The late Gerry Brennan was Bertie's friend.
He acted as Solicitor for Bertie in his matrimonial case and then, according to Bertie, went about telling others that Bertie couldn't pay his legal fees and organised a whip round for him.
Does anyone see a problem of professional ethics there?
He acted as Solicitor for both Bertie & M Wall in the Bizarre Beresford transaction. Hmmmmm....
He acted for Celia in the even stranger purchase of the house for her elderly aunts that just happens to be in her name.
He was a member of the supposed "Building Trust" account (that was in the sole name of Bertie's friend Tim Collins and was never designated Building Trust until January of this year) that, according to Bertie, gave Celia £30,000 of Fianna Fail money to buy this house.
Despite being such a Trustee and also Solicitor he did not get Celia to execute any deed of mortgage or trust declaration to protect this so-called FF money.
No loan agreement was drawn up and NOTHING was done about this "loan" for 18 years until the Tribunal came knocking!!!
Celia was Bertie's "life partner" all this time but Bertie knew nothing about this "loan" at the time. What does this say about Mr Brennan's fitness to act as a Trustee and conflict of interest issues in his role as solicitor?
The house was registered in April 1983 so presumably the deal was hatched in the early part of that year, but Bertie, poor ignorant Bertie, was in the dark about the BT money being improperly used in this way - despite being Chairman of the constituency committee for 6 years up to and including 1982 and its leading TD and Minister and FF party Treasurer and ..........
Lets look again at the BT account:
Nobody knows where much of the money came from that went into this account..
The sole name on the account was Bertie's pal T Collins (he of the Boyne site windfall but that's another story) ....
The account was named "B T" and all statements sent to the local branch of the bank....So a FF constituency account, as we are told, was kept in the dark from the FF office ...
Bertie says BT means "Building Trust" and was set up for repair of St Luke's, so he knows plenty about the purpose of the account but not its workings apparently...
The account has been dormant for many years with a healthy balance in it while in the meantime money for St Lukes has had to be obtained from elsewhere ....
The bank records do not disclose who the Trustees are but we are told (by Bertie, so it must be true) that they include Joe Burke, Des Richardson, Tim Collins (all a surprise) and others who are now deceased (shades of Des Traynor) including Gerry Brennan ....
Ah hold on, this is getting a bit unbelievable and we know it must be true so we'll not go into these connections any further.
Just to say how gallant it was of Celia to come forward at the early stages of Bertie's Tribunal evidence and let him know that he should declare this "house loan" to the Tribunal so as to eliminate it from any possible Owen O'Callaghan connection.
Oh she didn't do that?
Now that is strange.
I wonder was is Celia who Bertie entrusted with the huge stash of cash that he wanted changed into sterling around that time - you know the cash that no bank has a record of changing and that no-one can remember carrying around for Bertie, the misunderstood, befuddled and forgetful Minister for Finance and FF party Treasurer?
Finally, that house cost £40,000. Do you know where it is? Do you think that YOU could have bought it for £40,000 at that time? Was it a market value transaction?
Ignore the fact that it is now worth €700,000 - that, as Bertie would say, is none of your business.
Follow the money - Isn't that what the tribunal is supposed to do? Oh no sorry its not, its a personal witch hunt against the greatest leader the country has seen :D
Amazing how dead people can't give evidence
In Aherns defence this seems like "smoke and daggers" Leo.
Edit - I fcukd up first time :-[
Where are the 'smoke and daggers' Zapatista, looks like pretty straightforward obfuscation and embezzlement to me?
My point is that there is no defence. Highlighted by using one of Aherns own ridiculous defence quotes which totally irrelevant to anything and makes absolutely no sense. ;D as his defence usually is.
Billy
"obfuscation" now that is a good word and the word of the day in my office!
ob·fus·cate Pronunciation
–verb (used with object), -cat·ed, -cat·ing. 1. to confuse, bewilder, or stupefy.
2. to make obscure or unclear: to obfuscate a problem with extraneous information.
3. to darken.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
—Related forms
ob·fus·ca·tion, noun
ob·fus·ca·to·ry Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation, adjective
—Synonyms 1. muddle, perplex. 2. cloud.
—Antonyms 1. clarify
I get you now Z.
Can he possibly 'recover' from this?
straightforward obfuscation?
Quote from: passedit on March 05, 2008, 01:18:17 PM
straightforward obfuscation?
:D :D :D
No he can't recover. At best he can avoid prison.
QuoteIgnore the fact that it is now worth €700,000 - that, as Bertie would say, is none of your business.
and it is none of our business. stange as it was FF a private organization gave a loan to celia larkin that is private business. wheyer bertie knew about it or not is irrelevant. that fact that you belive he knew about it and denies it could well alter your opiion of him but it is not a criminal act. just dont vote for him next time.
neither is it any business of the tribunal, what is the accusation against bertie? that he took money from Owen O'Callaghan in return for favours . what were the favours . the only evidence that has com forward is from cocaine head eamioonn dunphy which in reality said you could give bertie all the money you want but hell do his own thing any way.
Hardly damming.
what were the challanges facing bertie when he took over as taoiseach.
Stop immigartion - done
peace in the north - done
solve unemployment - done
it time we grew up stopped scring around in shit and honoured a great man
Quote from: rosnarun on March 05, 2008, 01:46:55 PM
QuoteIgnore the fact that it is now worth €700,000 - that, as Bertie would say, is none of your business.
and it is none of our business. stange as it was FF a private organization gave a loan to celia larkin that is private business. wheyer bertie knew about it or not is irrelevant. that fact that you belive he knew about it and denies it could well alter your opiion of him but it is not a criminal act. just dont vote for him next time.
neither is it any business of the tribunal, what is the accusation against bertie? that he took money from Owen O'Callaghan in return for favours . what were the favours . the only evidence that has com forward is from cocaine head eamioonn dunphy which in reality said you could give bertie all the money you want but hell do his own thing any way.
Hardly damming.
what were the challanges facing bertie when he took over as taoiseach.
Stop immigartion - done
peace in the north - done
solve unemployment - done
it time we grew up stopped scring around in shit and honoured a great man
DenialDenial is a defense mechanism in which a person is faced with a fact that is too painful to accept and rejects it instead, insisting that it is not true despite what may be overwhelming evidence-
Read more here -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Denial
Quote from: rosnarun on March 05, 2008, 01:46:55 PM
QuoteIgnore the fact that it is now worth €700,000 - that, as Bertie would say, is none of your business.
and it is none of our business. stange as it was FF a private organization gave a loan to celia larkin that is private business. wheyer bertie knew about it or not is irrelevant. that fact that you belive he knew about it and denies it could well alter your opiion of him but it is not a criminal act. just dont vote for him next time.
neither is it any business of the tribunal, what is the accusation against bertie? that he took money from Owen O'Callaghan in return for favours . what were the favours . the only evidence that has com forward is from cocaine head eamioonn dunphy which in reality said you could give bertie all the money you want but hell do his own thing any way.
Hardly damming.
what were the challanges facing bertie when he took over as taoiseach.
Stop immigartion - done
peace in the north - done
solve unemployment - done
it time we grew up stopped scring around in shit and honoured a great man
;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D
Brilliant
Quote from: rosnarun on March 05, 2008, 01:46:55 PM
QuoteIgnore the fact that it is now worth €700,000 - that, as Bertie would say, is none of your business.
and it is none of our business. stange as it was FF a private organization gave a loan to celia larkin that is private business. wheyer bertie knew about it or not is irrelevant. that fact that you belive he knew about it and denies it could well alter your opiion of him but it is not a criminal act. just dont vote for him next time.
neither is it any business of the tribunal, what is the accusation against bertie? that he took money from Owen O'Callaghan in return for favours . what were the favours . the only evidence that has com forward is from cocaine head eamioonn dunphy which in reality said you could give bertie all the money you want but hell do his own thing any way.
Hardly damming.
what were the challanges facing bertie when he took over as taoiseach.
Stop immigartion - done
peace in the north - done
solve unemployment - done
it time we grew up stopped scring around in shit and honoured a great man
Inbred - A class of folks who will support the local strongman no matter who he f.u.c.k.s over.
Otherwise known as Feena Fallers.
Gullible - See above except believe the local strogman no matter what he says.
the definition of denial is not in question
what is in question is whether Mr Ahearn behaved in an improper or illegal manner . i have yet to see any evidence of that less yet that he compounded this harming the state by his actions . and it is this last point which should be of the greatest concern. not did anyone piss about with money and try to be berties pall and act the big man at manure games after all his so called biggest contributer did not live nor had any financial interest in Ireland.
in short where the beef,
A good starter post, Leo; you have made a case for the many who are uneasy with the revelations that have come to light because of Mahon's tribunal.
However, under our perceptions of common decency and present law, Bertie has a right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty.
It's also prudent to remember that Judge Mahon and his tribunal are merely investigating matters relating to Bertie's actions and this tribunal is not a court of law- there may be further action from either the office of the DPP or the Revenue authorities but I cannot assume that that will be the case.
No one can.
The tribunal has been on the go for long enough and has cost taxpayers more than enough to forestall its deliberations.
Quote from: rosnarun on March 05, 2008, 01:46:55 PM
QuoteIgnore the fact that it is now worth €700,000 - that, as Bertie would say, is none of your business.
and it is none of our business. stange as it was FF a private organization gave a loan to celia larkin that is private business. wheyer bertie knew about it or not is irrelevant. that fact that you belive he knew about it and denies it could well alter your opiion of him but it is not a criminal act. just dont vote for him next time.
neither is it any business of the tribunal, what is the accusation against bertie? that he took money from Owen O'Callaghan in return for favours . what were the favours . the only evidence that has com forward is from cocaine head eamioonn dunphy which in reality said you could give bertie all the money you want but hell do his own thing any way.
Hardly damming.
what were the challanges facing bertie when he took over as taoiseach.
Stop immigartion - done
peace in the north - done
solve unemployment - done
it time we grew up stopped scring around in shit and honoured a great man
Ros, I'd like to know what you are on, as in
(a) substance
(b) planet?
My post asked a number of questions which are not answered by juvenile denials that are as much misplaced as they are misspelled in your post.
If we as a nation do not find all of this utterly demeaning mess anathema to our republican ideals then it is time to throw in the towel and accept that the lowest of low standrdrs in public life are acceptable to us - and transfer the same standards to all our public and private dealings. Please look up anarchy when you have time.
Your second post is just depressing to read.
Quote from: rosnarun on March 05, 2008, 03:25:57 PM
the definition of denial is not in question
what is in question is whether Mr Ahearn behaved in an improper or illegal manner . i have yet to see any evidence of that less yet that he compounded this harming the state by his actions . and it is this last point which should be of the greatest concern. not did anyone piss about with money and try to be berties pall and act the big man at manure games after all his so called biggest contributer did not live nor had any financial interest in Ireland.
in short where the beef,
Yet futher evidence.
Quote from: Lar Naparka on March 05, 2008, 03:50:39 PM
A good starter post, Leo; you have made a case for the many who are uneasy with the revelations that have come to light because of Mahon's tribunal.
However, under our perceptions of common decency and present law, Bertie has a right to be presumed innocent until proved guilty.
It's also prudent to remember that Judge Mahon and his tribunal are merely investigating matters relating to Bertie's actions and this tribunal is not a court of law- there may be further action from either the office of the DPP or the Revenue authorities but I cannot assume that that will be the case.
No one can.
The tribunal has been on the go for long enough and has cost taxpayers more than enough to forestall its deliberations.
No one can be happy with the length of time the Tribunals are taking with the exception of the politicians who cry crocodile tears but secretly want to drag out the investigation of serious indiscretions and misdemeanours as long as possible.
But if in the course of an investigation of Mr A about, say, corruption, strong evidence emerges that Mr A has been engaged in other nefarious dealings (say, a murder, or being involved in a terrorist plan to blow up the IFSC, or serious tax evasion, or moneylaundering) do we ignore that? FF seem to suggest we do. God help us if we are to be thus governed.
Ros,
I was going to say what Leo said but he does it better.
What you are proposing is the same as the following anology. Not as serious but the same:
If the cops raid your house looking for drugs but dont find any, but the find guns instead, do they say, yerra trhats not what we were looking for your free to go. ??? Thats seems to be your standard of law'n order here. Its not mine. >:(
I have come to the conclusion as have many I would venture, that BA is hiding money, and trying to Launder it so as to cover the sources. There is no absolute proof, but when you rule out all other plausible explanations, its the only one left.
Bertie's finance is the financial equivalent of Lost, an island of confusion, obfuscation which there is no clear way in or out.
He is giulty of tax evasion at the very least.
I understand why you maybe find it hard that your hero is as bad as Charlie and his days are numbered. You maybe a builder, or a unionised state employee who is scared of what will happen should someone with integrity and vision ever try to take over..
Well rest easy, there are plenty of Feena Fall 'cute hoors' waiting in the wings who you can rely on to look after themselves and their 'friends' :-\
GY Joe, you said it far better than me.
Quote from: Leo on March 05, 2008, 04:39:52 PM
GY Joe, you said it far better than me.
'Tis wasted on him anyway I fear..
The Tribunals are also there to put an end to corruption in Irish politics.
As far back as CJH our public services' have been held back due to corruption. We live in a country where if you pay the right (usually FF) politician you can build as many houses as you want anywhere you want. Planning is not an obstacle if you pay the right politician. There is no concern for those who will live in these areas. They residents of these houses will be and are suffering from lack of hospitals, schools, public transport, roads etc.. They will be living in difficult circumstances and have a much lower life quality and life expectancy due to corrupt planning. It does not matter how long or how much money is spent on tribunals. If the tribunal can put an end to corruption it will all be worth it as we will all live higher quality and longer lives through proper planning.
Also of note is the amount of quality FF/Ahern defenders on here. I have noticed the only defenders are those who are in denial. The rest and the most (probably the FF/Ahern defenders who accept the truth) know they simply cannot defend it any longer and just choose to ignore it. I bet they are all reading the thread though ;D
QuoteBut if in the course of an investigation of Mr A about, say, corruption, strong evidence emerges that Mr A has been engaged in other nefarious dealings (say, a murder, or being involved in a terrorist plan to blow up the IFSC, or serious tax evasion, or moneylaundering) do we ignore that? FF seem to suggest we do. God help us if we are to be thus governed.
I'd go along with the above, part of the way.
First off all, I'd replace the word, "evidence," with another one, "indications," or "suggestions."
I think we should ignore this "evidence"– the call is not for us to make.
Alan Mahon seems to be sticking strictly to his remit, despite attempts from numerous sources to get in his way and to obstruct his tribunal in its deliberations.
Mahon and his colleagues have been charged with a specific task.
He heads a "Tribunal of Inquiry into Certain Planning Matters and Payments."
I'd suggest he is doing an efficient job and that the way in which tribunal researchers have managed to come up with what has been uncovered between tribunal session has come as a nasty shock to many politicians - and to plenty of other individuals as well.
I wouldn't agree that FF seems to suggest anything. There are screams coming from that quarter to have the tribunal shut down, There is no "seems" about those protests!
Well, let them go to hell and go back to their former mantra that we should wait for the Tribunal's deliberations.
I think the rest of us should do the same.
Lar I will go along with you part of the way. I fully support the work of the Tribunal finishing and no criminal proceedings being brought against anyone until it is complete.
Do you believe B Ahern misled the Dail, lied to the Irish people, lied to- misled and purposely delayed the Tribunal.
Do you agree that without the tribunal finishing that there is enough information in the public domain to demand the resignation of B Ahern now?
Are you in the Green Party?
With everyone agreeing this thread will have a short life. Where have all the FFers gone?
Zapatista asks.....Where have all the FFers gone?
Answer....Into the government which the Irish people elected them too, despite the massive evidence of their unethical,dishonest and corrupt behaviour. The reason, the alternative coalition of the opposition are so awful, that they are unelectable. As a nation we are truly in a sorry state
Zap, I'm glad you get the main point of what I have been saying all along but you have posed three questions to me that require three separate answers.
Do you believe B Ahern misled the Dail, lied to the Irish people, lied to- misled and purposely delayed the Tribunal.
I do.
Do you agree that without the tribunal finishing that there is enough information in the public domain to demand the resignation of B Ahern now?
I do but I'd qualify that answer.
Are you in the Green Party?
No.
Based on what I've seen, heard and read I have no hesitation in saying that, in my opinion, Bertie comes up short on all the charges (4) that you have laid against him in the first question you have put to me.
I could answer "yes" to your second question but I'd also like to clarify who should be empowered to remove him from office if he doesn't step down voluntarily. Alan Mahon and his colleagues certainly are not!
I've gone through the reasons for this in previous posts.
If you re-read your second question I hope you will agree with me on this point; if any legal or political move is made on foot of what has gone on at the Mahon Tribunal, it will certainly be doomed to failure and will very likely bring the Tribunal's work to an abrupt halt.
I don't get the point of your third question but you may see some connection between what the Greens say and what I have said. It's been said to me that it serves the hoors right; they are caught between facing reality and holding onto the mercs and perks. I tend to go along with that but no, I am not connected to the Greens in any way.
Quote from: Lar Naparka on March 05, 2008, 06:09:59 PM
QuoteBut if in the course of an investigation of Mr A about, say, corruption, strong evidence emerges that Mr A has been engaged in other nefarious dealings (say, a murder, or being involved in a terrorist plan to blow up the IFSC, or serious tax evasion, or moneylaundering) do we ignore that? FF seem to suggest we do. God help us if we are to be thus governed.
I'd go along with the above, part of the way.
First off all, I'd replace the word, "evidence," with another one, "indications," or "suggestions."
I think we should ignore this "evidence"– the call is not for us to make.
Alan Mahon seems to be sticking strictly to his remit, despite attempts from numerous sources to get in his way and to obstruct his tribunal in its deliberations.
Mahon and his colleagues have been charged with a specific task.
He heads a "Tribunal of Inquiry into Certain Planning Matters and Payments."
I'd suggest he is doing an efficient job and that the way in which tribunal researchers have managed to come up with what has been uncovered between tribunal session has come as a nasty shock to many politicians - and to plenty of other individuals as well.
I wouldn't agree that FF seems to suggest anything. There are screams coming from that quarter to have the tribunal shut down, There is no "seems" about those protests!
Well, let them go to hell and go back to their former mantra that we should wait for the Tribunal's deliberations.
I think the rest of us should do the same.
No Lar it IS evidence. How a court or tribunal weighs that evidence is another matter but it is evidence - and much of it is from Bertie's own mouth.
My question is whether such evidence might caus eothers to take action outside of the remit of the tribunal and the grounds - and precedent - are there for that to happen, starting with the Revenue commissioners. If an FF member is concerned about party funds (so-called) being misappropriated for Celia then a complaint to the Gardai should instgate a separate police enquiry in this respect.
Wait on Mahon for a planning & corruption decision yes, but that does not prevent other agencies dealing with major tax & criminal issues that emerge from on-going evidence.
"No Lar it IS evidence. How a court or tribunal weighs that evidence is another matter but it is evidence - and much of it is from Bertie's own mouth."
Leo, I think any disparity between our respective opinions on this one is a matter of interpretation of the word, "evidence." I have no doubt whatsoever about your sincerity, but the same applies equally to another poster, rosnarun. I'd go further and say I formed that opinion of ros a long time ago.
Both us of us seem to engage in Mayo football-related threads a lot and, IMO, ros is one of the more balanced and analytical posters on those threads.
I feel you are correct when you write, "Wait on Mahon for a planning & corruption decision" but that and the second part of your sentence are mutually contradictory.
Again, that's my personal opinion and not a legal one..
This module of the tribunal is all about planning and corruption!
At this stage of investigations, who can say that the tribunal researchers do not have further matters they would like to ask Bertie to discuss?
Any move to step in by, say, the DPP or the Revenue Commissioners would forestall the process of investigation.
Zap wrote in a post further up this thread, "I fully support the work of the Tribunal finishing and no criminal proceedings being brought against anyone until it is complete."
I really don't imagine that pre-emptive action by any authority would not see the tribunal being put on indefinite hold until such proceedings are completed.
To quote yourself once again, "How a court or tribunal weighs that evidence is another matter."
Of course it is!
To prove something on the basis of what has emerged from the tribunal hearings, beyond reasonable doubt, is quite another one. Here, any charges would be met by a top-class legal defence team and there could be no certainty of success if such a move was initiated.
Remember that the Revenue Commissioners have begun an inquiry into the circumstances behind Celia Larkin's house purchase.
Yes, I know that the commissioners are not supposed to discuss matters relating to any particular individual or concern in public but that report was widely reported in the media early last week. To date, it has not been denied by any quarter and there is no indication of a libel action from Celia or anyone else.
Therefore, the leak had to come from a reliable and trustworthy source.
It is crucial to keep in mind that any such proceedings do not affect the workings of the tribunal as they do not involve any of the central characters.