reSee.it - Related Video Feed

A high court judge has told Enoch Burke that his preferential treatment is over, and he will remain in Mount Joy Prison for Christmas and beyond until he purges his contempt. The hearing, which concluded just now, followed a judgment by Mister Justice Brian Cregan last month describing Burke as a “baleful and malign presence” at Wilson’s Hospital School and stating that he had been stalking the teachers and pupils. Burke, the former teacher, was returned to prison for contempt of court. The hearing lasted over an hour and was attended by Enoch Burke, produced in person from Mount Joy Prison, where he is detained for the fourth time. It addressed six issues, including an update on Burke’s appeal against his dismissal from Wilson’s Hospital School. Counsel for the board of management said a reconstituted disciplinary panel would convene a hearing in Lone later this month. Burke’s position, however, is that he does not want that appeal heard because he plans to appeal part of his case to the Supreme Court, specifically two judgments of the Court of Appeal, which he claims have diametrically opposed findings about why he was disciplined by Wilson’s Hospital School. The court asked Burke whether he planned to purge his contempt and undertake not to trespass at the school. Burke stated that he does not accept that he is in contempt and said he does not plan to purge it. As a consequence, he was told that he would no longer receive preferential treatment, and he would not be released from prison for Christmas, Easter, or the summer holidays until he purges his contempt. Additionally, it was conveyed to the court that the Attorney General is considering whether to bring criminal contempt proceedings against Doctor Isaac Burke, Martina Burke, Amy, and Enoch Burke due to their conduct in court, with an update expected in a fortnight. Our court’s correspondent Deborah Naylor reported on the developments.

The speaker mentioned that the defense attorney was upset about having to listen to a defense motion in court. The judge had to ask the attorney to calm down as he was losing control. The speaker believes that the unveiling of evidence, including details about the Mar a Lago raid and an operations order, has angered those involved in the case. They feel that Judge Cannon is exposing the corruption and misconduct in the investigation from the beginning.

We're at the high courts where the quest to strip Enoch Burke of his assets and salary continues due to his refusal to accept the denial of his constitutional rights. The court is discussing how to divert his salary, with much focus on technical details involving Department of Education employees. The issue began when a judgment was issued based on information not presented in court, acquired through unofficial channels. It's concerning that the judge appears to be changing the senior counsel's statements. Burke's constitutional rights, particularly freedom of conscience and religious belief, have been ignored. Burke refused to endorse transgender ideology, citing his religious belief that God created male and female. Now, the courts, government, and Department of Education are focused on stripping him of his assets and rights. His refusal to go against his conscience has led to these consequences.

Enoch Burke reports having €0 in his bank account after the courts allegedly took €40,617. He accuses Judge David Nolan, Russell Fanning, the attorney general, and the government of working together to seize his assets. Burke claims this stems from a 2022 demand by Principal Niamh McShane to promote transgenderism at Wilson's Hospital School. He states that Minister for Education Norma Foley lied about transgenderism in schools when questioned about his incarceration. He accuses current Minister for Education Helen McEntee of dealing illegally with the matter. Burke says judges avoid the issue and the government is complicit. He references Pascal Donohue's warning of a recession and accuses the government of defying God. He believes religious freedom is being taken away and criticizes the church's silence.

Enoch Burke has been released from Mountjoy Prison after over 500 days due to his refusal to use they/them pronouns, which he claims contradict his religious beliefs. However, he faces intimidation from the court, including a €1,500 daily fine if he returns to work. The judge's actions have been criticized as illegal, with claims of judicial dishonesty regarding the case's focus on transgender ideology. Sean Burke, Enoch's father, is currently imprisoned for a crime he did not commit, with previous courts finding no intent in his actions. The treatment of Sean in court has been described as humiliating, with judges displaying disrespect. The situation reflects a troubling alliance between the judiciary and government, undermining justice and constitutional rights.

The speaker questions if the media and courts are shaping false narratives to serve political agendas. They raise concerns about bias in the justice system and the manipulation of information by government-funded groups. The involvement of the chief justice in political narratives is seen as problematic.

Enoch Burke reports having €0 in his bank account after the courts allegedly took €40,617. He accuses Judge David Nolan, Russell Fanning, the attorney general, and the government of working together to seize his assets. Burke claims this stems from a 2022 demand by Principal Niamh McShane to promote transgenderism at Wilson's Hospital School. He states Minister for Education Norma Foley lied about transgenderism in schools when questioned about his incarceration. He accuses current Minister for Education Helen McEntee of dealing illegally with the matter. Burke says judges avoid the issue in court and the government is complicit. He criticizes Pascal Donohue for predicting a recession and defying God, along with Meehaw Martin and Helen McEntee. He believes righteousness exalts a nation and laments the church's silence on the matter of religious freedom.

Speaker 0 expresses frustration about having to stay overnight and drive back to Houston due to filibustering. Speaker 1 threatens to sue if their child is taught CRT or SEL, and encourages others to do the same. They argue against the need for CRT, SEL, and sexual expression in schools, referencing the Bible. They criticize teachers for lying and leaving due to uncomfortable situations. They reject emotional support learning and assert their identity as a mother. They vow to fight against these issues. Speaker 2 thanks them for their testimony. No questions are asked.

The speaker discusses the delay in information regarding the stabbings in Dublin and expresses agreement with Stephen Kerr's position. They predict that the Algerian man responsible for the stabbings will never make it to court due to a serious head injury. The speaker emphasizes the importance of transparency and full disclosure of facts for the victims' families and society. They criticize the lack of updates and transparency in the case, suggesting that the parents have been threatened not to speak to the media. The speaker compares the situation to a similar incident in Paris where the government provided full disclosure of the attacker's information. They express concern that the management of the tragedy will lead to public anger.

The speakers frame the Burke case as systemic corruption: "This is insanity what's happening to Weanoke Burke, an upright, intelligent, kind, lover of his students, young teacher... betrayed Christ" and "they've got their 30 pieces of silver." They say the church did not stand up, and "parents... they're Judases." They describe Enoch Burke's refusal to bow to "transgenderism" and to obey principal Niamh MacShane's instruction to call a young boy "day, an abomination." The Court of Appeal reportedly recognized that "the principal's overarching complaint against Enoch Burke" and asked if "that instruction must be looked at. Was it a legitimate instruction?" They allege judge David Nolan refused to read a submission; note "not a normal court." Fines of "€225,000" and calls for Burke's return to "Mount Joy Prison" after "five hundred days." They condemn archbishop John MacDewell as a "Judas" and oppose "indoctrination center" "promotion of LGBT" in the school.

My son graduated from high school, but the judge won't let me attend. The trial is a scam and a political witch hunt. The judge won't allow me to go to the United States Supreme Court either. I can't campaign like I should be, which benefits the radical left Democrats. It's a sad situation with a conflicted judge and unnecessary trial. Thank you for your support.

In January 2022, a colleague alerted Speaker 0 that there had been a doubling or tripling of baby deaths in the last year, which sparked curiosity. Speaker 1 states that “Their own government told us a medical treatment was safe, and it killed babies.” Speaker 2 says she has “lost all faith that Health Canada is looking out genuinely for the best interests of Canadians.” Speaker 3 alleges that doctors “made extra money to push vaccines” and were given a billing code to do it, and that she has “pulled all the billing codes.” Speaker 4 asserts that “They've purchased the vaccine that hasn't been approved,” distributed it to the provinces so that once it’s approved, they can “start jabbing ourselves with it” and “start jabbing pregnant mothers with it.” Speaker 3 questions the necessity of vaccinations: “Why did we have to get these vaccinations? Like, why was this something that we had to do? You go to the hospital, you expect to have a baby, and you expect to go home, and then you don't.” Speaker 0 speculates on criminal negligence, saying, “I would suspect that there was criminal negligence on part of the government and the public health officials.” Speaker 3 notes that it is “highly recommended that pregnant women get their vaccine as soon as possible.” Speaker 0 contends that a narrative was pushed to everybody, including pregnant and breastfeeding women, that the mRNA shots were safe and effective. Speaker 2 claims wiretapping, harassment, charging, and barring expert witnesses: “They had wiretapped her phone. They had harassed her. They had charged her. They didn't allow any expert witnesses to testify.” Speaker 1 accuses police of trying to cover up Canadian babies’ deaths “to the point of stopping detective Helen Greaves from testifying about it.” Speaker 4 observes that “The dominant individuals keep the subordinates in their place by constant aggression.” Speaker 5 discusses vaccination choice versus public risk, remarking, “If you don't wanna get vaccinated, that's your choice. But don't think you can get on a plane or a train besides vaccinated people and put them at risk,” and claims CBC initially “started off with CBC running a story to implicate her and to paint her with a brush that looks uncomplimentary to the public.” Speaker 6 claims Canada must shift its understanding of what the is, describing it as “a state broadcaster pushing the agenda of the Liberal government of Canada.” Speaker 4 calls this “the most significant matter affecting our children today from a health perspective,” noting that authorities are “not investigating.” Speaker 2 concludes that everything emanates outward from this case involving law enforcement, the judicial system, the pharmaceutical industry, and health agencies, “how they work together, how they censored information. It all ties together to this one case, and that's what makes it so dangerous.”

They aim to harm us for disagreeing with them. Our justice system no longer prioritizes truth, but winning at all costs.

They showed my naked photos in a hearing and twisted my father's love for me into something negative. They have no shame.

The speaker believes there was a miscarriage of justice in the courtroom, with judges siding with the prosecution and hindering the defense. They stress the importance of equal protection under the law as a fundamental constitutional principle in American Jurisprudence.

The speaker questions Judge Netburn's prioritization of individual rights over political ideology. They discuss a case involving a male repeat rapist in a women's prison. The speaker criticizes Judge Netburn's decision, accusing her of prioritizing political ideology over the safety of female inmates. The speaker challenges Judge Netburn's reasoning and accuses her of being a radical judge. Judge Netburn defends her decision based on the petitioner's behavior in prison and medical needs. The speaker accuses Judge Netburn of contradicting her own report and questions her decision-making. Senator Padilla interrupts, preventing Judge Netburn from responding.

The speaker expresses their belief that the case went well and should be dismissed immediately. They claim that the court was fraudulent and made references to valuable assets without knowledge of the numbers involved. The speaker criticizes the length of the proceedings and highlights the outside world's problems. They assert that the case is a scam and should never have been brought. The speaker mentions a star witness who admitted to lying and lacks credibility. They believe everything they did was right and express frustration at being sued while other issues persist. The speaker concludes by stating that the case is a disgrace and should never have been brought.

At the high court in Dublin, Enoch Burke’s supporters describe today’s proceedings as a wholesale denial of the law and justice. Isaac Burke (Enoch Burke’s brother), Martina Burke, and Ami Burke claim Enoch was manhandled by three prison officers at the door of the court and then brought back to Mountjoy Prison after attempting to make a submission inside. They say Justice Brian Cregan overruled him and sent him back to the prison van, calling it a total disgrace and breakdown of order. They allege ongoing issues with the disciplinary appeal panel (the DAP) process. They state that two panel members, Sean O’Longán and Jack Cleary, resigned after swearing lies on oath, while Geraldine O’Brien (a representative of ASTI) did not resign and remains on the panel. They describe Geraldine O’Brien’s continued presence as a violation of rules governing the panel, insisting that the panel is still alive and that Cregan is pretending there is no panel and that a new panel is needed. They assert that the DAP has been proven shambolic on at least two occasions and that Enoch Burke did nothing wrong and should be teaching at Wilson’s Hospital School. Rosemary Mallon (referred to as Rosemary Mallon or Mallon) is described as a foreign presence in the room, representing the board of management and pressing arguments about a future DAP arrangement rather than addressing the current case. The speakers contend that the existing DAP remains in existence with Geraldine O’Brien on it, while a new DAB (disciplinary action body) is being urged by others. They claim the judge allowed Mallon to advance arguments about a new DAP, effectively sidelining the existing proceedings. They assert that the judge is attempting to wrap up the case and dismiss concerns, and they accuse Cregan of bigotry, arrogance, and hatred toward those who demand constitutional and legal respect. They allege that the Department of Education and the state are pushing a policy requiring the use of non-binary pronouns (the “they” pronoun), contrary to Enoch Burke’s religious beliefs, and that this constitutes a broader religious and constitutional conflict. They claim Burke’s constitutional rights are being denied and that the case reflects a broader pattern of corruption and cover-up in the judiciary. Towards the end, Enoch Burke made a formal application to refer affidavits containing alleged false statements by Sean O’Longán to the Director of Public Prosecutions (DPP) for possible perjury. The speakers note that the judge did not acknowledge or rule on this application. They describe Burke’s removal to the prison van, handcuffed and treated like a criminal, while a large number of guards were present, and insist Burke’s case centers on his religious beliefs and refusal to use the pronouns, rather than any criminal activity. They conclude that the DAP remains in operation, that the judge’s actions amount to corruption in their view, and that Enoch Burke’s constitutional rights have been denied.

The speaker believes the case is a scam and should be dismissed immediately. They claim that the court is the fraudster and made references to undervalued assets. They express frustration with the lengthy process and compare it to the urgent issues happening in the world. The speaker highlights the lack of credibility of the star witness and asserts that everything they did was right. They find it disgraceful to be sued while there are more pressing problems in the country. The speaker mentions negative public sentiment towards the situation and concludes that it is a sad day for America.

I can't answer due to my rights being taken away. The case is ridiculous, with no wrongdoing. Judges have gagged me, citing a conflict. It's a fake trial for political reasons, backed by Biden donors. Colombia canceled an event due to this. The gag order is unconstitutional. The case lacks evidence, using irrelevant witnesses. It's unfair, but we will fight. Thank you. Translation: The speaker is unable to answer questions due to their rights being restricted. They believe the case is baseless and politically motivated, supported by donors of President Biden. Colombia canceled an event due to this situation. The speaker criticizes the unconstitutional gag order and the lack of evidence in the trial. They express determination to fight against the unfair circumstances.

I was denied the right to speak up when I saw something wrong. The judge was unhinged and slammed a table, which I cannot tolerate. We all have the right to hire a lawyer who will stand up for us. It's important that we don't tolerate such behavior.

Do parents in this country want their children taught that they can change their gender? A bishop was questioned about his silence on Enoch Burke, a teacher imprisoned for 500 days for refusing to use a student's preferred pronouns. Despite being close to the prison, the bishop expressed discomfort with the manner of questioning and had no response regarding Burke's situation. He focused instead on issues of religious rights for prisoners but ignored Burke's plight. This raises concerns about the church's role in addressing such matters, especially when a representative of Christ seems indifferent to a fellow Christian's suffering. The situation is troubling, particularly for Burke's family, who feel abandoned by church leaders who should be advocating for their rights and beliefs.

The speaker believes the case is a scam and should be dismissed immediately. They claim that the court is the fraudster and made references to undervalued assets. They express frustration with the lengthy process and criticize the outside world for not taking action. The speaker highlights the lack of credibility of the star witness, who admitted to lying. They defend their actions and argue that the lawsuit is a waste of time and money, considering the pressing issues the country faces. The speaker concludes by stating that the public is fed up with the situation, making it a sad day for America.

Speaker 0 raises a question about the propriety of the FBI’s approach to the case, asking if the prosecution is briefing Erica Kirk on the case against Tyler Robinson and whether she’s considered a witness. He notes she wasn’t at certain events, such as being with her husband, and questions if she’s really being briefed and if that’s right. He adds that the defense wants to ban cameras in the courtroom and asks for thoughts on that. Speaker 1 responds by recounting the presence of cameras: there were cameras all over her husband when he was murdered, cameras all over her friends and family mourning, and cameras all over her, analyzing her every move, smile, and tear. She argues they deserve to have cameras in the courtroom and to be transparent, saying there’s nothing to hide because she’s seen what the case is built on. She asserts that everyone should see what true evil is, noting this could impact a generation and generations to come.

The speakers discuss the importance of following the facts in a high-profile case. They mention concerns about bias and conflicts of interest, particularly regarding the funding of certain officials. They question the motives behind statements made by these officials and suggest that the case should be moved to a different jurisdiction for a fair judgment.