Euro Sleaze Exposed!

isocket

Here is an interview with former European Commission Chief Accountant and current MEP Marta Andreasen exposing the fraud and waste within the European Union. Marta was suspended from her job by the Commission in May 2002, for what they called "failure to show sufficient loyalty and respect". The reason for this was that she refused to sign off the 2001 European Commission accounts. As an insider of the EU she has shown loyalty and respect to all the peoples of European Union by not going along with the EU fraud, waste and corruption and she has helped exposing this subject to the public. She the author of "Brussels Laid Bare".

It is interesting & educational to listen to the most rare of MEP'S, an honest one!

Please listen HERE & discuss.

BlitzKrieg

you forgot to mention what party she's a mep for.

Tarobot

The real story: she wasn't able to handle her job, went AWOL for a few weeks (who's talking about abusing the taxpayer??) so she started up these accusations of fraud to cover her tracks with ZERO proof.

Definite finalist for Muppet of the Decade award.

Oh and eh, what's UKIP doing with a Spanish MEP?

isocket

Tarobot wrote: »

The real story: she wasn't able to handle her job, went AWOL for a few weeks (who's talking about abusing the taxpayer??) so she started up these accusations of fraud to cover her tracks with ZERO proof.

Definite finalist for Muppet of the Decade award.

Oh and eh, what's UKIP doing with a Spanish MEP?

I see lol !!
The real story is a real question - when were you last a European Commission Chief Accountant?
I'd bank on her word before yours !

Tarobot

isocket wrote: »

I see lol !!
The real story is a real question - when were you last a European Commission Chief Accountant?
I'd bank on her word before yours !

EC Chief Accountant's don't have a monopoly on the truth.

I suspect the main reason you're more likely to believe her than me is that it suits you as a No voter.

You know I actually respect No voters that have the conviction of their own opinion (based on the actual Treaty) and don't have to latch onto every 'celebrity' No campaigner, regardless of how sinister or discredited they are.

Edit: BTW, you do know this all happened in 2002? I think you might have forgotten to mention that.

isocket

Tarobot wrote: »

EC Chief Accountant's don't have a monopoly on the truth.

I suspect the main reason you're more likely to believe her than me is that it suits you as a No voter.

You know I actually respect No voters that have the conviction of their own opinion (based on the actual Treaty) and don't have to latch onto every 'celebrity' No campaigner, regardless of how sinister or discredited they are.

Edit: BTW, you do know this all happened in 2002? I think you might have forgotten to mention that.

Monopoly on truth?
Do you mean you believe anything being peddled by the same European Commission which recently snaked their way into Irish classrooms campaigning for a YES?
Do you really think that if this woman was lying the Euro Commission creeps would'nt sue her?

What world you living in?

Tarobot

isocket wrote: »

Monopoly on truth?
Do you mean you believe anything being peddled by the same European Commission which recently snaked their way into Irish classrooms campaigning for a YES?
Do you really think that if this woman was lying the Euro Commission creeps would'nt sue her?

I don't believe the European Commission, I believe the decision by the Court of Auditors:

http://eca.europa.eu/portal/pls/portal/docs/1/1569518.PDF

I don't really understand your last question - you're actually trying to say that the fact that she wasn't sued is proof that she wasn't lying?

isocket wrote: »

What world you living in?

Clearly a less hysterical one than you do.

isocket

Tarobot wrote: »

I don't believe the European Commission

Quite, neither do I.

I believe the decision by the Court of Auditors:

http://eca.europa.eu/portal/pls/portal/docs/1/1569518.PDF

Oh, & both organisations have nothing to do with one another?

I don't really understand your last question - you're actually trying to say that the European Commission sued her because she wasn't lying?

I'm saying quite clearly, that if she's lying the EU Commision would sue her.
Is that not reasonable?
They're not suing here because she's telling the truth & they do not want to give here the exposure!
Again, she was there, you were'nt!

Clearly a less hysterical one than you do.

Oh, yesland must be such a wholesome place.
Yes you can! believe any old sh1t they tell you.

Tarobot

isocket wrote: »

Oh, & both organisations have nothing to do with one another?

The European Court of Auditors is a professional external investigatory audit agency. If you have some proof of their lack of impartiality, please do show us.

isocket wrote: »

I'm saying quite clearly, that if she's lying the EU Commision would sue her.
Is that not reasonable?

No.

isocket wrote: »

They're not suing here because she's telling the truth & they do not want to give here the exposure!

Wow, what a leap.

isocket wrote: »

Again, she was there, you were'nt!

Similarly, the Court of Auditors was there and you weren't. It's such silly logic - please stop using it.

isocket wrote: »

Oh, yesland must be such a wholesome place.
Yes you can! believe any old sh1t they tell you.

You're calling me gullible? Oh the irony.

marco_polo

isocket wrote: »

Quite, neither do I.



Oh, & both organisations have nothing to do with one another?



I'm saying quite clearly, that if she's lying the EU Commision would sue her.
Is that not reasonable?
They're not suing here because she's telling the truth & they do not want to give here the exposure!
Again, she was there, you were'nt!




Oh, yesland must be such a wholesome place.
Yes you can! believe any old sh1t they tell you.

And her case in the Public Service court against the commission did not go too well against either, so no need to sue really. She previously has been suspended by the OECD for making similar allegations and attempted to take them to the ECHR.

221 In this case, it is first necessary to note that in its report to the Disciplinary Board, before 6 April 2004, the appointing authority retained the following allegations upon the applicant:

- Matters defamatory and insulting towards MM, Mme Schreyer and MG, thus compromising their honour in violation of articles 11 and 12 of the former statute;

- Concealment, during her recruitment by the Commission, of the suspension of her functions within the OECD, in violation of Article 12 of the former statute;

- Repeated non-respect of instructions from her superiors in violation of Article 21 of the former statute;

- Breach of her duty of discretion in addressing directly, without the authorization of her superiors, the President and members of the Court of Auditors, members of Parliament and the general public, in violation of Article 17 of the former statute;

- Absence without permission on 1 August 2002 in violation of Article 60 of the former statute;

- Public statements without permission and repeatedly, in spite of clear and repeated violation of articles 11, 12 and 21 of the former statute;

- Participation in public events organized by others as an advocate without prior permission from the appointing authority, in violation of articles 12, 17 and 21 of the former statute.

222 In its opinion of 10 September 2004, the Disciplinary Board considered that the merits of those complaints had been demonstrated by the appointing authority. After hearing the applicant and carrying out the assessment of the case, the appointing authority concluded in the decision that she "[had] repeatedly and knowingly acted in violation of the obligations arising from Articles 11, 12, 17 and 21 of the [former] statute "(" had repeatedly and knowingly acted in disregard of the obligations set out in the Articles 11, 12, 17 and 21 of the Staff Regulations ").

223 It must next be seen, given the records of the applicant, that she does not dispute the materiality of the facts in regard to the allegation of concealment of her suspension from the OECD when she was recruited to the Commission. As for other complaints, she actually raises the error committed by the appointing authority in the evaluation of facts which he is charged.

224 Consequently, it is necessary, on the one hand, to check if the appointing authority could indeed consider the concealment of the suspension of applicant from the OECD as established at the time when it made the contested decision and, on the other hand, to examine whether the appointing authority did not make a glaring error in the appreciation of the other objections.

- On the concealment of information in recruitment

225 It is undisputed that the appointing authority does not have direct proof that the applicant, during her recruitment, concealed the suspension from which she was then subject within the OECD. The appointing authority has, however, built on the reasoning conducted by the Disciplinary Board, from a body of evidence, to infer the existence of this concealment.

226 It follows, indeed, the decision that, in essence, the appointing authority concluded that she had hidden, during her recruitment, her suspension from duty within the OECD, owing to the fact that, firstly, the curriculum vitae which she had submitted to the Commission did not indicate the suspension which she was serving within this organization. The wording even suggests that she worked there when she applied to the Commission. The same is true of the application which does not mention the suspension, despite the declaration signed by the applicant that she had provided all information sincerely and completely. Secondly, the applicant did not declare the suspension at any moment during recruitment interviews with Mme Schreyer, MM and the external consultant involved in the recruitment procedure. In this regard, the applicant’s argument that she informed MM orally of the suspension is contradicted by the fact he was reluctant to recruit the applicant and would have certainly indicated the suspension to the appointing authority if he had been informed. Admittedly, the appointing authority was informed of the difficulties encountered in her work within the OECD, but none of the officials of this institution contacted by MM would have revealed the suspension.

227 In its defence, the Commission also argues that the applicant’s reliance on the fact that some newspapers had reported the suspension of her functions within the OECD, tends to confirm that she remains unable to prove she declared that suspension to the Commission. It also stresses that the applicant does not attempt in her pleadings to challenge the presentation of facts by the Disciplinary Board, in its opinion of 10 September 2004. In addition, the Commission, citing the transcript of the interview that she gave to the BBC on 3 October 2002, notes that she expressly stated that she had not informed the Commission of the suspension to which she was subject within the OECD.

228 To determine whether this is sufficient to establish that the applicant has concealed certain information to the Commission in her recruitment, it should be noted, firstly, that the Tribunal is unable to check the contents of the curriculum vitae and the application form filled in by the applicant, not having these documents.

229 It should however be noted that the applicant can in no way refute the Commission's assertions about these documents. In addition, it is important to note that, neither in her complaint, nor in her reply, does the applicant contest the version of facts as reported by the Disciplinary Board. In particular, she does not respond to the Commission's argument that MM, reluctant to recruit her, would not have hesitated to inform the appointing authority of the suspension to which the applicant was subject within the OECD, if he had been informed. Similarly, the applicant does not comment on the content of her interview with the BBC on 3 October 2002. It should be noted finally that, in her pleadings, she stresses the shortcomings of the recruitment procedure in that the Commission did not take the initiative to learn, but does not demonstrate that she actually informed the Commission of her suspension.

230 From all these considerations, it follows that the appointing authority was entitled to consider that the applicant had hidden, during her recruitment by the Commission, the suspension to which she was subject within the OECD.

231 This conclusion cannot be invalidated by the applicant’s argument that the initial contacts between her and the Commission were directed through her private address in Barcelona and show that the institution knew she was no longer in OECD, which is based in Paris. Indeed, one can not deduce, from this circumstance, the fact that she informed the Commission of her suspension from the OECD.

- On the ignorance of the duties of loyalty and discretion because of certain statements made by the applicant

http://caterpillarsandbutterflies1.blogspot.com/2009/05/doc001-andreasen-vs-eu-commission.html

This is translation of this document to be found here (Only in french)

http://curia.europa.eu/jurisp/cgi-bin/form.pl?lang=EN&Submit=Rechercher$docrequire=alldocs&numaff=F-40/05&datefs=&datefe=&nomusuel=&domaine=&mots=&resmax=100

Scofflaw

People may or may not be aware she has also recently resigned as UKIP Treasurer, citing inadequate financial controls etc.

cordially,
Scofflaw

ghost_ie

Tarobot wrote: »

The real story: she wasn't able to handle her job, went AWOL for a few weeks (who's talking about abusing the taxpayer??) so she started up these accusations of fraud to cover her tracks with ZERO proof.

Definite finalist for Muppet of the Decade award.

Oh and eh, what's UKIP doing with a Spanish MEP?

If she's lying, why are the EU allowing her to keep making these accusations? If she is not telling the truth I would have expected the EU to have denounced her long ago, but the silence is deafening.

Scofflaw

ghost_ie wrote: »

If she's lying, why are the EU allowing her to keep making these accusations? If she is not telling the truth I would have expected the EU to have denounced her long ago, but the silence is deafening.

I'm trying to think of any example of the EU 'denouncing' someone. I imagine that the record of her disciplinary hearing is as much as they would ever say on the matter. Why should the EU start defaming people, whether guilty or innocent?

amused,
Scofflaw

K-9

Scofflaw wrote: »

I'm trying to think of any example of the EU 'denouncing' someone. I imagine that the record of her disciplinary hearing is as much as they would ever say on the matter. Why should the EU start defaming people, whether guilty or innocent?

amused,
Scofflaw

And if they did, we all know what would happen!

dermot_sheehan

Another ridiculous post that has nothing to do with the lisbon treaty but nit picks on some perceived eu shortcoming as a reason to denounce the treaty.

and it up on a false accusation of fraud from a biased former official from seven years ago.

This is ridiculous, this isn't political debate.

Has lisbon really resulted in the importation into ireland of the ridiculous low form of political debate that has dominated the u.s. these last few years. Instead of arguing the issues, people fight over ancillary, salacious, irrelevant matters that fit newsreport sound bites.

marco_polo

Scofflaw wrote: »

People may or may not be aware she has also recently resigned as UKIP Treasurer, citing inadequate financial controls etc.

cordially,
Scofflaw

And she was suspended by the OCED prior to joining the commission for 15 months for guess what?

Euro_Kraut

what?

marco_polo

Euro_Kraut wrote: »

what?

http://www.computeractive.co.uk/accountancyage/news/2023711/accountant-seeks-damages-oecd?vnu_lt=ca_art_related_articles

Misrepresented her CV, other allegations pending, suddenly the ODEC is accused of accounting malpractices.

Scofflaw

marco_polo wrote: »

http://www.computeractive.co.uk/accountancyage/news/2023711/accountant-seeks-damages-oecd?vnu_lt=ca_art_related_articles

Misrepresented her CV, other allegations pending, suddenly the ODEC is accused of accounting malpractices.

So she's either a serial whistleblower or a serial troublemaker. Hard to tell, really.

cordially,
Scofflaw

marco_polo

Scofflaw wrote: »

So she's either a serial whistleblower or a serial troublemaker. Hard to tell, really.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Indeed, the accounting irregularities rarely seem to be the only issue though.

She completely forgot to mention the whole business during the interview process for the commission as it happens.