Posts Tagged ‘Twitter’
#Right2Water , Civil Disobedience and #PeoplePower in Ireland 2015
Yesterday on Twitter I received the following Tweet ….
What needs to be done to topple the #Irish Government? #Election2015 @LegalEagleStar @ballyhea14 @Glenna_lynch @Revolution_IRL @gazzahead
I replied ….
@thesecondgoing Mass Civil Disobedience !
As a lawyer, I have been criticised by many, in particular fellow lawyers, regarding the stance I’ve taken with regard to the Right2Water Campaign. This is a Citizen led Movement which has arisen as a result of the Irish Governments attempt to privatize our water, regardless of how hollow the rejection of this claim is, by the Elites who run this country. I have taken to the streets and marched Shoulder to Shoulder with my fellow Citizens and am proud to do so. While many people cannot afford to pay the proposed charges being imposed on us, a lot can. Luckily I am one of those that can. There is a principle at stake here. Austerity measures dictated by the IMF, the European Central Bank and others and imposed on the Irish People in order to pay the gambling debts of the Elites, their Bankers and Speculators are, in my opinion, immoral. Can’t Pay, Won’t Pay are what the banners say. They could read Can Pay, Won’t Pay and they would be as correct. People have said ‘Enough is enough’. The question is, am I correct in advocating a Don’t Pay policy?
I have read a lot about Civil Disobedience. Is it morally, if not legally correct? I came across the following…
I am inclined to agree with Thomas Jefferson, the principal author of the American Declaration of Independence (1776). Justice, surely has to play a role in our thinking. As lawyers we are trained to use the law to benefit our fellow citizens. When the law is unjust, we try to use the legal system to protect our clients. Our Courts on a regular basis try to mitigate the harshness of the law and find an interpretation which protects the citizen. What about when one political ideology in power attempts to subjugate the citizens to their point of view? We are told that we live in a democracy and the will of the people is demonstrated by the Ballot Box. In 2011 the Irish People Voted for Change. They ousted the Fianna Fail Government and replaced them with the two parties that advocated change, namely Fine Gael and The Irish Labour Party. While in opposition and prior to the General Election, both of these Parties talked the talk but as it turned out, they did not walk the walk and indeed the Irish People were subjected to the same policies that the previous hated Government had implemented. Sadly, even more austerity was heaped on the citizen. The most vulnerable in society, the young, the old, sick and the poor were particularly targeted by the ruthless implementation of austerity. People suffered as a result and indeed are still suffering to this very day. The new government claim that they were given a mandate by the people and are refusing to relinquish power. They say they intend to stay the full course. Is this democracy in action?
Democracy… government by the people; a form of government in which the supreme power is vested in the people and exercised directly by them or by their elected agents under a free electoral system. So in theory that is what we have.
While we’re deemed a Democratic State why are people in Ireland today so discontent? Something is wrong. They are not being listen to. Despite marching on the streets to demonstrate their opposition they are being fobbed off with our Government playing politics. Those in power are, in my opinion, not following an agenda on behalf of the citizens who voted them in. Instead they are following the dictates of the EU and other like-minded institutions whose agenda is somewhat different. Perhaps something is fundamentally wrong ….
While I have quoted from a Justice of the American Supreme Court, I feel that the same is equally relevant in the Irish context. The Irish Government panders to the will of those with great wealth to the detriment of the citizen, thus sadly creating a sub-class in our society, to which the vast majority now belong.
Photograph: Matthew Cooper/PA
It’s to be noted that lawyers have headed protest against injustice in many countries throughout the world. They have led the people. In Ireland today, it appears that we only hit the headlines when huge fees are concerned. This is unfair. I recognise those firms who act for the Elites but the vast majority of the legal profession are of the people and stand up for their rights. Individually, lawyers do have a moral conscience. Unfortunately that is not reflected in the media nor indeed, in my opinion, in the representative bodies who I feel should be questioning the legality of bailing out bondholders and banks and suchlike. True leadership should be shown. It has been left to #Ballyhea and other protest groups to continue the fight against Government Austerity policies which go to bail out the rich at the expense of the poor. In the past the Trade Union Movement lead the citizen in protesting injustice. Sadly today the major Union #SIPTU are so closely associated with the Labour Party that their silence is deafening. Without the likes of Ballyhea, this whole sorry chapter in Irish society would not have a voice of protest.
So, as a lawyer am I advocating breaking the law by supporting a No Pay to Water Charges? Well, you’ll have to be the judge of that. I will continue to support my fellow citizens in their fight against an unjust law. I am proud to be associated with such good people.
Finally, I think it worthwhile watching Matt Damon, a lifelong friend of Howard Zinn and his family, read excerpts from a speech Howard Zinn gave in 1970 as part of a debate on civil disobedience.
Poster courtesy of Arcturus Blackhorn
LegalEagleStar , Tuesday , 6th. January , 2015.
My Money is safe in the Bank. Of course, sure it’s as safe as houses ! Eh, sorry ?
Banking District (Photo credit: bsterling)
I have been asked to comment on the relationship between Customer and Banker. This arose from several conversations on Twitter where I have been criticised for attacking the morality, or lack thereof, of the Banks and their use of customers monies. I have been asked to point out the crimes which the Bankers have committed. I have struggled with this issue. I am not a Criminal Lawyer, my expertise being in Personal Injuries, Divorce and Real Estate Law. I personally believe that our Government, among others have subjugated the rights of the Citizen to those of the wealthy Elites and their Bankers. In paying off Bondholders, believed to be other Bankers and their kin, the Irish Government have decimated our economy resulting is terrible austerity imposed upon our Citizens. There is something wrong here. People are being ripped off, no other way to put it, by Bankers, now referred to as Banksters, because that is what they are, gangsters who have used the money deposited with them in whatever manner they so wish. They gamble with your money. Now, the Citizen is continually bailing out these same Banks. Our Government has chosen to stand firmly on the side of these banksters against the interests of the Citizen.
OK, so what is the legal position in all this. Sure isn’t our own money safe in the Bank ? Well, not really. Because once you hand your hard-earned money across the counter to the Bank, it is their money, not yours. The relationship is best described in a case brought before the English House of Lords (their highest Appeals Court) in the case of Foley v Hill. The Appellant in 1829 opened a bank account with the respondents, who were bankers. Further deposits were added in
1830 and in 1831 interest was still added. In 1838 the Appellant brought proceedings against the Respondent Bankers seeking recovery of both the principle and interest.
In his Judgment the Lord Chancellor Cottenham said…
” Money, when paid into a bank, ceases altogether to be the money of the principal; it is by then the money of the banker, who is bound to return an equivalent by paying a similar sum to that deposited with him when he is asked for it. The money paid into a banker’s is money known by the principal to be placed there for the purpose of being under the control of the banker; it is then the banker’s money; he is known to deal with it as his own; he makes what profit of it he can, which profit he retains to himself, paying back only the principal, according to the custom of bankers in some places, or the principal and a small rate of interest, according to the custom of bankers in other places. The money placed in custody of a banker is, to all intents and purposes, the money of the banker, to do with it as he pleases; he is guilty of no breach of trust in employing it; he is not answerable to the principal if he puts it into jeopardy, if he engages in a hazardous speculation; he is not bound to keep it or deal with it as the property of his principal; but he is, of course, answerable for the amount, because he has contracted, having received that money, to repay to the principal, when demanded, a sum equivalent to that paid into his hands.
That has been the subject of discussion in various cases, and that has been established to be the relative situation of banker and customer. That being established to be the relative situations of banker and customer, the banker is not an agent or factor, but he is a debtor. ”
So legally, when you deposit your money in a Bank, the Bank becomes the legal owner of your money and you become a Creditor of the Bank. In the event of the Bank becoming insolvent you take your place at the end of the queue after Secured Creditors. Should any monies be left after such payments have been made you will most likely receive maybe a cent in the Euro…if you’re lucky.
Surely the Government will secure my money for me? What about the Bank Guarantee? Well, in Ireland the State at present, will guarantee your money up to the tune of Euro 100,000. No doubt they can change this on a whim. As can be seen from the attempted confiscation of money from people’s accounts in Cyprus recently, any funds over 100,000 could be lost. Don’t be fooled by the amount of the guarantee. In many cases Citizens have received compensation for their injuries and have deposited the money in Banks to look after their disability for the many years to come. Some old people have saved up their whole lives so they would not be a burden on their families. People sell their homes and place the funds in a Bank while searching for somewhere else. In business, transactions take place where funds are obtained to secure a deal, purchase items etc. At any time those funds are not regarded as yours by the Bank but are being used by the Bank as they please. As we’ve seen so many times, The Banks are treated as too Big to Fail and as a result our National Sovereignty has been lost and it seems we are eternally indebted to them. Of course when Debt Forgiveness is mentioned for the Citizen this is dismissed out of hand. Divide and Conquer is deployed as a tactic. Sure I paid off my debt so why can’t he? Please, wake up before we’re all securely lodged in a debtors prison with no means of escape.
LegaleagleStar , Tuesday , 4th. June , 2013
Foley v Hill and Others , 1848 , Clerk’s Reports, House of Lords 1847-66 Pages 28 and Pages 36-37.
Sleep, or the lack thereof, Toes and a Scorpion
Image by Pierce Place via Flickr
Ever since raising my children, for the most part single-handed, I have got into the habit of working late. When I say late, sometimes this could mean, well, through the night. Then having to ferry the children to school, get to work myself, arrange collecting them at lunchtime, driving to swimming pools, football training etc. Then repeat the above… My one joy which was denied me was a lie-in in the morning. The thought of not having to get up to do something. This thought of heaven has mostly eluded me but I’m working on it. Having arrived back to Texas last Monday evening I was determined to treat myself to a long lie-in. The though even excited me. So much so that I stayed up late, watched TV, had numerous conversations with friends on Twitter, then Facebook. I even phoned some friends for a chat. Life was good. At 4 a.m. I hit the bed. Really tired and the thought of a sleep-in was all too much. Ah, Heaven on earth.
Shortly after 8 a.m. I awoke to what sounded like a Police Raid. Bedroom door being bashed, kicked, then finally opened. In came the culprit. It was my Grandson Toes. ‘Morning ‘ I called out. Then stretching an arm from beneath the bedclothes I ushered Toes back in the direction of the door. It worked. Silence re-enveloped the entire room. Seconds later, in truth it was probably more like 10 minutes or so, my daughter arrives into my bedroom on the phone. I think she was on the phone. Well she was at some stage. I remember her asking me whether she should cancel Terminix or reschedule, as they say out here. I think I said ‘yeah, cancel’ but I also remember saying ‘sure I’ll stay home and let them in’. It was the latter comment, which I was later informed, was uttered by me some minutes after the phone call had ended…which was the cause of said daughter goose-stepping it out of the room, Gestapo style, clearly in bad form. Oh God, what had I done now. To confront the situation or.. yes, back to sleep I decided was the best course of action. Moments later I hear a shriek. It was Toes. No, I didn’t jump up, just froze. There were enough adults in the house, no doubt up for hours at this stage, who could deal with whatever crises had arisen. Then more voices.. and Toes going EEEhhhheee. Then ‘Oh My God’ from my younger daughter. At this I sprang into action, grabbed a pair of shorts, to make myself decent and jumped straight into my boots. Normally I would not do the latter without first turning out said boots, as in Texas bugs and critters have been known to climb into a pair of boots while the wearer sleeps. As I walked forward I was not bitten, nothing was squelching under foot and so I felt safe…relieved really. Anyway, Toes emitted the EEEhhhheee sound again. I was now outside my bedroom door faced by three grown adults, all terrified and pointing in Toes direction. ‘What’s happened’, I enquired somewhat puzzled. LOOK, AAgghhh. Toes had discovered a Scorpion. Not in the healthiest condition of his life, clearly suffering from some treatment or other, rendered to the property by the aforementioned Terminix. Looking around at the frightened faces I asked ‘Is this it?’ Yes, Yes , do something. Dressed in T-shirt, my son’s Football Shorts and Cowboy Boots I proceeded to stand on said Scorpion who, at this stage I felt sorry for… and do the dreaded deed. He must have been terrified being confronted by Toes and Family. Then a voice perks up from behind..’Coffee anybody’. It was son-in-law who had fallen in behind the group, staying safely away in case the scorpion, by some miracle, jumped up and bit his bloody head off.
So, coffee it was and any thoughts of indulging in long periods of relaxation or even sleep, faded into distant memory. Ah sure there’s plenty of time for lie-ins…. There is ??
LegalEagleStar , San Antonio , Texas , Monday , 12th. September , 2011 .
Who do these Super-Injunctions actually protect ??
Image via Wikipedia
There has been a lot of hype recently surrounding what is referred to as ‘The Super-Injunction’ in Britain. A Super-Injunction is the result of a private sitting of the court where the case, the names of the parties and the terms of the injunction itself are kept secret except for those who are present in court. The Super-Injunction forms its legal basis from the UK’s Human Rights Act, 1998 and in effect is a legal gagging order which both prevents the media from reporting the details of a story and also restrains the media from even mentioning the existence of the injunction itself. The Super Injunction is being used by celebrities and sport stars to protect their names from being published in the media regarding their so-called private lives. Big Brother star Imogen Thomas was recently ‘named and shamed’ in the media for having an affair with a married footballer who could not be named as he had gone to court and was granted an injunction restraining the newspapers and media outlets from naming him. Thomas claimed that she could not afford to fund a high-priced legal team to obtain her the same protection. The media therefore could still print the story naming Thomas but could not name the married adulterer.
A full-page picture of Ryan Giggs with only his eyes blocked with a black strip appeared on the front page the Scottish Sunday Herald on 22 May 2011 and stated “Everyone knows that this is the footballer accused of using the courts to keep allegations of a sexual affair secret but we weren’t supposed to tell you about that…”. The publication of the Ryan Giggs photograph in the Sunday newspaper, the naming of the footballer on Twitter by some 70,000 Twitter users and his naming by Liberal Democrat MP John Hemming under Parliamentary privilege made Ryan Giggs infidelities the world’s worst kept secret.
A recent Twitter user has brought the effectiveness of the Super-Injunction into question, in what has been described as the “Spycatcher moment” of the internet era, by attracting nearly 55,000 followers to a list of celebrities which it implied were the subject of these Super-Injunctions. The Irish Independent states that “the frenzy of activity on the micro-blogging site yesterday makes the Super-Injunctions as ineffective as the ban placed on publication of the autobiography of the MI5 officer Peter Wright in the mid-1980s. The ban on Spycatcher was lifted in 1988 when the Law Lords realised that overseas publication of the book made a gagging restriction pointless.”
Political activist Jemima Khan, who was wrongly included on the list, yesterday took to her Twitter page, which has more than 60,000 followers, to deny allegations that she was having an affair with Top Gear presenter Jeremy Clarkson. Ms Khan is said to have had dinner with Clarkson and his wife the night before allegations emerged that the two were engaged in an extra-marital affair, allegations which were aired via the media site Twitter. Ms Khan, an ex-girlfriend of Hollywood actor Hugh Grant, was accused of going to court to gain such an injunction to prevent the media from publishing the reports, an accusation which is denied by all parties. Ms Khan tweeted on the morning of May 10th that “I’ve woken up trapped in a bloody nightmare” and assured her followers that the allegations were “untrue and upsetting”.
Similarly, presenter Gabby Logan has too been accused of having an extra-marital affair, an allegation which has been strenuously denied by all parties involved. Ms Logan, who is married to rugby union star Kenny Logan, was falsely accused of having an affair with footballer Alan Shearer; a story which came to light after a Judge had granted an injunction regarding another TV personality. Ms Logan was said to be devastated by the accusations and was forced to publicly deny the affair with the Daily Mail quoting Ms Logan as saying that she was a “faithful wife” and was found such allegations both “devastating and hurtful”.
Super-injunctions are rarely overturned, however, the High Court last year overturned a Super-Injunction preventing newspapers publishing allegations that John Terry, the Former England Captain, had an affair with Vanessa Perroncel, an ex-girlfriend of former team-mate Wayne Bridge. Perroncel has repeatedly denied allegations that she had an affair with the married England footballer who had obtained a Super-Injunction. However, in January 2010, a High Court judge removed the injunction on the grounds that freedom to discuss moral issues was vital to society and because the reason may have been that Terry may have been trying to protect his commercial sponsorships. Although the French model insisted she was just ‘friends’ with Terry, her ex-partner Bridge quit the England Team and refused to shake his former teammate’s hand during a game at Stamford Bridge in February last year. Another recent example is when the Royal Bank of Scotland banker Sir Fred Goodwin won a secret gagging order preventing his former occupation being revealed but the existence of the Super-Injunction was disclosed recently in the House of Commons. In 2009, the oil traders Trafigura and solicitors Carter-Ruck were granted an injunction on the publication of the Minton Report into the alleged dumping of toxic waste in the Ivory Coast. They then obtained a secret injunction preventing the media from reporting a parliamentary question about press freedom. Only hours before Trafigura was to be challenged in the High Court, the firm dropped its claim that to report Parliament would have amounted to contempt of court.
Former prostitute Helen Wood was recently prevented from selling a story naming a client who is a married Hollywood actor. Wood, who was used by the well-known actor whose name is protected by a Super-Injunction, has attacked his ‘fantastic family man’ persona. The married star took out an injunction to prevent the public discovering he had paid a prostitute £195 for sex. Wood counts England footballer Wayne Rooney among her other former famous clients, said she has found it increasingly difficult to keep the actor’s name a secret. Her rendezvous with Wayne Rooney and another call girl, Jennifer Thompson, before England’s World Cup campaign last summer became well-known after a judge lifted a ban on naming her. Wood has admitted that she was paid ‘more than £15,000’ by a newspaper for her story. Asked by the Daily Mail if she thought the revelations on the Internet made a mockery of the law on injunctions, she said: ‘Yes I do, actually, because Twitter is a social website, it is a network, isn’t it?
The UK Telegraph reported that on the 25th May 2011 “a senior executive from Twitter yesterday admitted for the first time that the website would turn over information to authorities if it was “legally required” to do so. Experts had previously assumed that people who breached gagging orders on Twitter were protected from legal reprisals because the website is outside the jurisdiction of British Courts. The admission came after Dominic Grieve, the Attorney General, warned earlier this week that people who breached injunctions online were in for a “rude shock”. He said: “It is quite clear, and has been clear for some time in a number of different spheres, that the enforceability of Court Orders and Injunctions when the Internet exists into which information can be rapidly posted, that presents a challenge. “But that doesn’t necessarily mean that the right course of action is to abandon any attempt at preventing people from putting out information which may in some circumstances be enormously damaging to vulnerable people or indeed, in some cases, be the peddling of lies.” Further, earlier this month the English High Court gave the green light for Louis Bacon, a billionaire US hedge fund manager to force Wikipedia, the online encyclopedia, to disclose the identities of online commentators who allegedly defamed him.
With the online media outlets and social networking sites dominating the Internet traffic on a daily basis, has the Super-Injunction any real chance of success? Since they are so expensive to obtain do they just protect the rich? Does the law just protect those who have engaged in adulterous relationships while those who have been faithful continue to be subjected and are forced to defend unsubstantiated and hurtful online allegations with no consequences for those who have made up such rumours? Will the admission by Twitter that they will engage with and turn over information to the authorities about users when legally obligated to do so really have any impact or will this just encourage individuals to set up accounts with false email addresses with fake names and set them up in Internet Cafes where they are virtually untraceable? Does the Super Injunction impede on freedom of expression and deny natural justice? An individual’s right to privacy as against ones freedom of expression is an argument that will inevitably go on and on but, until that time presents itself one must ask; who do these Super-Injunctions actually protect and taking Ryan Giggs as an example, what is the point in obtaining one??
LegalEagleStar Tuesday , 31st. May , 2011
San Antonio, Texas
Family Law: Mediation v. Court
Image by DrJohnBullas via Flickr
Some time ago on Twitter I became engaged with a Follower on the subject of the role of mediation in Family Law Cases. Interesting exchanges but it became clear that my views were opposite to my friends. I hold the view that a Court is the correct Forum while he felt that Mediation was the way to go. Then along came an English Solicitor who stated that over 90% of his cases had been disposed of through mediation and that he felt it was in his clients best interests as it was what the client wanted. I proffered the view that it was the role, in fact the duty of the Solicitor to advise his/her client of the way forward to resolving their case not let the client decide what they thought was best. It was my duty, under law, to advise the client on all options open to them, including Mediation, but ultimately, after taking full and detailed instructions, to advise the client what I though was best for them in their particular case. It was then up to the client to decide whether to follow my advice or go elsewhere and instruct someone who they felt was best suited for them. The argument made by my English colleague was that Mediation was the best option because it was cheaper. I felt that sometimes the cheaper option could be the most expensive one in the long run. Cost is indeed a factor but in my opinion not the deciding factor. Some people feel that a lawyer is not needed at all. That they can do a better job without a money leaching lawyer. This is not a view I take as Law Without a Lawyer is never, in my experience, a good idea.
Some Years back I attended a Family Law Seminar and one of the speakers was a lady who, if on the opposing side, necessitated on every occasion running the matter into Court. She was, to put it mildly, difficult. It was never easy to settle a case with her. She always took the view, without exception, that her opposite number was one to be fought with to the nth. degree and never, in my view, wished to enter into talks to settle even the most minor matter. So, you can imagine my interest in her lecture on Mediation. She painted the picture of a ‘Happy Divorce’. One where flowers were arranged in the room to create the right atmosphere. After the lecture finished I was still unconvinced and remain so to this day. Maybe it was because it was her giving the lecture. Maybe that’s unfair but I found her talk somewhat unconvincing and I thought insincere.
My views are summarised in the following which appears on my website… ”Remember your wedding? The preparation, the big day, and the cost? Well prepare yourself for the same trauma except this time it is not a happy occasion. Nevertheless with sensitive handling and the proper legal team behind you, you can be assured of a satisfactory outcome. Negotiation and mediation often facilitate resolution, however, we will pursue litigation to protect our clients best interests. Don’t be bullied or face this trauma alone. You owe it to yourself and your family to do it right.”
I know this is a contentious issue and one where people have formed their opinions based on their own experiences. Needless to say if you have had a bad experience with a lawyer of course this will colour your view and this is quite valid. Family Law should only be practised by lawyers who have expertise in that area. No matter how sympathetic you may be to your client it is not in their best interests for you to handle their family law case if you do not have the expertise so clearly needed. The lawyer must also have people skills as this is a traumatic experience for anyone to have to endure. In a perfect world I have no doubt that mediation is the ideal scenario but unfortunately we have to deal with a great amount of hurt and devastation. In such circumstances a great deal of time is needed to take the correct and detailed instructions from the client before you are in a position to outline what course of action you feel is necessary to achieve a satisfactory outcome for your client. Remember that you are dealing with someone’s life and indeed in most cases,the lives of children.
The family law practitioner has a heavy burden resting on them. Sometimes it can be a traumatic experience for them also. I recall a case many years ago when, with my opposite number, we disposed with most issues in the case, bar the custody of the children of the marriage. It is not what you think. Neither in fact wanted them ! They had no problem sorting out the house, in fact houses and cars, including the treasured BMW. I had to listen to quite a lot of nonsense that day but when they both argued that the children would be better off with the other, I became quite enlightened as to both of their lifestyles. Sometimes it amazes me what people’s priorities actually are !
LegalEagleStar Wednesday, 27th. April, 2011
LegalEagleStar 