John Waters & Gemma O'Doherty to challenge lockdown in the high Court

Runaways

Imagine falling for it though

Who are the people are buying this Nonsense

Creol1

plodder wrote: »

But they didn't produce any expert evidence, unlike the state. All they had was irrelevant rhetoric.

They didn't produce any evidence at all to the satisfaction of the Court. The facts sworn in the affidavit only alluded to the situation as it stood two months ago when the death toll was two. At paragraph 29 of the judgment it was noted that the test at this stage is whether the facts sworn, if proved, would support an arguable case in law, so the threshold is not very high.

plodder wrote: »

What would have been avoided? This completely unconsequential case? The best they can hope for from the Court of Appeal (in my unqualified opinion) is some advice on how to put together a better case in the High Court.

The worst outcome from this case, would be costs 'not being' awarded against them.

I don't think the case is entirely inconsequential. The Court of Appeal could overturn the High Court decision and grant leave, it could remit the case back to the High Court, the Court of Appeal's decision could be appealed to the Supreme Court, they could re-issue the proceedings as plenary proceedings (the correct format), but it's futile to speculate on what the ultimate outcome may or may not be.

JDxtra

sliabh 1956 wrote: »

If Tubs has any sense of fair play they should be invited on to the LLS tomorrow night.We could do with a bit of humour during these dark times

I'd be disappointed if they were given the air time to be honest. Let then disappear into the Twitter-sphere.

blueythebear

Creol1 wrote: »

They didn't produce any evidence at all to the satisfaction of the Court. The facts sworn in the affidavit only alluded to the situation as it stood two months ago when the death toll was two. At paragraph 29 of the judgment it was noted that the test at this stage is whether the facts sworn, if proved, would support an arguable case in law, so the threshold is not very high.



I don't think the case is entirely inconsequential. The Court of Appeal could overturn the High Court decision and grant leave, it could remit the case back to the High Court, the Court of Appeal's decision could be appealed to the Supreme Court, they could re-issue the proceedings as plenary proceedings (the correct format), but it's futile to speculate on what the ultimate outcome may or may not be.

Thecase is inconsequential because on appeal, they will have the same issue...a complete lack of evidence as to how the acts are unconstitutional. An appeal will not be heard for a few months so itll all be moot by then.

blueythebear

swampy353 wrote: »

Any chance you could give examples, don't want to provide that psychotic loon anymore clicks.

Why has JW tied his cart to this horse? He has always been a bit fringe, would regularly disagree with this assessment of things but there was always a rationale behind it.
Does he actually believe this anti-vaxxer/obamagate/5g/Qanon\Bill Gates\Scamdemic ...... crap or is he just aligning himself on this one "issue"?

Examples of contempt? I think they baldly state that the court is corrupt and is under orders from the government to refuse them

seamus

sliabh 1956 wrote: »

If Tubs has any sense of fair play they should be invited on to the LLS tomorrow night.We could do with a bit of humour during these dark times

They crave publicity, all that would really accomplish is rallying more nutjobs to support them.

There should really be an agreed media blackout on both of them in the public interest. Aside from serious matters; like a court judgement, the media should refrain from even mentioning them in a tiny .

Their goal is public recognition and nothing else. Every time they're mentioned, they're given more air to breathe. There is no such thing as bad press for them.

Muscles Schultz

Runaways wrote: »

Imagine falling for it though

Who are the people are buying this Nonsense

Geeks and weaks

Truthvader

sliabh 1956 wrote: »

If Tubs has any sense of fair play they should be invited on to the LLS tomorrow night.We could do with a bit of humour during these dark times

Top class idea but I would prefer someone more able than "Tubs" or Miriam or any of the RTE spoofers. Fine for the toy show but not the job that needs to be done on Gemma. Jeremy Clarkson could be drafted in but at the risk of providing an "I was in Ireland last week and unbelievably ………." story for him

Tenger

Runaways wrote: »

Imagine falling for it though

Who are the people are buying this Nonsense

I am in a telegram group full of their anti lockdown supporters. Not posting anything, just lurking. I'm shocked just reading the unbelievable ****e they post.

Multiple Internet memes, clips of Infowars, IFP and/or QAnon YouTube videos.
"Bill Gates is using 5G to cause Covid"
"Covid is a hoax to install 5G"
"5G is going to control the microchips that will be included inside the hoax Covid vaccine"
"NWO is behind all of this hoax"
"Covid is a global hoax to force us to accept a single global government and a cashless society"


A small number of members ask questions about science or facts and get slammed.

There are people there who believe the Magna Carta will over rule the Irish Constitution. They are all MAGA muppet.

They were thrilled that they got 2 dozen people outside Leinster House on Tuesday. They are hoping for "double or triple our numbers" this weekend.

Infini wrote: »

Good. Professional Shìtposters like Gemma and John deserve to have costs levied against them for wasting everyones time for their vainglorious egos.

Which is wonderfully ironic considering that Gemma opening with “this is a waste of taxpayers money”

CrabRevolution

Creol1 wrote: »

I found the judgment surprising reading. I expected that the main reason for refusing leave to bring the case would be that the wrong procedure (Judicial Review) was adopted, as this certainly was the case. Judicial Review is essentially the procedure for the High Court to quash decisions of lower courts or other quasi-judicial bodies, not Acts of the Oireachtas.

However, the Court held that this wasn't necessarily a barrier because the proceedings could be converted, but refused leave to bring the case on the basis that it wasn't arguable. I think it correct to say that there isn't an arguable case as far as their claims about the legitimacy of the Dáil's quorum, etc, were concerned, because the Constitution is very clear about the separation of powers, but I think the finding that there was no arguable case regarding the proportionality of the restrictions is more vulnerable to being overturned in the Court of Appeal.

This could all have been avoided if Michael D had referred the legislation to the Supreme Court to determine its constitutionality. It would have resulted in a slight delay but I have no doubt it would have been upheld and it would have been immune from any possible legal challenge.

The reason for this process is to stop cases that are simply wastes of time going to the courts. It was noted several times in the transcripts that the threshold for actually obtaining leave is very low; yet they still failed to make it. They didn't even need to argue their case, just set out why they feel they have a case, but they still didn't manage that.

Some are picturing this as some sort of Clarence Darrow or (lesser known) Clarence Gideon case, where an underdog takes a meticulously argued and true case against overwhelming state power and wins a victory for the common man. It's really just 2 conspiracy theorists throwing a desperately poorly argued case at the state in the hopes of causing disruption and gaining attention.

The basis of their case wasn't any real evidence or facts (their "narrative" of the facts ended on March 16th, claiming we only had 2 deaths from Covid-19 in Ireland); they simply felt that their opinion was superior to that of the HSE, Department of Health, the WHO etc. The judge saw that this was clearly a non-runner and rightly refused leave.

TheChizler

Tenger wrote: »

"5G is going to control the microchips that will be included inside the hoax Covid vaccine"

Madness altogether. Microprocessors small enough to be unnoticeably injected are too small to use antennae. What they instead use to communicate is light. And nobody powerful is looking to bring light inside the body, are they??

Kermit.de.frog

redarmy wrote: »

Gemma O’Doherty and John Waters to face a bill of between €50,000 and €75,000 in legal costs following their failed judicial review case. Reporting shortly on
@drivetimerte

Truthvader

Tenger wrote: »

I am in a telegram group full of their anti lockdown supporters. Not posting anything, just lurking. I'm shocked just reading the unbelievable ****e they post.

Multiple Internet memes, clips of Infowars, IFP and/or QAnon YouTube videos.
"Bill Gates is using 5G to cause Covid"
"Covid is a hoax to install 5G"
"5G is going to control the microchips that will be included inside the hoax Covid vaccine"
"NWO is behind all of this hoax"
"Covid is a global hoax to force us to accept a single global government and a cashless society"


A small number of members ask questions about science or facts and get slammed.

There are people there who believe the Magna Carta will over rule the Irish Constitution. They are all MAGA muppet.

They were thrilled that they got 2 dozen people outside Leinster House on Tuesday. They are hoping for "double or triple our numbers" this weekend.



Which is wonderfully ironic considering that Gemma opening with “this is a waste of taxpayers money”

Damn those Lizard People. Damn them all to hell.

Bridge93

I'm convinced most dont really believe it all. There will be a few but I think most are just thrill seekers of another kind. A hobby if you like. Its fun to be contrarian on everything and believe stuff that makes you look mad or 'edgy'. Dungeons and dragons for a different type of nerd. I could believe they actually believe some of it if they didnt believe ALL of it. Fine you might have your one or two conspiracy theories or minority views. But to be supporting all of them and everything that goes against the status quo just smacks of it being deliberate. Or they're bitter/ mentally ill whatever.

Tenger

Bridge93 wrote: »

I'm convinced most dont really believe it all. There will be a few but I think most are just thrill seekers of another kind. A hobby if you like. Its fun to be contrarian on everything and believe stuff that makes you look mad or 'edgy'. Dungeons and dragons for a different type of nerd. I could believe they actually believe some of it if they didnt believe ALL of it. Fine you might have your one or two conspiracy theories or minority views. But to be supporting all of them and everything that goes against the status quo just smacks of it being deliberate. Or they're bitter/ mentally ill whatever.

I would agree. But the level of delusion I am seeing is shocking.
Must try get a couple of screenshot.

Ipso

Tenger wrote: »

I am in a telegram group full of their anti lockdown supporters. Not posting anything, just lurking. I'm shocked just reading the unbelievable ****e they post.

Multiple Internet memes, clips of Infowars, IFP and/or QAnon YouTube videos.
"Bill Gates is using 5G to cause Covid"
"Covid is a hoax to install 5G"
"5G is going to control the microchips that will be included inside the hoax Covid vaccine"
"NWO is behind all of this hoax"
"Covid is a global hoax to force us to accept a single global government and a cashless society"


A small number of members ask questions about science or facts and get slammed.

There are people there who believe the Magna Carta will over rule the Irish Constitution. They are all MAGA muppet.

They were thrilled that they got 2 dozen people outside Leinster House on Tuesday. They are hoping for "double or triple our numbers" this weekend.



Which is wonderfully ironic considering that Gemma opening with “this is a waste of taxpayers money”

I’m thinking of re-naming my wifi to something like 5G-Spreadcovid. Might be fun if there are any twoofers around.

joseywhales

Ipso wrote: »

I’m thinking of re-naming my wifi to something like 5G-Spreadcovid. Might be fun if there are any twoofers around.

Ah I wouldn't go out of my way to draw attention from those kinds of people.

We get it , government's are corrupt to various degrees but it's the best we can get right now, it doesn't mean they are trying to infect you with a virus.

trashcan

TheChizler wrote: »

Madness altogether. Microprocessors small enough to be unnoticeably injected are too small to use antennae. What they instead use to communicate is light. And nobody powerful is looking to bring light inside the body, are they??

Light, and disinfectant, but sssh, keep it to yourself. Someone did let the cat out of the bag, but I think he got away with it.

Annasopra

Creol1 wrote: »

They didn't produce any evidence at all to the satisfaction of the Court. The facts sworn in the affidavit only alluded to the situation as it stood two months ago when the death toll was two. At paragraph 29 of the judgment it was noted that the test at this stage is whether the facts sworn, if proved, would support an arguable case in law, so the threshold is not very high.



I don't think the case is entirely inconsequential. The Court of Appeal could overturn the High Court decision and grant leave, it could remit the case back to the High Court, the Court of Appeal's decision could be appealed to the Supreme Court, they could re-issue the proceedings as plenary proceedings (the correct format), but it's futile to speculate on what the ultimate outcome may or may not be.

Oh come on trying to obfuscate and claim they have a case

rubadub

frillyleaf wrote: »

Who funds these two ? Where do they get their money from?

She has a donation page, I wondered if they managed to swindle any cash out of that young man with Down syndrome who was pictured at their gatherings. A few others looked like they possibly have intellectual disabilities too (or whatever this weeks PC term is). She is sickening, I bet if you had gone to one of these gatherings and start coughing half them would have ran a mile and pulled out masks.

swampy353

rubadub wrote: »

She has a donation page, I wondered if they managed to swindle any cash out of that young man with Down syndrome who was pictured at their gatherings. A few others looked like they possibly have intellectual disabilities too (or whatever this weeks PC term is). She is sickening, I bet if you had gone to one of these gatherings and start coughing half them would have ran a mile and pulled out masks.

Doubt that's where her money comes from, wouldn't expect that they earn enough to support the loon. I would think it's more likely that her money comes from the US, you'll regularly see tweets which have no relevance to Ireland, but promote a US only issue eg expose CBS

Raisins

Creol1 wrote: »

They didn't produce any evidence at all to the satisfaction of the Court. The facts sworn in the affidavit only alluded to the situation as it stood two months ago when the death toll was two. At paragraph 29 of the judgment it was noted that the test at this stage is whether the facts sworn, if proved, would support an arguable case in law, so the threshold is not very high.



I don't think the case is entirely inconsequential. The Court of Appeal could overturn the High Court decision and grant leave, it could remit the case back to the High Court, the Court of Appeal's decision could be appealed to the Supreme Court, they could re-issue the proceedings as plenary proceedings (the correct format), but it's futile to speculate on what the ultimate outcome may or may not be.

Not a chance will the court of appeal overturn the decision. The affidavits have closed. The appeal will be based on an assessment of the evidence Meenan had before him at the time he refused leave which we know was garbage stream of consciousness.

Polar101

Tenger wrote: »

I am in a telegram group full of their anti lockdown supporters. Not posting anything, just lurking. I'm shocked just reading the unbelievable ****e they post.

Are they also saying people shouldn't be sheep and do their own research? (as in, watch youtube videos until you find one that agrees with your agenda)

swampy353

Polar101 wrote: »

Are they also saying people shouldn't be sheep and do their own research? (as in, watch youtube videos until you find one that agrees with your agenda)

More like read more into topics from a wide range of different points of view. I would see the alt right as been more sheep then anyone else, within their own bias bubble any amount of crap is spouted and accepted at face value. When someone has the cheek to question or dispute the new theory, they are a shill trying to undermine the movement. If they cannot accept scrutiny of the ideas, they are the sheep.

The latest and greatest is that the death rate for covid is lower than seasonal flu, this is correct BUT there wasn't a lock down for seasonal flu and the death rate for covid is low because there were measures put in place.

The people who are so inclined stop at the death rate, people who want to be informed find out the 2nd bit.

Kermit.de.frog

https://twitter.com/gemmaod1/status/1261207214309683201

Is she suggesting we will pay her bill?

They took a case and they lost so they should pay.

TheChizler

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

https://twitter.com/gemmaod1/status/1261207214309683201

Is she suggesting we will pay her bill?

They took a case and they lost so they should pay.

Have costs been awarded yet? Fergal might be jumping ahead of himself there in fairness.

eeepaulo

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

https://twitter.com/gemmaod1/status/1261207214309683201

Is she suggesting we will pay her bill?

They took a case and they lost so they should pay.

She did it on behalf of the people of ireland so i guess its only fair we get to pay it.

blueythebear

eeepaulo wrote: »

She did it on behalf of the people of ireland so i guess its only fair we get to pay it.

Not sure we asked her to do it? Was there a vote i missed?

Hibernicis

blueythebear wrote: »

Not sure we asked her to do it? Was there a vote i missed?

You may have missed this vote. Gemma obviously did.....

The Nal

Hibernicis wrote: »

You may have missed this vote. Gemma obviously did.....

Or this one?

Election 2020: Far-right candidates put in dismal showing

"One of the best performers from the far-right milieu was Gemma O’Doherty, a former Irish Independent journalist turned conspiracy theorist and anti-immigration campaigner. She took 1.97 per cent of the vote in Fingal"

Hotblack Desiato

TheChizler wrote: »

Have costs been awarded yet? Fergal might be jumping ahead of himself there in fairness.

You need to understand journo speak, "to face" means it might happen or it might not.

TheChizler

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

You need to understand journo speak, "to face" means it might happen or it might not.

"May have to face" would indicate it might happen or might not, "to face" is a definitive statement.

blueythebear

TheChizler wrote: »

"May have to face" would indicate it might happen or might not, "to face" is a definitive statement.

The court has invited submissions as to the order he should make on costs. The usual procedure is that they will have costs awarded against them because they lost. But the court does not have to do that...although they have to convince the court to not award costs against them.

eeepaulo

It's comedy gold, we give ray darcy half a million euro a year, on that basis she's a steal.

With all the sports tv and movie stars isolating we should be doubling down, get a film crew on her and tell her to open an exotic animal park, maybe focusing on big cats.

blueythebear

eeepaulo wrote: »

It's comedy gold, we give ray darcy half a million euro a year, on that basis she's a steal.

With all the sports tv and movie stars isolating we should be doubling down, get a film crew on her and tell her to open an exotic animal park, maybe focusing on big cats.

Or many small cats... think it suits her better

VillageIdiot71

TheChizler wrote: »

Have costs been awarded yet? Fergal might be jumping ahead of himself there in fairness.

I take it their costs are negligible as they represented themselves.

So presumably its whether the State seeks its costs; rare in this kind of case for the State to get its costs paid, even when they win.

But who's to know?

swampy353

VillageIdiot71 wrote: »

I take it their costs are negligible as they represented themselves.

So presumably its whether the State seeks its costs; rare in this kind of case for the State to get its costs paid, even when they win.

But who's to know?

Absolutely not, they are looking at between 50-75k according to rte. Its not just their costs in the governments barristers etc plus court time

blueythebear

swampy353 wrote: »

Absolutely not, they are looking at between 50-75k according to rte. Its not just their costs in the governments barristers etc plus court time

50 to 75k is all the states costs. The applicsnts costs would be stamp duty on court papers which would be less than €150-200.

The state had senior counsel and two junior counsels in total i think. The senior could be 10k (or more) per day over 2 days in total. Plus two thirds of that for juniors so thats €44 k potentially just on barrister fees alone for the hearing. There would be further fees for the two dates it was for mention plus a brief fee for each barrister for reading the papers. Could very quickly reach 75k.

VillageIdiot71

swampy353 wrote: »

Absolutely not, they are looking at between 50-75k according to rte. Its not just their costs in the governments barristers etc plus court time

Erm, I did say the issue was if the State's costs were ordered to be paid by them, didn't I?

And the Judge hasn't ordered yet, so RTE have jumped the gun.

blueythebear wrote: »

50 to 75k is all the states costs. The applicsnts costs would be stamp duty on court papers which would be less than €150-200.

The state had senior counsel and two junior counsels in total i think. The senior could be 10k (or more) per day over 2 days in total. Plus two thirds of that for juniors so thats €44 k potentially just on barrister fees alone for the hearing. There would be further fees for the two dates it was for mention plus a brief fee for each barrister for reading the papers. Could very quickly reach 75k.

I take it this wouldn't be the time to take in how quickly the legals claim €75,000 in fees.

Would folk expect you need to be paid €75,000 to produce a sound argument to refute Gemtrails?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yt3GBlVjUd0

blueythebear

VillageIdiot71 wrote: »

Erm, I did say the issue was if the State's costs were ordered to be paid by them, didn't I?

And the Judge hasn't ordered yet, so RTE have jumped the gun.
I take it this wouldn't be the time to take in his quickly the legals claim €75,000 in fees.

Would folk expect you need to be paid €75,000 to produce a sound argument to refute Gemtrails?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yt3GBlVjUd0

Well 50 to 75k will be whats claimed by the state but that sum will always be taxed in default if necessary. But 50 to 75 would not be unreasonable at going rates.

plodder

VillageIdiot71 wrote: »

Erm, I did say the issue was if the State's costs were ordered to be paid by them, didn't I?

And the Judge hasn't ordered yet, so RTE have jumped the gun.
I take it this wouldn't be the time to take in how quickly the legals claim €75,000 in fees.

Would folk expect you need to be paid €75,000 to produce a sound argument to refute Gemtrails?

Fair question. I don't believe in punishment by legal costs and 75K seems to be an excessive over estimate in this case.

swampy353

VillageIdiot71 wrote: »

Erm, I did say the issue was if the State's costs were ordered to be paid by them, didn't I?

And the Judge hasn't ordered yet, so RTE have jumped the gun.
I take it this wouldn't be the time to take in how quickly the legals claim €75,000 in fees.

Would folk expect you need to be paid €75,000 to produce a sound argument to refute Gemtrails?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yt3GBlVjUd0

In all likelihood they states costs will be award against GemGem. There is a precedent of costs not been assigned to the loser if the case in the public interest. Don't think this will be the case here they failed in seeking leave to make a challenge. They didn't even prove that there may be a case against the laws

Capt'n Midnight

Polar101 wrote: »

Are they also saying people shouldn't be sheep and do their own research?

When the mantra is "do the research" can there be any excuse for those saying that not doing their own research ?

Especially when it's a legal requirement for the High Court case you have started ?

And then not even challenge the affidavit of the other side when they presented their research ?


It's on record that a High Court Judicial Review said they didn't do their research.

https://static.rasset.ie/documents/news/2020/05/approved-odoherty-and-waters-v.-minister-for-health-ireland-and-the-attorney-general.pdf

55. ... Other than their views, the applicants identified no supportive expert opinion either in the Statement of Grounds or grounding affidavit.

56. ... Unsubstantiated opinions, speeches, empty rhetoric and a bogus historical parallel are not a substitute for facts.

Capt'n Midnight

plodder wrote: »

Fair question. I don't believe in punishment by legal costs and 75K seems to be an excessive over estimate in this case.

I'm actually surprised that a trip to the High Court didn't cost £300K.

It's a privilege denied to many homeowners because you could literally loose your home. For me the High Court is only for people with very deep pockets or with nothing left to lose. Anyone inbetween needs to be certain they can win and have done everything possible to present their case properly.

It could have been done by plenary proceedings.
They could have presented medical or scientific evidence.

They never had a case, they didn't even try to have a case.
Why should taxpayers subsidise their egos or publicity stunts ?

Speakerboxx

I just hope they get riddled by the court system on euros to pay out. Might soften her cough a bit.

rubadub

plodder wrote: »

Fair question. I don't believe in punishment by legal costs and 75K seems to be an excessive over estimate in this case.

I don't know if its excessive but I reckon 75k is a bargain price for this utterly obnoxious marketing campaign, how much would that media coverage have costed in real paid adverts?

If they don't have to pay some other similar scumbag out to get free advertising will pull a similar stunt.

extra gravy

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

They never had a case, they didn't even try to have a case.
Why should taxpayers subsidise their egos or publicity stunts ?

What on earth were they doing for 7 weeks that they couldn't even do a bit of googling for a few facts to back up their claims?! Too busy acting the bollix at checkpoints and posting videos and tweets. Proves that's all she really cares about.

plodder

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

I'm actually surprised that a trip to the High Court didn't cost £300K.

It's a privilege denied to many homeowners because you could literally loose your home. For me the High Court is only for people with very deep pockets or with nothing left to lose. Anyone inbetween needs to be certain they can win and have done everything possible to present their case properly.

It could have been done by plenary proceedings.
They could have presented medical or scientific evidence.

They never had a case, they didn't even try to have a case.
Why should taxpayers subsidise their egos or publicity stunts ?

Don't get me wrong. The costs should be awarded against them. Sometimes the state will suck it up if it is seen that the case has been useful in clarifying some aspect of the law, but that doesn't apply here. I'm just wondering how the figure of 75K was arrived at for such a straight forward easily dismissed case.

blueythebear

plodder wrote: »

Don't get me wrong. The costs should be awarded against them. Sometimes the state will suck it up if it is seen that the case has been useful in clarifying some aspect of the law, but that doesn't apply here. I'm just wondering how the figure of 75K was arrived at for such a straight forward easily dismissed case.

blueythebear wrote: »

50 to 75k is all the states costs. The applicsnts costs would be stamp duty on court papers which would be less than €150-200.

The state had senior counsel and two junior counsels in total i think. The senior could be 10k (or more) per day over 2 days in total. Plus two thirds of that for juniors so thats €44 k potentially just on barrister fees alone for the hearing. There would be further fees for the two dates it was for mention plus a brief fee for each barrister for reading the papers. Could very quickly reach 75k.

There you go

extra gravy

extra gravy wrote: »

What on earth were they doing for 7 weeks that they couldn't even do a bit of googling for a few facts to back up their claims?! Too busy acting the bollix at checkpoints and posting videos and tweets. Proves that's all she really cares about.

They probably did but limited the results to conspiracy theory sites, as any established scientific, medical, media ... sites are all fronts or part of the hoax etc, at least going by what was said and their usual ranting online.

In reality your correct and its a really bad attempt at trying to make political gain when people are beginning to feel cabin fever with the restrictions (see the threads on here for example) and a way to boost donations from various gullible people online.