An Bord Pleanala to decide on Tara/M3 next week

by TaraWatch Fri Aug 17, 2007 07:01

Planning board will decide if M3 route needs fresh approval

By Paul Melia
Friday August 17 2007

AN BORD Pleanala is to decide within weeks if the discovery of a national monument on the path of the controversial M3 motorway should compel planners to seek fresh approval for the route.

The National Roads Authority have asked the planning appeals board to decide if the excavations of the Lismullin national monument are a "material change" to the approved scheme and if a new planning application is required.

If the board rule that the road scheme is now different to the one approved in September 2003, it could require a fresh planning application to be lodged, which would lead to huge delays in delivering the motorway.

The Lismullin ritual site was discovered earlier this year but former Environment Minister Dick Roche directed that it be preserved "by record" - which means excavation before it is removed from the road's path.

The National Monuments Act requires the road authority to submit these new directions to the board, which is expected to decide in the coming weeks if the motorway will require a fresh planning application.

Yesterday TaraWatch called on Environment Minister John Gormley to halt excavation works on the prehistoric ritual site while the board reviews the planning permission.

"The minister appears to be acting in bad faith here, by allowing demolition of the national monument to proceed while the board is making its legal determination," spokesman Vincent Salafia said. "Minister Gormley must stop the demolition by the NRA and Meath County Council now and permit only the excavation of the delicate features now exposed on the surface.

"This magnificant prehistoric amphitheatre, which sits in plain view of the hilltop, deserves the highest level of protection possible."

The Department of the Environment has said it does not have the power to alter the route of the road unless a "material change" or new information emerges.

- Paul Melia

by W. Finnerty. Fri Aug 17, 2007 09:58

This Board Pleanala business is all well and good, and like many others I imagine, I welcome it.

However, and as I see things at least, there is a far more basic, and a far more important piece of "unfinished business": which directly relates to the matter of the constitutionality of our National Monuments (Amendment) Act 2004.

I don't know of anybody who believes our National Monuments (Amendment) Act 2004 is constitutional.

It is certainly the case that constitutional law expert Dr Gerard Hogan (Fellow of Trinity College) believes that our National Monuments (Amendment) Act 2004 is unconstitutional. Please note his statement in the January 14th 2006 Daily Telegraph article:

"Gerry Hogan, senior counsel for Mr Salafia, claimed the legislation used to push through the project was unconstitutional. He said the National Monuments (Amendment) Act 2004 weakened the role of the Oireachtas (Ireland's national parliament) by giving the minister discretionary powers to determine the fate of the country's heritage. Mr Hogan claimed the state's duty to protect monuments had been 'seriously compromised'.

Why is that this crucially important matter appears to have now been completely abandoned by our entire legal profession?

Further information relating to this particular issue can be found at http://www.indymedia.ie/article/83611#comment203109 .

I have to say that I (for one) am getting EXTREMELY sick and tired of the way corruption in the legal profession keeps on, and on, and on, being COMPLETELY ignored as a factor in the wilful destruction of some of our nation's most important heritage sites.

It now appears to me that unless the issue of corruption in the legal profession is addressed, illegal law will continue to be used to damage and destroy more and more of our most important heritage sites, and the same illegal law will be used as a basis for punishing anybody who tries to stop all the sickening damage and destruction - including the several Tara protesters who were arrested some weeks ago, and who I understand are due to appear in court next month (i.e. September 2007).

Yesterday, and in the confirmed belief that corruption in the legal profession now constitutes a MASSIVE global problem, albeit very well hidden of course, I sent an e-mail to an international selection of senior politicians and lawyers, and used the Tara situation to provide examlples of the very nasty and shocking things that can and do happen when senior lawyers corruptly produce, and corruptly sustain, unconstitutional law. For anybody interested, a copy of the e-mail used can be seen at http://www.europeancourtofhumanrightswilliamfinnerty.com/ChiefJusticeMurray/16August2007/Email.htm .

When, I wonder, will the Republic of Ireland's legal profession start to show some GENUINE respect for Bunreacht na hEireann (The Basic Law of the Republic of Ireland)?

What is the matter with you all?

by NMA Fri Aug 17, 2007 10:06

Does give Minister Gormley unreviewable discretionary powers in relation to the
preservation by record of National monuments but has to be viewed in concert with
the introduction of the SIB (June 2006) and with the Aarhus Convention, which forms
part of the SIB. The envisaged shake-up of the courts to facilitate the now 54 projects
by vested interests is also a cause of concern , along with no statutory agency to
implement protections to Natural and built heritage.

In other words its a mess.
Mr dempsey has been re-appointed to transport, which leads one to assume that the
portfolio of cronies and contacts are raring to get on with the projects, which will
mitigate against community and agricultural interests. Gormley needs must review
the planning process root and branch.

http://www.environ.ie/

by W. Finnerty. Fri Aug 17, 2007 11:22

Ref: Posting at "Fri Aug 17, 2007 10:06" above:

As far as I know, our "Planning and Development (Strategic Infrastructure) Act 2006", is the "daddy-of-them-all" when it comes to unconstitutional legislation (i.e. ILLEGAL LAW), and it has actually been described as "the most dangerous legislation that has ever come before the House" by Fine Gael TD Michael Ring.

All of this was pointed out to President Mary Mary McAleese (by me) about a month before she signed this piece of legislation into law, in a letter sent to her through the registered post on June 17th 2006.

I understand that at some point in her career, before she became President, Mary McAleese was a professor of law at Trinity College, Dublin - as I understand Dr Gerard Hogan (referred to above) is at the present time.

For anybody interested, a copy my letter and the associated Post Office receipt, which was sent to President Mary McAleese on June 17th 2006, and which was also copied to a number of other senior lawyers and politicians in the Republic of Ireland on the same day, can be viewed at: http://www.europeancourtofhumanrightswilliamfinnerty.com/PresidentMaryMcAleese17June2006/Email.htm

As far as "sins-of-omission" relating to VIOLATIONS of Bunreacht na hEireann (Constitution) are concerned, my choice for "first-prize" would be the outrageously corrupt way that the United Nations international agreement known as the "Aarhus Convention Agreement", signed by the Republic of Ireland in June 1998, has NEVER been "laid before Dail Eireann (Republic of Ireland Parliament)": as is VERY clearly required under the terms of Article 29. 5. 1° of Bunreacht na hEireann (The Constitution of the Republic of Ireland).

I raised this "Aarhus" matter (among others) in a letter sent through the registered post to the then Minister for Justice (Mr Michael McDowell TD) on August 4th 2006. For anybody interested, a copy of the latter in question, plus the Post Office receipt, can be viewed at http://www.europeancourtofhumanrightswilliamfinnerty.com/JusticeMinisterMcDowell4August2006/Letter.htm .

In case there might be any doubt about it, the entire contents of BOTH of the above mentioned letter have all been COMPLETELY ignored (from my viewpoint at least) by President Mary McAleese, and by former Minister for Justice Mc Dowell; and, for the benefit of some readers who might not know, both Mary McAleese and Michael McDowell are qualified lawyers I understand.

by Vincent Fri Aug 17, 2007 12:15

The current situation seems to be ripe for a full challenge to the SIB. Instead of blaming lawyers for not attacking, why not try and remember that the constitutional issue has been raised and established by lawyers, working for a free, in a number of recent cases? There are no shortage of lawyers to take up the fight again. Any delay has been caused by the lack of willing Irish experts to support the claims. The true nature of the Lismullin site has been buried under NRA spin. Thankfully that has now been resolved. It is an amphitheatre, the original super-bowl. It is not delicate at all. There will be a major report on that made available very soon.

If people on this site, with some legal knowledge of law, want to help, they can present the relevant sections of SIB here and do an analysis of what the arguments should be in this case. Apply the law to the facts of an individual litigant, who we can assume did not participate in the original planning process. So, standing is the first issue. What limitations are there on access to courts? Run the constitutional argument. What parts of the constitution does the Act violate and why. Does the Act violate EU law? Are there any other irregulaities? What about Natural Law? Is it dead and gone in Ireland?

by NMA Fri Aug 17, 2007 12:31

It was Michael Mc Dowell who sponsored the Bill through the house on June 16th of 2006.

The use of the term 'unreviewable discretionary powers' was coined by Ger Hogan during the
case against the Minister, The NRA and Meath County Council regarding the granting of
38 separate licences to excavate along the route of the M3 by Dick Roche (then Minister for
The Environment).

On Feburary 16th 2006 at the Launch of the SIB in the DOE, Minister Roche asserted that
he would only transpose elements of Aarhus into Irish Legislation, these points are directly
related to access to judicial process by the citizen and reduces access to process to
incepted environmental groups with at least twelve months history and the words ;
'protection of the environment' listed in their aims/means and foundation documents.
what is really surprising is that though this is manifestly anti-citizen (coupled with the
restructuring of the courts envisaged as part of the fast-track planning process) no one organisation
or the present Minister for the Environment has sought to query the SIB at European level,
nor to review the laws governing natural and built heritage protections.

The launch coincided, incidentially with a further delay from the Supreme Court on the
decision on the Dunne case in relation to Carrickmines. the fact that new ministers have
received their portfolios is no excuse for a lack of review of aggressive planning
legislations introduced by Roche and Cullen.

Michael Ring was quite correct in his assertion of the inherent flaws and evident corruption
of this bill and whilst welcoming the ABP's announcement on the Lismullin site the
role of ABP requires review as the SIB envisaged a re-structuring of the role of An Bord
Pleanala within the new powers granted to the corporate lobby through the
Strategic infrastructure Bill.

by Roestown reporter Fri Aug 17, 2007 12:44

The Green Man from Tara wil be seeking a word with Minister Gormley this afternoon
to question whether he has changed his colours. He will be available at Collins Barracks
early in the afternoon, or if that doesn't suit the minister, later at Green Party HQ in Suffolk St.
He's not going away.

by W. Finnerty. Fri Aug 17, 2007 14:56

Vincent (Fri Aug 17, 2007 12:15 above),

My recollection, and please correct me in this thread if I'm wrong, is that there was a EUROS 600,000 bill for the High Court "National Monuments (Amendment) Act 2004" case which you were involved with in the early part of 2006, and which you were unable to pay - and had not in fact ever expected to be asked to pay, I assume.

Like yourself, and your legal team I imagine, I would have assumed that the State would have picked up the bill - in full - for such an important challenge involving constitutional law: which I, and I suspect many other people are extremely grateful to you for attempting.

However, it is my understanding that the judge involved (Mr Justice Thomas Smyth) did something unusual and unexpected: in that he saddled you personally with a VERY large bill.

I further understand that, in exchange for having the EUROS 600,000 bill paid for on your behalf by the State, you entered into an agreement with senior members of the legal profession NOT take your case to the Supreme Court.

Consequently, none of us now know (for sure) whether our National Monuments (Amendment) Act 2004 is constitutional or not: though from Dr Gerard Hogan's "Daily Telegraph" remarks related in my posting above (at Fri Aug 17, 2007 09:58), it seems it is NOT constitutional: and consequently UNLAWFUL.

In other words, the whole matter of the very doubtful constitutional status of our "National Monuments (Amendment) Act 2004" is STILL all "up in the air": but, at the same time, the judge in Navan court who dealt with the Tara protestors has acted as though it was all 100% lawful.

Personally, I fail to see how any useful progress can be made regarding the protection of our heritage sites until the constitutionality of our National Monuments (Amendment) Act 2004 has been checked and decided upon by the Supreme Court.

I further believe that the Tara protestors should not be tried for any offence until the constitutionality of our National Monuments (Amendment) Act 2004 has been checked and decided upon by the Supreme Court.

My interest in all this, though to some extent indirect, is nonetheless EXTREMELY serious and important from my viewpoint: in that I have been living in forced exile in Northern Ireland since December 2004, and I wish to able to return to my home in County Galway without having to run the risk of being corruptly criminalised (and possibly) imprisoned for an alleged "crime" which NEVER happened (as far as I'm concerned).

Unless something of significance is done to challenge the outrageous corruption in the legal profession in the Republic of Ireland, I believe it will NEVER be safe for me to return to my home in County Galway: allowing for the fact that I have been diagnosed as suffering from Complex Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (C-PTSD) "as the result of traumas and stresses at the hands of individuals and public officials and bodies that he has encountered in his struggles to try to correct environmental wrong doings": as described by my GP (Dr Michael MCavert) in his "To Whom It May Concern" letter dated October 28th 2005, and which ALL the lawyers in the Republic of Ireland that I, and other members of my family, have given copies to are COMPLETELY ignoring.

Incidentally, I believe the way Mr Justice Thomas Smyth handled the EUROS 600,000 fee business in your case is one of the very best examples I can provide of outrageous corruption in the Republic of Ireland's judiciary. First he unexpectedly saddled you with a huge bill, and then he used the huge bill to get you to abandon your plan to take your very important and very necessary constitutional challenge to the Supreme Court, as would be normal in such cases.

By such tactics, Mr Justice Thomas Smyth and his colleagues in the judiciary can continue (indefinitely as things stand) to use National Monuments (Amendment) Act 2004 "law", which is in all probability ILLEGAL LAW, to support the construction of PPP toll roads which have been designed to destructively plough through places like Tara, County Meath (the Bronze Age Capital of Ireland as far as I know) and Turoe, County Galway (the Iron Age Capital of Ireland as far as I know).

If the situation outlined in the paragraph immediately above does not represent "legal profession corruption" at its very worst, then I don't know what does?

by Vincent Fri Aug 17, 2007 15:43

Hi WIlliam,

I think by now we all get the message that you think the courts are currupt. Nonetheless, cases have to be taken and that's how the law develops. There are good lawyers and bad lawyers, good judges and bad judges, just like every walk of life. If you think the entire system is corrupt, then go outside it. If you are going to work within it, obey, but challenge the rules.

As for my case, the Smyth judgment was a very bad and political judgment. If an appeal had gone to the Supreme Court and lost, that would have sealed the National Monuments Act from any further constitutional challenge. That's why a decision was taken, not to risk a good issue with bad facts, going to the Supreme. Costs were a secondary issue. They agreed not to pursue me for the 600, 000 and I agreed to withdraw the appeal, which was doomed anyway.

Now, we are in a position to run a new challenge on good facts, with proper expert testimony.

But making grand sweeping statements and allegations here won't get the job done. Let's see some actual legal argument, not rhetoric. What about a human rights angle? You say the Act is unconstitutional. Why? What caselaw are you referring to? What Articles in the constitution? What about similar situations in other countries. Please try and make your comments helpful and analyitical. Thanks

by W. Finnerty. Fri Aug 17, 2007 16:54

Vincent (Fri Aug 17, 2007 15:43 above),

The following two pieces of text have been taken from the TaraWatch "PRESS RELEASE" dated June 29th 2006:

"Mr Salafia is judicially reviewing the directions given my Minister Dick Roche in May 2005, under the National Monuments Act 2004, in relation to excavation and demolition of 38 archaeological sites, along one of five sections of the M3, between Navan and Dunshaughlin."

"Mr Salafia is claiming that the Directions, along with the Act, are unconstitutional and that the M3 motorway passes through the Tara national monument, as well as associated national monuments."

Please note that you yourself,as can clearly be seen above, have stated that our "National Monuments (Amendment) Act 2004" is UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

Has anything happened in the meantime to make "the Directions, along with the Act", i.e. our "National Monuments (Amendment) Act 2004" constitutional?; and, if not, what - if anything - are you and your colleagues in the legal profession doing about this extremely unsatisfactory situation?

Should not you and your colleagues in the legal profession be focusing on the fact that both yourself, and constitutional law expert Dr Gerard Hogan, obviously believe our "National Monuments (Amendment) Act 2004" is UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

As I trust you'll understand, I'm still worried that you and your colleagues in the legal profession may have your priorities set wrong (at the present time): and that many of us, myself included, will all continue to pay VERY dearly if you don't set them right, without undue delay.

by Vincent Fri Aug 17, 2007 17:19

William. This is getting tiresome. If you want to help, then please do so, by giving us some analysis. It's easy to sit on the sidelines and and make wild accusations. You're draggintg this discussion into the same old mud,. No wonder this country is in such a state. Everyone's a critic, and nobody wants to do any real work. Can you please provide some constructive research?

by Troll Fri Aug 17, 2007 17:33

Putting all hopes for the difficult legislative problems inherent in the planning process is only one
aspect of the fight for Tara. There are other issues and 'all the eggs in one basket' is limiting
discussions on problems with SIB, with planning and with the roles of both the Courts and
the offices of An Bord Pleanala.

There are many aspects to driving protest and the limitations of the legal system do create difficulties
which is why there are many developed ways of contributing to discussions on tara and planning.
Creative. legislative.Political. NVDA

http://www.tarapixie.tk/
http://www.savetara.com/
http://www.tarawatch.org/

And individuals who through their art are highlighting the issues of creative and artistic
inspiration in relation to colective consciousness and community protest.

by Vincent Fri Aug 17, 2007 18:31

I was wondering when the Trolls would show up.

TaraWatch is not focusing solely on the legal issues. We started the direct action protests in January, with the Vigil and STSV and members continue to be involved on the ground, and direct supprt is also being given to protestors on the ground. We protested at the Viking ship the other day, and got press. We are protesting tomorrow at the Stones, and are already getting press. We got the World Monuments Fund on board. We made submissions to the EU. We're putting on academic events, like the one we had at Trinity a few months back. We're putting on marches, like Love Tara. Love Tara 2 will be on Sept 15 in Dublin. We're putting on a public meeting in Dublin in September in Liberty hall. We're using the Internet to great effect, using petitions and mailing lists, and myspace. We are out on the street every weekend in Dublin. We're putting on a gig in the Temple bar Music centre. We're getting media on board, like the Pat Kenny show, which will be broadcasting live from the Hill in September. And yes, we're working on the legal matters, which is what this particular thread is about.

TaraWatch is making an effort to to co-ordinate actions and information with other groups and individuals, and we're not going to get sucked into public feuds with other campaigners. We support all the efforts of all the local groups, like Tara Solidarity Vigil, Tarapixie, Save Tara Skryne Valley Group, Campaign to Save Tara, Tara Heritage Preservation Group, Fianna Nua, and all of the individuals navigating between them. That does not we agree with all their tactics, but we all have a right to do our own thing. We are resolved not to get into any public feuds, that will undermine the entire movement. In our eyes, anyone trying to on one hand say they want to save Tara and on the other spend most of their time make campaigners lives miserable, are only coming from one place; the enemy.

William is perfectly correct in many things he says. And I think he is under the impression that we are not going to attack the constitutionality of the Act. That is exactly what we are going to do, and it was so a proper attack could go forward on those grounds that I withdrew my case, so as not to copperfasten the constitutionality of the Act. with a flawed case in the Supreme Court

We are quite certain that some of the groups on the ground have been infiltrated, as indeed this web site is, on a continuous basis.

Nonetheless, we feel it is important that the facts and issues involved reach the public eye. That is why it was us that found out that An Bord Pleanala is deciding this issue, and brought it to your attention, the attention of the media dn the Opposition. We assume you are intelligent and wellread and want to assist by discussing the real legal and political issues that are stake here, in a productive way. There are a number of legal avenues open. We want to make sure we consider all the options. That's why we are here talking about it. That's why I'm trying to tell William that I hear what he is saying, but we're not here for general chats.

We had a huge landmark case in Carrickmines where a constitional duty to protect heritage exists. It was a new constitional duty never before found in Ireland or any other country in the world. Now we need to enforce that duty. it has taken us five years to get this far. You have no idea how much backbreaking work has gone into this so far. The possibility is there to knock out the Act on constitutional grounds, and we are working on that. But there are also a lot of other things happening, such as the EU stating the Act is contrary to EU law. There's the SIB, there's human rights, and many other issues, all of which have to analysed... reading thousands of pages of hundreds of cases and books of evidence. It always astonished me how people take all this for granted, or dismiss as unimportant. By all means, stand in front of bulldozers or dress up like a tree. I've done it myself, but it's about time people understood how masssive and serious an undertaking it is to take a full legal challenge.

We're here to solve a particular problem, with a particular set of facts and circumstances that are unfolding now in front of us. We have to address them head on, in a short space of time. That means we have to focus and be concise, surgical. That's why all the bullshit being shoveled by a few disrupters can be so damaging. Indymedia, a wonderful tool for human change, is being constantly retarded by those who want the status quo.

For those of you people who are new to the Tara issue, here's a draft of an article I just wrote for a magazine that gives a brief history of the M3 at Tara:

- TARA WILL SAVE IRELAND -

The Hill of Tara/M3 motorway issue has gone global over the last four years and has dredged up everything that is wrong with current Irish road building policy and practice. It has also awoken a deep-seated passion within the general populous for heritage and environmental justice; for the love of their land. Things didn’t have to happen this way. So, where did it all go wrong?

It can all be traced back to the Cabinet Subcommittee on the National Development Plan 2000-2006. The 1999 NRA Road Needs Study, which called for modest motorway construction and general upgrading of existing roads, was binned. Along with it went the recently approved upgrade of the N3, with bypasses of Navan and Dunshaughlin, which had been in planning since 1983.

Then some genius decided to turn the N’s into M’s and suddenly Meath was now to have four major motorways, M1, M2, M3 and M4, running alongside existing national roads. Each planning process took place in a vacuum, as if the other three did not exist.
The M3 planning process, while it may have been the longest in Irish history, was never presented with a single route option that went outside the core Tara complex. Experts gave warnings and were ignored. So, the M3 was certain to be challenged after it received at planning permission in September 2003.

Because An Bord Pleanala was turned into the planning approval body instead of the review board for national infrastructure projects in 2000, there is no opportunity for independent review or appeal, other than judicial review. However, only those who participated in the process were legally allowed to take judicial review, and none of the private citizens did, for fear of losing their homes.
Coillte, who own the national monument of Rath Lugh being impacted in Lismullin, did not even participate in the 2002 planning process and simply handed the land over via CPO. Duchas, the Heritage Service did participate but was shut down in 2003. So, the M3 was doomed to proceed until something dramatic happened, which inevitably did with the discovery of the ancient amphitheatre in Lismullin.

Road building reached the comic theatrical with the sod-turning on a Monday 31st April, by Minister for Transport, Martin Cullen, and the cessation of works on Tuesday, May 1, by Minister for the Environment, Dick Roche. The endemic flaw in the entire process was exhibited with the declaration, on one hand, of the National Monument and the subsequent decision to proceed as planned, and demolish it, on the other. Why declare it such at all, when the result is exactly the same?

What aggravated the problem since the onset was the behaviour of the NRA, who’ve consistently misled the public and public representatives with their publicly funded spin. The M3 is NOT further away from the Hill of Tara than the existing road. It passes over the N3 at Blundelstown, and runs along the northern slope of the Hill. Even Professor Gabriel Cooney, of UCD, who sits on the Minister’s Lismullin Committee, recently wrote in The Irish Times that the M3 is 2km away from the Hill of Tara. It is in fact 1,000 meters from the top of the Hill. Perhaps this mathematical challenge can be closely examined and corrected by the winner of the new NRA archaeology scholarship at UCD?

Meanwhile, the NDP 2000-2006 has expired and a new one has ben approved, refinancing many of the projects that were meant to have been built already. The cost had gone from 6 to approx 24 billion euros, and the main stated objective of connecting up the five major cities was not even close to completion. It has rightly been described on RTE’s Prime Time as the biggest waste of taxpayers’ money in the history of the State.

The controversy surrounding Carrickmines Castle and M50 (2002-2004) should have sent warning signs to the authorities regarding the need for early detection of national monuments. Instead it was used to create a mechanism that gave the authorities an opportunity to legislate a greasy path for flawed infrastructure projects; the National Monuments Act, 2004. It also offered a scapegoat to blame for all those wasted billions; historians, lawyers, archaeologists, environmentalists, and public minded citizens were lined up for public character assassination for simply going to court, and winning.

The new national monuments legislation, spawned by Minister Martin Cullen, that was used to push the M50 through the remains of Carrickmines Castle and two Supreme Court injunctions, is now set to be the undoing of the M3 project. The European Commission has sent a Reasoned Opinion to the Irish authorities, stating that it does not comply with EU Directives governing Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) because it does not afford an opportunity for a new EIA where there has been a material change to an approved road-project; i.e., the discovery of a national monument and subsequent decision to demolish it.

The only reason we know about the EU intervention is because Kathy Sinnott, MEP, wrote to the Commission and asked if it was aware that the Hill of Tara had been placed on the World Monuments Fund, List of 100 Most Endangered Sites, in June of the year. The Commission replied that it was, and outlined the basis of the Reasoned Opinion, which not only targets the National Monuments Act, but the National Development Plan 2007-2013 on the basis that it was made without proper public consultation. In other words, the entire grand scheme is about to unravel, and the M3 will be the first casualty.

The Green Party Minister for the Environment, John Gormley, is in a position to intervene now in the M3 process, and prevent it advancing further before being turned around at even greater cost. He has a legal duty to protect the Lismullin national monument that is being illegally demolished. He has a political duty to save the taxpayer any more wasted expenditure on a flawed and illegal route. He even has the legal power to do act now, but simply does not have the political backing of Fianna Fail to do his job. That is why he is not introducing new legislation, like Martin Cullen did, to resolve the route of a motorway or placing Preservation Orders on threatened national monuments. The legislation would not be passed and the Orders would not survive being placed before the Oireachtas for 21 sitting days.

The latest Government line is that protestors are acting in an undemocratic manner. This is perhaps the saddest depth the affair has ever reached. The guillotining of heritage legislation, civil rights and independent public bodies, along with the voodoo economics and backroom concocting of the National Development Plans, reveals a Government that is more totalitarian and undemocratic than any of us would ever have imagined before all this started.

Everyone knows the routing of the M50 at Carrickmines Castle had more to do with Jackson Way Properties and rezoning, across the road from the castle site, than it did with transport policy. Now we also know the planning of the M1-4, M50, and Outer Orbital Route, has little to do with sustainable transport and more to do with commercial property development. Until there is a good faith effort on the part of the authorities to engage with the public in arriving at decisions how public money is spent, and how publicly-owned built and natural heritage are preserved, no other conclusions will be possible.

History will record that it was Tara that saved Ireland, not Ireland that saved Tara.

-

Vincent Salafia, BA, JD, (LLM candiate Trinity College Dublin)

by Susan Sheehan-Repasky - Flicker Light Studio Fri Aug 17, 2007 22:01 art at tomandsusan dot us

Thank you for posting this information.

by W. Finnerty. Fri Aug 17, 2007 23:13

Vincent (at Fri Aug 17, 2007 18:31 above),

I feel I cannot sensibly attempt to speak for others, and I will not attempt to do so.

Strictly for myself though, I would like to say that it appears to me you have put in an enormous amount of work, and that that work has produced lots of very useful results.

Similarly, I believe, with regards to other individuals, and groups of individuals (particularly those living outside of Ireland), who are or have been involved in trying to protect our heritage sites at Tara and other locations, and in a huge variety of different ways of course.

Unfortunately, and despite all the good results to date (of all our combined efforts put together), many important heritage sites are still in desperate danger, and there is still no obvious means that I know of for protecting them properly: at the present time.

Allowing for the fact that you have agreed not to challenge the constitutionality of "National Monuments (Amendment) Act 2004" yourself in the Supreme Court, it appears to me that this particular piece of legislation can be used again, and again, and again, to damage and destroy heritage sites all over the Republic of Ireland: unless somebody - other than yourself of course, allowing for the agreement you have entered into - succeeds in operating the procedure at http://www.citizensinformation.ie/categories/government-in-ireland/irish-constitution-1/unconstitutional_legislation_and_decisions in such a way that the troublesome parts of this particular Act (i.e the parts believed to be unconstitutional) are fully removed and scrapped.

My direct experiences with An Board Pleanala are very different to yours I suspect. I lodged an appeal with them regarding the Greenstar / National Toll Roads Kilconnell "Super Dump" (which is located near my home in County Galway), and the conclusion I was eventually forced to arrive was that An Board Pleanala simply HAD to be grossly corrupt. A copy of the Appeal in question (dated April 21st 2004) can be viewed at http://www.finnachta.com/BordPleanalaAppeal.htm . My reason for saying An Board Pleanala HAVE to be grossly corrupt is because they COMPLETELY ignored everything I pointed out to them in my Appeal at the Internet address in this paragraph. Consequently, I personally do not have the SLIGHTEST confidence in An Board Pleanala.

With regard to human rights, and as I feel sure you already know, there are now some really good-quality bits and pieces of human rights law in place (as I see things at least). However, and as I have found out to my extreme frustration, they are strictly for "window-dressing" purposes ONLY it seems. For example, not only can I not find a lawyer in the Republic of Ireland who is willing to use the Republic of Ireland's "European Convention on Human Rights Act 2003" (at http://193.178.1.79/2003/en/act/pub/0020/index.html ) on my behalf, and Article 13 would be absolutely ideal for my purposes I believe, I cannot find a single lawyer in the Republic of Ireland who is willing to even discuss this particular Act with me.

Please note that Ballinasloe law firm "Hogan & Co" (which has been my family's law firm for several generations) will not even let me have an "acknowledgement of receipt" for the registered letter I sent to them on April 3rd 2007 (the contents of which can be seen at http://www.europeancourtofhumanrightswilliamfinnerty.com/JohnGlynn3April2007/EmailLetter.htm ).

From a general "Justice" viewpoint (which includes the prevention of wholesale heritage site destruction), my direct experiences leave me in absolutely no doubt whatsoever that there are HUGE and EXTREMELY serious problems within the Republic of Ireland's legal profession at the present time, and to try and pretend otherwise is simply not realistic, and definitely not helpful (in my view) as far as the protection of our ancient heratige sites is concerned.

I'm not at all sure that "Justice" is any longer a concern of ANYBODY connected with the Republic of Ireland's legal system? If it was, how could you and all your colleagues in the legal profession STILL be COMPLETELY ignoring the whole contents of Dr McCavert's (GP) letter at the following address - since October 2005, please note: http://www.europeancourtofhumanrightswilliamfinnerty.com/DrMcCavert28October2005/Letter.htm ???

So much for the Republic of Ireland's "Courts of Justice", and our "Minister for Justice" (so called)!!

by TaraWatch Sat Aug 18, 2007 14:15

Save Our Stones

The Star - Sat, Aug 18

Hill of Tara protestors urge rock relics to back campaign

WRINKLY ROCKERS The Rolling Stones have been urged to use today's concert tin Slane to campaign against the demolition of an ancient amphitheatre in the Hill of Tara.

The demolition - part of works needed to build the M3 interchange at the foot of the hill - has been slammed by the campaigners' group TaraWatch.

"If the Stones had come to Ireland 3,000 years ago they would have played in this massive amphitheatre. It is an ancient royal stage," Laura Grealish of TaraWatch told The Star.

They have been e-mailing the Stones website for weeks asking the band to speak out against the works on the hill.

"We already have artists like Louis le Brocquy, Jim Fitzpatrick, Liam O Maonlai and Colm Toibin speaking out against the proposed route of the M3. But getting the Stones on board would be a huge boost," Ms Grealish said.

Weather

Campaigners will visit Slane today looking for signatures to help in their battle against the works.

Meanwhile, fans heading to the concert are beign urged to pack their waterproofs. Weather forecasters confirmed there is to be no break in the endless summer downpours.

There will be no unbrlellas allowed in the gig.

=

Gormley 'can't make M3 go away'

Irish Times

Ronan McGreevy

Minister for the Environment John Gormley has said he has "no magic wand" to make the M3 motorway go away.

Mr Gormley met protesters against the proposed motorway who picketed the offices of the Green Party on Suffolk Street in Dublin yesterday.

The meeting, which took place in a restaurant close to party headquarters, was an impromptu affair which took place as Mr Gormley was in the vicinity. He said he had no good news for protesters.

"There seems to be a belief among them, and it has been propagated by some of them, that I have a magic wand and I can make the road go away. I can't," he said.

"The situation is that this road was agreed to many years ago before I'd even come in. I don't even drive a car myself.

"I'm not a great enthusiast for motorways in general, but the fact is that my own function as Minister for the Environment is in the designation of national monuments.

"I don't have the good news that they want. The good news is that I'm trying as best I can that any archaeology that is done is done to the highest standards."

One of the protesters, JP Fay, from Trim, Co Meath, said he impressed upon the Minister an alternative route which he and others drew up which would be 3½ miles shorter than the proposed motorway through the Hill of Tara, and would also include a rail link.

"Our meeting was short. It was hello, thank you. He took my phone number and said he would look up the stuff that I sent to him already, but I think that it is snow and it will melt."

by Droll Troll Sat Aug 18, 2007 14:27

Any archaelology that is done.....

O Mi God!, He is not even aware of the campaigns, the legislations or the Planning acts.
Ciaran Cuffe who is very silent might like to 'drop in' and teach John a thing or two about how archaelology is 'done'.
Tara is being presided over by the greatest collection of idiots who cannot add, subtract or form sentences.
This is the brave new world envisaged by the leadership of the Greens.

No wonder Pat Mc Kenna was crying, male bimbos in the Dail.

http://www.tarapixie.tk/
http://www.savetara.com/
http://www.tarawatch.org/

by nopsin Sat Aug 18, 2007 15:48

So a email was sent to them wow, what a story, basically using their name without asking them classy as ever

And Gormely could he be more condescending?

by W.Finnerty. Sat Aug 18, 2007 20:51

Vincent (Fri Aug 17, 2007 18:31),

As you are a lawyer, I'm wondering what your views are regarding the situation I have related above (at Fri Aug 17, 2007 23:13) in connection with Dr McCavert's "To Whom It May Concern" letter dated October 28th 2005?

Do you think the legal profession is treating me reasonably regarding this letter?

I ask this question because I personally believe the BEST way to save our heritage sites, at this point in time, is to vigorously challenge corruption in the legal profession: particularly in the judiciary.

by W. Finnerty. Sun Aug 19, 2007 17:26

Vincent (Fri Aug 17, 2007 18:31),

Though you obviously have not yet had a chance to reply to my posting at Sat Aug 18, 2007 20:51 above, I would at this stage like to point out some other information I recently came across to you.

This additional information relates to a PUBLIC MEETING I attended in Northern Ireland last Thursday evening (i.e. August 17th 2007).

The main purpose of this meeting apparently, was to help the "VICTIMS OF IRISH SOLICITORS" - as stated on one of the "handouts" provided at the meeting.

Readers not familiar with the word "solicitor" can (I believe) safely take it to mean "a lawyer who advises clients on matters of law", although in practice solicitors in Ireland frequently do a limited range of other legal jobs besides, such as drawing up wills, drawing up and processing legal documents relating to home / land sales, and so on.

Last Thursday's meeting was very well attended, and the numbers present far exceeded what I personally had anticipated.

Before and after the meeting began I had the opportunity to talk informally with several of the people who attended this event (which was held in a fairly large hotel).

Without exception, ALL of the several people I spoke with appeared to be perfectly reasonable, normal, and decent people; and, all apparently have had truly shocking experiences at the hands of lawyers (of one kind or another): some of which they related during the course of this public meeting.

Invariably, and as in my own case, all of the very severe problems with the legal profession spoken of seem to drag on, and on, and on, without any hope of an "effective remedy" in sight.

At one point during the meeting, one of the "Top Table" speakers pointed out that their organisation had lost a number of its members during the past 12 months through SUICIDE - as a direct result of the unresolved legal problems they were struggling with.

In so far as I can judge, both sections of the community (Protestant and Catholic) were well represented at last Thursday's meeting, and the problems aired during the meeting were very definitely related to lawyers operating in BOTH of the legal jurisdictions on the Island of Ireland: i.e. the Northern Ireland (part of the United Kingdom) jurisdiction, and the Republic of Ireland jurisdiction. (Many of those in attendance were from the Republic of Ireland, and at least one had come from as far south as Kerry.)

In the course of relating the difficulties these people claim to have experienced at the hands of lawyers, the use of words and phrases such as "ruthless", "vicious", "callous beyond belief", and "totally unbelievable" were frequently used.

However, and without wishing in any way to distract from the above, the thing about last Thursday's meeting which REALLY concerns me just now, and the main reason I'm posting this item on Indymedia (Ireland) today, relates to another piece of text from the same "handout" (mentioned above):

"... we were informed by what was described as a decent High Court Register that there were as little as five uncorrupt Judges operating in the 'Four Courts' (Dublin) - out of a total of 40 or so, I was later informed by one of the meeting's organisers.

I genuinely hope, FOR ALL OUR SAKES, that you and all of the other members of your legal team who helped you with your High Court constitutional challenge in early 1996 (presided over by Mr Justice Thomas Smyth), and relating directly to the constitutionality of our "National Monuments (Amendment) Act 2004", which of course remains COMPLETELY UNRESOLVED in spite of the 600,000 EUROS taxpayers (including myself) have had to fork-out to date, will take very careful note of what I am attempting to relate in all of my several postings on this particular thread.

As I understand it, and please correct me on this thread if I've got anything wrong, the legal team you used for your National Monuments (Amendment) Act 2004 challenge in the early part of 2006 consisted of Dr Gerard Hogan SC (Senior Council / Barrister), Frank Callanan SC, and Colm MacEochaidh BL.

Last but not least, a few minutes ago I took a look at a web site address which is also provided on the same "handout" I have mentioned above (the web site address in question is http://www.crookedlawyers.com/ ), and, indirectly through another web site address found there, I came across the following piece of text:

"As crooked as ivy climbing up an oak. Has been involved in some pretty dodgy deals with individuals whom he has since dropped as clients...things were getting too hot. Has tucked his head back into his shell in the past couple of years. But the mean streak is still there, plays dirty and is dirty. Definitely no Rumpole." (Full text at http://www.rate-your-solicitor.com/index.php?section=details&id=11185 )

Though I have not looked through them carefully, there appears to be several other similar complaints - all relating to NAMED solicitors PLEASE NOTE.

Thankfully though, and I genuinely do find this VERY encouraging for the future, not all of the comments relating to individual lawyers at the "Rate Your Solicitor" Internet address above are by any means negative.

by Vincent Mon Aug 20, 2007 13:57

William,

I don't think this is the appropriate thread for you to be raising your own legal problems. This is about Tara. Nor am I in a position to be commenting on them, as I am not practising law here in this jurisdiction. I am currently conducting academic legal research at TCD.

As for the national monuments issue, you seem to imply that my case is now some roadblock to a constitutional challenge to the National Monuments Act. There is nothing preventing you or anyone else taking a case on any currently threatened national monument in Ireland and attacking the Act. You began your campaigning on the Turoe Stone, which is a national monument being threatened by a dump. Why don't you take an action?

If you are personally unable to get a legal team, then form a group and begin a campaign.

by W. Finnerty. Mon Aug 20, 2007 15:24

Vincent (Mon Aug 20, 2007 13:57 above),

Thank you for your response.

I have nothing more really to add to my comments above, and they all still stand (as far as I'm concerned).

It seems we will have to agree to differ regarding on a number of things.

My top priority now is try and get our new Minister for Justice to STOP IGNORING the contents Dr Mc Cavert 's "To Whom It May Concern" letter dated October 28th 2005, which I have referred to above (at Fri Aug 17, 2007 23:13), and which can be viewed at http://www.europeancourtofhumanrightswilliamfinnerty.com/Constitution/GerardMadden7November2005/Letter.htm - together with a letter relating to it from a senior social worker (Gerard Madden): which our former Minister for Justice Michael McDowell has always COMPLETELY IGNORED.

Allowing for my present circumstances, which includes living in forced-exile, and an inability to find a lawyer in the Republic of Ireland who will answer my letters, I feel I have done what is best for some heritage sites that are under EXTREMELY severe threat such as Turoe, Woodlawn House, and Tara: by identifying the core threat common to all, and which, in a very general way, can be found in the "When, I wonder, will the Republic of Ireland's legal profession start to show some GENUINE respect for Bunreacht na hEireann (The Basic Law of the Republic of Ireland)?" sentence at the Aug 17, 2007 09:58 slot above.

I cannot generate a GENUINE respect for our Constitution (i.e. the basic law of our nation) inside the bodies and minds of our legal profession - anymore than I can eat their meals for them. I can however point out the BASIC problem to them (as I see it) though using the example of events - and abuse - relating to our National Monuments (Amendment) Act 2004. I feel I have now done that reasonably well (allowing for the circumstances I find myself in), and I have done it in a very public way for all to see, and to consider (if they wish to do so).

Yesterday, I sent yet another e-mail to a selection of senior "public servants" and lawyers, which contains part of this thread, and other evidence of the truly APPALLING state our legal profession is in at the present time, regarding the gross lack of justice in our society relating to environmental and other matters. If interested, a copy of yesterday's e-mail, which was primarily addressed to our Chief Justice John L. Murray, can be seen at
http://www.europeancourtofhumanrightswilliamfinnerty.com/ChiefJusticeMurray/19August2007/Email.htm

Many hands make light work, and there are limits to what one pair of hands can do.

My intention is to keep on fighting for justice as best I can, and for as long as I can: using the principles set out at the top of the page address provided below.

by Vincent Mon Aug 20, 2007 16:16

Good luck with the fight William.

All of the archaeological files for Lismullin and the M3 (in PDF format) have been removed from the http://www.nra.ie/ and http://www.m3motorway.ie/ web sites. Will people please email them and complain at m3@nra.ie and info@nra.ie They should be public accessible.

by fairy Mon Aug 20, 2007 16:27

That the varied campaigns who retain these doc. are in possession of hard copy also.
a simple download and file system would suffice- archive boxes retails at between 3and 4
euros...

http://www.tarapixie.tk/
http://www.savetara.com/
http://www.tarawatch.org/

Regarding retention of other materials :- the OPW at 52 St Stephen's Green retains most
archaeological dig files on behalf of the State. The minister responsible for ensuring their
protection is John Gormley @ environ.ie

The NRA is not a stautory org but a ministerial appointed body with no powers to protect or enforce
anything and is possibly not duty bound to so do.

by Vincent Mon Aug 20, 2007 16:35

The dozens of massive PDF files I refer to have been on the NRA web sites for a long time, and now they are removed. The NRA and the Minister have made much about openess and transparency, and so their removal needs to be challenged. The NRA have in the past been known to remove such documents and replace them with different versions. Let's see what they have to say.

The NRA are a statutory body, in a sense that they are subject to Freedom of Information legislation. We have new requests pending at the moment.

by Beg to differ Mon Aug 20, 2007 16:55

The NRA have no statutory power, they are subject to FOI.
They are a not a semi-state company either, they are comprise a board and shareholders which
are largely appointed by the minister through the crony lobby. they do not have powers to enforce
legislations.

The files should be obtainable through the OPW who are a statutory body.
get it right please.

Commissioners For Public Works in ireland
52 St Stehen's Green
Dublin 2.

all files and doc. relating to M£ should be retained at this location and this is verifiable through
the DOE [dept of the environment]

by Vincent Mon Aug 20, 2007 17:15

The National Roads Authority (NRA) was formally established as an independent statutory body under the Roads Act, 1993 with effect from 1 January, 1994. http://acts.oireachtas.ie/zza14y1993.4.html#zza14y1993s16

The Authority's primary function, under the Roads Act 1993, is 'to secure the provision of a safe and efficient network of national roads'. For this purpose, it has overall responsibility for planning and supervision of construction and maintenance works on these roads. http://www.nra.ie/AboutUs/

The files are not available in OPW in PDF format. They should be available on the NRA web site. They were until recently. Doesn't that stricke you as odd?

by differences Mon Aug 20, 2007 17:43

If you look at what you have written, agreed the NRA is a stat body with powers under the roads act.
my apologies there but the 38 (39) licences for archaelogical excavation were not done under the
aegis of the NRA?- but by independent companies. suretly therefore any arch. investigatory dig info
would automatically be submitted to the OPW/DOE for national archiving- or 'preservation
by record' - as a matter of course. The digs wd have been assumed under the NMA/DOE
the related materials wd then be shifted under those departments?
This is what happens when separation of powers induces governments to privatise and industrialise
heritage conservation.

The OPW or DOE should be able to answer the questions as to where the copy on the digs has
gone, suggest again that the campaigns interested in the issue contact those agencies
and or the Minister for the Environment.

Nothing strikes me as odd.

by W. Finnerty. Mon Aug 20, 2007 18:51

It hasn't taken long to get back on the old hobby-horse, has it?

Obfuscate: to obscure or darken; to perplex or bewilder.

Obfuscation: the act of making something difficult to understand.

Some of us are getting VERY sick and tired of these tactics, allowing for what's at stake.

They're getting very worn out, and very stale at this stage.

by Which files Mon Aug 20, 2007 21:13

What is Vincent on about now?

Check these links out:
http://www.m3motorway.ie/Archaeology/TechnicalReports/#d.en.1709
http://www.m3motorway.ie/Archaeology/
http://www.m3motorway.ie/LatestNews/

by Vincent Mon Aug 20, 2007 21:24

http://m3motorway.ie/LatestNews/

Please click for an information note on archaeological investigation at the site at Lismullin, Co Meath - May 2007 (PDF)
http://www.nra.ie/News/DownloadableDocumentation/file,4697,en.pdf

Please click here for further information on archaeological Investigations at Lismullin, Co Meath - May 2007 (PDF)
http://www.nra.ie/News/DownloadableDocumentation/file,4680,en.pdf

Please click here for photographs of archaeological investigations at Lismullin, Co Meath (PDF)
http://www.nra.ie/News/DownloadableDocumentation/file,4696,en.pdf

by W. Finnerty. Tue Aug 21, 2007 10:36

Vincent (Aug 20, 2007 21:24 above),

We have a situation at the present time where some of the most important heritage sites in the nation are under immanent threat of being badly damaged and/or COMPLETELY destroyed through the application of our National Monuments (Amendment) Act 2004, which many (including yourself apparently) believe is unconstitutional, or ILLEGAL in other words. (Some extremely important heritage sites have already been destroyed using this Act I understand.)

Yet, you apparently feel we should all be focussing on some lost or missing files that may (or may not?) be important at some later point in time. I hope you won't mind me saying this, and please note that I genuinely have no wish whatsoever to be offensive towards you, this approach does not seem at all appropriate to me. It's as if (from my viewpoint) somebody with two broken legs, and two broken arms, desperately needs your help, and you are advising them that the first and most important thing they should do is to have their teeth examined by a good dentist?

As I have already related above, constitutional law expert Dr Gerard Hogan (Fellow of Trinity College, Dublin), who was a member of your legal team in early 2006, also believes that our National Monuments (Amendment) Act 2004 is UNCONSTITUTIONAL. Please note again his statement in the January 14th 2006 Daily Telegraph article:

"Gerry Hogan, senior counsel for Mr Salafia, claimed the legislation used to push through the project was unconstitutional. He said the National Monuments (Amendment) Act 2004 weakened the role of the Oireachtas (Ireland's national parliament) by giving the minister discretionary powers to determine the fate of the country's heritage. Mr Hogan claimed the state's duty to protect monuments had been 'seriously compromised'."

Also, I've had a look this morning at your Tara Watch PRESS RELEASE dated 29 July 2006, which I have reproduced below.

In view of all that's happened in the meantime, it seems to me that the contents of your press release below now raises a number of extremely important issues.

Consider, for example, the following sentence relating to the "Hill of Tara M3 Case":

"Justice Laffoy had stated in her High Court opinion that there was in fact a 'constitutional imperative' to protect these assets."

I (for one) couldn't agree more with Justice Laffoy; but, why I wonder has Justice Laffoy not been listened to by her colleagues in the judiciary?

It's also clear from the PRESS RELEASE text below that our Chief Justice, the Hon. Mr. Justice John Murray, has been heavily involved in all of this dark and messy business: which I personally find very scary.

Basically, the whole situation regarding the legality of our National Monuments (Amendment) Act 2004 appears to REMAIN full of major contradictions, doubts, and uncertainties: despite the EUROS 600,000 your case has cost the taxpayer. This, I believe is the issue that should now be receiving TOP PRIORITY by the whole nation; and until its legality is all properly sorted out, by the Supreme Court, I don't believe it is right for ANYBODY to be assuming this Act is legal.

Neither do I believe that any of the Tara protestors should be tried in our courts of law until AFTER the Supreme Court has clearly decided on the heavily doubtful and disputed constitutionality of our National Monuments (Amendment) Act 2004.

==============

PRESS RELEASE

TaraWatch

29 July 2006

‘Chief Justice Postpones Setting Hearing Date for Hill of Tara M3 Case’

The setting of a hearing date in the Hill of Tara / M3 motorway case was postponed today by the Chief Justice, the Hon. Mr. Justice John Murray. He said he will set a hearing date after written submissions were received by The Attorney General, The Minister for the Environment, Meath County Council, and the National Roads Authority, due on 24th July.

Gerard Hogan, SC, Counsel for the Appellant, Mr. Vincent Salafia, asked for an early hearing date to be set, since he had given undertakings in the High Court that he would do so.

Chief Justice Murray questioned whether there was any urgency in the case, since there is no injunction in place and no stoppage of works.

Counsel for Meath County Council argued that there as a “considerable shadow” hanging over the project in relation to the public private partnership contract, which cannot be signed until the matter is through the courts.

This morning Chief Justice Murray also set a date of July 28th for delivery of judgment in the Carrickmines Castle case, which has been postponed a number of times already. The judgment in this case will have a significant impact on the Tara proceedings, since it will address whether or not there is a constitutional duty on the Government to protect the national heritage.

Justice Laffoy had stated in her High Court opinion that there was in fact a “constitutional imperative” to protect these assets.

ENDS

==================

by MM Tue Aug 21, 2007 11:21

"I have been diagnosed as suffering from Complex Post Traumatic Stress Disorder (C-PTSD)"

Shouldn't you be looking for a doctor, instead of a lawyer Mr Finnerty?

by Legal Eagle Tue Aug 21, 2007 12:14

MM suggests that Mr. Finnerty seek a doctor - I think that there are far too many amateur psychiatrists on the web ready with insult and invective.

At the moment there is a consultant psychiatrist on remand in custody charged with murdering her 16-year-old daughter by drowning her in the bath in the family home. Years ago there was another consultant psychiatrist , I knew, who fell down the stairs of her home, drunk on wine, broke her neck and died instantly.

And I have heard of other "strange" psyciatrists, including a man at present practicing in Irish hospitals who was struck off in England for sexually molesting his woman patients.

Although informed, the HSE allows him to practise on.

But I don't know what this has to do with "Save Tara" ?

by W. Finnerty. Tue Aug 21, 2007 12:38

MM (Tue Aug 21, 2007 11:21 above),

Thank you for your comment.

Try as I might, I cannot find a lawyer who is willing to help me in a way which takes account of the Republic of Ireland's "European Convention on Human Rights Act 2003". In fact, I cannot even find one who will even discuss the subject with me.

Apparently, the ENTIRE legal profession in the Republic of Ireland seems to believe that the Republic of Ireland's "European Convention on Human Rights Act 2003" is strictly for "window dressing" purposes ONLY.

One of my several attempts to get the legal help I need can be seen in the registered letter I sent to John Glynn (Barrister and Principal Lawyer at Hogan & Co in Ballinasloe), and I have never received any reply from him. A copy of my letter to him dated April 3rd 2007, and the associated Post Office receipt, can be viewed at the following Internet address: http://www.europeancourtofhumanrightswilliamfinnerty.com/JohnGlynn3April2007/EmailLetter.htm .

I already have a doctor I am very happy with. The trouble is I cannot find a lawyer of ANY kind in the Republic of Ireland who is willing to take account of what my doctor (Dr Michael McCavert GP) has set out in writing in his "To Whom It May Concern" letter (dated October 28th 2005) at the next address, which also contains a letter from a senior social worker (Gerard Madden) who wrote to former Justice Minister Michael McDowell (Barrister) on my behalf on November 7th 2005 - please see scanned copies of both the letters in question at http://www.europeancourtofhumanrightswilliamfinnerty.com/Constitution/GerardMadden7November2005/Letter.htm .

By the way, and I hope you won't mind me mentioning this, it appears to me that you MIGHT (?) be attempting to cast some kind of a slur on me (and/or my judgement), or to bully me perhaps, because I suffer from C-PTSD. I personally don't care very much for this kind of thing, particularly if it is done in an anonymous - and consequently EXTREMELY cowardly - way.

Do you have a name?

If so, why is that you appear unwilling to use it I wonder? What's the advantage for you in not using it?

by W. Finnerty. Wed Aug 22, 2007 10:13

Out of curiosity I looked up the word "imperative" this morning for its dictionary meaning.

Imperative: "extremely urgent or important; essential" - is what I found.

It seems to me Ms Laffoy choose a very good word to describe the CONSTITUTIONAL situation regarding the protection of heritage sites at Tara.

For those who may not know, there is a piece about Justice Laffoy on the Wikipedia web site, and the following two short pieces of text have been copied from there:

"The Honourable Ms. Justice Mary Laffoy is a High Court judge in the Republic of Ireland. She presided over the Laffoy Commission, an inquiry into child abuse, before causing controversy by resigning as its chair."

"In her letter of resignation from that Commission, Ms. Justice Laffoy outlined her belief that the actions of the Government, the Department of Education as well as the behaviour of some religious orders had frustrated her efforts and had slowed the commission's work."

The full Wikipedia text can be viewed at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Laffoy .

Also, numerous articles regarding Ms Laffoy's involvement with the M3 (Tara) legal problems can be found via the following Google link http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Justice+Laffoy%2C+Tara%2C+M3&btnG=Search

Last but not least, a selection of senior "public servants" and lawyers were informed by e-mail yesterday about the following matter: "Justice Laffoy had stated in her High Court opinion that there was in fact a 'constitutional imperative' to protect these assets."

A copy of the e-mail used yesterday can be viewed at the following address:
http://www.europeancourtofhumanrightswilliamfinnerty.com/ChiefJusticeMurray/21August2007/Email.htm

by Cu na Nuacht Wed Aug 22, 2007 13:21

RTE News-Green light for M3 at Lismullen
Wednesday, 22 August 2007 13:01
An Bord Pleanála has cleared the way for work to commence on the National Monument at Lismullen in Co Meath, which lies in the path of the M3 motorway.

The decision means that the site, which is close to the Hill of Tara, will be examined by archaeologists before the road is constructed on top of it.

The National Monument at Lismullen consists of two circular enclosures, the largest 80 metres in diameter, and dates from somewhere between 1000BC to 400AD.

AdvertisementLast month, the National Roads Authority submitted its plans to preserve the site 'by record'. This means the NRA will examine it in detail and then build the M3 on top of it.

In its decision, An Bord Pleanála has given the NRA the green light because the plan does not constitute a material alteration to the M3 scheme which it has already approved.

An Bord Pleanála has been the last hurdle to be overcome for this controversial proposal.

It will come as a big relief to both the NRA and Meath County Council.

However, the news will be a big disappointment to protestors who hoped the Bord might have demanded a new environmental impact assessment.

by W. Finnerty. Thu Aug 23, 2007 12:30

It is stated in yesterday's RTEs (State Broadcaster) article titled "Green light for Lismullen (Tara) excavation", which can be viewed in full at http://www.rte.ie/news/2007/0822/tara.html , that "An Bord Pleanala had been the last hurdle to be overcome for the controversial proposal."

I personally do not believe it is the last hurdle: and not by a very long way.

The last hurdle (as I see things) will be overcome when - and if - the mountain of crucially important legal doubts and uncertainties regarding the constitutionality of our National Monuments (Amendment) Act 2004, which have been outlined further up this particular thread and elsewhere on the Internet, have been fully removed by our Supreme Court. In my view, all this should have happened WELL BEFORE any PPP (Public Private Partnership) contracts were signed in connection with the proposed one BILLION Euros toll road in question.

It appears that the "Hill Of Tara" can (and does) mean and represent many different things to a great many different individuals and groups of individuals, and there's nothing at all wrong with that as far as I'm aware.

For myself, the Hill of Tara represents JUSTICE: and a society that apparently was very happy with itself living under Brehon Law for a long period of time, which in some parts of the Island of Ireland, may have been in the region 2,500 years: depending on the effects of various invasions which occurred between roughly 1300 BC to 1200 AD.

There is plenty of written evidence to suggest that Brehon Law was originally implemented and maintained through the use of the regularly held "Great Feast of Tara".

For example, very clear and direct historical evidence of this can be found in the scanned copies of Pages 53 and 55 of "The Annals of Ireland by the Four Masters" (written during the four year period between 1632 and 1636 AD) which are at present on display in the bottom half of the page at Internet location http://homepage.eircom.net/~williamfinnerty/name/annals.htm .

Part of the text at Page 53 reads as follows: "Age of the world 3022. (King) Ollamh Fodhla, after being 40 years in the sovereignty of Ireland, died at his own mur (house) at Teamhair (Tara). He was the first king by whom the Feis Teamhrach ('The Great Feast of Tara') was established."

There is also an aerial photograph at the official Government "Office of Public Works" web site, which shows what remains of the "Great Banqueting Hall" on the Hill of Tara, at http://www.heritageireland.ie/en/HistoricSites/East/HillofTaraMeath/ . For anybody interested, please note the long, narrow rectangular trace in the ground, running roughly north to south in the middle of the picture, at the top of the photograph on this page. (The exact same photograph also appears on the Wikipedia web site at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hill_of_Tara .)

Without wishing to be critical of anybody, I would still like to now ask, in the most PUBLIC way available to me: why is it that all of our leading historians and archaeologists appear to be completely ignoring all of this very important historical and archaeological information?

Could it be possible, and please note I'm NOT attempting to say it definitely is or isn't (because I genuinely don't know for sure), that our leading academics are working closely with leading members of our judiciary to promote the interests of PPP (Public, Private, Participation) schemes: which unfortunately do happen to have a truly shocking reputation at the present time, as can be seen (for example) at the following EIR (Executive Intelligence Report) Internet location http://www.larouchepub.com/other/2006/site_packages/econ_recovery_act/3349ppps_rohatyn.html

by W. Finnerty. Sat Aug 25, 2007 14:38

This morning I received an e-mail from VLPS (Victims of the Legal Profession Society) which indicates that they yesterday published some information I sent them on August 19th last, which relates to Tara, and in fact contains the section of this thread in the "Sun Aug 19, 2007 17:26" slot above.

A copy of the VLPS publication in question can now be viewed at http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Crooked-Lawyers/message/94 .

It seems (maybe?) that VLPS might be taking an interest in the extremely serious legal problems connected with the "Tara" problem, and the planned new M3 PPP (Public Private Partnership) toll road at present scheduled to plough its avoidably destructive and ignorant path very close to the Hill of Tara itself.

However, and in case anybody might be tempted to "hold their breath" in anticipation of VLPS action, please note that among the several disturbing things I learned (from some of the organisers) at the recent VLPS public meeting held in Omagh, is that they only seem to have "3 or 4" professional lawyers who are willing and happy to help them at the present time; and, that the hands of the lawyers in question "are tied" because of large amounts of peer-pressure coming from within the legal profession.

VLPS have a "Guestbook" at their http://www.crookedlawyers.com/ web site, and, interestingly enough, one of the comments I noticed there a little earlier today reads as follows:

"That British law has not been changed.
Bring back our own form of justice.
BREHON LAW and get rid of the barbarians rulings."

The VLPS Guestbook can be viewed at http://www.theguestbook.com/read.php/610669 .

For those who might not be aware of the fact, there are several volumes of - AS YET - untranslated ancient manuscripts on Brehon Law in places like the British Museum, and the Bodleian Library (Oxford University, England). Much more information on this now very important subject can be found via the following link http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Brehon+Law%2C+British+Museum%2C+Oxford&btnG=Search .

What a time to be COMPLETELY destroying ancient heritage sites in the Hill of Tara area? - within a stone's throw of the "Great Banqueting Hall" where Brehon Law was implemented and maintained: possibly for many, many centuries during the second half of the Bronze Age, and at least the first half of the Iron Age as well maybe.

Sadly, I find myself wondering if there can be a nation on earth more corrupt and more stupid than we are?

And, I wouldn't be in the slightest bit surprised if the relatively very small number of Republic of Ireland citizens responsible for the present destruction of ancient heritage sites near the Hill of Tara all see themselves as being extremely clever.