Irish Politics

In an article about Irish print journalists not applauding Ahern’s speech to Congress, Gayle Killilea noted the following:

“Even worse, there is a growing tendency not to bother contacting the subject of the story at all, which goes against basic, rudimentary, journalistic ethics.”

Unfortunately, before writing her diatribe, it seems she did not bother to contact the journalists in question and ask them why they had not applauded.

She might have ended up with a more considered viewpoint had she done so.

And so we reach the end of the Ahern administration. It took 20 months of scandal to get him out of office, but he finally succumbed once his back was against the wall.

Some might argue I should wish the man well in his future endeavours, or allow him the grace of a peaceful exit from power.

I’m afraid I can’t do that. Ahern has damaged the body politic like no one since CJ Haughey. Ireland is worse off as a result.

Ahern wants to have his economic cake, and eat it, as it were. On the one hand he led a party with an ideology of not messing with a free and open market, letting low taxes (brought in by the prior administration) do their work and bring in US firms.

It worked, for a while. Those days are fast coming to an end - especially on the manufacturing end.

But people cannot now claim that Ahern is singularly responsible for Ireland’s economic prowess. If his government was hands off when it came to interfering in the free market, then how can he? Furthermore, surely it was not the work of any politician that led to the Celtic Tiger, but the sacrifice of PAYE workers all the way through the 1980s and 1990s who worked their asses off and paid high taxes, up until recent years when growth allowed for tax cuts.

What exactly did Ahern achive during his time in office? Can anyone tell me? His personality certainly was better than Bruton’s with regard to the peace process, but I remember Ahern coming into power in 1997, not long before the Good Friday Agreement was signed. Perhaps the deal could have been done without him, perhaps not.

His legacy? I would struggle to find a positive one. I can only agree with the words of Eamonn Sweeney. Ahern was nothing but a sniveller. A sneering idiot, who lauded Ireland’s economic prowess while not know what the fuck he was talking about. “Ireland is the largest software exporter in the world,” he shouted at the opposition a couple of years ago. He was arguing that Ireland is a true “knowledge economy”. He didn’t realise that all we do is package the discs and ship them off to countries in the third world with better broadband than we do. Broadband, he might say, what’s that? Cavan? Is that in Ireland?

He also presided over the largest case of clientelism in Irish history, creating a huge civil service, as the OECD recently criticised, buying thousands of votes with tens of thousands of jobs. Why do we need so many to govern so few? And why do we pay so much for it? And will all those civil servants, many employed since 1997, vote for FF and more of the same in the civil service; or an opposition that might slim down a bloated public sector? Fear is always good to get people motivated.

I am glad he is gone, an imbecile politician, with only himself, his cash, and his party to think about - the cult that is Fianna Fail. I look forward to him coming back to the Mahon Tribunal and answering questions about all that sterling, questions that the opposition and the fourth estate have failed to ask now for over a month.

Good riddance to you Mr Ahern. Ireland is better off without you.

It sounds even more crazy than Ahern’s tales. He was at the Tribunal today.

And just to repeat it for everyone, here is the video of his appearance on the Late Late in 1999.

And it seems, contrary to the views of FF, that readers of the RTE news website find this tribunal very interesting indeed. The same could be said of any tribunal story.

We knew it was coming. Ahern meets with the editor of the Sindo and responds to his own resignation. But even I was shocked by what he said during the interview.

In my humble opinion what Ahern suggests is almost treasonous. He also somehow does not understand the evidence of Grainne Carruth.

Ahern says:

I said I regretted what happened to Grainne. She is a good and loyal friend and I am sorry for what she had to go through.There was some criticisms in the media that I shouldn’t have allowed that happen. If I could have taken that challenge or chalice from her I would have done so. The tribunal called her as a witness and I couldn’t go in her place, all I could hope was that she would be well treated.

It is my view that Grainne was not well treated.She was harangued, which means that she was hassled, she was unfairly hassled and for the life of me I don’t understand why she was called back on the second day. I don’t see why it was necessary that a mother of three, who could not genuinely remember, she was paid pretty low money for doing very good work in my office, but why she had to be … . I think, the only witness that I can recall, who had the Tribunals of Inquiry Evidence Amendment Act with the threat of imprisonment read out to her. I don’t see why a colleague, who is after working for me for almost a decade, why it was necessary to say that she could be fined €300,000?

I don’t know. She finished up her evidence, she said she had a difficulty because it was mid-term, to the best of my knowledge because I haven’t been talking to her since. While I don’t know, the only thing that I can say is that her evidence was given in a short period the following day and the only answer that makes sense to the people I have talked to is that whether it was meant intentionally or not, the effect of it was that it created in the media a cliff-hanger so that all this speculation would be around to give the impression that this mother of three would crack under pressure.

I said that Grainne was harangued and the tribunal transcript showed that this was the case, but that may be just my point of view. I am not going to go on forever about it, but let me say from the back of my heart that if I could have done anything to defend Grainne’s good name, I would have done so. She is a good person and she was treated unfairly.

Ms Carruth gave evidence for one hour at the end of day one, and for two hours on day two. I encourage anyone to read the transcripts, and see if what Ahern is saying is true.

Day 1 Starts at Q624
Day 2

Carruth was not harangued. There was little media pressure, they were asleep at the wheel at the time. She was simply asked some very straight forward questions. She claimed she could not remember, and the tribunal judges clearly did not believe her.

The one obvious question Fanning forgot to ask Ahern was, where did the sterling come from and why did he not tell the tribunal about it in his sworn affidavit?

We still don’t know.

Here is how Mr Ahern’s resignation unfolded. Mr Ahern’s gross salary when he was Finance Minister was £63,184.63 per annum. (Day 804 Q357). This is a combination of a TD’s and a Minister’s salary.

October 15, 2004

Mr Ahern is put on notice that the Tribunal will be making an order for discovery.

November 24, 2004

Mr Ahern is ordered to “discover all accounts held in any financial institution, whether held within or outside the State, in his own name either individually or jointly or for his benefit or into which he made lodgements of money or into which he caused or procured lodgements of money to be made or into which lodgements of money were made for his benefit”.

Following a request from Mr Ahern, the Tribunal directed that had he could limit the production of documentation to lodgments over £30,000. This was in line with the ‘Starry’ O’Brien libel case, and the original Gilmartin allegation.

This was to be complied with by January 11, 2005.

This applied to all accounts between January 1, 1988 and December 31, 1995. Mr Ahern had ALSO originally sought that only accounts held between January 1, 1989 and December 31, 1992 be subject to discovery.

This would have discovered nothing, since he later claimed he held no accounts during this period.(Day 756 Q96)

Without the knowledge of the tribunal, Ahern sought from the banks back office documentation relating a number of the lodgments. This emerged later in evidence. (Day 757 Q35) The documentation could not conclude the source of this money. Sandra Cullagh collected the documentation from the bank in January 2005. (Day 757 Q59). Ahern was able to glean that the cash lodgments were cash but not that some involved foreign exchange.

It also meant the Ahern knew that the tribunal would be unable to identify the source of the monies from back office documentation. (Day 757 Q65)

Ahern claims that at the time, he did not remember that there were large fx lodgments related to the amounts. (Day 757 Q70)

Also at the very same time Ahern went to Larkin and asked her to seek similar information from the same branch. She did so. (Day 757 Q87). Larkin then went to Ahern and told him the story.

Larkin was not being inquired of at this stage since she was not mentioned to the Tribunal until May 2006. (Day 757 Q89)

The affidavit provided in February (below) makes no mention of Ahern’s money being held in Larkin’s accounts, only that he transferred £50,000 to her. This is a crucial point. The discovery required him to declare all accounts held for his benefit.

January 10, 2005

Mr Ahern asks for an extension to the end of January as he is having difficulty assembling his figures. The Tribunal grants the extension.

February 7, 2005

The affidavit of discovery is provided to the Tribunal. In the affidavit, Mr Ahern says he has no outstanding tax liability and did not avail of the tax amnesty. It says Ahern kept no accounts during the period 1987 to 1993, and his salary cheques were cashed by either him or his staff. (Day 756 Q104)

The affidavit also noted briefly that Ahern had transferred money in December 1994 from his accounts to Celia Larkin’s accounts. It gave no further detail, including the fact the Larkin held these accounts for Mr Ahern’s benefit.

February 25, 2005

The Tribunal responds to Ahern’s affidavit. It wanted more. The Tribunal formed the view that it was necessary that Ahern make discovery and produce to the Tribunal all documentation in his power, possession or control relating to these accounts.

The Tribunal said the documentation should include all documents and records which would include correspondence, memoranda, financial records, bank accounts documents, include bank statements, lodgements, withdrawal slips, copy cheques, copy cheque stubs and other such documents and where applicable telephone records, diaries, personal and professional, whether electronically stored or otherwise, solicitor’s documents, documents of other advisers and other documents whatsoever which came into existence arising out of the lodgements to or withdrawals from the bank accounts as covered in paragraphs A and B of the Tribunal’s order of 24th November 2004.

In other words. It didn’t just want amounts of £30,000. It wanted everything.

It gave Ahern a deadline of March 27, 2005 to produce documents.

March 2005

Following from a long held agreement between AIB and the Tribunal, AIB ask that they only be obliged to furnish bare bank statements to their client and the tribunal, to save the onerous work of producing back office documentation. The tribunal agrees to this request, but says they may seek further information on specific lodgments. (Day 756 Q117)

May 27, 2005

The Tribunal seeks further information about specific lodgments, and asks Mr Ahern to give the necessary permission to AIB and PTSB to do so. This was necessary because the Tribunal had not made orders against those institutions, as was standard practice. The bank was not prepared to release documents without written approval from Ahern. (Day 756 Q117)

It attaches a list of lodgments it is seeking to investigate. Specifically the tribunal is interested in the second goodwill loan and the £19,142 lodgment.

June 10, 2005

Mr Ahern responds, giving his written authority.

October 21, 2005

The Tribunal receives the bank documentation in relation to AIB, though Ahern had received it slightly earlier. (Day 756 Q148) This is when the tribunal first learns the breadth of lodgments.

October 25, 2005

Having only cold bank documentation from AIB and PTSB, the Tribunal seeks a detailed narrative from Ahern in relation to all the transactions. The Tribunal was looking for a financial make over setting out is income and expenses, the sources of his monies from 1989 to 2002. (Day 756 Q153)

The Tribunal added:

“It is the view of the Tribunal that a detailed response to the above specific questions will significantly shorten the proposed public hearings. The Tribunal would be obliged for your client’s cooperation in this regard. The Tribunal is anxious to deal with the matter in correspondence, insofar as that is possible.” (Day 756 Q155)

The asked the narrative be provided by November 30, 2005.

March 3, 2006.

Three months later and the Tribunal again writes to Ahern. They have not received a response. He is asked to reply by March 24, 2006. Given the volume of transactions, the Tribunal prioritise specific transactions that they are seeking a narrative on.

These are £15,000 in December 1993, £30,000 in April 1994, the £20,000 in August 1994, the £24,838 in October 1994, and the £19,142 in December 1994. (Day 756 Q161, 162)

By this time the Tribunal had yet to be told any story by Ahern in relation to these amounts.

The Tribunal again stressed:

“The Tribunal is of course anxious to receive replies to all queries raised at the earliest possible opportunity. In addition, the Tribunal is also anxious to receive your client’s Affidavit of Discovery in compliance with the Tribunal’s order dated 24th November 2005″

March 7, 2006

Because of the delay, the Tribunal again write to Mr Ahern’s solicitors. This time seeking authority to interview people who may have acted on behalf in making lodgments to Mr Ahern’s accounts. (Day 756 Q167)

They ask he reply by March 16, 2006

March 27, 2006

Ahern’s legal team respond, almost four months after the deadline has passed. They are not happy. Mr Ahern later claimed the delay was due to the volume of documentation required. (Day 756 Q178)

“We would like the Tribunal to identify the precise allegations relating to our client that the Tribunal is currently investigating.” They then go on to talk about Gilmartin’s allegation of £15m via Bank of Ireland. (Day 756 Q171)

Mr Ahern only became aware of some of these specific allegations because of the O’Callaghan case, taken in late 2005, which obliged the tribunal to circulate documents to all affected parties. (Day 756 Q172, 173)

March 30, 2006

The Tribunal replies. They still are concerned that Ahern has not explained the five cash lodgments. (Day 756 Q194)They then again extend the time by which he must respond to April 21, 2006. He is warned that if he does not comply, that he will be summonsed to attend a public hearing on May 2. The tribunal then sets out in detail how Ahern should go about answering the tribunal’s questions. It also says that if Ahern does so, it may find that the lodgments warrant no further investigation.

In a second letter they make matters clear:

The Tribunal has not decided to conduct a public inquiry into the allegation,

1. That your client held or holds the sum of 15 million pounds in an account in Bank of Ireland in Jersey.

2. Your client may have held accounts in A Jersey, B, Liechtenstein, C, Dutch Antilles, D, England and consequentially information gathered in the preliminary investigative stage of that inquiry, will not be circulated other than the material which comprises prior statements of witnesses who may be cross-examined as to credibility arising there from.

A distinction should be made. The tribunal had not decided as yet to conduct an inquiry, meaning the tribunal had not made a decision as to whether investigate or not.

March 31, 2006

The Tribunal write again to Ahern’s solicitors. This time they say they will go direct to AIB and seek an order for discovery in relation to all accounts.

April 6, 2006

Ahern’s legal team replies. They give consent to the Tribunal interviewing people who made lodgments to Ahern’s accounts, including Sandra Cullagh and Grainne Carruth. The Tribunal is also assured that the rest will be forthcoming by the deadline of April 21.

April 21, 2006

The tribunal receives Ahern’s response. Des Peelo’s report is included, which details the lodgments.

This is the first time the tribunal learns a narrative explanation for the cash lodgments. Stories with which we are all now familiar. It is also the first mention of Celia Larkin holding money for Ahern.

Mr Peelo had access to no more documents than the Tribunal had already, he merely wrote the narrative.(Day 756 Q238) The tribunal then begins to investigate the narrative.

May 3, 2006

The Tribunal responds. It sets out to confirm the narrative. The Tribunal then sought access to any and all documents Peelo had used to make his conclusions, in order to confirm the narrative.

June 6, 2006

Mr Ahern responds. He claims legal privilege over documents relating to Peelo. (Day 756 Q300)

June 7, 2006

Mr Ahern via his solicitor informs the tribunal about the source of a large amount of the other lodgments outside of the 5 lodgments already discussed.

Mr Ahern says he believes the source of all these lodgements were his salary cheques, or an accumulation of salary cheques. (Day 756 Q315)

In September 2007 he swore under oath that this was the case. This is an important juncture. Ahern was saying that the other lodgments to his accounts were from salary. At the time, PTSB were unable to get documentation to either support or deny this story. So Ahern felt safe in this knowledge. He would continue to use this story until documentation emerged on March 3, 2008.

July 2006

In an exchange of letters, Ahern’s legal team criticise the tribunal for their tone in seeking access to what they believe is privileged information. (Day 756 Q323)

August 4, 2006

By August, the Tribunal was being accused of “threatening” Ahern with appearing in the witness box. (Day 756 Q336)

September 2006

Information is leaked to the Irish Times pertaining to the first digout loan. Ahern tells more in an interview on RTE. He makes statements to Dail Eireann.

Because of the leaks, the tribunal process was delayed until January 2007. (Day 756 Q345) But Ahern via Peelo is now talking to Revenue.

Notice the timing. Ahern’s relationship with the tribunal had deteriorated. We have to ask ourselves who ‘qui bono’ or who benefitted from the leak? In hindsight, one person benefitted - and that was Ahern himself. Or as Henry Kissinger put it: “If it’s going to come out eventually, better have it come out immediately.”

December 15, 2006

Des Peelo writing under the heading ‘additional voluntary discloscures’ tells the Revenue Commissioners that the IPBS have confirmed that they are unable to provide details re the two lodgements of £5,000 each. They have explained in writing that their records do not extend back to those dates.

Mr Ahern has no recollection as to the source of these lodgements. They may have been personal savings, political donations/gifts.

January 12, 2007

Mr Ahern tells the Revenue: “Whilst I believe these payments were in the nature of political donations, I have been unable at this remove in time, to identify their source or any details regarding same.”

January 29, 2007

The Tribunal write to Mr Ahern, seeking an explanation about the £19k and the £50k given to Larkin. (Day 756 Q347) They also seek information about the lodgment for £11,747.43. It should be made clear that as of this date, the Tribunal had no idea this transaction involved £10,000 sterling. (Day 756 Q348)

February 9, 2007

The Tribunal seek clarification from Ahern about Michael Wall and an account that allegedly held monies belonging to Ahern and Wall. Specifically the £28,772.90 which Ms Larkin says involved sterling, but only Michael Wall could say whether this was the case or not. (Day 756 Q349)

February 27, 2007

Ahern responds. (Day 756 Q355) It is worth reading the two letters made in response to the Tribunal inquiries. No where in the letters is the 11k mentioned as a sterling amount. (Day 756 Q362)

His lawyers also again complain about the tone of the tribunal.

March 2, 2007

The tribunal responds.

“Having considered the responses and the earlier correspondence dating from 2005, the Tribunal is of the opinion that the information so far provided via correspondence doesn’t resolve the Tribunal’s inquiries as to the source of the following payments made to Mr. Ahern and subsequently lodged as set out hereunder or the purposes for which the payments were made to him.”

1. Lodgement of 22,500 on 30th December 1993.
2. Lodgement of 30,000 broken down, on the 25th April 1994.
3. Lodgement of 20,000 to the account in the name of Georgina and Celia Ahern on the 8th August 1994.
4. Lodgement of 24,838.49 pounds on 11th October 1994.
5. Lodgement of 19,142.92 pounds on 1st December 1995.

The Tribunal also does not feel he has answered questions in relation to Ms Larkin in the sum of 50,000 pounds lodged to an account in the name of Ms. Celia Larkin on the 5th December 1994.

2. 11,743.74 lodged to an account in the name of Ms. Larkin on the 15th June 1995.
3. 9,655 pounds lodged to an account in the name of Ms. Larkin on the 24th July 1995.

It also says the Beresford purchase has not been explained.

It then invited Mr Ahern to private interview.

When questioned in evidence in September 2007, Ahern was asked why he had asked AIB in 2004: “Can you locate same on files and provide us with any information as to what the lodgement was made up of?”

Ahern had been asking AIB about these sums, but three years later had not given the Tribunal an account as to their source. (Day 757 Q33)

By inquiring of the bank, Ahern was able to learn that there was little documentation to show where the cash came from.

April 4, 2007

The tribunal receives documents from Peelo. It is a response to the Tribunal’s letter of March 2. Again in this report there is no reference to sterling. (Day 756 Q389) Mr Ahern later claimed he had not identified these amounts as sterling at that time.

April 5, 2007

Ahern is interviewed at his solicitor’s office by the tribunal. For the first time since the tribunal contacted Ahern in November 2004, he admits there were sterling lodgments. (Day 756 Q394)

May 2007

More information is leaked to the media prior to the general election, this related to the Micheal Wall payments. Ahern claims this is an attempt to ‘do him down’ in advance of the election. The source of the leaks is unknown. The Tribunal ceases hearings in advance of the election, as is normal.

May 27, 2007

The Tribunal restarts. For the first time we learn the full breath of information available to the Tribunal at that time. This is given in the Quarryvale II supplementary statement. (Day 725 Q394) Counsel for Mr Ahern begin their criticism of the Tribunal in public.

September 12, 2007

Celia Larkin gives evidence. She details her part of the story.

September 2007

Ahern gives evidence for the first time. He is taken through correspondence between him and the tribunal over the preceding three years.

November 2007

AIB assistant manager Philip Murphy gives evidence. He details various cash amounts given to him by Mr Ahern. Des Richardson and Padraic O’Connor also appear. Mr O’Connor denies he was a close friend of Ahern, as Ahern had alleged in the Dobson interview in 2006. He also says the donation he made was intended for Ahern’s constituency, not Mr Ahern personally.

December 5, 2007

Ahern’s solicitors write to Ahern under the heading “issue of fair procedures
29 and advance notice of Tribunal hypothesis”. They want access to any hypotheses that the tribunal may put to Ahern, in advance of Ahern giving evidence. The Tribunal refuse.

December 18, 2007

Another important juncture. Towards the end of the day, St Luke’s secretary Grainne Carruth gives evidence. It is Ahern’s case that in relation to certain sums lodged to his accounts, specifically some sums to his PTSB account:

“Mr. Ahern does not have specific recollections of each of these transactions. His general practice being that Sandra Cullagh or Grainne Carruth of the Drumcondra Constituency Office would do one of the following.
1. Cash the cheque and lodge some of the proceeds to the Georgina/Cecilia account and then give the balance to Mr. Ahern or lodge the cheque to the account some of the cheque being encashed”.

Ms Carruth finished school and worked for Ahern. She was paid by Des Richardson via a company that was also involved in the Padraic O’Connor ‘donation’.

She was also asked about cash in St Luke’s. She could not confirm or deny there were large amounts of cash in Ahern’s safe. (Day 802 Q1009) Her evidence was that she would cash some of Ahern’s salary cheques, and hand the cash to Ahern in the period 1987-1993, when Ahern allegedly had no bank account. On occasion she would lodge money to his daughters’ accounts.

Critically, Carruth is asked about the lodgment of £30,000 sterling, which Ahern claims someone lodged on his behalf. Carruth is asked if she did. (Day 802 Q1051)

“Q1051. Yeah. So it is possible that you would be in the list of people that he would have asked to do this in the sense that you did banking transactions for him?

A. I never dealt in Sterling.”

She is also asked whether Ahern had contacted her in 2007, to ask her if she had lodged that £30,000 in 1995. She replies no.

Critically, Carruth is then asked by Judge Keys whether the money she lodged only related to salary cheques, and never involved FX transactions. Under oath, she replied no. (Day 802 Q1055)

December 20,21 2007

Friends of Ahern give evidence, backing up his story of digout loans. Ahern again gives evidence. During this evidence he accuses the Tribunal of trying to ’stich him up’. (Day 804 Q554) This was after a scenario was put to Ahern that a loan taken out in 1993 by him was a back-to-back loan. The Tribunal was also putting it to Ahern that various lodgments were from foreign exchange lodgments in round amounts.

February 2008

Ahern appears again. He is now asked about his PTSB account, opened in January 1994, and about lodgments to the account. Ahern is unable to identify the source of the £5,000 opening lodgment. (Day 825 Q126) Ahern clams the bulk of lodgments into this account over the next 2 years were from salary cheques. (Day 802 Q216, 228, 230)

March 3, 2008

PTSB manager Blair Hughes attends the Tribunal for private interview. The Tribunal is seeking further information on the lodgments to Ahern’s PTSB account. He details lodgments to Ahern’s accounts in a statement. He says Grainne Carruth would lodge money to Ahern’s accounts. This contradicts her evidence that she cashed the cheques. Furthermore, most of the lodgments made by Carruth were, he recalled, and having documentary evidence, in cash sterling.

This was directly contradicting both Carruth and Ahern. Up until then Ahern had claimed that all of the money came from salary cheques. (Day 839 Q29)

March 6, 2008

Another significant date, and also the date on which Ahern also would have learned of the contradiction.

The Tribunal writes to Carruth, seeking an explanation for the lodgments. (Day 839 Q626). They also invite her to private interview to give a narrative. She fails to reply.

March 19, 2008

Hughes gives evidence to the Tribunal. The detail of the sterling lodgments is publicised. Carruth is also called, and is asked about the sterling lodgments. She says she cannot recall dealing in sterling. (Day 839 Q629)

Having admitted that she lodged sums to Ahern’s daughters’ accounts on the same day as the sterling transaction, the tribunal judges clearly find it unbelievable that she cannot remember sterling lodgments. They ask her to consider her position overnight.

March 20, 2008

Carruth returns. The tribunal details the penalties for perjury and for obstructing a tribunal of inquiry. Carruth sticks to her story that she cannot remember sterling lodgments, totaling £15,500. Her name appears on most of the lodgment dockets relating to sterling. At the time she earned £3,000 a year. She said: “I have no recollection in dealing in large amounts of money”. (Day 839 Q703)

She concedes the money must have come from Ahern but she cannot recall.

March 2008

Due probably to the Easter weekend, much of the media fails to realise the import of the story. RTE do not place it high on their news agenda.

Ahern refuses to answer questions in relation to the contradictory evidence.

April 2, 2008

Ahern announces his resignation. He says it has “nothing to do” with what happened at the Tribunal.

We still do not know the source of the sterling, or why he failed to tell the Tribunal of it.

As a result of Ahern’s announcement, traffic to the Mahon Tribunal wiki has surged. I guess I should welcome colleagues from the BBC, Associated Newspapers, The Guardian, News International (Times), Sky News and the The Washington Post.

PS. I should ask Sadie Gray to perhaps contact me to clear up a number factual inaccuracies in her story.

On Friday’s Late Late show, Eamon Dunphy repeatedly pointed to an article by Gene Kerrigan in the Sunday Independent of March 23 . (It was, incidentally, a very good article).

1. Why can I not find this article on the Independent’s website?
2. Why did Eoghan Harris replace Gene Kerrigan on the back page of the Sindo today?

Answers in the comments section please.

For those interested, here is a copy of the article. Dunphy was right to reference it several times.

Update: Apparently Kerrigan was at a conference. It would have been nice of the Sindo to tell us that.

Politics.ie looks like it will be subject of legal action on the part of Mr Ahern’s solictors.

Update: P O’Neill informs me that the site has moved its hosting to the US.

Ah. It is refreshing to see someone joining the dots.

I’ll cut to the chase here. The IT hints at something I have been digging up for the last couple of weeks, thanks mostly to some archived posts on Politics.ie.

You see, I only found out recently that Michael Wall withdrew £50,000 in cash from an account in Galway, some time after he sold the house to Ahern.

Why is this important? Suspected money laundering, using a house to do it. Of course no one is alleging that Ahern was involved in money laundering - but when you read this report it is exactly what springs to mind.

The Beresford Avenue house was purchased in March 1995. Wall is a native of Co Mayo now based in Manchester. He is a long-time supporter of Ahern’s who got to know Ahern during his visits to Manchester. Celia Larkin helped Wall identify the Drumcondra house, which the tribunal has been told was to be rented by Ahern, but to be available to Wall during his visits to Dublin.

Ahern’s solicitor, the late Gerry Brennan, acted for Wall when Wall purchased the house for £138,000. Wall took out a mortgage of £96,600. When stamp duty is included, Wall’s contribution to the house purchase comes to approximately £50,000, a sum that arises at both ends of the house purchase story.

In January 1995, Ahern withdrew £50,000 from his accounts in AIB O’Connell Street. He has said he used the money to buy £30,000 in sterling cash and that he kept it and the remaining Irish currency in his safe in St Luke’s. Over time he gave the money to Larkin, who was working on refurbishing the house Wall had purchased, Ahern has said.

No records have been found that show Ahern purchased £30,000 sterling in early 1995 and he did not mention the transaction until he was first asked about sterling lodgements by the tribunal during a private interview in 2007. Ahern cannot say where the sterling was purchased. If Ahern did not purchase the sterling, then the question arises as to the source of £30,000 sterling that was lodged by Larkin and Ahern to accounts in 1995.

In 1997, after the sudden death of Brennan, Ahern purchased the house from Wall for £180,000, which constituted a loss for Wall after costs. The men engaged separate solicitors for the transaction. The tribunal is expected to hear evidence later this year to the effect that Wall’s solicitor lodged the net proceeds of the house sale to an account of Wall’s in Galway on November 5th, 1997. A month later the sum of £50,000 was withdrawn from the account by Wall in cash. Wall has not been able to produce any records showing where the money went thereafter.

Evidence on these matters has yet to be heard, but nothing said to date has indicated that this sum turned up in Ahern’s accounts after it left Wall’s account. Ahern has said he has disclosed all his accounts to the tribunal.

The tribunal has discovered that Wall made a will during the period when he was the owner of the house in which he left the house to Ahern or, in the event of his demise prior to that of Wall, to Ahern’s two daughters. Ahern expressed amazement when told of this fact by the tribunal in private interview. Brennan acted for Wall when Wall made the will. If Wall had died, his life assurance would have paid the mortgage, and Ahern would have been left an unencumbered house.

It may be over a week late, but it seems that the media is waking up to the Ahern story. The Easter holidays may have caught everyone on the hop, perhaps. Last week I was literally stunned by the lack of reaction to Carruth’s evidence. Not a whisper from RTE. Not much from the Irish Times. Radio shows were muted.

A number of things have now changed.

First, the Late Late Show last night. The audience supported Eamon Dunphy, and he was the only one criticising Ahern. Not only did the audience support him, they cheered him. And they literally laughed at Eoghan Harris, who made an absolute fool of himself. Waters just didn’t make a coherent point.

Second, the Irish Times leads with some figures, and inside it looks further into the Tribunal, more so than it has done in a very long time. The Irish Examiner also has a two-page spread on the figures, though includes only money tied directly to Ahern’s accounts, or monies traced directly to him (totalling 250k, not 450k). Unlike the Irish Times, it does not include constituency monies or the B/T account. This is really a matter of discretion for the paper.

The Irish Times also looks at:

Questions over significant sums
Complicated cash deals surround Beresford
More tax queries following tribunal evidence
Collins unclear as to who owns building

The Evening Herald plan to run a story on the Resign, Mr Ahern Facebook group, of which I am founder (though the group is owned by its members).

Ahern will face questions in the Dail next Wednesday. I believe we are reaching a tipping point.

I expect no less than his resignation. If not, then the clock is ticking.

[Disclosure: I work for the Irish Examiner]

Readers will be aware that I have been following events at the tribunals closely for several years. When I lived in Dublin I attended Flood and Moriarty on a regular basis. I saw the evidence of many ’star’ witnesses including James Gogarty, Ray Burke, Liam Lawlor, Charlie Haughey, Denis O’Brien, Michael Lowry, and many others.

You may not be aware, given the lack of media coverage, but last week was probably the most important week in the history of the Flood/Mahon tribunal.

It was the most explosive evidence I have ever heard. It was certainly also one of the most dramatic weeks. Over two days, Wednesday 19th and Thursday the 20th of March, we heard clear and concise contradictory evidence against the Taoiseach, Bertie Ahern. This evidence was based in part on the recollection of employees of his bank branch and on documentary evidence that recently became available to the Tribunal.

In terms of the so-called Bertiegate saga, the evidence on those days is as important, if not more so, as the day the scandal first came to light following a leak to the Irish Times in September 2006. It was more important than all of the days Ahern gave evidence combined. It was more important than all the evidence given by Ahern’s friends and colleagues.

It has been shown that when Ahern was asked about lodgments to his Irish Permanent account he believed that there was a lack of documentary evidence to either support or deny his story. The bank had said they could not find documentary evidence. So Ahern told the tribunal that lodgments came from an accumulation of salary cheques.

The bank later found documentary evidence. And this documentary evidence proved that lodgments to Ahern’s accounts were made in cash, in Sterling. Ahern had never told this to the tribunal, at any stage, in the prior three years.

When his secretary Grainne Caruth, who made the lodgments on Ahern’s behalf, was asked about these lodgments she was shocked. She then claimed that she could not remember lodging the Sterling sums to Ahern’s accounts. She could not remember lodging the equivalent of two years’ of her own salary in one day.

The judges clearly did not believe that she could not remember. Which means she was lying under oath. Perjury.

It also means that the Taoiseach lied to the Tribunal. It could also mean that many of his friends lied to the Tribunal. This includes Tim Collins, who claimed the B/T account was a Building Trust account, when really it was the Bertie/Tim account.

The upshot of all this is that Ahern also committed perjury. Collins too. His digout friends are looking more suspicious. A criminal conspiracy if you will.

So our leader, our Taoiseach, lies under oath. He may say he ‘forgot’ to the tell the tribunal about sterling. But this does not cut it. Sterling went into his personal accounts, and he never told the Tribunal. He thought they would never find out about it for lack of documentary evidence. But unfortunately for him, the evidence turned up. Now he is caught.

And how did RTE, which prides itself on Tribunal issues, cover this massive story? With silence.

The story was demoted to second or third on the news agenda on both days. There were no talking heads live from the tribunal, simply stock news reports, with little follow up analysis to explain the gravity of the news. No doorstopping of Ahern over the weekend.

By Sunday, it’s influential This Week programme on RTE Radio 1 was on the story. Except a newbie, and apparently a trainee, was put on the task of helping us understand the week’s events. She failed miserably. It was an embarrassment.

By this week, it has fallen off the news agenda. Ahern has simply refused to talk about it. Gone to ground. Will deal with it later. And the journos it seems have accepted that.

It is not good enough. It is not acceptable.

Where did the Sterling come from and why did Ahern not tell the Tribunal? Two simple questions. We need answers. Not at the end of May. Not in the Tribunal. Not next week. Now.

I, for one, demand it.

Try and count how many times in this video we now know that he misled us. I remember at the time watching and not believing a word he was saying. I guess I was right.

The syncing is poor, I may try another upload.

Update: YouTube in three parts:

Part 1:

Part 2:

Part 3:

Caruth has just said she did lodge Sterling for Ahern.

Where did it come from?

Resign now, Mr Ahern

These really are staggering sums from 1994-1995. The majority are cash transactions involving Sterling. At the time, Bertie Ahern was earning about £30,000 Irish a year.

Bank loan, £19,115.97, December 23, 1993
£22,500, December 30, 1993 (The supposed first digout)
£5,000, January 31, 1994
£4,119.59, March 9, 1994 (Sterling)
£1,028.40, March 9, 1994 (Sterling)
£1,028.40, March 9, 1994 (Sterling)
£7,000, March 23, 1994
£30,000, April 25, 1994
£3,518.99, May 9, 1994 (Sterling)
£1,000, May 9, 1994 (Sterling)
£1,000, May 9, 1994 (Sterling)
£50.63, May 10, 1994 (Sterling)
£1,434.15, May 23, 1994
£20,000, August 8, 1994
£24,838.49, October 11, 1994 (This is when he apparently needed a digout to buy a house) (Sterling)
£3,970.19, October 28, 1994 (Sterling)
£28,772.90, December 5, 1994 (US Dollars) (Ahern contends this is the 30k Wall lodgment)
£50,000, December 5, 1994 (Probably a relodgment)
£10,060.71, April 12, 1995
£11,743.74, June 22, 1995 (Sterling)
£19,142.92, December 1, 1995 (Sterling)
£5,000, December 21, 1995

The total, but excluding the £50k relodgment, stands at £220,305.08. That includes the soft loan at the start.

Note: Several of the smaller transactions involve his daughters. Some involve accounts operated by Celia Larkin.

The B+T account is not included, for now.

March 19: Judge Keys to counsel:

All we want is the truth. That’s what we’re looking for.

Aren’t we all.

The evidence at the Tribunal today was nothing short of explosive. Unfortunately it received scant coverage.

First, the manager of Irish Permanent Building Society, where Ahern had his personal account.

Blair Hughes says he remembers Sterling transactions. Documentary evidence proves it. This directly contradicts Ahern’s story that they were salary lodgments. He also said the B/T account, which was held in the same branch, had no connection whatever to St Luke’s or Fianna Fail. He assumed B/T stood for Bertie and Tim, at the time. He had no evidence it was anyone else’s account. Hughes also seen Grainne Caruth in person in the branch, and believes she was involved in Sterling transactions into the personal accounts of Ahern.

Secondly,Ken McDonald of the same branch. He more or less concurred with Hughes. There was also at least one foreign exchange lodgment to what is variously referred to as the B+T, B/T and BxT account.

Thirdly, is the devasting account of Grainne Caruth.

Here is a woman who earned £66 a week, or about £3,500 a year. She was paid by one of Des Richardson’s odd companies, Willdover.

On March 9, 1994, the following happened:

10.24am: £4,000 Sterling changed to Irish and lodged.
10.28am: £1,000 Sterling was changed and lodged.
10.31am: £1,000 Sterling was changed and lodged into Cecilia Ahern’s account. The docket was signed by Caruth.
10.33am: £1,000 Sterling was changed and lodged into Georgina Ahern’s account. The docket was signed by Caruth.

On May 9, 1994, the following happened.

10.56am: £1,000 Sterling was changed and lodged into Georgina Ahern’s account. The docket was signed by Caruth.
10.58am: £1,000 Sterling was changed and lodged into Cecilia Ahern’s account. The docket was signed by Caruth.

Later in October that year, Caruth signed more lodgment dockets in relation to £4,000 Sterling.

In April 1995, Cyprian Brady TD lodged over £10,000 to the account.

In December 1995, Caruth’s name appears again, this time a £5,000 lodgment.

And does Caruth remember any of this? In one day, lodging the equivalent of two years’ salary? In Sterling?

Nope. Not a bit.

The Chairman was incredulous. She has contradicted previous evidence. She denies she was involved in Sterling transactions.

Her story is incredible. And she could be the next to break after a night to ponder, ala Frank Dunlop.

Donagh over at Dublin Opinion has a good, and indeed lengthy summation of the Tim Collins/Boyne site deal. One would wonder whether Ahern got a fee from Collins.

Ouch. The National Pension Reserve Fund has 17,181 shares in Bear Stearns according to their 2006 annual report. In 2006 those share were worth €2,123,556.

Once the JPMorgan deal is finished, the NPRF’s holding will be worth €34,362.

That’s a loss of €2,089,194.

Worse still, the fund reported it had €11,526,645 of shares in Lehman Brothers in 2006. The share price has fallen by more than 50% since then, meaning the holding is probably now worth around €6m. If recent rumours about Lehman prove true that could fall much further.

Nowhere in the media have I seen this tabulation. It is a record of the transactions the Tribunal have postulated involved foreign exchange.

Property developer Tom Gilmartin has said that he had been told sometime in 1992 by Owen O’Callaghan that Bertie Ahern TD had been paid by Mr O’Callaghan the sum of £80,000 made up of £50,000 in 1989 and £30,000 on an unspecified date.

It should be remembered that Mr Ahern had no bank account in those years, only opening his first bank account in December 1993. So if he did receive cash bribes in Irish punts or foreign currencies then he would have had no bank accounts in which to lodge them.

There are four main foreign exchange lodgments:

* The £24,838.49 lodgment on October 11, 1994 equates to £25,000 Sterling
* The £28,772.90 lodgment on December 5, 1994 equates to $45,000 US dollars

* The £9,743.74 lodgment on June 22, 1995 equates to £10,000 Sterling
* The £19,142.92 lodgment on December 1, 1995 equates to £20,000 Sterling

The sterling lodgments equate to £55,000 Sterling (circa £53,000 punts)
The dollar lodgments equate to $45,000 US Dollars (circa £30,000 punts)

Added up, the foreign exchange lodgments amount to £82,498.05.

It’s a figure very close to the original allegation, isn’t it?

Hmm. It gets better. Let’s assume that O’Callaghan gave the £55,000 Sterling to Ahern in 1989. Obviously currencies fluctuate, so if it was his intent to give £50,000 Irish in 1989 then he would have had to have given more Sterling. In early 1990, the only figures I am able to find, the Sterling/Punt exhange rate was £1stg to £0.91 punts.

In 1989 therefore, £55,000 Sterling would equate to about £50,050 Irish, if we take that sample exchange rate.

Since the allegation for the £30,000 does not mention a date, except to say that it was in 1992 or before, I cannot check it against exchange rates. But if we assume that the exchange took place in the same year, 1989, then in early 1990, $1 bought you about £1.58 punts. That sample rate equals $48,400. Obviously if the exchange rate was about £1.50, then it would equate to $45,000 in 1989. I cannot check if this is the case.

Update: This website provides some tantalising data. In 1989 the US dollar exchnage rate was £1.41 on average. But in early 1990 it was £1.58. This leads me to believe that in 1989 it is entirely plausible that O’Callaghan bought $45,000 with £30,000 punts.

But since Ahern would have had to have been Minister for Finance we must limit our search to 1991 and 1992. Between April and October 1991, The US dollar traded a median price of £1.50. Between July and October 1992, it also traded at around that level. This provides us with two windows during which an exchange could have taken place with regard to the Golden Island tax designation, which Ahern signed in the dying minutes of the FF/Labour government in 1994.

Confused?

I’ll put it simply. The totals of sterling and dollar lodgments to his accounts would equate exactly with the £80,000 Ahern is said to have received in 1989 currency values.

Of course, this is all just speculation.

But I do wonder is the Tribunal aware of these calculations.

One of the very first reactions I got to reading the transcript of Tim Collins is the following:

Rehearsed.

Between Q.1 and Q.200 Collins is vague about everything. He can’t remember. He doesn’t know. He can’t remember. Don’t know. Just can’t remember anything, it was all so long ago. Most of his answers amount to that in their totality.

But you get the Q.68. Collins is being asked about a £10,000 lodgment to the B/T account on January 31, 1993. This was just after the general election of 1992, but the lodgment was made into an account unconnected with the election. Collins is asked to explain.

As if by magic, he remembers everything. You can’t shut him up.

Well the period of time would have been over the Christmas period, so it would have been put in after, after Christmas.
The situation on the building trust account is that when the House Committee, which were four or five members, five members, decided that if we had a surplus monies coming in and it was decided by the committee and various members of the committee that we would put a sinking funding together called a building trust in the event of and my view at the time, in the event of anything ever happening to Bertie Ahern got knocked down or anything like that, the trustees would not be held responsible for any debt on St. Luke’s and to this day I hold that view, although some of the members have since died.

And where we thought we could possibly, we had enough money for the election, we would put money in or cheques or whatever into the building trust account. And that was the whole idea behind the building trust for, call it a rainy day, a sinking fund, call it what you like. But that was my view on it and it was particularly another member that has since deceased as well, that was his view as well. That we would have a rainy fund day there. Because we bought St. Luke’s and it gave problems. At the end of the day I, particularly myself, I wasn’t the youngest at the time, that I didn’t want to be held responsible for it all, any debt on the house, you know.

What the hell is he on about?

Davy Stockbrokers donated £5,000 towards Ahern’s election campaign, on November 11, 1992. That cheque, along with another cheque for £5,000 was not lodged until January. It just sat in St Luke’s apparently. All the way through the election campaign. And then it was lodged to the B/T account after the election. Into an account in the name of Tim Collins.

But on the same day as Collins opened that bank account back in 1992, the FF organisation opened an account too, for the purpose of the election.

The B/T account raised £28,730.

The Dublin Central constituency election account raised £500.

And by the time the election was over, the account was overdrawn to £1,572.65.

Asked why this was so, Collins said: “I can’t explain that.” (Q59)

I’m not normally one to blow my own trumpet, but this time I make an exception.

Ten months ago now, myself and Anthony came across a curious passage in a book about Bertie Ahern. The passage detailed how St Luke’s was bought, and the very strange circumstances in which it was renovated. Some folk over on Politics.ie also had the St Luke’s deal flagged.

Now it appears that St Luke’s, and constituency funding, go to the core of all the money sloshing around Drumcondra.

If I was a betting man, I would make the following punt:

a) Money was being collected for the purpose of funding an election campaign and/or constituency funds in 1989 and 1992.

b) Large amounts of donations ended up in accounts not directly linked with the constituency or with Fianna Fail.

c) Ahern, and members of his inner circle know of the existence of these accounts.

Conclusion: Money intended for Fianna Fail ended up in other bank accounts.

It’s not exactly out there given the context of other members of Fianna Fail taking money that was meant for the party but ending up in their own pockets. CJH, Pee Flynn to name two.

One has to ask: Why are FF not upset about this? And have the gardai been made aware?

Just in case you missed it. Ahern speaking on September 26, 2003.

Ah what a tangled web we weave:

TAOISEACH BERTIE Ahern’s friend and personal solicitor, the late Gerard Brennan, acted for Celia Larkin when she purchased a house in Dublin using funds from Fianna Fáil, according to documents in the Registry of Deeds, writes Colm Keena , Public Affairs Correspondent

Mr Ahern has told the Mahon tribunal that £30,000 given to Ms Larkin in 1993 came from funds controlled by a party trust of which Mr Brennan was a member, and that the money was given as a loan.

But did the trust control the account?

Mr Ahern has told the tribunal that he did not know of the decision to give Ms Larkin the money until after the purchase of the house. He said the decision to give the money as a loan to Ms Larkin, to assist her help her elderly relatives, was agreed by all the trustees. The trustees were Mr Brennan, Joe Burke, Tim Collins, the late Jimmy Keane and the late Paddy Reilly. The sole signatory on the B/T account was Mr Collins.

Is it possible that money donated to FF ended up buying a house for Celia Larkin? I shudder to think.

Fianna Fail’s Noel O’Flynn and Billy Kelleher talking about their criticisms of John Ellis and Pee Flynn. Interesting how O’Flynn wonders about Flynn taking money for himself that was meant for the party.. sounds familiar.

The clip is from Primetime, March 2, 2000.

Primetime, October 1999

Meanwhile, Minister for Foreign Affairs Dermot Ahern, who delivered the most robust defence yet of the Taoiseach yet during a visit to Belfast on Wednesday, insisted yesterday that “Charles Haughey was a great politician”.

Asked if Mr Haughey had not been shown to be corrupt, Mr Ahern, following a meeting with Northern Ireland Secretary of State Shaun Woodward said: “No, he wasn’t.”

By those standards, Ahern is an angel.

Are these guys even on the same planet as the rest of us? If Ahern is saying Haughey of all people was not corrupt, then he has just wiped the slate clean for every politician in the history of the State, since no one was more corrupt than Haughey.

I really am sick of this shit. It’s time for Ahern, actually both Aherns, to resign.

The tribunal will be required to ascertain whether there were substantial payments, who the donors were, how much was involved, when they were made, whether any of the controversial decisions were made at that time involving that donor and whether, as a consequence, the tribunal believes that either Mr. Haughey or Deputy Lowry did any act or made any decision to confer any benefit on that specific donor in respect of that particular transaction.

Deputy Spring has raised the issue of the party leader’s allowance during Fianna Fáil’s period in Opposition. In so far as I could with little available records I am satisfied, having spoken to the person who administered the account, that it was used for bona fide party purposes, that the cheques were prepared by that person and countersigned by another senior party member. Their purpose was to finance personnel, press and other normal supports for an Opposition leader. There was no surplus and no misappropriation. The person involved had sole control of the account. The money came in, the person lodged the cheque, dealt with the bills and invoices and paid those not covered by the ordinary allowance. The account as far as her excellent recollection goes was normally short, not the other way around. I have spoken to her at some length. She has served many Taoisigh beginning with Mr. Jack Lynch. We consider her to be totally honourable.

That senior party member was one Bertie Ahern.

Of course we now know that none of this is true. Haughey used taxpayers money for his own benefit. And somehow, Ahern never knew.

Dail record

Since the line being given by Fianna Fail is that we should await the report of the Tribunal, let us cast our minds back to 2002, and the publication of the Tribunal’s Second Interim Report. The report dealt with the first five years of its investigations, from 1997 to 2002. During that time it investigated the Gogarty Module, the Century Radio Module and the Brennan/McGowan module.

The report can be read in full at the Mahon Tribunal wiki.

It is interesting to watch the reaction to the report. First, let’s look at a report on Ahern’s dealings with the corrupt Ray Burke, and what Ahern did or didn’t know about Burke taking €2.25m in bribes during his 30 years of political life. This is from PrimeTime, September 29, 2002.

Ahern has yet to really answer those questions. Almost six years later.

Next, let’s look at the panel discussion. In it, Mary Hanafin is challenged by Mark Little on the veracity of Ahern’s statements - sounds familiar. John Gormley hits the nail on the head during the discussion, but clearly he has lost his mojo since 2002. “That was then and this is now,” he might say. Coincidentally the discussion revolves around taking a £30,000 cash donation - also sounds familiar. Joan Burton is succinct also, but I’ve edited her out for now because the video is too long for YouTube.

PJ Mara is also mentioned - a guy who was Director of Elections again last year, despite having forgotten to tell the Tribunal of an offshore bank account, and failing to cooperate with the Tribunal. Oh and then there was that little matter of Mara getting a ‘digout’ from briber Oliver Barry and one Dermot Desmond during the 1980s. Poor Mara fell on hard times - sounds familiar. I suppose we could call it the Mara defence.

We have to ask ourselves, what was done following the publication of the Second Interim Report. Who was prosecuted? Who resigned? What was the reaction? If the answer is ‘feck all’, then what can we expected after the publication of the next report?

And what of Ahern himself? Fast forward to 2003. It is not the first time he has made contradictory statements, or misled the public. A year later he is dealing with the tax evasion of Michael Collins TD - and that thorny issue of tax clearance certificates is again raised. Oh and then there was Denis Foley, the other FF TD tax evader. And Ray Burke, the corrupt politician. So many contradictory statements, so little time.

PrimeTime goes through them on September 30, 2003:

On a trip to New York, Ahern said: “I can’t recall any member of the Fianna Fail parliamentary party not having a tax clearance certificate.” Is that so, Mr Ahern?

PrimeTime with a good summary of the latest on Ahern:

More stories spun. I don’t have time to look into his evidence in detail, but I will. Things to note:

1. He didn’t pay taxes that he should have - tax evasion?
2. As P O’Neill notes, why did he get cheques from family and cash from friends?
3. St Luke’s rears its ugly head again.

Bertie Ahern: Taoiseach and Peacemaker” by Ken Whelan and Eugene Masterson is proving to be a very badly written book.

To finance the purchase, they [Kett and Kiely] brought together 25 local well-to-do supporters who pledged £1,000 each, with further contributions over a five year period. This was sufficient to put together a mortgage for the house with the repayments paid through the constituency organisation’s own bank.

The purchase price in the mid-80’s was £57,000. The house was assigned to a group of five trustees - again, not party activists - who for legal purposes vested the property in the Dublin Central Fianna Fail organisation. The senior TD was Bertie Ahern and St Luke’s effectively became his headquarters.

..

When the purchase of St Luke’s was closed it became obvious to all and sundry that the house needed serious refurbishment as there was a foundation crack in the structure. This was costed at a further £50,000 and, when approved by the trustees, the work took over a year and half to complete.

Some of the original contributors dropped out over the following few years or simply made occasional donations to the mortgage on St Luke’s. This shortfall on the purchase and redevelopment of St Luke’s combined with the salaries of the full-time constituency workers there together with sundry expenses, were causing serious headaches and making huge inroads into Ahern’s private time, until Des Richardson arrived and restructured the fund-raising requirements of Dublin Central through his annual Royal Hospital Dinner.

But no. At Q.54 Ahern says “I wouldnt have considered him one of the organisers of that function.”

At Q.413, Ahern goes into a lenghty description of St Luke’s history. He says they spent £200,000. €47,000 is still sitting in an account intended for St Luke’s.

At Q 440, Ahern gives more detail. saying it cost 89,000 for the renovations. He says the mortgage is currently 75,000, and the constituency has 90,000 including the 47,000.

How long have Fianna Fail hacks been texting into RTE news programmes in an orchestrated bid to make people believe the Irish people are bored of the Ahern story?

I don’t know about you, but every time I checked the Irish Times or Irish Independent website over the last number of weeks, stories relating to Ahern have ranked at least in the top three most read, if not usually the most read story of the day.

I have noticed that in increasing numbers comments supporting the Taoiseach and critcising the media have become far more common. What is going on?

RTE today:

Here is the CRO company printout. 2110765_11.pdf

First question. What involvement, if any, did the State-owned Industrial Credit Corporation have with Proximity, or 72 Amiens Street? Ah yes, the mortgage was taken out by Ahern et al with ICC.

Brian Cole appears to be an engineer, and also at the time a director of Building Advisory Services Limited. Kevin O’Brien is a former director, having resigned on June 28, 1989. Mr Cole replaced him. Solicitors acting for the firm are Kilroy and Co, Leeson street.

According to the Irish Times, the company’s address is “a five-bedroom dormer bungalow”. (1999) (It is normal to list residential addresses as company premises)

Sherry FitzGerald held four Clontarf auctions over the last week: a five-bedroom dormer bungalow at 102a Howth Road was withdrawn at £350,000 and sold later for a higher figure.

Here is the Tribune story.

Hmm. I’ve spent the last few hours going over Dail television archives. I am posting statements the Taoiseach made, that were of concern to the Tribunal, to YouTube. On a personal level it is clear to me. Ahern outright lied to Dail Eireann. Without a doubt.

I can say that because of information that has come to light since then. The Gilvarry letter, the letters between Revenue and Ahern, the Tribunal evidence.

I guess we have to ask ourselves, is it acceptable?

Padraic O’Connor. Ahern says it was a bankdraft… “it could not have been a company cheque.” Technically he is right, in fairness. But that is only because the company cheque O’Connor wrote was paid to another company, EuroWorkForce run by FF fundraiser Des Richardson, and Des Richardson then drew a bank draft from a Bank of Ireland account. Ahern did not receive anything personally from Padraic O’Connor.

I have transcribed the first of the letters.

It is in PDF format here

We knew this was coming. Ahern has decided to take a case to the High Court and is challenging aspects of its investigation. Ireland.com reports:

Today, lawyers acting for Mr Ahern in the High Court in Dublin secured leave to seek a judicial review challenging the handing over of specific documents, including advice from a banking expert.

Despite the political tension surrounding the work of the tribunal, Mr Ahern insisted today’s action referred to legal technicalities and said he plans to appear as a scheduled witness at the tribunal next week.

Mr Ahern later told reporters: “These are a few technical legal issues where my legal team advised that I have absolutely no alternative.”

The Taoiseach, who was not in court, is also seeking to prevent the tribunal questioning him on statements made under the privilege of the Dáil parliament.

“They (his legal team) say the Dáil privilege, which has always been challenged by politicians, and the other two issues are related to professional advice that my legal team got independently, and the tribunal are seeking that advice,” said Mr Ahern.

“The legal team say that that is not proper procedure and the third point is, where the tribunal have independent legal advice, financial advice, and they won’t give it to my people.”

He is seeking legal privilege over the documents, which he believes should be subject to the same immunity as if he were a witness before the High Court.

Brian Murray SC, for the Taoiseach, maintained that the tribunal has no right to question statements he made about his personal finances under privilege in the Dail, even if they were repeated elsewhere.

He also secured a temporary stay on a production order until Thursday afternoon, when the matter will come back before the High Court.

The documents, which contain advice from banking expert Paddy Strong, had been due to be handed to the Mahon Tribunal at 4.30 this afternoon.

During the ex-party application made by the Taoiseach’s legal team, Mr Murray said the Taoiseach is also seeking the discovery of documents from the planning tribunal in relation to allegations regarding foreign exchange transactions.

Mr Justice Bryan McMahon said the Taoiseach has an arguable case.

The Taoiseach, who sat in the tribunal witness box over several days in September and December, is due to appear before the Mahon Tribunal again for two days on February 21st and 22nd.

Last month, the government narrowly won a Dáil vote on a motion supporting the Mahon Tribunal after a heated debate by TDs.

The government motion urged the tribunal to continue its work and said it looked forward to receiving its report as soon as possible.

The motion also condemned the leaking of tribunal documents as a breach of confidentiality and said it infringed the rights of those affected.

Bryan McMahon is an interesting character. Kerry born, son of a writer, and appointed to the High Court last year (from the Circuit Court on May 2, just before the General Election). He was also appointed to the board of the Abbey Theatre by fellow Kerryman and Ceann Comhairle John O’Donoghue. I digress.

Ahern is clearly again trying to delay the tribunal. He has done so for 3 years, and he is continuing to do so. I get the feeling that they are trying to throw as many legal challenges at the tribunal as possible, and hoping that one will stick. The Dail privilege of statements made outside the Dail is nonsensical.

The reference to a Dail speech was highlighted by Irish Election, I especially like this bit from September 2006:

The Taoiseach: I know the law, although I am not an expert on every aspect. However, many years ago my tax advisers checked the issues in detail on the basis that it was a loan with interest. Subject to correction, I believe that the rate throughout the loan period was 3% — the interest rate that a person would have received on a deposit from 1993 or 1994. It was calculated yearly, and the total interest would be more than €20,000. I receive an annual figure from my tax adviser. It was calculated over the entire period on that basis. I paid capital gains tax and gift tax. It is not appropriate for me to spell out what I paid, but I assure the Deputy that I did so following advice.

An annual figure from your tax advisor? Really? Can we see that? Can we discover it? You paid capital gains and gift tax? Really? Can you show us the receipts? Will Revenue agree?

Do we need a ‘green revolution’ to get Ahern out of office?

After a thorough investigation, the Mahon Tribunal has found that