Validate your claim. If I owe you money, prove it.

Finnbar01 · 27-08-2011 9:01am #1

Debt advisor to bring 'Freedom Bus' to Cork
A Mayo man who succeeded in having his mortgage written off by an Irish bank will bring his ‘Life after Debt’ campaign to Leeside next week. Darrell O’Dea is the author of ‘Blank of Ireland’ and says he and his team will bring their Freedom Bus to Cork city on Thursday, August 25th before holding a public meeting in the Metropole Hotel later the same evening.

“I went down the road of legally challenging the banks because they had taken everything off me,” he explained to the Cork News. “I had nothing left. I was suicidal and in a very bad place until a friend of mine told me that he could teach me about the law and legality so that I could take them on in a non-violent, passive way.

There were three questions I asked – I wanted to see the original contract if it existed, I wanted to see their accounts in order to demonstrate how anything I had done had created a loss on their books and I wanted them to provide a lawful invoice for goods or services they had supplied

I don't believe the full truth is being told here.

http://thecorknews.ie/articles/campaigner-tells-banks-if-i-owe-you-money-prove-it

MagicSean · 27-08-2011 9:07am

Of course it isn't. The three things he looked for could quite easily be proven. They probably just figured he was a nutcase and felt sorry for him. Probably have a judgement against his house.

Finnbar01 · 27-08-2011 9:16am

Seanbeag1 wrote: »

Of course it isn't. The three things he looked for could quite easily be proven. They probably just figured he was a nutcase and felt sorry for him. Probably have a judgement against his house.

Problem is though other people may be fooled and go along with this guy.

This guy cropped up before when caught speeding by the gardaí. I don't know how that played out.

Our man in Havana · 27-08-2011 2:18pm

More freeman nonsense. Yawn!

not even wrong · 27-08-2011 2:24pm

So I downloaded the PDF out of curiosity and the first thing I see is:

By: Darrell : of the Ancient Clan O’Deaghadh

More freeman nonsense indeed.

Edit: the guy admits himself he didn' t even get his mortgage written off: (p51)

Simply because, the BANK OF IRELAND / ICS Building Society still write to us making demands for money, and they are still verbally, and in writing, threatening my business partners with total ruination.

double edit: the PDF is well worth a read if you could do with a laugh, some great stuff in there:

What are the Constituent Parts of a VALID CONTRACT?
...
3. A WET INK signature by YOU a real-life Man or Woman in
blue ink. (Blue represents real-life).

O'Coonassa · 09-09-2011 1:14pm

not even wrong wrote: »

double edit: the PDF is well worth a read if you could do with a laugh, some great stuff in there:

In other words when you are conned into transacting a deal with
them, they have NO VALUABLE CONSIDERATION. When you sign
their document, all that happens is that they create digital money.
YOUR SIGNATURE facilitates them to CREATE DIGITAL CREDITS.
You have given them a VALUABLE CONSIDERATION. Your
SIGNATURE created the CREDIT. THEY HAVE GIVEN YOU
ABSOLUTELY NOTHING AT ALL – NO CONSIDERATION, NO LOAN
!
This may take YOU some time to digest … try reading it again.

This much appears to be true in essence. Can anybody who knows about the Law say why it isn't? Thanks.

blueythebear · 09-09-2011 2:21pm

O'Coonassa wrote: »

In other words when you are conned into transacting a deal with
them, they have NO VALUABLE CONSIDERATION. When you sign
their document, all that happens is that they create digital money.
YOUR SIGNATURE facilitates them to CREATE DIGITAL CREDITS.
You have given them a VALUABLE CONSIDERATION. Your
SIGNATURE created the CREDIT. THEY HAVE GIVEN YOU
ABSOLUTELY NOTHING AT ALL – NO CONSIDERATION, NO LOAN
!
This may take YOU some time to digest … try reading it again

This much appears to be true in essence. Can anybody who knows about the Law say why it isn't? Thanks.

It's not even a legal argument. It's a factual argument.

A mortgage contract is essentially the bank advancing you money to purchase a house on the basis of a promise that you will pay it back in the future. If you fail to do so, it is agreed that the Bank can seek to take the house you used their money to buy the house with.

I don't see how anybody could read the above and take it at face value. It's a ludicrous statement. If the Bank have given you nothing at all when giving you a mortgage, then how is it that you can purchase a house with these "digital credits"?

If you get a mortgage you are receiving consideration in that you receive x amount of money to use for aspecific purpose. Physical money may not change hands, but it is still an exchange of money, just as when you direct debit your bills.

jhegarty · 09-09-2011 2:25pm

If the money didn't exist then whoever you bought you house off could come after you.

swordofislam · 09-09-2011 3:59pm

I'm keenly interested in bankruptcy reform as a path to rebuilding this country and I downloaded this chaps guide to debt reform.

The poor man is clearly in some kind of mental anguish. I don't really think that it is a laughing matter.

There was a similar instance before Judge Zaidan in Kilcock last spring the defendant in a minor case (speeding fine or something similar) asked if the Road Traffic Act was 'real law or admiralty law' and demanded that judge Zaidan quote 'the real constitution and not the English blue book'.

Zaidan who is a hanger and flogger was very light with him and quoted a bit of article 34 in Irish and asked for a report on his mental health.

Reloc8 · 10-09-2011 10:55am

In other news a Garda can't arrest you unless he has his hat on

discus · 11-09-2011 9:31am

Reloc8 wrote: »

In other news a Garda can't arrest you unless he has his hat on

However that does not count if he can if he has passed his hat to a lady who needs to vacate her bowels though.

FreudianSlippers · 11-09-2011 11:27am

Reloc8 wrote: »

In other news a Garda can't arrest you unless he has his hat on

Is it made of foil?

Reloc8 · 11-09-2011 2:53pm

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Is it made of foil?

EIOQUHDGW DVP;Jegq-egv PADWV-d0rvi-po0juwd dvwpojaefjpojedfegagwwag-[0j-qafjcaq-jopmapqmnvpaqenpifoqaef0 e-fqa9-qafwq;ljmwsf

(if you understood this meet me at the next waning of the moon at the sign of the illuminumpty on masons street)

johnnyskeleton · 11-09-2011 9:47pm

Leaving aside for a moment the fact that this is nothing more than a rather bad attempt to wriggle out of paying for stuff, let's look at it from a philosophical point of view to see, not whether their views are correct or not, but whether their views would create a good society.

Please correct me if my understanding is incorrect in any part of this.

1) Because banks can create deposits and/or securitise loans, they neither had good consideration to the contract nor can they now justifyably state that they are owed the money.

So in essence, unless you can prove that you actually own money before you loan it out and hang on to that loan without selling it on to anyone else or use it for any other purpose, the loan becomes invalid. However, in essence this means that in much the same way as a bank cannot loan money it doesn't have, surely a borrower cannot borrow money that it cannot instantly pay back? I mean, if I as one party to a contract am bound to such restrictions, why isn't the other party?

So taken to a logical conclusion, not only does this policy mean the end of our current system of banking, but it also means that you can only borrow money you don't need or lend no more than half of what you own.
People would have to go back to living hand to mouth without any form of banking system.

2) Parliaments cannot enact laws that are binding, only laws that are optional. The only real law is common law, a system brought in by the British and now seriously curtailed by modern law.

The problem with this is who appoints the judges to create common law and what happens when one of them does a "high-trees" on the law? In effect, this makes the unelected judges the supreme arbiters of how we run our society, and our democratically elected government is there merely to give us guideance as to how to live.

In essence, this is a form of anarchy/libertarianism. It would be very difficult to work in practice, but as an ideal it is not bad. However, it fundamentally requires all people to be prepared to live correctly according to some unspecified set of rules. This obviously can cause difficulties.

3) You don't have to pay taxes or rates

Fine. Great. I support this policy wholeheartedly. Of course, it also means that I get no education, no healthcare, no social welfare, no police service, no defence, in short, none of the things that we in the Western world take for granted but which people in the Developing world hunger for greatly.

In short, if everybody adopted this Fremen stuff as the law, we would have a hand to mouth existence in an undemocratic nation with no healthcare, education, security or defence.

This is what Fremen advocate as their philosophy. Is it really worth this just to not have to repay bank loans or get fined for speeding in a car? Is the gaining of perceived freedom from positive law enough to justify losing everything else that the modern world has to offer?

swordofislam · 12-09-2011 7:31pm

Desmond Zaidan is more of a hanger and flogger than I thought he gave the guy 6 months!

http://www.leinsterleader.ie/news/local/man_questions_district_court_but_is_jailed_1_1940175

Read it it is funny but a bit alarming because the custodial sentence is so random.

12-09-2011 8:09pm

Best line of the article:

In handing down sentence, Judge Zaidan said he would direct Mr Sutton to get “psychiatric treatment as appropriate” while in prison.

Tom Young · 12-09-2011 8:09pm

JS hits the nail on the head again.

The charter was amended to stop the Freeman guff on this thread. We should note that. Though I note that this thread is different.

Tom

k.p.h · 12-09-2011 11:13pm

swordofislam wrote: »

Desmond Zaidan is more of a hanger and flogger than I thought he gave the guy 6 months!

http://www.leinsterleader.ie/news/local/man_questions_district_court_but_is_jailed_1_1940175

Read it it is funny but a bit alarming because the custodial sentence is so random.

:eek:

Victor · 13-09-2011 4:07am

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

The problem with this is who appoints the judges to create common law and what happens when one of them does a "high-trees" on the law?

You mean http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_London_Property_Trust_Ltd_v_High_Trees_House_Ltd ?

Victor · 13-09-2011 4:11am

http://www.leinsterleader.ie/news/local/man_questions_district_court_but_is_jailed_1_1940175

As Mr. Sutton was escorted out of the courtroom, he said: “You are breaking the law here.”

Which one?

FreudianSlippers · 13-09-2011 9:37am

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Leaving aside for a moment the fact that this is nothing more than a rather bad attempt to wriggle out of paying for stuff, let's look at it from a philosophical point of view to see, not whether their views are correct or not, but whether their views would create a good society.

Please correct me if my understanding is incorrect in any part of this.

1) Because banks can create deposits and/or securitise loans, they neither had good consideration to the contract nor can they now justifyably state that they are owed the money.

So in essence, unless you can prove that you actually own money before you loan it out and hang on to that loan without selling it on to anyone else or use it for any other purpose, the loan becomes invalid. However, in essence this means that in much the same way as a bank cannot loan money it doesn't have, surely a borrower cannot borrow money that it cannot instantly pay back? I mean, if I as one party to a contract am bound to such restrictions, why isn't the other party?

So taken to a logical conclusion, not only does this policy mean the end of our current system of banking, but it also means that you can only borrow money you don't need or lend no more than half of what you own.
People would have to go back to living hand to mouth without any form of banking system.

Economically, it's even more absurd than that...

of course that money doesn't exist! We've all pretty much lived off of one sort of "credit" or another since the great depression. You don't get the same ten euro note back you put in the bank last week!
Banks invest your money immediately in order to profit, it's why running on the banks is a stupid idea - they don't just hold your stupid pathetic notes in the basement (PS not that I think you're suggesting anything of the sort JS - but as a poster in Politics, it's amazing how many people don't understand basics!).

Money is abject in a macro economy... one cannot think of it as your personal wallet; some days we'll be up, some down.

2) Parliaments cannot enact laws that are binding, only laws that are optional. The only real law is common law, a system brought in by the British and now seriously curtailed by modern law.

The problem with this is who appoints the judges to create common law and what happens when one of them does a "high-trees" on the law? In effect, this makes the unelected judges the supreme arbiters of how we run our society, and our democratically elected government is there merely to give us guideance as to how to live.

In essence, this is a form of anarchy/libertarianism. It would be very difficult to work in practice, but as an ideal it is not bad. However, it fundamentally requires all people to be prepared to live correctly according to some unspecified set of rules. This obviously can cause difficulties.

WAIT... WHAT? On both accounts. Firstly, let's not involve libertarianism in this. I don't think many libertarians exist in Ireland firstly, and secondly I don't think it truly applies to Ireland for multiple reasons.

Firstly, libertarians believe in small government; not NO government. It's more based on a less centralised government where the local bodies are able to make their decision.

Secondly, of course "parliaments" can enact laws, the sovereign in Ireland is its people. We choose the laws and we enact them through our elected government. It's part of separation of powers - something which we're quickly forgetting exists in this country; which we 'borrowed' from the US.

3) You don't have to pay taxes or rates

Fine. Great. I support this policy wholeheartedly. Of course, it also means that I get no education, no healthcare, no social welfare, no police service, no defence, in short, none of the things that we in the Western world take for granted but which people in the Developing world hunger for greatly.

In short, if everybody adopted this Fremen stuff as the law, we would have a hand to mouth existence in an undemocratic nation with no healthcare, education, security or defence.

This is what Fremen advocate as their philosophy. Is it really worth this just to not have to repay bank loans or get fined for speeding in a car? Is the gaining of perceived freedom from positive law enough to justify losing everything else that the modern world has to offer?

Ok, I'm sure we'd all love to pay less/no taxes, but ... oh wait ... you're completely right. This line is total bull****!

swordofislam · 13-09-2011 9:38am

The reliance on article 41 is interesting.

Article 41 wrote:

The State recognises the Family as the natural primary and fundamental unit group of Society, and as a moral institution possessing inalienable and imprescriptible rights, antecedent and superior to all positive law.

Leinster Leader wrote:

When his name was called initially, Mr Sutton questioned the legality of the procedure under which he was charged and it took a little time to establish his name.

Leinster Leader wrote:

described himself as “Stephen of the family Sutton”

This poor chap seems to have stopped paying car tax and insurance and obeying the RTA because of this Freeman movement (and some other issues perhaps) that's quite pernicious.

swordofislam · 13-09-2011 9:40am

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

This is what Fremen advocate as their philosophy. Is it really worth this just to not have to repay bank loans or get fined for speeding in a car? Is the gaining of perceived freedom from positive law enough to justify losing everything else that the modern world has to offer?

It is an atavistic movement. It reminds me of Mandate of Heaven theory or Good Tsar bad Councillors revolts.

It is a truly conservative movement of opposition in America but here it is just unfortunate.

FreudianSlippers · 13-09-2011 9:56am

swordofislam wrote: »

It is an atavistic movement. It reminds me of Mandate of Heaven theory or Good Tsar bad Councillors revolts.

It is a truly conservative movement of opposition in America but here it is just unfortunate.

It makes no sense in the USA and it makes less sense here.

Victor · 13-09-2011 10:00am

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Economically, it's even more absurd than that...

of course that money doesn't exist! We've all pretty much lived off of one sort of "credit" or another since the great depression. You don't get the same ten euro note back you put in the bank last week!
Banks invest your money immediately in order to profit, it's why running on the banks is a stupid idea - they don't just hold your stupid pathetic notes in the basement (PS not that I think you're suggesting anything of the sort JS - but as a poster in Politics, it's amazing how many people don't understand basics!).

Money is abject in a macro economy... one cannot think of it as your personal wallet; some days we'll be up, some down.

WAIT... WHAT? On both accounts. Firstly, let's not involve libertarianism in this. I don't think many libertarians exist in Ireland firstly, and secondly I don't think it truly applies to Ireland for multiple reasons.

Firstly, libertarians believe in small government; not NO government. It's more based on a less centralised government where the local bodies are able to make their decision.

Secondly, of course "parliaments" can enact laws, the sovereign in Ireland is its people. We choose the laws and we enact them through our elected government. It's part of separation of powers - something which we're quickly forgetting exists in this country; which we 'borrowed' from the US.

Ok, I'm sure we'd all love to pay less/no taxes, but ... oh wait ... you're completely right. This line is total bull****!

Sarcasm detector broken?

swordofislam · 13-09-2011 10:06am

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

It makes no sense in the USA and it makes less sense here.

The constitution is a semi mystical document in the USA. Look at how they refer to 'the founders'.
The movement makes no psychological sense in Ireland at all but I see why it appeals to Americans.

In an Irish context the 'Covenanted People' ideas at the core of Loyalism are similar to this freeman stuff.

In fact more generally it provokes thought about questions of legitimacy. Is the law merely a boot stamping on a human face forever or does the law afford certain basic rights on which we can rely?

johnnyskeleton · 13-09-2011 11:27am

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Economically, it's even more absurd than that...

of course that money doesn't exist! We've all pretty much lived off of one sort of "credit" or another since the great depression. You don't get the same ten euro note back you put in the bank last week!
Banks invest your money immediately in order to profit, it's why running on the banks is a stupid idea - they don't just hold your stupid pathetic notes in the basement (PS not that I think you're suggesting anything of the sort JS - but as a poster in Politics, it's amazing how many people don't understand basics!).

Money is abject in a macro economy... one cannot think of it as your personal wallet; some days we'll be up, some down.

The point is that it is not necessary to prove the actual existence of physical cash (or any other consideration) in order to render a contact valid ex post facto. It is not the possession of the consideration that is important, it is the performance i.e. handing over in satisfaction of the contract. The fremen argument seems to want to reverse this so that if you want to enter into any contract, you must have the full amount of consideration in your possession, before, during and then after the contract. Such a rule is of course insane, as it would mean that I could not sell any item unless I had two or three of them.

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

WAIT... WHAT? On both accounts. Firstly, let's not involve libertarianism in this. I don't think many libertarians exist in Ireland firstly, and secondly I don't think it truly applies to Ireland for multiple reasons.

Firstly, libertarians believe in small government; not NO government. It's more based on a less centralised government where the local bodies are able to make their decision.

You are mixing up libertarianism with what people who call themselves libertarian are looking for. It is like thinking that because Joe Higgins is against bin charges, and Joe is a socialist, then socialism is the opposition of bin charges.

Libertarianism is the idealistic belief that any interference with the market or with individual choice is wrong, and the fremen views are much closer to libertarianism that the people who are calling themselves "libertarians" at the moment. Those people are, in essence, classical liberal democrats. Suffice it to say, if you accept the principle of the rule of democracy but you want less of it (ie.a smaller governement) you are a liberal. If you don't accept the premise that a democratic government can pass laws which the majority of people are prepared to accept then you are a libertarian.

Also, the Fremen argument bears a striking resemblence to the Libertarian theory that the only law is that you do no harm to your fellow man.

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Secondly, of course "parliaments" can enact laws, the sovereign in Ireland is its people. We choose the laws and we enact them through our elected government. It's part of separation of powers - something which we're quickly forgetting exists in this country; which we 'borrowed' from the US.

Yes. However, Fremen believe that the parliament doesn't pass democratic laws, it passes "admiralty laws" or "maritime laws" which only apply to companies.

On a technical point, the modern concept of separation of powers derives from Montesquieu and the French revolution rather than from the US.

Perhaps the Fremen argument is based on an extreme version of the separation of powers i.e. that positive law cannot affect a Judge reaching a just decision and a Judge is free to disregard positive law where it would produce a wrong result. This is an argument that holds much sway with many judges but is anathema to others. In any event, the Fremen argument on this is incomplete because if they believe judges are free to do what is right as opposed to blindly following the law, they must accept that a judge could still decide to take away their house etc. Instead, they believe that once a judge shrugs off the belief that they have to follow statute law, they instantly have to adopt some rather crazy version of common law/brehon law/jibberish that does exactly what Fremen want it to do.

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Ok, I'm sure we'd all love to pay less/no taxes, but ... oh wait ... you're completely right. This line is total bull****!

I think that people have become so distanced from the principle that taxes paid = services given and are so dissillusioned with the bottomless pit of quangos, NAMA and other pet projects that cost a load of money but which people have no real say in, that I can see why these Fremen have those views. I'd respect them a lot more though if they refused to be bound by laws in all areas and thereby refuse public health services, education, banking (yes, the main reason these guys can claim success is because the State owned banks have a policy of rarely issuing repossession proceedings), social welfare etc. I wonder, if Fremen were offered an "opt out" clause whereby they can refuse to be bound by tax and contract law, but in turn can't get any State benefits or use contract law in their favour, would they still be Fremen?

I also wonder, since this guy has allegedly gotten a free house because the Bank can't prove the contract, would he mind if I went and set up in his house and changed the locks and then refused to leave unless he could prove his contract over the land, free from encumbrances and on such terms as I deem fit?

Amazotheamazing · 13-09-2011 2:23pm

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

I also wonder, since this guy has allegedly gotten a free house because the Bank can't prove the contract, would he mind if I went and set up in his house and changed the locks and then refused to leave unless he could prove his contract over the land, free from encumbrances and on such terms as I deem fit?

This is the fundamental paradox in all these movements, they want to cherry pick which laws can be applied. They don't want taxes but they want roads/services etc, they don't want to pay for a good/real estate but they still assert their ownership of them etc.

Some of them are no doubt chancers looking for a shortcut out of the debts but there seems to be an alarming number of naive people who believe this guff.

Validate your claim. If I owe you money, prove it.

Comments