What's new

Irish court judgement is in!

Cat Daddy

Silver Meritorious Patron
Would you mind me celebrating with this song ?

[video=youtube;7n_hkeYGcT0]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7n_hkeYGcT0[/video]
 

lotus

stubborn rebel sheep!
Congratulations for that win using justice against this slanderer!

People like you, who find the guts and courage to sue them and get medias to broadcast
the '' dirty slander retaliate'' of the CO$ (when you speak the truth)
Help tremendously. You inspire others to do so and to make known those hate website and slanders accusations are pure fabricated lies to cave people in and remain muzzled.

Glad justice restablished the truth in your case .

Thank you and enjoy better days now! :coolwink:

It's funny to realize this last year, people seems to don't carry fear anymore about the CO$ - their only remaining weapon is disconnection with parents\kids, and this issue is widely addressed and now, well known in general public.

'by their fruits you will recognize them...''
 

CommunicatorIC

@IndieScieNews on Twitter
To be fair and balanced, as they say, it might also be useful to note and learn from the following:

http://www.independent.ie/irish-new...s-for-vitriolic-personal-attack-34659037.html

* * * * * BEGIN EXCERPT * * * * *

Judge O’Donohoe also gave judgment in a second case in which Collins, a chiropractor, of The Boulevard, Mount Eustace, Tyrelstown, Dublin 15, and Scientologist Michael O’Donell, a marketing consultant of Cherrywood Lawn, Clondalkin, Dublin, sued Griffiths and also embalmer John McGhee, of Armstrong Grove, Clara, Co Offaly, for assault and battery.

The judge said Mr McGhee had followed Ms Collins and Mr O’Donnell in Dublin as they distributed leaflets against drug taking. From a video he had seen it was very clear to him that Mr McGhee had certainly been guilty of assault. His harassing of her and the grabbing by him of leaflets constituted battery.

Judge O’Donohoe told barrister Frank Beatty, counsel for Ms Collins, that his client could be heard letting out a “shrill shriek” on the video which indicated to the court that she was apprehensive of a battering from Mr McGhee who did not turn up in court today to hear the judgment.

The judge awarded Ms Collins and Mr O’Donnell a total of €3,500 against McGhee for assault and battery. Mr Griffiths, he said, had played a lesser role by videoing the assault but had consorted with Mr McGhee and for harassment and assault he awarded Collins and O’Donnell €2,000 damages against Griffiths.

* * * * * END EXCERPT * * * * *[/quote]

In summary, it is important to note that there were two entirely separate incidents, and thus two separate claims (if not lawsuits), that each had to be judged on their own merits.

In the first, Zabrina Collins allegedly defamed Peter Griffiths. Collins was found liable and ordered to pay Griffiths €5,000 in damages.

In the second, separate, incident John McGhee allegedly harassed and battered Zabrina Collins and Michael O’Donell. McGhee was found liable and ordered to pay Collins and O'Donell €3,500. Griffiths filmed the incident and was found to have "consorted" with McGhee (my guess, the Irish equivalent of "conspired") and was ordered to pay Collins and O'Donell €2,000 in damages.
 

RogerB

Crusader
CIC wrote:
(my guess, the Irish equivalent of "conspired") and was ordered to pay Collins and O'Donell €2,000 in damages.

Ya, in the US they have the term "accessory" . . . here it would apply in the context that the guy was "an accessory to and in the act of assault and battery" . . . sometimes folks can be found guilty as accessories after a criminal act . . . .

I am wondering if there is any mileage in bringing criminal assault/battery charges in this case of held to be proven events of such . . .
 

JustSheila

Crusader
Edited because I didn't realize there were two entirely separate rulings. :blush:

What a mixed response.

It's good to see Peter Griffiths won against such horrible slander, but terrible that he would get charged with assault for simply grabbing the woman's flyers.

That woman being a conniving, calculating OSA Op. :angry:

Peter, you're one of my Anon protestor favourites. All you do and have done to make others aware of the cult is greatly appreciated. Too bad about the mixed rulings. So unfair. The woman is clearly insane and has delusional hallucinations.

You're one of the good guys and I hope all is well with you at work and elsewhere now that it's over, but I hope you can get the assault conviction removed. Her outrageous reactions and responses are not what determines 'assault'. Sorry that one didn't turn out fairly for you. :sorry:
 
Last edited:

ThetanExterior

Gold Meritorious Patron
Edited because I didn't realize there were two entirely separate rulings. :blush:

What a mixed response.

It's good to see Peter Griffiths won against such horrible slander, but terrible that he would get charged with assault for simply grabbing the woman's flyers.

That woman being a conniving, calculating OSA Op. :angry:

Peter, you're one of my Anon protestor favourites. All you do and have done to make others aware of the cult is greatly appreciated. Too bad about the mixed rulings. So unfair. The woman is clearly insane and has delusional hallucinations.

You're one of the good guys and I hope all is well with you at work and elsewhere now that it's over, but I hope you can get the assault conviction removed. Her outrageous reactions and responses are not what determines 'assault'. Sorry that one didn't turn out fairly for you. :sorry:

According to the quoted article Pete didn't even grab the leaflets. He was convicted for assault simply because he was there and filmed it.

I used to know Pete when we were in the cult. The idea that he would assault a woman is ridiculous. He is genuinely a nice guy.
 

JustSheila

Crusader
Thanks, Thetan Exterior.

Yeh, Peter Griffiths is a great guy! He's been protesting for years without incident, why does that not count? I used to keep up with the Ireland protests on WWP. He always struck me as a kind, reasonable man who cares deeply about others and the world at large.

How can a person be convicted of being an accessory to an assault when there was no assault planned, no harm intended, and when the person has peacefully protested for years? How can he be punished for one wrong move someone else made that took seconds that he caught on film? It's a stretch in the first place to call McGhee's grabbing the flyers battery in the first place. No doubt McGhee made a mistake in judgement that took only seconds, cause he's not a bad guy from what I've seen on WWP, either.

The judge certainly has no basis to decide that the two of them 'planned in advance' to have McGhee grab the flyers! One mistake. It was not Griffiths that did it. Is he going to appeal the decision?
 

Cat's Squirrel

Gold Meritorious Patron
According to the quoted article Pete didn't even grab the leaflets. He was convicted for assault simply because he was there and filmed it.

I used to know Pete when we were in the cult. The idea that he would assault a woman is ridiculous. He is genuinely a nice guy.

Thanks for the info. It's hypocritical too for the CofS to spread false information about someone grabbing their leaflets when they have operatives who are instructed to destroy any books critical of Scientology that they find in libraries, or to complain about being filmed when they do the same thing themselves.

Pointing out the CofS's double standards does get boring at times, but there may be someone reading this who wasn't previously aware of it.
 
Last edited:

Mick Wenlock

Admin Emeritus (retired)
According to the quoted article Pete didn't even grab the leaflets. He was convicted for assault simply because he was there and filmed it.

I used to know Pete when we were in the cult. The idea that he would assault a woman is ridiculous. He is genuinely a nice guy.

"assault" in english and Irish law is the threat of violence. Battery is the physical crime. - cautionary note - I ain't no lawyer and things may have changed since my days...
 

xenusdad

Patron with Honors
Thank you for the kind comments :)

There is still a hearing to come, later this month, regarding costs, and the fate of the injunction that the Scientologists managed to get for themselves.

Sound familiar?

With that in mind I am self-muzzled.

:nervous:
 
Top