Crime and Absolution at the Court of McNally
Among the many mysteries surrounding the current virus thing is the question of why infectious patients were discharged from hospitals and placed in nursing homes in the Spring of last year, causing much suffering and death. The official story was that their hospital beds would be needed for treating a pandemic-like influx of patients. This defied all known logic and was a sinister echo of the 'justifying' of Germany's T4 program by claiming the hospital beds would be better used by wounded soldiers. It became one Sunday's news when Tadhg Daly of Nursing Homes Ireland raised the issue. The media chose not to follow up on the story. In the US and UK, Andrew Cuomo and Matt Hancock were later caught up in attempts to engineer sex scandals (the latter even starred in his own hanky panky video, which was accepted as authentic by the British media), to apparently dodge more serious criminal charges. It remains to be seen if anyone will be investigated and prosecuted for similar crimes in Belgium, Canada, Ireland, Spain, Sweden, the UK, the US and other countries. Will we allow the memory of how some of our most vulnerable fellow citizens were killed be erased without consequences for politicians or consultants? Of course we will.
In a perfect world, laws would exist to protect the majority of people from a criminal minority, regardless of the colour of that minority's shirt collars. In the real world, taboos surround the bringing of all kinds of professionals to justice, not just medics and politicians. It was once taboo in Ireland to mention that children were being provided for priests to molest. Ordinary people knew it was happening, but they were too scared to do anything about it. The media said nothing, the Gardai did nothing. And thus it went on for the (mostly poor, of course) little boys and girls, until the Vatican was replaced as the primary power in this country (by something even worse).
I like the Gardai. They generally look after us, and they do so in an unthreatening and low-key way. They are also much less likely than their UK counterparts to be members of secret societies. They make mistakes, but at least we get to hear about them, and they are generally righted. The laws they enforce may be only meant to apply to the lower orders, but they cannot be disapplied from the powerful. This makes criminal law the only friend of anyone fighting corruption. Pressure will of course be put on the Gardai to protect the well connected, that is how the world works. But let's soldier on and examine what I believe to be criminal behaviour relating to our company over the past seven years.
It was in or around early 2015 that a document in which our company was impersonated (see doc A from '66 Problems' 18-11-20) was sent to the FAI, as part of an application for a playing licence (granted, but it would not have been needed for that granting) and apparently as part of a process of securing a E200,000 building grant from the State. So far the FAI is refusing to answer the question of whether or not the document was forwarded by it to any agency of the State for this purpose. If yes, then its use is obviously unlawful. The application for the grant (see doc 8 from 'The Undisputed' 15-11-20) contains what appears to be a deliberate deception at question 4. This is contradictory of the other document's embracing of a pretend version of our company to look after the charge. Together or separately, are we looking at a prosecutable crime? It's a marginal call, but I would say a real world 'no' - because there is no direct line of significant benefit to the members of Athlone Town AFC Ltd. The grant may have to be repaid, that will probably be decided by non criminal investigators. But the building of the astro turf pitch was a net loss and is far from a money spinner today (it was put in a different place to where we were putting it, removing the opportunity to subdivide it for renting). It would be ironic if the most nakedly fraudulent action from the guys who hijacked the club in 2013 turned out not be pursuable as a crime. But it still stands as unchallengeable evidence of the criminal mindset which is guiding our opponents.
The manoeuvres with FAI ringmaster John Delaney which preceded Garda Dully's High Court case against our company must qualify as attempted entrapment or some such. It was in May 2017 that Mr. Delaney purported to act as mediator at a meeting I refused to attend, which ended with his urging me by phone to sign the stadium over to the FAI for free (though he did promise me some match tickets of unspecified value), the stadium presumably to be signed over to Athlone Town AFC Ltd. in due course. [Incidentally, paragraph 4 of a recently found letter from FAI Director of Competitions Fran Gavin (below) gives the lie to the already unlikely notion that a majority of our directors ever had a right to sign the stadium away. Although they did want to do so in May 2017, they either refused on ethical grounds or accepted that the law would not allow them to do it. Mr. Gavin's letter clearly points to the fact that all of the attendees -- Cieran Temple and Paddy McCaul, Mr. Hayden and Mr. Collins (purporting to represent the club), Mr. Durack (the club's barrister) and Mr. Delaney -- accepted this reality. Their names can now be added to that of Cormac O Dulachain SC, who fretted at meetings about how we happened to be a shareholding].
Then in June 2017 we got the contract (see doc B from '66 Problems' 18-11-2018) which the FAI, or more likely someone closer to home, put together after I agreed to sell it to them at a loss; if signed, it would almost certainly have knocked E570,000 off the E600,000 agreed price, at least for 29 years. And then there were the FAI negotiations with our legal team in September 2017, which led to our being persuaded by counsel to accept the validity of John Hayden's 'Deed of Trust' - on the basis that the FAI would then be forced to buy out our company because the club couldn't afford to honour the indemnity. The 'Trust' document was originally signed under insurance pressure resulting from the FAI's refusal to force the club to pay the rent. And then there is the curious case of Paddy McCaul, whose obliging nature and history of being President of the FAI (and employer of Michael O'Connor) have, putting his actions in the most favourable light, been taken advantage of. In general, the top bananas in the FAI seem to believe that they can never be held accountable because they have pull and they can enact plausible deniability within their ranks. Those are not defences acceptable in law.
On June 28th 2017 a behind-locked-gates AGM of Athlone Town (Association) FC voted that ''All club affairs be transferred to Athlone Town AFC Company by Limited Guarantee. All future club business is to be conducted through this company ...'' ( ''is to be'' doesn't leave much doubt about how the democratic process could pan out - see 'O Dulachain's Lament' 20-12-2020). Even the bogus version of the club's constitution which was submitted to the court says at Rule 37 that ''The agenda of the Annual General Meeting ... shall be published in the local press at least seven days before the meeting and shall include details of any Notices of Motion'' - which certainly did not happen. The motion was simply sprung on the hapless 'members' (at least 13 of whom were close relatives of the three members of Athlone Town AFC Ltd.) after, as the minutes record in full, ''Resolution read over and explained. Vote: For 26 Against 0. Motion passed.'' If the 'resolution'/motion (below) was explained by an independent expert of some sort, the minutes don't say so. Even if that had happened, all of it would be blatantly illegal. But that illegality would only matter if, at some future stage, payments of club income were made by the members of Athlone Town AFC Ltd. to its directors. Then the engineering of the passing of that 'resolution' would in retrospect become fraud.
The contracts between companies connected with Athlone Town FC and the match-fixing syndicate Pre Season Unipessoal are obviously worthy of criminal investigation, as is the FAI's part in the affair (primarily in refusing to name whoever from Pre Season met with the organisation before it approved the project and concurrently giving false information to the media about who from the FAI attended the meeting, also in addressing the questions of whether it encouraged or discouraged the Gardai's investigation into Pre Season and whether or not payments were made by it to the plaintiffs following the settlement of the Labuts and Sfrijan High Court cases). Callaview Ltd. (formed 15-12-16, dissolved 20-11-19) was totally ignored in Garda Dully's High Court case, as was Dama Management Ltd. (formed 22-2-17, dissolved 19-9-18). The former company issued a million shares but only one hundred were owned, fifty each for Pre Season and club chairman John Hayden. There may be an innocent explanation for Callaview Ltd., but the media and the courts have yet to hear it. The only 'explanation' offered by the club (from an anonymous source to the Westmeath Independent in April 2017, an article in which no mention was made of its official purpose of ''Activities of Holding Companies'' nor the identities of those holding companies) for Callaview Ltd. was that it ''was set up to aid the management of club's first team's affairs''. This was probably more revealing than intended, in that it makes a distinction between the first team and the club itself. This, for want of any other plausible explanation, would be entirely consistent with a money laundering operation [First team players move in and out, phantom players move in and out, dirty money in and clean money out. I remain sceptical about how an unsuccessful club in a very poor league could provide sufficient cover for mafia-scale turnover, but I don't know of any other feasible explanation] working in tandem with Dama Management Ltd. The latter company's directors' geographical origins (Naples and Chambery) perhaps give a clue as to its purpose (officially ''Other Business Support Service Activities Not Elsewhere Classified''), perhaps not. While the ski resort of Chambery is far too prosperous to be controlled by mafia, it should be noted that senior members of the Unione Corse moved into the French Alps when they gave up on regaining control of street-level operations in Marseilles from more violent African gangs. Money laundering is a fundamental part of drug and people trafficking, they could not exist without it. Casinos, real estate, art and sport (and corrupt banks like HSBC in the Noughties and Banco Vaticano from the Fifties to recent years) are popular and effective vehicles for laundering cash. We still await the Garda investigation into all of this. The GNECB (Fraud Squad) somehow found itself in Limerick, investigating the players of a club that has no contracts with any organised crime group.
Those Athlone Town contracts still stand, but we don't yet know how much Pre Season invested in the 'club'. The word of mouth from the club in 2017 that it was E70,000 wouldn't say much for its powers of negotiation, as it is E5,000 less than I invested in the club and more than E160,000 less than Pre Season would pay for the match fixing rights in Mohelnice (E100k from the initial English-based investment and then E130k from the Chinese). Pre Season turns over in excess of E500,000 for every fixed match. As the cost of living in the Czech Republic is around half that in the Irish Republic, the E500,000 and $500,000 reported as paid (but to whom?) for Athlone Town in Romanian and Chinese publications respectively (for 70% of the 'club') seem entirely plausible. (As far as I'm aware, there is no money laundering aspect to the Mohelnice project). It isn't possible to buy any portion of a private members' club, so the 'club is very unlikely to be anything other than the one which was set up around that time - Athlone Town Athletic Football Club. Which would explain the official limbo that club is in today e.g. ex-FAI President Paddy McCaul's reporting to the court on December 3rd 2019 that ''I don't know if Athlone Town Athletic Club has a football function'' (see page 59 of 'Cross Examination' 22-11-2020) and the FAI's refusing to reveal the identity of the Athlone club which played last season in its League of Ireland First Division (see 'Why is' 11-5-2021).
There is a generally held belief that Pre Season ran off to the Czech Republic to escape investigation and that was the end of it. It doesn't work like that. [Unlike the GNECB, the Czech National Centre Against Organised Crime has (somewhat reluctantly) investigated Pre Season and one good player witness has come forward, who told of how the referee, the opposition goalkeeper and three other members of his team were involved in at least one fixed match - which makes a lot more business sense than the notion that around 50% of an Athlone Town eleven could reliably deliver the desired results]. That would be to ignore Pre Season's history of watertight legal contracts, the honing of its operations since its first European venture at Atletico Clube de Portugal and the general tendency of successful organised crime gangs to diversify into property (and legitimate business). It is unknown whether or not any percentage of our stadium was 'sold' to Pre Season, but that wouldn't surprise me. It would both explain a lot and raise more questions. As the FAI is still refusing to release the contracts to us (not the best way to establish innocence), we have to speculate to some extent. I almost want Dully to win his case, so we can all see how the money (in the region of E10 million) from the inevitable development of the property would be distributed. If you disagree with my use of the word 'inevitable' there, that is understandable. I was very much in that camp, but the many lawyers with whom I have discussed the matter have convinced me that it is always about the point of greatest monetary gain. In addition, our then solicitor Mr. McNelis has claimed (see 'Requested Documents' 20-12-2020) to have ''overheard'' (hmm) the club's solicitor Dara Hayden ''admitting this in conversation outside the Court with Mr Egan'' (on April 16th 2018). ''This'', Mr. McNelis goes on, ''in my view is the real story''. If correct (and assuming that Garda Dully succeeds in his case) then several strands of this affair will unavoidably lead to investigations into fraud.
Garda Dully submitted two bogus documents to the High Court - the aforementioned club constitution (filed twice, on December 17th 2017 and April 9th 2018) and (less seriously at the time, but importantly in the latter part of the case) a version of the Memorandum of Understanding for the FAI's purchase of the stadium from our company compressed onto one page but omitting the place for signing of my name (filed on November 22nd 2018 - see Come and Get It 11-11-20). These actions are tampering with evidence in order to mislead a court, offences against the Criminal Justice Act of 1951. Being in my opinion more marionette than Machiavelli, the plaintiff may have been unaware of what he was doing but somebody wasn't. I don't believe that Garda Dully was ever a candidate for the serious money and for that reason (but mostly because of his young family) I am reluctant to take action. That said, he has shown no contrition for what has been done to me and to my family over the past nine years. He may be the clean cut kid who got in with a bad crowd, but nobody forced him to do it and he has a sworn responsibility (as a Garda) to act on the other side of the law. I have run out of patience with giving benefit of the doubt to any of these chancers.
I did give the benefit of the doubt to Richard Humphreys after his First Judgment on April 12th 2018, thinking 'if only we could get the truth to him, then he would see sense'. I was very wrong. That Judgment's switch of beneficiary (or more accurately injured party) from the football club to the new entity Athlone Town Athletic Football Club and its ludicrous restraining orders can hardly have been accidental. Any lingering notion that he, a man who is admirably precise in his use of language, could have simply made mistakes was removed on November 14th 2018, when (after helping our legal team to strike out our only significant evidence, subsequent to which he purported not to know its contents) he ordered our company to pay E160,673 to the members of Athlone Town Athletic Football Club; bad enough that the State was ordering a charity to hand over a public utility to a private company with connections to an organised crime gang, now it appears it was effectively ordering the charity to pay E112,471 directly to the gang. It is likely that Judge Humphreys was as much in the dark as we were as to who owned the new club, but he is a judge; he could have simply asked for that information. In review, all of his important judgments have quite clearly been written to order. I would argue that his contempt for Articles 34.6 and 40.1 of our constitution qualifies as subversion. Can a Judge be investigated for a crime? Yes, two Irish Judges have been investigated for crimes in recent years. Can a Judge be prosecuted for a crime? Well, Judge Silvana Saguto is a very brave (now ex-)judge who led the seizure of millions of euro worth of mafia assets in Sicily. One year ago, she was found guilty of corruption, abuse of power and forgery - stemming form her (mis)handling of those assets. [She was cleared of criminal association and embezzlement. It is interesting that all five of the charges against her are very much alive among our collection of 'suspects' - if embezzlement is the appropriate description of the September 2019 misappropriation of E50,000 of our company's assets] She got eight years and six months. Cormac O Dulachain SC often described our case as ''bonkers''. It may yet be a landmark one.
Cormac O Dulachain's attempt to force one of his clients and our company into a settlement against their will and Tom Hogan's attempt to throw an (as Mr. Gavin's above letter confirms) unthrowable appeal against that 'settlement' are worthy of consideration. I have tried to convince myself that both men were putting their careers at risk out of a desire to extract friends from the holes they had dug for themselves. I have a soft spot for that kind of personal loyalty, however undeserving the recipient. But there is no reason to believe that they ever thought they were risking anything.
The planting of the documents with my April 9th 2018 affidavit (mainly in order to to get the E160,673 into the opposition's hands) is of course the biggie. The process of ensuring criminal investigation into this is well underway but unsurprisingly, given how David Dully earns a living, the Gardai are more than a little hesitant (see below). I thank God that the lawyers chose to go the planting route, it is the source of our enduring strength - even if it often feels like God had forsaken us.
Now let's (attempt to) follow the money and have a look at the accounts that Athlone Town AFC Ltd. have submitted to date. The statements up to December 2016 are a non event. The directors claim an exemption under Section 358 of the Companies Act. It is not known if Pre Season made any payments in this period. If it didn't it almost certainly made them in the next tax year. The same exemption is claimed. The numbers (see below) are more redolent of a lemonade stand than a company controlling all the ins and outs of a football club with an impressive youth income and Chinese-Portuguese 'business' connections.
The ''youth contributions'' (presuming that means the money they are getting from direct debiting the parents of the club's underage players) are more than four times less (see below) than my information suggested they should be. There is also no mention of Pre Season's 2017 ''contributions''. Back when the club used to be run by the club, explanations were mandatory. Now that the 'club' is being run by the same company that gets the money, all is fog.
The witnessing of Colm MacGeehin's December 5th 2019 affidavit was almost certainly backdated. While his team wanted to use its 67 page exhibit for tactical reasons in court, primarily to facilitate a judicial whitewashing of the theft of the E50,000 (it is fun to observe how much the conduct of this case parallels the match-fixing and alleged money laundering in Athlone), they were extremely reluctant to officially exhibit it. Judge Humphreys to his credit insisted that they did so. It should be noted that Mr. Stapleton has never been on friendly terms with any of the other solicitors in this case. Somewhere in amongst a series of show-me-the-money letters, he informed Mr. MacGeehin on July 18th 2019 that he was ''instructed by the Plaintiff authorised by the Athlone Town Association Football Club to issue proceedings'' (yes, Association!) against Messrs. Molloy, McCaul and Temple for not paying up. That Mr. MacGeehin would choose under such circumstances to approach Mr. Stapleton to witness his affidavit (see doc 61 from 'Tell It' 26-11-2020) can only have been as a last resort i.e. the swearing of the affidavit was being backdated and approaching a random solicitor in the High Court was considered too big a risk. 'Pat McHugh', apparently Prospect Law's Commisionioner for Oaths of choice, was written in the jurat of the affidavit. Then his name was crossed out. Which means that either Mr. McHugh refused to do it or he wasn't available. Whoever 'signed' Mr. McHugh's name on Mr. MacGeehin's November 7th 2019 affidavit was apparently not available either and having a different 'Patrick McHugh' signature on each of Mr. MacGeehin's three affidavits might have been a bridge too far. Which logically led to opposition solicitor Mr. Stapleton being asked to step into the breech. Which is yet more murkiness for sure, but does it constitute a crime? That depends of whether or not the affidavit's primary aim (to help legalise the transfer of our company's E50,000 to Garda Dully) resulted in a financial benefit to Mr. Stapleton himself. If it did and if it is proved beyond reasonable doubt that the affidavit was indeed backdated, then there will be something for the authorities to work on.
More issues arise with Mr. O Dulachain's courtroom revelation (see 'Are These' 8-12-2020) of a pre-settlement meeting he had with Mr. Forde at the latter's home, a meeting about which both Mr. Forde and Mr. MacGeehin claimed to have no recollection. There could be an innocent explanation for the meeting, but again none was offered to the court. [I also had a secretive meeting in the same house, on January 11th 2018]
I have been effectively accused of corruption, in Richard Humphreys' April 12th 2018 Judgment. Being a judgment, it becomes the official story: officially I am trying to make money from the stadium and I have lied under oath. No evidence has been produced to back up these contentions (which don't meet the criteria required even of a priori evidence), no explanation of how the former could even happen. It is difficult to refute an accusation when your accuser only delivers it in cryptic form - a prosecuting barrister's trick often used to unsettle a nervous witness. My belief is that a judge should not allow any barrister to use tricks, let alone use them himself. The many unchallenged affidavits which dispute Judge Humphreys' contentions (from Cieran Temple, John Comber, Tom Burke, Philip O'Farrell and me) have been shadow banned from proceedings i.e. they are officially on record but the judges have refused to acknowledge their existence. I would not accuse or even raise questions against the reputation of any individual unless I could back it up with evidence, as I am doing here. And I have to do so, because there is no other means of getting back everything that was stolen from us, including my own good name.
Michael Twomey is a judge who knows the importance of keeping barristers in their box. In October he exposed the racket of bringing Circuit Court cases to the High Court to inflate pay outs by as much as ten times. He also pinpointed the practice of using those who do not have the resources to pay legal fees in the High Court as leverage for extracting costs against public bodies. Although made a bencher of King's Inns, Judge Twomey was never properly a barrister himself. Neither was Judge Donald Binchy, who was removed from our case without explanation in August 2017. All six subsequent judges in our case are former barristers, which means in a practical sense that they were and are starting from a point of conflict of interest.
Early November 2020: I go to Athlone Garda Station and tell them that I'd like to report a barrister and a solicitor for fraud against our company.
Nov 10th: A friendly Garda T phones me about making a statement. She agrees that a crime has been committed, but finds it hard to believe that our own legal people would be so active in making it happen.
November 19th: Garda T phones me. We discuss the case briefly. She sounds nervous. She says she will need to talk to someone else before getting back to me. I don't expect that to happen anytime soon.
May 13th 2021: I contact Garda T by phone. She apologises and says I can come in any time next week to make a statement.
May 19th: I go to the station. The only Garda present says ''Why would she say that?'' and asks me to come back when there are spare Gardai around.
May 20th: I phone, looking for Garda T. The Garda on the phone says he ''can't get her right now''. He asks me to try again tomorrow.
May 21st: I phone again. The Garda takes my number and says ''She'll get back to you''.
May 25th: I phone again. the Garda says ''She'll be in on Friday - 7 to 7''.
May 28th (Friday): I phone again. Garda T says she can't do it today.
June 4th: I phone again. Garda T will be in tomorrow.
June 5th: I go to the station. I am told that Garda T will not be in till Tuesday, she will phone me then.
June 8th: Garda T phones me. She says she can't take the statement because she is pregnant, and due to that and Covid she can't go to the station. She tells me to come in anyway and someone will take the statement.
June 9th: Garda J is a different kettle of fish to Garda T. He appears to be a man in a hurry to do something more important. He is very defensive and uninclined to listen. He says three times ''I don't see any crime'' without asking to see the evidence. Why anything would be planted without criminal intent he doesn't explain. But he comes around to some extent (as I believe the Gardai in general will) and gives me some good advice on how to keep pressure on regulatory authorities. He also says that I will have to wait until the BPCT and LSRA make their decisions on the same barrister and solicitor, likening the process to PDFORRA investigating a Garda. If correct, it has taken a long time for the Gardai to let me know this. Just so long as the bad guys pay the price in the end, I am prepared to follow Garda J's advice and wait. We have already waited many years for justice, what is another month or two?
For the record, here is an outline of my communications with the Barristers' Professional Conduct Tribunal.
July 2019: I report a barrister to the BPCT.
October 31st: The BPCT sends me a long reply from the barrister, which is interesting but does not address any of the accusations against him.
December 2nd: the BPCT says it has adjourned consideration pending the outcome of the appeal.
July 29th 2020: The BPCT sends me a short letter from the barrister, which again does not address the issues.
August 30th: I explain some peripheral issues arising from the barrister's letter.
September 23rd: The BPCT writes to say it met but found my complaint hard to understand, without once in the 14 months it has had regulatory jurisdiction over the issues involved asking me to clarify anything at all.
September 30th: I simplify the complaint to the most obvious criminal act.
September 30th: The BPCT writes one word ''Thanks'' and has not issued any communication in the subsequent 14 months, giving no indication that it has even met to discuss the complaint.
There are nine members of this secretive tribunal. Barristers are in a a 4-5 minority (why should there be any?) but seven of the nine are nominated by the Bar Council. In any other line of business, this would be called regulatory capture. Of the hundreds of barristers that have been reported to the tribunal in its 25 years, two have been disbarred (one, temporarily, for the sexual harassment of another barrister and one for a career as a professional conman which predated his admittance to the Bar; one had left jail and the other was about to head to jail despite the efforts of establishment bodies to protect him - all happening independent of the BPCT's decision) and not one reported to the Gardai. What are the odds?
So what of the LSRA? Are they any better? That remains to be seen. I will report here later on how the investigations into two solicitors are going.
I often wonder just how crooked the behaviour in this case has to get before someone in authority, a judge even, says 'Stop, we can't stand for this'. But there seems to be no upper limit on corruption in the Irish superior courts. ''Necessity, the tyrant's plea'', as Milton (not Damien) put it, has led judges into the shadow banning of our evidence . They cannot make us lose without this necessity, a weapon copiously used in the Court of Appeal. They must give us no chance at all, so transparent is the opposition scam. Why it is so important to the barristers and judges that a small town charity loses has never been explained. It is now thirteen months and they haven't put together a judgment yet. This can mean one of three things: there has been an awakening of judicial conscience, they cannot find a way of legally allowing two percent of a shareholding to give away its assets (and other impossibilities), or they are planning a new way of giving it to us in the neck. I have learned the hard way never to expect any decency from these people, so I am predicting the latter. It would be nice to be proved wrong for once though. And here is my prediction, which is based on the hammered-in experience that barristers (including ex-barrister judges) will always look after each other no matter what. Paddy McCaul and Garda Dully will win the preliminary appeal, netting E60,000 each, mostly (I am guessing) for distribution among the legal profession. Dully will also be allowed to keep our E50,000 security for the main appeal. This will bring the total take to E9,327 more than what the lawyers worked so diligently to get to the members of Athlone Town Athletic FC from April to November 2018 - whether Pre Season will get any of the moolah is impossible to know. The judgment will be issued before next Wednesday, when the court goes on holidays, because the government's E2.8 million charge on the property will expire in sixteen days' time and one barrister stands to gain by getting the rezoning and development up and running before property prices regress. The judgment itself will be almost unreadably technical, in an attempt to prevent commoners from deciphering the disingenuous bullshit at its heart. Our counsel will be approached and he will be gently advised that if this goes anywhere near the Supreme Court, he will never find work in Ireland again.
''If the truth makes you uncomfortable, don't blame the truth. Blame the lie that made you comfortable'' - Unknown
Comments
Post a Comment