Judge Jacqueline Linnane will decide in the case involving Defamation vs Harassment

A former member of Scientology Pete Griffith who alleges he was defamed by Zabrina Collins is involved in a serious diversion from the original case which was to be heard last October because of harassment claims made by Scientologists. We have original video concerning this case but will publish it after Judge Jacqueline Linnane has heard the case. One hopes that the Justice will not confuse this case with the defamation case. The one has no connection with the other. The events concerning the alleged defamation took place in 2013 long before the harassment issue raised its ugly head. Regardless of the issues surrounding the alleged harassment there seems to be a simple remedy. To offer to meet and to agree to a code of conduct which makes the injunction redundant.

This should be conceded prior to Feb 2 and reported to the Judge so that the Defamation case can proceed.

1. Agree to not going within 50 metres of the Zabrina Collins’ home.

2. Keeping away from her and other known Scientologists in the street.

3. Not to go near or enter her place of employment or picket outside it.

4. To continue to protest outside the Mission on Middle Abbey St but again not to enter or loiter with intent outside it. Confine protests to across the road.

5. Not to invade the privacy of active Scientologists when exercising their democratic rights to distribute their literature. Not to follow them on the public road or pavement or to follow them into shops where they attempt to give out their literature.

6. When exercising their rights as former Scientologists to protest when Scientologists are holding meetings at venues like hotels, to recognise that whilst in that venue they have a contract which must be respected. So the protest must be confined to a location that does not interfere with this right. When in doubt to seek clarification from the Gardai in the district where the event is taking place.

I believe that if these clear conditions are respected the more serious case of defamation should proceed. If the two ex Scientologists refuse to accept these terms or similar ones they will receive the sentence of the court. However regardless of this the case for defamation stands on its own and should be proceeded with. Also because Pete Griffith is injuncted does not mean there is any case against him and his case should not be delayed at all. Let us be clear his case has nothing to do with Scientology but with the issue of his character being allegedly undermined. That should be the focus of both law and Justice once this other issue has been addressed.


Judge warns of huge legal costs in Church of Scientology dispute

Ray Managh

Published 12/01/2015

The Church of Scientology's Flag Building, the centerpiece of a construction campaign for the church is seen on May 22, 2008 in Clearwater, Florida. The building occupies a full city block with a land bridge to another property, the Fort Harrison Hotel. Clearwater is the spiritual headquarters of the Scientology religion. Members of Scientology churches around the world watch satellited broadcasts of events that take place in Clearwater. A recent economic research study showed that Scientologists spend an estimated 96.7 million USD annually in direct purchases in the Clearwater community. These direct purchases result in an additional 156.8 million USD in indirect spending as this money gets re-spent in the community. AFP Photo/Paul J. Richards (Photo credit should read PAUL J. RICHARDS/AFP/Getty Images)

The Church of Scientology’s Flag Building in Clearwater, Florida.

A judge has warned warring members and former members of the Church of Scientology to “sit down and be reasonable” with each other if they want to avoid a massive legal costs bill.


 Scientologists Zabrina Collins and Michael O’Donnell have won High Court orders restraining former Scientologists Peter Griffiths and John McGhee from harassing, assaulting or intimidating them in anti-drugs and other work they do for their Church.

Griffiths, of Teeling Street, Ballina, Co Mayo, in turn has sued Collins, the daughter of wrongly convicted Co Donegal publican Frank Shortt for alleged defamation of character. Ms Collins’ address was given as Parnell Square West, Dublin.

Judge Jacqueline Linnane today addressed all of the parties in the Circuit Civil Court, which is now handling the case, and told them the clock had already started ticking on a mounting legal bill both on High Court and Circuit Court costs.

“I would have thought that a prudent manner of dealing with this would be for people to be reasonable and sit down and talk about it,” she said.  “Don’t be surprised if there is a massive legal bill at the end of the day if notice is not taken of what this court is saying.”

She said the costs bill had started “tick, tick ticking” and warned all of the parties to hear her words.

“Be reasonable and try to reach a solution here to save some money. You can reach an accommodation that is acceptable to each side, ” she said.

McGhee, of Armstrong Grove, Clara, Co Offaly, and Griffiths, through his barrister Seamas O’Tuathail, SC, gave undertakings they would not interfere with Collins or her fellow Scientologist Michael O’Donnell, a marketing consultant of Cherrywood Lawn, Clondalkin, Dublin.

Mr O’Tuathail, who appeared with John Smith and solicitor Cormac O’Callaigh, said the undertakings would continue until February 2nd when the linked defamation and injunctive proceedings would be heard.

Barrister Frank Beatty, counsel for Collins and O’Donnell, had told a pre-Christmas sitting of the High Court that Ms Collins had been intimidated by the two former church members as she handed out anti-drugs leaflets outside the Church of Scientology premises in Middle Abbey Street, Dublin.

He said Ms Collins and Mr O’Donnell were scared and frightened “and they should be.”  They had been constantly harassed and assaulted by Griffiths and McGhee.

Mr O’Tuathail told the court his client denied having done anything wrong.  The two cases have been adjourned for hearing until February 2.

One Response

  1. Harassment (/həˈræsmənt/ or /ˈhærəsmənt/) covers a wide range of behaviours of an offensive nature. It is commonly understood as behaviour intended to disturb or upset, and it is characteristically repetitive. In the legal sense, it is intentional behaviour which is found threatening or disturbing. Sexual harassment refers to persistent and unwanted sexual advances, typically in the workplace, where the consequences of refusing are potentially very disadvantageous to the victim. Harassment is an action that is meant to or happens to cause discomfort for the victim. Bullying is when one individual, or party, socially degrades the victim either for the purpose of increasing their own self-comfort or for the enjoyment of others.


Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: