LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksI didn't really care much for the hysterical nature of the original post but you know how I feel about the tribunals.Originally Posted by toxic avenger
I didn't really care much for the hysterical nature of the original post but you know how I feel about the tribunals.
A P.ie moderator stated this on June 25th 2010: P.ie tolerates very broad free speech, and thus allows sectarian bigotry etc
Yes, and you know how I feel about anyone who disagrees with me on anything.I didn't really care much for the hysterical nature of the original post but you know how I feel about the tribunals.
I do and I'm sorryYes, and you know how I feel about anyone who disagrees with me on anything.
A P.ie moderator stated this on June 25th 2010: P.ie tolerates very broad free speech, and thus allows sectarian bigotry etc
I assume you are referring to this rhetorical question from OP:
Since when is asking about state mismanagement a libelous offense? If you can justifiably identify a person I directly libelled in OP then of course I'll consider editing.Is profiting by defraud at the public's expense acceptable to the state?
I had thought that asking relevant questions concerning our country's mal-administration a highly relevant activity in these fraudulent times (Lenihan & Anglo/Permanent loan).
Perhaps you disaggree.
without condoning or condemning
No, you might misunderstand me. Your post gives the impression that the two lawyers themselves are defrauding the state. That would be a straightforward libel (they are lawyers, remember). If you mean 'default' rather than 'defraud' then it's just a typo issue (ironically), and if it's a gripe about state mismanagement generally, then there is no argument from me at all (except that it wasn't clear in the OP)...
Do you mean the guys who are the subject of the Morris Tribunal, who are only answerable to the Govt who just happen to be the FF'rs since almost the founding of the State.
surely the point here is that in business mistakes like this happen all the time, and when it is identified both parties agree some form of service credit/refund etc.
Regardless, as a supplier your reputation would be in shreds if you allowed your customer to overpay you. Did the solicitors know they were being overpaid? sure they did. Did they act honorably? Definitely not.
Why cant the department simply ask for it back, and lets see how honorable the solicitors actually are?
The whole story was untrue, they were paid exactly what had been agreed.
The tribunals and SC fees
And they now want the severance that Bertie promised them in 2002
Moriarty lawyers' demand for severance payments rejected - The Irish Times - Sat, Aug 27, 2011THE GOVERNMENT has rejected a claim for severance payments by barristers who worked for the Moriarty tribunal.
The tribunal, established in 1997 to examine payments to the late Charles Haughey and to former minister Michael Lowry, issued its final report in March.
In 2002 the then government agreed to pay senior counsel at the tribunal “concluding brief fees” of €30,000, while junior counsel were to receive €20,000.
The Irish Times has learned that over recent months a number of barristers who had been working for the tribunal before it completed its work made representations to the Department of the Taoiseach seeking payment of these concluding or termination brief fees.
The Daily Mail -- the world's biggest cut-and-paste operation.
Reply With Quote