Irish Mirror Exclusive - Izevbekhai FGM story a lie

[jmcc]

You have to copy the other side with any affidavit submitted to the Court at the same time as you submit it. In this instance the State would have made available to Pamela's side whatever affidavits submitted to the ECtHR at the time they submitted them to the ECtHR.

And it would appear that PI admitted the documents had been forged after the forgeries had been detected and the State's affidavits had been submitted to ECHR.

Regards...jmcc

[Catalpa]

Corelli you seem to be a Legal Eagle of some shape of feather.

Perhaps you would know or perhaps not:

- but is this the first known instance of a Legal Team submitting forged Documents to the Supreme Court?

You see what I cannot understand is that these people did not themselves check out PamIs Story themselves B4 proceeeding with the case.

Most Odd.

[HollyB]

Corelli you seem to be a Legal Eagle of some shape of feather.

Perhaps you would know or perhaps not:

- but is this the first known instance of a Legal Team submitting forged Documents to the Supreme Court?

I'd be curious about what the ramifications will be, both for Pamela and for her legal team?

Whose responsibility is it, from a legal standpoint, to verify that any documentation is genuine before submitting it to the court, even if they themselves are not the ones who actually forged the fake documents?

[corelli]

Corelli you seem to be a Legal Eagle of some shape of feather.

Perhaps you would know or perhaps not:

- but is this the first known instance of a Legal Team submitting forged Documents to the Supreme Court?

You see what I cannot understand is that these people did not themselves check out PamIs Story themselves B4 proceeeding with the case.

Most Odd.

Eagle would imply being possessed of hair/feathers which, alas, are no longer adhering to my bonce in the way they used to of old!

Substantively, your first sentence gives the totally wrong impression and is potentially very defamatory. Her team did not submit, knowingly, forged documents.

Pamela based her claim of particular risk of FGM on the basis of a certificate of death and other documents. She would have, in the normal course, sworn and submitted, through her legal team, an affidavit to that effect. It is not her legal teams job to be certifying the accuracy of any document. Presumably, prime facie, it looked fine. You take your clients instructions on trust. You are only obliged to not knowingly mislead the Court. The reason her legal team withdrew is because they had been, it appears, misled, knowingly or not, by their client. In the circumstances the relationship had broken down between her and her team, obviously, and they could not any longer represent her.

It is not a lawyers job to decide the veracity of their client or not, that is the courts job. The lawyers job is merely to take instructions and represent the client to the best of ones ability, keeping at the back of your mind that it is not acceptable to knowingly mislead the court.

[Catalpa]

If thats true -and I doubt it - he's seriously deteriorated with age. It happens. "Grumpy old men" syndrome. Mind you the grumpy old men I know have never sat down and composed a list of races according to merit so I'm guessing if he ever was involved in the civil rights campaign it was because he fancied some girl rather than any deeply held conviction.

er Imo this 'List' I presume you are referring to was posted here back in 2004 - some 5 years ago.

Yet according your 'Profile' you only joined us in Mar 2008!

Or are you another one with mulitiple identities to cover your tracks with as you get caught out?

Alas there was no girl BTW....

[corelli]

I'd be curious about what the ramifications will be, both for Pamela and for her legal team?

Whose responsibility is it, from a legal standpoint, to verify that any documentation is genuine before submitting it to the court, even if they themselves are not the ones who actually forged the fake documents?

No ramifications for her legal team in circumstances where they did not knowingly mislead the court. For Pamela, depending, the possibility of the Supreme Court referring the papers in the matter to the DPP and the DPP, potentially, charging Pamela with uttering a forged document and/or criminal contempt.

[Catalpa]

Eagle would imply being possessed of hair/feathers which, alas, are no longer adhering to my bonce in the way they used to of old!

Substantively, your first sentence gives the totally wrong impression and is potentially very defamatory. Her team did not submit, knowingly, forged documents.

Pamela based her claim of particular risk of FGM on the basis of a certificate of death and other documents. She would have, in the normal course, sworn and submitted, through her legal team, an affidavit to that effect. It is not her legal teams job to be certifying the accuracy of any document. Presumably, prime facie, it looked fine. You take your clients instructions on trust. You are only obliged to not knowingly mislead the Court. The reason her legal team withdrew is because they had been, it appears, misled, knowingly or not, by their client. In the circumstances the relationship had broken down between her and her team, obviously, and they could not any longer represent her.

It is not a lawyers job to decide the veracity of their client or not, that is the courts job. The lawyers job is merely to take instructions and represent the client to the best of ones ability, keeping at the back of your mind that it is not acceptable to knowingly mislead the court.

Yeah OK point taken

...It's just that I don't know a single person who would have thought this woman was doing anything other than what is now proven to be the case.

Yet these highly paid and experienced people apparently took her Story at face value.

Most Odd.

[imokyrok]

It is actually true.......... I remember the thread.

But America is a country that was founded on immigration by immigrants at the expense of the Native Tribes.

Ireland has ancient history and was founded by the irish, for them and to serve them.

We should not have to be accept someone elses colonial guilt by takin gin their former subjects like we have a responsibility for them, because we don't.

Irelands responsibility is solely to its people, its diaspora and the nation...................... not people like Pamela.

If I recall corectly Catalpa has pointed out that the Irish hail from Southern Europe in the main. If you go back far enough we all hail from Africa so where do you draw the line? A hundred years ago, a thousand, a million? It's all arbitrary and illogical and merely caters to mans more basic instincts.

[corelli]

Yeah OK point taken

...It's just that I don't know a single person who would have thought this woman was doing anything other than what is now proven to be the case.

Yet these highly paid and experienced people apparently took her Story at face value.

Most Odd.

Thats their job. If you are representing someone charged with Murder, for instance, you may have substantive doubts as to their innocence, but you represent them none the less if that is their instructions. You can point out to them the potential weakness in their case but unless they actually admit guilt you are obliged to provide them with the best defence possible.

And as the the question asked by every taxi man in the country, No, you cannot defend someone/conduct a defence on someone's behalf if they actually tell you they did it. You can test the prosecution evidence on their behalf and seek a direction at the end of said evidence if it is weak, but you cannot conduct a defense.

[jmcc]

Yet these highly paid and experienced people apparently took her Story at face value.

It is not really the job of either side's lawyers to try their clients. That's the court's function.

Regards...jmcc