The time is surely fast approaching when the Flood tribunal will have to take meaningful action against the foot-dragging, faulty recollections and half truths that have become its regular diet.
For months now a succession of witnesses have come to the box in Dublin Castle to deliver . . . well, not very much. Documents are provided tardily, if at all. Memories of the crucial events under investigation are almost non-existent.
Stories are moulded to fit the evidence available, and when that evidence changes, the stories are reshaped.
Elaborate excuses are served up, only to be knocked down by tribunal lawyers after they are properly investigated.
You have to be present in the tribunal hall each day to appreciate properly the gobsmackingly brazen replies given by some witnesses.
Everyone knows you don't get anywhere in business without being meticulous, firm and even ruthless. Yet leading business figures expect us to believe that they never kept records, never struck written agreements and never really understood what advisers were doing on their behalf.
They didn't know what was going on in their bank accounts and, in some cases, were unable to access their own money.
Mr Justice Flood has presided over this nonsense with patience, only occasionally losing his temper at the guff delivered from the witness box.
On numerous occasions, he has delivered formal warnings to witnesses who were failing to co-operate, but has stopped short of following up on these threats.
But the day of reckoning is fast approaching. The tribunal cannot continue issuing warnings without having the resolve to follow them up. Neither can it tolerate the massive time-wasting involved. If it does, the tribunal will still be in existence come the end of this decade.
It is four years now since the Oireachtas voted to set it up. The politicians democratically elected by the people agreed to establish an inquiry into matters of "urgent public interest". Yet the tribunal has yet to deliver even an interim report.
It has yet to reach the halfway point, largely because its progress is being obstructed on an almost daily basis.
It is true that Liam Lawlor was jailed for a week earlier this year arising from his dealings with the tribunal. However, Lawlor's incarceration had more to do with his insolence than his failure to co-operate.
He reacted to the tribunal's summons by telling this reporter he had "no intention" of attending. His friends let it be known that he would be playing golf rather than giving evidence.
He paid the price for being cheeky more than anything else.
Not everyone has been so stupid. Repeatedly, unctuously, other potential witnesses have professed their willingness to co-operate with the tribunal. Yet their actions have been at odds with their words.
They spin things out as long as possible by engaging in protracted correspondence with tribunal lawyers.
They answer questions they weren't asked, and fail to answer questions they were asked.
They cite dead people who can't answer back in support of their stories.
They pass the buck to their advisers, or anyone else who suits. They avoid yes/no answers in favour of "I can't recollect", to avoid getting caught out later.
When Mr Justice Flood finally threatens them with High Court proceedings, they throw out a few morsels of new information to keep the tribunal lawyers at bay. The evidence continues and the warnings are forgotten.
Meanwhile, the game of "pass the parcel" leads often to the world's offshore tax havens - the Channel Islands, the Isle of Man, Liechtenstein, the British Virgin Islands. And there the money trail ends, invariably, as secretive banks and lawyers roll down the shutters on interference from Ireland.
All this begs another question: will the taxpayer end up footing the bill for this carry-on?
Are those responsible for the endless delays going to benefit from their activity by having their handsome legal fees paid from the public purse?
Mr Justice Flood has the power to withhold the payment of the costs of legal representation if he deems that any party has failed to co-operate. He can also impose the costs incurred by the tribunal.
The chairman has waved this stick on several occasions but has yet to tell anyone his costs will not be covered.
Faced with such levels of non-co-operation, the tribunal now stands at a crossroads. Either it deals with this defiance, or it doesn't. Either it huffs and puffs, or it takes real action.
The only reason for not sending these matters to the High Court or the DPP is the likelihood that this will generate further litigation and delays.
But if the tribunal doesn't act, it faces an enormous loss of credibility and the public faces a massive bill.
Paul Cullen is an Irish Times journalist and has been reporting the Flood tribunal since its inception