Misreporting of two separate cases one involving Pete Griffith and Zabrina Collins for defamation, the other for harassment involving Pete Griffith and John McGhee in regard to Zabrina Collins and Michael O’Donnell

What was clear till early October was that a case was being taken against Zabrina Collins by Pete Griffith related to a school visit in 2013. The only connection to Scientology was that Pete Griffith was a former Scientologist and Zabrina Collins is a Scientologist.

The court hearing in October was turned into a circus ring and ex Scientologists had to be restrained and ejected from the court.

Instead of focusing on the issue of Defamation a crazy campaign was entered into which can only be called a Kamikaze mission. The injunction which the Scientologists obtained ex parte before Christmas was initially heard on January 5th, 2015.

https://dialogueireland.wordpress.com/2015/01/16/frank-shortts-daughter-gets-order-against-former-fellow-scientologists/

It is adjourned until January 12, but again as the judge found total confusion she said that she was not going to hear them until February 2. The court report is incorrect in stating that the  linked defamation and injunctive proceedings would be heard.

They are only linked in the most flimsy way, because of the former strategy of  McGhee to which Griffith has been connected. His involvement is peripheral but the judge needs to have clarity before she can hear the defamation case

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

The two cases have been adjourned for hearing until 2 February

So if sense can prevail and undertakings entered into by both parties as the Judge suggests then she can make permanent the terms agreed:

A judge has warned current 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.

 

So in summary there are no connections between the cases, but the Judge needs to see clear blue sky between them in order to get onto the case originally mentioned for October.

RTE NEWS:

Judge warns Scientologists to avoid massive legal bill

Judge Jacqueline Linnane said the costs bill had started 'tick, tick ticking'
Judge Jacqueline Linnane said the costs bill had started ‘tick, tick ticking’

A judge has warned current 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 members Peter Griffiths and John McGhee from harassing, assaulting or intimidating them over work they do for their church.

Mr Griffiths, of Teeling Street, Ballina, Co Mayo, in turn has sued Ms 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.

Mr McGhee, of Armstrong Grove, Clara, Co Offaly, and Mr Griffiths, through his barrister Seamas O’Tuathail SC, gave undertakings they would not interfere with Ms 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 Ceallaigh, said the undertakings would continue until 2 February when the linked defamation and injunctive proceedings would be heard.

Judge Jacqueline Linnane today addressed all of the parties in the Circuit Civil Court, which is now handling the case.

He 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.

Barrister Frank Beatty, counsel for Ms Collins and Mr 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”.

Mr O’Tuathail told the court his client denied doing anything wrong.

The two cases have been adjourned for hearing until 2 February

7 Responses

  1. Crepuscule thank you for your reasoned commentary which I will reply to in detail.
    It is clear from your use of language that you have had extensive experience of Scientology.
    As you can imagine it will have no relevance when coming to court on Feb 2.

    I take it this discussion concerns the actions of Pete and John when following Zabrina Collins and whathisname around delivering the “Truth (heh) about Drugs” pamphlets?

    You would be correct in that as I have had an opportunity to view it and to be frank I and most people I talked to did not find it behaviour becoming of someone trying to reach out to Scientologists or even satanists for that matter. However, what one has to remember was this was done in full knowledge that an ex parte injunction had been sought for them to desist from this behaviour. What person whose friend is engaged with a Defamation case does this when there is a need to totally keep your powder dry till after the court case. John refused to learn from the first court appearance, when he should have halted all activity until Pete’s case was complete. No not at all within days of the case they were outside the mission in what can only be called harassment to any one who does not have the lens you have on of relativising what is unacceptable behaviour. These guerrilla forays which are not part of any official campaign activities have been going on for a number of years. Pete unfortunately, keeps saying he is not going to be part of them but he ends of being the bridesmaid at them. You will note they went onto into the New Year even though there was this injunction pending on Jan 5.
    https://dialogueireland.wordpress.com/2015/01/20/background-to-the-harassment-injunction-concerning-pete-griffith-and-john-mcghee/
    Furthermore, as you are likely aware this video is not available now to be seen on the grounds that it might influence the case. If John is so sure that his behaviour was ok why does he not let others decide. You think it is ok, I believe along with a litany of activity it is out of order. Are you telling me it is going to influence the case and that censoring my view of John’s behaviour was not allowed. You either support John and Pete right or wrong or have your comments taken down and are subject to abuse. There were claims I was a Scientologist and after I was excluded from commenting and able to defend myself on Face Book, I was torn to shreds.

    What is my goal in regard to Pete’s case:

    1. To get him to totally and unequivocally break from John. To mediate as the judge suggested a settlement in regard to harassment and how to relate to Scientologists.
    2. To focus only on his case for Defamation.

    The judge has not linked the cases but is going to hear them or agree as to when she will hear them on that day. She has not dismissed the harassment case, and so the injunction continues till she decides whether there is substance to the claims being made by the Scientologists. It is in other words one sided at present.

    All in all, John’s behaviour was strident but didn’t seem to cross over any boundaries concerning his right to free speech,

    Here are the reasons I believe you are wrong in your analysis. I have been involved with a number of court cases and recently there was a dispute and a person came up to the home of a person. In that case the judge suggested they must keep at least 50 metres from the house. The issue is not the issue of free speech in regard to this video, but appropriate forms of protest.

    a. Generally one should not go near a person’s place of work and in agreement with the police find a place that does not lead to confrontation.
    b. Generally when protesting against Scientology outside the building it has been our practice to go across the road. The pavement is relatively narrow outside their building and there seems to be some idea that they have rights outside their door. We must be guided by the police and if there is a dispute obtain a judgement from the courts.
    b. It is clear that most of us know the Scientologists are using their drugs campaign to try to recruit people. In Ireland they made such a spectacular mess of things this time last year they were on the run. However, following a guy and making demeaning comments about his beliefs is both stalking and harassment. The guy is clearly totally oppressed and is being hounded on our main street. He phones for help and is mocked. In a democratic society he has a right to walk and bring literature any where he likes.
    c. Many supporters of John who hate Scientology believe that he has a right when dealing with a Scientologist to use extra legal methods to achieve his aims. So with Michael and Zabrina exercising their democratic right to distribute literature IN shops and not on the public footpath gets involved in conflict by blocking them and trying to hinder them in what they are doing. The attempts to wrest the leaflets from her and to follow her into shops and grab her literature is a total breach of her human rights. He has clearly formed the view that he is not subject to the law and in my view unless he gives an undertaking to cease and desist he will have to be subject to the sanction of the law. The impression given is that he is a victim and that the Scientologists are using this to stop Pete’s case. It is exactly the opposite. He is the cause she is the effect. He is the person derailing Pete’s case since his antics in October. Also regardless of the situation a man does not get so close to a woman period. Currently this case is ex parte, but John will have to show how Scientologists have stopped him exercising his rights to protest, not his right to harass. So in summary I suggest John has stepped across the boundary of legitimate protest.

    Zabrina and her colleague didn’t seem in the least bit frightened or intimidated. At one stage, Zabrina had the presence of mind to attempt to cause a scene in front of a passing member of the public by screaming that she had been attacked. Big FAIL.

    I fully agree that Zabrina milked it once it was set in motion, but she did not need to milk it as it was before this harassment in my opinion. John provided the cow and she was able to milk that teat.

    The member of the public saw it for what it was – a false accusation. Pete, on the other hand, had very little to say during the incident, concentrating instead on making a recording of it.. How Pete could legitimately be accused of harassment is just strange.

    In law I believe Pete though not a party to the actual harassment is part of it by his presence. Again the judge will clarify this though. So if one person robs a bank and the other drives the getaway car, both are held to be part of it, though not in equal measure.

    If anything, his recording of the incident would have helped keep Zabrina safe.

    I fail to see the relevance of this and in any case Michael was recording as well. I would assume that the Scientologists have made a very professional recording which includes material gathered for a number of years. My guess is that their case will not just relate to this one incident.

    It seems relevant to point out that Pete and John’s protest of the delivery of the pamphlets came very shortly after Dermot Bignose made a death threat to Pete.

    I would not see what relevance that would have to the legal case. Also it does not excuse their behaviour of infringing on the rights of others. If a death threat was made to them, then they should give a statement to the Gardai.

    With that in mind, the display of fearlessness by Pete and John after that threat is praiseworthy.

    First I do not agree that their action was correct, and I view it as foolhardy.

    Moralfagging about “higher standards” and not lowering oneself to Scilon level is irrelevant because of its subjective nature.

    I would guess you are so angry you get a high when you see these types of actions, but when ordinary people see this behaviour they see it as unacceptable. It is not subjective. I am using the the standards of respect for human rights.
    .

    One person’s “bull baiting” is another person’s delivery of lulz.

    Try explaining that to the judge. It is just plain wrong

    On the other hand, attacking those working to eliminate the abuses of Scientology with ad homs such as “delusional” is, in fact, lowering oneself to the level of behaviour exhibited by Scientology.

    IMHO.

    It is delusional in that Pete had a clear case for defamation and IT HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH SCIENTOLOGY. A group of supporters came into the court and had to be removed. It had the effect of opening up a window for the Scientologists to counter attack. So after that I would have thought there would be some cop on. No it I got worse. I call that delusional. I would call it self sabotage. This is not a Scientology case it is a defamation case. If Pete does not get the harassment monkey off his back it will hurt.
    In regard to John who I have got to know over the last few years. He supported our work , and was a protestor at an event we held. He came to my home after Christmas but we just had to disagree about his strategy. Now I not only disagree I can not work with someone so out of control.
    On a group on Facebook where I was excluded and not allowed to respond, he added his name to those crying crucify him:

    • John McGhee

    Yet he will gladly accept my donations to Dialogue Ireland. Never realised he was so mentally ill.

    In Dialogue Ireland we believe the problem is one of cultism. John appears to be under the influence of Anti-Cultism:
    https://dialogueireland.wordpress.com/about/cultism/

    Like

  2. I take it this discussion concerns the actions of Pete and John when following Zabrina Collins and whathisname around delivering the “Truth (heh) about Drugs” pamphlets?

    All in all, John’s behaviour was strident but didn’t seem to cross over any boundaries concerning his right to free speech, Zabrina and her colleague didn’t seem in the least bit frightened or intimidated. At one stage, Zabrina had the presence of mind to attempt to cause a scene in front of a passing member of the public by screaming that she had been attacked. Big FAIL. The member of the public saw it for what it was – a false accusation. Pete, on the other hand, had very little to say during the incident, concentrating instead on making a recording of it. How Pete could legitimately be accused of harassment is just strange. If anything, his recording of the incident would have helped keep Zabrina safe.

    It seems relevant to point out that Pete and John’s protest of the delivery of the pamphlets came very shortly after Dermot Bignose made a death threat to Pete. With that in mind, the display of fearlessness by Pete and John after that threat is praiseworthy.

    Moralfagging about “higher standards” and not lowering oneself to Scilon level is irrelevant because of its subjective nature. One person’s “bull baiting” is another person’s delivery of lulz. On the other hand, attacking those working to eliminate the abuses of Scientology with ad homs such as “delusional” is, in fact, lowering oneself to the level of behaviour exhibited by Scientology.

    IMHO.

    Like

  3. Defending what you did rather that defend what you should have done is the trap you can fall into.
    When one does not like the message please don’t shoot the messenger.

    Like

  4. Why should they give in? They have done nothing wrong. They have video evidence. She was not some frail woman who was afraid of John. She was in his face yelling at him. I say fight it for however long it takes. Scilons wont be reasonable you shouldn’t be. You should be Dauntless, Defiant, and Resolute!

    Like

  5. Protest has some boundaries and limitations otherwise we appear no better than those that we protest against .
    We have to show ourselves better and more measured than the others to avoid the trap that awaits the unwary or unwise.
    Dialogue does not succeed if we engage in harassment or bull baiting that only brings us down to their level,we must rise to a higher standard to maintain engagement and integrity

    Like

  6. First apologies it is in fact an open group: This is its mission:

    We are your SPs. We are Exes, Indies, FZers, Anonymous, critics and wogs and we all have one aim in common – the destruction of the “Church” of Scientology in its present form. SPs ‘r’ US – Hic Sumus

    However, all I was doing was publishing my opinion about the pending court cases and giving my understanding of the legal battles which have resulted from John and Pete involving themselves with harassment. They believe it is a plot by Scientology to entrap them. They have in my view lost the plot and I believe are now delusional. Claiming that they have closed the thread as it might prejudice the case when what is happening is a direct result of their own actions. Please if you are their friends advise them to surrender on:

    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.

    Like

  7. Censorship Pete is not a good way to deal with issues in a closed group on Facebook. You need to explain to your friends how you two managed to screw-up a watertight case. Unless you believe your site is compromised? The impression your friends have is you are martyrs as shown by the paintings in your honour. Have the humility to put your hands up that is if you think you messed up. If you don’t God help you on Feb 2nd

    Like

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 )

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Google+ photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: