should we pay sean fitzpatricks fees?

Son Of A Vidic · 27-05-2014 06:05PM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Yes absolutely. He was found innocent in court, and the law must be applied equally in all cases - imagine what would happen if we made people pay for their own prosecutions even when found innocent? First step towards tyranny in my view.

People need to realise that the crimes for which he was tried before the court recently were not the same crimes that led to the share price collapsing. Those involved loans to himself and others which were hidden from the books through clever manipulation of dates and transfers, and will be tried next year.

While I support anyone who attacks the leniency of the sentences for his co-accused and convicted in the recent case, it would be a mistake to suggest that his verdict was a miscarriage of justice. There were many separate crimes committed at Anglo and each will be tried separately - those for which Seanie is regarded as a villain have yet to be tried.

Patience.

Your plea for patience reminds me of that old proverb which says - If you sit by the river long enough, you will see the body of your enemy float by.

But in Ireland it translates into - If we leave them waiting long enough, shure they'll all forget and we'll be grand like.

hatrickpatrick · 27-05-2014 06:27PM

Corvus Maximus wrote: »

Your plea for patience reminds me of that old proverb which says - If you sit by the river long enough, you will see the body of your enemy float by.

But in Ireland it translates into - If we leave them waiting long enough, shure they'll all forget and we'll be grand like.

I understand your fears, and I shared them myself until a date for his trial was fixed by a judge. There's no getting out of it for him now.
TBH, I'm far more concerned about David Drumm. I fear he will in fact be the realization of your fears, in that he will be let go because it's too much effort to chase him down.

I believe Obama's justice department actually confessed to this in the cases of US bank fraud leading to the subprime crisis. When asked why no one was prosecuted, they more or less admitted that it was simply too difficult and they were too lazy to put in the effort required.

donegal__road · 27-05-2014 06:29PM

Reformed Character wrote: »

So you are saying we should pursue one mans character and sully it because he brother was a bollix.
Classy!

nope... I am asking this.. does the fact that Anglo's defense barrister is a brother of and Anglo bad debtor create a conflict of interest.

I called no one a bollix (classy)

.

Reformed Character · 27-05-2014 08:35PM

donegal__road wrote: »

nope... I am asking this.. does the fact that Anglo's defense barrister is a brother of and Anglo bad debtor create a conflict of interest.

I called no one a bollix (classy)

.

There is no conflict of interest. And he was not "Anglos" defence barrister he was Sean Fitzpatricks defence counsel.
How you get to conflict of interest is beyond belief.
BTW I never said you called anyone a bollix, that was my description of the developer.

tritium · 27-05-2014 09:15PM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

People need to realise that the crimes for which he was tried before the court recently were not the same crimes that led to the share price collapsing. Those involved loans to himself and others which were hidden from the books through clever manipulation of dates and transfers, and will be tried next year.

Patience.

Not entirely true, the crimes he was charged with were essentially to prop up the share price that was facing a run against it by speculators who had gotten wind of the size and nature of Quinns stake.

But yes of course his fees should be paid

BenEadir · 27-05-2014 09:22PM

Of course his fees should be paid, why should the country discriminate against him Vs others who are prosecuted and found innocent?

Sinister Pigeon · 28-05-2014 02:30AM

Ah sure we might as well pay Seanie's fees - we've nearly come full circle as a people anyway if you look at the number of people that just voted for the political party that brought us to our knees.

Quite a few of the guests of the ubiquitous Galway Tent are retained by Nama as consultants and are being payed multiples of the average industrial wage.

BenEadir · 28-05-2014 07:48AM

Sinister Pigeon wrote: »

Quite a few of the guests of the ubiquitous Galway Tent are retained by Nama as consultants and are being payed multiples of the average industrial wage.

What has the wages of the "average industrial worker" got to do with an innocent defendant having his legal fees repaid or for that matter what specialist expert consultants get paid?

tipptom · 28-05-2014 09:05AM

Coat22 wrote: »

Of course he should have his fees paid (or at least those agreed as reasonable by the taxing master)

He was found not guilty. Should never have been tried in the first place (or at least if he was he should have been as part of the entire board of directors) and in any case what was achieved by an expensive trial which ended with 2 lads being sent for community service?

More inept public sector decisions. Pay the man’s fees and move on.

I do think the trial should have went ahead as two people were found guilty,if they were sent to prison people would be saying someone was held accountable and justice was served,the only problem now is the judge seems to think ignorance is a defence and gave out lenient sentances which would get you short shrift in a normal court as a company director of a small struggling company no matter what advice you recieved.
I think that David Drumm offered a very good deal to give up his pension in the future and any other assets to pay back his debts a few years back and a deal should have been struck with him to be given immunity to come back and give full and complete honest disclosure on any dealings with Cowen and the government,regulaters and other departments and individuals and it would have done the state some service,and then there could be proper trials for the top people involved in this.

Coat22 · 28-05-2014 11:32AM

Ok so 2 people were found guilty of breach of section 60 of the company’s act or whatever it was but as seen by the sentencing (and the judge was right imo – they asked for and were given legal advice) its not exactly a crime that’s considered big in this country.

Nobody has asked the question as to why it is nobody has been tried to fraudulent trading etc – maybe it’s a case that it simply didn’t happen. That actually Anglo were just a victim of circumstances beyond their control with the collapse of the market. Shudder the thought the nasty bankers weren’t actually to blame after all. And it would be right – the main culprits here are the local and European regulators who let the thing get so bloody big that when it did collapse it took down a country. The failing isn’t the issue here – it’s the size of the failure.

Also it rankles me that nobody is charged with misleading the regulator. Sure they were the most inept people ever to be in charge of anything since the good people of Troy decided “lets open the gate – sure whats the worst that can happen?” but they were plainly misled – there are even telephone recordings in the public domain of the misleading! If I lie on my tax return or census form it’s a crime and I know similar warnings are contained on central bank submissions so why not go after this?

And finally there are the professional bodies. E&Y and MOPs seem to be getting away scot free. Arthur Anderson collapsed after the Enron affair but E&Y have actually managed (like the rest of the Big 4) to make a killing out of the banking collapse. Seems like the DPP is afraid to go after the international culprits but sticks with the populist villans.

hatrickpatrick · 28-05-2014 01:25PM

tritium wrote: »

Not entirely true, the crimes he was charged with were essentially to prop up the share price that was facing a run against it by speculators who had gotten wind of the size and nature of Quinns stake.

But yes of course his fees should be paid

Sure, but the biggest scandal at the time which rocked the share price more than others (as I remember, sadly ring a shareholder at the time) was the loans to directors scandal. That's the one which is coming up next year. If covictions emerge from that case and no custodial sentences result from them, then it will indeed be time to riot.

eigrod · 23-06-2014 05:03PM

Poor mite has to cough up himself

http://www.rte.ie/news/2014/0623/625951-sean-fitzpatrick-legal-costs/

tipptom · 23-06-2014 05:10PM

eigrod wrote: »

Poor mite has to cough up himself

http://www.rte.ie/news/2014/0623/625951-sean-fitzpatrick-legal-costs/

Oh dear,the wife is going to have to help Seanie with the fees because according to Seanie he has no money left.

Son Of A Vidic · 23-06-2014 05:51PM

steveone wrote: »

should we pay sean fitzpatricks fees?

Funeral fees? Absolutely.

Reformed Character · 23-06-2014 07:49PM

tipptom wrote: »

Oh dear,the wife is going to have to help Seanie with the fees because according to Seanie he has no money left.

No she wont, he is an undischarged bankrupt so the lawyers will just have to try their luck with the Official Assignee like everyone else.

michael999999 · 23-06-2014 08:14PM

tipptom wrote: »

Oh dear,the wife is going to have to help Seanie with the fees because according to Seanie he has no money left.

Nope. I think I read a few weeks ago that DOB paid he's legal fees.

The prosecution actually questioned whether seanie had paid any of he's legal fees himself. The judge mentioned it aswell!

should we pay sean fitzpatricks fees?

Comments