More tales from a wounded hidden Ireland

by Brian Fri Sep 01, 2006 03:36

Further Reading
I thought I would try and expand on some of these stories with some further quotes from the relevant documents, because in most cases they are very long and it would otherwise be difficult to track down the interesting bits. I know these quotes look long enough :-), but seriously if you try and read the original of links like the tribunal transcripts I think you will see why it is helpful to have somebody pick out the relevant statements.

Planning in Dublin
This is the interesting High Court judgement, by Mr. Justice William M. McKechnie, that Jerry Beades won against Dublin City Council.
"43. Relating to the application itself, it would appear that following his contact with Mr. Rory O’Byrne a Planning Inspector, Mr. Beades was advised to go and see Mr. Michael Gough which he did. Apparently that meeting was arranged by the said Mr. O’Byrne who also had some conversation with the Senior Planner regarding his own feelings of unease about matters. As outlined above (see para. 14 supra) this meeting occurred on 11th May, 1994 at which Mr. Beades freely spoke to Mr. Gough about his concerns regarding fair treatment and also about the alterations to the building which had earlier been made. Having considered what was said, Mr. Gough gave as assurance to the plaintiff that he would receive fair play in the Planning Department and as a guarantee of that, he indicated that he himself would deal with the retention application. In my view this was a perfectly proper course for the Senior Planner to have adopted and in this context his decision not to speak with Mr. Muldowney about the application was fully justified.

44. In accordance with his word Mr. Gough dealt with the retention application and did so in the normal manner. His resulting report contained a recommendation to grant permission subject to conditions. He sent that and the “green form” to the Decisions Section of the Council which, having formatted the documents, would then, in the normal course of events, send the same on to the Assistant City Manager for his determination. This process usually takes between 3 and 5 days.
...
47. At the meeting of 8th July, I am satisfied that Mr. Gough was shocked to discover what in fact had taken place. Even though his junior, Mr. Muldowney apparently had gone to the Decisions Unit, taken the file, saw the favourable recommendation, went to Mr. McDonnell and then drew up a report coming forcibly to a conclusion contrary to that of his superior. He may or may not have gone to Mr. Gough before 8th July though I have my doubts that he did. Mr. Gough informed the court that he had no difficulty in being overruled but it was the manner and way in which it had happened that caused him distress.

48. An extraordinary feature of the case then occurred. Mr. Gough’s report was removed from the planning file by a person who to this day, and despite the internal inquiry, has never been identified. It is admitted by Mr. McDonnell that this was wrong. In any event Mr. Gough describes his reaction to the situation as follows:-
(1) It was as if his report had been “airbrushed” out of history,
(2) for a junior to act as Mr. Muldowney had done, was unprecedented within the Council and was a situation which he had never previously encountered,
(3) his report, which was addressed to Mr. McCarron, should at least have been seen by the City Planner, and, as was not an uncommon practice where there were conflicting views of senior people, it should also have been sent to and seen by the Assistant City Manager,
(4) he felt embarrassed about the situation,
(5) he felt that he had failed Mr. Beades and that the latter had not obtained fair procedures,
(6) he also felt that he had got “mugged and muzzled”.

49. This description is not my summary of the situation but largely is that of Mr. Gough himself. Mr. Gough, to my knowledge has no axe to grind and could not be described as a maverick in public life. At the time of the hearing he was a Director of Economic Development and Planning with Dun Laoghaire Rathdown County Council and had been in the public service for over 30 years. For a great deal of that time he had worked as a planner. I therefore treat his views as highly credible and in my opinion his conclusions are fully justified.
...
51. This last mentioned view of mine [that Beades' allegations were not acted on properly] was not shared by Mr. McDonnell, Mr. McCarron or Mr. Brady.[the senior planners of Dublin City Council] Not even on reflection or by way of best or preferred practice; they saw nothing even remotely troublesome about the process. Mr. McDonnell felt that one could separate (and therefore ignore) personal matters from one’s professional obligations as a planner. Both Mr. McCarron and the then Assistant City Manager felt that there were sufficient safeguards in existence in that Mr. Muldowney was reporting to a person who held a position in senior management. I regret but I cannot agree with these observations. It seems to me that this approach, putting it as modestly as possible, overlooks the critical attribute of not only carrying out one’s function in an objective way but also of being seen to so do. I do not believe that any reasonable, objective person would have confidence in a process where the structure not only permitted but also apparently approved of such working practices. Whilst it is true that the matters complained of were mere “allegations” they remained with the statute only because of the Council’s inactivity. On any interpretation of the events these were serious and could not lightly be dismissed as unfounded or groundless, and certainly could not be so considered, simply on the word of the person against whom the complaints were made. No one in authority ever even asked Mr. Beades about these matters. Until the same had been reasonably investigated and a conclusion reached, the file should have been dealt with in the manner suggested by Mr. Gough or in a comparable or similar manner. The note of the 22nd March, 1994 in my view negatives, virtually in its entirety, the alleged supervisory role of Mr. McDonnell, who incidentally most probably had not even read Mr. Gough’s report when he gave his unconditional approval to Mr. Muldowney’s involvement in July 1994. Therefore, despite the aforesaid views from these senior officials, I simply cannot agree with their conclusions and therefore remain of the opinion as outlined above.
...
74. There is one further matter that I feel obliged to comment upon. On day four of this case it emerged, without warning, that the City Council had conducted its own internal inquiry into this matter in 1995. Whilst it is not necessary to outline in detail the scope of that inquiry, it is immediately evident from the documentation gathered, and later discovered, that the same was quite extensive and far reaching. Virtually every player who was involved in this process was interviewed, on occasions twice or more and was asked a series of questions which had previously been prepared by management. None of this documentation was disclosed notwithstanding appropriate orders for discovery and ample time and opportunity to comply with such orders. It is impossible to appreciate why the same were not disclosed. Any argument on relevancy is not sustainable and even if some cloak of privilege could be claimed, the correct procedure for so doing was never adhered to. I am still at a loss to fully understand why.
Having heard evidence on this issue however I am prepared to accept that any oversight which may have occurred in the Law Department, was purely that, with there being no intention directly or indirectly to avoid its responsibility to the plaintiff, to justice or to this court." (http://www.courts.ie/judgments.nsf/597645521f07ac9a8025...ument)

The Michael McKevitt trial
Some quotes from the valuable book by Marcella (sister of Bobby) Sands on the trial of Michael McKevitt, who although not even charged with the Omagh bombing: "Nevertheless, the media have run a relentless campaign of vilification against both Bernadette and Michael McKevitt, accusing them of involvement in the bombing and putting their lives at risk in so doing. They published their photographs, and photographs of their children and their home, which further endangered their lives. As a result of this campaign, Bernadette McKevitt was excluded from her shop in the town centre of Dundalk, and lost her livelihood.
....
The McKevitts’ had no effective legal remedy against the media campaign. Legal aid is not available for libel actions in the Republic of Ireland, and the costs involved in a libel case are prohibitive. The media campaign was so vehement that it is highly unlikely that the McKevitts’ could obtain a fair hearing were they to bring such a case, whether before a judge or a jury. Furthermore, the campaign was so widespread that the McKevitts’ would be involved in litigation for years to come were they to prosecute every libel they have suffered."(http://homepage.eircom.net/~michaelmckevitt/index_files...n.htm)

"Running parallel with the vicious media campaign of vilification was a campaign of intimidation and harassment conducted by members of the Garda Emergency Response Unit ERU. The overt campaign was directed at the entire McKevitt family including the three youngest children who were aged 8, 6 and 5. The ERU sat in unmarked cars outside their home for long periods of time; they followed the McKevitt’s on a daily basis by car and also on foot. They followed Bernadette while she went shopping in Dundalk and they even followed the children from school. On numerous occasions the ERU stopped the children while they were playing outside their home with their friends and asked them their names. In the evening time after the children were put to bed, the ERU parked opposite the McKevitt house and shone a spotlight into the children’s bedrooms.
....
At times they used a loudhailer shouting many things including obscenities outside the home (All of these details are documented; names in some cases, times and numbers of cars are recorded also).

Over the years anyone who called to their home was stopped by the ERU and had their names taken in a very aggressive and intimidating manner. At times even the children of neighbours were stopped and asked their names. On one occasion the window cleaner who had called to collect payment was approached by members of the ERU as he left the house. He was thrown onto the bonnet of his car and searched while his hands were held up his back. He was then questioned before being allowed go free. The man was badly shaken and when he went home he made a complaint to his local politician.
....
Some visitors to the McKevitt home had their homes visited by plain clothes policemen. Neighbours of the McKevitt’s who visited their home to assist them had the ERU sitting afterwards outside their home on many occasions also. There are many more such incidents too numerous to include." (http://homepage.eircom.net/~michaelmckevitt/index_files...a.htm)

"Early in the morning of 29th March 2001 upwards of 40 members of the ERU and the National Security Branch of the Gardai arrived at the McKevitt home in Blackrock Co Louth. Some members of the team were dressed in combat gear brandishing guns. As soon as the door of the house was opened they burst in passed Michael and ran upstairs to the bedrooms where the children who now awake and frightened were ordered by them to get up. Michael was arrested and kept in the family front sitting room. Bernadette who was not arrested at that point insisted that she was allowed to telephone a family friend to come and collect the children who were shaken and crying. The house was thoroughly searched; furniture, bedding and clothing were strewn throughout each room. A number of items were removed from the house. Bernadette requested the Gardai not to disturb personal items and letters that she had belonging to her late brother Bobby Sands. However they ignored her and read each letter tossing them to one side when they had finished with them.
....
....in a MI5 disclosed document detailing a conversation in February 2001, (one month before the arrest of Michael), between Garda Assistant Commissioner Dermot Jennings (Rupert’s former Garda handler) and a MI5 agent. The agent points out to Jennings where it is alleged in an e-mail by Rupert to his MI5 handler that he (Jennings) expressed indifference to terrorism in NI and was only interested in illegal activity in ROI. Jennings stated that this was untrue. Agent states that if the defence got hold of this e-mail and Jennings denied the report that would make Rupert an untrustworthy source. The agent then states that Jennings “urged that the report be removed”. The agent also states that there was a few more such “trickinesses” in the paperwork that were being addressed. The MI5 document further states that Jennings was worried about the mistakes in Rupert’s statement and that he proposed to send the MI5 agent a copy of the statement but the agent said not to send it. Between Jennings and the agent they agreed that it might be possible for the FBI to sort matters out before the AGS arrive in the U.S to take a further statement from Rupert. This report would suggest that Asst. Commissioner Jennings was working covertly with MI5 to frame Michael McKevitt.

Michael and Bernadette were taken to Balbriggan Garda station outside Dublin. A blaze of publicity appeared in the media; both Michael and Bernadette’s names and photographs were printed. While in custody, Michael was told that his arrest was a political decision. When Bernadette was told that her husband was charged, the Garda officers mocked her telling her she would no longer be able to continue with her political work now. (This was indeed proven true sometime afterward. As a result of the framing of her husband, Bernadette’s energies were diverted to campaigning on behalf of Michael. That combined with the rearing of their children single-handedly left her unable to continue with her role in the 32 County Sovereignty Movement.)
....
From the outset there was an ongoing steady stream of leaks through the media about Michael’s case. Most were complete fabrications without foundation and had been designed to promote an image of guilt to the public prior to Michael’s trial. Some reports claimed that emails had been sent between Michael and Rupert and that these would be used as evidence. Other reports claimed that there was surveillance video evidence of Michael meeting Rupert. These reports were completely false."
(http://homepage.eircom.net/~michaelmckevitt/index_files...g.htm)

"Many of the disclosed MI5 documents described Mr Rupert [who's testimony secured the conviction] as being financially motivated with a criminal past and some described him as a liar. Other MI5 reports outlined where Rupert described himself to his MI5 handler as a “whore” and a “mercenary” who would do anything for money. One document described where Rupert pointed out to his handler “tell me what to do make it worth my while and as long as the money is right I’ll do it to the best of my ability…” Another report refers to Rupert saying to his handler that “he may have to perjure himself…” However during Rupert’s cross-examination he described the reports as inaccurate, incredibly his evidence was accepted by the court.

Prior to Michael’s trial his eldest son Stephen who was helping him with the case was arrested and all the documents relating to the case including the book of evidence were seized by the ERU. The same police officers involved in Michael’s arrest were also involved in Stephen’s arrest. He was held for two days and offered inducements to give information against Michael whilst in custody....Not all of the documents taken at the time of the arrest were returned.
.....
Throughout the trial the non-jury Special Criminal court was packed with FBI agents and members of the Irish National Security Unit. In addition, a backroom of the court was given over to members of MI5 to use.
....
Rupert was crossed examined for just over a week. During that time his responses were limited and at times contradicted his earlier testimony. He used “I don’t recall” over 1000 times!...One would have thought that the blatant abuse of the law would leave a considerable sense of unease amongst those who profess to value the independence of the rule of law in Ireland, however in relation to Michael’s case their silence has been deafening.
....
The entries of the Oakland Park observations were short and did not correspond with the elaborate detail given by the gardai in the court. Furthermore they were disjointed and not in sequence with the rest of the log [surveillance log of the National Security Unit]. Michael’s solicitor James MacGuill studied the other details contained in the week’s log and found what was clearly alibi evidence for Michael. The document placed Michael in the front room of his home at the time when Rupert stated he had met him at an IRA Army Council meeting on the 17th February 2000. It also contradicted Rupert’s evidence in Chief were he said he had been picked up from McKevitt’s house and driven to the meeting house by Michael’s son Stephen. The surveillance report did not record Rupert anywhere near McKevitt’s home that evening. Furthermore, it logged Stephen McKevitt driving alone in a southern part of the county at the same time Rupert had claimed he had taken him to a house north of Dundalk.

The defence team protested to the court that this relevant document should have been disclosed. They questioned what else was being withheld. They stated they could no longer provide a proper defence for Michael as their strategy had been irreparably damaged. They moved for the trial to be stopped. The court refused and ordered that the trial should proceed. The defence called for the court to dismiss itself, as it had not ordered an investigation into the circumstances surrounding the withholding of this document to determine if in fact there were sinister reasons behind the nondisclosure. This was refused also.

After consulting with his legal team, Michael found he had no option but to dismiss his legal team and withdraw from the case. He addressed the court detailing his reasons for withdrawing citing the proceedings as nothing other than a ‘show trial’. He stated he was told by a senior Garda at the time of his arrest that the decision to frame him was a political one. He stated that he was withdrawing from the ‘show trial’ with his dignity intact.

The trial continued in the absence of the defence and the defendant. Michael remained in his cell beneath the court refusing any requests from the court to attend. At one point the court ordered that he be taken before the court. A number of guards tried to forcibly drag Michael up the stairs into the dock. However Judge Johnston realising the spectacle unfolding halted the course of action ordering that Michael should not be harmed and that if he chose to remain in the cell that was his choice.

The remaining prosecution witnesses were hurriedly dealt with without any challenge to them."
(http://homepage.eircom.net/~michaelmckevitt/index_files...s.htm)

"Throughout the short period of his involvement with the Irish authorities Rupert’s Garda Special Branch handler Dermot Jennings had an extremely poor opinion of him, until he emerged as the secret weapon which might secure the conviction of an Irish Republican. The Garda documents disclosed to the defence didn’t reveal anything of meetings between Rupert and his handler Jennings; however, MI5 documents obtained by the defence team as a result of discovery orders uncovered these Garda opinions of Rupert. One MI5 document in particular reported “The Garda view was summed up by Det Chief Superintendent Dermot Jennings of the Garda Crime and Security Branch (CSB) who described Rupert to MI5 officers as a “bullshitter” and “a liar”."
(http://homepage.eircom.net/~michaelmckevitt/index_files...d.htm)

"An undated and heavily censored MI5 file note made available on discovery reads: “Rupert volunteered he was a “whore” … and his motive is money." (http://homepage.eircom.net/~michaelmckevitt/index_files...d.htm)

"Later all public records relating to Rupert’s bankruptcies were wiped clean. All of Rupert’s phone records disappeared, while his tax information which was on the public record at Dickson House, the Federal building in Chicago, was removed after Irish Americans inspected it but before they managed to get copies for the defence team in Ireland. Everything, which could portray Rupert as a dishonest and manipulative person, was wiped from the public records."
(http://homepage.eircom.net/~michaelmckevitt/index_files...s.htm)

"The next stage of this process will take place in the Supreme Court Dublin in late 2006. Michael’s family view the Irish process with much scepticism. They feel that to date his incarceration is based purely on political grounds and that he will not receive justice until his case goes before the European Court of Human Rights."
(http://homepage.eircom.net/~michaelmckevitt/index_files...n.htm)

PR campaign on the Good Friday Agreement
Marcella Sands has also highlighted a document leaked to the DUP, and dated 4th March 1998 before the GFA which was signed on 10 April 1998, which outlines the elaborate preparations put in place to sell the agreement one month before the rest of the world knew any such accord had been reached:
"A key requirement in developing our communications strategy will be a continuing flow of information about public attitudes and response. On some occasions this will be helpful to our cause and on others not so. It will be important therefore to ensure that not all of the results of opinion polling, etc., will be in the public domain.

It would be open to us to encourage some degree of public opinion polling by for example newspapers and current affairs programmes, where we believe the results are likely to be supportive. Some of this can be encouraged during meetings and briefings of senior media people.

We have now commissioned McCann Erickson to have both quantitative and qualitative research carried out, without it being seen to be Government inspired.
...
Each focus group should be representative of a section of the wider community. Those wider groups in turn each have someone they look up to as a representative figure. We should, where possible, be enlisting the help of those people to champion our cause, e.g., Robin Eames and other churches leaders, the heads of community organisations and trade unions, and other members of the G7.

While any overt manipulation could be counterproductive, a carefully co-ordinated timetable of statements from these people will be helpful in giving our message credibility with those they represent. It has the added benefit of providing a fresh face for that message, and ensuring that it is not only government which is seen to be selling the process.
...
There are about 10-12 current affairs broadcast programmes with which information service will liase closely thus allowing us to have early warnings of programmes into which we might wish to have an input. We will also wish from time to time to offer suggestions for to other programmes which would improve knowledge and understanding of the process and the prospects for a satisfactory outcome."
(http://cain.ulst.ac.uk/events/peace/docs/nio26398.htm)

Corruption in Dublin County Council
Bill O'Herlihy talking about a conversation with Richard Lynn an executive with Monarch Properties Ltd which took place on 27/may/1992:
"Q. 220 Can you outline to the Tribunal the content of that conversation as you
recollect it now Mr. O'Herlihy?
A. I will. We were waiting for the result, I'd say fairly late into the day, in
the sense that the result would have been coming maybe within half an hour or
thereabouts, and I said to him, I said to Richard, well I said, I hope the
Council will see the merits of this and recognise the quality of the
development that's proposed and he said to me are you joking me? I said what
do you mean? He said the councillors never recognise quality and merit, it has
nothing whatever to do with it, he said if you want to get a planning change or
a material contravention through, you have to buy it and he said that planning
changes and material contraventions were worth, in his judgement, about 50,000
a year into the back pocket of the councillors, if they cooperated with the
developers.

So frankly, because I had never been involved, with any building company or any
development like this in my life, I was absolutely staggered at this, to be
truthful and I said well how does it work? And I was told that you -- he told
me that you develop a lead councillor and you deal with him and he deals with
all the other councillors and he determines what exactly is required to
actually get the votes required to pass a particular planning approval or
motion.

So I said did you, did Monarch pay money for this? And he said yes. And again
I was, to be honest I was staggered and he said -- I said how much? And he
said, to the best of my knowledge he said a hundred thousand. Now I don't know
whether he was talking about generally, or whether, on that particular project,
but my question related to the project.
....
Q. 228 Were you shocked by that?
A. Of course I was shocked, because I was one of the people at the time who
believed in the, that things were decided on merit. I had no idea that there
was corruption in the planning system at all, or that money came into it, or
financial inducements, I had no idea in the wide world, as I said I had never
ever been involved in any of that, that aspect of Irish life at all, so of
course I was shocked.
.....
Q. 236 Which as I understand it and correct me if I'm wrong, which is that, merit had
nothing whatsoever to do with it, did had all to do with the purchase of votes,
is that right?
A. That was my understanding of it yeah.
Q. 237 Were you taken aback, blown away by this Mr. O'Herlihy?
A. Well I had no -- I had no experience of how the planning system worked at all,
I had no idea how the council system responded to the planning motions, so I
was completely surprised and shocked, and to be honest about it I was disgusted
as well.
.....
Q. 240 By lead councillor did you understand Mr. Lynn mean you needed a lead
councillor in each party?
A. That I'm not sure, I couldn't tell you, because for some reason or other which
is I suppose as I think I made the point to John Gallagher against my
inquisitive nature, I never pursued the discussion and the reason I may not
have was because we could have been interrupted, I can't remember, but I'm not
sure whether or not he would have been the -- there was a lead councillor would
have been somebody who represented the company in relation to all parties, or a
specific party, I do not know.
.....
[What he was told at the bar came as a complete surprise, before that he had full confidence that he was involved in an upfront kosher PR campaign. The underlying corruption was well hidden:]
At no stage in any conversations at that took place involving Phil, I
assume that should be Monahan, or any of his executives, or right up to the
conversation that I told about there in the bar in the hotel, there was never
ever, ever, ever any suggestion that their normal practice was to buy anything,
there was never any snide comments, or there was never any kind of subtextual
comments that is gave you the impression that this was only all a charade and
that the work was really going on underneath the surface. There was never
anything like that.
I got the impression all the time that that was a campaign that was what it
looked like, that it was entirely an up front campaign and I got that
impression all the way through.
...
A. If somebody had dropped in from Mars and sat at any of the Monarch strategy
meetings, not for one minute would they imagine that it was anything other than
the campaign that was being mounted and presented.
....
Q. 294 There is no possibility that you could be mistaken?
A. No, I'm sorry, there isn't."
(http://www.planningtribunal.ie/images/SITECONTENT_476.pdf its on p.36 of the pdf.)

Det. Sgt. John White on Garda Special Branch
His whistleblowing statements to the Morris which show widespread illegal bugging by Garda Special Branch:
Day 433 A.263:..."The other fellas in the station, even the D/sergeants, I had no reason to believe that they would know about the bugging. That is the same all over the country, it's not just that time in Donegal. If we were operating in any county and I have operated in several counties in Ireland, you would not tell the local fellas about tapes. You would tell the local D/I and local super if they were sound, if they seemed to be sound, you would hardly ever, ever tell a local district officer, a uniform man. They would be used for the purpose of gleaning information to progress the investigation, to progress our knowledge of the investigation.
Q. Yeah?
A. It was kept within that circle and was kept very tight.
...
Q. CHAIRMAN: You mean it's going on everywhere?
A. Chairman, when I joined the murder squad. . . (INTERJECTION)
Q. CHAIRMAN: Just...
A. Sorry, yes, it is.
Q. CHAIRMAN: Is that what you are saying, this is not an isolated incident?
A. No. Not by any means.
....
Q.372 CHAIRMAN: Look, Sergeant White, what concerns me is this, you were aware that something basically very improper was going on, that they were bugging solicitors' interviews; isn't that right?
A. Yes.
Q. CHAIRMAN: And you were aware that not only was it happening in this instance but it was happening, if you like,
nationwide?
A. Yes.
Q. CHAIRMAN: Now, there were two things that you could have done. Either you could have broadcast it to the public, which is I gather what you did decide to do or you could have gone to your higher authorities with this scandalous information. Why did you choose to go public with it?
A. I just need to go back a small bit and I can be very clear about this. Chairman. After my arrest for Bernard Conlon I went to see Chief Superintendent Jennings in the Hole in the Wall pub on the 23rd March and I told him that I was not guilty of these, check my phones, check the cell site IDs, you'll find it's all rubbish and help me out here because I had been very good to him, I had worked very hard for him. He wouldn't do that. After that I began to think who else could I go to in relation to these matters. There was matters other than that and maybe more important than the bugging. I did go to a junior minister and I met him in Tipperary in his home in Tipperary and I didn't tell him about the bugging but I told him about the McBrearty statement, I told him about the Omagh bombing and I told him about rocket attacks.
...
Q.380 CHAIRMAN: No, well that's what I am asking you. Why did you not report it in a formal manner to whoever, maybe the Commissioner I don't know, why did you not bring that to the notice of the people that should know about it?
A. Because they all knew about it.
Q. CHAIRMAN: So you didn't bother with that course, you decided you would make it public; is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. CHAIRMAN: Now, why did you do that?
A. To get it out into the public arena and to have a full investigation into it.
...
Day 434 A.288: Chairman, at this stage it would be appropriate for the senior Garda authority to come clean in relation to bugging. It cannot be covered up. There are at least two hundred men alive at the moment, and women, probably a lot more, who know exactly what went on over the years, some of them are still serving in the job, and to try and cover it up on a nationwide scale, it can't be done. It just can't be done. It did happen. The equipment was bought and purchased at an extensive cost to do it. It was not a universal approach, in certain cases they were done and it's not just down to interview rooms. It's houses, cars, apartments and phones. And it's done illegally, totally illegally, and the senior Garda authority know that this is the case.
....
Q. CHAIRMAN: And you saying that it happened as matter of practice elsewhere; is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. CHAIRMAN: Solicitors' consultations?
A. In fact I personally heard. Chairman, that one priest was bugged talking to a prisoner. I can give the name of a prisoner. It's quite some time ago.
....
Q.718....as to why you decided to go public on these matters, or on the wrongdoings as you say for example the bugging and so on?
A. Well, yes. Chairman, you have asked me that question a couple of times and like I say it was in retaliation to what Assistant Commissioner Carty's team were doing to me. I wanted it in the papers and in the public so that there would be a full inquiry into it. I know I have been asked why I didn't go through some other officer in the job, but I felt that was totally pointless. That no investigation would take place, if I wrote a report and gave it to somebody else. I firmly believe that. That it would go nowhere. I felt that by publicising it that senior Garda authority would be forced into carrying out an investigation in May 2000. But as it happened there wasn't an investigation carried out at the time. There was only two statements taken and it was shelved until I think Mr.Shane Murphy senior counsel came out with it. I shouldn't say came out with it, required an investigation a year later. But in the meantime there was no attempt to carry out an investigation into it. Even though it had been widely publicised. It was being ignored basically by Garda authority. That is a fact.
Q. In the meantime the allegations were being made against you?
A. They were. Chairman. There was constant allegation against me and I had to fight them month after month year after year.
...
Q.748......Now, your allegation in relation to the bugging, the generalised bugging issue is now a much wider allegation as and of course what you are saying now is in relation to that particular incident is that as far as you are concerned, it is an example of your general allegation that this was widespread throughout the force; isn't that right?
A. Yes, Mr. McDermott, that's right."
(Transcript is Q.263-270, 372-376 Day 433 and then the next day 434 (4/4/06) Q.288-295, 718, 748 at http://www.morristribunal.ie/asp/psummary.asp?ObjectID=...D=146 (SITECONTENT_91.ptx and SITECONTENT_95.ptx))

by Brian Fri Sep 01, 2006 03:40

Charles J Haughey
Some data that may point to a mysteriously organised opposition to Haughey, beginning with a Transcript made by Intelligence and Security Branch at Garda HQ of a conversation between the then FF Government Ministers Ray MacSharry and Martin O'Donoghue on 21st Oct 1982, which was taped by MacSharry.
MacSharry:" ...[even] if I was to go around with the arse out of my trousers I would not take a brown penny from anyone.....but I was a bit surprised to hear that there was some talk of money and where such money would be coming from."
O'Donoghue:" ...What was being said was if there was any suggestion of somebody being compromised financially that it would be sorted out."
...
O'Donoghue: "There is a lot of money around alright but not for CJ not for him to stay."
MacSharry: "That kind of money, you could never have a situation develop where there would be money around to move a political party in any kind of situation."
O'Donoghue: "That is why I am not going after that aspect, I am concentrating on what is the ...for and against and how you would read the situation and that is why I came to talk to you."
...
MacSharry: "I was glad when you rang this morning because that was still on about what Brennan ahd [presumably 'had'] said about and you may not be in as good a financial state as rest of us and that there would be 100,000 pound to put that right, that was said."
(Joe Joyce and Peter Murtagh "The Boss, Charles J Haughey in Government" (Dublin, 1983) p.376-82)
Other bits and pieces from the 'Boss' book that maybe relevant:
"MacSharry maintained that O'Donoghue was simply telling him that a bribe was available for him."(p.326)
"Haughey asked that "Britain should stop interfering in the Irish election campaign.""(p.326)
"He also accused FitzGerald of having lunch with a trained English spy [Duke of Norfolk]."(p.300)
"Haughey's advisers had been telling him for some time that the British were behind many of the disclosures that were emerging in public. The collapse of Anglo-Irish relations over the Falklands War and the ill feeling over James Prior's Northern Assembly helped to encourage that belief."(p.297)
Also there is this revealing information on Sean Doherty from the Phoenix:
"In contrast to all the personal hand wringing and political manoeuvreing that Doherty was engaged in during the successful heave against Haughey, Doherty's financial situation miraculously went from critical to very successful in a matter of months.
...
Yet an amazing transformation of Doherty's financial fortunes then proceeded, more or less in tandem with the political cruxifixion of Haughey. Despite the litany of financial woes described above [including the threat of eviction from his home], Doherty then managed to apply for planning permission to add a twelve-bedroom extension onto his Cootehall Yacht and Country Club. At the same time, Doherty was also involved in an even more ambitious development of a marina....estimated at the time (1992) to cost £500,000."
(The Phoenix 17 June 2005 p.3)

Derrybrien
Here is some more detail from a long report of the experiences of this community called "Derrybrien: The Struggle Of A Small Rural Community To Have Its Voice heard" by Martin Collins (Derrybrien, 2005):
"A deputation from the local community attended the Loughrea Area Committee meeting of Galway County Council in O’Dea’s Hotel Loughrea on 12th November 2003. At the time we felt that the deputation received a sympathetic hearing from both the County Councillors and the Executive staff members. However through a Freedom of Information (FOI) request to GCC we later learned that prior to our attendance at the meeting the County Councillors proposed and agreed to write to the Shannon Regional Fisheries Board expressing disappointment and annoyance at their press release which stated that up to 100,000 fish may have been killed as a result of the landslide. Also which is even more alarming is that the same Cllr. stated that “it was important for the local economy that the project goes ahead”. These comments were made at a time when there was a great deal of uncertainty as to what threat or danger the local community and our environment was facing into the future...

On the 11th December 2003 again a deputation from Derrybrien made a presentation to The Joint Oireachtas Committee on the Environment & Local Government, in Leinster House Dublin 2. This meeting and presentation was in vain.

The Government and politicians in general pontificate about the wide consultation process and the rigorous procedures that projects must go through in order to get planning permission however our experience has been the complete opposite. No meaningful consultation took place at any time through the past 8 – 10 years with any of the parties involved in this project. The facts are that unelected civil servants, county managers, An Bord Pleanala and the Judiciary have a major input into policy implementation and all are under the jurisdiction of the Government. The only real assistance we received has come from our MEPs.
....
As individuals and as a community we have learned quite a lot over the past 7 – 8 years. It is my view that both apathy and greed are two of the most destructive threats currently facing Irish society. Within communities a significant number of people do not care one way or the other about what is happening in their area. While at the same time others only become concerned if there is a possibility that they may either gain or loose financially. The relentless pressure of living a modern life in a modern society is creating the perfect climate for such a materialistic and individualistic mindset to thrive and prosper. The failure of Galway County Council to acknowledge the concerns of the Derrybrien community from a social or environmental point of view is an issue that must be assessed and reflected upon in the future if lessons are to be learned. It is imperative that the role and functions of county councillor’s are properly examined. Not one of the 30 councillors in Galway has stood firmly with the Derrybrien community. Why not?...
The bottom line is that there is little point in electing councillors if they proceed to act as government enforcers and ignore the wishes and concerns of local people.
....
The main reason for persevering with this case over the years is to seek the truth and justice. It is most disappointing and a sad reflection on our planners and politicians that one of the smallest rural communities in the entire country were left with no option but to seek the assistance on the High Court and the European Court of Justice. It is becoming even more uncertain as to whether or not it is possible to get the truth and justice from any of the institutions of the State. Without access to substantial funds it is extremely difficult to expose the deceit and corruption which has taken a firm grip in our society.
[I think this mirrors the experiences of many activists and communities where they start off opposing something on enviromental grounds and then end up being outraged and shocked at some of the practises in the Irish political and justice systems, which then becomes maybe the main issue. Most also are disillusioned in their dealings with the media but not in this case where they are happy with the publicity they got.]
....
Our experience in this case has been that politicians from all parties and planners turned their back and walked away. In effect the Derrybrien community was used as a “National Sacrifice Area” or in the words of a developer “a mountain of no significance” where the environment was already destroyed by forestry and the addition of windfarms would not matter greatly.
....
My final conclusion is that there are currently no responsibilities or obligations on politicians, planners or developers to address the concerns of small rural communities such as Derrybrien. By choosing to ignore the views offered by the local residents of Derrybrien the politicians and planners are in effect dismissing the fundamental principles of a democratic society. The substantial grants, tax breaks and subsidies directed towards the large scale projects will in effect, ensure that “absentee landlords” are the major beneficiaries of such incentives for the foreseeable future. "
(http://www.woodlandleague.org/communities/derrybrien/)

Barr Tribunal
This isn't all that exciting, I am just trying to show where I get the claims I made in the main text about the Sunday Independent, the gardai and John Rogers.
"Ms Sheehan [the author of the Sunday Independent article that the judge objects to] refers to numerous submissions made by Mr. Rogers on the Ms X application and at earlier Tribunal hearings. Twice she incorrectly describes his function at the Tribunal:
‘‘The garda’s legal team, led by Mr. John Rogers, want Ms X to be allowed to testify before the Tribunal.’’
and later:
‘‘John Rogers, the garda’s senior counsel, has suggested at Tribunal hearings that there was friction between Carthy and some relatives and that he was suicidal.’’
Interestingly, Ms Sheehan makes no reference to arguments advanced by Mr.McGuinness and she seems unaware that he is and has been throughout the work of the Tribunal, counsel primarily concerned in presenting the case for the Garda Síochana, including the scene commanders, and other senior officers who directed the police operations at Abbeylara.[John Rogers represented some of the individual gardai.]

It is evident that Ms Sheehan’s article is heavily slanted towards the arguments of Mr. Rogers on behalf of his clients. The general tenor of it strongly suggests the probability that she has been briefed by one of Mr. Rogers’s clients or someone on their behalf who is privy to information relating to Ms X which has been circulated on behalf of the Tribunal to relevant solicitors and regarding what transpired on the hearing of the Ms X application on 29th October. If that is so, then it amounts to serious wrong per se having regard to the privacy attached by the Tribunal to the applications about the proposed evidence of Ms X. However, it is even more serious than that. Assuming that Ms Sheehan has utilised all relevant information furnished by her informant, it appears that she has been seriously misled and manipulated.

Regarding the motivation for misleading Ms Sheehan and for instigating her article in the Sunday Independent; ... secondly, to promote a contention based on fundamentally incomplete information that there was disharmony in the Carthy family as between mother, son and daughter."(Appendix 7.J preliminary ruling on the improper press publicity)

"The foregoing quotation [from the article] from an earlier submission made by Mr. Rogers would be known only to someone with access to the relevant transcript of evidence.
...
On its face it is evident that Ms Sheehan’s story is slanted towards arguments advanced on behalf of garda interests — in particular by Mr. Rogers.
...
The end result is that the author of the article was put in a position, it could well be unknowingly, of promulgating with major nation-wide press publicity allegations of a family dispute over land based on an allegation of ownership by Mr. Carthy which is patently wrong in the light of the true facts regarding title to the land in question. Publication of these unjustified allegations concerning the ownership of the land has caused substantial distress for Mrs. Carthy and her daughter, Marie. Surprisingly, notwithstanding the true facts now known to them, the Sunday Independent did not publish in its issue of 7th November or since then an apology to the Carthy family and to the Tribunal or even a correction of the fundamental errors in Ms Sheehan’s story. This is not what is reasonable to expect from a reputable newspaper.
.....
It seems that the editorial policy of Independent Newspapers does not extend to apology for harmful error or even correction of mistakes.
....
The issue the Tribunal is required to address is who orchestrated the furnishing of Ms X’s statement to Ms Sheehan and other information regarding the importance the Garda attached to it and comments on submissions made by Mr. John Rogers for his clients that the relationship between John Carthy and his immediate family was not as stated in evidence by a number of witnesses and also that he was suicidal?

Is it possible to draw any conclusion from the article per se other than that its primary purpose is to promote the garda case? The answer to that question is ‘‘ No’’.
...
..the article is clearly slanted in favour of the garda and more particularly Mr. Murphy’s clients. Their leading counsel [John Rogers] is referred to six times by Ms Sheehan. She does not refer to the Commissioner or to his counsel at all.
...
The Tribunal is also mindful of another factor emerging from Ms Sheehan’s article which points to complicity by someone associated with the garda? ´ i.e. her reference to ‘‘dynamic new evidence which the gardaí claim could shed new light on his [Mr.Carthy’s] mental state in the months before his death’’. The word ‘‘new’’ has clear significance in the context of the garda case. One of the arguments strenuously pursued by counsel for both segments of the police in favour of having Ms X called as a witness in public session is a contention that the garda parties should have been informed by the Tribunal when it first obtained the information received from Ms X even though specifically given by her in confidence. This is a matter which will be dealt with in the forthcoming ruling in the Ms X evidence issue. Its relevance in the context of Ms Sheehan’s story is that it appears to be a further indicator that the journalist’s informer was associated with the garda case.
....
It is probable that the person or persons directly or indirectly responsible for orchestrating the story and for putting in train a scheme whereby Ms Sheehan was informed of information helpful to the garda case comprising titillating ‘‘new’’ evidence likely to be of particular interest to her as a Sunday Independent journalist, was a member of the Garda Síochana or someone associated with the police."(Appendix 7.K Full Ruling on the newspaper article http://www.eire.com/photos/Barr_Tribunal.pdf)

Department of Health
The testimony given by the three orthodontists to the Joint Committee on Health and Children chaired by Deputy J. Moloney 19 Feb 2004.
Dr. Ian O'Dowling: "The national orthodontic service is in crisis - a crisis created by the incompetence and dishonesty of the Department of Health and Children and the greed of the dental schools of Cork and Dublin."
...
Dr. Triona McNamara:"..Dr. T. G. McNamara was the first in the mid-eighties, services improved year on year and waiting lists diminished in an honest way. People were getting treated, not being artificially eliminated."
...
Dr. O'Dowling: "Simply for fiddling the figures, cooking the books, whatever phrase you may wish to use, the decision has been made in certain health boards that category C patients are not to be offered treatment....When the SAC came to visit my department in Saint Finbarr's hospital in 1999 to inquire if it could be used for training dentists in the public service to become orthodontists, I was refused that recognition and I was directed that my staff had to go to the dental school in Cork to receive that training. Both the visitors and I knew that the school in Cork was not recognised for training. I describe it as wanting to see the latest Harry Potter film and being told to go the local cinema, but the local cinema is not showing it and being told to stay there as it is the only place allowed to show it. That is the stupidity of what happened in 1999 where decisions were made to bolster the dental schools in Dublin and Cork and the Department just ignored the fact that we had patients who needed treatment and we had dentists who wanted to be trained and qualified as orthodontists. That was completely irrelevant."
...
Dr. T. G. McNamara: "The word which upsets me, although I know that was not intended, is "complex", because this matter is not at all complex. We had a good service [before 1999]... I returned to Ireland where I tried to introduce the same high standards I had been used to at that hospital [during his post graduate training in England], and I succeeded. Suddenly, in 1999, everything stopped and we were told there was an old system and a new system. However, that was not the case. In 1999 we carried out our normal procedures and applied for an inspection, as we had for years - I had been involved in the system for close on 20 years - but that inspection was hijacked. In any other country where inspections took place, the department responsible for health would have stated that the inspection should be stopped in order to have a proper one. That did not happen and since then we have been in this mess."
...
Deputy Ring: "Is this the kind of society we now have? A child needs treatment and is entitled to have it covered by the State, and would have got the treatment if the old scheme had been in place. The situation in regard to this service is outrageous. The Minister can no longer sit back and take the side of the vested interests. We must return to the old system, with which I was quite happy, in which children and others were referred and treated. They were very satisfied with the service and treatment they received from the members of the delegation attending the committee today. However, vested interests came in and the private sector is now the real winner."
...
Senator Feeney: "This is all very alarming. I am shaking my head and wondering if this is all really happening. We have had an excellent presentation from the witness, with whom we are very familiar as we have been discussing this for the last few months. However, prior to talking to him we took evidence from the Department of Health and Children, who painted a rosier scenario than we are hearing today. We went through all the different categories with them. They talked about the waiting list of which they were very proud. Then the witnesses' communication reached us. I remember receiving from Doctor McNamara the most horrifying and graphic pictures of childrens' mouths. This is probably not the right terminology, but they were so badly deformed I had to put the pictures away. It was very unpleasant to look at them. I wondered how this could be happening when the Department was giving us one version of events with the witness now giving us another."
...
Dr. O'Dowling: "I have seen various politicians state that Cork will get a new €4 million state of the art orthodontic unit and this will sort out all of the problems. It will not sort out the problems. The unit is going into a university - it is like putting it into Trinity College - and it is not going to treat patients."
...
Dr. T. G. McNamara: "I am not sure whether it is appropriate to mention this but the Department of Health and Children has made no secret of the fact that it has organised a fairly strong bullying campaign against us. I need to be careful given what the Chairman said earlier on, but if the Chairman could help us -
We would appreciate it if the Chairman could help us. We are paralysed in our lives. I have been in bad health and people attribute that to the stresses imposed upon us by what has happened. It is political bullying. If somebody could organise that to be taken off us -"
Chairman: "If I go down that road, it might cause problems. Perhaps the advice of Deputy Fitzpatrick, to use a little honey at this point, could be taken."
...
Deputy Ring: "Chairman, this is a democracy, not a dictatorship. These people have a right to express a view and if it is the truth, they are entitled to do so. I agree with Dr. McNamara. He says that the health board is reacting because the witnesses come in to the committee and state what they believe are the facts and are doing what is right.

The chief executives from all the health boards have been here. If some of those people were working for me, they would not be long employed. They should not be intimidated, but should be protected....This country is turning into a dictatorship. People have a right to say what they want to say."
...
Dr. Triona McNamara: "We were very pleased and privileged to be brought here the last day. It was the first time since 1999 that anybody had spoken to us. There is tremendous hurt within this group because we have given our heart and soul to public patients.

Deputy Ring will know that we were not the only group to be victimised. Our trainees, who had worked extremely hard for us, were blocked. Dr. O'Dowling has talked about his staff. I had very fine staff in Galway. A woman who had worked, day in and day out, treating hundreds of patients, was forced to go to the UK to give treatment. Another person I had in Dublin was forced to go the UK.
... Ideally, we would like to talk to the Department of Health and Children, but the Department says that waiting lists are not massaged, that we are getting value for money and that children are not damaged. Everything is denied.
... It is easy to say that Dr. Ian O'Dowling is vinegar or the term used today. He, like all of us, has been very isolated and I will give an example of the off the wall behaviour of officials in the Department of Health and Children. Dr. Ian O'Dowling's budget is curtailed but when the treatment purchase fund was brought in, a very fine colleague was offered €1.8 million to treat a fraction of the number of patients that Dr. O'Dowling is treating. Moreover, as money had to be spent before Christmas this colleague was given €800,000 to treat 240 children. With the same amount of money Dr. O'Dowling could have treated 3,000 children. Things are not right."
(http://www.irlgov.ie/oireachtas/Committees-29th-D%C3%A1...4.rtf)

Democracy in Russia
This is an account on 'managed democracy' in Russia which seems to be now the western powers view of that country, I cannot help wondering though if it dosen't show the dangers that the west could fall into:
"Managed Democracy has two main mechanisms. The first is the use of the police, security services, courts, electoral commissions and, above all, the media to manipulate opinions and events and stifle opposition voices. Then there is 'political technology', a multi-million dollar industry in Russia....a head spinning array of "black PR", media and electoral ploys used to sway political outcomes.

Mr.Wilson [a lecturer in London] says that in the world of Russian politics - as in that of many former Soviet states - parties and politicians are often not what they seem. They may be "clones": artificial parties backed by the authorities that profess similar views to genuine opposition groups to try to split their vote...[Gives 'Rodina' a nationalist party set up by the Kremlin as an example, and then quotes Vladimir Korsunsky who says that Russian democracy is:]" a play in which the Kremlin is the director, casting the roles."
(Financial Times 27 June 2006 p.17)

Surveillence and Satellite capabilities available to the US
Russell Tice the NSA whistleblower: "People think it's not going to affect them. They think it's against the bad people, it's to protect our national security. Maybe it's against the law, but it's just the bad people, just to keep the terrorist from blowing up my neighborhood dam. But if those people find out it was hundreds of thousands or millions, and they were swept up into it and the government was listening to their conversation with their doctor.... Now all of a sudden it affects them personally."
(http://www.reason.com/hod/js011306b.shtml)

[Tice again:]"So, right now, the atmosphere at N.S.A. and D.I.A., for that matter, is fear. The security services basically rule over the employees with fear, and people are afraid to come forward. People know if they come forward even in the legal means, like coming to Congress with a concern, your career is over. And that's just the best scenario. There's all sorts of other unfortunate things like, perhaps, if someone gets thrown in jail for either a witch-hunt or something trumping up charges or, you know, this guy who is basically reporting a crime.
....
Data mining is a means by which you -- you have information, and you go searching for all associated elements of that information in whatever sort of data banks or databases that you put together with information..... And you start basically putting together a bubble chart of, you know, where everybody is....But it's basically a way of searching all of the data that exists, and that's things like credit card records and driver's license, anything that you can get your hands on and try to associate it with some activity."
(http://alternet.org/rights/30387/)

This article by David DeBatto, a former U.S. Army Counterintelligence Special Agent who served in Iraq as late as 2003, shows that the US has researched the use of weapons fired from -and to- satellites and they also have lasers etc with a potential range of 'many kilometres':
"The U. S. Department of Defense (DoD), as well as the military of several other countries, has long been involved in the research and development of satellites for its various communications and intelligence gathering missions. However, the U.S., Russia and possibly China have also developed defensive weapons for satellite defense. The technology most widely tested for this purpose is known in military/scientific circles as “Directed Energy” or, in lay terms, lasers. Not only lasers, but to a lesser extent, plasma weapons as well.

Although it is not commonly known (nor does the Pentagon widely advertise the fact) work on these technologies has been going on steadily since at least the 1960’s....Its range is also classified, but Sutton said that it is “many kilometers.”
...
Another directed energy weapon developed at Kirtland is the Active Denial System (ADS). The Air Force describes ADS as a “non-lethal, counter-personnel directed energy weapon”. This is an actual microwave weapon. It uses the same basic technology as a home microwave, but at different wavelengths and in a very focused beam of infrared light. Infrared light, which most of the directed energy weapons now in development use, is invisible to the human eye.
...
As far as the critics of the “weaponizing of space” who want the U.S. to stop all research and development of space based weapons of all kinds; that ship has already sailed and it is not coming back."
(http://www.davedebatto.com/archive.php?article_id=20)

The conclusion at the end of a fairly detailed article on Microwave weaponry also mentions satellites, while I guess it is only speculation there is a lot of pretty convincing data available on this subject:
"Even though the world's governments have yet to officially acknowledge the harmful effects of electromagnetic radiation and microwaves, the evidence available does clearly indicate that both within NATO and the former Warsaw Pact countries, electromagnetic and/or microwave weapons are now being used or field tested. Already police departments of some governments such as France have reportedly used powerful infrasound beam devices to control crowds and to make rioters lose control of their bowels.

The ability to modify human behaviour with auditory-cortex stimuli, brain rhythm modifications and many other biological applications of microwaves has been repeatedly shown since the 1950s. The radio wave energy used in most of the experiments is pulse-modulated or RF microwave energy. It is the same type of RF used in radar techniques: radar equipment is used in almost all mind control experiments. Radar range at 10cm wavelength - the type used in most of the experiments - is over 25 miles. A 1976 U.S. State Department Office of Security report stated: "It is therefore possible that the biological applications of radar could be used as a weapon on an individual or mass basis for sociological or political purposes."

The involvement of NASA in this field raises the sinister prospect of not just individuals being targeted by the new technologies of mind control, but of entire cities and larger areas of the population being affected via satellite transmissions.

If this all sounds far-fetched, be warned. In the decade that these mind control experiments were started by the intelligence agencies, the idea of fitting a computer into a single room was science fiction. Today, they are carried in pockets. Subsequent work has of course long since superseded Delgado's early techniques. None of us knows the full extent of research and experimentation that has been carried out since then. There is little doubt, however, that lavishly funded covert experimentation - unrestrained by peer review or the need for legal controls - has achieved far more rapid progress than scientists working legitimately. The interest in this area by the U.S. and Russian military now dates back more than 30 years. It is the most secretive of all the U.S. intelligence and military covert projects and it is quite likely to represent the biggest development in military technology since the splitting of the atom.

As a minimum, every citizen of every country should be warned of patterns of activity by the security services which point to resurgent mind control experimentation and major civil rights abuses. Any study of the past fifty years of illicit covert intelligence operations indicates that we usually only learn of them, if at all, decades too late. How much has still been hidden from our scrutiny? If the intelligence agencies have succeeded in any of their mind control aims outlined here, the social and political implications are literally mind-boggling…." ( http://web.archive.org/web/20040607032939/http://www.wa...d.htm )

EU
The Global Security Fund is explained in more detail by Christopher E. H. Story FRSA (who has testified before several US Congressional Committees e.g. he testified on OPEC to a Committee of the US Congress Sept 22-23 1981, the author of many works and editor of "The Perestroika Deception" by Anatoly Golitsyn, and an occasional financial adviser to Lady Thatcher) in the International Currency Review (London, March 2003)Vol. 28, No 4. and recently Vol 30 no.1, from which:
"They [US Congressional documents on the fund] show, inter alia, transactions via the Federal Reserve approved by Dr. Alan Greenspan which, to put it mildly, raises many questions, including why some of the funds in question were disappearing into privately held trust accounts held on behalf of well-known intelligence-linked barons."
(http://www.911komplott.de/downloads/Global_Security_Fun...d.doc)
Mr Story has edited this (very expensive) banking journal since 1969 so he has great experience of international affairs although it is clear that he feels the current international climate in the West is dominated by intelligence agencies:
"Who are the ‘dark actors playing games’ to which poor Dr Kelly, the brilliant British microbiologist who was ‘suicided’ in 2003, referred shortly before his death? Did you not know that certain over-powerful intelligence services, protected by long-standing legislation that they use as a cover for their open-ended organised criminal activities, are in control, out of control and need urgently to be brought under control, before they deal their suffocating death blow to democracy?"
(http://www.worldreports.org/aboutus)
He even says this, which is pretty incredible in a former adviser to a UK PM:
"Prime Ministers, Chancellors, sidekicks, leaders of the Opposition et al may have their intelligence 'handlers'."(http://www.worldreports.org/news/7_since_prescott_is_bo)

In cooperation with Ashley Mote MEP and a number of his colleagues in Europe as well as sources in 'several' intelligence agencies Mr. Story has outlined what these EU slush funds are used for:
"THE E.U. TREATIES ARE ROUTINELY PROCURED BY FRAUDULENT MEANS:
That is to say, official signatories and senior policymakers/operatives have received, and routinely receive, substantial corrupt payments, remitted to their secret offshore bank accounts, in exchange for their ‘cooperation’ in pushing through successive EU treaties. The bribery funds are derived from a colossal secret ‘Black Operations’ slush fund account located in Switzerland – the title and size of which is divulged in the report. For instance:

• $5.0 billion was allocated from the Swiss slush fund to ‘procure’ the European Constitution Treaty, divided into two tranches:

1. $2.5 billion was payable (and paid) on completion of the Inter Governmental Conference [IGC], in July/August of 2004, with $100 million allocated for each of the 25 EU ‘Member States’. The corrupt bribery funds were remitted in Euros.

2. A further $2.5 billion ($100 million for each ‘Member State’) was payable on ratification of the Collective Treaty. Given the negative referendum results delivered by the French and Dutch electorates, payment of the second tranches has been a matter of understandable tension and contention ever since, not least since such ‘Black’ remittances, which are commonplace at the intergovernmental level, are illegal – and therefore ‘never happened’.

Intelligence sources have provided International Currency Review with the name of the secret Swiss bank account, the vast amount of ‘Black’ money it holds, the amounts allocated for each corrupted EU ‘Member State’, and the names of three of the most prominent alleged recipients of ‘Black’ payments, together with details of the alleged transactions concerned.
...
According to intelligence sources, earlier European Union Collective treaties were likewise procured by fraudulent means.
...
successive Presidents of the European Union preside over the disbursement of the corrupt ‘Black’ ‘facilitation fees’ identified, each successive (six-monthly) President is and has been aware of the corrupt mechanism used to procure the EU’s successive collective treaties.

The incidence of fraud committed within the EU’s structures is so extensive and routine, that the European Commission has been condemned as condoning a ‘culture of corruption’, and presiding over a system of ‘institutionalised looting’. Scandalised EC whistleblowing officials refer to the European Commission as a ‘festering dustbin of corruption’.
...
It is nothing unusual for European Commission officials to be associated with lucrative corrupt ‘side businesses’ – often using offshore accounts – from which they benefit financially, consequent upon contracts being awarded to the businesses in which they themselves have a secret pecuniary interest. For instance:

The Sunday Telegraph reported on 25th September that two EC employees own a Brussels sex hotel, Studio Europe, which rents out rooms for 13 euros an hour. No doubt this location is used for blackmail purposes. The EC officials were named as Carmela lo Giudice, an assistant in the EC Budget Directorate-General, and George Tzikis, a porter in the Directorate-General responsible for employment. This is the latest of innumerable EC scandals to have erupted into the public domain.

Unhealthy and evidently pervasive masonic links exist between EC officials and contractors, resulting in corrupt and unhealthy ‘business relationships’.
....
The huge Eurocracy (or self-interested EU nomenklatura) has perfected subtle mechanisms for ensuring that hardly anything is ever done to stamp out corruption. These techniques include, but are not confined to, the following:

The use of ‘candour’, which is NOT to be confused with the truth. ‘Candour’ is deployed in order to disarm, mislead, divert and mollify critics, so that any underlying fraud goes undetected.

The ‘multiple investigations’ technique. What happens is that several investigations are ‘opened’ separately. More ‘investigations’ may follow. Some are then ‘closed’, or ‘suspended’, ostensibly ‘pending’ the ‘results’ of other investigations. The resulting, deliberately contrived, confusion, with successive reports contradicting others, ensures that the corruption trail is buried and lost. Report-writing is used to smother transparency, clarity, and truth.

The EC and its structures have at least 3,094 secret ‘working groups’ or committees, all of which are answerable to no-one, and the operations of which are secret.

The main objective of any EC fraud investigation is to procure that the case is ‘exported’ as quickly as possible to the ‘Member States’ concerned, so that any corruption at the EC centre is consequently hidden from scrutiny.

Wherever possible, investigations are kept unresolved until the existing Commission is replaced by its successor, when the ‘that was then, this is now’ excuse kicks in.

Innumerable other deliberate obstruction methods, identified by International Currency Review, with the guidance of Ashley Mote MEP and his colleagues, are routinely employed by the EC and related structures, to maximise the obfuscation of troubling problems. For instance, one external corporation, based in Luxembourg, in which EC officials had an interest, was ostensibly established on 29th February 1989 – a date which never even existed. When a sanitised official report on the entity’s fraudulent activities was presented to the former President of the European Commission, Signor Romano Prodi – that allegedly corrupt Italian ‘machine’ politician – the date was altered to 22nd February 1989. This further illustrates the devious standard EC technique of promulgating conflicting information in separate, contradictory reports. By this means, controversy is deflected into sterile arguments over the conflicting information, diverting attention from the looting itself.
...
Exposure information for this special issue of International Currency review [Volume 30, Number 4] has been developed with the generous practical assistance of Ashley Mote MEP, Paul van Buitenen MEP, Marta Andreasen [formerly the European Commission's chief accountant, the first professional accountant to hold the position], Christopher Arkell FTCA ['a forensic accountant' based in London and adviser to many big UK companies. He questioned the Auditors in Luxembourg in 2005 and concluded that "The European Union is rotten to its core, and it is time it was thrown in the dustbin of history to lie alongside the USSR and all such attempts to gerrymander, hoodwink and plunder the peoples of Europe."(http://ashleymote.co.uk/news.php?subaction=showfull&id=...home2 )], and US and UK intelligence sources special to the Editor, Christopher Story."
(http://www.worldreports.org/news/6_brussels_accounts_ar see also http://ashleymote.co.uk/search.php?misc=search&subactio...home5 )

Ashley Mote, remember he is a serving MEP, says that the EU's decision making apparatus operates in fact in complete secrecy:
"We all know the EU is run by bureaucrats. But that’s only the half of it.

We all know the EU was created by European politicians 50 years ago. But that’s only the half of it.

We all hope the European Parliament has injected a degree of democratic accountability. But that’s not even the half of it.

Facts coming to light in recent weeks paint a picture far worse.

None of us knew the half of it.
...
Even the EU's public face - the unelected commission - is part of the charade. Power does not lie with them. It lies with the senior staff running their departments, entrenched by some 3000 working groups and committees on which no elected MEP sits. Indeed, until recently, the very existence of this mountainous bureaucratic support structure was almost unknown.

Intense questioning has revealed that more than half of these internal working groups and committees are active at any one time. Their membership is largely, if not entirely, made up of civil servants from member states and invited ‘experts’ and ‘consultants’ from the subject areas being considered for more regulation.
...
Despite being elected MEPs, those of us investigating the internal workings of EU bureaucracy have been denied access to the lists of members of these groups, with one exception. Only one agenda has come to light. Once we started asking probing questions the shutters came down.
...
Indeed, we do not even know what powers they have been given, nor by whom. And we cannot get rid of them.

But one conclusion is certain. This is where the real power lies. Here is the beating heart of the European Union. Not just obscured, it has been carefully constructed to operate in secret.
...
President Barroso, former prime minister of Portugal and head of the commission, is charged with defending the EU in public, and articulating its plans. But he is not fully in control. He is no elected prime minister, not just in terms of legitimacy, but also in terms of decision-making.

The other 24 commissioners, each appointed by the other member states, are not his cabinet in any sense that the British might understand. Like Barroso, they are figure-heads. They take the flak in the public arena, and make announcements decided for them by their senior staff, with the guidance of the secret committees.
...
Of course, officially above the commission sits a Council of Ministers, made up of ministers from member states. It meets from time to time, theoretically to determine policy. But the council is just more of the same elaborate illusion of accountable government.

Ministers regularly sign agreements on arrival at a meeting, confirming decisions they have supposedly come to make!

The European Parliament sits below this vast superstructure, even less of an obstacle to manipulative bureaucrats. It may be the EU’s only elected institution, but it is nothing more than an elaborate and expensive fig-leaf, designed to create an illusion of accountable democracy. A condescending pat on the head for voters held in contempt.

The EU parliament holds no proper debates. Members are told when they can speak, and for how long. Backbenchers rarely have more than a minute, rarely more than once in a four-day sitting, and never to a crowded chamber. Backbenchers’ opinions are of little account.

The parliament can neither initiate nor repeal legislation. It has direct control over neither the collection nor allocation of public funds. The most it can do is make proposals to the commission and try to amend legislation put before it. Usually that just means slowing it down. Anything rejected will return in a slightly different form later.

Such as it is, the EU’s parliament has a built-in majority in favour of the social market. It is the repository of an unspoken agreement between the left and the multinationals. This ‘understanding’ appears to have the backing of the bureaucratic elite, not least because it reflects the French method of supporting national business interests in a social market economy.

In effect, the left has said to the multinationals: you can have your markets stitched up for you, if we can indulge ourselves in endless social engineering. Big business has agreed. The result is a largely supportive parliament both from the left and right of the political divide.
...
So if the parliament is a charade, why is it so well attended? In a word - money. If an MEP fails to push his electronic buttons during more than 50% of the votes, his allowances are cut. No wonder MEPs have been described as little more than a highly paid monkeys pressing buttons for bananas.

In one-hour sessions, which always precede lunch, hundreds of votes are taken at breakneck speed on long lists of resolutions and amendments. The purpose is to give democratic legitimacy to what passes for law in the European Union. Voting is so fast MEPs read the papers next day to understand what they decided, and to find out how the commission is interpreting the results."
( http://ashleymote.co.uk/search.php?misc=search&subactio...home5 )

by Jaysus Fri Sep 01, 2006 14:15

Fair play to you for taking the time to put all that together but there's a basic problem with it. You're essentially saying that because there are well-supported cases with loads of evidence of wrong-doing on the part of State bodies that that means that any accusation against the State must be given the same credence no matter how weak the evidence for it. Lumping in Preston and Finnerty with McKevitt or the Donegal garda stuff is a major insult to the latter because the evidence is clear (multiple independent accounts, actual evidence trails etc) in them and it's not in the former.

I think most people would agree that there's a problem with corruption and a lack of accountability and redress in Ireland, but if you're not careful which causes you champion you'll likely end up being written off due to the Lowest Common Denominator.

I also think this was a bit unstructured given its length, which made it very hard to read. All the same, again fair play for putting it together and trying to make clear that there's a need for major reform.

by Seán Ryan Sat Sep 02, 2006 23:37

Me head's hurting. That's a lotta information to digest. But the effort it takes is well worth it.

I disagree with Jaysus above, with his point about Mr. Preston. Mr. Preston if he was lying, was slandering many powerful people. These very same individuals have a name and a nose for stopping dead in their tracks those who attempt to abuse or oppose them. One could argue that media lethargy did this anyway, but I cannot help but wonder why Mr. Preston wasn't dragged into court. I spose much has been said about this subject already and I don't wish to drag Brian's fine article back into some tiresome circular debate, so I'll say no more on the topic.

I think Jaysus that you've gotten the wrong end of the stick somewhat. I don't think Brian was lumping anyone in beside anyone else. The trouble one encounters when one attempts to illustrate the problems we face, with regard to Justice, Government and indeed Society itself, is not so much an issue of who or what to include in such a piece, but indeed, what one must exclude. I think this excellent article should not be seen as a summing of individual components, but must be looked at in its totality. When this is done, the picture painted is indeed very frightening. Having studied some of the material that Brian speaks of in this article, I must say that I share some of the frustration that he must feel. It's an amazingly long article, and yet, it but scratches the surface. Had he expanded on any one of these components the article would have grown substantially and become very unreadable as a single article.

Some might argue that each component could have been published as a seperate article, and that this would have allowed the expansion that each component deserves. IMO this would have removed the overall picture painted here.

The Dutch lady that Brian spoke of for instance: This is an altogether incredible story and I'd urge Indy readers to stay tuned. Her story will be published in full in the near future. The burning of her house only scratches the surface of this story too as I'm sure Brian is well aware.

DCC: God but where does one begin (with particular reference to the poster ban). Again all I can say is keep reading, and this will also be updated in the very near future.

The courts and the gardai: In my opinion, the courts and the gardai are the most sickening of all. It's still ongoing and new dimensions are occurring as I type.

All I'll say for now, is well done Brian, on a brilliant article. Well researched and very well threaded together.

Scratching the surface and removing grime - that's what it's all about. Expose a bit at a time until the window's clean enough for everyone to see through. Then it'll be time to break it.

Regards.

by Robert Sun Sep 03, 2006 16:16

"Peter Preston received serious criticism here on indymedia because some felt that the idea that such independent bodies as the judiciary and an opposition politician would conspire against a person seeking justice was considered to be too outlandish."

Not at all. I am quite prepared to believe that the state would conspire against an individual. Mr Prestons claims however were outlandish and I just did not believe them. No evidence was provided to back up his allegations. When ever anyone asked foe evidence they were told that it was up to them to disprove Prestons claims!

Thats not the way to win people over. When Preston went to hospital it was a perfect opportunity for him to get a medical report to prove that he had been on hungerstrike. But foe some reason Preston failed to do this. Of course once again Prestons supporters would say that doubters should prove that Preston was not on hunger strike. Sigh.

Brian, you have raised many important points here and drawn attention to miscarriages of justice. But by including "Outer Limits" cases you are devaluing your article.

by Brian Mon Oct 09, 2006 09:45

Seán
Many thanks for your kind comments! (Btw your articles and dogged activism is one of the best things on indymedia IMO) I notice that Mary Kelly said the same thing about an earlier article I wrote, that it contained so much that it was hard to absorb, but I guess if I split it all up into repeater articles it would take forever!
That Limerick story is really incredible and hopefully it will be scribbled up fuller sometime? You'd think those things couldn't go on in Ireland but they obviously do. One point about 'breaking' this corruption, I wonder if it is possible that the next election could be a turning point if many activists get elected? Im just daydreaming I guess...:-)

Btw I forgot to point out about Duchy Holland, that the phrase that was incorrectly attributed to him, was then broadcast all across the media to give the impression that he had admitted to the crime, which he hadn't. Also on the subject of the role of MI5 in Ireland I tripped across this quote that I thought was quite gossipy. It is by John Alderson, the ex-Chief Constable of Devon and Cornwall police between 1973 and 1982,:
"The growth in power and lack of accountability of MI5 - the secret political police force - is one of the most worrying developments of modern times.
...
The passage of the Security Services Act through the Commons will allow MI5 to operate in the area of ordinary crime without any of the same constraints which now bind the police. The Home Secretary has again justified a role for MI5 by frightening people with scare stories about the threat of organised crime so they will give up some more of their liberty to be protected.

It is fatal to let the secret service into the area of ordinary crime. MI5 are not under the same restraints as the police. They infiltrate organisations, people's jobs and lives. They operate almost like a cancer, infiltrating and destroying trust and security between people. Howard is putting the building blocks in place for an East German-style Stasi-like force where half the population finishes up spying on the other half. At the moment the acorn of a Stasi has been planted but it is there for future governments to build on. No government in my lifetime has ever given liberty back. It is not in the nature of governments to grant liberty - they are all about power.
The hope for the future is to be found in the completely moral stand taken against injustice by anti-roads protesters and those protesting about the export of veal calves. The present party political system is incapable of dealing with the challenges of society. The seed for such a crusade lies in a spirit that is within us, even if we don't recognise it. These protest movements are largely led and moved by women and potentially such moral movements can overtake party politics.
...
There is a need for greater safeguards of people's rights - not the creation of false threats in order to get people to offer up their rights in return for the promise of security. Of all the policemen I have met across the world none has ever asked for less power. Police officers usually ask for three things: more pay, more information and more power."
(Red Pepper magazine May 1996 http://web.archive.org/web/19970712055954/www.redpepper....html)

Jaysus
Go raibh mile maith agat as well and yes I suppose it is long and diverse. I am only really running through the various stories, and bringing particular accounts together which I think show a pattern, I don't have your supernatural powers or anything !lol
I don't agree with you though, and with Robert, when you talk only about Donegal families being hit by stuff like this? Even Jim Higgins, the former Justice spokesman for Fine Gael, has said that the exact same thing goes on all across Ireland.(http://www.indymedia.ie/newswire.php?story_id=72186). Unfortunately I think a lot of the time what happens is that these families are afraid to come forward while in Donegal they have now a kind of strength in numbers. Here is an example of that fear from the Meath Weekender talking about a pyramid scheme in Kells Co.Meath. He doesn't name who was responsible for it but he does talk about the garda investigation going nowhere 'slowly', so presumably he is saying that whoever it is has some influence over the gardai? :
"I received a letter from Kells last week for publication in relation to the PIPS/Pure Investor pyramid scheme. Signed 'Pat and Mary'(yeah, right) it contained various accusations, which may well be true, against certain prominent figures in the town.

The Weekender broke the story of the PIPS scam when nobody else wanted to know. Other newspapers were content merely to follow in the slipstream.

At least hundreds, possibly more, of people in Kells and the surrounding area have lost money - at least 2 million euro - in the scheme. Some have lost large sums, some smaller amounts. Much of the money was borrowed and hard-pressed families will be paying for this for years to come, with a ripple effect on local businesses. The Garda investigation is going nowhere, slowly.

Many of those who lost out have contacted me over the past year or so. Anonymous letters, first name only phone calls, off-the-record conversations, emails from hotmail addresses...Yet in all that time not one single individual has had the guts to stand up and go on the record.

When the story died - which, to all intends and purposes, it has - one very, very prominent public figure in Kells whose name has come up again and again in relation to PIPS rang me up to gloat down the phone: "You didn't get me, did you ?"And he was right - we didn't, because if nobody stands up and talks, there is nothing the media can do."
(Brendan Morley The Weekender 23 Sept 2006)