Comments on: Ahern and the Tribunal http://www.sarahcarey.ie/2007/09/23/ahern-and-the-tribunal/ An Irish woman's social, political and domestic commentary Tue, 13 Jul 2010 06:34:24 -0700 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: Crocodile http://www.sarahcarey.ie/2007/09/23/ahern-and-the-tribunal/comment-page-3/#comment-119986 Crocodile Thu, 04 Oct 2007 16:45:28 +0000 http://www.sarahcarey.ie/2007/09/23/ahern-and-the-tribunal/#comment-119986 I'm intrigued by Crewser's assertion that Bertie has 'worked tielessly' for the Irish people. Every time I see him he's wearing a tie, usually with a pink stripe - subliminal message: socialist streak? - and I always picture him in full Louis Copeland rigout. Certainly his notorious attempts at 'smart casual' have occasioned derision in the past. I’m intrigued by Crewser’s assertion that Bertie has ‘worked tielessly’ for the Irish people. Every time I see him he’s wearing a tie, usually with a pink stripe – subliminal message: socialist streak? – and I always picture him in full Louis Copeland rigout. Certainly his notorious attempts at ’smart casual’ have occasioned derision in the past.

]]> By: Tom Cosgrave http://www.sarahcarey.ie/2007/09/23/ahern-and-the-tribunal/comment-page-3/#comment-119941 Tom Cosgrave Thu, 04 Oct 2007 15:11:30 +0000 http://www.sarahcarey.ie/2007/09/23/ahern-and-the-tribunal/#comment-119941 Crewser, I have not had a chance to respond today due to pressure of work. But in brief - <em> Tom C are you satisfied that Tom Gilmartin has admitted under cross examination that parts of his evidence is coming from anonymous contacts </em> Yes, I am satisfied that this is the case. It changes nothing. There are still money of a dubious origin in Aherns account and he has not explained this sufficiently or credibly. While you do not believe this, that is the fact of the matter. <em> and are you satisfied with the presence of a mole within the Mahon Tribunal, leaking confidential information to all and sundry. </em> I am not satisfied there is a mole. An individual leaked documents yes, because that individual felt it to be in the public interest. That individual is not leaking it to all and sundry however. Finally, Crewser, I note you have not responded to my refutation of your accusation of my bullying you. Also, you have not responded to my refutation of my "discovering this site at a particular point in time". Crewser,

I have not had a chance to respond today due to pressure of work.
But in brief –


Tom C are you satisfied that Tom Gilmartin has admitted under cross examination that parts of his evidence is coming from anonymous contacts

Yes, I am satisfied that this is the case. It changes nothing. There are still money of a dubious origin in Aherns account and he has not explained this sufficiently or credibly. While you do not believe this, that is the fact of the matter.


and are you satisfied with the presence of a mole within the Mahon Tribunal, leaking confidential information to all and sundry.

I am not satisfied there is a mole. An individual leaked documents yes, because that individual felt it to be in the public interest. That individual is not leaking it to all and sundry however.

Finally, Crewser, I note you have not responded to my refutation of your accusation of my bullying you. Also, you have not responded to my refutation of my “discovering this site at a particular point in time”.

]]> By: Sarah http://www.sarahcarey.ie/2007/09/23/ahern-and-the-tribunal/comment-page-3/#comment-119931 Sarah Thu, 04 Oct 2007 14:35:45 +0000 http://www.sarahcarey.ie/2007/09/23/ahern-and-the-tribunal/#comment-119931 Crewser, that's a fair point. But doesn't change the fact that Ahern has cash coming into this account that matches the allegations and he can't come up with a credible and consistent story about its source. That doesn't mean he's guilty, but it does mean he has to be questioned. It's no more or less than anyone else has had to put up with. Actually in most cases its less. Denis O'Brien has to put up with the same thing and there's no evidence of any money going anywhere, only pub gossip. In Ahern's case there IS money. Crewser, that’s a fair point. But doesn’t change the fact that Ahern has cash coming into this account that matches the allegations and he can’t come up with a credible and consistent story about its source. That doesn’t mean he’s guilty, but it does mean he has to be questioned. It’s no more or less than anyone else has had to put up with. Actually in most cases its less. Denis O’Brien has to put up with the same thing and there’s no evidence of any money going anywhere, only pub gossip. In Ahern’s case there IS money.

]]> By: The Crewser http://www.sarahcarey.ie/2007/09/23/ahern-and-the-tribunal/comment-page-3/#comment-119907 The Crewser Thu, 04 Oct 2007 13:37:05 +0000 http://www.sarahcarey.ie/2007/09/23/ahern-and-the-tribunal/#comment-119907 There is a basic principle of Law in this country relating to hearsay evidence. It is not admissable and where someone is told something by someone else they must divulge that persons name so that the person can be questioned about what they know or allege. That is not happening at the Mahon Tribunal and the idea that confidential information can be passed out to certain individuals by people within the Tribunal is most definitely not acceptable. How somebody can condone this type of thing is beyond me and I believe that anybody who does should be challenged strongly at every possible opportunity to ascertain, precisely where they are coming from. There is a basic principle of Law in this country relating to hearsay evidence. It is not admissable and where someone is told something by someone else they must divulge that persons name so that the person can be questioned about what they know or allege. That is not happening at the Mahon Tribunal and the idea that confidential information can be passed out to certain individuals by people within the Tribunal is most definitely not acceptable. How somebody can condone this type of thing is beyond me and I believe that anybody who does should be challenged strongly at every possible opportunity to ascertain, precisely where they are coming from.

]]> By: The Crewser http://www.sarahcarey.ie/2007/09/23/ahern-and-the-tribunal/comment-page-3/#comment-119509 The Crewser Wed, 03 Oct 2007 18:28:42 +0000 http://www.sarahcarey.ie/2007/09/23/ahern-and-the-tribunal/#comment-119509 Tom C are you satisfied that Tom Gilmartin has admitted under cross examination that parts of his evidence is coming from anonymous contacts and are you satisfied with the presence of a mole within the Mahon Tribunal, leaking confidential information to all and sundry. They are not difficult questions Tom C deal with them. Tom C are you satisfied that Tom Gilmartin has admitted under cross examination that parts of his evidence is coming from anonymous contacts and are you satisfied with the presence of a mole within the Mahon Tribunal, leaking confidential information to all and sundry. They are not difficult questions Tom C deal with them.

]]> By: The Crewser http://www.sarahcarey.ie/2007/09/23/ahern-and-the-tribunal/comment-page-3/#comment-119508 The Crewser Wed, 03 Oct 2007 18:22:34 +0000 http://www.sarahcarey.ie/2007/09/23/ahern-and-the-tribunal/#comment-119508 Bertie Ahen had to appear before the Mahon Tribunal because of allegations made by Tom Gilmartin a former property Developer. Tom Gilmartin was in competition with several other Developers in this country when a number of major shopping centres were mooted in the Dublin area but also in other areas outside the Capital. O'Callaghan was very successful in the property development area, Gilmartin was not. Gilmartin emigrated to the UK where he did some work but nothing on the scale of O'Callaghans jobs. Gilmartin had a somewhat chequered history in this country before he tried his hand at property development.He was a small farmer in the West of Ireland. Allegations against Bertie Ahern had been made by a man known as "Starry" O'Brien some years ago. Bertie Ahern took this man to Court and the allegations proved groundless. Gilmartin is a very bitter man with a grudge against people who were in Government when his Development aspirations evaporated. He has admitted under cross-examination at the Mahon Tribunal that much of his evidence is got from anonymous contacts. Telephone contacts ,one assumes these are journalists, Tribunal Lawyers or others intent on Bringing Bertie Ahern down. There is one Tribunal Lawyer who has leaked confidential information from the Tribunal to the media. This person still operates within the Mahon Tribunal and presumably as the Mahon Tribunal do not know who he is (officially anyway) he has full access to all documentaion in the Tribunal's possession. The question Tom C is asking is should Bertie resign his position as a result of his being forced to appear the Mahon Tribunal. The answer is an emphatic NO. Mr Ahern fell on hard times as a result of his marriage break up in the mid nineties and was assisted by friends, financially. This to my way of thinking was perfectly in order, I would have helped him myself if I had known at the time. There has not been a single shred of evidence presented to the Mahon Tribunal which would indicated that Bertie Ahern ever received a bribe or did anything illegal which would warrant his resignation. If such material were to emerge I would be the first to call for him to resign. It is certainly no offence to fail to remember what you did in your banking or investing history 12 to 14 years ago. Very few people could. I certainly could not. Bertie Ahern has the confidence of his party, his Cabinet, the Dail and most importantly the Irish People. He has worked tielessly for the Irish people, North and South and he will continue to do so. Under no circumstances should Bertie Ahern resign as Taoiseach of this country as a result of false allegations by Tom Gilmartin. Bertie Ahen had to appear before the Mahon Tribunal because of allegations made by Tom Gilmartin a former property Developer. Tom Gilmartin was in competition with several other Developers in this country when a number of major shopping centres were mooted in the Dublin area but also in other areas outside the Capital. O’Callaghan was very successful in the property development area, Gilmartin was not. Gilmartin emigrated to the UK where he did some work but nothing on the scale of O’Callaghans jobs.
Gilmartin had a somewhat chequered history in this country before he tried his hand at property development.He was a small farmer in the West of Ireland. Allegations against Bertie Ahern had been made by a man known as “Starry” O’Brien some years ago. Bertie Ahern took this man to Court and the allegations proved groundless.
Gilmartin is a very bitter man with a grudge against people who were in Government when his Development aspirations evaporated. He has admitted under cross-examination at the Mahon Tribunal that much of his evidence is got from anonymous contacts. Telephone contacts ,one assumes these are journalists, Tribunal Lawyers or others intent on Bringing Bertie Ahern down.
There is one Tribunal Lawyer who has leaked confidential information from the Tribunal to the media. This person still operates within the Mahon Tribunal and presumably as the Mahon Tribunal do not know who he is (officially anyway) he has full access to all documentaion in the Tribunal’s possession.
The question Tom C is asking is should Bertie resign his position as a result of his being forced to appear the Mahon Tribunal. The answer is an emphatic NO.
Mr Ahern fell on hard times as a result of his marriage break up in the mid nineties and was assisted by friends, financially. This to my way of thinking was perfectly in order, I would have helped him myself if I had known at the time.
There has not been a single shred of evidence presented to the Mahon Tribunal which would indicated that Bertie Ahern ever received a bribe or did anything illegal which would warrant his resignation. If such material were to emerge I would be the first to call for him to resign. It is certainly no offence to fail to remember what you did in your banking or investing history 12 to 14 years ago. Very few people could. I certainly could not.
Bertie Ahern has the confidence of his party, his Cabinet, the Dail and most importantly the Irish People. He has worked tielessly for the Irish people, North and South and he will continue to do so. Under no circumstances should Bertie Ahern resign as Taoiseach of this country as a result of false allegations by Tom Gilmartin.

]]> By: Tom Cosgrave http://www.sarahcarey.ie/2007/09/23/ahern-and-the-tribunal/comment-page-3/#comment-119502 Tom Cosgrave Wed, 03 Oct 2007 18:03:11 +0000 http://www.sarahcarey.ie/2007/09/23/ahern-and-the-tribunal/#comment-119502 Previously Crewser, you stated that I was engaged in a bit of bullying. This is not the case - I was merely responding to your questions. There is no question of bullying. Stop trying to divert attention away from the questions that have been put to you. I am assuming here that you are referring to my telling you yesterday that I had made two assumptions about you and not one as you had suggested - that you either agreed with me, or that you had been bested in this argument. You seem to have studiously ignored the point and have not given an answer for that either. Most interesting. Now, on to the questions asked of me in relation to Gilmartin, the Irish Times and the Tribunal. <em>You seem to have been a bit reluctant to make any comment</em> Any comment? But on 10.01.07 at 9:49 pm I posted on Gilmartin, the Irish Times and the Tribunal. I asked of you in relation to Gilmartin whether you knew - <em>that his claims are embellished and journalists are in touch with whoever the leaker is, do you?</em> I then said, in that same comment, that - <em>Tom Gilmartin is making statements. Those statements are being investigated. When claims made about Ahern were investigated, strange things appeared in his financial affairs.</em> I'll add to that now and say that if statements made by Gilmartin are not true, then that will be stated by the Tribunal in due course. Ahern has had investigations made of him, based on Gilmartins statements, which have led to the relevations that have occurred in the past year. He has not credibly accounted for any of the monies that are in question. On Tribunal leaks to the Irish Times and the shredding of the documents that were leaked, I said that - <em>I don't think it's a question of rights - it's a question of the credibility of the Irish Times and their ability to break news stories that are in the public interest - and what money Bertie got while Minister for Finance is most definitely in the public interest, whether you think it is or not.</em> By the way - I am not a Bunbury-type - I've had a weblog since 1999 and have been on radio and in print in relation to same. My name is the name I post under here. I provide a link to my website when I post. I notice you do neither. Who are you Crewser? For what it's worth, I suspect you to be a either a Fianna Fáil deputy or an advisor to one. Finally, you stated that <em>Interesting how you both discovered or stumbled across the site at this particular point in time.</em>. What point in time is this Crewser? This is a direct question - you have implied that there is some sort of conspiracy between myself and another poster, and there a direct answer is required from you. Previously Crewser, you stated that I was engaged in a bit of bullying. This is not the case – I was merely responding to your questions. There is no question of bullying. Stop trying to divert attention away from the questions that have been put to you. I am assuming here that you are referring to my telling you yesterday that I had made two assumptions about you and not one as you had suggested – that you either agreed with me, or that you had been bested in this argument. You seem to have studiously ignored the point and have not given an answer for that either. Most interesting.

Now, on to the questions asked of me in relation to Gilmartin, the Irish Times and the Tribunal.

You seem to have been a bit reluctant to make any comment
Any comment? But on 10.01.07 at 9:49 pm I posted on Gilmartin, the Irish Times and the Tribunal. I asked of you in relation to Gilmartin whether you knew -
that his claims are embellished and journalists are in touch with whoever the leaker is, do you?
I then said, in that same comment, that -
Tom Gilmartin is making statements. Those statements are being investigated. When claims made about Ahern were investigated, strange things appeared in his financial affairs.
I’ll add to that now and say that if statements made by Gilmartin are not true, then that will be stated by the Tribunal in due course. Ahern has had investigations made of him, based on Gilmartins statements, which have led to the relevations that have occurred in the past year. He has not credibly accounted for any of the monies that are in question.

On Tribunal leaks to the Irish Times and the shredding of the documents that were leaked, I said that -
I don’t think it’s a question of rights – it’s a question of the credibility of the Irish Times and their ability to break news stories that are in the public interest – and what money Bertie got while Minister for Finance is most definitely in the public interest, whether you think it is or not.

By the way – I am not a Bunbury-type – I’ve had a weblog since 1999 and have been on radio and in print in relation to same. My name is the name I post under here. I provide a link to my website when I post. I notice you do neither. Who are you Crewser? For what it’s worth, I suspect you to be a either a Fianna Fáil deputy or an advisor to one.

Finally, you stated that Interesting how you both discovered or stumbled across the site at this particular point in time.. What point in time is this Crewser? This is a direct question – you have implied that there is some sort of conspiracy between myself and another poster, and there a direct answer is required from you.

]]> By: Tom Cosgrave http://www.sarahcarey.ie/2007/09/23/ahern-and-the-tribunal/comment-page-3/#comment-119501 Tom Cosgrave Wed, 03 Oct 2007 18:02:08 +0000 http://www.sarahcarey.ie/2007/09/23/ahern-and-the-tribunal/#comment-119501 Crewser, I am not certain what the point of the pasting of the article relating to Anne Devitt is - I already said that she should resign. I already said on 10.01.07 at 9:49 pm that there was no justification for Enda Kenny not having her expelled. She should be expelled. You did fail to answer the question I asked of you though, the question you said you would answer - <strong>By the way, surely you can see that if the actions of Anne Devitt and all the others were wrong, surely you can see that the actions of Bertie Ahern were wrong also? It seems that you have gone from suggesting that these matters are not a case of wrongdoing to suggesting that they are wrongdoings in order to get back at the non-FF supporters who have commented here.</strong> - instead, you've done a u-turn and are now giving her "the benefit of the doubt"! Pathetic stuff. I've caught you out with my stating she should go - my saying that has prevented you from using Anne Devitt's misdeed against me. <em> I am somewhat confused by Tom C's wording in his questions.He talks about Ivor and Ned not resigning. Resigning from what : the parliamentary party or the Dail.</em> The Parliamentary Party - I put it to you that Ned O'Keefe and Ivor Callely did not resign from Fianna Fáil because they were not going to be prevented from running as Fianna Fáil candidates. Michael Lowry was not expelled - he resigned because he was going to be prevented from running as a Fine Gael candidate. Crewser, I am not certain what the point of the pasting of the article relating to Anne Devitt is – I already said that she should resign. I already said on 10.01.07 at 9:49 pm that there was no justification for Enda Kenny not having her expelled. She should be expelled.

You did fail to answer the question I asked of you though, the question you said you would answer –
By the way, surely you can see that if the actions of Anne Devitt and all the others were wrong, surely you can see that the actions of Bertie Ahern were wrong also? It seems that you have gone from suggesting that these matters are not a case of wrongdoing to suggesting that they are wrongdoings in order to get back at the non-FF supporters who have commented here.

- instead, you’ve done a u-turn and are now giving her “the benefit of the doubt”! Pathetic stuff. I’ve caught you out with my stating she should go – my saying that has prevented you from using Anne Devitt’s misdeed against me.

I am somewhat confused by Tom C’s wording in his questions.He talks about Ivor and Ned not resigning. Resigning from what : the parliamentary party or the Dail.

The Parliamentary Party – I put it to you that Ned O’Keefe and Ivor Callely did not resign from Fianna Fáil because they were not going to be prevented from running as Fianna Fáil candidates. Michael Lowry was not expelled – he resigned because he was going to be prevented from running as a Fine Gael candidate.

]]> By: The Crewser http://www.sarahcarey.ie/2007/09/23/ahern-and-the-tribunal/comment-page-3/#comment-119498 The Crewser Wed, 03 Oct 2007 17:53:23 +0000 http://www.sarahcarey.ie/2007/09/23/ahern-and-the-tribunal/#comment-119498 All political parties have their own rules but generally any wrongdoing by a Minister (Senior or Junior involves dismissal from the job) There have been exceptions to this rule, I have highlighted them before and been berated for so doing.In the case of Ivor and Ned they were found to have done certain things while in office which warranted resignation. Ivor had his house painted by a builder and Ned had to resign over his involvement in a pigmeal processing firm AFAIK.These offences were considered to be relatively small scale and warranted nothing more than loss of Junior Ministerial office. In the case of Michael Lowry, a key figure in FG and former chair of the Parliamentary Party in addition to being a Senior Minister there was little option open to FG but to expel him. There was a Tribunal finding against him. As a general rule if there is a Tribunal or Court ruling against you, you are excluded from the party in addition to losing your job as a Minister. Michael could never be re-admitted to FG because of the ongoing Court cases which are still in process relating to Mobile Telephone licences etc. There are a lot of aggrieved people around in this martetplace who simply will not let this go. So Michael was unique among all of the people mentioned. He had a Tribunal finding against him. Ivor,Ned or Anne did not. Neither does Bertie who will be covered in a few minutes. All political parties have their own rules but generally any wrongdoing by a Minister (Senior or Junior involves dismissal from the job) There have been exceptions to this rule, I have highlighted them before and been berated for so doing.In the case of Ivor and Ned they were found to have done certain things while in office which warranted resignation. Ivor had his house painted by a builder and Ned had to resign over his involvement in a pigmeal processing firm AFAIK.These offences were considered to be relatively small scale and warranted nothing more than loss of Junior Ministerial office. In the case of Michael Lowry, a key figure in FG and former chair of the Parliamentary Party in addition to being a Senior Minister there was little option open to FG but to expel him. There was a Tribunal finding against him. As a general rule if there is a Tribunal or Court ruling against you, you are excluded from the party in addition to losing your job as a Minister. Michael could never be re-admitted to FG because of the ongoing Court cases which are still in process relating to Mobile Telephone licences etc. There are a lot of aggrieved people around in this martetplace who simply will not let this go. So Michael was unique among all of the people mentioned. He had a Tribunal finding against him. Ivor,Ned or Anne did not. Neither does Bertie who will be covered in a few minutes.

]]> By: The Crewser http://www.sarahcarey.ie/2007/09/23/ahern-and-the-tribunal/comment-page-3/#comment-119488 The Crewser Wed, 03 Oct 2007 17:35:53 +0000 http://www.sarahcarey.ie/2007/09/23/ahern-and-the-tribunal/#comment-119488 I am somewhat confused by Tom C's wording in his questions.He talks about Ivor and Ned not resigning. Resigning from what : the parliamentary party or the Dail.They resigned their positions as Junior Ministers. In any event thats for later. First Anne Devitt, she is a County Councillor. I am now going to let you see how my friends Anthony and Gavin over at Public Inquiry covered her admission that she got money from a constituent. FG Councillor got €20,000 for helping with land problem Published by Gavin April 4th, 2006 in Fine Gael, Planning Tribunal What troubles me is that they know there is a potential conflict of interest, they just don't seem to want to admit it. A Fine Gael county councillor was paid €20,000 for her help in solving a road access problem for a landowner in north County Dublin, the tribunal has heard. Cllr Anne Devitt received the fee in 2002 for negotiating access to the land across property owned by the Eastern Health Board. At the time, she was a member of the EHB, the tribunal heard. Details of the payment to Ms Devitt emerged yesterday during evidence given by businessman Joe Moran, whose company Rayband Ltd owned the land at Lissenhall near Swords. In 1993, Ms Devitt signed a motion while on Dublin County Council to rezone Rayband's land for industry. Paul Cullen of the Irish Times continues: Yesterday, the inquiry heard that Mr Moran sought to gain access to the road through the EHB land because his property was landlocked. The company paid Ms Devitt the money in June 2002, after it agreed access through the EHB land in return for building ambulance and day-patient facilities. Mr Moran said Ms Devitt had provided professional advice and legal services. She had portrayed herself as someone who could solve the problem. She had a reputation for solving problems. Judge Gerald Keys said Ms Devitt was a politician and there was a potential conflict of interest. Mr Moran replied that Ms Devitt didn't do anything wrong. Judge Keys: "Did it not cross your mind there was something questionable about being prepared to pay a substantial sum of money to a politician who was a member of the council, who would be close to the planning department, who was already instrumental in voting on zoning motions and also a member of the health board, which could come to your assistance?" Mr Moran: "No." Judge Keys: "Did it not dawn on you there could be a serious conflict of interest and that the public perception could be that what you were trying to do was to buy her?" Mr Moran: "Absolutely not." Everything was above board and there were no under the counter payments. He agreed that Ms Devitt, who is due to give evidence to the inquiry tomorrow, never provided him with written advice. 1. Response to FG Councillor got €20,000 for helping with land problem Shocked! Jul 19th, 2006 at 1:29 am I'm shocked. Such a preachy party, not least about corruption, and here they are accepting bribes. I'd say it's just the tip of the iceberg. Should she resign from or be expelled from Fine Gael for this admission. Its a bit complicated as a well respected Councillor in Cork told me last night. If she was a Civil Engineer by profession could she be deprived from earing a living doing what she was qualified to do. I'm not sure what here profession is and have not been able to get the full transcript of that day at the Tribunal. I was told by my friend on Cork County Council (FG) that Enda Kenny could not fire her in the run up to the election. She could it seems have caused him to lose a seat. That's hardly a defence but without knowing the detail of the case I must give this lady the benefit of the doubt. She may have excluded herself when particular meetings took place. How it all tallies with Enda Kenny's zero tolerance policy, I dont know. It's surprising he did not act but I honestly cannot say that this lady is guilty of anything. I will deal with Ivor, Ned and Michael in a few minutes time. I am somewhat confused by Tom C’s wording in his questions.He talks about Ivor and Ned not resigning. Resigning from what : the parliamentary party or the Dail.They resigned their positions as Junior Ministers. In any event thats for later. First Anne Devitt, she is a County Councillor. I am now going to let you see how my friends Anthony and Gavin over at Public Inquiry covered her admission that she got money from a constituent.

FG Councillor got €20,000 for helping with land problem

Published by Gavin April 4th, 2006 in Fine Gael, Planning Tribunal

What troubles me is that they know there is a potential conflict of interest, they just don’t seem to want to admit it.

A Fine Gael county councillor was paid €20,000 for her help in solving a road access problem for a landowner in north County Dublin, the tribunal has heard.

Cllr Anne Devitt received the fee in 2002 for negotiating access to the land across property owned by the Eastern Health Board. At the time, she was a member of the EHB, the tribunal heard.

Details of the payment to Ms Devitt emerged yesterday during evidence given by businessman Joe Moran, whose company Rayband Ltd owned the land at Lissenhall near Swords. In 1993, Ms Devitt signed a motion while on Dublin County Council to rezone Rayband’s land for industry.

Paul Cullen of the Irish Times continues:

Yesterday, the inquiry heard that Mr Moran sought to gain access to the road through the EHB land because his property was landlocked. The company paid Ms Devitt the money in June 2002, after it agreed access through the EHB land in return for building ambulance and day-patient facilities.

Mr Moran said Ms Devitt had provided professional advice and legal services. She had portrayed herself as someone who could solve the problem. She had a reputation for solving problems.

Judge Gerald Keys said Ms Devitt was a politician and there was a potential conflict of interest.

Mr Moran replied that Ms Devitt didn’t do anything wrong.

Judge Keys: “Did it not cross your mind there was something questionable about being prepared to pay a substantial sum of money to a politician who was a member of the council, who would be close to the planning department, who was already instrumental in voting on zoning motions and also a member of the health board, which could come to your assistance?” Mr Moran: “No.”

Judge Keys: “Did it not dawn on you there could be a serious conflict of interest and that the public perception could be that what you were trying to do was to buy her?” Mr Moran: “Absolutely not.” Everything was above board and there were no under the counter payments.

He agreed that Ms Devitt, who is due to give evidence to the inquiry tomorrow, never provided him with written advice.

1. Response to FG Councillor got €20,000 for helping with land problem

Shocked!
Jul 19th, 2006 at 1:29 am

I’m shocked. Such a preachy party, not least about corruption, and here they are accepting bribes. I’d say it’s just the tip of the iceberg.

Should she resign from or be expelled from Fine Gael for this admission. Its a bit complicated as a well respected Councillor in Cork told me last night. If she was a Civil Engineer by profession could she be deprived from earing a living doing what she was qualified to do. I’m not sure what here profession is and have not been able to get the full transcript of that day at the Tribunal. I was told by my friend on Cork County Council (FG) that Enda Kenny could not fire her in the run up to the election. She could it seems have caused him to lose a seat.
That’s hardly a defence but without knowing the detail of the case I must give this lady the benefit of the doubt. She may have excluded herself when particular meetings took place. How it all tallies with Enda Kenny’s zero tolerance policy, I dont know. It’s surprising he did not act but I honestly cannot say that this lady is guilty of anything. I will deal with Ivor, Ned and Michael in a few minutes time.

]]>