ELECTION 2011  manifesto

                   .

After reading this, please feel free to leave a comment or e-mail me @ gerard.linehan@gmail.com

Click here for website summery                                                                                       

This letter was sent to Brian Cowen On 02/09/09 he never replied.

An Taoiseach,,

While Nick Reddy, your assistant private secretary acknowledged receipt of my letter to you on September 14^th 2008 only after repeated requests (see - 1a), I have not as yet received a reply. Indeed your receptionist informed me that Mr. Reddy was indeed aware of my enquiring phone calls in reference to such a reply which he ignores.

In the circumstances my new web site, www.gerardlinehan.ie endeavours to outline many of the events on issues over which you are aware, but evidently seem unwilling to comment. The web site is a forum where interested parties can evaluate exhibits of where opposition politicians have been stonewalled in attempting to raise oral Dail questions on my behalf by your party’s successive governments. Only on reading of the hitherto unnamed characters publically here and in other categorised exhibits, does the reasoning behind this stonewalling become apparent.

My letter to you of 14 September 2008 is listed in the first category as (1b). The reply (1c) from Enda Kenny T.D. of September 23rd 2008, to whom that letter had been copied, reads “I will endeavour to have another attempt at this particular problem during the course of the forthcoming Dail session and see what happens”.  He had months earlier sent another reply (1d) his intention being to at least get the matter on the Dail record. More recently, in a telephone conversation, Enda Kenny said that, “they had a file on you on which they will not provide information” with reference to his Dail questions that had been “returned” and “refused”.

Prior to that Joe Higgins, the former T.D. had been unsuccessful in 2005 and 2006 with his written Dail questions. Joe spoke later of not accepting the answers that he had received to his written questions. In 2006 he and eight deputies of the Technical Group submitted two questions each, for oral answers in the Dail. These too were blocked. In reference to this in a later telephone conversation, Joe Higgins said that, “I thought we would succeed”. Joe went on to say that he didn’t realise that there was no further recourse for people in similar circumstances, until he had familiarised himself and spoken with my barrister on the case. The questions Joe Higgins submitted and answers received are listed as exhibits in category 2b 2c 2d 2e 2f  2g 2h 2i 2j Dan Boyle T.D. whose questions had also been submitted with those of the Technical Group said later of the Ceann Comhairle that; “he saw the questions coming” in reference to the manner in which the questions had been blocked.

The second category begins with exhibit 2a which is a letter from Mick Barry of the Socialist Party in Cork. It outlines arrangements for a meeting in 2002 with their party’s solicitor, who was to impartially evaluate all the documentation, associated with the case including the Court Orders against me, before his party would pursue the matter. The Socialist party’s solicitor later confirmed to Mick Barry, the irregular manner in which the case was dealt with at a subsequent meeting.

That solicitor was not alone in seeing the irregularities. On seeing my distressed state at one point, the manager of a juvenile detention centre where I worked, asked to see the court orders against me. She explained that part of her training was in family law, as many of those under her care came from broken family backgrounds. A solicitor with whom she was acquainted with in the north of Ireland confirmed the consensus of the Socialists party’s solicitor on reading the court orders. Similarly a solicitor from Gingerbread in Dublin said the same, but went on to say that she “wouldn’t take them on, as she had to earn her living before these judges on a daily basis”. 

The intention to abduct our three children of a relationship, annulled (3a – b) by the Catholic Church, created difficulty for Gail Farrell in finding a solicitor to represent her. Katherine Kelleher, of Conway Kelleher Tobin, being legal representatives to Gail’s employers, Southern Health Board, had no hesitation over two months later, on realizing who my brother was and that is when the irregularities started.

To explain the significance of Katherine Kelleher’s involvement, it is necessary to outline how the animosity between her father and my brother came about.

Being first in Ireland in his qualifying solicitors’ exams, my brother Denis went on to become the youngest law lecturer employed by University College Cork. The fourth denial of a sabbatical application during his twelve or fourteen tenure prompted him to leave the college in pursuit of a doctorate at Harvard University. Brian Mc Mahon as head of the UCC’s law department apparently blocked the sabbatical requests because of his concern that my brother would be better qualified than he, on his return from Harvard. Brian’s earlier request to be named as co author of my brother’s first law book on company law (a copy of which he was asked to present to former Taoiseach, C. Haughey) was denied, given that he had made no contribution to its publication. As Brian Mc Mahon spent some time at Harvard in that same year as my brother’s stay there, the animosity and apparent intimidation by Brian continued in the US.

On his return from Harvard, Denis initiated legal action against UCC and ultimately won his case in the Supreme Court, after which Brian Mc Mahon and another colleague resigned. Michael Kelleher, UCC’s bursar and father of Katherine Kelleher played a pivotal part in the universities defence case. A copy of my brother’s letter to Katherine Kelleher in 1999, see (4a) leaves no doubt as to animosity that existed between them in the same way as it had between Denis and her father. See my brother’s view on Brian Mc Mahon in (4b).

It was ironic that Brian Mc Mahon was subsequently appointed as a judge to Cork Circuit Court in and around the time of Gail Farrell’s flight to England with our children. I was bemused by Brian Mc Mahon’s promotion to the High Court within two days of the former Taoiseach’s B. Aherne’s dissolution of the last Dail. When the Irish Times announced Mr. Mc Mahon’s promotion and the fact that he was co author of a number of legal publications, I wondered if other writers had rolled over in playing the game with Brian, in a way in which my brother refused. I found it interesting when Brian Mc Mahon acquiesced in T.D. Bertie Ahern’s application to block the tribunal enquiring into some aspect of his affairs. My own experience in several judicial review applications was that if one judge refused, the rest of them in higher courts maintain the status quo.

The former T.D. Liam Burke, since deceased, stopped me while reiterating this story and told me of his direct experience in dealing with Katherine Kelleher and auctioneer Timothy O’ Sullivan, while he himself worked as an auctioneer during a time in which he had lost his Dail seat. “Politics aside they are both mad Fianna Fail” he said. He also told me that while my brother may not have been aware of it, Katherine Kelleher had an uncle a judge in Kerry. A story that I heard later of her uncle gave me cause for concern in the terms of the way a judge might abuse his position of power if it was true.

Liam Burke’s referral letter to Alan Shatter T.D. can be seen at (5a). My subsequent meeting with Mr. Shatter at Leinster House was futile. Given his failure to voice the concern as expressed in his Irish family law bible on the in-camera rule in the Dail, where it might create change, makes his involvement in politics an irrelevance in my mind.

In a similar manner Jim O’ Keefe T.D., the former spokesman on Justice didn’t want to know about what was going on. He wrote in (5b) “I do not believe that I have a role or function in, or comment on your family law case or the manner in which it has been dealt with by the Courts and it Officials”. Even the fact that a well educated, but a desperate man subsequently who set himself on fire in Mr. O’ Keefe’s law offices, didn’t embarrass him enough to call for the introduction of an element of transparency in the family law courts.

The reply of the former T.D., John Dennehy who didn’t earn £450 for half hour family law consultations, in the same way as Mr. Shatter T.D. in 2004, contrasted with that of the afore mentioned deputies. With reference to an account on the case that I had sent to him he wrote, “I have read the contents and I do believe that at this point the only people who may be able to help are those at ministerial level” (5c).

At the first of three meetings with Michael Martin T.D. and Health Minister at the time, he denied having ever received any of the six registered letters sent to him on the subject by my partner Tara Byrne and I. That was about six months before his denial of any knowledge of the nursing homes scandal. At the third meeting in his constituency office at which Tara and my mother were also in attendance, Mr. Martin spoke of what happened to the former T.D. Bobby Molloy and the consequences of his purported encounter with the judiciary. I was not asking for a get out of jail card as may have been the view in that case, but an enquiry into the actions of Judge Patrick Moran and others in the case. Mr. Martin did subsequently acknowledge a copy of an account on the issues sent to the Human Rights Commission (5d).

Ombudsman, Emily O’ Reilly said in correspondence that the issues were not within the remit of her position. When it was subsequently put to her that many of them were, she replied by saying that I should try a higher authority.

The account sent by registered post to Tánaiste, Mary Harney T.D. came back opened after six months, with a note written across it by An Post, to the effect that they couldn’t find her or words to that effect. The letter had been addressed correctly to An Tánaiste and to my knowledge there was only one such person in the country. But having had to swallow her false indignation over the Sheedy affair with Hugh O’ Flaherty in what otherwise might have resulted in the government of the day falling; it is understandable that she wouldn’t want to be in receipt of knowledge on my case, of which she should have had investigated.

It took months of phone calls and correspondence to Ms. Harney’s office before receiving the acknowledgement (5e) from her personal assistant, Catherine Dardis. Tara without declaring who she was had telephoned prior to that to enquire as to whom and where she should address a letter for Mary Harney T.D. and Tánaiste. Having sent successive copies, Tara rang on one occasion and spoke later of Ms. Harney’s staff’s laughter in the background at their intentional failure to acknowledge the correspondence. I was later told by a secretary to Ms. Harney that there was no record of the correspondence being on their computer system. It was weeks later before I was informed that it may have been on Ms. Dardis’s computer, Ms. Harney political secretary. When I rang the Justice Ministers office some weeks later to determine as to whether the matter had been referred there as Ms. Dardis had indicated, I was told that there was nothing on their records from Ms. Harneys office. They did confirm that there was one from the office of Michael Martin T.D.

The former Taoiseach, Bertie Aherne T.D. referred the matter initially to Michael Martin T.D. and then to Michael Mc Dowell former T.D. and Justice Minister, some time later he said he was too busy for a meeting to discuss the issues. On another occasion he informed me that he was “…not in a position to accede to …” my request for a meeting. In June of 2005 he referred the matter back to Michael Mc Dowell after which I received no replies to my correspondence from his office. See this correspondence at 5f 5g 5h 5i 5j

Michael Mc Dowell’s reply addressed to Batt O’ Keefe T.D., who I had contacted on the subject can be viewed at (6a) where his proposed legislation of 2005 was going to solve everything. A week later my partner Tara received a letter suggesting that she contact his office to arrange a meeting with his officials (6b). In January 2005 Michael Mc Dowell’s private secretary wrote (6c) of the meeting that had taken place between two of his officials, Tara, a barrister and myself saying, “the Minister is satisfied that there is nothing further he can do in all the circumstances”. He refused again to do anything in (6d – e) and by November of 2005 he was saying that there were “other avenues open to” me (6f) without specifying what they were.

(7a) is a 04/02/2005 cover note from Vera Kelly, the senior of two officials from the Justice Department Civil Law Reform Division who conducted the above mentioned meeting. It refers to my letter of 01/02/2005 and the (7b – c) minutes of 01/12/2004. The minutes are dated 02/12/2004 by Mary Dardis, the second department of Justice Official who attended the meeting. Ms. Dardis who may be related to Mary Harney’s political secretary, Catherine Dardis, as mentioned in (5e) did not seem very pleased on seeing that I brought a legal representative to the meeting. In fact when he asked as to whether they were going to acknowledge the meeting in writing to me, they was a distinct reluctance and hesitancy between them in acquiescing to the request. It took several phone calls to Ms. Kelly’s office in the intervening months before receiving their minutes of that meeting, despite the fact that they are dated as having been prepared the day after the meeting. In a telephone conversation, Ms. Kelly asked at one point, shortly before ultimately receiving the minutes, as to whether I had any idea of the number of people looking for enquiries into their cases in this country. One seeing their minutes, my barrister commented on how short they were on detail of what had been an hour long meeting. My own minutes of that meeting which were sent to the officials at that time can be seen at  8a 8b 8c 8d 8e 8f 8g  

During the meeting, the officials spoke of the Justice Minister’s proposed legislation as set out in his correspondence (6a) to Batt O Keefe T.D. My barrister then pointed out to them that any new legislation could not be applied retrospectively to which they had no answer. Later they spoke of I being able to make a complaint against Gail Farrell’s solicitor, Katherine Kelleher. When I informed them that one is not allowed to make a complaint against one’s opponent’s solicitor to the Law Society, there was no reply. When the Justice Minister’s officials confirmed his awareness of the meeting, my barrister suggested that an official be appointed to examine all the documentation relevant to the case to determine as to what I was saying was correct or otherwise.

When Katherine Kelleher’s perjury resulted in me being imprisoned supposedly for contempt of court, I decided to enquire as to how her client had continued to receive sick pay for months while being employed as a nurse outside the country in London. Mr. Noel Healy, Senior Executive Officer with the Southern Health Board had written to Ms. Farrell on 19 December 1997 (9a) to say that “…I note you will have been paid 183 days sick leave over the previous twelve months…..” As Ms. Farrell had not been sick prior to abducting our children to England and given that absentees are normally obliged to present themselves before an employer’s doctor within a relatively short period of being absent from work, I was concerned, given that her solicitor also represented the SHB.

My initial response from Sean Hurley, Chief Executive Officer with the SHB was one of me having an awful cheek in writing to him attitude. Dan Boyle a T.D. at the time subsequently wrote to Mr. Hurley (9b) looking for the Ms. Farrell’s medical certificates which I had asked for originally.

Having at that point contacted the SHB solicitors, the reply that Dan Boyle T.D. received from Mr. Hurley was accompanied by Katherine Kelleher’s response seen in (9c). Katherine Kelleher never proceeded with her threat of; “I am hoping to apply to Judge Moran very shortly for a direction allowing me to respond”. Ms. Kelleher knew that her client had no intention of ever living or working in Cork again as she had returned to removed all the furniture from the house, in my absence, after initially abducting the children. See Mr. Hurley’s response (9d). Dan Boyle’s response (9e) was that “…the Health Board continues to hide behind the in-camera aspect of the family law courts.” Later I was invited to apply to the Freedom of Information Office (9f -g). In a subsequent letter from Dan Boyle (9h) he writes; “I have received a copy of the letter sent to you by Sean Hurley, the letter is curt and is truculent in terms of not wishing to supply you with the information you require”. The subsequent response from the SHB was going to lead me on a wild goose chase for months at least (9i - j). All I wanted was photocopies of doctor’s certificates to explain Ms. Farrell’s absenteeism. If the illness had been genuine there wouldn’t have been a reason for Ms. Kelleher to object in me seeing them. The object of the exercise was to determine the extent to which Ms. Kelleher could be influential within the Southern Health Board. Mr. Hurley may have hoped to frighten me off with his initial response, until he realized that his head might end up on the block when he saw that the problem wasn’t going to go away.

Judge A.J. Murphy who had initially dealt with the case in Cork Circuit Court had asked for an explanation from Ms. Farrell’s barrister as to the nature of her client’s sickness and commented on how well she looked health wise. Ms. Farrell returned to work at University Hospital Cork the following day, having failed in her request for maintenance.

In response to a letter outlining the anomalies of the case and in which I suggested that heads would roll when what was going on was exposed, Nuala Mc Loughlin, Chief Registrar and Director Supreme & High Court Operations replied by saying (10a), “I am enquiring into the matters you have raised and will provide you with a substantive response shortly”. On May 2^nd 2006 when I had not received the report, despite numerous requests, Dan Boyle T.D. wrote to her on my behalf. In his letter he wrote (10b), “As can be ascertained by the date on this correspondence it is from the 2^nd of December 2003. The correspondence itself consists of a promise that your office would be in further contact with Mr. Linehan, as this promise has not since been fulfilled, I would be grateful to know if Mr. Linehan is likely to receive and further response from your office and if not, the grounds why such information is not being made available”.

It was October 2^nd 2006 before Dan Boyle received a reply, to which I was to provide information on what was of concern to me, despite the fact that I was to have previously received a substantive report on the issues shortly after her reply of December 2^nd 2003.

Accompanied by the information which Ms. Mc Loughlin had requested, Dan Boyle wrote on October 22^nd 2006 (10c); “...this is the request for information from you® office which he claims he has not been given access to”. When Dan Boyle subsequent phone calls to Ms. Mc Loughlin’s office did not result in me being provided with the information requested, he called to her office in Dublin. After the secretary went away to get Ms. Mc Loughlin for Dan Boyle, she came back and said Ms. Mc Loughlin wasn’t there.

In Ms. Mc Loughlin’s ultimate response March 29^th 2007, (10d) three years and three months after assuring me that I would receive a substantive response shortly after, there seems to have been a deliberative effort to confuse Dan Boyle of court actions in which I was involved and those of my brother, as can been seen in a photograph (10e) of his case files against UCC.

Later in a signed copy to me, Dan Boyle wrote in his book titled “A Journey to Change” on the 25 years of the Green Party in Irish Politics; “To Gerard, And things coming right in the end ” (10f).

This pattern of stonewalling had also prevailed in reference to a court order for €1000 to be paid to solicitor Katherine Kelleher (11a). Two members of the Gardia had waited on the road near my home in an unmarked car one morning before I left for work. On driving down the road, I was stopped and asked to hand over the keys of my van. When I asked as to what was going on, I was told that Judge Patrick Moran wanted to see me in court. As the courts weren’t opened at the time, I was brought to a Garda station on the north side of the city where I was then handed over to the Gardai on duty there. I was then imprisoned in a cell after handing over my belt and shoe laces. When it was time to bring me to the court house, one of the guards who had probably been waiting outside in their car was clearly shocked on realizing that I had been locked up.

When I was brought before Judge Moran he insisted that I find myself a solicitor to represent me. When I told him that I couldn’t afford one, he replied by saying that he’d imprison me if I didn’t return after lunch with a solicitor. One of the Gardai suggested I go to Eamon Murray a solicitor in town. On returning to the court house Judge Moran demanded €1000 (11a). “You can stay fighting for your house as long as you wish Mr. Linehan but I am going to take a €1000 from you today”, said Judge Moran. There was no reason for this and no explanation. It was not maintenance, mortgage or a rent payment, but I was told that if the check bounced, he’d imprison me the following day.

It was some time later that I went to Cork Circuit Court and asked for a copy of the €1000 order. Martin O’ Donovan the register smirked at me and said “it’s not one order I have against you but eleven”. While I had copies of the other orders, it was this specific one I wanted. He said he was busy and only he could prefect it as he had been the one in the court room on the day. In the months that followed, I wrote on a number of occasions and telephoned the court house for a copy of the order. I had fired solicitor Eamon Murray, the last of three such solicitors who purportedly represented me in my family law case only in Cork. In essence these closely knit solicitors in a relatively small community appeared to serve their own interests.

Some months later, Eamon Bennett a solicitor in Dublin wrote to Cork Circuit Court on my behalf, for a copy of the order when I hadn’t received it. I went to the courthouse and Mr. O’ Donovan told me he couldn’t give me the order as I had a solicitor representing me and that it would be sent to him.  When it didn’t arrive, Mr. Bennett wrote to the court again for the order but still didn’t receive a copy of the order. At that point Mr. Bennett admitted that there was indeed something irregular going on as I was entitled to my court orders. He had been sceptical up to that point and suggested that I return to the court house and tell Mr. O’Donovan that he was no longer representing me, in which case I would be entitled to receive the court order personally.

When I returned to Cork Circuit Court, my partner Tara came with me and I asked again for the court order. The girl at the counter tried to fob me off with copies of two orders that I already had. When she saw that I wasn’t going to go away, she spotted Registrar, Martin O’Donovan making a move for the back emergency stairs and she went after him. When Martin came over to me he said that he had handed my case over to Peter Murray the senior Registrar at that time, who was now apparently going to deal with my case. When I asked Mr. O’ Donovan as to how Peter Murray was going to prefect the order, given that he had previously said that only he could write it, he realized that I had a pocket tape recorder. “You will have it within a week” he said and I had, eleven months from the time I had first requested it.

When Ms. Farrell returned to Ireland with our abducted children having been ordered to do so by the High Court in London, Judge A.J. Murphy acceded to a judicial separation application without first considering my nullity application at Cork Circuit Court. After much litigation and an appeal to the Supreme Court, the Irish High Court acknowledged in 2001 that the proceedings in Cork Circuit Court in February, 2000 had been fundamentally irregular. In a note of Ruling dated August 8^th, 2001, O’Caoimh J. observed that: - “the High Court had indicated that it accepted that the nullity proceedings should be heard first”. While the marriage had been annulled by the Catholic Church (3a – b), Judge Murphy proceeded and made an order that the house (12a) be sold by his relative (according to solicitor, Eamon Murray) Auctioneer, Timothy O’ Sullivan. When at a later hearing, out of embarrassment, Marie Baker, barrister for Ms. Farrell suggested that the house be sold jointly with another auctioneer; Judge Moran rejected the suggestion and insisted that only Timothy O’ Sullivan alone should sell the house because Judge A.J. Murphy had said so.

In his retirement, A.J. Murphy said on RTE’s Prime Time that if the only evidence in a case was that of a Garda, he generally let the defendant go free. In my case he asked my brother, who at that time was representing me in court to leave. My brother had been openly recording the proceedings that were subsequently confiscated in court. He had argued that the case wasn’t within Judge Murphy’s jurisdiction in the Cork Circuit Court, given that the High Court had dealt with the matter of the children in London’s High Court. But Judge Murphy wasn’t having any of it and wouldn’t consider the fact that the marriage had been annulled, that there was no title to the house (the site only) and that the so called marriage ceremony had not been valid in England, as the requirements prior to the ceremony on residency there, had not been complied with. Apart from this there are many legal arguments and points of law as set out in a two hundred and thirty three page Supreme Court appeal which was prepared by my brother. As I had received a church annulment, I was entitled under the law to have had all hearings heard in an open court.

Apart from these considerations, the fact that my brother’s open criticism of Judges, Mc Mahon, Clifford, Murphy and Moran in his 1995 book “Harvard Law School in Court” (13a), for facilitating the perversion of justice by UCC, would have given any of them reason to be biased against me. Equally his book "Sleazy Does It" or that on “Payments to Politicians” (13b) which was acknowledged by the Flood Tribunal as being relevant to their enquiries,  may have alienated him in some political circles.

Katherine Kelleher had objected from the outset against my brother representing me directly in court or in the capacity of a McKenzie Friend, as he had no practicing certificate. My brother Denis didn’t require one as he wasn’t practicing as a solicitor. It didn’t however make him less of a solicitor. When he later applied for a certificate, the Law Society told him that he wasn’t entitled to one. They only changed their mind after he issued a summons against them. Tara my partner is of the opinion that Katherine Kelleher was a committee member of the Law Society.

On July 28^th 2000 I was waylaid by Katharine Kelleher and her brother Eric outside my home who was supposedly serving a summons. According to Ms. Kelleher in court later, Judge Smith of the High Court had directed her to “personally inform Mr. Gerard Linehan to be in the High Court in Dublin next Monday (July 31^st 2000)”. On that Monday it was intended to stage a nullity “appeal” even though there had been no hearing at first instance before Judge Murphy in the Circuit Court. The fact that my brother circulated an Impeachment Petition at that time, may have added impetus to the attempted cover-up of the abuses of offices that had occurred previously behind closed doors in February. To have attended the High Court on July 31^st 2000 would create a veneer of credibility to the perversion of the course of justice that was afoot. While it was supposed to have been my High Court appeal, the papers were apparently prepared, lodged and accepted in the court by Katharine Kelleher.

The account of events on the evening of July 28^th 2000 with the Kelleher’s was published in the Irish Examiner on July 12, 2001 (14a). In that article Ms. Kelleher is quoted as saying that; “He caught one of the envelopes and shoved it down the back of Eric’s shirt. He stuffed the second down the front of his shirt. He was shouting, ‘Get off my property’,” In the overall scheme of things they are only small details. But I saw only one envelope and her brother Eric had thrown it on to the seat, as I had left the driver’s door opened while walking around the front of the van to open the entrance gate. When I looked around and saw them, they were walking backwards. I don’t see how Eric had time to place a second envelope on the windscreen in the circumstances. The Transit van had an almost vertical windscreen and wouldn’t support an envelope. I did walk after them having retrieved the envelope from within the van and placed it in Eric Kelleher’s open shirt. I would have had no reason to shout or tell them to get off my property as they were out on the public footpath at that point in time. I didn’t know either of them, because while Ms. Kelleher may indeed have been in court at previous court hearings, I hadn’t given her client or her representatives the gratification of looking at them.

When the Gardai called later, it was to enquire about Eric Kelleher’s watch. The Kelleher’s had apparently made a statement at Ballincollig Garda station to the effect that Eric’s watch was missing after I had placed the letter in his shirt. This statement alleged that Eric had seen Tara, my partner and I looking at something shiny in my hand which he claimed was his watch, while standing in the front garden of my home, having left the Kelleher’s outside. When I asked the Garda later about the allegation that Ms. Kelleher’s brother had made against me in reference to his watch, I was told that there had been a misunderstanding. While it may have suited the gardai to dismiss this matter, I had been convicted of assault and fined €300. My solicitor Joseph Cuddigan renowned in his representation of criminal cases was later quoted by reporter Liam Heylin of the Irish Examiner newspaper as saying that “there should be no conviction”. My brother’s view on the background to this affair can be read in (14b). A copy of the appeal filed on that assault can be viewed on 14c 14d 14e 14f 14g 14h 14i 14j 14k 14l 14m 14n 14o 14p 14q 14r 14s which I believe has no limitation on the time in which I can pursue it. The assault summons can be viewed at (14t).

It was some time later after my release from prison (resulting from another allegation by Katherine Kelleher) that I spoke of the allegation made in reference to the watch, while being interviewed on 96FM radio. Dan Boyle was a T.D. at the time and spoke later of having heard of a Garda reshuffle in Ballincollig Garda station as a result of my radio interview and the issue of the alleged stolen watch. He had heard of the names of the Gardai involved and recognised them as being the ones associated with my case.

The grounds for reinstating a Special Summons on the division of my home and business base are set out in a Judicial Review against the Master of the High Court in 15a  15b  15c  15d  15e  15f  15g  15h. The second family law solicitor who had represented me in Cork had failed to make an appearance in representing me at the Master’s Court held in Dublin and it had been struck out. My parents later went to Dublin to file and serve a second Special Summons (16a).

To avoid having this Special Summons struck out again necessitated me appearing at the Master’s Court once every three weeks in Dublin. There were many occasions in which Ms. Kelleher’s town agents were not present to represent her client. The matter would then be put back to the second calling, by which time the court would have sent out for someone to represent Ms. Kelleher’s client for the second calling. Barrister and journalist, Vincent Brown was there on two occasions to represent Ms. Kelleher’s client. When I spoke to him after the first occasion, he commented on how the case was complex and wouldn’t make any further comment. At a later date another town agent impatient to have the matter finished, told the Master of the court that I had fired four solicitors. When the Master said that she was going to strike out the Special Summons as I didn’t have my case ready, I told her she couldn’t as she wasn’t entitled to. If it had been behind closed doors and in camera in that instance, the Master might have got away with it. But fortunately the room was full of solicitors and barristers who knew I was right. I was then given the liberty to re enter the Special Summons at a time when I was ready.

The Judicial Review application by Tara, her son  and I against Judge Patrick Moran, prepared by my brother, it is set out in  17a  17b  17c  7d  17e  17f  17g  17h  17i  17j  17k  17l . It was the first of two Judicial Review applications against Judge Moran. It set out eighty three points for consideration. While the majority deal with points of law and the rights of Tara and her son. Item 27 [Rooney – V – Minister for Agriculture] on the fifth page (17e) is listed as being one reason alone, as to why Judge Moran had a legal obligation to disqualify himself from dealing with the case. Another reason has to be considered in the broader context as referred to by a Harvard referee to my brother in the last paragraph of his book on page 36: “And Nothing But The Truth” (18a). My brother was of the belief that while the State had failed in its attempt to bury him in the courts because of his legal expertise, that I would be seen as easy meat.

When the English legal system accepted that I had not got a resolution to the civil nullity issue here in Ireland, I applied for one in London on the basis that the annulled marriage ceremony had taken place there. There was also thinking that the justice system might be more equitable there.

On enquiring at the registration of marriages office in London’s Wandsworth, I was told by a clerk that the original application form for a marriage licence was “in the dungeon”. 

Later the registrar of marriages on realizing the implications said that the form had been destroyed in a fire. This and other events in England suggested that the Irish judiciary involved may have contacted their counterparts there, to secure their complicity in a cover up. In any event, as I hadn’t been a resident or lived there for requisite number of days for compliance with the law, the marriage should have been considered invalid apart from any other considerations. Marriage by licence in England has since been abolished.

Having been given the choice to vacate my home within a week or be imprisoned, I left within the appointed time. I had in that week borrowed for the purchase of a mobile home, arranging its transportation and the provision of services onto a site under a tenants letting agreement. The site had full planning permission and the owner indicated that he would have a house erected within months, at a cost within the amount offered previously by the building society on the basis of remortgaging my own home. Prior to this Ms. Farrell had indicated a willingness to accept half the value of the house, until her solicitor Katherine Kelleher talked her out of accepting the offer. In time Ms. Kelleher’s refusal to give an undertaking to the effect that she or her client wouldn’t come back at a later stage for more money, largely resulted in I having to vacate the site, being unable to get a mortgage, at a substantial financial loss.

During those months my partner Tara and her son had remained in the house on Model Farm Road. They had given up their home to live with me. Tara and I hadn’t known each other prior to Ms. Farrell move to her family in England and was never mentioned in any my family law orders. I had no dominion over Tara and she had no where else to live. After the order for me to vacate my home had been made, Ms. Kelleher spoke to Tara and told her that she was going to get her next.

Martin O Donovan, Cork Circuit Court Registrar replying letter of August 12^th 2002 (19a) said that the arrest warrant for Tara  and her son  was “in the hands of the Gardai”. Sergeant Bowe in his reply of August 28^th 2002 19b suggested that “they contact the Registrar of Cork Circuit Court the latter may be able to assist them”. A barrister later suggested that there was no such warrant.

The letter to Mr. Brian Sheridan, Secretary, to the Law Centre Legal Aid Board 20a  2ob  20c  20d    on June 30^th 2000 gives an insight into my circumstances at that time. It also refers to my case for a civil nullity. Page (21a) with comic captions summarises events up to 2001.

When Tara went to the Law Centre she was told that she wasn’t entitled to legal aid. She was at that time unemployed, having been diagnosed with cancer and living on an invalidity pension out of which she was also supporting her son. As Tara was leaving she told the office clerk that she was going to Mick Barry of the Socialist Party to discuss the matter. On hearing this, Tara was asked not to leave as she may indeed be entitled to legal aid. Tara was then given an appointment to meet Mr. Brian Sheridan, Law Centre Secretary. Brian told Tara that he could see her, her son and her dogs in a nice cottage in Kinsale, if she vacated the house on Model Farm road. When Tara told Mr. Sheridan that she couldn’t afford to rent a dog box in Kinsale, he replied by telling her that it “could be arranged”. Mr. Sheridan was since promoted to the position of judge.

During the time that Tara was living with her son in the Model Farm Road, the gardai used to apparently call on a regular basis, usually late at night when she was often on her own. On occasions four Gardai in two squad cars with their lights flashing would call looking for me and enter the house without a warrant. Tara would have told them that I wasn’t living there, to which they would reply by saying that they knew that and laugh.

There was a special court set up for Tara and her son  Tara later spoke of the shock on peoples faces outside the court room, on seeing the blinds being pulled down of the court room doors before she and her son, accompanied by four members of the Gardai were brought in without legal representation. They were both subsequently given twenty four hours to vacate the house by Judge Moran. When Tara asked him as to where she was supposed to go Judge Moran told her to “go back where you came from”.

It was months after I had left my home on the Model Farm road that I was arrested for supposed contempt of court on the basis that I had not left the house in the first instance and imprisoned. When Katherine Kelleher had gone to my home and business base after I had left, as ordered by the court, she left and went to Cork Circuit Court and told Judge Moran that I was still living there as there were clothes on the line. The warrant for arrest and imprisonment are referred to in  22a - b).

The judicial review application and accompanying affidavit as prepared by Eamonn Bennett a Dublin based solicitor in respect of these matters can be viewed at 23a  23b  23c  23d  23e  23f  23g  23h  23i  23j  23k  23l    

In that application Judge Patrick Moran’s comments as recorded by Tara Byrne while in the court P.14 and 15 of the affidavit in (23k) are as follows: “I warned you Mr. Linehan of the consequences you would suffer for ignoring my orders I made an order for contempt of my order and you evaded this by what means I do not know. I enquired on many occasions as to whether you had been committed, when told you had not been I was quiet annoyed as you were in contempt of my orders. For very grave reasons you are now today before me, you broke the camels back in other words Mr. Linehan you broke my back, you have refused to repent………………….I will adjourn this matter until Friday and we will see then if you are sorry.    ….there you have it Mr. Linehan, how you were able to drive your van and work around the city, I do not know”.

That outburst by Judge Moran was on the evening of January 14^th 2002. That morning when I had been brought before him having been chained to a prison guard, Judge Moran asked me as to why I was before him. I told him that I was there to purge my supposed contempt of court. Judge Moran said he didn’t remember anything of my case, citing his case load in the intervening months. He said that he would have to have Ms. Farrell’s solicitor attend court in order to have his memory refreshed. It was in the evening that solicitor Ms. Kelleher came in to the court room. At that point without having had the opportunity to have his memory refreshed, as he was sitting up on his bench and having no prior contact with Ms. Kelleher, he launched into his tirade, part of which is written above.

Katherine Kelleher then spoke up to Judge Moran in the court room and told him that Tara had been on the local radio station on a number of occasions. On hearing this Judge Moran adjourned the hearing (possibly to listen to the radio recordings) and made an order  24a that I be returned to prison.

As Tara was leaving the court, she spoke up to Judge Moran and said to him that he knew I was telling the truth, with reference to me having left my home before the appointed time in accordance with his court order. Judge Moran replied by saying “I’ll lock you up too madam”.

The surprise of the staff at Cork Prison on my being returned there that evening was obvious. They were clearly used to this procedure and had given me my belongings on my leaving there that morning on the basis that they weren’t expecting to see me back that day. This was in contrast to the previous Monday, when I was taken out to attend the High Court in Dublin on a Habeas Corpus application.

My barrister in Dublin told me that a judge isn’t allowed under the court rules to take a personal interest in any case he is dealing with. They are also not allowed to measure the degree to which one expresses remorse for supposedly being in contempt of court or otherwise. Judge Moran had never even asked me as to whether I was sorry for supposedly being in contempt of court. Indeed I was given no opportunity to say anything apart from answering his question in reference to what I was there for. In the circumstances I am told that Judge Moran could be guilty of mala fides which is subject to a prison sentence.

Tara had been interviewed on the local radio on three occasions with reference to these matters. While imprisoned I was given a radio by prison officers prior to or during these interviews to listen to what was being said. Other prisoners who I didn’t know came up to me saying that I shouldn’t be there. The producer of 96FM now deceased, told Tara at an add break, during the course of one of her radio interviews, that Katherine Kelleher had been on the telephone to the radio station, warning them to be careful.

I was brought back before Judge Moran again from Cork Prison the following Friday. The court room and hallway was full and names were being referred to by way of determining which cases were going to go to be dealt with etc. There was an uneasy tension about the place however. I was dealt with first as it seemed that I was the only one with which Judge Moran was concerned. After Katherine Kelleher told Judge Moran that I had been photographed handcuffed to a prison warden while being brought into court, he made his orders (25a) for my release and one in reference to Tara and the photographer. He then immediately left the bench for his car leaving a packed court house behind him.

Given that my brother had worked with solicitors PJ.O’Driscoll and Sons as an apprentice, he asked them to represent me in my High Court habeas corpus application to which they agreed while I was imprisoned in Cork Prison. They had received payment in advance the week before. But while chained to a prison guard inside in the High Court, they told the judge that they were coming off record (26a) and gave a spurious reason. The judge in the High Court asked me as to whether I had any control over my solicitor and I told him I hadn’t. Tara made some enquiries on hearing this and another barrister in conjunction with a solicitor, agreed to represent me. The judge there ordered that I be taken back before Judge Moran to purge my supposed contempt.

My concern at PJ O’ Driscoll’s failure to represent me in the High Court was surpassed on reading Timothy Sullivan’s letter (26b) to solicitor Catherine Kelleher. This letter names Fergus Applebee, as being a partner (26c) of PJ O’ Driscoll, and a director (26d   26e  26f  26g ) with Joe Donovan, the purchaser (26h) of my home. Michael O’ Driscoll is another partner in that firm and County Sheriff and would have had a role in the execution process in relation to my home and business base. My incarceration was for an alleged contempt of court for refusing to leave same. Michael O’ Driscoll was recently unavailable for comment to the Mail On Sunday newspaper, as a beneficiary in the storage of e voting machines.

Joe Donovan had been informed that there was no title to the house on the Model Farm Road prior to it being purchased. It has remained vacant since Tara vacated it in 2003 and an attempt to sell it failed. Given that he was said to be selling breakfast rolls up until recent years, one wonders how it was purchased or indeed if he is merely a front man for others. The Phoenix seems to express a similar interest when referring to “Joe O’Donovan: Mystery Man” in its May 8, 2009 magazine article (26i) which also mentions Fergus Applebee.

The copy folio for the house prior to I vacating it, as seen in (27a) shows that only the site was registered. Having built the house my self, it was never registered. Judge Murphy’s orders were made on the basis that it was a family home. Those orders were made without having heard my nullity application at a time that the marriage had been annulled by the Catholic Church. If the nullity issue had been dealt with fairly in the Irish or English courts, Ms. Farrell would not have accrued in effect, the entire proceeds from property sale to cover her interest, legal expenses and a lump sum for the children leaving me with nothing.

The Special Summons would have dealt with these issues but the actions of officials within the judiciary and Land Registry resulted in me being denied the human rights to which I am entitled to.

The cover letter (28a) to the Registrar of the Supreme Court Office in reference to the requisition for registration of a Lis Pendens in Supreme Court as a burden is seen in (28b). In the circumstances, the Land Registry would have been obliged to register the fact that there was litigation pending on the site’s copy folio, thus alerting would be purchasers of the property. The grounds for this Lis Pendens are set out in (28c) and the form that should have been signed is in (28d).

Having made the application, Tara received a phone call from Betty Mc Guigan, Registrar in the High Court Central Office to say that a fee applied to registrations of Lis Pendens. A copy of the letter sent to Ms. Mc Guigan with the fee is seen in (29a).

Despite repeated applications, telephone calls and written correspondence to the Four Courts, I did not receive the certificate of litigation pending to which I was entitled and had been asked to pay for.

In time, Tara and I went to the High Court Central Office in Dublin to see Ms. Mc Guigan in reference to the certificate. Being unaccompanied on meeting Ms. Mc Guigan initially, I was asked as to whether Tara was with me. Shortly after Tara arrived and it seemed from the conversation with Ms. Mc Guigan who came back and forth to us throughout the day that I would receive the Lis Pendens certificate before I left. This was never more apparent than at the time shortly before the office closed, when Ms. Mc Guigan left us to confer with a colleague. On her return Ms. Guigan said that we should go away as we would miss our train. She told Tara that “it would be better if you didn’t come up here”. Obviously Ms. Guigan didn’t want any witnesses to what was going on. When I told her that she was stonewalling me she replied by saying that “it is not I”.

The letter from the Land Registry informing me that the registration of the Lis Pendens couldn’t proceed in the absence of being able to provide the certificate referred to above can be seen at 30a.

It is some years since my brother made an application to the Supreme Court in reference to my three daughters. The three judges in the court deliberately ignored his written application on my behalf which was before them. On seeing their response he told them that it was alright, as the statute of limitations on an issue relating to the children’s rights expired that day which gave me the right to appeal to the European Court. Their mouths fell open apparently as they knew his capabilities. His time wasn’t entirely wasted that day thought, as he gave Denis Riordan of former Judge Hugh O’ Flaherty fame some pointers, on seeing him in his attempts at representing himself in the Supreme Court. 

The letter from the European Court in (31a) would seem to indicate that they too are not inclined to enquire into the affairs of the judiciary here in Ireland any more that those involved would wish.

“That has cost you £90” said Anne Horgan the solicitor in Cork who initially represented me in my family law case. This was in reference to the time she spent reading a one page fax in my presence that came through her fax machine from the solicitors representing me in London on the child abduction case.

When Ms. Farrell was ultimately ordered by the High Court in London to return to Ireland with our children or be imprisoned, I saw very little of them. Before they were left back to London on an interim basis, Katherine Kelleher wrote to say that I was to have no access to them until a judge made an order on access arrangements. Shortly after she had secured their return to England, Ms. Kelleher wrote again asking me as to what access I wanted.

During the time the children were back in Ireland, Ms. Horgan said that an appointment had been made for a family assessment, by a psychologist of Ms. Kelleher’s choosing. I refused on the basis that Ms. Kelleher could nominate a psychologist who would not necessarily be answerable to a higher authority. Ms. Kelleher clearly had difficulty in containing her displeasure at the fact that I wished to have an employee of the Health Authority carry out this appraisal, in her replying letter to Ms. Horgan.

When I subsequently met a psychologist for the SHB, he mentioned my refusal to meet Ms. Kelleher’s psychologist. He went on to say that it wasn’t his function to put a colour on things. While I didn’t want him to, neither did I want a whitewashing job. His six page subsequent report was impartial and didn’t suggest that the children would be better off with their mother in England.

At a subsequent hearing Ms. Baker, barrister to Ms. Kelleher gave the judge, psychologist Martin Philpot’s report to read. Mr. Philpot had never interviewed me, but his report indicated that the children, who had never lived there and didn’t wish to go, would be better off being in England with their mother. It wasn’t until I prompted the barrister I had at the time that Ms. Baker was forced into removing the SHB psychologist's report from her brief case and showed it to the judge, after which the children remained in Cork for another day. I would be happy to provide copies of these reports and any other documentation to any one who has a genuine interest in these matters.

In recent years I realized that some of my post was being opened prior to delivery. I also suspected that an email to one of my children living in Manchester was intercepted. Initially I did nothing about this but when it continued I went to what was my local post sorting office. The acting manager brought me into to the post sorting area in Ballincollig, Cork and showed me the cameras under which the post is sorted. She explained that all the post in Cork is initially sorted at the main distribution depot in Little Island, where all post is also sorted under the view of cameras. It was her view that only a high ranking official in Little Island would have the ability to take any of my post and read it in the privacy of their office.

I explained that it was legal documents and replies from politicians that were generally being opened. The manager suggested that An Post would send me an envelope to determine the way in which it would be received. I told her that Tara had already addressed an empty envelope to me with the name and address of a fictitious solicitor written on the back. This envelope was delivered to me having been opened.

When the interference with my post continued, I reported it again to the same sorting office in writing. The response I received from John Finnegan the new manager on 20/04/2007 can be viewed in (32a). I contacted Mr. Finnegan as requested and while I received reassurance that the matter would be investigated, the interference continued.

On 19/11/2007 after a bank statement arrived having been opened, I went to the Garda station in Ballincollig and reported the matter to Garda Millane. On hearing what I had to say while standing at the counter, the guard went away and on returning, a colleague told Garda Millane to bring me into a back office for the purposes of making a statement. Garda Millane asked me if I thought someone (meaning state agent or other) felt that they had the right to open my post and I told him that I would like to know. My fire engine, used for advertising was stolen with the knowledge of the Gardai. The result of this was that a new postman was assigned to deliver to the house where I lived at the time. The original postman, who I am sure had no interest in and was probably embarrassed at having to deliver my post that had been torn open, continued to deliver to other houses along the road.

While your acknowledgement and referral letter to the Minister for Justice (33a - b), or his reply (34a – b) of August 2008 were delivered without having been interfered with, the reply from Enda Kenny T.D. clearly distinguishable, as referred to previously in (1c) 23/9/2008 was. Clearly those wishing to know of any intent by opposition politicians on the matter are comfortable in the knowledge that your replies or those of your ministers didn’t need to be opened as they posed no threat of their exposure.

While Justice Minister, D. Ahern expression of it being “not a lack of concern, which prevents him from any intervention” was laudable 35a his “suggestion… to consult with...legal advisor” drew shrieks of laughter from a barrister. The barrister’s response was that if he ever came across another case like mine that succeeded in the courts, he’d be on to me “like a dose of salts” for the work of representing me.    

Minister, D. Ahern’s view is ironic. Both he and you Taoiseach, are listed in a newspaper article of 2000 (36a - b) after the Sheedy controversy under the Freedom of Information Act, as being amongst those who “made representations to Mr. O’ Donoghue in relation to judicial vacancies in the District and Circuit courts”. In another article (37a) the Supreme Court, Judge Susan Denham said “that modern systems of accountability are not incompatible with judicial independence”.

Given the degree to which the same Mr. O’ Donoghue, in his capacity as Ceann Comhairle has blocked questions being raised on my behalf in the Dail, one wonders on the criteria used in deciding on the appointments. If his 2008 assault was prompted by retaliation for his blocking of questions on behalf of others, one wonders as to when he might stop protecting the party and consider his own well being and that of the electorate. Mr. O’ Donoghue was also instrumental in blocking my brother’s access through the courts in his case against UCC.

It is three years ago since Enda Kenny T.D. first asked to be sent a copy of what Minister Michael Martin T.D. had denied receiving. When asked last year, as to whether he would raise the matter in the Dail, even if Mr. O’ Donoghue persisted in blocking him, he was affirmative as he had “a constitutional right”. I am not holding my breath at this stage in the hope of seeing Mr. Kenny T.D. on Oireachtas Report, raise the issue on my behalf even though he is, to use what will be a familiar expression, very “…qualified to speak…” on the subject.

Two examples of the four hundred posters which I made, erected and removed at the last general election in Cork South Central (38a - b) created a forum to highlight the issues. What I said during my thirty second introduction allowed, prior to a 96FM radio election debate can be seen on (39a - b). Another independent candidate and college lecturer lost the head, as he felt it was no debate. The presenter steered the debate along safe lines, perhaps fearing that I might upset the show by asking Minister Michael Martin T.D. for example, as to whether he had ever been responsible for the appointment of a judge.

The bill board that I carried outside the Dail prior to that, calling for an impeachment enquiry into Judge Patrick Moran attracted a lot of attention. On leaving after the second day there, I was accompanied by a garda sergeant while walking into the city centre. He pumped me for information as to which politicians had approached me, while I had been standing there. I don’t know whose interest he served and the politicians who did come to me were subsequently blocked by two Ceann Comhairle. But there was no cause for concern, as the photographs that had been taken of me by newspaper photographers outside the Dail never appeared in any of the papers. Gretian Freeman, a former journalist of the Village Magazine subsequently expressed interest in doing an article on the subject before getting cold feet. Later she said that “the best stories are never published”. Indeed the editor of the Irish Voice newspaper in the US prevented the publication of an article on the subject.

Given your failure to respond to my previous letter, I will copy this to President Mary Mc Aleese, some politicians and the media in the hope of raising public awareness to issues, some would prefer remained unspoken of.

Yours sincerely,