Letter to Dr Mc Cavert dated August 27th 2005

Saturday August 27th 2005

Dear Dr Mc Cavert,

I discussed my present legal situation with Gerry Madden yesterday, and it is my understanding that he intends to talk with you soon in connection with a draft letter he hopes to have ready by Friday September 2nd.

I mentioned to Gerry yesterday that on the last occasion I saw you, you indicated to me that you would be willing to write a letter which might help me to find the kind of lawyer I feel I need. As I understand it, Gerry Madden is thinking along the lines that he might be able to include such a letter from you as an attachment to the draft letter he is intending to prepare for Friday. Personally, I think this idea of Gerry's has a lot of potential, and I am hoping you will be able to help.

The main problem I am having with the legal advice I have had so far is that the lawyers concerned all appear to me to be acting as though they were in total denial regarding the factual existence of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, and the very closely associated European Court of Human Rights located in the Council of Europe buildings in Strasbourg. (The lawyers I refer to here are Mr Geraghty, Mr Kane, Mr Farrell, and Ms Weaver.)

In an effort to try and stress the factual existence of the Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, please find attached a copy of five pages from this document which I took to yesterday's meeting with Gerry. I have "marked-up" the few sections which I feel are most important to my particular case, and I hope they will not take you long to look through.

I feel I should make it clear that I believe I cannot - under any circumstances - sensibly get involved in any way with a defence lawyer who does not appear to recognise the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms. At the same time though, please note that I still have to try and satisfy the Article 35.1 requirement which states that "The Court may only deal with the matter after all domestic remedies have been exhausted ..."

One chink of hope relating to the above set of problems is that I have received a reply from Michael Howard QC MP to the e-mail I copied to him on August 19th last. In very sharp contrast to the four lawyers mentioned above, Mr Howard appears to have no difficulty at all in recognising the existence of the ECHR (European Court of Human Rights). A full copy of his e-mail to me, which contained no restrictions on copying, and no disclaimers of any kind, can be seen at: http://www.constitutionofireland.com/MichaelHoward-QC-MP-Email19August2005.htm .

Changing the subject slightly, and assuming I understood him correctly, Gerry pointed out to me yesterday that on account of the fact I have stated things in my letters which suggest that I am suffering from a great amount of stress, the people who appear to be ignoring my letters may argue they are doing so because they believe I am insane (in effect). Personally, I would not be in the least bit surprised if they did try to do this. I'm not sure if you feel there is anything you might be able to do to try and counter such arguments? - or even if you think it's worth bothering about such counter-arguments at this stage? I'm happy to leave decisions regarding this particular aspect of the overall problem entirely to you.

Sincerely,

William Finnerty.

Copy to: Gerard Madden (Senior Social Worker).