What is truth?

Posts tagged ‘Law’

that the State spent up to €500 million a year on legal services

CAROL COULTER, Legal Affairs Editor

ALL LEGAL services for the State should be subject to competitive tendering, according to the Public Accounts Committee.

The committee found, in a report on legal costs published yesterday, that the State spent up to €500 million a year on legal services, most of which are not put out to tender.

All accounting officers in State and public bodies should be informed of such a requirement, and the accounts of these bodies should provide the total amount spent on legal services, it said.

The report found that up to the end of 2010, the cost to the State of the Morris tribunal was €57.89 million, the Mahon tribunal €105.6 million and the Moriarty tribunal €41.39 million, with five barristers earning over €5 million each.

The committee recommended that the taxation of costs system be overhauled so that clear guidance is available to the public and legal professionals on current market rates for such costs.

Costs both to the State bodies and third parties should be decided in advance either by negotiation or through using court rules, it recommended.

The legislation governing tribunals of inquiry should be reformed along the lines outlined in the Tribunal of Inquiry Bill 2005, which followed recommendations from the Law Reform Commission.

It reiterated the recommendation of the Competition Authority in 2006 that restrictive practices in the two legal professions should be removed, and expressed regret that this had not been done and will now only be imposed through the IMF-EU Memorandum of Understanding, which requires such reforms by the end of the third quarter of this year.

The committee also reported that five of the barristers working for the Mahon (Planning) and Moriarty tribunals earned in excess of €5 million, with two of them earning almost €10 million.

Referring to the manner in which fees were negotiated and increased, justified on the grounds of a need for continuity, the report points out that legal personnel changed without tribunals collapsing, saying: “The committee finds it difficult to understand why a stronger line was not taken in 2002 in opposing increases in fees for tribunal lawyers.”

It described as “extraordinary” the fact that senior counsel at the Moriarty tribunal were paid for 304 days in 2008, when the tribunal sat in public session on average for 20 days for the past three years. It pointed out that the tribunal recorded attendance but not arrival or departure times. The Morris and Mahon tribunals did not have attendance records for their legal teams, it said.

The committee was critical of the Mahon tribunal for not releasing the two extra judges it sought, on the understanding they would sit in parallel sessions, when it emerged that this was not practical.

Referring to the legal services obtained by other State and public bodies, the committee expressed concern that taxpayers should not end up paying high and uncontrollable costs in relation to advice on Nama. It commented that there was a difficulty in establishing what the market rate for legal services was due to the absence of a transparent competition process.

It was critical of the fact that the procurement of legal services was exempted from the EC directive on the subject, and recommended that all legal services to the State should be procured in accordance with the 2004 Public Procurement Guidelines for competitive tendering.

Legal Fees Top Earners 

MORIARTY TRIBUNAL 

Jerry Healy SC€9,490,181

John Coughlan SC€9,285,628

Jacqueline O’Brien SC€6,707,917

MAHON TRIBUNAL 

Desmond O’Neill SC€5,279,311

Patricia Dillon SC €5,591,889

Patrick Quinn SC €4,975,377

“Odious Debt”

In international law, odious debt is a legal theory which holds that the national debt incurred by a regime for purposes that do not serve the best interests of the nation, such as wars of aggression, should not be enforceable. Such debts are thus considered by this doctrine to be personal debts of the regime that incurred them and not debts of the state. In some respects, the concept is analogous to the invalidity of contracts signed under coercion.

The doctrine was formalized in a 1927 treatise by Alexander Nahum Sack, a Russian émigré legal theorist, based upon 19th Century precedents including Mexico’s repudiation of debts incurred by Emperor Maximilian’s regime, and the denial by the United States of Cuban liability for debts incurred by the Spanish colonial regime. According to Sack:

When a despotic regime contracts a debt, not for the needs or in the interests of the state, but rather to strengthen itself, to suppress a popular insurrection, etc, this debt is odious for the people of the entire state. This debt does not bind the nation; it is a debt of the regime, a personal debt contracted by the ruler, and consequently it falls with the demise of the regime. The reason why these odious debts cannot attach to the territory of the state is that they do not fulfil one of the conditions determining the lawfulness of State debts, namely that State debts must be incurred, and the proceeds used, for the needs and in the interests of the State. Odious debts, contracted and utilised for purposes which, to the lenders’ knowledge, are contrary to the needs and the interests of the nation, are not binding on the nation – when it succeeds in overthrowing the government that contracted them – unless the debt is within the limits of real advantages that these debts might have afforded. The lenders have committed a hostile act against the people, they cannot expect a nation which has freed itself of a despotic regime to assume these odious debts, which are the personal debts of the ruler.

More here: http://thepressnet.com/2010/12/15/odious-debt-and-the-irish-nation/

Cicero Quotes

Marcus Tullius Cicero, after whom Teuffel name...

Image via Wikipedia

“Gratitude is not only the greatest of virtues, but the parent of all others.”

“In anger nothing right nor judicious can be done.”

“Genius is fostered by energy.”

“While there’s life, there’s hope.”

“We do not destroy religion by destroying superstition.”

“There is nothing so ridiculous but some philosopher has said it.”

“Let the punishment match the offense.”

“The welfare of the people is the ultimate law.”

“History is the witness that testifies to the passing of time; it illumines reality, vitalizes memory, provides guidance in daily life and brings us tidings of antiquity.”

“No sane man will dance.”

“True law is right reason in agreement with nature; it is of universal application, unchanging and everlasting; it summons to duty by its commands, and averts from wrongdoing by its prohibitions.”

“A war is never undertaken by the ideal State, except in defense of its honor or its safety.”

“Though silence is not necessarily an admission, it is not a denial, either.”

“The shifts of Fortune test the reliability of friends.”

“If you aspire to the highest place, it is no disgrace to stop at the second, or even the third, place.”

“To be ignorant of the past is to forever be a child.”

The Republic is a common law and the common good.”

“Let your desires be ruled by reason.”

“It is a great thing to know our vices.”

“Never go to excess, but let moderation be your guide.”

“Politicians are not born; they are excreted.”

“Strain every nerve to gain your point.”

“The first duty of a man is the seeking after and the investigation of truth.”

“There is no duty more obligatory than the repayment of kindness.”

“We are obliged to respect, defend and maintain the common bonds of union and fellowship that exist among all members of the human race.”

“We must not say every mistake is a foolish one.”

“Where is there dignity unless there is honesty?”
 
 

Lenihans Credit Institutions Stabilisation Act

By Dearbhail McDonald Legal Editor

Friday December 24 2010

ANYONE leaking details of the Finance Minister‘s plans to deal with the banks under new legislation faces fines of up to €100,000 and a possible three-year jail term.

The secrecy surrounding the minister’s dealings with the banks under the new Credit Institutions (Stabilisation) Act was underlined yesterday when court proceedings were held in private.

Journalists were asked to leave the High Court as the Government sought an early morning hearing, held ‘in camera’, to deal with Allied Irish Bank (AIB).

There the Government secured an order allowing it to inject a further €3.7bn of state funds in to AIB — a move that has led to its effective nationalisation.

Sensitive

The plan to inject further capital in to AIB had been widely publicised in the media. But a news blackout was imposed on the facts and contents of the court application.

A legal provision allows all or part of a court application under the new banking law to be held ‘in camera’ to protect the publication “of any material that might be commercially sensitive”.

Restrictions can also be imposed on the publication or reporting of any commercially sensitive material disclosed in open court. The law also bans publication of the fact that the minister proposes to make or has made a proposed direction order.

– Dearbhail McDonald Legal Editor

 

Comment:

Are we now experiencing the first steps by the government to take away  the  freedom of the press.

 Court hearings in private and threats been made to patriots trying to get the truth out to the rightful masters of this country “The People” .Now where are you most likely to experience such state intervention  “Why North Korea would be a good place to start” !

Not only are the government forcing us to take on the debts of their pals the equally corrupt bankers we’re now experiencing the first steps of freedoms we have guaranteed by the Irish constitution been taken away from us  and again this is been done step by step drip by drip

This is the classic way all dictatorship start.

Cowen, Lenihan and their cronies are becoming more brazen as time goes by! 

Lying has become the norm for this government  

“Odious Debt” and the Irish Nation

It Is the Personal Debt of Those Who Ordered It

There is an established legal principle that people should not have to repay their government’s debt to the extent that it is incurred to launch aggressive wars or to oppress the people.

These “odious debts” are considered to be the personal debts of the tyrants who incurred them, rather than the country’s debt.

Wikipedia gives a good overview of the principle:

In international law, odious debt is a legal theory which holds that the national debt incurred by a regime for purposes that do not serve the best interests of the nation, such as wars of aggression, should not be enforceable. Such debts are thus considered by this doctrine to be personal debts of the regime that incurred them and not debts of the state. In some respects, the concept is analogous to the invalidity of contracts signed under coercion.

The doctrine was formalized in a 1927 treatise by Alexander Nahum Sack, a Russian émigré legal theorist, based upon 19th Century precedents including Mexico’s repudiation of debts incurred by Emperor Maximilian’s regime, and the denial by the United States of Cuban liability for debts incurred by the Spanish colonial regime. According to Sack:

When a despotic regime contracts a debt, not for the needs or in the interests of the state, but rather to strengthen itself, to suppress a popular insurrection, etc, this debt is odious for the people of the entire state. This debt does not bind the nation; it is a debt of the regime, a personal debt contracted by the ruler, and consequently it falls with the demise of the regime. The reason why these odious debts cannot attach to the territory of the state is that they do not fulfil one of the conditions determining the lawfulness of State debts, namely that State debts must be incurred, and the proceeds used, for the needs and in the interests of the State. Odious debts, contracted and utilised for purposes which, to the lenders’ knowledge, are contrary to the needs and the interests of the nation, are not binding on the nation – when it succeeds in overthrowing the government that contracted them – unless the debt is within the limits of real advantages that these debts might have afforded. The lenders have committed a hostile act against the people, they cannot expect a nation which has freed itself of a despotic regime to assume these odious debts, which are the personal debts of the ruler.

Patricia Adams, executive director of Probe International (an environmental and public policy advocacy organisation in Canada), and author of Odious Debts: Loose Lending, Corruption, and the Third World’s Environmental Legacy, has stated that:

by giving creditors an incentive to lend only for purposes that are transparent and of public benefit, future tyrants will lose their ability to finance their armies, and thus the war on terror and the cause of world peace will be better served.

A recent article by economists Seema Jayachandran and Michael Kremer has renewed interest in this topic. They propose that the idea can be used to create a new type of economic sanction to block further borrowing by dictators.

Jubilee USA notes that creditors may lose their rights to repayment of odious debts:

Odious debt is an established legal principle. Legally, debt is to be considered odious if the government used the money for personal purposes or to oppress the people. Moreover, in cases where borrowed money was used in ways contrary to the people’s interest, with the knowledge of the creditors, the creditors may be said to have committed a hostile act against the people. Creditors cannot legitimately expect repayment of such debts.

The United States set the first precedent of odious debt when it seized control of Cuba from Spain. Spain insisted that Cuba repay the loans made to them by Spain. The U.S. repudiated (refused to pay) that debt, arguing that the debt was imposed on Cuba by force of arms and served Spain’s interest rather than Cuba’s, and that the debt therefore ought not be repaid. This precedent was upheld by international law in Great Britain v. Costa Rica (1923) when money was put to use for illegitimate purposes with full knowledge of the lending institution; the resulting debt was annulled.

The launch of the Iraq war was an unlawful war of aggression. It was based on false premises (weapons of mass destruction and a connection between Iraq and 9/11; see this, this, this, this, this and this). Therefore, the trillions in debts incurred in fighting that war are odious debts which the people might lawfully refuse to pay for.

The Bush and Obama administrations have also oppressed the American people through spying on us – even before 9/11 (confirmed here and here) – harassment of innocent grandmothers and other patriotic Americans criticizing government action, and other assaults on liberty and the rule of law. See this. The monies borrowed to finance these oppressive activities are also odious debts.

The government has also given trillions in bailouts, loans, guarantees and other perks to the too big to fails. These funds have not helped the American people. For example, the giant banks are still not loaning. They have solely gone into speculative investments and to line the pockets of the muckety-mucks in the form of bonuses. PhD economist Dean Baker said that the true purpose of the bank rescues is “a massive redistribution of wealth to the bank shareholders and their top executives”. PhD economist Michael Hudson says that the financial “parasites” have killed the American economy, and they are “sucking as much money out” as they can before “jumping ship”. These are odious debts.

Bush, Cheney, Paulson, Geithner, Summers and others who ordered that these debts be incurred must be held personally liable for them. We the American people are not responsible to creditors – such as China, Saudi Arabia – who have knowingly financed these illegal and oppressive activities which have not benefited the American people, but solely the handful of corrupt politicians who authorized them.

source http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=17580

Comment:

It is my contention that the people of Ireland are is a similar position we are been forced to take on the private debts of our private and corrupt banks by our equally corrupt politicians and the sorry fact is that established political parties are united in their stance that the public have to pay back these private debts .As highlighted in the above article ,we see that it is quite feasible to repudiate these debts legally I propose that we the people of Ireland refuse to take on such a burden and tell the politicians they can pay these debts themselves  they are getting paid enough  to do so !

Tag Cloud