been refused. It will become a significant judgment, and deal a lot more with general asylum challenges and claims than Pamela's case as an individual I reckon.

walshb · 12-02-2010 03:10PM

I tell you, what the **** is the Chief Justice doing in that position when he doesn't even know whether or not the Supreme Court should be hearing this case. What is he at? Who put him there, and if he doesn't know, who the **** does?

Pamela is really showing this country up for the sham that it is as regards the legal system. A ****ing mess it's in.

HollyB · 13-02-2010 12:47AM

Fingers McGee wrote: »

Is it just me, or is this article reading like she thinks its ok, because she got them in good faith?

How could she have accepted any documents in "good faith" after being supplied with forgeries the last time? I don't know about you, but if I was sent fakes the first time I'd be very sceptical if I was sent new documents and told that these ones were real. She claims that she was not aware that the first set were forgeries, meaning that if this is true, her husband sent her to court with fakes without telling her, so what made her so confident that the new ones were real?

Since she went to court with fakes before, I would say that "good faith" isn't good enough, and that it should have been up to her to establish that they were genuine before she submitted them to the court.

AlekSmart · 13-02-2010 01:24AM

She claims that she was not aware that the first set were forgeries, meaning that if this is true, her husband sent her to court with fakes without telling her, so what made her so confident that the new ones were real?

HollyB`s post brings Tony Izevbekhai right back onto centre stage in this production,where IMO he belongs.

It remains one of the stranger elements of this entire case how this fellow who has played such a central role and has yet managed to remain thus far face and voiceless.

His own movements on and off the Island of Ireland are the subject of some mystery also with no real evidence as to his intents.

EF`s post:

but they are going to use the opportunity to clarify at least 1, maybe 2 legal issues which impact the wider ability of failed asylum seekers to challenge their case in the High Court or seek further protection from the State when their asylum claim has been refused. It will become a significant judgment, and deal a lot more with general asylum challenges and claims than Pamela's case as an individual I reckon.

This could well be a device whereby the SC uses the Izevbekhai case in it`s byzantine entirety to tidy up and reinforce the entire business of access to the Supreme Courts services,however I could also see a situation whereby that very court would be emboldened to grant Ms Izevbekhai her desired reliefs on the basis of her persistence alone and the "Public Interest" nature of the clarifications which may spring forth.

If this were to be the reasoning behind the Chief Justice`s manouverings then I would see it as singularly flawed as,at a stroke,it will send a clear message to the many Izevbekhai observers that all that is required is persistance to wear down the Irish State`s defences.

Speculation I know,but so much of this case has baffled even seasoned observers that anything is now possible.

Pot Noodle = · 13-02-2010 05:59PM

I wish she would just go

Permabear · 13-02-2010 08:07PM

This post has been deleted.

HollyB · 13-02-2010 08:59PM

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I can't imagine that that would make her popular among other asylum seekers hoping to play the system or among the lawyers who benefit from helping them do it.

opo · 14-02-2010 03:59AM

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Can you link to a a single such case that managed to do so?

The courts are net beneficiaries of the current system. They always get paid.

They do not give a sh1t what it costs you or me. Nor should they as far as they are concerned.

ParkRunner · 14-02-2010 09:58AM

opo wrote: »

Can you link to a a single such case that managed to do so?

The courts are net beneficiaries of the current system. They always get paid.

They do not give a sh1t what it costs you or me. Nor should they as far as they are concerned.

They have made efforts to limit the ability of applicants to take a case against ORAC after the High Court asylum list started to take on a life of its own.

http://www.courts.ie/Judgments.nsf/597645521f07ac9a80256ef30048ca52/9725f30ec2a00b73802574f20052c606?OpenDocument

It is clear in the light of this series of recent decisions that it is only in very rare and limited circumstances indeed that judicial review is available in respect of an ORAC decision. The investigative procedure with which ORAC is tasked must be properly conducted but the flaw in that procedure that entitles an applicant to judicial review of an ORAC decision must be so fundamental as to deprive ORAC of jurisdiction. The Courts, the applicants themselves, and the general public have a right to expect that no such fundamental flaw should ever occur in such an application. An applicant must demonstrate a clear and compelling case that an injustice has been done that is incapable of being remedied on appeal to the RAT. If such a clear and compelling case is not demonstrated, the applicant must avail of the now well established procedure that has been set up by the Oireachtas, which provides for an appeal to the RAT.

Saying that though I think they do still give applicants an easy run for their money in a lot of cases.

Biggins · 14-02-2010 12:23PM

It appears she has tried every stunt in the book to stay - and some stunts not even in the legal books.
Someone should stand up now and say "Enough - lets end this continuing farce!"

opo · 14-02-2010 01:48PM

EF wrote: »

They have made efforts to limit the ability of applicants to take a case against ORAC after the High Court asylum list started to take on a life of its own.
.

The case you highlighted was dealing with the absurdity of seeking judicial review of an ORAC decision instead of appealing that decision to the RAT wirthin the normal statutory framework.

It meant that the courts accepted that they are not the decision making process. In real terms it meant little more than stating the obvious and would do little to lessen asylum lists that are bursting with appeals of RAT decisions.

AlekSmart · 14-02-2010 02:06PM

Saying that though I think they do still give applicants an easy run for their money in a lot of cases.

Although it will be strenuously denied I expect,I feel that there is serious level of uncomfortable political pressure always sitting around outside the Supreme Court`s door.

The Izevbekhai case is now a straightforward case of whether the democratically enacted laws of the State can be upheld in the face of a sustained,calculated attack which just so happened to secure the services of Ms Izevbekhai as the instigator.

Either the State perseveres in the interest of IT`S Citizens or Ms Izevbekhai`s proponents emerge triumphant and establish some new undemocratic quasi-constitutional mores by which to administer the Country in the future.

This is a HUGELY important case which far transcends Pamela Izevbekhai as an individual,but like it or not SHE has retained control over her campaign and appears very capable of moving it forward at her own pace.

The State MUST go all the way with this as the time for compromise has long since past.

PS: Interesting to note the lack of focus on the much vaunted ECOHR interest which was at one point held up as THE Big Stick which would beat the Irish State into submission.

Kivaro · 14-02-2010 03:45PM

donegalfella wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I believe that the court is using this case to clear up some legal issues. At least, I hope this is happening. How isolated can the justices in the Supreme Court Ivory Tower be if they truly cannot see what's going on?

97i9y3941 · 15-02-2010 12:26AM

Biggins wrote: »

It appears she has tried every stunt in the book to stay - and some stunts not even in the legal books.
Someone should stand up now and say "Enough - lets end this continuing farce!"

im sure it has made lawyers millionares over and over again,if it goes on long enough i wonder will she/kids eventually granted a citizenship for been in the country so long

ParkRunner · 16-02-2010 12:06AM

Fred83 wrote: »

im sure it has made lawyers millionares over and over again,if it goes on long enough i wonder will she/kids eventually granted a citizenship for been in the country so long

Citizenship requires several years of legal residency. So far Ms. Izevbekhai and her children are still at zero in terms of legal residency!

Sattwa69 · 25-02-2010 01:47AM

.....and now here we are at the end of Feb and PIs case is put back again.
The supreme court ask enquiring as to the validity of taking the case ending up there in at all.
My fear is that if they roll the case back and determine the validity of her case BEFORE all the documentation was submitted, will this mean that the illegal documentation is not taken into account in the decision ??

I have no doubt that when she loses the case the bleeding hearts will immediately clamour for her to stay on compassionate grounds.

that of course is not before PI takes it to the European Court to stall another year or two and the kids are getting older all the time.

Its a disgrace in how she is using those children to further her own selfish end.

97i9y3941 · 25-02-2010 01:56AM

your right about the bleeding hearts people,they will be the most stupidist people to fall for this rubbish,we must be laughing stock of europe now..

AlekSmart · 26-02-2010 05:08PM

your right about the bleeding hearts people,they will be the most stupidist people to fall for this rubbish,we must be laughing stock of europe now..

Far from it Fred83,however what we ARE is a form of testing ground for a very large industry indeed.

Ms Izevbekhai`s shadowy backers (NOT those poor Native Irish folk who made such a fuss over her) will be noting every legal and administrative move in this case.

Even now the methodologies used by Pamela Izevbekhai will be percolating down via the Nigerian based "Facilators" to be deployed by many more Izevbekhai`s yet to leave Nigeria.

I`m still waiting for a somewhat fuller picture of Tony Izevbekhai and Pamela`s movements immediately prior to her landing on Erins shamrock shore !!

dvpower · 26-02-2010 05:22PM

AlekSmart wrote: »

Ms Izevbekhai`s shadowy backers (NOT those poor Native Irish folk who made such a fuss over her) will be noting every legal and administrative move in this case.

Even now the methodologies used by Pamela Izevbekhai will be percolating down via the Nigerian based "Facilators" to be deployed by many more Izevbekhai`s yet to leave Nigeria.

Are you suggesting that she is being backed by traffickers?
What form does this backing take?
Do you have some evidence of this?

AlekSmart · 26-02-2010 06:44PM

Are you suggesting that she is being backed by traffickers?
What form does this backing take?
Do you have some evidence of this?

I`m suggesting that her ongoing case is of extreme interest to those involved in the illegal trafficking of humans and particularly those based in Nigeria.
The term "backers" is perhaps not the best one in this case,with "interested observers" being more accurate to illustrate the nature of the HT industry as a whole.
As for evidence...sadly that is one aspect of this case which has long since been rendered largely irrelevant,not least by Ms Izevbekhai`s own behaviour in that regard.

dvpower · 26-02-2010 06:51PM

AlekSmart wrote: »

I`m suggesting that her ongoing case is of extreme interest to those involved in the illegal trafficking of humans and particularly those based in Nigeria.
The term "backers" is perhaps not the best one in this case,with "interested observers" being more accurate to illustrate the nature of the HT industry as a whole.

Glad thats cleared up. There is no evidence whatsoever that Pamela Izevbekhai has backing from people traffickers.

AlekSmart wrote: »

As for evidence...sadly that is one aspect of this case which has long since been rendered largely irrelevant,not least by Ms Izevbekhai`s own behaviour in that regard.

There's something ironic about attempting to inject false information into a dicussion of a case that hinges on false information.:rolleyes:

Irlandese · 26-02-2010 07:03PM

AlekSmart wrote: »

I`m suggesting that her ongoing case is of extreme interest to those involved in the illegal trafficking of humans and particularly those based in Nigeria.
The term "backers" is perhaps not the best one in this case,with "interested observers" being more accurate to illustrate the nature of the HT industry as a whole.
As for evidence...sadly that is one aspect of this case which has long since been rendered largely irrelevant,not least by Ms Izevbekhai`s own behaviour in that regard.

right on,
There are an awful lot of other chancers and parasites, like this woman, just itching to come here and make a farce of our legal, welfare and political systems.
We need to throw her out fast.

AlekSmart · 26-02-2010 08:34PM

Glad thats cleared up. There is no evidence whatsoever that Pamela Izevbekhai has backing from people traffickers.

There's something ironic about attempting to inject false information into a dicussion of a case that hinges on false information.

Sadly dvpower,im not the best for irony....it`s kinda lost on me usually.

However you are correct about the false information,although I personally cannot take the credit for injecting it into the discussion.

Some of this false information only came to light after some forensic journalism by the UK Sunday Times.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/ireland/article5950490.ece

Its a long and quite detailed article and,as such differs wildly from the Indigenous Irish medias coverage,but the following is the portion I found of interest...

Izevbekhai and her daughters presented themselves to immigration officials in Dublin in January 2005, claiming that a trafficker had smuggled them to Ireland via the Netherlands.

I`m considering that as a businessperson,Ms Izevbekhai`s trafficker would most assuredly have a professional interest in the progress of her case ?

walshb · 26-02-2010 09:18PM

Seriously, when are we gonna'wake up and ask the question of ourselves and not Pamela. Would this ****ing happen in any other country on earth?

The whole system is a complete sham, bunch of ****ing wasters,and for the stupidity of it all, Pamela should be allowed to stay. She has got this far, appearance after appearance after appearance; the ****ing Supreme Court FOLKS don't even know if she is entitled to be in the Supreme Court.

The highest court in the land, and they don't have a freaking clue. Again, it is us who have the problem and the issue here, not Pamela. She is simply expoliting the ridiculous Irish system.

walshb · 26-02-2010 09:20PM

Irlandese wrote: »

right on,
There are an awful lot of other chancers and parasites, like this woman, just itching to come here and make a farce of our legal, welfare and political systems.We need to throw her out fast.

No no, we do a ****ing good job of that ourselves, they just jump on for the ride!

Agent_99 · 26-02-2010 09:45PM

There is only really one question to be asked of the Judges in this case and it is "Can this woman and her children be returned to her country of origin without fear of Mutilation or death?" Nigeria in 2010 is as safe and as dangerous as any country ... the only reason that she want to stay in this country is an Economic one, Our education and social welfare system.. this woman cannot be allow to hold our courts up through lies and forged documents that can be purchased on any back street in Lagos.

walrusgumble · 26-02-2010 09:58PM

Fred83 wrote: »

im sure it has made lawyers millionares over and over again,if it goes on long enough i wonder will she/kids eventually granted a citizenship for been in the country so long

how? if she loses, they get nothing. Whatever she might be paying them, it is certaintly not worth it for the amount of work it takes to bring a case to the Supreme Court

dvpower · 26-02-2010 10:14PM

AlekSmart wrote: »

I`m considering that as a businessperson,Ms Izevbekhai`s trafficker would most assuredly have a professional interest in the progress of her case ?

They offer a wonderful after care service:rolleyes:

AlekSmart · 26-02-2010 11:43PM

They offer a wonderful after care service

I doubt very much if Ms Izevbekhai`s "Travel Agent" supplied her with a VAT receipt,but it`s most likely that a hi-profile success whereby a "client" was successful in panhandling a dozy State would reflect very favourably on the business reputation of the Trafficker involved.

This industry is a HUGE one and generates many millions of (usually)$`s in revenue.

It really behoves the various recieving authorities to start regarding it as exactly what it is ..an Illegal activity and to strenuously rebut those who avail of its services.

However,I readily concede that such authoritarian concepts remain foreign(!) to us.

dvpower · 27-02-2010 01:15AM

AlekSmart wrote: »

It really behoves the various recieving authorities to start regarding it as exactly what it is ..an Illegal activity and to strenuously rebut those who avail of its services.

But aren't genuine asylum seekers going to take any measures possible to escape their persecution? Are you serious that we should take their means of transport into account when we assess their cases?

Surely those who arrive on scheduled flights with all papers in order are less likely to be genuine?

Izevbakhai Case Restarts...again.

Comments