garda corruption alive and well

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

Once "Integrity" Ireland provide "a point backed by substance" I will.

It's there in spades (but of course, if you consciously don't want to see it...)

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

I just came here for the 'lols'

Yes, and for that, shame on you. As pointed out earlier, when the McBrearty's were going through their hell at the hands of this state, their kids were bullied by locals. At best, that's what you and your co-travellers are guilty of right here, right now.

But of course, for those with a vested interest, they're guilty of much more...

makeorbrake wrote: »

Evidently, you seem to believe in conspiracy's now - so I understand the logic of that. What I'm a little bit confused about is whether conspiracies are the preserve of those labelled 'mentally unwell'....? (i'll go back and re-read your contributions - I'm sure I'll figure it out).

You midunderstand. I'm not going there to engage in cinspiracy debate. I'm going to browse it for a laugh.

makeorbrake wrote: »

It's interesting that you mention the legal discussion forum. Would that be the legal discussion forum where it's against the rules to discuss anything (hypothetical or otherwise) that they deem to be 'legal advice' (for the protection of the original poster of course)?

No idea what your point is here.

makeorbrake wrote: »

The Freeman thread? tut - tut. Here you go again. Point out to me what aspect of Integrity Ireland - word or deed - points to Freeman ideology? You know well that they are not involved in same - but of course, it's all part of the character assassination, isn't it?

Another deflection.

makeorbrake wrote: »

Ah - well thanks for making my very point for me. :-D
Would this be the very same legal profession that fails miserably when it comes to everything Integrity Ireland stands for? i.e. "Challenging corruption, cronyism, and criminal cover-ups..
..and encouraging openness, transparency and justice in Irish institutions."
You think that I.I. have not had any issues with members of the legal profession previously (which would go some way to explaining the example of character assassination that you point to)? You think that I.I. upsetting the cosy status quo (by being so audacious as to access the laws as they were intended and insist that everyone play by the rules) that exists is in the interests of many in the the legal profession (which goes further in explaining away the example of character assassination that you point to)? Did I not already point out to you and your buddy 'jeff' that judiciary, courts service, legal profession and gardai - through the course of their work have an ongoing working relationship? So when they slate the good name of Joe Doocey and Stephen Manning, they do so being active participants in the saga globally.

And you use that as an example of an independent viewpoint!....really?

The dogs on the street know it. Hell, even the I.M.F./Troika knew it but I guess your vested interest blinds you. Were they also 'mentally unwell' when they came out with that?

You understand that not all solicitors work with the state right? But I guess it's easy to ignore all argument by just claiming vested interest, even thought that doesn't even make sense when it comes to Integrity Ireland. Doocey thinks the state is after him because he dated a Garda's ex. All Manning has done is interpret minor laws and rules to suit himself and used them to interrupt courts. Even if he strikes it lucky with one of them, the state can just amend the law. What danger do they actually pose? And why have they yet to produce any proof of anything other than claims made on Youtube? By people with "vested interests" no less. How many convictions has Doocey got now anyway?

makeorbrake wrote: »

I've lost nothing my Little CuChu - simply because it's a house of cards that you are defending.

That makes no sense. You are arguing like teenager.

Bubbaclaus

makeorbrake wrote: »

It's there in spades (but of course, if you consciously don't want to see it...)

Yes, and for that, shame on you. As pointed out earlier, when the McBrearty's were going through their hell at the hands of this state, their kids were bullied by locals. At best, that's what you and your co-travellers are guilty of right here, right now.

But of course, for those with a vested interest, they're guilty of much more...

So "at best" me posting a few times in this thread is comparable to bullying kids in a school?

Well I'll be. Perhaps you can make an "Integrity" Ireland video about it.

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

So "at best" me posting a few times in this thread is comparable to bullying kids in a school?

Well I'll be. Perhaps you can make an "Integrity" Ireland video about it.

He says the proof is there in spades but what he forgets is that they have a members database where they keep it safe from prying eyes. It says it on their website. If he has seen spades of "proof" then he must have access to this database, which would make him a member. Although from the look of the submission form, all you need is a story and it's added.

SpaceSasqwatch

this thread is full of win

The deluded defending the deluded.

emigrate2012

This is genuinely the most entertaining thread I've read in AH in a long time....honest to god.

This make or brake seems Very much I a vested interest in one the parties involved, sure didn't he know there was an undercover camped outside Doocey partner house in Wicklow.......

Keep it up people,I'll keep me entertained this Sunday.

Makeorbrake.....say hello to Joe doocey and I.I. when your talking later together (along with Dave o Callaghan over on the journal) and enough with "pick up the phone if you want proof" you're the person claiming these events are fact,so it's not unreasonable for users here to ask you to back these claims with some concrete proof,not rambling, frothing at the mouth variations of claims without substance.I would argue the burden of proof lies with you to defend your claims coherently and with GENUINE proof(not YouTube videos)

One clear concise post (without quoting all and sundry) outlining your claims with proof(Cross checkable through both witness statements,media reports etc) would do wonders for your cause.

BTW the way,I'm very disappointed in ah...this is prime material right here.

makeorbrake wrote: »

"First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win."
Mahatma Gandhi

just coz your sitting there in your y fronts doesn't make you gandhi :pac::pac::pac::pac::pac::pac::pac::pac::pac:

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

You midunderstand. I'm not going there to engage in cinspiracy debate. I'm going to browse it for a laugh.

You mean the discussion has come round full circle on you and bit you in the backside. :-)

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

No idea what your point is here.

It's written in plain english. You can read I take it? Let me know specifically what it is that you don't understand in those two sentences and I'll endeavour to explain it to you.

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

Another deflection.

Yes, another deflection by you. You and your co-travellers repeatedly ramble on with show me proof - but when it comes to the questions I've put to you, you have no answer. The reason you have no answer is that I.I. has nothing to do with freeman ideology. It's quite simple. The freeman movement don't recognise the courts. I.I. work within the system that's there, the constitution, national and european law. Their issue is with those in position of power and authority bending the very law they pretend to abide by (or enforce) - that together with there being no accountability when it comes to the judiciary, the legal profession, the gardai and other state institutions.

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

You understand that not all solicitors work with the state right?

I understand that all solicitors as a 'profession' are self governing. I understand that the I.M.F./Troika - pointed specifically to this very fact. I guess the I.M.F. are deluded also, right? - as anyone who doesn't agree with you and your co-travellers is mentally unsound apparently.
Notwithstanding the self regulation, there are of course some practicioners with integrity - but should they have the courage to rise above the parapet, they get dealt with with pure brutality => LINK.

In the same way, I have no doubt that our gardai are largely of the highest integrity. However, the very same - should they speak out, they get dealt with in the same manner. You only have to look at how garda whistleblowers were dealt with - by former Garda Commissioner Martin Callinan and his completely reprehensible 'quite disgusting' remark before the PAC. Furthermore, my understanding is that I.I. are in contact with - and have the cooperation (and admiration) of many serving Gardai (alongside other people with integrity in public life). And of course, that's totally logical. Afterall, for anyone working in any profession, who wants their profession tarnished by the wrongdoing and corrupt practices of others?

Little CuChulainn wrote:

But I guess it's easy to ignore all argument by just claiming vested interest

I have not ignored any of your argument. I've responded to it - in it's totality. I've clarified (what everyone knows) that the legal profession, judiciary, courts service and gardai work together on a daily basis. I've clarified that it appears that any Integrity Ireland members that have gotten press have - at some stage or another - had similar issues with the legal profession. It's clear that they take issue with that profession - and it's self regulation......the same way as the I.M.F. took issue with same.

Little CuChulainn wrote:

Doocey thinks the state is after him because he dated a Garda's ex.

Bending the facts to suit your world view once again I see.

As you well know, Joe Doocey had original grievances with members of A.G.S. that go back years. That sorry catalogue of corrupt practice led him to get involved with Integrity Ireland. He has made it known that actions taken against him since January of this year have been as a result of actions from A.G.S. from the highest levels. i.e. the antagonism and harrassment has emanated from Harcourt Street rather than locally.

By the way - practically all of you have reduced the discussion to declaring Mr. Doocey a 'loon' yet not one of you has as yet answered this question;

If Mr. Doocey is a 'loon', then why is he getting the attention of 20 plain clothes Gardai from Dublin - some armed, some not - raiding his house where he - a middle aged man was residing on the day at the family home with his 77 year old father and his partner (a woman I'm guessing is in her fifties)? You really think anyone believes that if he was or is a 'loon', that had he come to the attention of the Gardai, it would be anything more than the local guard dropping out in the squad car to tick him off and tell him to cop himself on (if indeed they bothered to drop out)?

Not one of you can explain that.

Next...

Why was his partner arrested at her place of work? A woman in her fifties being questioned (just like he was repeatedly) about Integrity Ireland - when she is not even a member?
How is it that her job (yes Jeff, an internship) was terminated immediately afterwards? Of course, it's a coincidence, right?

Little CuChulainn wrote:

All Manning has done is interpret minor laws and rules

Well hang on. He is interpreting laws that exist - the laws of the land - that you and your co-travellers proclaim to abide by. What on earth is the problem with that? Who could possibly have a problem with that??
Is this also the reason why your friends in the legal profession have an issue with I.I.? Because they work within the laws that exist?

Little CuChulainn wrote:

... and used them [legitimate laws] to interrupt courts.

Again, you are twisting things to support your world view.
An individual - lodged a question with the courts office (i.e. he followed their guidance - in putting a question before the courts the following day (or maybe days...i'm not sure on the timing). County Registrar Fintan Murphy had prior knowledge of said question. My understanding is that this individual - stood up at the onset of the days courts proceedings (as is the protocol) and proceeded to ask his question - as is his right as a citizen. Mr. Murphy directed him to sit down. He knew well what the question was (as he had prior knowledge). He didn't even extend the courtesy to address the question in any way - nor was it a case that he said that he would deal with his question later.
Now....if you are all democrats, then none of you could possibly have an issue with that, could you?

From what I understand, he gestured to Gardai - who then proceeded to break the law themselves i.e. removing members of the public from a public court.

Little CuChulainn wrote:

Even if he strikes it lucky with one of them, the state can just amend the law.

Two things on that....
1. Why would we want the law amended if that law is in the public interest?
2. Strikes it lucky? Well, again he's working with the system - so what's the 'striking it lucky' business all about?

Little CuChulainn wrote:

What danger do they actually pose?

Finally - we can agree on something. I agree. They are working within the law. What earthly danger do they possibly pose that would get them man handled out of a public court room? What earthly danger do they pose that resulted in 20 Dublin based plain clothes Gardai raiding Joe Doocey's home in Ballina a few months ago?

Little CuChulainn wrote:

And why have they yet to produce any proof of anything other than claims made on Youtube?

Yes, all of you hate the presence of video. Those videos serve as the views of those interviewed on them. They provide transparency. If any of you (or your friends in the legal profession) have an issue with anything stated, it is your/their right to pursue legal remedy. Again - the laws of this State.

Little CuChulainn wrote:

By people with "vested interests" no less.

Absa-freakin-loutely. See above.

Little CuChulainn wrote:

That makes no sense.

That your point of view and argument is that of a straw man arguement? Well, I know that you and your co-travellers have invested so much in it now that it's going to be difficult for you to come out of your entrenched positions on the subject - but it makes complete sense. I guess we can leave it open for people to make up their own minds.

Little CuChulainn wrote:

You are arguing like teenager.

I've consistently stated my views - in concise and clear english - addressing your points as I go. If you believe that to be the argument of a teenager, I don't really have any other comment to make on that. I'm not age-ist. :P

Little CuChulainn wrote:

He says the proof is there in spades but what he forgets is that they have a members database where they keep it safe from prying eyes. It says it on their website. If he has seen spades of "proof" then he must have access to this database, which would make him a member. Although from the look of the submission form, all you need is a story and it's added.

Eh...so what? Are we dealing in conspiracy theories again? Should I question your sanity on that basis (consistent with your co-travellers on this thread)?

Once again, I'm not a member of I.I. - but a long time admirer. Not that that makes a jot of difference to the argument I've put across. If they came to my door today with an application form, I'd be quite happy to fill it out - in fact, recent events confirm to me that it is exactly the right thing to do - and you guys have played your part in that - so I guess I should thank you for that.

Bubbaclaus wrote:

So "at best" me posting a few times in this thread is comparable to bullying kids in a school?

I think its fair to draw comparisons with how people behaved in the early days of the McBrearty affair and your 'contribution' here. Whilst clearly I disagree with 99% of what Little CuChulainn believes and states on the subject, at least he has articulated his viewpoint. This is after all a discussion board.

Should I just get you a set of pom poms and be done with it?

Spacesasqwatch wrote:

this thread is full of win
The deluded defending the deluded.

Another set of pom poms then? :-)

emigrate2012 wrote:

This is genuinely the most entertaining thread I've read in AH in a long time....honest to god.

.
Well I'm glad someone elses misfortune due to the wrongdoing and corrupt practices of others gives you that warm feeling inside. Gives us all an insight into the person behind the username.

emigrate2012 wrote:

Makeorbrake.....say hello to Joe doocey

.
I've never met the man. However, if I ever did, I'd extend him all the help and support I possibly could.

emigrate2012 wrote:

...and I.I. when your talking later together

Not that it matters one jot - but I've never spoken to anyone in I.I. However, all you lot keep reinforcing is that I very much should acquaint myself with them. Furthermore, that's been the effect with the recent corrupt practices that have come about since January this year. It's royally imploding on back on you.

emigrate2012 wrote:

(along with Dave o Callaghan over on the journal)

.Never heard of him. I'll look him up if you'd like :-)

emigrate2012 wrote:

and enough with "pick up the phone if you want proof"

Sure I know well - none of you will do that - as it will confirm what J.D's partner states on one of those dastardly youtube videos.

emigrate2012 wrote:

you're the person claiming these events are fact,so it's not unreasonable for users here to ask you to back these claims with some concrete proof,not rambling, frothing at the mouth variations of claims without substance.I would argue the burden of proof lies with you to defend your claims coherently and with GENUINE proof(not YouTube videos)

Oh I see, there's proof and there's genuine proof :P
Once again, read back through the thread - the facts are there. You may not like them (I wonder why) but there is nothing wrong with youtube videos. If anyone believes they have been slandered, they are fully within their rights to pursue legal remedy.

emigrate2012 wrote:

One clear concise post (without quoting all and sundry) outlining your claims with proof

.
I've deliberately quoted all comments of yours and your co-travellers as the intention is to address each specific point raised. It's there to read in plain english. Again, I guess if what I've written doesn't support your world view, then no wonder you take issue with it.

mynamejeff wrote:

just coz your sitting there in your y fronts doesn't make you gandhi

Make that 3 sets of pom poms and maybe some elocution lessons?...meh...on second thoughts, stick to the pom poms Jeff

Timberrrrrrrr

^^^^^^

Theirs the JD we have all come to know and laugh at.

aw its sunday . you should get out and enjoy the weather your brain must be fried under all that tinfoil

mynamejeff wrote: »

aw its sunday . you should get out and enjoy the weather your brain must be fried under all that tinfoil

p.s any sign of that proof ??

makeorbrake wrote: »

You mean the discussion has come round full circle on you and bit you in the backside. :-)

No, I mean your speeches are entertaining.

makeorbrake wrote: »

It's written in plain english. You can read I take it? Let me know specifically what it is that you don't understand in those two sentences and I'll endeavour to explain it to you.

I said I didn't understand the point you were trying to make. I thought I was pretty clear.

makeorbrake wrote: »

Yes, another deflection by you. You and your co-travellers repeatedly ramble on with show me proof - but when it comes to the questions I've put to you, you have no answer. The reason you have no answer is that I.I. has nothing to do with freeman ideology. It's quite simple. The freeman movement don't recognise the courts. I.I. work within the system that's there, the constitution, national and european law. Their issue is with those in position of power and authority bending the very law they pretend to abide by (or enforce) - that together with there being no accountability when it comes to the judiciary, the legal profession, the gardai and other state institutions.

Why do you keep referring to me as a traveller? The deflection I referred to was that you dismissed the arguments not because of their content, but because of their location.

makeorbrake wrote: »

I understand that all solicitors as a 'profession' are self governing. I understand that the I.M.F./Troika - pointed specifically to this very fact. I guess the I.M.F. are deluded also, right? - as anyone who doesn't agree with you and your co-travellers is mentally unsound apparently.
Notwithstanding the self regulation, there are of course some practicioners with integrity - but should they have the courage to rise above the parapet, they get dealt with with pure brutality => LINK.

Again you are just soapboxing with no actual point.

makeorbrake wrote: »

In the same way, I have no doubt that our gardai are largely of the highest integrity. However, the very same - should they speak out, they get dealt with in the same manner. You only have to look at how garda whistleblowers were dealt with - by former Garda Commissioner Martin Callinan and his completely reprehensible 'quite disgusting' remark before the PAC. Furthermore, my understanding is that I.I. are in contact with - and have the cooperation (and admiration) of many serving Gardai

I very much doubt that, especially with I.I.'s members running down Gardaí in the street.

makeorbrake wrote: »

I have not ignored any of your argument. I've responded to it - in it's totality. I've clarified (what everyone knows) that the legal profession, judiciary, courts service and gardai work together on a daily basis. I've clarified that it appears that any Integrity Ireland members that have gotten press have - at some stage or another - had similar issues with the legal profession. It's clear that they take issue with that profession - and it's self regulation......the same way as the I.M.F. took issue with same.

You've clarified that judges, Gardaí and solicitors all work in the justice system. Well done. A truly epic discovery. I've no doubt I.I. have trouble with members of the legal profession. It can't be nice to be constantly told that your understanding of the law is lacking and you have no case.

makeorbrake wrote: »

Bending the facts to suit your world view once again I see.

As you well know, Joe Doocey had original grievances with members of A.G.S. that go back years. That sorry catalogue of corrupt practice led him to get involved with Integrity Ireland. He has made it known that actions taken against him since January of this year have been as a result of actions from A.G.S. from the highest levels. i.e. the antagonism and harrassment has emanated from Harcourt Street rather than locally.

Doocey states in his video that it all started because he went out with a woman a Garda use to date. Have you actually seen his video?

makeorbrake wrote: »

By the way - practically all of you have reduced the discussion to declaring Mr. Doocey a 'loon' yet not one of you has as yet answered this question;

If Mr. Doocey is a 'loon', then why is he getting the attention of 20 plain clothes Gardai from Dublin - some armed, some not - raiding his house where he - a middle aged man was residing on the day at the family home with his 77 year old father and his partner (a woman I'm guessing is in her fifties)? You really think anyone believes that if he was or is a 'loon', that had he come to the attention of the Gardai, it would be anything more than the local guard dropping out in the squad car to tick him off and tell him to cop himself on (if indeed they bothered to drop out)?

Not one of you can explain that.

Next...

It's not that people can't explain it, it's that they don't believe it.

makeorbrake wrote: »

Why was his partner arrested at her place of work? A woman in her fifties being questioned (just like he was repeatedly) about Integrity Ireland - when she is not even a member?
How is it that her job (yes Jeff, an internship) was terminated immediately afterwards? Of course, it's a coincidence, right?

I'd imagine it's because she was suspected of being involved in the same behaviour as Doocey and the I.I. From the evidence available so far we know his computer appears to have been used to send threatening letters to a Judge. He doesn't deny this, he blames hackers.

makeorbrake wrote: »

Well hang on. He is interpreting laws that exist - the laws of the land - that you and your co-travellers proclaim to abide by. What on earth is the problem with that? Who could possibly have a problem with that??
Is this also the reason why your friends in the legal profession have an issue with I.I.? Because they work within the laws that exist?

Yes the laws exist, but they are interpreted by courts. Sometimes laws can be worded in ways which can be vague. In these cases it is up to courts to decide which meaning to take from them. Manning takes his own meaning from them.

makeorbrake wrote: »

Again, you are twisting things to support your world view.
An individual - lodged a question with the courts office (i.e. he followed their guidance - in putting a question before the courts the following day (or maybe days...i'm not sure on the timing). County Registrar Fintan Murphy had prior knowledge of said question. My understanding is that this individual - stood up at the onset of the days courts proceedings (as is the protocol) and proceeded to ask his question - as is his right as a citizen. Mr. Murphy directed him to sit down. He knew well what the question was (as he had prior knowledge). He didn't even extend the courtesy to address the question in any way - nor was it a case that he said that he would deal with his question later.
Now....if you are all democrats, then none of you could possibly have an issue with that, could you?

The issue is not that he wanted to ask a question. The issue is that he decided when the time was to ask that question and attempted to dictate the proceedings of the court.

makeorbrake wrote: »

From what I understand, he gestured to Gardai - who then proceeded to break the law themselves i.e. removing members of the public from a public court.

I'm sure if that is true then the private prosecution will be successful. Although why you do not think Gardaí have the right to remove people from a court is beyond me. They are there to enforce the courts rules.

makeorbrake wrote: »

Two things on that....
1. Why would we want the law amended if that law is in the public interest?
2. Strikes it lucky? Well, again he's working with the system - so what's the 'striking it lucky' business all about?

Loopholes. Many laws have loopholes due to oversight in their inception. These loopholes allow for people to do things contrary to the intention of the legislation. When they are found they are amended.

makeorbrake wrote: »

Finally - we can agree on something. I agree. They are working within the law. What earthly danger do they possibly pose that would get them man handled out of a public court room? What earthly danger do they pose that resulted in 20 Dublin based plain clothes Gardai raiding Joe Doocey's home in Ballina a few months ago?

They were removed from the court because they disrupted it. I'd imagine his house was searched to retrieve the computer that was used to send threatening emails. The presence of 20 Gardaí is highly unlikely and the lack of evidence of such numbers is fairly telling.

makeorbrake wrote: »

Yes, all of you hate the presence of video. Those videos serve as the views of those interviewed on them. They provide transparency. If any of you (or your friends in the legal profession) have an issue with anything stated, it is your/their right to pursue legal remedy. Again - the laws of this State.

Absa-freakin-loutely. See above.
That your point of view and argument is that of a straw man arguement? Well, I know that you and your co-travellers have invested so much in it now that it's going to be difficult for you to come out of your entrenched positions on the subject - but it makes complete sense. I guess we can leave it open for people to make up their own minds.

I've consistently stated my views - in concise and clear english - addressing your points as I go. If you believe that to be the argument of a teenager, I don't really have any other comment to make on that. I'm not age-ist. :P

Yet still no proof.

emigrate2012

This guys interest of and defense of this alleged practice of corruption and defense of I.I. (which he is definitely NOT a member of) is ...... Interesting to say the least.I think I'll bow out seeing as arguing against him is pointless. He knows all he's quoted is 100% true and factual,there no talking to people of his ilk.

And as for the person/mindset behind my username?!? Wtf has that anything to do with asking you to stump up some actual verifiable corroborated evidence to support your claims?
Personally, I'm of the opinion you won't,because you can't.
And if your really want to know about said name,I signed up looking for info on emigration and never changed it.

Best of look promoting....well whatever the organization/agenda it is your into I won't be listening to it anymore.

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

No, I mean your speeches are entertaining.

Well, once again, isn't it great that you are 'entertained' at the ill-treatment of another human being. I'm sure it will bring you luck.

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

I said I didn't understand the point you were trying to make. I thought I was pretty clear.

The two sentences written in the english language? Nobody believes you.

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

Why do you keep referring to me as a traveller?

lol
I didn't refer to you as a traveller. I referred to your fanboys (who aren't capable of putting a coherent point across) as fellow travellers (aka fanboys aka journeymen).

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

The deflection I referred to was that you dismissed the arguments not because of their content, but because of their location.

I'll use your phrase on that one shall I? That's complete bollocks. You continually attempt to tar I.I. with the freeman brush. I might have given you the benefit of the doubt heretonow but given the clarification, you know full well that they have nothing to do with freeman ideology and thinking.

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

Again you are just soapboxing with no actual point.

Again, I'll use your terminology, shall I? Pure deflection on your part. The point was made - you have no answer to it. Lest you have forgotten, the following;

makeorbrake wrote:

I understand that all solicitors as a 'profession' are self governing. I understand that the I.M.F./Troika - pointed specifically to this very fact. I guess the I.M.F. are deluded also, right? - as anyone who doesn't agree with you and your co-travellers is mentally unsound apparently.
Notwithstanding the self regulation, there are of course some practitioners with integrity - but should they have the courage to rise above the parapet, they get dealt with with pure brutality => LINK.

Go on - say it. The I.M.F. / Troika are loons/mentally incapacitated? Your comments please - if you have the courage.

Little CuChulainn wrote:

I very much doubt that,

You mean you really, really *hope* not - or else the house of cards is (sooner or later) going to come crashing down.

Little CuChulainn wrote:

especially with I.I.'s members running down Gardaí in the street.

And that's a true and complete representation of the facts? I'll ask you again. What would your driving be like if 2 gardai were flailing your car with batons?

Little CuChulainn wrote:

You've clarified that judges, Gardaí and solicitors all work in the justice system. Well done. A truly epic discovery. I've no doubt I.I. have trouble with members of the legal profession. It can't be nice to be constantly told that your understanding of the law is lacking and you have no case.

Ok, no problem at all on the clarification (you'll understand given the discourse on this thread that I found it necessary to point that out. :rolleyes:).

So on that basis, Joe Doocey is a loon, Stephen Manning is a loon, the I.M.F. are loons (still waiting on you to address that), and I can throw in as many links as you care to mention to show that not all is well in the irish legal 'profession', far from that - it's rotten to the core!

Let me know if you need more 'proof' (you and your fanboys keep demanding 'proof'). Just to get you a taste, lets get a testimonial from a true blueshirt (and in this case, I have to applaud him for having the courage to speak out);

Ivan Yates: Farewell to the Troika and our chances of the real reform we desperately need.
Ivan Yates: Historic Chance for real Reform is being Undermined.
Ivan Yates: To Tackle High Legal Costs We Must End Restrictive Practices

Those are mild instances. You want more commentary on the state of the legal profession in this state? No problem - I will provide. The bottom line is you questioned Mr. Doocey's (and I.I's) questioning of the irish legal 'profession' - when the dogs on the street know that a self regulating profession is an unregulated profession ...ergo...it has NO credibility. The irony...

Little CuChulainn wrote:

Doocey states in his video that it all started because he went out with a woman a Garda use to date. Have you actually seen his video?

Thanks for the refresher. I imagine I addressed that by way of the following;

makeorbrake wrote:

Bending the facts to suit your world view once again I see.

As you well know, Joe Doocey had original grievances with members of A.G.S. that go back years. That sorry catalogue of corrupt practice led him to get involved with Integrity Ireland.

...and the rest - the events since January of this year - when Harcourt Street got involved - are directed at Integrity Ireland - rather than Joe Doocey's legacy grievances with A.G.S.

You have not answered, so I guess I will ask yet again;

makeorbrake wrote:

By the way - practically all of you have reduced the discussion to declaring Mr. Doocey a 'loon' yet not one of you has as yet answered this question;

If Mr. Doocey is a 'loon', then why is he getting the attention of 20 plain clothes Gardai from Dublin - some armed, some not - raiding his house where he - a middle aged man was residing on the day at the family home with his 77 year old father and his partner (a woman I'm guessing is in her fifties)? You really think anyone believes that if he was or is a 'loon', that had he come to the attention of the Gardai, it would be anything more than the local guard dropping out in the squad car to tick him off and tell him to cop himself on (if indeed they bothered to drop out)?

Not one of you can explain that.

Little CuChulainn wrote:

It's not that people can't explain it, it's that they don't believe it.

Ah, I see. So not only is Joe a 'loon' - his 77 year old father (did you honestly watch the video?) and his 50-something partner are also lying? So in you and your fanboys 'court-system'- you know the one in yer heads where you keep asking for proof - how many witnesses does there need to be before the court of Little Cu Chu accepts the reality?

Little CuChulainn wrote:

I'd imagine it's because she was suspected of being involved in the same behaviour as Doocey

You'd imagine? And that poor woman lost her job on the back of what you'd 'imagine'?
How is that possible? She is on record as saying she is not a member of I.I.? Oh, she's lying right? Well, A.G.S. have accessed all of I.I.'s communications - so presumably they can see who it's members are, can't they?

Little CuChulainn wrote:

From the evidence available so far we know his computer appears to have been used to send threatening letters to a Judge. He doesn't deny this, he blames hackers.

That's it - keep distorting what he said. He has - at no stage - inferred or suggested that he did any such thing. However, given his experiences with A.G.S. and given that we know that Harcourt Street C.C.U. also interrogated both of them - he's left in no doubt as to what resources are available to those that are not held to account. You use the generic 'hackers' when you know damn well he has at no stage suggested any 'random' hacker executed that deed.

Little CuChulainn wrote:

Yes the laws exist, but they are interpreted by courts. Sometimes laws can be worded in ways which can be vague. In these cases it is up to courts to decide which meaning to take from them. Manning takes his own meaning from them.

That's not of pure thought is it? There is precedent, past law/case law - and sure, the courts (i.e. our politically appointed judiciary) do indeed interpret same. However, let's take the example that is at hand.

How did Mr. Fintan Murphy interpret the question that was rightly put to him on that day in Castlebar Courthouse? Was his response within the law? Was the response by A.G.S. within the law?

Secondly, you say that the 'courts interpret'. Fine. However, answer me this;

Are our Judiciary above the law?

It's a very simple question. Perhaps you can answer it?

Little CuChulainn wrote:

The issue is not that he wanted to ask a question. The issue is that he decided when the time was to ask that question and attempted to dictate the proceedings of the court.

I guess I'll avail of your phraseology once more if I may?

That's bollocks! The individual (and just for the record, that was not Stephen Manning) followed the direction of the Courts Service in that regard. Due process is for such questions to be put to the court at the outset of the days Courts proceedings. Even if someone disputes this, did Mr. Fintan Murphy suggest otherwise? As a paid public official, if not, why not?

Little CuChulainn wrote:

Loopholes. Many laws have loopholes due to oversight in their inception. These loopholes allow for people to do things contrary to the intention of the legislation. When they are found they are amended.

Well, I never. 'Loopholes' is it no less?

So let me get this straight. The law that allowed that individual (bearing in mind that individual could be any one of the adult population of this state) to ask a question before the court is a 'loophole' and was purely unintended?

You're running out of rope....

Little CuChulainn wrote:

They were removed from the court because they disrupted it.

That's a blatant lie. An individual asking a question (as per court proceedings - and following the advice of the Courts Service) does NOT amount to 'disrupting' a court sitting - and well you know it.
Have you conveniently ignored the fact that the Gardai - in their actions on the day - have broken the law?

Little CuChulainn wrote:

The presence of 20 Gardaí is highly unlikely and the lack of evidence of such numbers is fairly telling.

You mean the three witnesses that have corroborated that train of events?

Question: How many witnesses (in the court of Little CuChu) are required to prove the presence of said Gardai?

Seeing as your fanboys can't manage to muster a coherent point of view, I guess this exchange is between the two of us for right now.:D

lanos

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

Yet still no proof.

what about eye witness statements
they are proof

go back to sleep

makeorbrake wrote: »

Seeing as your fanboys can't manage to muster a coherent point of view, I guess this exchange is between the two of us for right now.:D

No. I too have grown tired of talking with someone so rooted in a conspiracy theory they cannot see anything beyond it. I'll leave you and lanos to circlejerk.

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

No. I too have grown tired of talking with someone so rooted in a conspiracy theory they cannot see anything beyond it. I'll leave you and lanos to circlejerk.

Can't answer the hard questions? I wonder why....

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

You are arguing like teenager.

No, you are arguing "like teenager".

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

^^^^^^

Theirs the JD we have all come to know and laugh at.

Nobody will laugh at you though will they?

makeorbrake wrote: »

Can't answer the hard questions? I wonder why....

When someone is so entrenched in a belief, no amount of logical argument can move them.

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

When someone is so entrenched in a belief, no amount of logical argument can move them.

Well, I could retort with "touche". However, what I maintain in response is that you can't answer the hard questions - because your own entrenched beliefs simply don't add up. See my pen ultimate post.

By all means, come back some other time - when it's convenient for you and respond then. Getting serious for a minute (and putting the b/s posts of the others aside), there's nothing funny about all of this. This is not 'entertainment'. Peoples lives have been affected by the events outlined.

As I mentioned earlier, I came across this thread some weeks ago - and left it. The way events have unfolded, I felt compelled to set the record straight.

lanos wrote: »

what about eye witness statements
they are proof

go back to sleep

really ?

one "witness who has a proven record of not telling the truth( lying in court re the harassment he was later convicted of) resulting in a massive grudge against any authority figure and his partner and dad .

id say any jury in the country would side with them :pac::pac::pac:

if this was america these people would be living in a shack in the rockys stroking M16s and sitting of stacks of C4 drooling about the " damn gumernent " and the Illuminati

Timberrrrrrrr

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Nobody will laugh at you though will they?

Picking up on a typo (auto correct on phone) well done you :rolleyes:

mynamejeff wrote: »

really ?

one "witness who has a proven record of not telling the truth( lying in court re the harassment he was later convicted of) resulting in a massive grudge against any authority figure and his partner and dad .

tut -tut. So spelling and maths, Jeff? Really?

3 witnesses Jeff. Three. Not one.

Timberrrrrrrr wrote:

Picking up on a typo (auto correct on phone) well done you

On the basis of your contribution to the discussion, I think most likely he just mean't this =>

Dan_Solo wrote:

Nobody will laugh at you though will they?

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Picking up on a typo (auto correct on phone) well done you :rolleyes:

Making a fool of yourself while trying to insult somebody... congrats right back at ya!
(Besides, it's a plain 'ol lie that any phone autocorrects "there's" to "theirs" isn't it?)

Originally Posted by mynamejeff
really ?

one "witness who has a proven record of not telling the truth( lying in court re the harassment he was later convicted of) resulting in a massive grudge against any authority figure and his partner and dad .
tut -tut. So spelling and maths, Jeff? Really?

3 witnesses Jeff. Three. Not one.

read it again ..
one witnesses his partner and dad .

one plus one plus one .......... come on now if you try you can get it.

besides the fact that they aren't believable or independent in any way ,

so again proof ? any proof ? any proof at all ?

relax carry on

mynamejeff wrote: »

Originally Posted by mynamejeff
really ?

one "witness who has a proven record of not telling the truth( lying in court re the harassment he was later convicted of) resulting in a massive grudge against any authority figure and his partner and dad .
tut -tut. So spelling and maths, Jeff? Really?

3 witnesses Jeff. Three. Not one.

read it again ..
one witnesses his partner and dad .

one plus one plus one .......... come on now if you try you can get it.

besides the fact that they aren't believable or independent in any way ,

so again proof ? any proof ? any proof at all ?

You might as well throw in the towel here. There's literally no point attempting to get any logic or verifiable proofs from this lot. Arguing will get you nowhere. Check out the Integrity Ireland Facebook page and the opposing Integrity Ireland Truth page. The mind boggles.
Personally I'm fascinated by the rise of groups like these. Logic, reason and verifiable proofs are consistently absent. Anyone pointing out the the bizzarness of their claims or beliefs are part of the conspiracy, sheeple or just to stupid to understand the importance and nature of their crusade to save us all.

Trying to publicly name posters here is pretty much exactly the kind of thing this thread is about. I wonder who would have the means and motivation to do something like that?

lanos

Dan_Solo wrote: »

Trying to publicly name posters here is pretty much exactly the kind of thing this thread is about. I wonder who would have the means and motivation to do something like that?

Have i missed something ?
Who is trying to publically name a poster on this thread ?