Social Warfare (P27)
Deception - The act of misleading another through intentionally false statements or fraudulent actions.
The 9th of February marks the 14th anniversary of the State's campaign of terror against X. It was on this date that Sean Kelly first forged a document instructing that X be placed under investigation and added it to X's file.
Despite overwhelming evidence, including two Forensic Handwriting Reports, this document and dozens more forged and falsified documents remain in X's file.
The DPP is fully aware that two Forensic Reports exist which expose both the forgeries and the cover-up. The DPP made the penultimate comment on the subject in the most bizarre circumstances on the 6th of August 2010. The DPP does not deny that Sean Kelly forged and falsified documents, instead the DPP's position is that if he forged documents, Sean Kelly did not intend to deceive and therefore the forgery and falsification of documents was a misdemeanour offence and out of time for prosecution.
This is a truly shocking stance for the DPP to take. Sean Kelly is no ordinary foot soldier, he is in charge of the Departments crack team of Investigators, the Joint Investigation Unit. He is involved with the most sensitive and wide-ranging investigations the Department undertakes, often with other law enforcing arms of the State.
Sean Kelly fully intended to deceive, as did those charged to investigate his actions, including An Garda Siochana. Not only did all those involved intend to deceive, they did deceive and that deceit is ongoing. For the DPP to claim that there was no intent to deceive, is in its self, a deception.
X was a young woman temporarily unemployed. A man who held the power of money over her called unannounced to her home. He gained access on the pretense that he was on official business. For fourteen years X has alleged that Sean Kelly attacked her in her home. He has never been questioned by An Garda Siochana. X has been vilified, ridiculed, intimidated and harassed for daring to speak out.
The cover-up by the State is identical to the cover-ups perpetrated by religious institutions on similar abuse allegations. Unlike the religious institution cover ups, X has always had an overwhelming weight of evidence to expose Sean Kelly.
Despite overwhelming evidence, including two Forensic Handwriting Reports, this document and dozens more forged and falsified documents remain in X's file.
The DPP is fully aware that two Forensic Reports exist which expose both the forgeries and the cover-up. The DPP made the penultimate comment on the subject in the most bizarre circumstances on the 6th of August 2010. The DPP does not deny that Sean Kelly forged and falsified documents, instead the DPP's position is that if he forged documents, Sean Kelly did not intend to deceive and therefore the forgery and falsification of documents was a misdemeanour offence and out of time for prosecution.
This is a truly shocking stance for the DPP to take. Sean Kelly is no ordinary foot soldier, he is in charge of the Departments crack team of Investigators, the Joint Investigation Unit. He is involved with the most sensitive and wide-ranging investigations the Department undertakes, often with other law enforcing arms of the State.
Sean Kelly fully intended to deceive, as did those charged to investigate his actions, including An Garda Siochana. Not only did all those involved intend to deceive, they did deceive and that deceit is ongoing. For the DPP to claim that there was no intent to deceive, is in its self, a deception.
X was a young woman temporarily unemployed. A man who held the power of money over her called unannounced to her home. He gained access on the pretense that he was on official business. For fourteen years X has alleged that Sean Kelly attacked her in her home. He has never been questioned by An Garda Siochana. X has been vilified, ridiculed, intimidated and harassed for daring to speak out.
The cover-up by the State is identical to the cover-ups perpetrated by religious institutions on similar abuse allegations. Unlike the religious institution cover ups, X has always had an overwhelming weight of evidence to expose Sean Kelly.
On the 8th of March 2005, the Information Commissioner Ms Emily O'Reilly, wrote to X. Ms O' Reilly enclosed her 'Final Decision' on the Departments refusal of X's request for 'All documents pertaining to an investigation which came about after I complained about Sean Kelly HEO'.
For four years and two months the Department of Social Welfare had denied X access to her own personal information using a myriad of FOI legislation and outright subterfuge. X had written to Department and The Garda Complaints board as far back as 2001 expressing her belief that documents had been forged and falsified.
The initial FOI legislation used by the Department on 13th February 2001 was Section 21(1)(a) with the following written statement:
I have decided that access to the records requested must be refused under Section 21(1)(a) of the FOI Act, as investigations pertaining to the above have not yet been finalised in the Department and release of the records at this time would prejudice the effectiveness of these investigations.
The contention that investigations had not yet been finalised on 13th February 2001 was false. A month previously both John Glennon and Dave Redmond had signed a report of a meeting with Sean Kelly which stated:
The Regional Manager (John Glennon) stated that the onus of proof was on X and in his opinion to date no compelling evidence has been presented that would justify interfering in any way with Sean Kelly's current position within the Department.
He (John Glennon) said the fact that the Department had taken no action to date should indicate something.
Mr. Glennon said that as things stand nothing had been proven and as far as he is concerned Sean Kelly's reputation remains intact.
Sean Kelly was in no doubt that the 'Investigation' John Glennon and Dave Redmond claimed to carry out was well and truly over by the time the Department used the excuse that release of the records would prejudice the effectiveness of the 'investigations', but that was not the issue before Emily O'Reilly.
In her decision, Emily O'Reilly stated:
In her decision, Emily O'Reilly stated:
It is not clear to me that release of records which would disclose to (X) the procedures used in the investigation could, in itself, prejudice the effectiveness of future similar investigations or the procedures used in such investigations. Nor is it clear to me how release of the records could have a significant adverse effect on the performance of the Department's functions.
I find that the exemptions allowed for in Section 21(1)(a) are, therefore, not applicable to the records in case.
So the Department had no legal right to refuse X access to "All documents pertaining to an investigation which came about after I complained about Sean Kelly HEO".
So what were the real reasons behind the Department's refusal to provide X with information she was legally entitled to?
The answer is that the Department deliberately covered up acts of criminality. Six months after the Department misused Section 21(1)(a) X wrote to the Department expressing her belief that documents had been forged and falsified. In reply X received a handwritten letter which, when Forensically examined, was found to be a crude forgery, not once but twice, by two separate Forensic Laboratories. This crude forgery and several other documents (which were also later exposed as forgeries), were endorsed in writing as genuine by a Senior Manager, Mr. Benny Swinburne, Assistant Principal. From the 21st of September 2001, Senior Management of the Department was fully aware that Sean Kelly had forged documents and added them to X's files. The Department's refusal to allow X access to her own information deliberately and unlawfully prevented X access to the forged documents in her files.
This deliberate conspiracy by senior management of the Department to conceal documents they knew to be forged prevented X from having them Forensically examined at the time, which, according to the DPP, resulted in the State being out of time to pursue Sean Kelly for forging and falsifying documents in relation to X. As for the DPP's contention that Sean Kelly did not 'intend' to deceive, the DPP has no legal basis to make that claim. Sean Kelly was never questioned by An Garda Siochana. How could the DPP possibly conclude that Sean Kelly did not intend to deceive when nobody has ever asked Sean Kelly what his intentions were?
The deception by all those involved is undeniable.
Part 28 coming soon.
So what were the real reasons behind the Department's refusal to provide X with information she was legally entitled to?
The answer is that the Department deliberately covered up acts of criminality. Six months after the Department misused Section 21(1)(a) X wrote to the Department expressing her belief that documents had been forged and falsified. In reply X received a handwritten letter which, when Forensically examined, was found to be a crude forgery, not once but twice, by two separate Forensic Laboratories. This crude forgery and several other documents (which were also later exposed as forgeries), were endorsed in writing as genuine by a Senior Manager, Mr. Benny Swinburne, Assistant Principal. From the 21st of September 2001, Senior Management of the Department was fully aware that Sean Kelly had forged documents and added them to X's files. The Department's refusal to allow X access to her own information deliberately and unlawfully prevented X access to the forged documents in her files.
This deliberate conspiracy by senior management of the Department to conceal documents they knew to be forged prevented X from having them Forensically examined at the time, which, according to the DPP, resulted in the State being out of time to pursue Sean Kelly for forging and falsifying documents in relation to X. As for the DPP's contention that Sean Kelly did not 'intend' to deceive, the DPP has no legal basis to make that claim. Sean Kelly was never questioned by An Garda Siochana. How could the DPP possibly conclude that Sean Kelly did not intend to deceive when nobody has ever asked Sean Kelly what his intentions were?
The deception by all those involved is undeniable.
Part 28 coming soon.
