Something is Wrong

 

''Falsehood flies and Truth comes limping after it, so that when men come to be undeceived it is too late; the jest is over and the tale had hath its effect '' - Jonathan Swift.

Something is wrong with my previous post, the one called 'How to Rig a High Court Case' (November 30th 2020). More accurately, something went wrong with the rig itself. It was unprofessional - the worst of all crimes in the legal world. I am certain that the huge majority of rigged High Court cases are almost impossible to discover. The victim(s) will know, but only sub-consciously. Self-doubt and depression are certain to take care of him/her/them. I wonder how many suicides the lawyers create, how many families are torn asunder by their actions. I wonder if lawyers deny responsibility in such cases.      

David Dully Vs Athlone Town Stadium Ltd. was mishandled in two basic ways. The planting of the 15 documents with my April 9th 2018 affidavit was not wrong on account of its blatant criminality. It was wrong on account of the likelihood of its blatant criminality becoming public knowledge, regardless of whether or not the Gardaì are willing to pursue the crime. And Judge Humphreys' failure to play the game and pretend to access the merits of the case is similarly unprofessional and only ever likely, on re-examination, to undermine the rig. It also left me with nothing to lose by trying to expose what was a silly strategy guided by emotion rather than hard-headedness. An effective con is delivered cold, nothing personal. If I was in the opposition's shoes, I would have chosen (in replacing Judge Binchy) a more conventional operator. And I would have scrapped the damages suit altogether, just taken the loot and legged it out of there like the fastest mouse in all of Mexico. As things happened, we got lucky. But we were due a bit of luck. It's a long road that has no turning, as my father used to say. 

I have tried to provide an honest analysis of the case in this blog. I could understand accusations of bias, but I have received none to date. I would welcome any challenge to the evidence or my interpretation of same. Short of providing recordings of meetings between the various legal protagonists (which I don't have), I believe my interpretation is unchallengeable. That said, I have to be realistic and accept that people don't particularly care about any of it. The powerful have always known that people will always choose a comforting myth over an unsettling reality. The end point of this is a kind of upside down morality, the point where lawyers can be seen to destroy lives with their corruption and that perception (held simultaneously with the myth) increases rather than decreases the respect in which they are held by society. I am also at an obvious disadvantage, in that I am safely outflanked by what are professional persuaders, guys who don't just manage to keep a straight face when they are lying but can bring such garlands of gravitas and grace notes to a lie that it is dickied up like a Hindu bride - transcendent and unassailable. Truth-tellers will always be isolated in a corrupt system.

The most disappointing actors in all this have been the journalists. They appeared to be pursuing the truth about both Prè Season and John Delaney's FAI. But when the two interests met in a High Court case which should have rang more alarm bells than a German boon in military spending, they suddenly abandoned all enquiry. So, cui bono? Who benefitted from Labuts and Sfrijan Vs the FAI? This is the type of question that interests me. And what motivated the individual actions of Caroline Costello, Michael Forde, Thomas Hogan, Richard Humphreys and Cormac Ò Dùlachàin in our case? Will any of those people ever have to account for themselves?

Stories I've been told in the Four Courts, from credible sources (a barrister and a barrister's agent) about two very well known and influential judges: Judge 1 altered a transcript in order to nobble the appeal of one of his judgments, Judge 2 asked for (and got) €60,000 in cash for an agreeable judgment. As the storytellers had no motive to give me false information, I only have to allow for possible embellishments to the facts. Story 1 is too specific in this regard. Story 2? Maybe. But is there an acceptable level of bribery/extortion? Unfortunately, there is no reason to think that our case is extraordinary, though it is surely at the higher end of the corruption scale. 

When RTE reports on the High Court, it is a place of great integrity where justice is paramount and is often delivered by noble legal practitioners to gritty underdogs. In my experience, this is as fantastical as those kids' movies the station shows on a Saturday evening. The fiction only exacerbates the problem. If RTE really wants to help ordinary people get justice, then it needs to stop advertising the legal profession and instead publicise the scandal of a rigged High Court case (it doesn't have to be ours). Until that happens, the rot will only worsen. It's not by accident that Irish lawyers now feel entitled to put on wigs and funny moustaches in order to defraud the banks (definitely not on the approved target list) and credit unions. 

 Asylum cases, Free Legal Aid, suing public hospitals; these may have sincere origins, but they have become elaborate and generally cynical vehicles for the transfer of wealth from taxpayers to lawyers (and others). Barristers are, to my eyes at least, aggressively neoliberal. The most powerful political faction, Fine Gael, has no problem working closely with the Sinn Fèin faction (which dominates the management of our case) to further this shared agenda. [This Sinn Fèin is radically different than the Sinn Fèin which is marketed to the electorate. Fianna Fàil doesn't appear to be at the (Galway?) races, though this may change if the barrister Jim O'Callaghan manages to take over the leadership of that party]. A public interest company like ours has little business in the High Court, not when it has been taken on by a private interests company - none at all when the private interests company consists of at least one barrister. The little guy has no chance unless, like Patrick Reid, he happens to bring along a camera crew or some such publicity generator. But such 'victories' for justice are easily reversed. And Mr. Reid is still knocking around the joint, costs mounting no doubt.

The case has almost broken me, but I've stuck with it because I'm into truth and justice and arcane stuff like that. My mother used to advise me to have nothing to do with them, basically to let them have what they want. That was far from unusual advice, but even if I wanted to let them have what they want, I would not be allowed to do so - due to Rule 2 in our company's constitution (see Requested Documents - December 20th). Directors of our company are bound to holding the property in trust for the people of Athlone. Which is presumably why the barristers did not allow our constitution to be exhibited in the High Court. And that is why any court's ruling to transfer the property to a private interests group or unspecified entity (as per the May 23rd 'agreement') can only be illegal. If I was to consent to the property's transfer to any private interest group, I could (at least hypothetically) be charged with complicity in a crime. 

We have now entered Year 10 of our fight to save the stadium (and the club) from these people. We are into Year 5 of the official (run by barristers) fight for justice and into Year 4 of the actual (against anyone who stands in our way) fight for justice. The other defending director bailed out last year and I can't blame him for that - he never deserved to be put in that position. It would be nice if one day the people of Athlone showed some support for our fight, it is difficult to win without support. 

The members of Athlone Town (A)FC in particular have been astonishingly compliant with Garda Dully's court success. Bad enough that that the FAI lured them into part exchanging their much loved St. Mel's Park for the unloved Athlone Town Stadium. But the High Court wants their investment/swap given to Michael O'Connor, John Hayden and David Dully without their being consulted. And the members don't appear to have any questions to ask about this arrangement, which is built on nothing apart from the claims of Messrs. Hayden and Dully to be acting on their behalf. Mr. O'Connor played no part in the proceedings, though he did turn up on May 17th and May 23rd 2019, purporting to represent Garda Dully in settlement negotiations. It is unknown whether or not the club (in the sense of its running teams) still exists. The FAI will soon award a League of Ireland First Division playing licence to an Athlone Town FC or AFC for 2021. If asked, it will refuse to give the full name of that club.

Dishonest lawyers are not as untouchable as they might like to believe they are. Italian lawyers are currently being tried for corruption in Calabria. The prosecutors are brave. Italian judges have paid with their lives for their integrity. It is important to make a stand against corruption and to keep asking questions. Where are our brave lawyers and judges, our fearless journalists? The Gardaì do some good work, but last I heard barristers were knocking each other over to shake hands with John Gilligan in the Central Criminal Court. 

We now live in a parallel universe where Athlone families who drive more than 5km to a scenic area, a Portlick or Hodson Bay, for a walk are breaking the law, while the activities of Prè Season are not deemed worthy of investigation. Anyone who considers football betting scams a bit of crack should consider the 2008 murders of Zhen Xing Yang and Xi Zhou. And the geographical origins of the board of Dama Management Ltd. should give some clues as to the rest of what was going on. 

I am certainly in the bad books with the authorities, which is where I like to be. The legal crowd think it is outrageous that I am trying to expose them. Some of my friends and family think so too. But what is the alternative? To let them away with it?

Lying is easy, especially group lying. It creates a wall of protection around the mendacious. Some of them are highly intelligent, but they have betrayed that gift and seek comradery to ameliorate the selling out. And there is never a shortage of willing lackeys. It's that age old equation, between power and corruption. The knowing looks, the absolute confidence give the game away. They believe they cannot be touched, but truth can always find a way. It has a power of its own. Remember, they were never meant to have power, they exist to serve the citizenry. When a judge, such as the sneering and Nietzsche quoting Richard Humphreys, tries to scare us into submission, s/he is crossing a line that should never be crossed. The problem they have in our case is that we have been shown to be ethically beyond reproach. All of them have known this since August 2018, but still they blunder on, in search of fulfilling promised favours and personal gain. The whole point of the cooperative project is to maximise the chances of success by minimising the opportunities for corruption. That such a rogue's gallery has been assembled in the wake of the FAI's apparent attempt to destroy the project is a vindication in itself.

I will do what I can to open up as many lines of enquiry as possible. The case used to terrify me, when I feared that there might be some (at least technical) merit in the opposition's claims. But it bores me now, because it is such an obvious swindle. That is not to say that the authorities will not continue to brazen it out. They might even feel that they have to, because the lie has become too big to fail. 

I will chip away at the two biggest absurdities anyway - how Athlone Town Athletic Football Club got introduced to proceedings in Judgment no. 1 (which I believe to be a criminal act made under cover of judicial privilege), notably how not one of the eight defence barristers and six judges has seen fit to ask a single question about what that entity might happen to be. And how all four defendants can be bound to a settlement without ever voting on it.

Above all, I will keep telling the truth until we get what we came to Dublin for. Which is a fair trial, successful or not. We won't stop fighting for that principle.

                                                                           For my Mother