Update 11/11/2022 – see ‘Update’ section below.
Update 12/09/2022 – see ‘Update’ section below.
Update 01/12/2023 – see ‘Update’ section below.
Update 01/17/2023 – see ‘Update’ section below.
Update 01/27/2023 – see ‘Update’ section below.
While there is quite a lot to go through if just reading my Reports and website, all of this is put into evidentiary order when you follow my High Court hearing thus reducing the volume of reading considerably for anyone who doesn’t have the time to read them all. This is why I continued to pursue my case at the High Court, so that I could go through my Reports and make my case specifically on legal grounds by relating their content to the appropriate statutes. While my Reports are accurate and credible and revealing, it would be difficult for anyone reading them on their own to determine if a case could be made at the High Court. My High Court hearing doesn’t necessarily prove all of the allegations I made in my Reports, but it does prove (see next section below) that a crime was committed to cover up for these allegations thereby at the very least corroborating my allegations.
It’s as close as I can get to proving my case by proving, via the High Court, that certain bodies lied about the existence of a certain document that, if released, would prove my case.
Before proceeding, have a quick read of Information on this section | Failte32 connecting the Irish in NYC
Summary of my case (Reports) against the Irish Government
1. A former Irish Government Minister fraudulently took advantage of Innovation Fund Ireland (IFI – an Irish Government funding scheme) when he knew he was going to be soon out of office by preferentially awarding funding (up to €250M) from IFI to a U.S. VC firm/s outside of competitive tender rules and just before the general elections. After the elections he would not have been able to do this as the elections were going to occur before the IFI evaluation process was completed. IFI was run by two Irish Government agencies, the National Pensions Reserve Fund (NTMA/NPRF) and Enterprise Ireland (EI), both of which were involved in the crime. This was the first part of crime.
2. Falsifying the NTMA’s Annual Report and Financial Statements to cover up for the above crime. The NTMA/NPRF gave the impression that IFI was a private entity (private equity) as opposed to a government entity in its annual financial statements. Therefore, it misrepresented in its accounts a transfer of funds from the NTMA to IFI (from one government entity to another) as being an investment in a private equity fund. This was the second part of the crime.
3. I have no doubt additional crimes have been committed during my attempts to hold all those involved accountable.
My first Report sought an investigation, with little success, from many oversight bodies (including all Irish Ombudsman offices, SIPO, the Central Bank of Ireland, Gardai) and Irish Government Agencies and Departments relevant to my case.
First milestone (p. 17 of Report): “So this is where I currently stand i.e. I have to get evidence upon which the Commission could consider that each such person may personally have done a ‘specified act’. Therefore, I decided I would have to identify which members of the NPRF Commission made, or agreed to, the decision to award $50M to the U.S. VC firm in question (not all of them might have agreed to the 12 decision). If I can establish the name(s) of the decision maker(s), this may be sufficient to establish whether “each such person may personally have done a ‘specified act’.””
(Note: “the Commission” referred to above is SIPO)
In order to achieve the above, I made requests under the Freedom of Information Act (FOI Act 2014) in 2014 and earlier by directly contacting various Irish Government Departments and Agencies and requesting an investigation into my case. I was able to retrieve additional information that supported my case, although the Irish Government put up many roadblocks. I also contacted most (statistically) Irish law firms and some pertinent legal bodies to request an expert opinion on my case, but there were no takers (Section 5 of Report – I didn’t include names of law firms cited in Section 5 of this Report but ‘unmasked’ some at a later time in my update Report and ‘one pager’).
Having sought the above FOI documents from various Irish Government bodies with minimal success, I decided to appeal to the Office of the Information commissioner. This is where my first Report left off.
(I also include in my first Report some insights into my FDI Group’s interactions with Irish Government agencies and officials)
My update (second) Report continues where my first Report left off and, along with the findings in my first Report, led to my submissions (two complaints) to the Standards in Public Office (SIPO) for investigation. SIPO unfortunately refused to do an investigation and therefore I subsequently sent my SIPO complaints and other associated communications to many other oversight bodies for investigation including PwC, the Comptroller and Auditor General (Ireland) and all prescribed accountancy bodies (PAB’s) but with no success.
However, both Reports certainly demonstrate that a crime (multiple) was committed and a systemic problem with Ireland’s oversight system, and that the Irish Government will protect corruption at all costs including by not adhering to professional/oversight standards, indeed ignoring them altogether. These documents/Reports collectively catalog suspiciously recalled emails by Enterprise Ireland, errors, fabricated quotes, deleted/shredded evidence by IDA Ireland and Enterprise Ireland, Irish lawyer inappropriate responses to my requests for a legal opinion on my case, inconsistencies etc. So much so that it’s difficult for one not to believe that there is a cover-up.
My final Report (and subsequent one pager) details additional efforts after my update Report as there were still some outstanding items to be addressed. Fortuitously, by addressing these items, I was able to focus proof of my case on just one audit document (I also proved fraud on the part of Chartered Accountants Ireland (ICAI)). I therefore requested a copy of the internal audit plan from the appropriate organizations/bodies (inc. PwC, ICAI) and was refused. Instead, I received a fraudulent copy of the audit plan presentations (which I determined when lodging a complaint to the ODCE – see (H) under New developments post) from the NPRF/NTMA. The audit plan document would prove the scope of PwC’s internal audit work on behalf of the NPRF/NTMA which both PwC and ICAI claim was outside the allegations I made against the Irish Government (NPRF/NTMA).
Therefore, my case before the High Court of Ireland sought to have this audit plan document released as I believed it would prove to the contrary. It was necessary for me to take this final step since I had whittled down proof of my case to just one audit plan document. But now I had to prove my case. Did I? Please let me know if I didn’t. I had to prove that the internal audit plan existed because in order to deny me access to the plan I was told by the NPRF/NTMA and the Information Commissioner that it did not.
Note – Before appealing to the Irish High Court, I had to first appeal to the Information Commissioner for a copy of the internal audit plan, which if unsuccessful could then be appealed to the High Court. After I lodged an appeal with the Information Commissioner, I received an acceptance letter from him on 20 November 2019 which began, “I am writing to tell you that the Information Commissioner has accepted your application dated 18 November 2019 for a review of the decision of the National Treasury Management Agency on your request for access to records, referenced above.”
The letter additionally states in part, “An investigating officer will be assigned to your case and will be in touch with you if necessary.”
It continues, “Under the FOI Act, the Commissioner should be able to decide within four months of receiving a request for review. However, this can vary depending on how complex the issues are, the volume of records involved and the number of cases being examined.”
The point I’m making is that I received a decision from the Information Commissioner on my appeal about two months later, and I was not asked for further information from the investigating officer during this time.
So, clearly the Information Commissioner had plenty of time to review my complaint and clearly understood my case. I want to make this point as a backdrop to the Information Commissioner’s defense during my hearing as his counsel acted somewhat confused as to the intention of my affidavit even though my appeal to the High Court was based on the Information Commissioner’s refusal to grant my request, and the directions given to me by the Information Commissioner (in his decision) on my right to appeal to the High Court.
This case study includes all documents/audio pertaining to my High Court hearing (2022) which you can follow as if you were present in the court room yourself.
I present my case study in the following order:
1. Direct experiences/communications with the High Court, Information Commissioner and others related to my hearing
2. Transcripts (written and audio)
3. Book of Pleadings and Book of Authorities – Note: some pages in Book of Pleadings are cut off. I provide them in correct format; p.268-273 (p.401-405 is same and not cut off); p.295-299; p.304-307; p.311
4. Judge’s ruling
5. My rebuttal to judge’s ruling (aka short submissions on the form of the order including costs per High Court listing)
6. Some final thoughts…
Note – Within the article above, ‘Some final thoughts…’, I suggest the establishment of an independent lay litigant organization. Perhaps the Wall Street Journal article – link below – might give some insight into how to raise funds for its establishment. I commented on this WSJ article but it took six hours to publish it which I found unusual. I had in the meantime duplicated the comment. I therefore added and ‘Edit’ note to the first/original comment as follows: Edit – this comment was made at approx. 9:40am on 11/25. It was approved/published at 3:58pm after I had contacted WSJ multiple times during the day asking why the delay, and was published/slotted in at original time. I made same comment an hour later but both were published at 3:58pm.
Point being you can miss out on a lot of viewership over six hours.
Instructions on how to follow my High Court hearing?
You can play the audio transcript while following it with the written version (2). It’s important to follow both at the same time as the written transcript sometimes misinterprets words or excludes them.
These transcripts will reference the Book of Pleadings and Book of Authorities which you should have open at the same time (3).
I would suggest you follow the transcripts and form your own opinion first before viewing the judge’s ruling (4)
Note – while following the transcripts, try to determine what my point of law is, that is, that section of the statute (FOI Act 2014) I applied to the facts of my case, and then compare it to the judge’s ruling. Due to the limited, if any, case law upon which I could rely, my case/appeal was predominately reliant upon statutory interpretation/judicial precedent. The Section of the statute that applied is clear and straightforward but was ignored by the judge. Statutes take precedence over case law (judicial decisions). Statutes provide greater certainty of the law than do judicial precedents. If no past cases with similar circumstances exist, a new decision is made, which would then become a precedent for a future similar case. If no statute law applies to cover a particular situation, common law will apply; however, statute law always overrides common law. Source – legalknowledgebase.com).
After reading the judge’s ruling, you should then read my rebuttal (5) (pay particular attention to the 4th paragraph – pages 1 & 2 – under the first heading ‘Recap of My Argument’).
I have also included my direct experiences/communications with the High Court, Information Commissioner and others (1) which I suggest you could read first just to whet your appetite as it gives the sequence of events beginning a week before my hearing, although it’s a bit lengthy and also in order to avoid being influenced by it before you form your own opinion on the judge’s decision by first following steps (2) to (5) above then you might want to leave reading it until after you have read my rebuttal (5). I believe these direct experiences/communications corroborate my rebuttal.
Finally, I have included some final thoughts (6) on the dangers of a legal and judicial systems that is compromised which you can read last after you’ve followed steps (1)-(5) above.
Update 11/11/2022 – 11/14/2022
Note – The Irish Government oversight body, SIPO, stated on Thursday, November 9th, 2022, nine days after I published my case study (a case in which SIPO played a central role or lack thereof) that it would not be investigating the incoming Irish Prime Minister, Leo Varadkar, as such an investigation is not within its remit. I repeat (you didn’t misread), the body that is tasked with overseeing the Irish Government and its members said the issue was not within its remit! (Something you’ll frequently hear oversight bodies and Irish Government departments and agencies claim in my Reports).
You’ll notice similarities between the ruse SIPO uses in Varadkar’s case and that which they use in my case (two unrelated cases). They always find an excuse not to do an investigation (I mention this in my Reports) because if they did do one, they would have no other choice but to find him guilty of unethical behavior (I wonder can recusing yourself from a case be an abuse i.e., you usually recuse yourself if there’s a conflict of interest but was there an actual conflict of interest here? And if someone recuses themselves, don’t they have to be replaced?).
In my case, I had to first prove my case before SIPO would investigate it which seems completely ridiculous to me. Therefore, they could refuse to investigate any case they wanted to. You can follow the merry-go-round SIPO put me through in my Reports.
And I remember questioning an auditing oversight body I had asked to investigate my case after they told me that before they could do an assessment of my case, they first had to wait until after another independent auditing oversight body I had also asked to investigate my case had made its decision on whether to investigate. This of course is a load of codswallop. SIPO should not have “suspended its investigation of the complaint until the DPP had made its decision.” in the case of varadkar as both SIPO and the DPP are meant to act fairly and independently.
In fact, as I was repeatedly told in my attempts to have my case investigated by certain oversight bodies, they first do an assessment (whatever the hell that means) of a case before they decide to investigate it. This is part of the ruse because you’re subsequently told that your case is not going to be investigated.
But what’s even more unusual is that the Times (Britain’s oldest national daily newspaper, and its sister title The Sunday Times) stated back in 2020 in one of its articles that Geraldine Feeney “…a former senator appointed to the Standards in Public Office Commission (Sipo), will not be allowed to recuse herself from its decision on whether to investigate Leo Varadkar’s leak of a document to an organisation that once employed her as its lobbyist.”
And yet she recently (Aug. 2022) recused herself on the grounds of a potential perception (there’s one for the books!) of a conflict of interest. See link below (I have a screen shot of it also in case it’s deleted).
Nothing changes in Ireland. Did anyone really believe that an incoming Irish Prime Minister was going to be held accountable by the Gardai (police), DPP, SIPO or any of the other oversight bodies also detailed in my Reports. I didn’t – I was just waiting to hear the outcome so that I could add it as an update to my case study to corroborate the allegations I made against the Irish Government.
Some of you may not see the implications of SIPO’s decision in Varadkar’s case but as I mentioned in my final Report (see p. 11):
“The importance of holding the Irish Government accountable for at least ethical violations is critical to a
healthy justice system. The reason I say this is because accountability for ethical violations leads to the making of laws (at least according to my US insurance Continuing Ed class). This is a critical point. And this is the trick the Irish Government uses (via SIPO). By denying an ethical violation has occurred, there’s no subsequent law made to deter the violation/crime from occurring over and over again.”
Update 01/12/2023 – 01/16/2023
The article begins, “Junior Fine Gael minister resigns after admitting to a failure to properly declare a property interest in 2008”
It continues, “Mr English said he informed the Taoiseach on Wednesday night of his decision to resign as a Minister of State at the Department of Enterprise, Trade and Employment.”
and, “Mr English’s resignation follows a story published by news website The Ditch on Wednesday…”
This cheat and liar had to resign even though his cheating and lying occurred back in 2008. In my case, which occurred more recently back in 2010/2011, nobody had to resign, and my case relates to the theft of tens of millions of dollars, possibly even hundreds of millions.
And this is the same Department that oversees Enterprise Ireland, the agency at the center of my Reports on the mismanagement of Irish Government Funds. Its name has changed since the publication of my Reports from the Department of Jobs, Enterprise and Innovation (DJEI). The Irish Government likes to change the names of its departments and agencies from time to time for some peculiar reason.
You can only laugh at all the thanks Mr. English gives in the article. You’d think he had just won an Oscar.
The article states, “Tánaiste Micheál Martin said he does not think Meath TD Damien English should resign his Dáil seat.”
Micheál Martin is an Irish Fianna Fáil politician who is serving as Tánaiste, Minister for Foreign Affairs and Minister for Defence since December 2022. He served as Taoiseach from 2020 to 2022 and has been Leader of Fianna Fáil since January 2011. Source – Wikipedia
What a viewpoint to have by a former Prime Minister of Ireland. Perhaps Martin should give him an award. This is why corruption never ends in the Irish Government when this type of attitude comes from the top down.
And you can’t rely on SIPO to do an investigation. They’ll just go down to the local pub where they do all their drinking…I mean work…trying to figure out ways to get these cheats off the hook like they did with Varadkar and others.
But maybe some of the recommendations in my Reports are now being implemented, and this is the beginnings of positive change within the Irish Government. My update (second) Report published back in 2018 states, (p.10 last paragraph and p.11 first two paragraphs),
“But perhaps there is a way to trace these possible personal benefits. There have been more than a few cases of Irish Government officials not declaring business interests (i.e. omitting required disclosures, perhaps because they knew that these interests may be traced back to taxpayer funding they’ve awarded to their friends).”
Another article, this time in the Belfast Telegraph begins, “Minister for Finance Michael McGrath has said the resignation of Damien English underlines the need for reform of ethics in public office.”
It continues, “Speaking in Cork, Mr McGrath said the Government will bring forward legislation this year to give more powers to the ethics watchdog, the Standards in Public Office Commission (Sipo).”
First, SIPO already has “significant powers” according to its website, which I proved at my recent Irish High Court hearing. See written transcript further above under Case Study section, p.16.
Reference to these “significant powers” was removed by SIPO from its website sometime in 2017, after my final communication with SIPO before publishing my update Report. See update (second) Report, p.24.
And second, ethics doesn’t need to be modernized, its practice is no different today than it was twenty years ago.
But this is the ruse the Irish Government uses by pretending that the problem is the legislation when in fact SIPO refuses to use the significant powers it already has under the 2014 FOI Act (Sections 23 and 45). For example, during my hearing, I pointed out to the judge that I could only find reference to Section 45 of the 2014 FOI Act in one of the 15/16 cases (case law) I looked through before my hearing, and in this case Section 45(6) was used in favor of the Irish Government and not in the public interest. See written transcript further above under Case Study section, p.45.
The article states, “The Oireachtas does need to take this issue seriously and I can assure people that the Government will lead on this issue on the back of the comprehensive report that has now been completed.”
Yeah, right! In a statement by the OECD working group on bribery back in 2016, it said in part:
“11/10/2016 – Ireland still needs to make substantial progress on key recommendations issued three times since March 2007 by the OECD Working Group on Bribery with regard to improving its domestic criminal law as it applies to bribery by Irish individuals and companies in their international business transactions. As a party to the Convention on Combating Bribery of Foreign Public Officials in International Business Transactions, Ireland is subject to systematic monitoring by the Working Group on how well it implements the requirements of the Convention. The Working Group comprises the 41 parties to the Convention.
In December 2013, the Working Group urged Ireland to make several changes to its domestic criminal law without delay to rectify three major weaknesses in how foreign bribery is addressed. Ireland is subject to enhanced reporting to the Working Group on account of its failure to address these weaknesses.”
Incidentally, the English case demonstrates how ridiculous the complaints processes of accountancy oversight bodies are in that based on my response to ACCA (Association of Chartered Certified Accountants), while ACCA likely would not have jurisdiction over a case such as the English one, this body would be unable to investigate a case that occurred back in 2008 over which it has jurisdiction as it would be outside the conditions of its complaints process (other bodies such as Chartered Accountants Ireland etc. have similar conditions). See update (second) Report, p. 140, Exhibit 19, eleventh page point 12 and third page third paragraph.
Since accountancy oversight bodies write their own conditions, and are written by professionals with knowledge and experience of the time ranges between when crimes are committed and when they are discovered, it’s suspicious that they would seriously limit the time available to lodge a complaint against someone or firm over which they do have jurisdiction.
Update 01/17/2023 – 01/19/2023
Finally, as for the Paschal O’Donohoe debacle (the third in recent months), the only reason a seasoned politician, with the resources of the Irish Government behind him, fails to register something with SIPO (failed to declare the payment in his election expenses) is because he’s hiding something. The reason is obviously behind the statement in the article, “Mr. Stone was appointed as chairman of a board seeking to revive Dublin’s North East Inner City in 2017, after being recommended by Mr Donohoe for the unpaid, voluntary role. He was also appointed as a board member of the Land Development Agency by former minister for housing Eoghan Murphy in 2019.”
Further undisclosed donations were revealed in the Irish Times a day later.
But not to worry Paschal old boy, SIPO will give you a slap on the wrist (if even that!) just to give the impression that it’s doing its job.
Note – The Department of Public Expenditure and Reform is also addressed in my Reports and the merry-go-round they put you through whenever you seek an investigation relating to the mismanagement of Irish Government funds. Paschal was both Minister for Public Expenditure and Reform AND Minister for Finance at the same time (for three years).
The pretend game continues…
There seems to be no end to these debacles in the Irish Government, but it’s good that the pressure is finally being put on SIPO to do its job. I still don’t trust this body as far as I can throw it, but at least we’ll have more cases to refer to in future that will hopefully force better judicial rulings. By that I refer you to my own High Court hearing where the judge avoided setting precedent and gave a bogus ruling by ignoring my point of law and premising his ruling on very limited case law that had no bearing on my point of law.
We have to continue bringing more and more cases to SIPO that reflect the never ending lying and cheating that goes on in the Irish Government. We’re not even close to that level yet. There is so much more to reveal about the Irish Government in terms of its lying and cheating, and SIPO better stop covering up for its members.
My experience with SIPO is that I found that it overuses the law to determine an ethics violation, which seems contradictory. Generally, laws are rules and regulations enforced by authorities while ethics are morals and principles we believe hold us to a high standard of action. Violations of ethics do not result in punishments unlike laws can. But as stated above under Update 11/11/2022 – 11/14/2022, ethics lead to the creation of laws, thus improving our legal and judicial system ultimately to reflect the highest ethical standards.
Thus, if SIPO is making a determination of an ethical violation, then it can’t use the law to constrain its decision.