Fine Gael TD sues Dublin Hotel after falling off swing

is_that_so

Auguste Comte wrote: »

FG party interests trump ethics as well.

<insert any party name> interests trump ethics as well! Damned if they do, damned if they don't!

ohnonotgmail

is_that_so wrote: »

Sure but you're fully confident it was a lie all the way from the start. Even if some comment emerged from Madigan you'd still disbelieve her.

I'm not confident of anything but somehow you seem to be very confident despite not having access to any more information than the rest of us.

is_that_so

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

I'm not confident of anything but somehow you seem to be very confident despite not having access to any more information than the rest of us.

I've no idea but I believe that taking the court case shows MB as the only culpable individual.

ohnonotgmail

is_that_so wrote: »

I've no idea but I believe that taking the court case shows MB as the only culpable individual.

I love how you are so keen to make all of this go away but all you do is keep drawing attention to it.

Plumbthedepths

is_that_so wrote:

I've no idea but I believe that taking the court case shows MB as the only culpable individual.

Do you not think whomever advised Bailey that she had an open and shut case has a few questions to answer, you seem very intent on dismissing Madigans involvement. Although distancing Madigan has being clearly the goal of several commentators and I'm not only referring to this thread. Oddly the media, or more precisely the Indo isn't buying it.

banie01

is_that_so wrote: »

The old party line nonsense, huh? I say logic. Court case is all MB. Court case trumps PIAB.

If you take solely the view of a hierarchical courts system yes, but the fact is that PIAB is an arbitration service if the respondent refuses liability and issues a defence.
Then the action proceeds to court, not Bailey'ss call and no exoneration of further involvement of Madigan.

There is a strong suspicion that Madigan was present at the incident in the 1st place.
Madigan then offered advice and took instruction on an incident that many people believe she was a first hand witness to and which notably that particular point has not been addressed.

That the Dean chose to refuse PIAB arbitration doesn't offer Madigan exoneration.
The Dean had to refuse to be able to enter a defence.

What is of primary interest in this is.
1. Who advised Bailey to request a settlement amount in excess of the maximum award available at the District Court? A settlement amount it must be remembered that was 13k in excess of what Bailey claimed her actual costs were in the S.O.R interview!

2. Who advised Bailey to issue proceedings at Circuit Court level? Rather than the court more appropriate for the amount she claimed incurred?

3. Did the letter to the Dean offering to settle for 20k issue on the foot of the Dean's refusal of PIAB arbitration?.

4. Was this letter issued via Madigan's solicitors? Or are we to believe that despite retaining the Firm to initiate the original PIAB action? That when the Dean entered a defence that Bailey then undertook to reply without seeking advice or offering instruction to her originally retained solicitor?


The closing of ranks around Madigan, and the lack of any clear answers to the above questions is its own answer IMO.

is_that_so

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

I love how you are so keen to make all of this go away but all you do is keep drawing attention to it.

The story will go where it wants regardless of what I do. I think it's really a story about one individual.

Plumbthedepths

is_that_so wrote:

The story will go where it wants regardless of what I do. I think it's really a story about one individual.

Unfortunately it's not, Leo's incompetence in its handling has made it also about him. Bailey and Madigan are seen as both been part of it all from the the start. As I said before Bailey is being thrown under the bus but there is room from more. The Indo has made that obvious.

is_that_so

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

Do you not think whomever advised Bailey that she had an open and shut case has a few questions to answer, you seem very intent on dismissing Madigans involvement. Although distancing Madigan has being clearly the goal of several commentators and I'm not only referring to this thread. Oddly the media, or more precisely the Indo isn't buying it.

If your actual legal adviser did that then they would. Someone offering an opinion that it sounds like open and shut case is just that. I think she is distanced because the case went to court and she had no involvement. Yeah The Indo is like a dog with a bone. Sometimes they get it right but often they worry the bone to death and nobody cares.

is_that_so

banie01 wrote: »

If you take solely the view of a hierarchical courts system yes, but the fact is that PIAB is an arbitration service if the respondent refuses liability and issues a defence.
Then the action proceeds to court, not Bailey'ss call and no exoneration of further involvement of Madigan.

There is a strong suspicion that Madigan was present at the incident in the 1st place.
Madigan then offered advice and took instruction on an incident that many people believe she was a first hand witness to and which notably that particular point has not been addressed.

That the Dean chose to refuse PIAB arbitration doesn't offer Madigan exoneration.
The Dean had to refuse to be able to enter a defence.

What is of primary interest in this is.
1. Who advised Bailey to request a settlement amount in excess of the maximum award available at the District Court? A settlement amount it must be remembered that was 13k in excess of what Bailey claimed her actual costs were in the S.O.R interview!

2. Who advised Bailey to issue proceedings at Circuit Court level? Rather than the court more appropriate for the amount she claimed incurred?

3. Did the letter to the Dean offering to settle for 20k issue on the foot of the Dean's refusal of PIAB arbitration?.

4. Was this letter issued via Madigan's solicitors? Or are we to believe that despite retaining the Firm to initiate the original PIAB action? That when the Dean entered a defence that Bailey then undertook to reply without seeking advice or offering instruction to her originally retained solicitor?


The closing of ranks around Madigan, and the lack of any clear answers to the above questions is its own answer IMO.

Logically she would have had to excuse herself so all the answers to these questions would have been the solicitors. I also suspect the reason there are no further answers on any of this is because of the unholy mess MB has caused for the party. That and it being summertime!

BaZmO*

Loafing Oaf wrote: »

I'm not sure any of these have actually resigned their Dail seats. Quit or been expelled from their respective parliamentary parties I think.

Apologies, you are correct. I should've been clearer.

Plumbthedepths

is_that_so wrote:

If your actual legal adviser did that then they would. Someone offering an opinion that it sounds like open and shut case is just that. I think she is distanced because the case went to court and she had no involvement. Yeah The Indo is like a dog with a bone. Sometimes they get it right but often they worry the bone to death and nobody cares.

Bailey said she was advised she had an open and shut case. It is fair to assume that was legal advise like I you do not know who gave that advice. However it can be argued it is fair to assume who did. The case didn't go to court, it was dropped after it became obvious the Dean was not willing to capitulate to attempted fraud.
In this regard despite your suggestion, many do care, even within FG.

is_that_so

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

Unfortunately it's not, Leo's incompetence in its handling has made it also about him. Bailey and Madigan are seen as both been part of it all from the the start. As I said before Bailey is being thrown under the bus but there is room from more. The Indo has made that obvious.

I don't think there will be any more no matter how hard the Indo tries. The only answer will be at election time. Madigan as a minister might fancy her chances, MB and possibly Farrell will crash and burn.

is_that_so

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

Bailey said she was advised she had an open and shut case. It is fair to assume that was legal advise like I you do not know who gave that advice. However it can be argued it is fair to assume who did. The case didn't go to court, it was dropped after it became obvious the Dean was not willing to capitulate to attempted fraud.
In this regard despite your suggestion, many do care, even within FG.

I wasn't talking about this one. They have often run stories that nobody cares much about.

banie01

is_that_so wrote: »

Logically she would have had to excuse herself so all the answers to these questions would have been the solicitors. I also suspect the reason there are no further answers on any of this is because of the unholy mess MB has caused for the party. That and it being summertime!

The presupposition of logic in any of the actions of Madigan in particular in this matter is quite a stretch as is the excuse offered for no answers.
Logic would dictate that Madigan would have advised Bailey to retain a solicitor who was not a witness to the incident, given the pointedly unaddressed speculation to date around just that, it is quite logical to infer that sound judgement is lacking on the part of both TD's tbh.

Those questions have been asked of Bailey and Madigan for nearly 2 months now with no actual answer.
Unless you count Madigan's reliance and client confidentiality?
I wonder if that was the answer offered during the SC's review too?

Trotting out the summer recess as a reason for the continued radio silence is quite demeaning of the electorate IMO.

Plumbthedepths

is_that_so wrote:

I don't think there will be any more no matter how hard the Indo tries.

The Indo had the letter demanding 20k last Sunday. Ongoing damage to Bailey and FG seems to be the M.O. Someone is driving this drip feeding the Indo, I have my suspicions as to who and it's nothing less than FG deserves if I 'm correct.
But of course no one cares. ;-)

walshb

Plumbthedepths wrote: »

Bailey said she was advised she had an open and shut case. .

Do you believe her?

JeffKenna

walshb wrote: »

Do you believe her?

If she lied about this on national radio then she should lose the whip.

banie01

walshb wrote: »

Do you believe her?

That she was offered that advice?

Sure you are out for a few drinks with a solicitor buddy, you fall flat on your arse and that friend says...

"Hold my wine! You've totally got a case here!"

Yep, I for one believe it's quite likely what happened.

Plumbthedepths

walshb wrote:

Do you believe her?

Someone was advising her and very poorly in my opinion so it's not unreasonable to believe she was told this on the expectation that it would never see inside a courtroom. The 20k demand letter bares this imo.

ArrBee

banie01 wrote: »

That she was offered that advice?

Sure you are out for a few drinks with a solicitor buddy, you fall flat on your arse and that friend says...

"Hold my wine! You've totally got a case here!"

Yep, I for one believe it's quite likely what happened.

But are you excluding the possibility that a one armed man broke into her house and forced that advice on her?
Or maybe there was a 2nd advice giver on a grassy knoll somewhere?

Surely these 2 scenarios are far more likely than the anti FG propaganda you are spouting!

Muahahaha

banie01 wrote: »

4. Was this letter issued via Madigan's solicitors? Or are we to believe that despite retaining the Firm to initiate the original PIAB action? That when the Dean entered a defence that Bailey then undertook to reply without seeking advice or offering instruction to her originally retained solicitor?


The closing of ranks around Madigan, and the lack of any clear answers to the above questions is its own answer IMO.

Im interested in the answer to this too and we dont seem to have clarity on it as yet. It would be highly unusual for a client of a solcitors to effectively go over their head and send a legal letter in an attempt to shake down the hotel for €20,000.

In these matters the language used in the letter is very important and is beyond the scope of a lay person, thats why you use a solicitor in the first place. I find it hard to believe that Maria Bailey sent this letter demanding €20,000 and returning the cheque for €600 all on her own. If she did then she is thicker than I thought and if she didn't then that places Madigan squarely in the firing line when the Indo get around to revealing it.

Lets not forget that Leo ruled on the report last Wednesday and that was supposed to be the end of it. But then on Sunday the Indo reveals the €20,000 shakedown letter. So now we know for certain that the Indo have a source either in the Press Up group or in Fine Gael who is leaking extra details.

Snow Garden

When is the Dail recess over? Madigan cannot play hide-and-seek forever.

This story has singlehandedly highlighted many of the ills of our political system and politicians especially when it comes to the 2 largest parties. Self promotion is #1 and then its always Party before People. Perception is more important than progress.

walshb

JeffKenna wrote: »

If she lied about this on national radio then she should lose the whip.

Can’t prove a lie if it’s he said she said. Not written. Bailey can easily say that the advice was given orally. No way to disprove that..

Anyway, there is no such thing as clear cut.

I bet it was kind of like “yes, we can go ahead. Good case here.”

Bailey decides to say on air that it was clear cut...

walshb

banie01 wrote: »

That she was offered that advice?

.

Yes, either verbally (which one cannot really prove or disprove, unless it was recorded) or in written form...

She may well have been verbally advised and/or advised in writing that it was a clear cut case. I am just not ready to believe Bailey just because she said so on the radio..

walshb

I am not aware if MB was challenged to prove (or even asked if she had proof) that the advice that was given was that she had a clear cut case..

For me it stunk of her passing the buck. Blame blame blame..

FishOnABike

is_that_so wrote: »

I've no idea but I believe that taking the court case shows MB as the only culpable individual.

I think that's making 2+2=5.

1. We know Madigan was involved in the application to the PIAB.

2. We know Bailey 'overstated' the extent of her injuries in her affidavit.

We do not know (yet) what was in the PIAB application or what happened (and with whose advice) between 1 and 2. To say that shows MB as the only culpable individual is a very large leap of faith.

The extent of JM's involvement is still very murky and the longer people are kept in the dark the greater the suspicion.

walshb

I don’t know about anyone else, but I smelt a rat when MB came out with the “I was advised that I had a clear-cut case.” Her saying this came across as greedy and cocky and a real in your face to the hotel. She didn’t need to be that forceful. A simpler and more gentle “I was advised I had grounds for compensation,” or “I was advised I had a very good case.”

WishUWereHere

is_that_so wrote: »

Well some of that is medical which she'd have had no input into. There is an initial form to start a claim, which I think is the top one on that link. Pretty much unprovable about Madigan and the court proceedings take PIAB (and Madigan) out of the picture.

Take JM out of the picture, when she is an intricate part of the whole episode?

You are joking, right?

McMurphy

walshb wrote: »

I don’t know about anyone else, but I smelt a rat when MB came out with the “I was advised that I had a clear-cut case.” Her saying this came across as greedy and cocky and a real in your face to the hotel. She didn’t need to be that forceful. A simpler and more gentle “I was advised I had grounds for compensation,” or “I was advised I had a very good case.”

I smelt a rat the very second I read about who else was entangled in the mess, and then when Bailey blabbed about the clear cut case, I thought to myself, cat-bag-out.

So much for the three amigo's proclaiming this was a nothing tale, talked about by little else but cranks.

In a few hours time it'll be August, and this is still to reach its finale.