Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Freeman Megamerge

Options
1…129130132134135…283

Comments

  • Options
    #3932
    ArmaniJeanss
    Registered Users Posts: 13,296 ✭✭✭✭ArmaniJeanss


    Hubbies have broken with tradition and put up the actual ruling rather than just their interpretation of it, so they must feel they are on terra firma.
    Perhaps the legalistas here can decipher?

    http://www.thehub-ireland.com/ms-justice-murphys-ruling/


  • Options
    #3933
    whippet
    Registered Users Posts: 7,668 ✭✭✭whippet


    ArmaniJeanss wrote: »
    Hubbies have broken with tradition and put up the actual ruling rather than just their interpretation of it, so they must feel they are on terra firma.
    Perhaps the legalistas here can decipher?

    http://www.thehub-ireland.com/ms-justice-murphys-ruling/

    I just had a quick scan of the decision at the end ... this is the bit that I quite enjoy:

    'In doing so, the court observes the defendant' success on this aspect of the case is a pyrrhic victory. In circumstances where there is no dispute that the defendants borrowed the money and no dispute that they ceased making the agreed repayments in August 2011. this judgement merely postpones the day of reckoning while their debts keeps mounting. So be it."

    Pyrrhic Victory


  • Options
    #3934
    eldamo
    Registered Users Posts: 3,130 ✭✭✭eldamo


    whippet wrote: »
    I just had a quick scan of the decision at the end ... this is the bit that I quite enjoy:

    'In doing so, the court observes the defendant' success on this aspect of the case is a pyrrhic victory. In circumstances where there is no dispute that the defendants borrowed the money and no dispute that they ceased making the agreed repayments in August 2011. this judgement merely postpones the day of reckoning while their debts keeps mounting. So be it."

    Pyrrhic Victory

    your scanning is faster than mine, well spotted, there was always going to be something like this,
    The amount of back patting going on over at the hub is mental,

    i really do think you need to post the definition of pyrrhic victory on bookface for them? (or do they have you blocked like Jeff (sorry, just reading over the DDI thread lately))


  • Options
    #3935
    whippet
    Registered Users Posts: 7,668 ✭✭✭whippet


    eldamo wrote: »
    your scanning is faster than mine, well spotted, there was always going to be something like this,
    The amount of back patting going on over at the hub is mental,

    i really do think you need to post the definition of pyrrhic victory on bookface for them? (or do they have you blocked like Jeff (sorry, just reading over the DDI thread lately))

    I'm blocked / banned from them all!


  • Options
    #3936
    eldamo
    Registered Users Posts: 3,130 ✭✭✭eldamo


    whippet wrote: »
    I just had a quick scan of the decision at the end ... this is the bit that I quite enjoy:

    'In doing so, the court observes the defendant' success on this aspect of the case is a pyrrhic victory. In circumstances where there is no dispute that the defendants borrowed the money and no dispute that they ceased making the agreed repayments in August 2011. this judgement merely postpones the day of reckoning while their debts keeps mounting. So be it."

    Pyrrhic Victory

    Wow they have actually highlighted right up to that line.

    Clearly they have deemed it unimportant.

    it just reminds me of this scene from mallrats (not relevant but...)
    T.S. Quint: [reading the break-up letter that Renee gave Brodie] Woah, she calls you "callow" in here.
    Brodie: You say that like it's bad.
    T.S. Quint: It means frightened and weak-willed.
    Brodie: Really? ****. That was the only part of the letter I thought was complimentary.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #3937
    johnnyskeleton
    Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 14,466 Mod ✭✭✭✭johnnyskeleton


    ArmaniJeanss wrote: »
    Hubbies have broken with tradition and put up the actual ruling rather than just their interpretation of it, so they must feel they are on terra firma.
    Perhaps the legalistas here can decipher?

    http://www.thehub-ireland.com/ms-justice-murphys-ruling/


    To be fair to them, credit where credit is due.

    Basically, the jurisdiction of the circuit court was set at a time when the easiest way to assess the value of property was by reference to the rateable value, which was updated ala the household/property charge thingy. Residential rates were abolished in the 1970s but the system of ratable valuation remained. As a lot of properties had ratable values still existing from the 70s, it was convenient to keep this and so as the monetary jurisdiction for, say, personal injuries was increased, the rateable values stayed more or less the same.

    Thus, the million euro houses had a ratable value of less than €254 and so could be dealt with in the circuit court.

    For new builds, no new ratable values were assigned. So the local authorities would give the letter and say, effectively, this is probably of a rateable value of less than €254. By and large this system of using the ratable value of the house to give jurisdiction has not been questioned.

    The problem is that most new homes must now be repossessed in the High Court. That means that the legal costs for such repossessions has increased. It may also mean that a divorce case involving a fairly modest family home must now also go through the high court, again increasing legal fees.

    There are a few ways this can be gotten around:
    1) local authorities can carry out actual valuations for rates now. If the document was phrased as an actual rates certificate and had a ratable value of say €150, then there is not jurisdictional issue;
    2) new legislation can be passed to set the jurisdiction at, say, the declared value for the purposes of the property register;
    3) cases can just go into the High Court without bothering to check if there is circuit court jurisdiction.

    Some High Court Judges will only award Circuit Court costs in uncontested cases brought in the High Court. This practice will probably cease because they now have to bring the cases in the High Court.

    While Circuit Court cases had a right of appeal de novo (i.e. fresh full hearing of the case) to the High Court, in the High Court you can only appeal on a point of law to the Court of Appeal.

    Cases already decided are not likely to be reopened because jurisdiction was not challenged in them. Even if they were, there is no damage because it is unlikely that a different result would have been achieved in the High Court.

    So yeah, I say fair play in the sense that they spotted a point and won on it. But in terms of the consequences, it basically means that people facing repossesion will now face higher costs and may have to travel to Dublin rather than have the case heard in their local circuit, without a right of de novo appeal.


  • Options
    #3938
    Losty Dublin
    Registered Users Posts: 12,972 ✭✭✭✭Losty Dublin


    johnnyskeleton wrote: »
    To be fair to them, credit where credit is due.

    .

    Monkey's and typewriters and Shakespeare come to mind for some reason :)


  • Options
    #3939
    cobhguy28
    Registered Users Posts: 301 ✭✭cobhguy28


    johnnyskeleton wrote: »
    To be fair to them, credit where credit is due.

    Basically, the jurisdiction of the circuit court was set at a time when the easiest way to assess the value of property was by reference to the rateable value, which was updated ala the household/property charge thingy. Residential rates were abolished in the 1970s but the system of ratable valuation remained. As a lot of properties had ratable values still existing from the 70s, it was convenient to keep this and so as the monetary jurisdiction for, say, personal injuries was increased, the rateable values stayed more or less the same.

    Thus, the million euro houses had a ratable value of less than €254 and so could be dealt with in the circuit court.

    For new builds, no new ratable values were assigned. So the local authorities would give the letter and say, effectively, this is probably of a rateable value of less than €254. By and large this system of using the ratable value of the house to give jurisdiction has not been questioned.

    The problem is that most new homes must now be repossessed in the High Court. That means that the legal costs for such repossessions has increased. It may also mean that a divorce case involving a fairly modest family home must now also go through the high court, again increasing legal fees.

    There are a few ways this can be gotten around:
    1) local authorities can carry out actual valuations for rates now. If the document was phrased as an actual rates certificate and had a ratable value of say €150, then there is not jurisdictional issue;
    2) new legislation can be passed to set the jurisdiction at, say, the declared value for the purposes of the property register;
    3) cases can just go into the High Court without bothering to check if there is circuit court jurisdiction.

    Some High Court Judges will only award Circuit Court costs in uncontested cases brought in the High Court. This practice will probably cease because they now have to bring the cases in the High Court.

    While Circuit Court cases had a right of appeal de novo (i.e. fresh full hearing of the case) to the High Court, in the High Court you can only appeal on a point of law to the Court of Appeal.

    Cases already decided are not likely to be reopened because jurisdiction was not challenged in them. Even if they were, there is no damage because it is unlikely that a different result would have been achieved in the High Court.

    So yeah, I say fair play in the sense that they spotted a point and won on it. But in terms of the consequences, it basically means that people facing repossesion will now face higher costs and may have to travel to Dublin rather than have the case heard in their local circuit, without a right of de novo appeal.

    I have read the.judgement it's a start mortgages type situation.

    it only applys to cases in the circuit court where the mortgage was taken before 2009 and processings where stated before the 2013 conveyancing act came into being. In all other cases the circuit court still has jurisdiction.
    The 2009 act only applys to mortgages after the act came into being. The 2013 fixes this but excludes case already in court like this case so should of been in high court. No change to law here solicitors ****ed the case.


  • Options
    #3940
    Robbo
    Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 10,555 Mod ✭✭✭✭Robbo


    Lord Byron there, making sure to add a big asterix next to their Pyrrhic victory.
    The Circuit Court. Don't forget = anything we put up is not to be construed as legal advice in anyway shape or form. For entertainment purposes only. Go have fun and why not test run this. We are not saying it will work but according to the Lay Litigate book, it should.
    LLI moved one of their recent sessions to the Black Sheep on Capel St. Given that on any given schoolnight, you'll find a good selection of the junior Bar there, I'm sure there was much scope for heckling.


  • Options
    #3941
    cobhguy28
    Registered Users Posts: 301 ✭✭cobhguy28


    This is not really freeman stuff but the likes of the hub and stuff are all ways on about banks not following the Central Banks consumer codes.

    A recent supreme court decession on Consumer Code.

    Irish Life and Permanent plc -v- Dunne and Irish Life and Permanent plc -v- Dunphy

    http://www.courts.ie/Judgments.nsf/bce24a8184816f1580256ef30048ca50/f208c356b1843cd280257e460057e798?OpenDocument

    7.2 So far as questions (ii) and (iii) in the Dunnes’ case are concerned, I would answer those questions by indicating that, where a breach of the Code involves a failure by a lender to abide by the moratorium referred to in the Code, but in no other circumstances, non-compliance with the Code affects, as a matter of law, a relevant lender’s entitlement to obtain an order for possession. I would further clarify that it is a matter for the relevant lender to establish by appropriate evidence in any application before the Court that compliance with that aspect of the Code has occurred.

    So it seem bank only have to comply with the moratorium.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #3942
    eldamo
    Registered Users Posts: 3,130 ✭✭✭eldamo


    Ok, a video was posted here yesterday that was promptly removed, not sure if by mods or by the OP, so if this question is not welcome here, please remove it.

    Anyway, during said video, people repeatedly informed the Gardai that they had no power to arrest someone in a public court room.

    Is this random nonsense or is there any grounds to it?

    I am so fed up with these guys that I tend to discount everything they say.


  • Options
    #3943
    Little CuChulainn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,624 ✭✭✭Little CuChulainn


    eldamo wrote: »
    Ok, a video was posted here yesterday that was promptly removed, not sure if by mods or by the OP, so if this question is not welcome here, please remove it.

    Anyway, during said video, people repeatedly informed the Gardai that they had no power to arrest someone in a public court room.

    Is this random nonsense or is there any grounds to it?

    I am so fed up with these guys that I tend to discount everything they say.

    It's nonsense. It's also probably the only place that a Garda can take your phone for recording.


  • Options
    #3944
    cobhguy28
    Registered Users Posts: 301 ✭✭cobhguy28


    eldamo wrote: »
    Ok, a video was posted here yesterday that was promptly removed, not sure if by mods or by the OP, so if this question is not welcome here, please remove it.

    Anyway, during said video, people repeatedly informed the Gardai that they had no power to arrest someone in a public court room.

    Is this random nonsense or is there any grounds to it?

    I am so fed up with these guys that I tend to discount everything they say.

    Yes I saw that it was removed. I say it's because it could be a contempt of court to record in court and publish it.

    The best thing in that video was the person saying you can not arrest someone in court and at the same time tell the garda that he is under arrest you could not make it up.


  • Options
    #3945
    Thargor
    Registered Users Posts: 17,869 ✭✭✭✭Thargor


    Still up in the O Donnell thread...


  • Options
    #3946
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    The Video is still here


  • Options
    #3947
    eldamo
    Registered Users Posts: 3,130 ✭✭✭eldamo


    cobhguy28 wrote: »
    Yes I saw that it was removed. I say it's because it's a contempt of court to record in court and publish it.

    The best thing in that video was the person saying you can not arrest someone in court and at the same time tell the garda that he is under arrest you could not make it up.

    Yeah, as always they are anything but a united front, all these guys putting forward their own contradictory nonsense notions


  • Options
    #3948
    For Forks Sake
    Registered Users Posts: 11,477 ✭✭✭✭For Forks Sake


    Deleted User wrote: »
    The Video is still here

    Not any more. Look for "RealityIreland" on YouTube.


  • Options
    #3949
    hullaballoo
    Administrators, Entertainment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 18,710 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭hullaballoo


    Moderator:

    Please do not post videos taken within the confines of a courthouse.

    I'd also prefer if you didn't discuss ways of ripping potentially copyrighted material from video hosting sites.


  • Options
    #3950
    eldamo
    Registered Users Posts: 3,130 ✭✭✭eldamo


    hullaballoo wrote: »
    Moderator:

    Please do not post videos taken within the confines of a courthouse.

    I'd also prefer if you didn't discuss ways of ripping potentially copyrighted material from video hosting sites.

    Could there be repercussions for the uploader of the video to YouTube?
    Seeing as the video should not have been taken in the first place?

    (don't mean to drag on the discussion if you don't want it though)


  • Options
    #3951
    Pat Mustard
    Registered Users Posts: 9,554 ✭✭✭Pat Mustard


    eldamo wrote: »
    Anyway, during said video, people repeatedly informed the Gardai that they had no power to arrest someone in a public court room.

    This idea about Gardai not being able to arrest people in a courtroom is more nonsense.

    The post to which you refer was removed because the user who posted it is persona non grata here.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #3952
    eldamo
    Registered Users Posts: 3,130 ✭✭✭eldamo


    Pat Mustard wrote: »
    This idea about Gardai not being able to arrest people in a courtroom is more nonsense.

    The post to which you refer was removed because the user who posted it is persona non grata here.

    He seems to be having a bit of an identity crisis alright.


  • Options
    #3953
    Robbo
    Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 10,555 Mod ✭✭✭✭Robbo


    I see DDI are sponsoring a kids football team. Were the members polled on how funds were to be allocated? Does the team have a coach or is the starting team chosen by way of 11 way referendum?


  • Options
    #3954
    ArmaniJeanss
    Registered Users Posts: 13,296 ✭✭✭✭ArmaniJeanss


    Robbo wrote: »
    I see DDI are sponsoring a kids football team. Were the members polled on how funds were to be allocated? Does the team have a coach or is the starting team chosen by way of 11 way referendum?

    WYFC is a club dedicated to social inclusion and the very nature of involvement and participation in sport for those with fewer opportunities. It is a club run by people who understand what it is like to feel left out due to social or financial difficulties....

    ...while WYFC is a football club, it is more concerned with fostering community development and the well-being of its members by creating a safe environment for children and parents to participate socially as well as physically, rather than concentrate on competitive football.


    **********
    Sounds absolutely terrible, destined to be withdrawn halfway through the season when the 3 good players leave to join serious outfits.


  • Options
    #3955
    Robbo
    Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 10,555 Mod ✭✭✭✭Robbo


    ArmaniJeanss wrote: »
    WYFC is a club dedicated to social inclusion and the very nature of involvement and participation in sport for those with fewer opportunities. It is a club run by people who understand what it is like to feel left out due to social or financial difficulties....

    ...while WYFC is a football club, it is more concerned with fostering community development and the well-being of its members by creating a safe environment for children and parents to participate socially as well as physically, rather than concentrate on competitive football.


    **********
    Sounds absolutely terrible, destined to be withdrawn halfway through the season when the 3 good players leave to join serious outfits.
    "Nothing could more epitomise direct democracy in action than everyone voting to put the fat kid in goals."


  • Options
    #3956
    hullaballoo
    Administrators, Entertainment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 18,710 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭hullaballoo


    eldamo wrote: »
    Could there be repercussions for the uploader of the video to YouTube?
    Seeing as the video should not have been taken in the first place?

    (don't mean to drag on the discussion if you don't want it though)

    I think the question is on topic because this is the practice of these cretins.

    Yes, the uploader is in contempt as well. So are YouTube but Google don't give a fcuk about that sort of thing and the reality is that it would take a judge to be made aware that this sort of thing is going on and take steps then. It's a little unclear how you would proceed in trying to deal with this issue as a judge, imo.

    YouTube didn't exist until a decade ago and, frankly, the law has been slow to react.


  • Options
    #3957
    Thargor
    Registered Users Posts: 17,869 ✭✭✭✭Thargor


    So if a guard cant arrest you in court can I stab the judge at my next court appearance?


  • Options
    #3958
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    There is a long-standing practice that where someone is set free from Court during a criminal trial the Gardai will not arrest them again (assuming they need to be re-arrested) until they have left the precincts of the Court. This is to avoid any issue of the Gardai disobeying a direction of the Court.


  • Options
    #3959
    relax carry on
    Registered Users Posts: 4,072 ✭✭✭relax carry on


    Looks like the Journal has picked up the story. Complete with the obligatory "protestor" with a heart condition. Am really tired of these gobs**tes!

    Protesters ‘forcibly’ removed from Mayo repossession hearing http://jrnl.ie/2125122 via TheJournal.ie


  • Options
    #3960
    Timberrrrrrrr
    Registered Users Posts: 25,407 ✭✭✭✭Timberrrrrrrr


    relax carry on wrote: »
    Looks like the Journal has picked up the story. Complete with the obligatory "protestor" with a heart condition. Am really tired of these gobs**tes!

    Protesters ‘forcibly’ removed from Mayo repossession hearing http://jrnl.ie/2125122 via TheJournal.ie

    The hell was he doing there in the first place if he was in such a bad way?
    He claimed that one man with heart issues and a broken hip had to be hospitalised after he was knocked to the ground during the incident.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #3961
    eldamo
    Registered Users Posts: 3,130 ✭✭✭eldamo


    relax carry on wrote: »
    Looks like the Journal has picked up the story. Complete with the obligatory "protestor" with a heart condition. Am really tired of these gobs**tes!

    Protesters ‘forcibly’ removed from Mayo repossession hearing http://jrnl.ie/2125122 via TheJournal.ie
    Had a distinct similarity to homer Simpsons haemophilia...


Advertisement