Ivor Calleley arrested

Pacifist Pigeon

Another Fianna Fáiler bites the dusk.

hallelujajordan

raymon wrote: »

As I said , I have zero confidence that he or bertie will ever see the inside of a jail cell .. except for the one last night.

Wait and see this being quashed on some technicality.

Why ? The DPP was appointed by the FG / LAB government last year . . she is solicitor with nearly 20 yrs experience . . .

Do you not believe she will prosecute Callely with the same rigor of the law as she would anyone else ?? If not, why ?

Liam Byrne

hallelujajordan wrote:

its not credible to believe that he would remember the detail about what he said but not remember the taping of it

Lots of things that FFers have said are "not credible" and yet you choose to believe those.

Strange how you're picky about which "not credible" statements you choose to believe.

V_Moth

Just replace the word Animal with Fianna Fail and you get a good summary of Ivors Life. Weird...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mVWeqAPQUXc

raymon

hallelujajordan wrote: »

Why ? The DPP was appointed by the FG / LAB government last year . . she is solicitor with nearly 20 yrs experience . . .

Do you not believe she will prosecute Callely with the same rigor of the law as she would anyone else ?? If not, why ?

You mentioned Burke and Lawlor earlier. they both served time but for other offences.
Ray burke , tax irregularities
Lawlor , not cooperating with a tribunal

Over all the time that FF were taking brown envelopes , how many went to prison for corruption?

Undoubtedly Ivors case is about alleged forgery and fraud, but it is my opinion that he will get away with it.

Wider Road

raymon wrote: »

hallelujajordan wrote: »

Why ? The DPP was appointed by the FG / LAB government last year . . she is solicitor with nearly 20 yrs experience . . .

Do you not believe she will prosecute Callely with the same rigor of the law as she would anyone else ?? If not, why ?

You mentioned Burke and Lawlor earlier. they both served time but for other offences.
Ray burke , tax irregularities
Lawlor , not cooperating with a tribunal

Over all the time that FF were taking brown envelopes , how many went to prison for corruption?

Undoubtedly Ivors case is about alleged forgery and fraud, but it is my opinion that he will get away with it.

Why did you quote hallelujajordan's post and not reply to it, instead referring back to something he typed earlier?

RATM

hallelujajordan wrote: »

For a court to convict O'Dea of perjury it would have to be proven beyond doubt that he knowingly misled the court when he signed the affidavit. i.e. that he had full recollection of the comments he made about the councillors brother and his brothel and that he deliberately lied to the court in order to avoid the defamation charge.

After releasing the tape the journalist acknowledged that when he interviewed O'Dea he put the tape recorder "under his nose" . . i.e. the interview was openly and knowingly recorded.

If O'Dea committed perjury then he remembered the interview, remembered what he said, knew it had been taped (its not credible to believe that he would remember the detail about what he said but not remember the taping of it), but yet, knowing that a journalist had a tape that would contradict him he deliberately signed an affidavit denying his comments . .

Is it not more credible to believe that O'Dea made the comments, forgot he had made the comments, lied about the comments (unknowingly) and then got caught out when the tape surfaced . .

Still stupid, still lies, but not perjury . .

Personally, I think it is likely that the DPP didn't prosecute this case because he felt that he was unlikely to be able to prove perjury (for the reasons above) as opposed to some anti-FF conspiracy theory.

So then at least you admit that there is a case to be had but you completely deny the right of justice to allow a case to be heard by hiding behind the usual DPP cloak of secrecy, populated with such excuses as 'not enough evidence'. We hear this crap all the time from the DPP- be it not pressing charges on the clergy or utterly failing to prosecute white collar crime.

The power players in the DPP are politically appointed and simply play the to the politicians tune, at the very least wake up and realise that we live in a clientist state. That's not a anti-FF conspiracy theory, the same is going on right now with FG appointing the people they know will remain loyal to them through think and thin. That means senior Gardai, judicial appointments (Shatter anyone?), the AG & DPP. Don't take my word for it though- google 'clientalism Ireland' and there is a plethora of published academic work on the topic from political scientists both here and abroad. They clearly explain how this practice pervades not only the justice system but the very fabric of Irish society.


In the O'Dea case there was all the evidence the DPP wanted. You know all too well that if O'Dea was going around blabbing to a local journalist that some Sinn Fein councillors brother was running a brothel then he sure as hell was blabbing it to more than just that journalist. I'd bet my right arm that there is at least 20 people in the Limerick area who personally heard the allegations leave O'Dea's lips. No doubt the whole FF cabal in Limerick were talking about it and spreading it further. Even the dogs in the street knew about it. It is absurd to think he only mentioned to one solitary journalist.

Your line of 'credibility' goes something like this:-
1) O'Dea defames a councillor and his brother
2) O'Dea forgets that he has defamed the councillor and his brother
3) O'Dea signs an affidavit* stating that he did not defame the pair, later revealed to haven lied in his affidavit. He did all this "unknowingly"
4) O'Dea's lie is revealed by the tape and only then does he come clean.


*A legal affidavit for submission to a judge of the courts is a very very serious legal document. You always think very carefully about every single iota of detail in what you're claiming happened when signing a legal affidavit. Any solicitor will tell you to never lie in an affidavit. Before signing one you better be dam sure what you are saying is true or else you are guilty of misleading the courts, a very serious offense in the eyes of the law. This is something every solicitor in the country knows, of which O'Dea is one.

It is a lot more credible to believe that O'Dea with his 15,000 votes was drunk on power and thinking he was untouchable to the law. Not quite untouchable as it cost him over €100k in damages and rightly so.

I can guarantee you that if you or I sign an affidavit and give it to a judge who later discovered that you lied to him then you'd be seeing the inside of a prison pretty quickly. Not so for Minister of Defence O'Dea. One law for us, another for them. The hypocrisy of Irish politicians gets exposed yet again.

patwicklow

Look it folks leave him alone hes robbing with no hood!, (Callely will make €240,000 in the year after he quits)Thats why he can walk away end of!

http://www.thejournal.ie/callely-will-make-e240000-in-the-year-after-he-quits-2010-08/

RATM

UglyBolloxFace wrote: »

Is no-one else suspicious about the day he was arrested? Think about it - on the day the Government pay out over 1 Billion Euro to Anglo bondholders, this cretin is arrested.

Open your mind - he could have been arrested anytime, but no, he was arrested on the day that the huge bondholder payment was made. This has the result of making it to the headlines of the news, instead of the bondholder payment. The Government is manipulating us.

**** this country; I'm glad I got out of it.

Broadhsheet illustrate the phenomen of people getting arrested when bonds fall due beautifully here

http://www.broadsheet.ie/2012/01/25/nothing-to-see-here-4/

Paddy Power should be running a book on who is going to get arrested when the next bond is due in March.

raymon

Wider Road wrote: »

Why did you quote hallelujajordan's post and not reply to it, instead referring back to something he typed earlier?

You must not have read my reply.have a look again.

DoesNotCompute

UglyBolloxFace wrote: »

**** this country; I'm glad I got out of it.

The people of Ireland are glad you're gone, too.

hallelujajordan

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Lots of things that FFers have said are "not credible" and yet you choose to believe those.

Strange how you're picky about which "not credible" statements you choose to believe.

It really isn't about what I believe. . . . The DPP has to make an assessment of what a court is likely to believe before they waste the states resources prosecuting a crime. . .

I think we have had this debate before. .

raymon wrote: »

You mentioned Burke and Lawlor earlier. they both served time but for other offences.
Ray burke , tax irregularities
Lawlor , not cooperating with a tribunal

Over all the time that FF were taking brown envelopes , how many went to prison for corruption?

Undoubtedly Ivors case is about alleged forgery and fraud, but it is my opinion that he will get away with it.

Wider Road was right, you didn't answer my question . .

Do you not believe she (the DPP) will prosecute Callely with the same rigor of the law as she would anyone else ?? If not, why ?

You keep making these assertions that Callely wont go to jail or will get off on a technicality . . but on what basis ? Do you not trust the integrity of the DPP ? ?

Mr.Micro

hallelujajordan wrote: »

It really isn't about what I believe. . . . The DPP has to make an assessment of what a court is likely to believe before they waste the states resources prosecuting a crime. . .

I think we have had this debate before. .





Wider Road was right, you didn't answer my question . .

Do you not believe she (the DPP) will prosecute Callely with the same rigor of the law as she would anyone else ?? If not, why ?

You keep making these assertions that Callely wont go to jail or will get off on a technicality . . but on what basis ? Do you not trust the integrity of the DPP ? ?

If I might give my opinion, up to now the office of the DPP does appear to have had much integrity when it comes to political and financial figures, hence the lack of confidence from the public. It is up to that office to prove to the country that it has integrity, and thus clear up any ambiguities the public may believe exist when it comes to pursuing such figures. The former financial regulator was a complete "yes man", and perhaps the same could be said of the former DPP, only time will tell if the new DPP will be effective and not hamstrung.

hallelujajordan

RATM wrote: »

So then at least you admit that there is a case to be had but you completely deny the right of justice to allow a case to be heard by hiding behind the usual DPP cloak of secrecy, populated with such excuses as 'not enough evidence'. We hear this crap all the time from the DPP- be it not pressing charges on the clergy or utterly failing to prosecute white collar crime.

The power players in the DPP are politically appointed and simply play the to the politicians tune, at the very least wake up and realise that we live in a clientist state. That's not a anti-FF conspiracy theory, the same is going on right now with FG appointing the people they know will remain loyal to them through think and thin. That means senior Gardai, judicial appointments (Shatter anyone?), the AG & DPP. Don't take my word for it though- google 'clientalism Ireland' and there is a plethora of published academic work on the topic from political scientists both here and abroad. They clearly explain how this practice pervades not only the justice system but the very fabric of Irish society.

You don't need to convince me about clientelism in Ireland. . I agree with you . . I just don't believe that in this case that is what happened . . I don't believe that there was a strong and credible case that Willie O'Dea committed perjury

In the O'Dea case there was all the evidence the DPP wanted. You know all too well that if O'Dea was going around blabbing to a local journalist that some Sinn Fein councillors brother was running a brothel then he sure as hell was blabbing it to more than just that journalist. I'd bet my right arm that there is at least 20 people in the Limerick area who personally heard the allegations leave O'Dea's lips. No doubt the whole FF cabal in Limerick were talking about it and spreading it further. Even the dogs in the street knew about it. It is absurd to think he only mentioned to one solitary journalist.

Where are all of these people he was telling ? Why did they not come out at the time and support the case against him ? ?

I can guarantee you that if you or I sign an affidavit and give it to a judge who later discovered that you lied to him then you'd be seeing the inside of a prison pretty quickly. Not so for Minister of Defence O'Dea. One law for us, another for them. The hypocrisy of Irish politicians gets exposed yet again.

Unlikely . . perjury cases in Ireland are rarely taken and even less rarely successfully prosecuted . .

In the 7 years between 2003 and 2009 only 30 perjury cases were recorded in Ireland, only 12 went to court and only 7 led to a successful conviction. (www.cso.ie)

raymon

hallelujajordan wrote: »

It really isn't about what I believe. . . . The DPP has to make an assessment of what a court is likely to believe before they waste the states resources prosecuting a crime. . .

I think we have had this debate before. .





Wider Road was right, you didn't answer my question . .

Do you not believe she (the DPP) will prosecute Callely with the same rigor of the law as she would anyone else ?? If not, why ?

You keep making these assertions that Callely wont go to jail or will get off on a technicality . . but on what basis ? Do you not trust the integrity of the DPP ? ?

I did answer , the last line in my response said that it is my opinion that he will get away with it.

There are many places where a case against an individual can collapse and there are many individuals involved. Not just the dpp.

Where it will collapse is not clear right now

My opinion stands I believe he will get away with it

Your hero and great leader Bertie will get away with all of it too.

hallelujajordan

raymon wrote: »

I did answer , the last line in my response said that it is my opinion that he will get away with it.

There are many places where a case against an individual can collapse and there are many individuals involved. Not just the dpp.

Where it will collapse is not clear right now

My opinion stands I believe he will get away with it

Your hero and great leader Bertie will get away with all of it too.

You didn't answer . . let me try again . .

Do you believe that the FG appointed DPP will prosecute Ivor Callely with the same rigor of the law as she would anyone else ?

Do you trust the integrity of the DPP ?

You are right that Callely's case could collapse in several areas which is the same for any criminal case that the state prosecutes. . .

You are implying that his is more likely to collapse because he is a Fianna Fail politician and I am wondering what the basis is for that belief. . ?

Liam Byrne

hallelujajordan wrote: »

It really isn't about what I believe. . . . The DPP has to make an assessment of what a court is likely to believe before they waste the states resources prosecuting a crime. . .

Oh but it is, because your assessment of credibility seems to swing in any way that could possibly paint FF in a better light.

In some cases you say that something isn't credible in order to get a fellow FFer of the hook.

In other cases you claim that something which isn't credible is - again, in order to get a fellow FFer off the hook.

And in relation to it being about what individuals believe, you seem to clamp down pretty darn hard on people who state their opposing beliefs on here.

I believe O'Dea has a case to answer.
I believe Ahern has a case to answer.
I believe that Callelly has a case to answer.
I believe that most of Anglo's top brass have a case to answer.

And it's up to the DPP to bloody well do their jobs.

If they answer the case, then fair enough. But there should be a case.

hallelujajordan

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Oh but it is, because your assessment of credibility seems to swing in any way that could possibly paint FF in a better light.

In some cases you say that something isn't credible in order to get a fellow FFer of the hook.

In other cases you claim that something which isn't credible is - again, in order to get a fellow FFer off the hook.

And in relation to it being about what individuals believe, you seem to clamp down pretty darn hard on people who state their opposing beliefs on here.

I believe O'Dea has a case to answer.
I believe Ahern has a case to answer.
I believe that Callelly has a case to answer.
I believe that most of Anglo's top brass have a case to answer.

And it's up to the DPP to bloody well do their jobs.

If they answer the case, then fair enough. But there should be a case.

If you don't like my assessment of credibility then park it for a second. . do you honestly think you could convince a court that O'Dea recalled a conversation that he had, including the details of what he said but yet forgot that there had been a tape recorder under his nose at the time ?

Where do i 'clamp down hard' on others beliefs ? That's just a nonsense statement . . I might challenge the basis behind a belief . . but isn't that essentially what debate is ?

The DPP's job is not to pursue every case and if you believe that you are wrong. . . that would be a complete waste of state resources. If it is clear that there is not enough evidence to stand at least a reasonable chance of success then in the interest of public resources they need to let it go . .

That is clearly the decision they made with O'Dea . . With Callely and Fitzpatrick et al I (like you) hope they make a different decision . .

As for Ahern, I await the Mahon report, if they advise the DPP that Ahern should be investigated for criminal offenses then I hope they do so with the full rigor of the law.

Liam Byrne

hallelujajordan wrote:

do you honestly think you could convince a court that O'Dea recalled a conversation that he had, including the details of what he said but yet forgot that there had been a tape recorder under his nose at the time

Tapes get taped over. The journalist said this. He tried to pull a fast one hoping that that would have been the case.

Ahern told 5 different stories re his fiasco, hoping we'd forget the other 4 along the way. That would be my opinion on it.

Then again, politicians do take us for fools assuming that we have memories like goldfish - Kenny's faux-pas this week being an example.

Ahern claims "no-one warned him", despite very publicly hoping everyone who warned him would top themselves.

So come back to me when you can explain those 2 (Kenny & Ahern) and still claim that politicians don't hope there's no record or memory - or often don't even seem to care.

hallelujajordan

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Tapes get taped over. The journalist said this. He tried to pull a fast one hoping that that would have been the case.

Ahern told 5 different stories re his fiasco, hoping we'd forget the other 4 along the way. That would be my opinion on it.

Then again, politicians do take us for fools assuming that we have memories like goldfish - Kenny's faux-pas this week being an example.

Ahern claims "no-one warned him", despite very publicly hoping everyone who warned him would top themselves.

So come back to me when you can explain those 2 (Kenny & Ahern) and still claim that politicians don't hope there's no record or memory - or often don't even seem to care.

Kenny and Ahern trying to pass off a story that apparently contradicts a previous one is (unfortunately) par for the course in Irish politics.

O'Dea signing a sworn affidavit contradicting something he knows has been recorded is not comparable at all. You are now asking us to believe that O'Dea staked his reputation and career AND risked a perjury charge on a hunch that the tapes were probably taped over ? ? ?

raymon

hallelujajordan wrote: »

You didn't answer . . let me try again . .

Do you believe that the FG appointed DPP will prosecute Ivor Callely with the same rigor of the law as she would anyone else ?

Do you trust the integrity of the DPP ?

You are right that Callely's case could collapse in several areas which is the same for any criminal case that the state prosecutes. . .

You are implying that his is more likely to collapse because he is a Fianna Fail politician and I am wondering what the basis is for that belief. . ?

We have no experience of this dpp , how can we make an assessment.

However history tells us that in general , dodgy or corrupt politicians (FF primarily ) don't end up being prosecuted even if there is evidence against them

hallelujajordan

raymon wrote: »

We have no experience of this dpp , how can we make an assessment.

But yet, you already appear to have done ??

UglyBolloxFace

DoesNotCompute wrote: »

The people of Ireland are glad you're gone, too.

Good to hear

raymon

hallelujajordan wrote: »

But yet, you already appear to have done ??

It is an opinion that I have that both Callely and your personal hero Bertie will not end up being convicted of anything.

Given the amount on dodgy FFers that went before them what hope do we have that things have changed.

A slap on the wrist and a pat on the back.

Liam Byrne

hallelujajordan wrote:

'Dea signing a sworn affidavit contradicting something he knows has been recorded is not comparable at all. You are now asking us to believe that O'Dea staked his reputation and career AND risked a perjury charge on a hunch that the tapes were probably taped over ? ? ?

Your previous hero Ahern knew he'd been taped and knew people had noticed both his sickening comment and his 4 alternate accounts - that didn't stop him changing his story.

As for O'Dea's "reputation".......maybe among FF circles but the guy has done nothing worthwhile for the rest of us.

Viral Vector

This was a blatant publicity stunt by the government....only us intelligent people on know the truth behind it!

He's the fall guy!

Defiler Of The Coffin

Ivor the Engine has been shut down for the meantime, have to say the man had some neck on him, putting his residence down as Cork, having the house painted for favours and now the craic with the mobile phones. He didn't do the 'retain the Seanad' position any favours when it all came out. Badly needs to be reformed so chancers like him can't get in any more.

Raymon I find your lack of faith in the justice system disturbing.

raymon

Defiler Of The Coffin wrote: »

Raymon I find your lack of faith in the justice system disturbing.

Me too , I hope I am wrong ...

raymon

As I said I have no confidence in our justice system. This guy will not see justice in any of his cases. Wait and see

This is from today


http://www.independent.ie/national-news/seanad-may-drop-callely-case-over-fears-of-400000-legal-bill-3015876.html

bonzos

raymon wrote: »

As I said I have no confidence in our justice system. This guy will not see justice in any of his cases. Wait and see

This is from today


http://www.independent.ie/national-news/seanad-may-drop-callely-case-over-fears-of-400000-legal-bill-3015876.html

Sure €400k is not much money these days.....it would hardly cover the expenses of 4 of our vegetable back bench td's who dont open their mouth from one end of the year to another.

Nodin

. #CALLELY: The Sunday Times reports that Gardaí searching the office of Ivor Callely during his arrest last month discovered blank mobile phone invoices. It adds that the detention period for Callely’s arrest last month was extended so that he could be questioned on the documents.

http://www.thejournal.ie/the-9-at-9-sunday-66-353198-Feb2012/

I'd imagine the chances of a prosecution have risen considerably.

Mr.Micro

Nodin wrote: »

http://www.thejournal.ie/the-9-at-9-sunday-66-353198-Feb2012/

I'd imagine the chances of a prosecution have risen considerably.

They should proceed IMO, and if they lose, they lose. There is a smoking gun here, and beneath the surface.....who knows. Either way it might show future politicians that they are not above the law and maybe even some standards might be adapted for the future.

raymon

So just to be clear here there are two cases against him.

One is the Seanad appealing the judgement against them over Callelys travelling from cork expenses.

The second is a criminal investigation into alleged forgery by Callely being conducted the Gardai.

It is my opinion that he will emerge unscathed from both

hallelujajordan

raymon wrote: »

So just to be clear here there are two cases against him.

One is the Seanad appealing the judgement against them over Callelys travelling from cork expenses.

The second is a criminal investigation into alleged forgery by Callely being conducted the Gardai.

It is my opinion that he will emerge unscathed from both

Technically there is only one case against Callely .. He took the case against the Seanad committee and won, they are appealing that judgement. . the case is based on whether the Seanad had the right to suspend Callely or not. It says nothing re: Callely's guilt or innocence. .

Nodin

raymon wrote: »

So just to be clear here there are two cases against him.

One is the Seanad appealing the judgement against them over Callelys travelling from cork expenses.

The second is a criminal investigation into alleged forgery by Callely being conducted the Gardai.

It is my opinion that he will emerge unscathed from both

The Seanad thing seemed to be on whether the various bodies had any right to make various decisions under law and so on, so "jaysus knows". The Gardai investigation - being concerned with matters more concrete - may well fare better out of the two.

raymon

Nodin wrote: »

The Seanad thing seemed to be on whether the various bodies had any right to make various decisions under law and so on, so "jaysus knows". The Gardai investigation - being concerned with matters more concrete - may well fare better out of the two.

I agree ..... fingers crossed !!!!

Hootanany

He is blaming his dead partner had them in their shared office FFS has he no shame.

kraggy

Unbelievable (well not really) if it's true.

mike65

Bump! Sent forward for trial.