McDowell Controversy

MrPudding

Sponge Bob wrote:

There can be no prosecution (on the false passport issue) no matter how much new evidence is forthcoming because of all the recent publicity .

That has been my point all along. People are saying the minister acted correctly in the interests of the state. My point was he has not acted in the interests of the state as he has effectlively ensured there will be no prosecution.

MrP

Hobart

Sponge Bob wrote:

You carefully avoided discussion Connolly in the thread about Connolly so forgive me if I am totally underwhemed in advance at anything you come up with in this thread.

I refuise to rise to you bait.

Once McDowell opened his gob (and after the DPP decided not to prosecute) there was no chance of the issue of the false passport being dealt with thru the criminal court EVER.

Thats on the presupposition that no other evidence is fortcoming.

Frank cannot be convicted of anything to do with the false passport issue EVER.

Absoloute and total rubbish.

There is no investigation or charge in the pipeline from the DPP or the State or the Dept of Foreign Affairs who issued the passport so the matter is no longer sub judice .

Really? Where is your proff of that?

McDowell feels that Frank has no case to sue him (McDowell that is or Sam Smyth) on the balance of probabilities ...the civil standard .

As it now stands probably, in the future, who knows?

We have a Mexican standoff here . Neither side has enough artillery to take and win a case.

Tell me this, how do you know that? How do you know what evidence either side has? Go on, enlighten me?

Frank will not sue McDowell or Sam Smyth because the prime witness for the defence will be Frank

Another gem with no real substance.
Maybe you should back up your statement(s) of fact with some relevant linkage. Or are you just being a troll?

Sponge Bob

The questions are for Frank to answer.

Rather than try to engage ME you should engage Frank instead and tell him that the Sponge is hopping up and down on the Politics Board looking for answers to his Public Enquiry .

Corben Dallas

McDowell is THEEEE worst Minsiter of Justice we have had for a long time, he has his own aganda and he peruses this regardless of the law or any consideration given to his position as Minister for Justice.

Simply put, the DDP has adised him (prob at ministerial lvl) that they arent goin to be successful and wont prove beyond reasonable doubt if they take a case against the false passport/traveling to Columbia with know subversive thing etc.... so not one to be easyily stumped by legal realities...McDowell has gone for a trail by media instead, by leaking Gardai/passport office/Dept of Justice files to mate that happens to be a journalist.

He should resign.

+plus hes also a hypocrite, didnt he want up to five years sentences for members of the Gardai who leaked infomation to the press?, and then as their 'Commander in chief' goes and leaks a confidential document to the press!!!!????!!!!.

RESIGN!

Sponge Bob

Hobart wrote:

I refuise to rise to you bait.

Don't answer me so, I told you to go off and get Frank to answer in 'his ' thread which should keep you busy for a while

Tell me this, how do you know that?

Let me tell you what I know.

1. There CAN be no prosecution on the passport charge, ever ever ever no matter what evidence comes to light .
2. Frank will not take a civil case against McDowell because Frank will not withstand the cross examination once the defence call him to the stand.
3. On the passport issue/ Franks perambulations there exists a Mexican Standoff between Frank and McDowell , neither can progress anything.

What I do not know.

1. Will the issue of deliberate leaking of files be investigated by the Gardai/Civil Service in an equitable manner ???
2. Will the DPP take that file and press charges against either or both of McDowell and Sam Smyth / The Independent
3. Will the DPP take a strong stand in the interests of the state and throw the book at McDowell or will bit be a narrow technical charge ??
4. Who will pay the costs of that action , will it be the taxpayer (in the form of the state) or (I would prefer) McDowell and the Independent from their own considerable resources.

What I do not know is of more interest and is more discussable is it not

Seth Brundle

Sponge Bob wrote:

1. Where Were you that April Frank ?, you was not working at the SBP it appears .

2. Did you , during that April , travel to France as Frank using Franks passport and travel back to Ireland from France as Frank using Franks passport 'some time later'

3. Do you accept that that passport which does not have your photo on it was used by someone to travel from France to Columbia and back to France while you were.......in France all the time of course

4. Do you have any further comment to make on this co-incidence , is it publicly enquireable about ...to coin a phrase ?

Sponge Bob wrote:

The questions are for Frank,Herr Flick has plenty to answer for in another thread (nearby ) .

Sponge Bob wrote:

The questions are for Frank to answer.

Rather than try to engage ME you should engage Frank instead and tell him that the Sponge is hopping up and down on the Politics Board looking for answers to his Public Enquiry .

I was under the impression that someone was innocent until proven guilty by a court of law. I thought we had a system of due process. Has Herr Flik somehow removed this from our constitution?
Until Frank Connolly is standing in the dock he does not have to answer any of these with the possible exception of his (former) employers.

MrPudding wrote:

Was it 2 years ago McDowell was asked for information from a Garda file and his response was something like "I will not be compelled to release information from Garda files when that information has not be proven in a court of law?" What happened to that attitude.

Suppose Frank Connelly is actually guilty of a offense, surely McDowell's actions have made prosecution impossible now?

WRT the first point, the Minister did say that and he also introduced legislation giving gardai up to 5 years in jail for discussing matters like this with the media. Hypocrisy!
WRT the 2nd point, Herr Flik has prejudiced any case as he should not stuck his oar into a possible garda matter!

oscarBravo

kbannon wrote:

I was under the impression that someone was innocent until proven guilty by a court of law. I thought we had a system of due process.

I was under the impression that there's a difference between having questions to answer and being convicted of a criminal offence.

Was there a case brought against Ivor Callely last week? Did it go to trial? Was he convicted?

No?

So why is he no longer a junior minister?

Hobart

Sponge Bob wrote:

waffle
1. There CAN be no prosecution on the passport charge, ever ever ever no matter what evidence comes to light .

Lets take a hypotetical situation. Connolly admits his "alleged" guilt. Is charged. Pleads guilty

2. Frank will not take a civil case against McDowell because Frank will not withstand the cross examination once the defence call him to the stand.

Pure opinion on your part.

3. On the passport issue/ Franks perambulations there exists a Mexican Standoff between Frank and McDowell , neither can progress anything.

Again you have no way of knowing this. You have no idea what Connolly does/does not know. You have no idea what the DPP does/does not know. If you do, please feel free to show us.

What I do not know.
<snip>

....a lot

Seth Brundle

ReefBreak wrote:

You know I would love to see that photo that he says isn't him. Because Sam Smyth, Chuck feeney, Michael McDowell and a host of others thought otherwise.

Akrasia wrote:

so why doesn't Sam Smyth publish the photograph he recieved alongside a picture of Frank Connolly and let everyone else decide?

The Independent's refusal to publish the photograph is equally as suspicious as Frank Connolly's refusal to say where he was at the time of the alleged trip to colombia

Sam Smith was on the Eamon Dunphy show this morning and said that he didn't see any photograph. The photo used in the passport application was not on the copy of the application he recieved. It was however accompanied by an A4 blow up of a passport photo which Sam Smith would not be fully able to state that it was in fact Frank Connolly (despite knowing Frank Connolly for over 25 years).

Earthman wrote:

How do we know if McDowell and Sam Smyth are close friends ?

Sam Smith agreed that he and the Minister were friends on the radio show.

What surprised me was that the Indo stated that FC used a false passport to travel to Colombia. However, listening to SS on the radio, he didn't sound as if he/the indo had enough evidence to prove their statement.
SS did say that there was more to come tomorrow.

Sponge Bob

Hobart wrote:

Lets take a hypotetical situation. Connolly admits his "alleged" guilt.

Irrelevant. There can be no trial on the passport issue since that answer was given in the Dáil and reported widely.

Thats That. There will be no prosecution , not even were Frank to hand that dodgy passport into the Dept of Foreign affairs , personally .

Nor will Frank take McDowell to court, I can state that with confidence

Do you have anything of interest , however minor, to tell any of us Hobart or do you plan to yap from a distance at me all day ?????

Seth Brundle

I believe this and the Ivor cases to be quite different.
Criminal accusations are being made about an individual by the Minister using unsubstantiated evidence. The accused denies all claims and as far as we are aware the DPP does not plan on taking any case against the individual.
Ivor admitted to having work done by the developers and stood down. I don't recall a member of government standing up in the Dail and discrediting Ivor.

Akrasia

Akrasia wrote:

Files from the passport office are private and confidential. He would have absolutely no right to disclose documents such as passport applications to the media. In this case he claims that the document was a fraudulant document and so was not confidential, but if it was a fraudulant document then it becomes a matter for the gardai and so it is no longer accurate to describe it as a passport office document and not a part of a Garda File.

It's an unknown but as I conjected earlier, if the DPP is not proferring charges because they have no evidence as to who exactly fraudently applied for the passport in Connolly's name(It would never simply be enough to just say it was in your name so you are guilty of the fraud) then the Garda case is closed.
McDowell would be in a position to inquire as to whether this was the case or not.
Thats conjecture also though on my part.
But its not conjecture to say that if McDowell had department of justice documents and released them, then they were Dept of justice files.
Neither you or me can ascertain whether they are also Garda files.
We can only conject, which is never as good as sticking to the facts.

By the time that question was asked McDowell had already been making efforts to shut down the CPI by private consultations with Chuck Feeney

How do you know this?

Hobart

Earthman wrote:

It's an unknown but as I conjected earlier, if the DPP is not proferring charges because they have no evidence as to who exactly fraudently applied for the passport in Connolly's name(It would never simply be enough to just say it was in your name so you are guilty of the fraud) then the Garda case is closed.

The passport was not applied for in Connollys name {edit} As I understand it that is{/edit}.

Earthman wrote:

But its not conjecture to say that if McDowell had department of justice documents and released them, then they were Dept of justice files.
Neither you or me can ascertain whether they are also Garda files.
We can only conject, which is never as good as sticking to the facts.

How do you know this?

Did not Bertie and McDowell admit that this document was "part" of a Garda file?

oscarBravo

kbannon wrote:

I believe this and the Ivor cases to be quite different.

Of course they are. They're also somewhat similar in some respects.

kbannon wrote:

Criminal accusations are being made about an individual by the Minister using unsubstantiated evidence. The accused denies all claims and as far as we are aware the DPP does not plan on taking any case against the individual.

There's also no suggestion of criminal sanctions against Frank Connolly (that I'm aware of). Ergo, the concept of innocent until proven guilty is pretty much irrelevant.

If you're going to set yourself up as some sort of guardian angel protecting the public from corruption, it's hardly surprising if your own track record gets questioned.

Akrasia

because the question in the dail was in relation to the discrediting of Frank Connolly that had already been underway and We already know that Chuck Feeney had decided to withdraw his support before the dail Question was asked.

Seth Brundle

oscarBravo wrote:

Of course they are. They're also somewhat similar in some respects.

Nobody disclosed the contents of a secret file about Ivor under the guise of it being to defend the state somehow. in both cases an accusation was made (the only common factor in both), however, in one instance despite the accused denying all involvement, they are still being accused. In the other case the accused admitted guilt and stood down.

oscarBravo wrote:

There's also no suggestion of criminal sanctions against Frank Connolly (that I'm aware of). Ergo, the concept of innocent until proven guilty is pretty much irrelevant.

If you're going to set yourself up as some sort of guardian angel protecting the public from corruption, it's hardly surprising if your own track record gets questioned.

Regarding the 'criminal sanctions' - this is part of the crux of the FC case. The Minister insists that FC has committed two criminal offences yet no criminal trial has been held and probably won't now. The minister is not in a position of deciding if someone is a criminal - thats why the courts are there.

oscarBravo

kbannon wrote:

in both cases an accusation was made (the only common factor in both), however, in one instance despite the accused denying all involvement, they are still being accused. In the other case the accused admitted guilt and stood down.

So, Ivor Callely's mistake was to admit guilt? If he'd brazened it out, can I take it that you'd be loudly protesting his right to a presumption of innocence?

kbannon

kbannon wrote:

What surprised me was that the Indo stated that FC used a false passport to travel to Colombia. However, listening to SS on the radio, he didn't sound as if he/the indo had enough evidence to prove their statement.
SS did say that there was more to come tomorrow.

Yes and I think I did hear SS [funny acronym that ] on his sunday supplement show openly repeat allegations against Connolly and stating he had no problem doing so.
He'd better come up with the easy evidence that he wasn't in Columbia - otherwise any non interested party would have to be questioning why he wont present it other than the probablity that he was there...

Hobart wrote:

The passport was not applied for in Connollys name {edit} As I understand it that is{/edit}.

You'll have to forgive me, as I'm approaching this without having read SS's article so that would be news to me.
Though I assume you mean much the same as I have said ie, that it cannot be proven who requested the passport.
It is a given that the passport is in Connollys name-other wise there'd be no hoo haw here at all

Did not Bertie and McDowell admit that this document was "part" of a Garda file?

I heard McDowell say it was a dept of justice file that he leaked.
It would be remiss of the passport office not to have informed the Gardaí and ergo for it not to be also but separately part of a Garda file.
I dont know what SS got, but I would say that whatever it was , it was only a copy of an original.
The origin of McDowells leak is unknown other than his stated fact that it was a dept of justice file.

Bertie wouldnt be incorrect I'd imagine if he said it was a Garda file , as it would nearly with certainty have to be aswell-but the two concepts would be independent of one another.
I would like to know what the purpose of the information being brought to the dept of justice was though before I could be definitive on that as opposed to applying conjecture.

Akrasia wrote:

and We already know that Chuck Feeney had decided to withdraw his support before the dail Question was asked.

How do you know that?I first heard of it after this story broke,but clearly you have looked into this.
Would you mind linking to where you have this information as it would be helpfull.
How do you know that McDowell specefically spoke to Chuck Feeney which is what you are saying has happened? Is that on the record somewhere?

Also even if he had,I'd not be surprised, as its clear that McDowell obviously is of the opinion that there are questions to ask here.
Whetehr you or I agree is immaterial to that.
But what is material is the easyness of Connollys position with respect to clearing up the position and showing that he was not in Columbia.

If he wont do that,it's difficult to have sympathy for him, especially when doing so would be so damaging to McDowell.

Akrasia

since when are unproven allegations part of someone's track record?

BrianD

I think that there are two issues here and they are being intermingled and both should be separated from each other.

1. What Frank Connolly did or did not do.

2. What The Minister for justice did in the Dail and his passing on of information to a journalist.

What Frank Connolly did or didn't do is largely irrelevant. He could be guilty for all I care. His alledged crime of passport irregularity is something that our justice system is well capable of handling. It is not a crime to visit Colombia.

What McDowell did is an absolute disgrace and if resignation is not forthcoming he should be fired. He has brought every value of our constitution and justice system into disrepute for his own political gain.

Frank Connolly guilty or not is not a threat to national security. In fact, nothing has happened to Colombia 3 since they returned. Clearly they threatened to upset the peace process - a matter of national interest and security.

The DPP is the agency to deal with alleged passport fraud and clearly decided not to proceed. If McDowell is fustrated by this why doesn't he deal with the 100's of other criminals who 'get away with it' every year for what ever reason. Why not do a roll call of these guys in the Dail? The following are guilty but we can't prosecute them for lack of evidence, the Gardai messed up or we just haven't got around to investigating.

When I fill out a passport document or any other state document, I do not expect it to be handed out to a journalist. I do expect that it can be used to investigate me by authority if a crime is purported to be committed by me. I do expect that the Gardai will do this and not a politician. Now that we have data retention will Michael be handing out phone records at some time in the future. All for national security of course.

All of mcDowells actions stink to high heaven. Never before have such disgraceful actions been carried out so blatently by an elected politician. He has overturned the values of our justice system. I notice that he has not got the courage of his convictions to make his statements outside of the priviledge of the DAil. I am also stunned that the Government are still supporting him with glib responses.

If we saw this happening in a third world regime we would expect it (maybe even make a movie about it!) but all of a sudden it's acceptable in Ireland. Of course we all know the Government is doomed if the Minister for Justice resigned or was fired.

I am delighted that I am in the said Ministers constituency. he won't be getting my vote and he can expect an earful if he is still in office next time I meet him!

The Minister should do the right thing - resign. I wonder if Connolly was his McDowells client as a barrister, how he would react?

ziggy

This post has been deleted.

gandalf

As Brian has said it is now irrelevant if Frank Connelly did go to Columbia or Disney world now.

The problem is Michael McDowell and his conduct. I doubt he will resign and I doubt he will be fired.

http://www.examiner.ie/breaking/story.asp?j=165908588&p=y659x9z94&n=165909348

Unless of course Mr. Connelly whips out the holiday photos and he is in France. Again I doubt that will happen either.

Peanut

BrianD wrote:

...
Frank Connolly guilty or not is not a threat to national security.
...

I don't think that can be said with certainty at this point in time.

Sponge Bob

Since when is Silence Golden when you choose to set yourself up as an arbiter of public probity and are accused of being less than forthcoming yourself in terms of probity . ??

Has anyone found Frank yet and why has he not answered the simple questions in my enquiry ???

This Sponge is getting to be less than gruntled at the lack of co-operation with my public enquiry

Mighty_Mouse

Frank Connolly guilty or not is not a threat to national security.
...

I don't think that can be said with certainty at this point in time.[/

and why not?

agree with Brian D. its an abuse of his position. Should be sacked immediately

Seth Brundle

If Frank Connolly is a threat to National Security, then why haven't the gardai arrested him? why haven't the DPP initiated proceedings against him?
What gives the Minister (and the Indo) the right to state that this person has done something illegal without the standard procedures being followed?

mike65

Cos its a 'known unknown' to borrow a phase. Until Mr Connolly can show that he was'nt travelling under the name John Francis Johnston in Columbia or indeed France he will be suspected by some of us of wrongdoing.

You'll need a sub but this is an overview of the case by Jim Cusack who seems in no doubt.

Mike.

Akrasia

mike65 wrote:

Cos its a 'known unknown' to borrow a phase. Until Mr Connolly can show that he was'nt travelling under the name John Francis Johnston in Columbia or indeed France he will be suspected by some of us of wrongdoing.

You'll need a sub but this is an overview of the case by Jim Cusack who seems in no doubt.

Mike.

Even if he was in Colombia on a false passport, how does that possibly make him a threat to the state? That he might have raised funds which could have been used to fund Sinn Fein? If that is true then it would follow that Sinn Fein are a threat to the state? When can we expect McDowell to outlaw republicanism?

mike65

Well I supsect McDowell does view SF as a threat to the state.

Mike.

The Baler

mike65 wrote:

Cos its a 'known unknown' to borrow a phase. Until Mr Connolly can show that he was'nt travelling under the name John Francis Johnston in Columbia or indeed France he will be suspected by some of us of wrongdoing.

You'll need a sub but this is an overview of the case by Jim Cusack who seems in no doubt.

Mike.

IMO McDowell acted as he did so as to do as much damage to CPI as possible. I would like to see Connolly answer the outstanding questions but he gives the impression that by doing that he gives creedence to the belief that one is guilty till proven innocent.
On Q&A the whole argument was well contested. If anyone would like to have a gawk here is the link.

http://www.rte.ie/news/2005/1212/qanda.html

I had a look at Jim Cusack's article in the Independent. Isn't he the same journo who said that 'all out war was on the return' How credible is mr Cusack on this matter? I think he works with SS but I could be wrong.

JIM CUSACK

EXCLUSIVE

THE Taoiseach was given reports by Garda and Army security chiefs in the first week of the New Year outlining the IRA's plans to return to "war" and detailing a new recruitment campaign that was already underway on both sides of the border.

The security chiefs also informed him that they believed the IRA was responsible for the Northern Bank robbery - long before Huge Orde expressed the same opinion.

Seems to me that his sources got it at least half wrong!!! Can we trust these security sources?