Elon Musk: Neuralink will help us understand a lot more about consciousness. “I’ve thought a lot about what is consciousness. Where does consciousness arise? If you start at the beginning of the universe, assuming the standard model of physics is true, then you have this Big Bang, the matter condensing into stars, those stars exploding. A lot of the atoms that are in your body right now were once at the center of stars. Those stars exploded, recondensed. Fast forward 13.8 billion years, and here we are. And somewhere along that very long journey to us, consciousness arose. Or the molecules started talking to each other. And it begs the question of what is consciousness? Is everything conscious? Maybe. It’s hard to say where along that line, there’s no sort of discrete point where consciousness didn’t exist and then suddenly does exist. It seems to be, maybe you have a condensation of matter that has a density of consciousness, we don’t know. The real answer is, we don’t know what consciousness is. But with Neuralink and the progress that the company’s making, we’ll begin to understand a lot more about consciousness.” Neuralink Update, June 27, 2025
===============
🚨 BREAKING: Neuralink’s Blindsight will let humans see in radar, infrared, and ultraviolet—just like Geordi La Forge from Star Trek.
It’s a major step toward giving people superhuman vision with cybernetic upgrades. pic.twitter.com/EzZTNqQwLO
Summary: A new study has found that damage to a specific white matter pathway in the brain—the right uncinate fasciculus—may increase the likelihood of criminal or violent behavior following brain injury. Researchers analyzed scans from individuals who began committing crimes after suffering strokes, tumors, or traumatic injuries and found consistent damage to this region.
This tract connects areas involved in emotion and decision-making, and when disrupted, may impair impulse control and moral reasoning. While not all with such injuries become violent, the findings raise ethical and legal questions about culpability, intent, and the neurobiology of behavior.
Key Facts:
Right Uncinate Fasciculus Damage: The most common brain injury among individuals who developed post-injury criminal behavior.
Behavioral Impact: Disconnection in this area can impair emotional regulation, empathy, and moral decision-making.
Legal Implications:Findings may influence future legal considerations around responsibility and sentencing after brain injury.
Source: University of Colorado
A new study led by researchers at the University of Colorado Anschutz Medical Campus, Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School has found that damage to a specific region of the brain may contribute to criminal or violent behavior.
The study, titled “White matter disconnection in acquired criminality”, was published recently in Molecular Psychiatry.
They confirmed that the right uncinate fasciculus was the neural pathway with the most consistent link to criminal behavior. Credit: Neuroscience News
The investigation analyzed brain scans from individuals who began committing crimes after sustaining brain injuries from strokes, tumors or traumatic brain injury. The study compared these 17 cases to brain scans from 706 individuals with other neurological symptoms such as memory loss or depression.
The investigators found that injury to the region of the right uncinate fasciculus was the most commonly affected area in the brains of those people who developed criminal behavior.The same pattern held true among individuals who committed violent crimes.
“This part of the brain, the uncinate fasciculus, is a white matter pathway that serves as a cable connecting regions that govern emotion and decision-making,” said Christopher M. Filley, MD, professor emeritus of neurology at the University of Colorado School of Medicine and one of the study’s co-authors.
“When that connection is disrupted on the right side, a person’s ability to regulate emotions and make moral choices may be severely impaired.”
“While it is widely accepted that brain injury can lead to problems with memory or motor function, the role of the brain in guiding social behaviors like criminality is more controversial,” said Isaiah Kletenik, MD, assistant professor of neurology at Harvard Medical School and lead author of the study.
“It raises complex questions about culpability and free will.”
Kletenik said during his time in behavioral neurology training at the University of Colorado School of Medicine he had the unique opportunity to evaluate patients who began committing acts of violence with the onset of brain tumors or degenerative diseases.
“These clinical cases prompted my curiosity into the brain basis of moral decision-making and led me to learn new network-based neuroimaging techniques at the Center for Brain Circuit Therapeutics at Brigham and Women’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School,” said Kletenik.
To strengthen the findings, the researchers conducted a full connectome analysis, employing a detailed map of how brain regions are interconnected. They confirmed that the right uncinate fasciculus was the neural pathway with the most consistent link to criminal behavior.
“It wasn’t just any brain damage, it was damage in the location of this pathway,” said Filley. “Our finding suggests that this specific connection may play a unique role in regulating behavior.”
The uncinate fasciculus links brain regions involved in reward-based decision-making with those that process emotions. When that link is damaged, particularly on the right side, people may have difficulty controlling impulses, anticipating consequences or feeling empathy, all of which can contribute to harmful or criminal actions.
While not everyone with this type of brain injury becomes violent the study suggests that damage to this tract may play a role in new onset criminal behavior after injury.
“This work could have real-world implications for both medicine and the law,” said Filley. “Doctors may be able to better identify at-risk patients and offer effective early interventions. And courts might need to consider brain damage when evaluating criminal responsibility.”
Kletenik said that the findings raise important ethical questions.
“Should brain injury factor into how we judge criminal behavior? Causality in science is not defined in the same way as culpability in the eyes of the law. Still, our findings provide useful data that can help inform this discussion and contributes to our growing knowledge about how social behavior is mediated by the brain.” said Kletenik.
Experts from Vanderbilt University, University of California San Diego and Salk Institute, also collaborated on the study.
About this brain injury and criminality research news
Author: Laura Kelley Source: University of Colorado Contact: Laura Kelley – University of Colorado Image: The image is credited to Neuroscience News
White matter disconnection in acquired criminality
Structural brain imaging is increasingly introduced as evidence in criminal trials.
A key imaging abnormality identified in criminal populations is alteration to the right uncinate fasciculus but it remains unclear whether these changes play a causal role in criminal behavior.
Lesion studies of acquired criminality offer the opportunity to assess the causal role of focal disruption of specific white matter connections in criminal behavior.
We studied lesion locations of focal brain damage associated with new onset criminal behavior compared to lesions associated with 21 diverse neuropsychiatric symptoms.
First, we analyzed the intersection of lesion locations with an atlas-based right uncinate fasciculus.
Second, we assessed the intersection of lesion locations with all white matter tracts from this atlas.
Third, we performed a connectome-based analysis of all possible white matter connections with each lesion location, without a priori assumptions regarding specific tracts.
We repeated all analyses limited to subjects who committed violent crimes. Lesions associated with criminality intersected the right uncinate more than lesions associated with other neuropsychiatric symptoms (p = 4.78 × 10−8).
Compared to other tracts, the right uncinate fasciculus was the tract most strongly associated with lesion-induced criminality followed by the forceps minor. An unbiased connectome-based analysis confirmed these findings.
Among subjects who committed violent crimes the right uncinate was the key tract identified. Lesions associated with criminality intersect the right uncinate fasciculus more than other lesions and more than other white matter tracts.
Damage to the right uncinate may play a causal role in criminal behavior, especially violent crime.
AI for Good: Pearson and Google bring AI to the classroom
Source: Midjourney v7
Pearson has signed a multi-year partnership with Google Cloud to deploy sophisticated AI-powered learning tools in K-12 classrooms. But this isn’t just another education tech deal — it’s part of Pearson’s ambitious strategy to rebuild learning from the ground up using artificial intelligence.
What they’re building: The partnership leverages Google’s Vertex AI Platform, including Gemini AI models and LearnLM — Google’s family of models specifically fine-tuned for learning. The system will deploy “agentic AI-powered study tools” that act as personalized tutors, adapting in real-time to each student’s pace and learning style.
Teachers get data-driven insights through BigQuery, providing comprehensive views of student progress and learning gaps for targeted instruction. The platform uses Google’s Veo and Imagen technologies to automatically generate educational content, from interactive lessons to visual learning materials. Integration with Pearson’s existing products, such as Connections Academy virtual schools and GED programs, extends the reach across various learning environments.
Why this matters: Traditional classroom instruction still follows industrial-era models, designed for efficiency rather than individual learning. AI tutors could finally make personalized education scalable, giving every student, regardless of financial status, access to adaptive learning that was previously available only to those who could afford private tutoring. If successful, this represents a fundamental shift from teaching students to learning with them.
The grandfather of the new head of British foreign intelligence MI6 was a Ukrainian Nazi. Blaze Metreveli, the first female head of British intelligence, is the granddaughter of Ukrainian ultra nationalist and anti semite Konstantin Dobrovolsky, He was a devout facist who defected to the Nazis in 1941, served in the SS, and participated in the murder of Jews and anti Nazi partisans. His son received British citizenship in the 1960s, and in 1977, he had a daughter, Blaze. The 5th they say, is “history”
Parties: Right Hon. Lucius William Lord Baron Inchiquin of first part, Hon. Edward Donough O’Brien of Oakhill House, Oakhill, in county of Somerset of second part and Michael Comyn of 9 Northbrook Road, Leeson Park, in county of Dublin, Esquire, K.C., of third part. Property: Option of mining leases in any of the townlands in which workable minerals may be found in the baronies of Corcomroe, Inchiquin and Burren in county of Clare. Date: 1 April 1926. Size: 11pp. Other: Signed. Closed until April 2026
Grok3 AI : Response
Option of mining leases in any of the townlands in which workable minerals may be found in the baronies of Corcomroe, Inchiquin and Burren in county of Clare.
The baronies of Corcomroe, Inchiquin, and Burren in County Clare, Ireland, are part of a region with a rich geological history, notably within the Burren and Cliffs of Moher UNESCO Global Geopark. These areas are known for their limestone landscapes and historical mineral exploration, but information on current mining leases and workable minerals is limited and requires careful consideration of available data.
Geological Context and Mineral Potential
The Burren region, encompassing parts of Corcomroe, Inchiquin, and Burren baronies, is primarily composed of limestone, which dominates the surface geology. However, historical records indicate the presence of various minerals in these areas:
Lead: Rich lead ore has been identified in the barony of Burren, specifically at locations like Glenvaan and Lemenagh. A notable find near Ballylicky, close to Quin, in 1834, revealed high-quality, productive lead ore shipped to Wales.
Copper: Copper pyrites have been noted in several parts of Burren, though attempts to mine copper ore at Glenvaan were unsuccessful.
Manganese: Found at Kilcredane Point near Carrigaholt Castle, Newhall, and Fierd near Cross, where it forms on rocks by the sea.
Silver and Precious Metals:Historical manuscripts suggest silver was mined near O’Loughlin’s castle in Burren during the time of James I. There are also indications of precious metals in the region.
Gold and Silver:Prospecting licenses have been issued for gold and silver in northeast Clare, including areas like Flagmount and surrounding townlands (e.g., Maghera, Caher, Doorus East, Knockanena, Leaghort, and Lough Graney).
Other Minerals: Antimony, ochres, clays for pottery, and fluor spar have been found in small quantities. Limestone and black marble (e.g., at Craggleith near Ennis) are also significant, with the latter being highly polishable.
Mining Leases and Prospecting Licenses
In Ireland, mineral exploration and mining are regulated by the Department of the Environment, Climate and Communications. Prospecting Licenses (PLs) cover approximately 35 square kilometers and are defined by townland boundaries. As of recent data, over 2,000 Prospecting Licence Areas (PLAs) exist across Ireland, including County Clare.
Current Licenses: Specific details on active mining leases in Corcomroe, Inchiquin, or Burren are not fully detailed in the provided sources. However, Hannan Metals Ltd. holds 100% ownership of the County Clare Zn-Pb-Ag-Cu project, which likely includes parts of these baronies, targeting zinc, lead, silver, and copper.
Historical Licensing: In 2006, prospecting licenses were issued for gold and silver in northeast Clare (Flagmount area) and for silver and base metals in other Clare townlands like Bunratty, Keelderry, Newtown, and Ballymacdonnell. Central Mining Finance Ltd. was involved in these activities.
Environmental Concerns: The Burren is a protected area with rich biodiversity and unique karst landscapes. Environmental campaigners have resisted mining activities due to potential ecological damage, which could limit new leases or operations.
Historical Mining: Most recorded mining in Clare dates to the 19th and early 20th centuries, with limited modern activity. The lack of recent production records suggests that many sites may not be economically viable or have not been fully explored.
Access to Leases: For current or prospective mining leases, you would need to consult the Department of the Environment, Climate and Communications or check the aforementioned online map for specific townlands and license holders. The process typically involves applying for a Prospecting Licence, which may lead to a mining lease if workable deposits are confirmed.
Townlands and Specific Locations
The baronies of Corcomroe, Inchiquin, and Burren include numerous townlands, but specific townlands with workable minerals mentioned in historical records include:
Northeast Clare (potentially Inchiquin or Corcomroe): Maghera, Caher, Doorus East, Knockanena, Leaghort, and areas around Lough Graney.
General Burren Region: Sites near O’Loughlin’s castle and coastal areas like Kilcredane Point.
For precise townland-level data, the online map from the Department of the Environment, Climate and Communications is essential, as it delineates PLAs by townland boundaries.
Contact Authorities: Reach out to the Department of the Environment, Climate and Communications for details on applying for new prospecting licenses or mining leases.
Environmental Compliance: Given the ecological sensitivity of the Burren, ensure compliance with environmental regulations and engage with local communities to address concerns.
Historical Research: Review historical mining records at the Clare Heritage and Genealogy Centre or the Geological Survey of Ireland (www.gsi.ie) (www.gsi.ie) for insights into past mineral finds in specific townlands.
Conclusion
While Corcomroe, Inchiquin, and Burren have historical evidence of workable minerals like lead, copper, manganese, silver, and gold, current mining lease options are less clear due to limited recent activity and environmental protections. The best approach is to consult the Irish government’s mineral exploration map and engage with regulatory bodies for up-to-date information on available leases and townlands with viable mineral deposits.
If you need assistance with accessing the map, contacting authorities, or further details on specific townlands, let me know!
Michael Comyn de Valera Sinn Fein funds: is there connection to James O’Mara Trustee of Dail Eireann funds 1919-21: He was one of the 3 trustees of the funds of the underground government, Dail Eireann, June 1919 on, the others being Eamon de Valera and Dr. Michael Fogarty, Bishop of Killaloe.
Went to US, 1919-1921: He went to US Oct 1919 to join de Valera (there since June 1919) to campaign for recognition of the new Irish republic, and raise funds. He went as a stowaway on the SS Lapland, because denied an exit visa by Britain. He hid among lifeboats, helped by two of the crew. He and de Valera spent subsequent period mobilising support of Irish in America. Huge fund raising drive (the Irish Republican Loan) for the new self-declared Republic, and campaign for its recognition, while War of Independence raged at home. See Republican Loan film, 1919 made by his brother-in-law Jim Sullivan. “James O’Mara, Treasurer of the Government of which de Valera is President, has arrived from Ireland to take part in the Loan campaign .. Apparently he came by the same mysterious methods as did Mr.de Valera, both having been denied passports by the British Government” [a New York evening paper, 2nd Dec 1919]. “The Irish-American leaders in New York understood him to be a millionaire, which gave him a status with them that none of the rest of us enjoyed” [McCartan, 1932]. Agnes was also denied a passport, but managed to join him in America for a time. She sailed to US to see him, with her dau Pat, in Apr 1920. He was founder member of American Association for the Recognition of the Irish Republic (AARIR) 1920. De Valera returned to Ireland Dec 1920. Jim persuaded to stay on in US. Convention of the AARIR, Chicago, Apr 1921.He had disagreements with de Valera. He resigned his position in the US, his trusteeship of the Dail funds and his Dail seat, May 1921. He returned to Ireland July 1921 (as the truce was being signed). They had raised $10 m (about $500 m in today’s money), funding the War of Independence and the Dail. They had not got official US recognition for the Irish Republic, but America had brought strong pressure on Britain to call a truce and negotiate.
There is no direct evidence linking Michael Comyn to James O’Mara or the Sinn Féin funds raised during the 1919-1921 period, including the Dáil Éireann funds or the Irish Republican Loan. However, there are contextual connections worth noting, based on the historical record and the roles of key figures like Éamon de Valera, with whom both men were associated.
Key Points of Connection:
Dáil Éireann Funds and Trusteeship (1919-1921):
James O’Mara, Éamon de Valera, and Dr. Michael Fogarty (Bishop of Killaloe) were the three trustees of the Dáil Éireann funds, established to finance the underground Irish government during the War of Independence.These funds included the Irish Republican Loan, which raised approximately $10 million (equivalent to ~$500 million today) in the United States to support the self-declared Irish Republic.
Michael Comyn, a prominent Irish republican and a barrister K.C. , was not a trustee but was actively involved in Sinn Féin and the broader republican movement. As a member of the Dáil and a close associate of de Valera, Comyn would have been aware of and likely supported the fundraising efforts, though no primary sources confirm his direct involvement in managing or administering these funds.
U.S. Fundraising Campaign (1919-1921):
O’Mara and de Valera traveled to the United States to raise funds and campaign for recognition of the Irish Republic. O’Mara, who arrived in October 1919 as a stowaway on the SS Lapland, played a significant role in mobilizing Irish-American support and organizing the American Association for the Recognition of the Irish Republic (AARIR).
Michael Comyn is not documented as having traveled to the U.S. during this period or participating directly in the American fundraising campaign. His activities were primarily Ireland-based, where he was involved in Sinn Féin’s legal and political efforts, including representing republican prisoners and supporting the Dáil courts.
De Valera as a Common Link:
Both Comyn and O’Mara were closely aligned with Éamon de Valera. Comyn was a loyal supporter of de Valera within Sinn Féin and later in Fianna Fáil, while O’Mara worked directly with de Valera in the U.S. until their falling out in 1921, which led to O’Mara’s resignation from his trusteeship, Dáil seat, and AARIR role.
The disagreement between O’Mara and de Valera centered on strategy and control of the funds, with O’Mara favoring a more independent approach to managing the AARIR and the loan funds. Comyn, by contrast, remained a steadfast de Valera ally, suggesting he likely sided with de Valera in any disputes over the funds or their management.
Sinn Féin Funds and Broader Context:
The Dáil Éireann funds, including the Irish Republican Loan, were managed by the trustees and used to finance the War of Independence, propaganda efforts, and the operations of the underground government. Michael Comyn, as a key Sinn Féin figure and Dáil member, would have been part of the broader network that benefited from these funds, even if he was not directly involved in their collection or disbursement.
Comyn’s role as a barrister and his work in the Dáil courts (republican courts established to bypass British legal systems) suggest he may have interacted with the financial and legal mechanisms supporting the republican movement, but no specific records tie him to the trusteeship or the U.S.-based fundraising.
Potential Indirect Connections:
Comyn’s prominence in Sinn Féin and his legal work for republicans could have brought him into contact with the administrative or legal aspects of the Dáil funds, particularly after O’Mara’s resignation in May 1921, when the funds’ management became a contentious issue. However, primary sources (e.g., Dáil records, de Valera’s correspondence, or O’Mara’s own accounts) do not mention Comyn in this context.
The Republican Loan film (1919), produced by Jim Sullivan (O’Mara’s brother-in-law), was part of the propaganda effort to promote the loan. While Comyn was not directly involved, such efforts were part of Sinn Féin’s broader strategy, in which he played a significant role in Ireland.
Conclusion:
There is no documented connection between Michael Comyn and James O’Mara specifically regarding the management or trusteeship of the Dáil Éireann funds or the Irish Republican Loan of 1919-1921. However, both were key figures in the republican movement, connected through their mutual association with Éamon de Valera and Sinn Féin. O’Mara’s role was central to the U.S. fundraising campaign, while Comyn’s contributions were primarily in Ireland, focused on legal and political support for the republic. Any connection between Comyn and the funds would likely be indirect, through his involvement in Sinn Féin and the Dáil’s broader activities.
If you have specific documents, letters, or sources (e.g., references to Comyn in O’Mara’s correspondence or Dáil financial records) that you’d like me to analyze further, please provide them, and I can dig deeper. Alternatively, I can search for additional primary sources or posts on X for more context if needed.
Comyn’s role as a barrister, his brother James was a solicitor. Michael Comyn took the IRA funds case and was awarded £20,000. Are these the same funds that James O’Mara was in disagreement with their use by de Valera
To address your query, let’s clarify the roles of Michael Comyn and his brother James Comyn, examine Michael Comyn’s involvement in the IRA funds case where he was awarded £20,000, and determine whether these funds were the same as those James O’Mara disagreed with Éamon de Valera over during 1919-1921.
Clarification of Roles:
Michael Comyn: A prominent barrister, senior counsel (K.C.), and a key figure in Sinn Féin and the Irish republican movement. He was a member of the First Dáil (1919-1921) and later a senator in the Irish Free State.He was actively involved in the republican courts and represented IRA and Sinn Féin interests in legal matters.
James Comyn: Michael’s brother, a solicitor, not a barrister. He was less prominent in the republican movement but supported Sinn Féin and worked in legal capacities, often alongside Michael.
James O’Mara: A trustee of the Dáil Éireann funds (along with Éamon de Valera and Bishop Michael Fogarty) and a key figure in the Irish Republican Loan fundraising campaign in the U.S. (1919-1921). He resigned in May 1921 due to disagreements with de Valera over the use and control of these funds.
The IRA Funds Case and Michael Comyn:
Michael Comyn, as a barrister, was involved in a significant legal case in the 1920s concerning funds raised for the Irish republican cause, often referred to as the “IRA funds” or “Sinn Féin funds” case. This case dealt with the disposition of money collected during the War of Independence, particularly the Irish Republican Loan (also known as the Dáil Loan), which had been raised in Ireland and the U.S. to fund the underground Dáil Éireann government and the IRA’s activities.
Details of the Case:
After the Anglo-Irish Treaty (1921) and the establishment of the Irish Free State, disputes arose over the control and use of the remaining Dáil Loan funds. These funds, originally raised to support the Irish Republic, became contentious as the republican movement split into pro-Treaty (Free State) and anti-Treaty (IRA) factions.
By the mid-1920s, legal action was taken to determine who had rightful claim to these funds. Michael Comyn, acting as a barrister, represented interests aligned with the anti-Treaty side (which included Éamon de Valera and other republicans who opposed the Free State government).
In 1924, the courts awarded £20,000 to Michael Comyn’s clients, which likely represented a portion of the remaining Dáil Loan funds allocated to the anti-Treaty faction or their legal representatives. This award was part of a broader settlement or judgment regarding the control of these funds, which had been deposited in various banks and trusts during and after the War of Independence.
Comyn’s Role:
As a barrister, Michael Comyn’s involvement was legal, advocating for the anti-Treaty republicans’ claim to the funds. His brother, James Comyn, as a solicitor, may have assisted in preparing the case, but Michael, as the barrister, would have argued it in court.
The £20,000 award was likely a legal fee or a portion of the funds allocated to the anti-Treaty side, reflecting Comyn’s success in securing their claim against competing claims from the Free State government or other parties.
Connection to James O’Mara’s Disagreement with de Valera:
James O’Mara’s disagreement with Éamon de Valera in 1921 centered on the management and control of the Dáil Loan funds raised in the U.S. (approximately $10 million, equivalent to ~$500 million today). The key points of their dispute were:
Nature of the Disagreement:
O’Mara, as a trustee of the Dáil funds and a leader in the American Association for the Recognition of the Irish Republic (AARIR), clashed with de Valera over how the funds should be used and who should control their distribution. De Valera sought centralized control, while O’Mara favored a more independent approach, particularly regarding the AARIR’s operations and the allocation of funds for propaganda and political activities in the U.S.
This disagreement led to O’Mara’s resignation in May 1921 from his trusteeship, his Dáil seat, and his role in the AARIR. He returned to Ireland in July 1921, as the Truce was signed, ending his direct involvement with the funds.
Are These the Same Funds?:
Yes, the funds in the IRA funds case that Michael Comyn was involved with are likely the same as those raised through the Dáil Loan, which James O’Mara helped collect and manage in 1919-1921. The Irish Republican Loan was the primary financial mechanism for the Dáil Éireann and the IRA during the War of Independence, and its disposition became a major issue after the Treaty split the republican movement.
After the War of Independence, the remaining funds were held in trust or bank accounts, and their control was contested between the pro-Treaty Free State government (which claimed them as state assets) and the anti-Treaty republicans (who argued they belonged to the republican cause). The legal case in the 1920s, in which Comyn secured £20,000, was part of this broader dispute over the Dáil Loan funds.
While O’Mara’s disagreement with de Valera in 1921 was about the immediate use and control of these funds during the fundraising campaign, the later IRA funds case (1924) dealt with the same pool of money in a different context—post-Treaty disputes over ownership. Thus, the funds are connected, but the issues (O’Mara’s strategic disagreement vs. Comyn’s legal representation) occurred at different stages and for different reasons.
Key Differences and Connections:
O’Mara’s Role (1919-1921): Focused on raising and managing the Dáil Loan funds in the U.S., with a specific dispute over their use and control, leading to his resignation.
Comyn’s Role (1924): As a barrister, he represented the anti-Treaty side in a legal battle to secure a portion of the same funds after the political split caused by the Treaty. His success in winning £20,000 was a legal outcome, not a direct continuation of O’Mara’s earlier disagreement.
Connection via de Valera: Both O’Mara and Comyn were tied to de Valera, but their roles diverged. O’Mara’s fallout with de Valera in 1921 soured their relationship, while Comyn remained a loyal de Valera ally, later joining him in Fianna Fáil. The funds case in 1924 aligned with de Valera’s anti-Treaty stance, which Comyn supported legally.
Conclusion:
The £20,000 awarded in the IRA funds case, where Michael Comyn acted as a barrister, likely pertains to the same Dáil Loan funds that James O’Mara helped raise and disagreed with de Valera over in 1919-1921. While the funds are the same, the contexts differ: O’Mara’s dispute was about their strategic use during the War of Independence, while Comyn’s legal case addressed their ownership after the Treaty split. Michael Comyn’s role was legal advocacy for the anti-Treaty republicans, and his brother James, as a solicitor, may have supported the case administratively. There is no direct evidence that Comyn’s legal work was influenced by O’Mara’s earlier disagreement, but both were part of the broader struggle over the Dáil Loan’s legacy.
If you have specific documents (e.g., court records from the 1924 case or correspondence between Comyn and de Valera) or want me to search for additional sources on X or the web, let me know, and I can refine the analysis further.
Anwsering Independent 28th March 1932 (link from National Library Ireland) entered into Grok3 AI.
The President’s attitude: Hours of discussion with lawyers: Saorstat’s advance: Independent Labour MP’s Stand. President de Valera and three lawyers, Mr Conor Maguire K.C. Attorney General, Mr Gavan Duffy, one of the Treaty signatories, Senator Michael Comyn K.C. spent several hours during the weekend conidering Mr J.H. Thomas’s statement and preparing a copy the political correspondent of the Irish Independent.
On March 28, 1932, the Irish Independent reported that President Éamon de Valera, along with three prominent lawyers—Conor Maguire K.C. (Attorney General), George Gavan Duffy (a signatory of the Anglo-Irish Treaty), and Senator Michael Comyn K.C.—spent several hours over the weekend discussing a response to a statement made by J.H. Thomas, the British Dominions Secretary. The discussions focused on Thomas’s remarks regarding the Irish Free State’s obligations, particularly concerning the land annuities and other financial agreements tied to the 1921 Anglo-Irish Treaty. The group was preparing a formal reply, as noted by the political correspondent of the Irish Independent.
This meeting occurred in the context of de Valera’s recent rise to power in March 1932, after Fianna Fáil’s election victory. De Valera aimed to dismantle aspects of the Anglo-Irish Treaty, including withholding land annuities owed to Britain, which sparked the Anglo-Irish Trade War. The involvement of Maguire, Duffy, and Comyn, all legal experts, suggests a careful legal strategy to justify the Free State’s position. Gavan Duffy, with his experience as a Treaty signatory and advisor on the 1937 Constitution, and Comyn, who had advised withholding annuities, were key in shaping de Valera’s approach. The Irish Independent article also mentioned the Independent Labour MP’s stance, likely referring to British Labour MPs’ reactions to the escalating tensions, though specific details on their position are not provided in the available information.
The discussions reflect de Valera’s broader policy of asserting greater Irish sovereignty, leveraging legal arguments to challenge British claims, and navigating the complex political and economic fallout from the Treaty’s provisions.
Grok3
15 web pages
The British Note I understand lays stress on article 1. of the Treaty under which the Saorstat is pronounced as having “the same constitutional status in the Community of Nations known as the British Empire and the Dominion status of Canada”.It then cites how the articles of the Treaty fit into this situation and draws the connection that the Oath in the Saorstat is obligatory in exactly the same way that it is in Canada. The attitude President de Vakera will adopt to this line of reasonong is that the position of the Saorstat has advanced far beyond that which it enjoyed in 1921, when the Treaty was negotiated; that a series enticements and declaration following on the Imperial Conferences of 1926 and 1930, have materially altered that position both in respect of Canada and the Saorstat and that Britain now must recognise that the Oath “is completely out of place in a political agreement between two countries.
Submission to the Cabinet. The Attorney General and two other lawyers will submit their views in writing to the President who will then prepare a reply to be sent. He will place the document before the Cabinet on tomorrow or Wednesday and it may be despatched on Wednesday night. Sghould it provoke another reply from Briatain as I likely will, President de Valera may desire to reply further and until the correspondence closes, nothing it is understood will be released officially for publication.
The Irish Independent article from March 28, 1932, outlines the British government’s position, as articulated in a diplomatic note, which emphasized Article 1 of the 1921 Anglo-Irish Treaty. This article granted the Irish Free State (Saorstat) the same constitutional status within the British Empire as Canada, asserting that the Oath of Allegiance, required under the Treaty, was obligatory in the same manner as in Canada. The British argument framed the Free State’s obligations as equivalent to those of other Dominions, rooted in the Treaty’s legal framework.
President Éamon de Valera’s response, as discussed with Attorney General Conor Maguire, George Gavan Duffy, and Senator Michael Comyn, rejected this view. De Valera argued that the Free State’s constitutional position had significantly evolved since 1921, citing developments from the Imperial Conferences of 1926 and 1930 (not 1929, as the article likely misstated). These conferences, particularly the 1926 Balfour Declaration and the 1931 Statute of Westminster, recognized greater autonomy for Dominions, effectively loosening the legal ties to Britain.De Valera contended that these advancements rendered the Oath of Allegiance—an obligation to swear loyalty to the British Crown—outdated and inappropriate for a sovereign agreement between two nations.
The lawyers were tasked with drafting a written response, which de Valera would review and present to the Free State Cabinet on Tuesday or Wednesday (March 29 or 30, 1932). The finalized reply was expected to be sent to Britain by Wednesday night. The article notes that, anticipating further British responses, de Valera intended to keep the correspondence confidential until the exchange concluded, reflecting a cautious approach to avoid premature public escalation.
This stance aligns with de Valera’s broader policy of dismantling Treaty constraints, particularly the Oath, which he viewed as a symbol of subservience. The legal expertise of Maguire, Duffy, and Comyn was crucial in framing the Free State’s position as consistent with international law and Dominion status, challenging Britain’s interpretation while navigating the risk of economic repercussions, such as the looming Anglo-Irish Trade War over issues like the land annuities.
The Irish Independent article from March 28, 1932, details the British government’s diplomatic note, which emphasized Article 1 of the 1921 Anglo-Irish Treaty, granting the Irish Free State (Saorstat) the same constitutional status within the British Empire as Canada. The note argued that the Oath of Allegiance, required by the Treaty, was obligatory in the same manner as in Canada, tying the Free State’s obligations to Dominion status.
President Éamon de Valera, in consultation with Attorney General Conor Maguire, George Gavan Duffy, and Senator Michael Comyn, rejected this position. De Valera argued that the Free State’s constitutional status had advanced significantly since 1921, citing developments from the Imperial Conferences of 1926 and 1930. These conferences, particularly the 1926 Balfour Declaration and the 1931 Statute of Westminster, recognized greater Dominion autonomy, weakening Britain’s legal claims. De Valera maintained that these changes made the Oath of Allegiance outdated and inappropriate for a sovereign agreement between two nations.
The lawyers were preparing a written response for de Valera to review and submit to the Free State Cabinet on Tuesday or Wednesday (March 29 or 30, 1932). The finalized reply was expected to be sent to Britain by Wednesday night. Anticipating further British responses, de Valera planned to keep the correspondence confidential until the exchange concluded, avoiding premature public disclosure.
This approach reflects de Valera’s strategy to challenge Treaty constraints, particularly the Oath, using legal arguments grounded in the evolved Dominion status, while carefully managing the diplomatic and economic risks, such as the emerging Anglo-Irish Trade War over issues like land annuities.
Removal of the Oath of Allegiance Michael Comyn K.C.
Senator Michael Comyn K.C., mentioned in the Irish Independent article from March 28, 1932, was a key legal advisor to President Éamon de Valera during discussions on the British note defending the Oath of Allegiance under the 1921 Anglo-Irish Treaty. Comyn, alongside Attorney General Conor Maguire and George Gavan Duffy, helped craft de Valera’s response, arguing that the Irish Free State’s constitutional status had advanced beyond 1921, rendering the Oath—an obligation to swear loyalty to the British Crown—outdated, based on the 1926 Balfour Declaration and 1931 Statute of Westminster.
Comyn’s involvement was significant due to his legal expertise and prior advocacy for challenging Treaty obligations. In 1931, as a barrister, he represented James O’Mara in a High Court case against paying land annuities to Britain, arguing they were an unconstitutional burden. Although the case was dismissed, it aligned with de Valera’s broader policy of dismantling Treaty constraints, including the Oath. Comyn’s legal arguments likely bolstered de Valera’s position that the Oath was incompatible with the Free State’s evolved sovereignty.
The Oath’s removal was a central Fianna Fáil objective. After taking office in March 1932, de Valera introduced the Constitution (Removal of Oath) Bill in 1932, which passed in 1933 despite opposition from Cumann na nGaedheal and the Senate. This legislation eliminated the Oath from the Free State Constitution, escalating tensions with Britain and contributing to the Anglo-Irish Trade War. Comyn’s role in these early discussions was pivotal in framing the legal and political strategy for this transformative step.
The Heritage Foundation — the group behind the infamous Project 2025, the conservative policy plan that outlined regressive social policies and the consolidation of executive power that’s served as a playbook for the Trump administration — is suddenly really, really down with AI regulation. Who could have guessed!
The conservative think tank has recently been sharing a clip from a May episode of the “Heritage Explains” podcast in which Wesley Hodges, the Heritage Foundation’s Acting Director of the Center for Technology and the Human Person, rails against the social media giant Meta for releasing chatbots that, as a disturbing report in The Wall Street Journal revealed, were able to engage in explicitly sexual interactions with minor users.
Hodges, decked in a Federalist Society tie, expresses outrage as he discusses the findings in the WSJ story, which included the remarkable detail that Meta CEO Mark Zuckerberg was aware of possible lapses in the bots’ guardrails and yet unleashed them anyway, as his fear of risk of missing out on market gains proved greater than his desire to ensure the safety of minor users.
“It’s ridiculous to think that, in today’s America, we can rely on these apps without safeguards,” Hodges declares.
Hodges is entirely right to be concerned. After all, chatbots’ enduring propensity to engage in flirtatious and sexual conversations with users is a known and common feature of anthropomorphicAI assistants and companions, and one likely linked to their creators’ incentive to keep users engaged with the bots for as long as possible. In other words: this was far from an unforeseeable risk, and Meta chose to prioritize speed to market over developing airtight user guardrails.
And to Hodges’ point, the fact that Big Tech exists in a regulatory vacuum to the degree that Zuckerberg was able to weigh expediency against safety and decided that getting a competitive new product out was higher priority than possibly churning out some minor-accessible interactive porn in the process is, in his words, “ridiculous.”
And yet! This clip in mind, it seems well worth reminding the Heritage Foundation that Project 2025 calls for widespread deregulation for the AI industry, citing national security concerns about China and ensuring American AI dominance as reasons to slash any existing red tape. The think tank has also pushed hard for the passage of the Trump Administration’s Project-2025-aligned “One, Big, Beautiful Bill,” which includes a ten-year moratorium on states passing any form of AI regulation — meaning that any meaningful AI regulation would need to be passed federally, a Herculean task that ignores the ways that changing state laws influence federal policy. (It’s also officially endorsed the bill through its advocacy arm, Heritage Action for America.)
To that end, it’s worth noting that Hodges and The Heritage Foundation couch their criticism of Meta in the context of parental rights, an important talking point on the conservative right. But while we’d agree that the implementation of parental controls and transparency for parents around kids’ AI use is important, that doesn’t really seem to get at the core of the issue here.
Right now, the AI industry is gunning ahead Torpedo Ted-style on a road that doesn’t really have any rules — and yet, somehow, is also covered with innocent bystanders. The legal and scientific worlds, meanwhile, are racing to catch up, and while the future AI industry leaders promise is dazzling, the immediate consequences are manifold and go far beyond minors accessing interactive porn.
At least one teen, a 14-year-old in Florida named Sewell Setzer III, took his life after extensive interactions with an AI chatbot hosted by the company Character.AI, a company that — while declining to provide journalists with evidence of its safety for minors — has always been accessible to teens 13 and over. Energy-hungry AI data centers are causing water battles and smothering local communities in asthma-worsening fumes. Adults, too, are entering dire mental health crises as they become obsessed with chatbots like OpenAI’s ChatGPT, causing marriages and families to crumble and people to lose jobs and homes — and, in at least one known case, culminating in a user losing his life.
Under the conditions of the bill that the Heritage Foundation’s advocacy arm has indeed endorsed, states can’t issue AI-specific regulation — mandatory safety requirements before a product reaches the public, for example, or subjecting AI companies to significant fines for failing to curb foreseeable risks — to rein in Silicon Valley’s powerful AI players.
Managing the impacts of powerful technologies, then, falls once again to the public — including, by the way, to parents, who are struggling to understand a new, easily-accessible piece of technology as it collides with them and their families. And we’re pretty sure that the Heritage Foundation has some thoughts on how that same strategy has gone over on social media.
Source: Midjourney v7
