CLOWN COURTS: Judge Mark Sanfey Admits He Did Not Read Gemma O’Doherty ‘s Affidavit About Harassment By Edel Campbell
So we will publish it here. The bottom line is that Sanfey cannot tell ANY Irish person that they cannot speak about the suspicious death of another Irish person.
1. The Defendant, Gemma O’Doherty, is a multi award-winning journalist of almost 30 years and editor of The Irish Light newspaper. She has a long track record investigating deaths that have not been properly examined by the State and supporting families in their search for justice. Her work has led to the reopening of several murders in Ireland and the jailing of elite paedophiles. She has a large international following and her website has had almost 50 million views. She has also been the most retweeted journalist in Ireland. She is a journalist of impeccable standards and could not envisage harassing any other person not least because this would go against her strongly held Catholic convictions. Ms O’Doherty has been subjected to the most vitriolic campaign of defamation and perjury by the Plaintiff Ms Edel Campbell and her legal team who are breaching the rules of the Irish courts and are engaged in perjury and other forms of criminality.
2. The Plaintiff is a ‘healthcare worker’ from Kingscourt, Co Cavan. She has stated that her objective in taking this action against the Defendant is to bring about legislative change which would thwart journalistic inquiries into sudden deaths in Ireland and remove inquest files from public scrutiny. She is trying to erode press freedom - a cornerstone of democracy. The Plaintiff claims she is taking the case because the Defendant said that her adult son died as a result of the vaccine. At NO POINT OR TIME did the Defendant or The Irish Light state that the plaintiff’s adult son Diego Gilsenan died as a result of the experimental vaccine, not that doing so would be grounds for a ‘harassment’ case if she had. The Defendant stated that she did not know how Mr Gilsenan died but that suicide may have been the cause of some of the sudden deaths of young people. Since she examined the case after Ms Campbell’s outrageous and criminal claims against her, she now believes he could have been murdered. The thrust of the original article was to ask why so many of our young people are dropping dead suddenly, which is one of the most legitimate public interest exercises a journalist can perform. The Plaintiff has committed perjury in this regard. The Defendant stated clearly that she did and does not know how Mr Gilsenan died but that she has a right to investigate it, which in Irish and European law and such investigations do not and cannot amount to harassment especially when the Defendant has never had any contact whatsoever with the Plaintiff except to block her, but the Plaintiff, who comes from a family with well-known heroin addicts with criminal records involved in the mugging of elderly people, has been harassing and stalking the Defendant online in the middle of the night. Why does Judge Sanfey tolerate this abusive behaviour against the Defendant?
The Plaintiff is engaged in a malicious, vexatious and spurious campaign of stalking and harassment against the Defendant. Knowing that Ms O’Doherty has never said Diego Gilsenan died as a result of the vaccine and he is unable to prove this in any way, shape or form, why does Judge Mark Sanfey continue to allow this perjurious and preposterous case before his courts which only brings his reputation into disrepute and has brought huge support to Ms O’Doherty and her journalism investigating why so many young Irish people are dying? It should be said that Ireland’s excess mortality rates have been running at more than 20% since 2021.
3. Diego Gilsenan, the Plaintiff’s son, died suddenly on the 25th of August 2021, an adult aged 18. He was found by his mother who said he was ‘hanging from a thing in a wooden shed’ in the back garden of their house in Kingscourt, Cavan. Since his death, his picture has been published widely on the internet on numerous mainstream media websites. It was also posted publicly on Facebook. His unexpected death has also been the subject of a public inquest. The Plaintiff says her son died as a result of suicide. There are several aspects to the case that suggest that may not be the case or that he was driven to his death by other individuals. At his funeral, the priest focussed on drug dealers and the harm drugs are doing to the young people of Kingscourt. Many local people have said that Diego Gilsenan died as a result of drug dealing. Ms Gilsenan has also implied this in some of her interviews. This is a matter of enormous public concern which Judge Sanfey cannot impede Ms O’Doherty from writing about. To do so would be in breach of all freedom of speech, freedom of expression and freedom of the press statutes and conventions enshrined in Irish, European and international laws.
4. In December 2022, the Plaintiff accused the Defendant of engaging in a campaign of harassment against her because she used an already widely published picture of her son in her newspaper, The Irish Light. This is a blatant lie and perjury which has been sworn in an affidavit. The Defendant has NEVER had any contact with the Plaintiff and has at no time harassed her or attempted to contact her. The Plaintiff's claim is untrue and defamatory. It is she whom is harassing and defaming the Defendant facilitated by corrupt and vindictive lawyers who are engaged in criminality. The Judge might be advised to look at the solicitor’s previous record which is extremely dubious.
5. In November 2022, The Irish Light published a piece about the huge surge in sudden deaths in Ireland since 2021. At the time, excess mortality in Ireland was soaring, at more than 20%, significantly higher than during the ‘Covid pandemic’. This is a matter of significant public interest. The headline on the front page read ‘Died Suddenly’ accompanied by 42 pictures of approximately one inch squared, each of young people who had died suddenly in 2021/2022. The front page included the picture of Diego Gilsenan, which was already posted widely on the internet. The article inside the paper stated clearly that it was not known how all of the young people died except that they had died suddenly. The article stated that suicide could have been the cause. It also stated that the vaccine may have played a role. None of the people were named in the article. Their pictures had already been widely posted and were available on the internet due to the fact that they were young and had died unexpectedly and suddenly. The purpose of the article was to show people that huge numbers of young Irish people were dropping dead unexpectedly and that there was a need to find out why. At no point did the Defendant say that Diego Gilsenan died as a result of the Covid vaccine. However, it is believed that he did receive the vaccine and was in the process of acquiring a medical card at the time of his death. It is not known why Diego Gilsenan was getting a medical card as he was working and would not have ordinarily been entitled to one. This matter is not resolved by the inquest and is of enormous public interest. Medical records have not been disclosed by the Plaintiff in relation to this and should be presented to the Court at the earliest opportunity. We also note that the Plaintiff has not provided any evidence as to where Ms O’Doherty stated her adult son died as a result of the vaccine because Ms O’Doherty has never made such a remark. The courts will not be able to produce this either because it does not exist.
6. Approximately 20,000 copies of The Irish Light are published with every edition. The Defendant did not publish the picture for ‘self-promotion’ or ‘profit’ as the Plaintiff claims, but to show her readers that there was a significant increase in sudden deaths among young people. This is called public interest journalism and is a pillar of a constitutional republic. A picture that has been published online without any copyright orders is deemed permissible for public use. The Plaintiff is involved in an outrageous charade of lies and character defamation against the Defendant. Why does Judge Sanfey tolerate this?
7. In December 2022, the Plaintiff Miss Campbell sent an abusive text message to the Defendant some time after the publication of the newspaper. It included the statement ‘how could you do this to our family?’ The Defendant, knowing that she had done nothing illegal, unethical or abnormal journalistically, was concerned as to how the Plaintiff could have acquired her private mobile phone number without her permission, and from whom. This has still not been explained. As a result, she did not engage with the Plaintiff and blocked her number. Due to the nature of her work, the Defendant does not speak to people who approach her in an aggressive or abusive manner or who attempt to stalk her as the Plaintiff has been doing for more than one year.
8. On the 14th of December 2022, the Plaintiff went on RTÉ Drivetime and made a series of defamatory comments about the Defendant. She claimed that the Defendant had caused her trauma because she had watched a video of the Defendant in which the front page of the newspaper was shown and had seen a picture of her adult son on it. This image was no more than one inch squared. The Plaintiff said it ‘turned her life upside down’ and ‘she can’t think of anything’ else. The picture used by the Defendant was obtained online where it had been published previously by numerous outlets with the words ‘Died Suddenly’, precisely the same phrase as used by the Defendant.
9. The Plaintiff accused the Defendant of ‘using’ her son and ‘so many other children [Diego was not a child] to push the reason she thinks they died.’ She accused the Defendant of ‘hating’ her and ‘ripping the heart clean out of her’. She said that she had ‘harmed 42 families and got away with it.’ The Defendant’s article merely questioned the cause of so many sudden deaths of young people. It was done not out of hate but out of concern for the young people of Ireland, including Diego Gilsenan, and a desire to discover the cause of these sudden deaths. All of the pictures used were images that were widely available online, the death notices of those on the cover stated that they had ‘died suddenly’ in 2021/2022 and had already featured in mainstream
10. The Defendant has been writing about the dangers of vaccines for almost 30 years. Numerous academic studies have now found that the experimental Covid vaccine was not in any way safe, is linked to blood clots, strokes, heart attacks, turbo cancers and a catalogue of auto-immune diseases. The Plaintiff works in the ‘healthcare’ industry and for Homecare Independent Living, a company that has a vested interest in promoting the Covid vaccine. She has expressed clearly her disdain for people opposed to the Covid vaccination. It is believed that Diego Gilsenan received the vaccine. It has not been ruled out that it did not play a role in his death.
11. In December 2021, the Plaintiff launched a vitriolic and bizarre attack against the Defendant on RTÉ. She continued to say she just wanted the Defendant to say ‘sorry’. The Defendant has no reason to apologise because she has done nothing wrong.
12. Out of courtesy to the Plaintiff and in the hope of ending the vitriolic attacks on her and her newspaper, the Defendant removed the front page from the Irish Light website in December 2022, even though she knew she had done nothing wrong. Some weeks later, she reposted it when she felt the story should be exposed and that there was no reason or justification for the Defendant to censor her. If the Plaintiff did not want to see the Defendant’s posts about the sudden death pandemic, she did not have to tune into her live streams or social media. The only way the Plaintiff could see the Defendant’s material is by logging into her domain websites, streams or social media accounts, which she is obviously doing by choice even though she says it traumatises her profoundly. For some reason, the Plaintiff is following the Defendant online even though the Plaintiff says the Defendant is harassing her. She has the option to block the Defendant, if she is so disturbed by the content of her channel but chooses to follow her and watch her streams.
13. In May 2022, the Plaintiff’s attacks on the Defendant were relaunched. Another round of media interviews appeared with the Plaintiff making the same false claims and defamatory remarks about the Defendant once again. On this occasion, she stated that she was suing the Defendant for ‘harassment’ and in her legal action was seeking a change in the law which would effectively hamper the work of investigative journalists like the Defendant from investigating sudden deaths in Ireland. It is not known why the Plaintiff would seek a change in the law but there is an onus on journalists to find out why as this would affect journalists’ freedom to investigate sudden deaths and threaten freedom of expression.
14. The Defendant has never had any contact with the Plaintiff. She blocked the Plaintiff’s number immediately when the Plaintiff sent an abusive message to her private phone. In May 2023, the Defendant blocked out the image of Diego Gilsenan in the newspaper. It is untrue to say that she continued to use the picture after this date.
15. At all times, the Plaintiff has chosen to seek out the Defendant’s material by logging onto her website or social media to watch her journalism. If this content causes her such trauma or if there is a possibility she might see the face of her son, she would not do this. The Defendant’s material is only available on the Defendant’s sites. The emotional trauma the Plaintiff allegedly endures when she seeks out the Defendant’s sites does not supercede the Defendant’s constitutional right to free speech and freedom of expression as a journalist in investigating a matter of critical public concern. Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights specifically protects journalists in carrying out their work and places a positive obligation on the State to uphold their right to freedom of expression.
16. When the Defendant found out the purpose of the Plaintiff’s legal action, which in effect will hamper investigative journalism and free speech, she decided to investigate the death of Diego Gilsenan and establish the findings of the inquest. Journalists in Ireland are free and indeed obliged to investigate any death that is suspicious and especially those that are subject to an inquest. The law is very clear that all matters relating to the inquest report shall be published by law.
17. The Defendant received the inquest file from Cavan Coroner, Dr Mary Flanagan, on the 31st of May 2023. She observed a number of anomalies in statements from key witnesses. Some were missing and unsigned. The inquest file did not include the testimony of key witnesses, including those who had taken the Plaintiff’s son down from the ‘wooden thing’ where he had been found. The Plaintiff’s statement was contradictory and in large part made no sense.
It was at variance with the testimony given by Diego’s friend, Owen McArdle, who had been with him in the hours before he died. In the post mortem, which was incomplete, the word ‘hanging’ had been crossed out and replaced with ‘asphyxia due to ligature’. The change was unsigned and not dated. There were no photographs or descriptions of the shed or ‘wooden thing’ which the Plaintiff said her son had been found hanging from. The inquest file raised more questions than answers. The Plaintiff states that the Defendant was acting out of malice in obtaining a public inquest file to which she should have no lawful access. This is an outrageous, absurd and defamatory claim. The Defendant acquired the inquest file to have a fuller picture of the case, and in doing so, proved that there were many questions about the death that needed to be answered. This included the fact that the Plaintiff had said in an RTÉ interview that she had hung up on her son Diego during their last phone call. She did not mention this in her inquest statement. A key witness who failed to give evidence in the case was Regina McArdle, a senior Garda, and the mother of Owen McArdle, who was with Diego Gilsenan in the immediate period before his death.
18. A catalogue of false accusations were told about the Defendant by the Plaintiff and her solicitor, Ciarán Mulholland, in the media. On the 9th of June 2023, the Defendant wrote a lengthy article on her Substack site revealing the many inconsistencies surrounding the inquest and stating that there were serious questions about the death that needed to be answered. The Plaintiff responded by seeking an injunction against the Defendant and acquired a penal order to jail her if she mentioned the case again. As an investigative journalist, the Plaintiff is entitled to publish the findings of any inquest report, in accordance with law.
19. The Plaintiff states that she contacted the Gardaí 50 times to prosecute the Defendant for investigating the case. At no point have the Gardaí contacted the Defendant regarding the same.
20. The Plaintiff and Mulholland Law are receiving maintenance funds to finance the case against the Defendant, a fund which was set up by her friend and local political activist in the town of Kingscourt, Kristofer Shekelton who has called the Defendant an ‘evil monster’ and ‘the most hated woman in Ireland’. This fund is contrary to the rules of litigation and Irish law.
21. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant was in Kingscourt in May 2023. This is untrue and once again the plaintiff has committed perjury. The Defendant was not in Kingscourt at that time and does not believe she has ever been. She also alleges that an ‘ultra right mob’ was with her. This is defamatory and untrue. If Mr Sanfey wishes to facilitate such outrageous and fundamental lies in his courtroom, Gemma O’Doherty cannot have any part in them as she cannot be a party to corruption and fraud.
22. The Plaintiff alleges that the Defendant ‘stole’ the picture of her son from RIP.ie. This is untrue and defamatory of the Defendant. Since these allegations against the Defendant were made by the Plaintiff, many more pictures of her son have been published online but the Plaintiff does not appear to be aggrieved nor is she seeking to have them removed. She has maliciously defamed the Defendant once again.
23. The Plaintiff and her legal advisor have engaged in a malicious, egregious and vindictive campaign of defamation in advance of a jury trial thereby prejudicing the hearing and attempting to create a bias against the Defendant in advance of it.
24. It is untrue to say that the Defendant runs a Twitter account with 30,000 followers.
Diego Gilsenan was an adult at the time of his death. The Plaintiff has no authority to dictate who can and cannot investigate her son’s death, especially since there are allegations of drug dealing surrounding it which may be a threat to the lives of those young people still living in the community of Kingscourt and the wider Cavan region.
The source of the Plaintiff’s emotional trauma is most likely the circumstances and death of her son and not any action taken by the defendant whose journalistic endeavours are aimed at trying to stop the deaths of young people like Diego Gilsenan.
Judge Sanfey is in breach of the Coroner’s Act by requesting that an inquest report be removed. By law, it must be made available (Section. 29 (3). The Inquest report reveals many questions about the death of Diego Gilsenan which the Irish public have a right to know about. Some of these matters involve his mother who moved his remains before the arrival of the Gardai.
For a judge to interfere in public interest journalism, especially that concerning the death of a young man, is a breach of his role and the separation of powers. Ms O’Doherty - as a journalist of international repute - is protected in law by the Irish Constitution as a citizen and journalist and by Article 10 of The European Convention On Human Rights which states clearly that no agent of the State can interfere with a journalist in their investigations into suspicious deaths or other matters.
Mr Sanfey is also biased against Ms O’Doherty because he denied her and her colleague John Waters the right to a judicial review which could have stopped the unconstitutional lockdowns and mandatory vaccinations. There is now an entire body of evidence - including plans for a Government enquiry - that the lockdowns and other Covid-related mandates were harmful to society. Mr Sanfey made a grave error in law in this regard and should recuse himself from these proceedings.
Ms O’Doherty will not be available in 2024 to attend these spurious and malicious proceedings which are a grave attack on freedom of the press, freedom of expression and freedom of speech and are built on a mountain of lies. It is hoped that the Plaintiff and her legal team will desist from their harassment of Ms O’Doherty and stop stalking her online in the middle of the night and defaming her during the day.
Mr Sanfey cannot request any citizen of Ireland to stop reporting on the contents of an inquest or the suspicious death of any person here. He would be in breach of the law in doing so and involved in a grotesque attack on press freedom. He is fully aware that journalism is not harassment and is politically motivated in his actions against Ms O’Doherty who will take a case against him in the international courts to protect freedom of speech in Ireland and Europe. Ms O’Doherty has a very high international reputation as a multi award-winning journalist and is widely respected. Any attempt by him to silence her speech or freedom would result in international outrage and domestic shame for him.
Gemma O’Doherty, Editor, Irish Light Newspaper
Could you please share this widely? I am trying to counter the vile mainstream media lies being told about me. If you want to continue to speak freely without state persecution, please spread the word about this atrocious and fraudulent case taken by corrupt lawyers who want to silence every single one of you, not just me.
This a beautifully written and succinct affidavit that is historic. Sanfey's corruption has come full circle from his tacit approval of Covid criminality in early 2020 by sabotaging Gemma's case to silencing the same journalist in 2024 who is exposing the murderous result of that organised crime plot against the Irish people. Conflict of interest on steroids.