Dunne ducks out of D4 and heads west


#224

We need more patriots like him…


#225

US court told of plans by creditors to block Dunne’s bankruptcy withdrawal bid
independent.ie/irish-news/us … 43393.html

Dunne application to have bankruptcy dismissed challenged by creditors
rte.ie/news/2014/0828/639811-dunne/


#226

irishtimes.com/business/sect … -1.1910096


#227

That’s what can happen when you open up Pandora’s box !

Seanie didn’t think having US Federal Court Official going thru the books, & getting sworn statements was a big deal; but if that Official finds evidence of wrongdoing, they’re legally obliged to report it; & if the wrongdoing is attached to the court proceedings, the offences are Federal ones. Martha Stewart got send down for just making a false statement to a Fed !


#228

Compare and contrast with McNamara, clean bankruptcy and back in business.


#229

irishtimes.com/business/sect … -1.1910096

You’d have to get some satisfaction if this were to pan out in such a way that she too would be stripped of ‘her’ worth.

So have I understood this properly?:

Dunne: “If it may please the court I’d like to file for bankruptcy.”

American court: “Sure thing, let’s go through everything with a fine tooth comb and see what we see…”

Dunne: “Oooh…er…a fine tooth comb you say? Surely a regular comb will suffice?”

American court: “Fraid not.”

Dunne: "Ehh…ahem…if it pleases the court so I won’t bother. Sorry to be a nuiscance! Good luck and thanks :-GC "

American court: “Just a minute Mr. Dunne…we’re not done with you just yet; we’ve found something quite interesting here and we might need you to stick around for a while.”

Dunne: (gulp) :frowning: *

*Anyone wanna fix/edit my script (as it’s only a first draft) feel free.


#230

#231

Pretty good as it is.


#232

NAMA lawyer: Dunne is obstructing probe - -> independent.ie/irish-news/co … 10809.html


#233

irishtimes.com/business/sect … -1.1971881


#234

Who really owns Walford?

irishtimes.com/news/environm … -1.1980633


#235

How, after all we have been through in the past few years, could Dublin CC grrant planning permission for a development around a private residence where he owners of that residence were’nt known and were hiding behind a Cypriot registered company.
irishtimes.com/news/ireland/ … -1.1984188


#236

It appears to be owned by a company called Yesreb. The ownership of Yesreb is irrelevant to a planning application, and a red herring. When Google applies to build an office, nobody cares who owns Google. Same here.


#237

I *think *I know who bought it.
If I’m right, then they grew up just a few metres away.


#238

Yesreb backwards is Bersey. Sean Dunne previously had a company call Berland. Am I reading too much into this?


#239

Aww Jesus man, this is going to get like those clues on 3-2-1.


#240

Clearly we do care so it’s not the same. Have we right to care ? Yes of course. If you have to give your bloody PPS no. for water then why do you have to declare who the beneficial owners are in a planning application.

If you take a convicted criminal like Jim Mansfield (senior :laughing: ) he had a long track record ignoring planning conditions why should he get to hide behind off shore shell companies ?


#241

You don’t have to give your PPS number :slight_smile:

However choosing this option means you pay for all water used i.e. no free allowance


#242

We know who owns google…there’s a share register with names on it. There’s a CEO, a board etc.

This is a private residence in a residential area…


#243

However in this case the planning application proved to be controversial and a group of residents objected. Dublin City Council approved, residents appealed, An Bord Pleanala upheld approval. The residents have no way of knowing whether any of the people involved in the approval of this development were beneficial owners, or related to beneficial owners of Yesreb. I think it would be interesting if the residents took cases against individual members of Dublin City Council and An Bord Pleanala asking them to prove that they had no beneficial interest.

If the state provides facilities (in this case planning approval) that is to the material benefit of individuals then it must be able to show that those providing the facilities have no connection to the beneficiaries - the only way for this to be shown is that we know who the beneficiaries (the owners of Walford) are. We had exactly the same issue with Carrickmines - as usual the state has failed to learn, to the cost of its citizens. As far as I am concerned I am at liberty to believe that someone in either Dublin City Cooncil or An Bord Pleanala has benefited from this decision.