Moriarty

[Dodge]

Finally published today.

Confirms that Lowry got £147,000 from Dennis O'Brien for awarding Esat that mibile contract. His companies also donated £50k to FG, and he personally doanted £20k to them

Ben Dunne paid Lowry to get the rents on Telecom Eirean land upped.

Tribunal calls Lowry "disgraceful and insidious"

Lowry reckons they're making it up. O'Brien thinks they're out to get him (and he's using his Newstalk as proganda here) and Ben Dunne is using the "I was on drugs and mentally unstable at the time" excuse. He just called Moriarty a liar on liveline. We'll see how that plays out

How many polls has Lowry topped since this broke?

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2011/0322/breaking17.html

http://www.moriarty-tribunal.ie/asp/index.asp?ObjectID=636&Mode=0&RecordID=399

[John83]

Lowry sickens me. He's like a walking archetype of the politicians which result from the failings of democracy.

[dahamsta]

Will he be arrested before or after he's re-elected again by the clueless majority in Tipp?

I honestly don't have a major problem with O'Brien on this. While what he did was of course wrong, it was how business was done in Ireland (still is, only even sneakier), and there was no way around it. He should be punished, with an enormouse fine, but I put 90% of the blame on Lowry. He should be put in jail as an example.

[hoops1]

Come off it DOB bribes a politician in the process earns himself millions but its all Lowry's fault. There is logic in there somewhere. The fact that it was the way business was done is zero defence. It just means that there is more scumbags out there to be caught. Not a reason to be let off.
Hopefully a stretch for all involved.

[dahamsta]

If you didn't bribe someone back then, you went out of business or didn't get your planning permission. There's no ifs ands or buts about that, it was shameful but it was the ONLY way to survive in business. Yes it would've been great if O'Brien had been the one to rail against it, but you could say that for every single business in Ireland at the time. IMHO the politicians that took the bribes had a duty of care to us and thus a much larger responsibility. They're supposed to police the nation, not sell it down the river.

[BonnieShels]

Completely agree with Adam here. We have to look at what is more wrong and take it from there.

I would sooner see Lowry locked up than O'Brien fined.

O'Brien was a businessman doing his job. Lowry was a Minister AND public representative and it appears he was engaged in illegal and grossly inappropriate acts.

[Eminence Grise]

You can't make fish of one and fowl of another. They were both equally complicit. When a businessman bribes a politician, with "campaign donations" or money funnelled through a Credit Suisse bank account, it subverts the institutions of the state. It's not so long back that Dan Boyle was making noises about how we should have a specific crime of economic treason. Lowry and O'Brien would fit the bill perfectly for that charge. I'm not holding my breath waiting for prosecutions, though - Moriarty didn't make specific findings of corruption, which would have made it easier for the DPP to act. I'm not even holding my breath for a Dail motion of censure against Lowry. Too many skeletons in the Rainbow closet for that to go down well, and Phil Hogan didn't emerge smelling of roses in the report either. Plus ça change etc etc.

[BonnieShels]

You can't make fish of one and fowl of another. They were both equally complicit. When a businessman bribes a politician, with "campaign donations" or money funnelled through a Credit Suisse bank account, it subverts the institutions of the state. It's not so long back that Dan Boyle was making noises about how we should have a specific crime of economic treason. Lowry and O'Brien would fit the bill perfectly for that charge. I'm not holding my breath waiting for prosecutions, though - Moriarty didn't make specific findings of corruption, which would have made it easier for the DPP to act. I'm not even holding my breath for a Dail motion of censure against Lowry. Too many skeletons in the Rainbow closet for that to go down well, and Phil Hogan didn't emerge smelling of roses in the report either. Plus ça change etc etc.

That's true but I think the point that I was trying to make is that in I would prefer to see Lowry moreso than O'Brien sorted out for now.
For Lowry to resign is more of a pressing need than prosecutions for both right now. They will come in time. Let's take our time and knock the bottles from the wall one by one.
FFs mouthing off at FG for this is laughable though. Billy Kelleher on VB was brilliant. Godbless Delusion!

[dahamsta]

I don't have any problem with O'Brien being punished, but I want Lowry in jail. I'd also like to see the people that voted for him in jail. But none of the above will happen anyway.

[Macy]

A corrupt politician needs someone to do the corrupting. Using the logic above, the problem with unsuccessful bidders in such circumstances was they didn't pay enough. A politician takes the majority blame - they are supposed to be there to serve the people. However, it'd be much more even than 90-10 imo.


FFs mouthing off at FG for this is laughable though. Billy Kelleher on VB was brilliant. Godbless Delusion!
Dara Calleary was on Newstalk just now calling for a ban on corporate donations. Never mind the last 14 years in power, lead for the majority of it by Mr Dig Out himself, a ban on corporate donations was part of the last programme of Government, and it wasn't the feckin Greens that were dragging their heals on it! Now they're toxic to the business community, and their Galway tent buddies have to keep their money off shore, it's easy for them to take the moral high ground now.

[cornflakes]

what was the point of this?
Surly a Garda investigation would of been more worthwhile, this report can't be used to prosecute anyone. Everyone who gave evidence will have to give it again to the Guards.
Complete waste of our money and it'l come to nothing

[Mr A]

The tribunal was necessary because actually proving corruption beyond reasonable doubt is virtually impossible.

The reason it cost so much is because of the constant obstruction and delaying tactics of the likes of O'Brien and Lowry throughout.

However, the report has been sent to the Gardaí and the DPP.

Tribunals are hideously expensive and a better way needs to be found urgently, but they do server to lend some accountability and insight into the workings of such things.

And for the record I think Lowry should be shot as a traitor.

[Macy]

Tribunals are hideously expensive and a better way needs to be found urgently, but they do server to lend some accountability and insight into the workings of such things.
Some do claim that they've earned the state money, due to the monies uncovered and taxes/ penalties paid. However, CAB could presumably followed the money too.

We need a referendum to correct the Abbeylara subcommittee court case loss, so that Oireachtas committee's can do the inquries.

[Mr A]

Actually yeah, I saw a thread about that on p.ie since I posted that. Elaine Bryne claimed a half billion profit overall!

http://www.politics.ie/tribunals/156461-elaine-byrne-tribunals-have-made-500m-net-profit-state.html

[geysir]

That's pleasant news Mr A.
Does Elaine also count in the direct tax income garnered from the fees paid to the legal teams (i.e. if the féckers pay proper tax)?

Without being scientific, would it be a fair comment that most of the general public are at least appreciative of the finished report by Moriarty?

[Macy]

Without being scientific, would it be a fair comment that most of the general public are at least appreciative of the finished report by Moriarty?
Not so sure about that - there's been a few things that have gone wrong, and a few changes of tact by that Tribunal that at least give those on the wrong end a case to argue (as they've been doing). Personally, I'm slightly uncomfortable with not allowing some legal costs to those being investigated (not necessarily the full amount but enough to keep a team in place).

[geysir]

Not so sure about that - there's been a few things that have gone wrong, and a few changes of tact by that Tribunal that at least give those on the wrong end a case to argue (as they've been doing).
In a court case, the defendant has a right to deny, to argue and has a right to lie even under oath. But it all usually ends when the court makes its decision.
A tribunal final report does not end the process of denial.
My point was referring to public perception of the tribunal's report, that in the main the report has been favourably received, that the Judge's findings are proven beyond reasonable doubt, that prosecutorial perfection is not expected?
Are courts with juries the only way in which someone may be recognized as a criminal? Is there no common definition that might apply, based on facts of course?

[Macy]

My point was referring to public perception of the tribunal's report, that in the main the report has been favourably received, that the Judge's findings are proven beyond reasonable doubt, that prosecutorial perfection is not expected?
I think the burden of proof is less than that for tribunals.

[geysir]

In order to come to an opinion of criminal liability, do we need a Court of Law standards of burden of proof in relation to the facts of the fraud, in order to be satisfied? Perhaps the facts do not meet the legal standard of the courts.
Still, we the general public, do have a lot of information - enough information to form our own opinion of the main protagonists

I listened carefully to O'Brien on rte this morning, my first impression is that he protests way too much, way too eager.
It was interesting to listen carefully to his account of the Mansfield transaction and contrast his account with the account in Moriarity report, part 1 chapter 6

Lowry is claiming he had only a 10% interest in the property which he paid 10% for.
But the property was registered in Lowry's name alone, the document claiming he was only a 10% owner was not registered with the deeds as a caution or what ever archaic term is used.
Moriarty found that those partnership files were falsified

page 187
In closing this short chapter, it must be observed that the version of events tendered in evidence in 2001 by Mr. Lowry and Mr. Aidan Phelan, and the documentation submitted in support of that version, was wholly at odds with documentation that came to light in 2009, and the evidence then available to the Tribunal, primarily represented by the belated attendance of Mr. Vaughan. What became apparent at that late stage was a contemplated sale of the Mansfield and subsequently acquired Cheadle properties in 1999, on terms which were inconsistent with a partnership agreement on the footing of Mr. Lowry holding a 10% interest, and were consistent only with an intention that the substantial net proceeds would accrue for Mr. Lowry’s sole benefit. What also emerged initially in 2002, and latterly in 2009, was the falsification of Mr. Vaughan’s files as produced to the Tribunal by him in 2001, consistent only with an intention that its contents should support the version of ownership with which the Tribunal was furnished in 2001, namely that of Mr. Lowry holding the registered title of the Mansfield property as a nominee on behalf of a partnership in which he had a mere 10% interest.

[Eminence Grise]

The burden of proof for criminal trials and convictions has to be higher than that accepted in tribunals, civil actions, etc. That’s not to suggest that the money trail uncovered by Moriarty, and other evidence of wrongdoing, would not stand up to scrutiny in a criminal action. With the DPP examining it, hopefully he’ll see enough detail to initiate prosecutions.

In the meantime, I’m looking forward to seeing Lowry, O’Brien and Sarah Carey being hit with humongous legal bills for their costs and the tribunal’s as a result of their obfuscation, delaying tactics, leaks etc. It seems to me that hitting Lowry with a bill he can’t afford to pay would force him to bankruptcy, and bankrupts aren’t allowed hold Dáil seats. Not as good as jail, but that’s a process that could take a lot longer, and I for one can’t wait for him to start feeling pain.

I definitely agree, Geysir, that O’Brien is making far too much noise. It could be the indignation of an innocent man wrongly accused, but that doesn’t square for me with his delaying tactics, fruitless legal challenges and personal attacks on Moriarty and the tribunal. To misquote for gender accuracy: “The laddie doth protest too much, methinks.”

[Spudulika]

Did anybody catch Ben Dunne on Joe Duffy when the Moriarty report came out. Apparently the mental problems, mixed with drugs and other stuff meant that he wasn't fully liable for his deeds, though he challenged Moriarty to send the file to the DPP. The whole show revolved revolved around those calling in to say how he was a disgrace, and others who knew him personally saying he's pretty much a hero. And then listening to Morning Ireland and the goms in Tipp threatening reporters for blackening a good mans name at a joyous homecoming for the local oligarch, I began to wonder if NATO and the UN shouldn't be passing resolutions and bombing the hell out of civilian areas of Ireland. In fact I think it would be more dangerous for "peace keeping" figher jets flying in to bomb towns when gurriers started shining those little red laser beams at them.

I spent a day yesterday looking through as much of the Moriarty findings as I could, I'm still wondering if anyone will be hammered for their transgressions.

[geysir]

It will be interesting to see how the costs are awarded. Certainly Lowry and O'Brien are entitled to legal support when the State decides to come down like a ton of bricks with a legal team forensically scrutinising the evidence of their business and political affairs. But should the State be liable for the unlimited costs for those 2, with all their "obfuscation, delaying tactics, leaks etc"?
I think the job of the judge here is to decide what proportion of the legal fees are their entitlement and what part are their own responsibility due their own actions.

I have read and heard a few commentators/journalists who have taken a stance that the tribunal has not proved anything and that Moriarity has succumbed to enacting a story with an over dependance on gossip.
I can only conclude that those critics have not read, absorbed or appreciated the basic details of each evidence trail leading to the Judges' conclusions on each aspect of the report.

[Eminence Grise]

I’m not sure that the tribunal have to give O’Brien and Lowry any costs. Tribunals reward co-operation when deciding on costs: if witnesses co-operate, they have a reasonable expectation that their costs will be met by the state, since their costs are incurred while acting in the public interest. When witnesses fail to co-operate, tribunals may decide to withhold costs. And when witnesses frustrate the workings of the tribunal, increasing its costs, the tribunal can penalise them by making them pay for their costs, and the tribunal’s costs in dealing with the frustrating action. Clearly, O’Brien and Lowry were uncooperative from the outset, and sought to frustrate the tribunal, so there’s a strong argument for giving them, as D’OB himself might say “not a red penny.”

Meantime, what about the idea that O’Brien could be charged with contempt of court for his statements about Moriarty himself since the report came out?
http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2011/0326/1224293137880.html
JUDICIARY REMARKS: BUSINESSMAN DENIS O’Brien could be prosecuted for contempt of court over remarks he made about the judiciary on Tuesday, according to legal experts.
Mr O’Brien said he may have lost his legal challenges to the Moriarty tribunal because the judiciary put a “ring of steel” around Mr Justice Moriarty to protect him as they knew he was not “up to the job”....

[geysir]

Interesting to listen to John Waters on Newstalk, he says in effect that we cannot infer what what was discussed in a private discussion between Lowry and O'Brien at a Dublin pub one Sunday. What Waters has failed to do is read the report. The Judge does not infer what was discussed. The matter for discussion was inadvertently revealed by another witness, one from the O'Brien camp, who said that O'Brien revealed (on the day after) that he met with the minister and the bid had to beefed up a bit. Moriarity used witness evidence (O'Brien's own witness) to prove that the seal had been broken and that meeting in the pub was the circumstantial opportunity for that seal to be broken.
The Judge did not, as Water's claims, make up stuff.

[Mr A]

Just caught a bit on RTE news.. something about Moriarty's phone being maybe interfered with. Sounds like there's a lot more to come on that story but details still seem very vague.

[Macy]

Interesting to listen to John Waters on Newstalk, he says in effect that we cannot infer what what was discussed in a private discussion between Lowry and O'Brien at a Dublin pub one Sunday. What Waters has failed to do is read the report.
Sorry, I lost interest at "John Waters"...

[geysir]

I now know that JW is well capable of spoofing.
He was invited to talk on a main Sunday politics chat show and wasn't taken to task by the others on the show, in fact he appeared to be taken seriously as if his opinion had some merit, therefore I thought it was worthy of rebuke.

[Macy]

Just out of interest, what radio station was it on?

[Spudulika]

Newstalk I thought, you can catch the podcast.

[Macy]

Newstalk I thought, you can catch the podcast.
On a communicorp radio station, a position such as described above wasn't questioned - I'm shocked...

[geysir]

No, you're just cynical :D

The catch phrase oft used when looking at media treatment is 'did they pull their punches?' I can't say in this instance, it was Dunphy's show on Sunday.

They could just shift the slant to what Dahamsta sort of alluded to earlier, that O'Brien did what he had to do, in order to do business, should he face charges then so be it, but the real corruption is the Lowry disease. Personally I have a deep opposition to this type of privatisation but that's besides the point. What eats the heart and soul of any process are the multitude of political gombeens who are elected to uphold the constitution but see the opportunity for self gain and line their pockets.
I don't know O'Brien at all. I take it that he's a smart enough, intelligent businessman. If I were O'Brien, I would possibly just focus on a low profile defense and try to subtly shift everything over to Lowry, i.e. the business reality was that you had no choice but to deal with characters like Lowry who sold their favour for a price.
Same as the developers who bribed politicians, it is the politician who is perceived as the despicable rogue.

I suspect Lowry must have something on O'Brien in order for O'Brien to be so vociferous in defending the indefensible.

[Macy]

No, you're just cynical :D

The catch phrase oft used when looking at media treatment is 'did they pull their punches?' I can't say in this instance, it was Dunphy's show on Sunday.
I could be being over cynical if it was Dunphy presenting, it could be just that he's mates with Waters.

[geysir]

I can't tell if the punches were pulled on purpose or out of ignorance, but when the presenter does not ensure a proper panel to take on the controversial issue then you'd be inclined to assume at least a mixture of both.

Good news is that the CAB hounds are on Lowry's murky trail.

[BonnieShels]

Watching VB there. Lowry's speech was vomit inducing!