Are These Guys For Real?
The playacting that lawyers do fascinates me. I have detailed some of this, but there are many more examples - and probably some that I fell for and still don't suspect. The profession really comes alive in these moments of performance, even when self-humiliation is required. For example, here is a lawyer pretending to have a neurological disorder.
The standard is All Ireland Drama Festival at best, but that makes it all the more resonant for them - that they can put one over us with so little demand on their talents.
I am a little better than average, in that I have certain skills of observation which were honed when I really was 7 3/4. What more scared than fascinated me back then were the mechanics of deception and how ordinary people would sooner let some innocent go under than have their illusions about those with power shattered. I observed the scrambling coverups of sexual abuse and, on two occasions, the provision of the same child for use by a priest and one other man. I learned about omertà, betrayal, denial and above all else the dangers of seeing a truth which the authorities need to keep hidden. It was a pretty crappy preparation for life, but it was an excellent preparation for understanding what really goes on under the lawyers' many layers of projection.
October 12th 2020: Our company 'meets' to ensure that our counsel raises vital issues in its appeal against Judgment no. 8. I will hold on to the instructions until Mr. Hogan SC has given some indication of what he proposes to do.
Minutes of 12-10-2020 EGM of Athlone Town Stadium Ltd.
November 5th 2020: My solicitor phones me. He tells me that the appeal is going ahead this day week. We agree Mr. Hogan will phone me to discuss our strategy.
November 9th 2020: I am shocked to receive an email telling me that the appeal has been moved forward (from our perspective) two days to tomorrow. I pass on the minutes of our company's EGM instructions and issue my own instruction (Mr. Hogan is also representing me) by email - ''I will accept if there is no longer a chance of exhibiting the Terms of Negotiation; in that case, you are instructed to ensure that Counsel reads those terms to the court and makes an issue of Mr. MacGeehin's suppression of same during the hearing''.
Terms of Negotiation from May 2019
November 10th 2020: I have to attend a hospital appointment in the morning, so my brother (who's not fully up to speed with this stuff) watches the morning (remote) session in the Court of Appeal.
There is some mention of Mr. Ryan's advice to the directors on May 23rd, I'm not sure what. Mr. Hogan makes a big issue of the judge's interrupting of Mr. Forde's submissions. He also makes an issue of the judgment's 'indoor management' get-out clause for the Respondents and how it wasn't mentioned by their counsels in court i.e. how the judge was making their case for them post-proceedings. Judge Collins gives him an ultimatum of sorts - five minutes to come up with proof that Garda Dully was made aware on May 23rd that I was not willing to settle. It is an odd demand which Mr. Hogan understandably fails to answer, as neither of his clients (myself and our company) was involved in the negotiations. I am just coming in to view proceedings as Mr. Hogan is bizarrely claiming that he has no evidence of there being any creditors of our company. Judge Collins makes a big fuss about an unchallenged line in Mr. Dully's November 1st 2019 affidavit (''when the compromise agreement was agreed between all the parties''), saying that it ''is striking that Dully was not challenged''. No mention is made of the many unchallenged lines on important issues in my affidavits or those of Messrs. Burke, Comber, O'Farrell and Temple.
A Garda phones me from Athlone Garda Station, in advance of taking a statement about my allegation of fraud by a barrister and a solicitor.
I talk with Mr. Hogan by phone. He says the reason he was claiming there were no creditors of our company was that he was using information from old accounts - which presumably used the Prudence Concept of Accounting i.e. whatever Mr. Shortt SC was referencing on November 13th 2018. I remind him that the charge with Westmeath County Council is acknowledged at Paragraph 71 of the First Judgment and that the Deed of Transfer with the Council was exhibited with Mr. McCaul's September 5th 2018 Affidavit.
Exhibit PMCC1
Mr. Hogan tries to persuade me that Hay Vs O'Grady doesn't allow him to challenge the many falsehoods in the Eight Judgment. This is an argument I've heard before and it is nonsense. Fortunately, I am able to quote some of Hay Vs O'Grady ''If the findings of fact made by the trial Judge are supported by credible evidence, this Court is bound by those findings''. I remind him that there is no credible evidence that Mr. Ryan didn't advise the directors that they couldn't settle on May 23rd nor that Mr. McCaul attended on May 17th. I wonder two things: why we were encouraged to spend so much money on the transcripts if they are not to be used and how many strong appeals have been scuppered by barristers springing Hay Vs O'Grady on their clients.
Mr. Hogan advises that our strongest argument is the indoor management point being introduced by the Judge in his judgment without it being used by counsels for Messrs. Dully and McCaul. He says that the argument is unanswerable if Mr. Collins did not make the point in his written submissions - which we are to see tomorrow. He also advises that his opinion is that reading out the Terms of Negotiation (as instructed) would weaken our case, but is unable to express any train of logic to back up his opinion.
He asks me to send anything I think of by email to Mr. Cunningham. I give my final instruction/request at 1.23am : ''Can he emphasise the injustice angle, that I rescued a charity (as O Du said) and/or Temple/McCaul from the banks for the people of Athlone and have funded the case to stop it falling into for-profit private hands - not the club as O Du said - and haven't been allowed a say in a very mysterious settlement. Nobody ever says stuff like that for us''.
November 11th 2020: Mr. Ò Dùlachàin SC gets quite a hard time from the three Judges, especially Judge Murray, and gives me a rare feeling of optimism. He acknowledges that the Plaintiff's legal team was fully aware that I was not complying with the 'settlement' on May 23rd. He also refers to me as having ''had a hand in'' altering the terms of settlement, thus accepting the (already unchallenged) Paragraph 20 of my November 18th 2019 affidavit. When asked if he had any contact with Mr. Forde in the run-up to the May 17th settlement talks he says ''Not in those days, no'' and turns his head sharply away to the left of his screen.
Extract from Proceedings of December 4th 2019
For the record, I invested in Athlone Town Stadium Ltd. for the same reason that I invested in Athlone Boxing Club and the Athlone Town FC cooperative and Athlone (South Westmeath) Hospice - as an investment in the people of my town. That, nine years later, I am expected to listen to (and expected to pay for the privilege of listening to) grossly overpaid barristers discussing whether or not I am 'the Man' makes me nauseous.
'And you, to whom adversity has dealt the final blow
The vagueness of the accusation, such as it is, is nothing new. If this was a criminal court, I assume that some evidence of wrongdoing on my part would be required. The scary thing is that barristers don't need to provide evidence in a civil court, they can create their own reality, their own 'truth'. We've basically had three years now of the opposition saying 'We don't like the cut of his jib', followed by my and our representatives saying 'Ye might be right, who knows?' All sides of the fake conflict benefit financially from this game, as I am the target for their remuneration at the same time as they are implying that I am in it to make a quick buck.
Again, I find myself in a corner, being taunted by my useless knowing of the truth.
Apart from questions relating to Mr. Temple's case, I can't remember if Judge Faherty or Judge Murray asks anything of Mr. Collins BL. Judge Collins asks two questions, both dreadful. The second is a reheating of Judge Humphreys' December 5th suggestion that we might still be liable for the €160,673 damages.
Mr. Hogan spends most of his time taking apart some old affidavit, I think, of the Plaintiff. The Judges point out the irrelevance of this. As far as I can recall, there is no mention of the indoor management point. The creditor issue is 'dealt with' by Mr. Hogan saying, at least two times, words similar to ''Mr. Dully claims to be a creditor and Mr. Molloy claims to be a creditor''. In the substantive hearing, Mr. Forde referred to Mr. O'Farrell's affidavit saying that I was owed €90,000 and the May 21st Terms of Settlement implying that Westmeath County Council was owed €250,000 [He had possibly forgotten about the Deed of Transfer being exhibited]. I send text messages to Mr. Cunningham: ''WCC charge still with company never moved with property'' at 12.44pm (during an earlier presentation) and ''Why is he refusing to mention Deed of Transfer with WCC? IT WAS EXHIBITED and charge is still there'' at 3.47pm. But what's the point? Sometimes all you can do in these courts is gape open-mouthed and wonder if these guys are for real. And Judge Murray puts the tin hat on it by saying that the charge ''would have'' moved with the property. ''Should have'', yes, and then ask the Plaintiff for confirmation that it was moved - something he has never claimed. A judge does not have a right to circumnavigate hard facts in this manner.
Mr. Hogan wound up his presentation by mumbling something or other and shrugging. Yes, he literally shrugged his shoulders.
November 19th 2020: The Garda phones me from Athlone Garda Station. After a little discussion, she seems nervous. She says that she will need to talk to someone.
'And you, to whom adversity has dealt the final blow
With smiling bastards lying to you wherever you go
Turn to and put out all your strength of arm and heart and brain
And like the Mary Ellen Carter rise again.'
Let's consider a hypothetical situation. If we were living in a military dictatorship and the property was taken and given to some crony of the authorities, how would that be different? [The situation would have to be hypothetical, because I would not be brave enough to attempt to start a cooperative in a military dictatorship] It would be different to some extent, and all of that difference would be positive. The rules of engagement would be there for all to see. They could do it, they did it. There was no pretence, no inefficiency, no waste of time or money, no taking beyond what needed to be taken. I'd be okay with that.
I expect to lose the appeal. How could we not, when such as my July 14th affidavit (below) for our company was both unchallenged and totally ignored by everyone. But it won't end there.
Main Object (Rule 2) of Athlone Town Stadium Limited
The bottom line is that our company and its directors are bound by our constitution (the same constitution which was never exhibited in our 28 months in the High Court - I can understand that nobody likes us, but we are still a company with a case in the High Court and surely somebody should be curious about what kind of company we are). We simply cannot allow it to fall into the hands of private interest groups like the banks, Prè Season, Athlone Town AFC Ltd., clubs controlled by private interest groups etc. No matter what lawyers and the FAI may decide among themselves ... sorry Boys, it ain't gonna happen. Our company remains a utility protecting a publicly funded property for the people of Athlone. We should not need to go to Strasbourg to get that simple truth endorsed, but if needs be we will. Standards might be a little higher there?
Comments
Post a Comment