Insubstantial Appeal



Gemma O’Doherty and John Waters at the Four Courts last month

This afternoon.

An appeal by Gemma O’Doherty and John Waters to allow them to challenge the constitutionality of laws introduced in response to the Covid-19 pandemic has been dismissed by a three-judge Court of Appeal, comprised of the President of the Court of Appeal Mr Justice George Birmingham, Ms Justice John Edwards and Ms Justice Caroline Costello.

Gemma O’Doherty and John Waters lose appeal over Covid-19 restrictions (Irish Examiner)


Sponsored Link

27 thoughts on “Insubstantial Appeal

    1. Bitnboxy

      Both GOD and that bigoted walking corpse have properties against which a cost order can and should be levied.

      A waste of time and money at the hands of the truly deranged.

      Costs follow the event, especially where the event was a total farce and an insult to honest lay litigants.

        1. Bitnboxy

          Tracy better make sure the legal and tax I’s are dotted and the T’s crossed with her warchest of donations. Watch this space ;-p (from what I hear)…

          Let’s see how generous Tracy is to them.

          1. V aka Frilly Keane

            Is it not their money anyway.

            Contributions collected specifically to help pay for a legal challenge to Government Lockdown Restrictions. And that’s what they did.

            Well feck. I hope that money is used to help them out. That’s what it was collected for. People knew what their money was going to be spent on when they contributed it, so that’s exactly what should happen to it.

          2. Bitnboxy

            I think Tracey had in mind a “different” case. I certainly don’t think GOD and the walking frothing corpse will get one brass cent of it for their costs. She certainly hasn’t assisted them with her “legal acumen”.

            We’ll have to wait and see BUT the state better collect their costs from the two crazies. God knows Waters has got enough money from his “cases” and has an apartment in Dun L I think and a place in Spain. She has got a semi-d (I won’t say where). The state is owed money and the taxpayers shouldn’t pay for this farce. Judgment mortgages can be tough to get in practice but they are obtainable.

          3. V aka Frilly Keane

            Their means and assets aren’t any of my business

            But that fund should be made available to them – certainly until papers are lodged and proceedings commence in the other action(s)

            Btw JMs are easily got
            Tis making them worth your while/or the effort is the problem

  1. dan

    All constitutional cases are ruled against by the Judiciary who support government.

    The verdict is meaningless and based on opinion.:

    The applicants had “chosen rhetoric over substance and fiction and distortion over fact” and failed to meet the threshold of establishing an arguable case, the Court of Appeal had concluded.

      1. ian-oh

        Now now Daisy, clearly the judges in question have completed their assigned NWO task and have been allowed a further years worth of adrenochrome!

        Everything is proceeding exactly as George Soros (in the guise of the Emperor from Star Wars) had foreseen.

        Clearly Georgie has been partaking of it in huge quantities himself, one needs only look at the youthful, healthy glow he exudes.


        1. V aka Frilly Keane

          Maybe Soros was the Judge – had himself converted into Judge Bermingham, like in Harry Potter with that potion – Polly Juice

          If Biden is actually Trump …..
          N’ all that, why can’t it be said that George Soros took a shift as George Bermingham

    1. Fergalito

      Did you read the transcripts ?

      I doubt you’d be opining as you are above if you had.

      1. Bitnboxy

        Pure bull.

        Colette Browne tweeting excerpts of the judgment. These two goons were not spared by the Court, calling them out for the deranged spoofers they are.

        Daisy is bang on.

  2. Junkface

    Gemtrails and J-dog are back! …in court.

    They might as well put underpants on their heads and two pencils up the nostrils and wage war against the sun (not the paper).

  3. eoin

    The courts are well on their way to becoming tools of oppression unfortunately. What will happen once we have cases regarding people being refused their basic rights due to their refusal to take covid vaccine products? Courts will rule against them. They will rule against common law and human rights and they will cease to be courts. And in that case it will be citizens civic duty to ignore the rulings of the courts. You cannot waive peoples rights, even in a pandemic. Doherty and Waters being refused like this is an early warning for us all regarding the direction the courts are going to go from now on. It’s disturbing the amount of clowns commenting here who can’t see this. Empty vessels make the most sound.

    1. Junkface

      I think from a legal point of view, their previous cases arguments and this one too were weak and maybe also deranged. Courts have to show efficiency with time. What other cases do you know of that have been thrown out of court? Who brought these cases? I wouldn’t go screaming tools of oppression yet, jesus. Cases brought to court must have sound arguments and evidence. Do you know what evidence they brought to their cases?

    2. Fergalito

      Doherty and Waters being “refused like this?”

      Being refused, how? On the basis of a sub-par application to the Courts with little arguable merit based on a paucity of supporting evidence fuelled by nothing but hot-air as the the transcripts clearly illustrate?

      What basic rights will be refused if people refuse to take the non-mandatory vaccine?

      Yer right about the empty vessels – a fitting to epithet for GO’D and JW.

    3. AMcGovern

      “people being refused their basic rights…”

      What rights were they refused? Will wait for reply.

  4. Gabby

    The court has ruled – so be it. There are other lawful ways of arguing a different point of view. There are also difficulties in making a point of view known to the public. Ask any mainstream journalist.

Comments are closed.

Sponsored Link