the jurisprudence of charles meenan

In  September a High Court Judge styling himself Charles Meenan illegally and criminally ordered the abandonment of a government mandated investigation into the murder of a Syrian woman called Malak Thawley on the operating table at Hollis Street hospital.
The gambit by Charles Meenan subverted the government's power at the behest of the administrator of the hospital, one Doctor Rhona Mahony.
Charles Meenan has further ordered that the State should pay Rhona Mahony and her hospital's costs in securing his court order to cover up their murder of Malak Thawley.
In making this ruling Charles Meenan overruled the elected government of Ireland in the person of Health Minister Simon Harris.
Charles Meenan also disregarded calls from former Justice Minister Alan Shatter for an enquiry.
Charles Meenan, while engaging in hand wringing lacrimose platitudes about his sympathy for Malak Thawley's husband Alan, also chose to ignore Alan Thawley's calls for a full independent enquiry into the circumstances of his wife's death.
Charles Meenan's ruling is an attentat upon separation of powers between State and Judiciary as well as being a usurpation of the democratic will of the people of Ireland.
In making his illegal and criminal ruling Charles Meenan claimed that there had already been three enquiries into Malak Thawley's death.
None of these pseudo enquiries were full independent enquiries.
One purported enquiry was by Rhona Mahony's friends and perhaps by herself, that is to say an internal enquiry at the hospital where Rhona Mahony's staff murdered Malak Thawley.
The second supposed enquiry was by the Health Service Executive, that is to say by yet more of Rhona Mahony's friends and colleagues within the medical service.
The pattycake results of these two non enquiries posing as enquiries, indulge in the usual scapegoating of systems failure and lack of resources as an excuse for Malak Thawley's death.
The third enquiry referred to by Charles Meenan in his court room was the Coroner's Inquest which concluded Malak Thawley had been killed by medical misadventure.
At the Coroner's Inquest, lawyers for Rhona Mahony and her hospital managed to prevent Alan Thawley's lawyers from asking questions about whether or not his wife was murdered.
So even the Coroner's Inquest too was in  its way a non enquiry although its conclusion mandated fully the independent enquiry which was then initiated by Health Minister Simon Harris and which Charles Meenan has now unilaterally quashed on behalf of Rhona Mahony and her murderous staff and her charnel house of a hospital.
According to the Irish Times Charles Meenan justified his court room cover up of the murder of Malak Thawley at Rhona Mahony's hospital by claiming that Health Minister Simon Harris had been "irrational and unreasonable" in ordering an enquiry into "what happened when such practices being investigated exist without intervention at other hospitals."
This is mafia talk by Charles Meenan.
It does not justify murder.
Nor can it.
The claimed failure to hold enquiries in previous cases involving circumstances which Charles Meenan does not specify, must not be allowed to facilitate this mafioso Judge in letting his friends at Hollis Street hospital kill people with impunity.
In Charles Meenan's notion of law, if a single murder takes place without investigation, other murders may not then be investigated.
He does not say what similar practices have taken place in other Irish hospitals.
He could even theoretically be referring to real murders and violations such as those committed by Doctor Michael Neary, Doctor Andrea Herman or Nurse Noreen Mulholland.
In any case it is clearly not in the public interest that the evasion of justice by other perpetrators should be used as a justification by the corrupt Judge Charles Meenan in preventing mandated government enquiries into the murder of Malak Thawley by Rhona Mahony and her staff at Hollis Street hospital.
That is all.

judge charles meenan's cover up of the murder of malak thawley at hollis street hospital dublin also styled the national maternity hospital

In the High Court of the Republic of Ireland, Judge Charles Meenan has ordered the abandonment of a government mandated enquiry into the death of Malak Thawley who was killed on the operating table during a routine operation in May 2016 at Hollis Street hospital.
As a citizen I, James Healy, oppose the abandonment of this enquiry because I believe that a balanced assessment of the available evidence indicates a significant possibility that Mrs Thawley was murdered.
Calls for the enquiry had come from various concerned voices, ranging from government Health Minister Simon Harris, to former Justice Minister Alan Shatter, to parliamentarian Jack Chambers of the Fianna Fail political party,  to Mrs Thawley's husband Alan, right down to me.
Malak Thawley was a Syrian woman married to an American man.
Her artery was slashed during the routine procedure at Hollis Street, and she was allowed to bleed out on the operating table.
The proprietors of the National Maternity Hospital include Doctor Rhona Mahony and her brother in law Doctor Peter Boylan, both sometimes styled Masters as their formal Title, both leading abortion activists in Ireland and both connected politically to the Labour Party and to other political entities.
Rhona Mahony had instituted the High Court action in an attempt to prevent further disclosures about the manner in which her staff killed Malak Thawley at a hospital where her formal title was Master.
I hereby publically protest Judge Charles Meenan's injudicious and illegal cancellation of a full and proper enquiry which had been ordered by our elected government into the truth about Malak Thawley's death.
I regard Judge Meenan's attempted cover of the events surrounding her death up as a sure confirmation that Malak Thawley was indeed murdered on the operating table at Hollis Street hospital.
She is being murdered again before our eyes by those colluding to stop the truth emerging.
Those who conceal murder are murderers.






Copies to: the broadcaster RTE, the Irish Times, and Independent Newspapers.

you will believe

"You know there is a mind body connection. You figured it out. Many people didn't. You know you're a soul before you're a body. You've dared to doubt the doctors who told you when you were a child that you must take steroids forever. There is another step. You must begin a pilgrimage to let go of what is hurting you. Let go of whatever it is."
"James everybody has to have some stress."
"This is where the work begins. Sometimes we are in love with our sickness. What we call stress does different things to different people. But it has no authority from God. Those stressful things are carving up your body before your eyes. You can become detached from them. Not as a robot. But as a spiritual person who recognises that the eternal is what is relevant. Set your heart on the kingdom of heaven first. Go to God. Ask him for the healing. Make your peace with the ancient Church. Do the job. Let go of your stress no matter how much you secretly think you need it. This affliction is not who your are. It never was."
She looked at me a tad coldly.
I realised that what I was saying was for the moment the most stressful thing she had ever heard in her life.

the dead

Wandered into Hodges Figgis bookshop on Dawson Street.
And lo!
What pseuds through yonder window break.
It is the east and the launch of a newly published compendium featuring work by a bunch of Ireland's best known cosmically unreadable Trotskyite conformist left wing fembo commie pinko writers is the Irish Times reading conformist sun.
They're all sitting around.
Extracts are being read.
The usual anti Catholic drivel.
This bunch think abortions are the answer to everything.
Cure for cancer?
More abortions.
World hunger?
Abortions.
Boredom in the late afternoon from being a bunch of anti Catholic atheistic Irish Times reading conformist abortionist shites?
Abortions, abortions, abortions.
Their work is as dead as their souls.
The sheer insufferability of it all notwithstanding, I linger for an hour ogling a writer called Deirdre Sullivan sitting at the front.
Occasionally I at least pretend to listen to some of the tosh being recited with a thoughtful look on my face.
The thoughtful look is not entirely a lie.
There are thoughts there.
I am thinking: What a shower of ----s.
During a lull in the dross, and while Deirdre Sullivan's legs are crossed, a momentary madness seizes me.
I could leap to the front, grab the microphone and scream:
"It's all over ass holes. In the name of the workers and of the oppressed masses crying out in desolation, I am striking a blow at the racist police state."
John Carpenter would have got the joke but where is he now.
And I had a feeling the hippy pony tailed guy doing security would have been really annoyed.
Better to smile at Deirdre Sullivan's magnificent silken clad thighs and show, there is a comfortable kind of old scarecrow.
(Ruggedly handsome last knight of Europe doing a false modesty routine? - Ed note)
(One of mine surely? - WB Yeats note)
(Who the hell are you? - Mr Burns note)
(It's the future of the human race Heelers, something you don't give a shit about. - Snake Plisskan note)
(Homage, homage, homage, homage and homage to myself - Heelers note)
Sigh.

the rumble in the jungle

Internet chatter was the first clue.
Something has happened.
Early this month the Christian apologist David Wood engaged in a debate with a Muslim proseletyser called Mohammed Hijab at the York Centre for the Performing Arts in Queens New York.
The theme for discussion, Trinity Or Tawheed, allowed each participant to present their respective views on the nature of the God they say they believe in.
David Wood is something of a champion in debating circles.
In my assessment he is also the most erudite and insightful commentator in the West speaking about Islam today.
I don't endorse some of Mr Wood's friends.
But he himself is about the best there is when it comes to critical thinking, principled commentary and challenging discourse.
David Wood's name is known all over the world.
He is a figure of opprobrium for some Muslims who fear he is leading Muslims to leave their faith.
Mohammed Hijab entered the debate a comparative unknown.
He had nothing to lose.
The analogy with Rocky movies begs attention,
Not Rocky One.
Rocky Three.
In this scenario, David Wood is already a champion and something of a legend.
Mohammed Hijab is Clubber Lang.
He's a challenger.
But he's harder and meaner than most of the other challengers Mr Wood has debated for years.
And he wants it more.
The encounter between David Wood and Mohammed Hijab produced an immediate flurry of discussion, vitriol, humour, opinion, analysis and dissent on internet websites.
This is how I first heard of the thing.
Through internet chatter.
The ripple effect.
Very quickly I realised a real event had taken place.
Perhaps even something phenomenal.
Footage shows Mohammed Hijab dismissing David Wood as "boy" and repeatedly insulting him with personalised attacks.
To continue the boxing analagy, the Queensberry rules have been laid to one side.
The referees are at best indifferent, at worst complicit.
Mr Wood is in the lion's den, and for those viewers impressed by rudeness, he appears at times to be getting a mauling.
I think Mohammed Hijab may have scored a couple of knock downs even if some of his best hits were through calculated insult and inuendo rather than through intellectual argument.
He was a bit like the old real life boxer Chuck Wepner who once told reporters: "My three best punches are the rabbit punch, a choke hold, and a head butt."
The choke hold and the head butt aren't punches at all while the rabbit punch is an illegal chop to the back of the neck.
Mohammed Hijab's three best debating points were: Calling David Wood "boy;" Repeatedly telling David Wood "don't embarrass yourself;" And bursting into an impromptu sung recital of suras from the Quran when he was supposed to be rebutting David Wood's arguments.
Incidentally he sang rather well.
But who actually won the debate between David Wood and Mohammed Hijab?
Mohammed Hijab justified his hostility to David Wood by claiming David Wood has been disrespectful to Islam  (which he has.) and that David Wood's lectures have caused persecution of Muslims (which they haven't.)
The real reason for Mohammed Hijab's hostility to David Wood is that Muslims of all age groups, men and women, all over the world who have questions about Islam are listening to David Wood's analyses and finding answers that ring true to them.
That is the sole reason for Mohammed Hijab's calculated rudeness to David Wood over a two hour debate.
But who won?
The constant internet post mortems have continued now for more than a week.
Certainly the clash has made the reputation of Mohammed Hijab.
I think if there was any victory for David Wood it was to bring Mohammed Hijab to the table so that Muslims and non Muslims can compare the ideas offered by the two at close quarters.
David Wood's pals are attempting to relitigate the thing through copious after match commentaries.
It is as though their unbeatable champion suddenly looks beatable.
Yes, something has definitely happened here.
The ripples are still flowing outward from the epicentre of the original clash even as we speak.
There has been an earthquake.
I would proffer another analogy.
The leading Christian apologist of another era CS Lewis in debate with Elizabeth Anscombe at Oxford in 1948.
Elizabeth Anscombe is said to have shaken CS Lewis to the core of his faith.
Some who saw the debate argued that the already famous CS Lewis was beaten badly.
Some say he actually won.
When it was over CS Lewis remained on positive terms with Elizabeth Anscombe.
And afterwards he went on to write some of the finest books in the English language.