The Mahon Tribunal-discussion (please read this threads first post before replying)

juuge

With the sudden intervention of FF senior ministers critical of the tribunal, it is clear that they sense the game is up. Bertie has been 'found-out' and his cohorts are behaving like cornered rats.
Interesting however to see which ministers are vocal and which are keeping quiet.

mike65

True - Cullen in on Hooks show soon, O'Dea and Roche earlier. Not the top end!

Listening to the media discussion, Bertie is it seems a dead man walking with regard to his reputation, the poor man seems to have no end of "freinds" who in fact are not. Friends who are people with high powered postions and cash at the ready. Except the money was'nt for Bertie they were corporate donations for FF.

Mike.

Rock Climber

mike65 wrote: »

Listening to the media discussion, Bertie is it seems a dead man walking with regard to his reputation, the poor man seems to have no end of "freinds" who in fact are not. Friends who are people with high powered postions and cash at the ready. Except the money was'nt for Bertie they were corporate donations for FF.

Mike.

Could you expand on that? 1 of the "dig - outers" is claiming this.
1 is a singular number,check wikipedia if you are confused.Where is this list of "no end of friends" that are denying stuff? Go on post them...Give us an example of fact instead of opinion.

Its farce by this stage with the supporting cast of jokers and clowns invading the media to complain at what a carve up it all is. They are quite out of touch, if Aherne was capable of answering a question without use of "smoke and daggers" he'd not be in front of Mahon today.

I actually find it amusing.
He's answering questions galore,it's just not the types of answers that the tribunal want.
Their brief is supposed to be to find and root out planning coruption and not the interior decor of Aherns quarters in the 90's.
It appears that they are more interested in poofing up their expense sheets by wandering all over the place with convolutant theories on anything and everything to keep their gravy train rolling.
The latest Farce that I see is exactly that.
If they can't prove coruption , they should move on.

juudge wrote:

Bertie has been 'found-out' and his cohorts are behaving like cornered rats.

"found-out" in what exactly?
What has been "found-out" that hasn't been in the public domain for the guts of a year ? Is there anything new? A law broken perhaps?

mike65

Padraic O'Connor, Barry English, John Kennedy (the latter talks about his contribution in the Manchester pub almost in terms of being the act of reluctant benevolent associate of one of Berties friends - Jim Ennis) seem to me less than effusive friends to Ahern

Mike.

Rock Climber

I see so you've still only 1 denying outright friendship.

Post number 153 was a rant so and fiction.

mike65

Rock Climber do you have an agenda?

Whats you view on the FF cabinet spilling onto the airwaves to decry the Tribunal and its works? Is this the set-up for a close down "in the national interest" or some such BS early next year I wonder.

Mike.

Rock Climber

Lol
No Mike I don't have an agenda.
If anything I'm a tad bored with the same old,same old,nothing new ring around a rosies from the same mind made up posts on this thread who don't want to think laterally or who like running with some of the sheep for whatever reason.

If it's a radical opinion you want from me,I'll throw a few out at you then for discussion purposes (You do want to discuss rather than rant right? it's just that your last couple of posts gave me the impression that you're thinking this thread has "rant" in the title and not discussion)
Why did the tribunal spend so much time "inventing" a scenario regarding lodgements and loans(the back to back thing) for which they have no evidence ? What is the point and the relevancy when the source of the money has been explained ?We all mightn't like the source of the money and we all know the circumstances but none of us have been presented with an iota of evidence regarding planning coruption or any kind of coruption arising out of it.

Why isn't the tribunal wondering if Mr O Connor might not be trying to weasle his way out of the hot coals he's walking on in NCB having been caught out digging out a friend(now obviously a former friend) with their resources ?

SubjectSean

I believe that people who seek political office are by their very nature duplicitous and underhanded. The forum is right to ban the naming of any single one of them as a liar. For the simple fact is that they're a brood of liars.

Akrasia

Rock Climber wrote: »

Lol
No Mike I don't have an agenda.
If anything I'm a tad bored with the same old,same old,nothing new ring around a rosies from the same mind made up posts on this thread who don't want to think laterally or who like running with some of the sheep for whatever reason.

If it's a radical opinion you want from me,I'll throw a few out at you then for discussion purposes (You do want to discuss rather than rant right? it's just that your last couple of posts gave me the impression that you're thinking this thread has "rant" in the title and not discussion)
Why did the tribunal spend so much time "inventing" a scenario regarding lodgements and loans(the back to back thing) for which they have no evidence ?

How do you know there's no evidence?

The tribunal was just about to start questioning Ahern about a new cheque lodgement (£5000) to a previously unmentioned Irish Permenent account when Aherns lawyers demanded a recess until after christmas.

The reason the tribunal lawyers are introducing their arguments to Ahern before they present the evidence, is because they want to get Ahern to commit himself to one version of events which may or may not tally with the financial records. The more ahern is forced to change his story, the deeper the hole he digs for himself.

SeanW

It's getting ... interesting. I'm having a hard time believing any of it TBH.

Ok, so he thought it was premature to open up single-name accounts when he was hoping to reconcile with his then soon-to-be ex-wife, fair enough, but that raises several questions.

1: He went without even a current account for several years. I'm npot judging him for this if it made sense for him to conduct his affairs in cash, but this approach raises 5 problems.
A) Interest rates were quite high at that time, so how much money did he lose as a result of foregoing even a current account? I believe someone quoted a figure of 19% interest for the time.
How long did he expect to be able to reconcile with his then wife? Did it not become clear reasonably quickly that this was not going to happen? Or failing that, not anytime soon?
C) Leaving the money in the bank would have provided security for the money. What would have happened had there been a fire in his office or a burglary? Did he not consider this possibility when deciding to hoard cash there?
D) Re: cashing cheques with publicans - ok, maybe in the 1980s it made sense for blue-collar people to cash their wage cheques with a publican over a night's drinking, but cashing a Finance Minister's cheque must have presented something of a cashflow problem as this must have been several times the Industrial Wage
E) Even if he was going to reconcile with his wife, did he not realise that it's no big deal to close a single-name current account should you be fortunate enough to no longer need it?

The man whom CJ Haughey allegedly once called "The most devious of them all" should have known that all the above are good reasons NOT to deal in cash - particularly given the amounts involved. For him above all, this apparently illogical sequence of actions needs to be explained better than it has been.

The only logical explanation would be if he needed to hide money in the run-up to or during divorce proceedings.

2: The "whip arounds" did he need the cash or not? If not, why did he take money from them?
3: The former chairman of NCB ... party political donation or personal dig out, which was it?
4: The contested deposit to AIB, was it US$45,000 as the bank claims or GB£25,000 plus a few IR£s?

It really just doesn't make any sense.

edanto

{read the rules to this thread please. They are in effect until the tribunal ends - Psi}

is_that_so

With the excessive media coverage of this IMO it is hard to get a read on what is actually going on. What I find most disconcerting about it, excluding whether the tribunal might be "inventing" scenarios is that he seems incapable of producing a consistent, coherent story.

What's more, every day he appears even more money shows up. Nor does it help that FF have been playing silly buggers all week and sending one "supporter" after another onto the airwaves. What is FACT about all of this is that he was Minister of Finance and doing some things that would not expect of the position.

His actions at that time are questionable for a minister in charge of the treasury of this country and IMO seriously call into question his suitability for public office.

Politically this will undermine FF. As one pundit observed yesterday, collectively we don't really care who's in when we are like "pigs at a trough" but when the food starts to dry up we may be more inclined to take a closer look at what we've got.

edanto

Well if someone responsible around here wants to delete the post, I've got no problem with that. Obviously enough I don't want my boards.ie to be sued by FF or Aherne.

But they've got enough troubles and when it can be proved by his own words that he lied (in this case, in the interview with Dobbo), how could a case succeed? But Ak, ur right, no more discussion on editorial policy on thread, let's stick to the topic.

So what was the name of that little company that bought the €5k bank draft? And how deep will the tribunal dig?

Rock Climber

Akrasia wrote: »

How do you know there's no evidence?

Because I suppose if the Tribunal knew that money came from a corrupt source they would have said it even in the questioning.
All they have presented so far are "theories"

The tribunal was just about to start questioning Ahern about a new cheque lodgement (£5000) to a previously unmentioned Irish Permenent account when Aherns lawyers demanded a recess until after christmas.

So they've asked him a question to which he might reply this that or the other.
They have not presented any evidence of corruption only theories of theirs which as you know would have a hard time in a court of law.

The reason the tribunal lawyers are introducing their arguments to Ahern before they present the evidence, is because they want to get Ahern to commit himself to one version of events which may or may not tally with the financial records. The more ahern is forced to change his story, the deeper the hole he digs for himself.

Lol you claim to know the reason a tribunal lawyer is doing something yet suggest that me claiming something which is true that they are just presenting theories is wrong because as you say how like could I know this.
Now that I find funny.
I'll tell you how,it's 'cause I deal in facts not fiction.

Akrasia

Rock Climber wrote: »

Because I suppose if the Tribunal knew that money came from a corrupt source they would have said it even in the questioning.
All they have presented so far are "theories"
So they've asked him a question to which he might reply this that or the other.
They have not presented any evidence of corruption only theories of theirs which as you know would have a hard time in a court of law.

They are building a case against him, and his own testimony is a part of that case.
The only way they can suggest the source of many of these payments is by matching withdrawals and deposits in and out of the accounts held by the people at the center of the enquiry. The first thing they need to do is ask Ahern where the money came from, and then they question whether his story is accurate, if is testimony is disproven then it means the money must have come from somewhere else. The final part of the argument will be matching up the unexplained money transactions between those accused of offering corrupt payments, and those accused of receiving them.

It is an essential part of the case to tie Ahern down to one explanation about where the money in his accounts came from. If the tribunal lawyers told Ahern everything they knew before he was tied down to an explanation, then he would be able to adjust an explanation that takes into account the information the tribunal has.

Lol you claim to know the reason a tribunal lawyer is doing something yet suggest that me claiming something which is true that they are just presenting theories is wrong because as you say how like could I know this.
Now that I find funny.
I'll tell you how,it's 'cause I deal in facts not fiction.

Just like Bertie, right?

Rock Climber

Akrasia wrote: »

They are building a case against him, and his own testimony is a part of that case.

You do realise that it's a tribunal of inquiry right?
Ergo they are inquiring where they have queries and not building any sort of case "against" anyone.

The only way they can suggest the source of many of these payments is by matching withdrawals and deposits in and out of the accounts held by the people at the center of the enquiry. The first thing they need to do is ask Ahern where the money came from, and then they question whether his story is accurate, if is testimony is disproven then it means the money must have come from somewhere else. The final part of the argument will be matching up the unexplained money transactions between those accused of offering corrupt payments, and those accused of receiving them.

Of course that summary of events also presupposes on your part that the tribunal is doing exactly what it has denied (when so accused by Aherns Team)it is doing.
So I guess even the Tribunal would agree with me that you are posting fiction there.

It is an essential part of the case to tie Ahern down to one explanation about where the money in his accounts came from. If the tribunal lawyers told Ahern everything they knew before he was tied down to an explanation, then he would be able to adjust an explanation that takes into account the information the tribunal has.

You certainly are giving my laughing muscles some exercise with your posts today.
I or you don't know what the tribunals questions are in advance (unless one of us works for a national newspaper maybe ) but I'd think it reasonable to assume that all paper financial transactions done by Ahern that the Tribunal have are available to Ahern.
I suggest then that your last point there is also farsical.

Just like Bertie, right?

What that you are? ie; in that like him you claim to know what they are up to?
Me I haven't a clue where they are going as I said earlier and unfortunately,I'd expect they'll spend 100's of millions more before any of us do.
I do have a fair indication where you'd like them to be going of course...but then I was never partial to guilty untill proven inocent myself when it come to corruption or most things for that matter.

edanto

Rock Climber wrote: »

I do have a fair indication where you'd like them to be going of course...but then I was never partial to guilty untill proven inocent myself when it come to corruption or most things for that matter.

I find your posts a bit of a smokescreen when I'm trying to consider the information revealed in the tribunal so far.

Are you of the opinion that the events described (despite the differences in perspective and recollection) show an honest and acceptable way to carry out politics in this state. Are there any actions at all which An Taoiseach carried out that you find suspicious?

I have plenty. But one at least won't be investigated by this tribunal since it didn't make J1. For example, the way he introduced a special line or two into a bill when he was Minister for Finance that only benefited one man in the country. And that mysterious man benefited to the tune of several million punts in the years since.

The same mysterious man is only one or two more corporate layers away from the events that were described last week. So, what I'm suggesting is that it would be my impression that some politicians were corrupt, criminal and dealt in cash to avoid a paper trail. I just want the digging to go deeper and for people that are caught out to fall on their swords. Not Liam Lawlor style though.

Scraggs

A reminder to read the first post of this thread, making allegations and accusing someone of a crime without proof is not allowed.

JerkyBoy

edanto said that "some politicians were corrupt"...this is an accurate statement as we know there have been politicians found to be corrupt by our Tribunals, so I don't see anything wrong with what he said. There's no allegation against anyone in his post.

As for Ahern, who knows yet?

But there is no denying that his performance at the Tribunal so far has been disasterous...and it seems to me, my opinion from reading the transcripts, that the Trinbunal do not believe most of what Ahern has told them.

As for the $45,000 question, the Tribunal has already dealt with this and has shown Ahern's "magic formula" to be flawed, has gotten Bertie Ahern to agree that his "expert"'s analaysis holds no water, and has yet to find any possible circumstance in which the lodgement could have been a sterling one.
They have however shown that the lodgement could very easily have been a dollar lodegment and that the possibility of it is supported by the bank's records and documentation.

I am of the opinion that in the absense of any evidence to suggest that the lodgement was sterling, along with documentation whichs show that it was not possible to be sterling, along with the evidence which very cleanly supports the theory that it could have been dollars...along with the Tribunal's assertion that it had to either be dollars or sterling...I think the Tribunal will report that they find it most likely and probably that the lodgement was dollars...and that will be very serious for Ahern (though he will likely not be Taioseach when they report).

JerkyBoy

Some figures around the cost of the Tribunals so far:
http://www.independent.ie/national-news/mahon-tribunal/top-tribunal-lawyer-earns-836448m-in-fees-1254542.html

Pretty expensive!
However, it seems to me to be silly to only start making noise about this now as FF seem to be doing alot these days.
The Tribunals have been going on for 10 years now and are into their final year and a bit.
Let them finish their work...
If the Tribunals are being deemed overly expensive...that issue should have been addressed years ago...not just now when they are about to finish, and also appear to be closing in on the Taoiseach.

Somehow I think the concerns about expenses being expressed by FF and their supporters are more politically motivated, than being out of any concern for wasted tax-payers money.
For it to be concern for tax-payers money would be a rare event for them.

They've wasted a lot more money on a lot less!

Akrasia

JerkyBoy wrote: »

Some figures around the cost of the Tribunals so far:
http://www.independent.ie/national-news/mahon-tribunal/top-tribunal-lawyer-earns-836448m-in-fees-1254542.html

Pretty expensive!
However, it seems to me to be silly to only start making noise about this now as FF seem to be doing alot these days.
The Tribunals have been going on for 10 years now and are into their final year and a bit.
Let them finish their work...
If the Tribunals are being deemed overly expensive...that issue should have been addressed years ago...not just now when they are about to finish, and also appear to be closing in on the Taoiseach.

Somehow I think the concerns about expenses being expressed by FF and their supporters are more politically motivated, than being out of any concern for wasted tax-payers money.
For it to be concern for tax-payers money would be a rare event for them.

They've wasted a lot more money on a lot less!

There is a compelling argument out there to suggest that the tribunals were deliberately set up in such a way as to deliberately lead to long and costly delays.

DancesWithChimp

Interesting argument.
Plus most of the delays have been caused by the very people who are under its scrutiny, both in taking challenges against the Tribunals themselves, and by not fully disclosing everything asked for upfront causing further delays as the Tribunal attempts to extract the required information from them.

Not to mention that it was actually Bertie and his cabinet who decided a few years back AGAINST curbing the Tribunal lawyers fees when the decision was before them.
So it's a bit odd that now, years later, near its end, that they are speaking out against the high costs.

ballooba

In light of the allegations of money laundering against Des Richardson I find it disgusting that the alleged links between Rohan and Berraway will not be investigated by the tribunal. The developments so far look like value for money. Of course the CAB will never go after the Haughey estate and others to cover the costs.

http://archives.tcm.ie/businesspost/2002/10/13/story130886528.asp

juuge

ballooba wrote: »

Of course the CAB will never go after the Haughey estate and others to cover the costs.]

Why would anyone go after the Haughey estate ? remember the main beneficiaries (Haughey's children) will enjoy the spoils for many years to come, and one of those Sean Haughey,now (thanks to Bertie) sits in the Dáil !
Banana republic !

JerkyBoy

Great Sunday Tribune article by Michael Clifford recounting Ahern's stories along with some of his previous statements re: the importance of tax compliance.

The Most Implausible Story Ever Told:
http://www.tribune.ie/article.tvt?_scope=Tribune/News/Home%20News&id=82128&SUBCAT=Tribune/News&SUBCATNAME=News

edanto

JerkyBoy wrote: »

Great Sunday Tribune article

That is a great article!!

Here's a punchy extract.

The final insult Following the Dobson interview, a tax inspector wrote to Ahern to enquire about his statement that he had checked with the "tax authorities".

There was no record of any consultation. The inspector also queried Ahern's statement to Dobson that he had paid "capital gains tax", of which there was no record.

At each juncture, whether making portentous statements to the Dail, or applying for a taxclearance certificate, or appealing tearfully to the public, Ahern has attempted to avoid addressing the basic question which he himself said all the little people should answer: have I paid the tax I owe the state?

Most people now consider his explanations for the source of his money to be bogus. In the highly unlikely event that he is telling the truth, the questions about evading tax remain. Ignorance in his case is a laughable excuse. He is an accountant. He knows the tax law. He made the tax law.

[edit]edanto, you're pushing your luck in this forum. Next breach will see a ban. - Psi[/edit]

mike65

Regarding costs, I belive the tribunals as a whole are in profit so to speak, about 500 million has been recovered from various parties. That does'nt excuse the enriching of our learned friends of course.

Mike.

ballooba

mike65 wrote: »

That does'nt excuse the enriching of our learned friends of course.

If counsel are getting more than market rates then that is an issue for whoever set the rates. If they are getting market rates then I see no problem. It's Bertie and friends that are bumping up the costs by trying to wriggle out of the sordid affair. it's a tough call but I'd rather the legal types get the cash than a person of low morals like Haughey or Ahern.

Edited to comply with rules.

mike65

The rates were set by the Dail in legistation, the were going to cut rates but never did AFAIK.

from Feb 2007 SBP

The chairman asked all political parties to be made aware of this information, and added he had already told the Minister for the Environment, Dick Roche, under whose remit the tribunal falls, that its work would be finished within 12 months and at a cost of €300 million.

The Tanaiste claimed that lawyers working on some tribunals had threatened to quit if their €2,500 euro-a-day fees were slashed by the government. In 2004, former Minister for Finance Charlie McCreevy received approval from the government to reduce barristers’ fees to €969 a day. Yet the legislation giving effect to the new fees was never passed.

Extensions were instead agreed for existing rates of pay for lawyers working at the Mahon and Moriarty tribunals. While two-thirds of the costs of all major inquiries to date have been spent on legal fees, third party costs may add significantly to the tribunal bill These would also be covered by taxpayers’ money.

Mike

GuanYin

READ THE FIRST POST.

New Year goodwill has officially expired. Anyone posting, even a micron outside the guidelines laid down in this thread will be banned on the spot.


edanto, I'm looking at you.