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
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest
Constitution Halts Sheriff Video
Comments
-
Would you or would not entertain the notion that the financial crisis and recession and property crash have not created a bad harvest leaving people unable and in your own words to pay monthly rates they had agreed at a time when like Irish farmers in the 19th century times were good. Are the banks and courts not being inflexible in times of hardship.
To my mind comparing renters to mortgage-holders is a debatable strategy. Nobody wants to see people get evicted from their homes, but the fact is that these people owe a lot of money that they don't have the ability to pay back. That is not the case for renters. Other than a complete change in the way we deal with mortgages, eventual eviction is the only way this can be dealt with. Changing that fact would need either heavy government investment or much higher interest rates as banks deal with the increased risk.0 -
To my mind comparing renters to mortgage-holders is a debatable strategy. Nobody wants to see people get evicted from their homes, but the fact is that these people owe a lot of money that they don't have the ability to pay back. That is not the case for renters. Other than a complete change in the way we deal with mortgages, eventual eviction is the only way this can be dealt with. Changing that fact would need either heavy government investment or much higher interest rates as banks deal with the increased risk.
Putting aside the fairness of evicting different classes of mortgage holder's and renters and their circumstances. Just based on the fact the stay had already expired before thread was started.
My question to Kayroo was how has a media story of a cunning man with boltcutter's and a locksmith thereby effecting a eviction have caused the defeat of the 'constitution waving man' in the video and how does this justify another merry sing song by crowd from the London Charivari ?
kayroo could you make an argument to challenge the jurisdiction of the County Registrar to make the order for possession in this case. I believe that was where the thread was going.Going back to the original video, according to the text at the start the "Serif" was halted by this fantastic display of woo. This text was in the font that makes people vomit from their eyeballs: Comic Sans.
There's obviously some kind of typesetting conspiracy going on here. We're through the looking glass people.
If someone were to overthrow the oppressors who favour Times New Roman and other lizard men approved serif fonts, the resulting story could be published as "V for Verdana"? Would the rebels split into factions of Upper Caseists and Lower Caseists?
In the 19th century Ireland Rack- renting was prevented by law and the courts would rule that rents must not be excessive.
However while drawing up the various land act's it was a lord from the house of Lords that amended a single word in the Bill and substituted "exorbitant" in place of the word "excessive" so that the courts no longer could rule favourably for tenants and landlord's began rack -renting again.
So ironically it was a single typo that in a small part led to the formation of the land League and the Land war.0 -
My question to Kayroo was how has a media story of a cunning man with boltcutter's and a locksmith thereby effecting a eviction have caused the defeat of the 'constitution waving man' in the video and how does this justify another merry sing song by crowd from the London Charivari ?
kayroo could you make an argument to challenge the jurisdiction of the County Registrar to make the order for possession in this case. I believe that was where the thread was going.
1. If someone who doesn't own my house locks me out of it I am entitled to break those locks to re-enter my property. That's what happened here.
2. I have no issue with someone using the proper processes of the law to challenge the banks. In fact I would actively encourage it in some circumstances. However to gather a large group of men trying to drum up publicity for a nonsense pseudo-legal position that hurts people and leaves them in far worse positions than they would otherwise find themselves in is despicable. To then claim, after intimidating officers of the law and an official acting in a perfectly lawful manner, that they have somehow "won" and to try and parley this into national publicity for their moronic position in an attempt to gain new acolytes for their nonsense is simply evil.
3. Nobody here is acting in a manner even comparable to Punch so why don't you put that stupid rhetorical gun down and we can discuss this properly?
As for the County Registrar:
I'm not a fan of the dual role of County Registrars and I would bet any sum of money neither are they. It's a function I would imagine they'd be quite happy to leave behind. However I have no intention of making a jurisdictional argument about it for any number of obvious reasons, not least of which is that any argument I may posit here could have unintended consequences if someone attempted to make it themselves in a real setting and either (a) I was wrong and/or; (b) they didn't get the point of the argument I was making. I'm sure you can appreciate my concern. I'd be quite the hypocrite if I criticised the Freemen for reckless and dangerous proffering of advices and then engaged in the same practice myself.
One thing that you seem to be missing in all this though Pirelli is that the defeat of this one Freeman has one negative outcome, his eviction, but the effect of his video has many many negative outcomes as more and more people try this nonsense and lose their homes. There are undoubtedly cases where people will have a valid defence and had they consulted a legal professional or a FLAC they may have had an opportunity to save their homes (the Dunne J judgment on the Land and Conveyancing Law Reform Act that was taken by New Beginnings is an excellent example) but because they put stock in these Freemen they will never properly defend themselves and will lose their homes as valid arguments are put aside in favour of Freeman nonsense. It's dangerous and it's insidious and it is not the fault of a single person here who revels in the defeat of a Freeman as the victory is not against the man but against the insane pseudo-legal reasoning and its gurus who espouse this nonsense.0 -
Deleted User wrote: »To then claim, after intimidating officers of the law and an official acting in a perfectly lawful manner, that they have somehow "won" and to try and parley this into national publicity for their moronic position in an attempt to gain new acolytes for their nonsense is simply evil.
Kayroo's views and Freuden slippers views about freemen verge on the extreme.
Is it not ridiculous to call this man in the video evil when he is clearly a man of good character and amicable disposition who interestingly may just have a point about the jurisdiction of the county registrar and even if he doesn't he clearly believes some of his philosophy.
If you believe this man is evil then what are Gardai and others who just as brazenly lie and perjure evidence and cause miscarriages of justice and worse travesties of justice. Those Gardai that will mislead the people and the media and the wrongly accused family's and friends.Worse still the barrister whose job it was to review the case not admitting his mistake. To fabricate lies like this does cause harm to other people and lead them into conflicts with each other which can lead to problems with the law. I would like to hear your opinion on this.
Were the Land league not at some point in conflict with the Law of the land were they evil?.
I just have to wonder if you really understand what evil is and if people are as naive as you view them; then surely a barrister and solicitor who pressure an innocent man to take a guilty plea are evil?
Am i evil for bringing miscarriage of justice into the thread?Deleted User wrote: »1
3. Nobody here is acting in a manner even comparable to Punch so why don't you put that stupid rhetorical gun down and we can discuss this properly?
May I load my rhetorical gun with some examples...No offence to the poster's or their sense of humour.Going back to the original video, according to the text at the start the "Serif" was halted by this fantastic display of woo. This text was in the font that makes people vomit from their eyeballs: Comic Sans.
There's obviously some kind of typesetting conspiracy going on here. We're through the looking glass people.
If someone were to overthrow the oppressors who favour Times New Roman and other lizard men approved serif fonts, the resulting story could be published as "V for Verdana"? Would the rebels split into factions of Upper Caseists and Lower Caseists?Deleted User wrote: »House repossessions don't just happen. This lad tried to intimidate officers of the law and escape a lawful debt by a combination of implied violence and what amounts to an attempt to cast a magic spell.The Mustard wrote: »I don't know why people are complaining about the Freemen. They are hilarious.
I loved the concept so much that I decided to become one.
So on the eve of my graduation as a Freeman, I got into my car after 25 pints (having discarded my tax and insurance discs as unneccessary nods to useless statutes). I crashed into a wall on the way home, but hey, no harm done.
The cops arrived and I made sure to ask them if they were on their oath. They told me to breathe into a bag. I declined to contract to this Road Traffic Act nonsense. I did not breathe into the bag.
They asked me for my licence but I didn't give it. They searched me and found my licence - a hangover from previous days as a serf. They asked me about my name and address and I replied - "allegedly".
To cut a long story short, I ended up in court. I asked the judge if I could see his oath. He didn't think an oath was perceptible to the human eye.
I didn't plead guilty, so the judge entered a plea of not guilty on my behalf. I didn't consent to that and I reserved the full rights of common law and the Constitution. I made sure to stay in the public gallery though, to avoid straying into the maritime jurisdiction of Naas District Court.
So the judge tells me he's sending me to prison, for refusing to give a sample and other previous 'offences'.
Jail sentence eh? Let's see what the Magna Carta has to say about that!
Freemen abú!"it is public or private law that applies"
Because if the Judge says its private law, then you have to get off because the Court is in public. And also, because if people hear the Judge talk about the law, its not private and you've got him.
Also, if the Judge coughs as he says it, and you cough at the same time, then you are equals, and a Judge can't be a Judge in his own cause. This applies to sneezes also, but not sniffles. That would be silly.
If the Judge says public law, then you knock the bench three times, and he has to let you go, but only if the knocks don't echo. If the knocks echo, then you have to ask the Judge for his oath.
The real secret, is that if you say the Judge's name backwards, then you get a cake and a present.blueythebear wrote: »I read up to there on Congojack's post and I thought it was another post wading in on the side of intelligence and common sense. I stopped reading after the second sentence when I realised it was not to be.
The quote from Enda was a good touch. However, it would have had more impact (and God forbid, relevance) had the quote been:
"It is morally wrong, unjust and unfair to tax a persons home, and I for one refuse to contract with the entity know as Ireland Incorporated and I hereby destroy my own Certificate of Birth hereby frustrating any attempts by this Corporation to contract with me, Enda of the family Kenny, a real human person, Purple Monkey Dishwasher."Time to call in a tactical nuclear strike on their location.0 -
The evil is the bit where they recruit vulnerable and desperate people to their beliefs with false promises of salvation. Much like a cult.0
-
-
Join Date:Posts: 13692
Pirelli, can I ask how you know those posters were doing a parody? I mean, when we look at some of the fremen beliefs, such as signing your name in blue ink, how do you tell if that is a fremen belief or they are just being sarcastic?
I mean, is that any more ridiculous than Avartaghs view that if you cough at the same time as the judge the judge has to recuse himself?
How do we tell fantasy from reality?0 -
johnnyskeleton wrote: »Pirelli, can I ask how you know those posters were doing a parody? I mean, when we look at some of the fremen beliefs, such as signing your name in blue ink, how do you tell if that is a fremen belief or they are just being sarcastic?
I mean, is that any more ridiculous than Avartaghs view that if you cough at the same time as the judge the judge has to recuse himself?
How do we tell fantasy from reality?
I was listening to one of their radio shows there a while back.
Some distraught single mother rang in, panicking because the ESB were threatening to cut her off and she had no money to pay the bill. What would she do? How could she provide for her kids with no electricity?
The advice she was giving, by one of these freeman gurus, was to go to her GP and request a prescritpion for free electricity. She had a medical card, so it would cost her nothing.
The guru explained, that since all electricity is produced using natural resources found in Ireland (yes I know that's not exactly true), as a sovereign citizen of the state, she was entitled to free electricity.
After hearing that piece of advice, it made me very angry. But afterwards, thinking it thru, deep down I felt it was all a pisstake.
Freemanism reminds me of creationists, you're just never sure if they're real or are slyly taking the mickey.0 -
Join Date:Posts: 13692
johnnyskeleton wrote: »Pirelli, can I ask how you know those posters were doing a parody? I mean, when we look at some of the fremen beliefs, such as signing your name in blue ink, how do you tell if that is a fremen belief or they are just being sarcastic?
I mean, is that any more ridiculous than Avartaghs view that if you cough at the same time as the judge the judge has to recuse himself?
How do we tell fantasy from reality?
I was listening to one of their radio shows there a while back.
Some distraught single mother rang in, panicking because the ESB were threatening to cut her off and she had no money to pay the bill. What would she do? How could she provide for her kids with no electricity?
The advice she was giving, by one of these freeman gurus, was to go to her GP and request a prescritpion for free electricity. She had a medical card, so it would cost her nothing.
The guru explained, that since all electricity is produced using natural resources found in Ireland (yes I know that's not exactly true), as a sovereign citizen of the state, she was entitled to free electricity.
After hearing that piece of advice, it made me very angry. But afterwards, thinking it thru, deep down I felt it was all a pisstake.
Freemanism reminds me of creationists, you're just never sure if they're real or are slyly taking the mickey.
So they actually do believe that you are entitled to get everything you want for free and not have to pay taxes for it. Where do I sign up?
What about people without a medical card, I wonder?0 -
Deleted User wrote: »I'm glad to see it was obvious to some that I was referring to the Freemen gurus as evil rather than anyone duped by them like this man.
What Guru's? Freeman are a result of the economic climate, an ideology from a bygone era. Freeman ism as far as you and i are concerned is a form of pseudolegal woo and for others maybe a way of life. In fact woo might not necessarily be the right word.
These people learn about the concept online i would imagine and are the product of a trend, there is no cult. Who are the Guru's you refer to. You speak of magic spell's and so forth. Are the Guru's mythical beings that no one knows who they are. Perhaps since they passed away hundreds of years ago.
Kayroo your verging on eccentric in my opinion and while it may be shocking and insulting to see these people behave in this fashion before the courts it isn't because they have been brain washed or inducted into some cult, it is likely they have learned about an ideology that appeals to them and adopt it as a lifestyle choice.
You whole basis for your argument is your frustration with the pseudolegal woo that freeman use. Your denying people the right to freedom of choice and expression and to make their own lifestyle choices. I find you equally oppressive in your views.
We have had cure head's and Marlyin Manson fans dressed up in elaborate costumes and we have had hippies and Hare Krishna and all sort's of people.
In fact the law has taken it upon itself to protect these people from discrimination.
Freeman strike me as people that don't want anything from the law, i think not being understood is important to them and do they enjoy not being defined and categorised and labelled and branded into the law.
Being a freeman appears to be no different than sitting peacefully as hippy's protesting Tree's being cut down or a vegetarian arguing with a supermarket selling meat. They seem to centre around harmless cases involving interference in their right to live freely or move freely.
To call them or their so called guru's evil is ridiculous.( You have yet to identify how this brain washing is happening, do gurus arrive from england and knock on the family of sludds door and brain wash him)
Their pseudolegal woo is frustrating but is in no way evil and therefore freemanism is not what you find evil.0 -
Advertisement
-
KAYROO:
I asked you to explain if high ranking corrupt Garda like in the Shortt case in Donegal and Bailey case in cork (as examples only) were actively and criminally misleading members of the judiciary and society and media about the guilt of an innocent person and covering up a false arrest and the planting of evidence and pressuring many younger lower ranking Gardai into secrecy not a product of the same evil that you claim Guru's of freemanism are.
I also asked how a barrister and solicitor can pressure a youth who is claiming to be innocent of a crime to take a guilty plea and not be considered as evil as Kayroo views freemanism gurus evil. How are they not evil ? Please explain that.
How is that relevant at any time? The Freeman movement is like early scientology in how it operates.0 -
Deleted User wrote: »I have no issue with someone using the proper processes of the law to challenge the banks. In fact I would actively encourage it in some circumstances. However to gather a large group of men trying to drum up publicity for a nonsense pseudo-legal position that hurts people and leaves them in far worse positions than they would otherwise find themselves in is despicable. To then claim, after intimidating officers of the law and an official acting in a perfectly lawful manner, that they have somehow "won" and to try and parley this into national publicity for their moronic position in an attempt to gain new acolytes for their nonsense is simply evil.The evil is the bit where they recruit vulnerable and desperate people to their beliefs with false promises of salvation. Much like a cult.Deleted User wrote: »I'm glad to see it was obvious to some that I was referring to the Freemen gurus as evil rather than anyone duped by them like this man.
This video in this thread is an irish organisation with an aim to help people who are losing their homes. Therefore that irish organisation is a product no doubt of ireland's culture and history and the result is a hybrid of our own historical concepts and Freeman ism. What you find evil is not freemanism but a betrayal of our heritage and past concepts getting mixed up in this pseudolegal woo.
Of Fenianism and Freemanism i would imagine Fenianism is viewed with a much greater fear by British society and seen as a much greater evil than Freemanism.
In ireland that view while very different socially it would legally be the same as that in Britain as we know from the famous defamation case.
This hybrid form of thinking is what is upsetting you and not freemanism which is just a harmless way of life. I am tired of your insults and patronising.
May i point out that Freemanism and this irish organisation in the video are two very distinct things. It is only this organisations aims to help evicted land owners that you claim to be evil.
Freemanism is a general and wide ranging lifestyle and not guru's representing homeowners. Ironically i have been asked to read up on this by a poster here and it's not surprising that some of you and in particular Kayroo are mislead on Freemanism and what they believe is evil.
Kayroo:
I asked you to explain if high ranking corrupt Garda like in the Shortt case in Donegal and Bailey case in cork (as examples only) were actively and criminally misleading members of the judiciary and society and media about the guilt of an innocent person and covering up a false arrest and the planting of evidence and pressuring many younger lower ranking Gardai into secrecy not a product of the same evil that you claim Guru's of freemanism are.
I also asked how a barrister and solicitor can pressure a youth who is claiming to be innocent of a crime to take a guilty plea and not be considered as evil as Kayroo views freemanism gurus evil. How are they not evil ? Please explain that.0 -
Join Date:Posts: 4233
14:00 tomorrow.0 -
This video in this thread is an irish organisation with an aim to help people who are losing their homes.
No it's not at all. It's a group of men intimidating a public official and two members of the Gardaí in the exercise of a perfectly legal duty. The justification for that action is a demonstrably false and misleading conspiracy theory that sucks people in with the promise of helping them but never, not once, not ever has it ever yielded a win for the Freemen or for the poor people that they use to play their conspiracy game.
These people believe the Bar is an acronym for British Accredited Registry and that all barristers swear an oath of fealty to the Queen. You really think this is a group on the level?Kayroo:
I asked you to explain if high ranking corrupt Garda like in the Shortt case [...] Please explain that.
You're conflating two entirely different matters to try and cloud the issue at hand. I have no intention of defending or explaining the actions of any of the people you mentioned as, in the context of this thread, it's utterly pointless.0 -
How is that relevant at any time? The Freeman movement is like early scientology in how it operates.Deleted User wrote: »You're conflating two entirely different matters to try and cloud the issue at hand. I have no intention of defending or explaining the actions of any of the people you mentioned as, in the context of this thread, it's utterly pointless.
Freemanism has no ties as far as i know with Scientology and i think that on the subject of law that our police force has more relevance than Scientology would have to this thread.
Do you wish me to research how Scientology operates to best answer your question. I will if you wish but let's look at the main question in this thread.
The jurisdiction of the county registrar. This has closer ties to the Garda siochana than Scientology.
In the final report from the criminal Law review group from department of justice and equality 2007.
In this review it is said that is somewhat anomalous that what amounts to the code of conduct for the questioning of suspects by members of the Gardai should continue to rest on extra - judicial views of a numbers of english judges in 1912 and 1922. In our present constitutional system it might be regarded as a breach of of the separation of powers for the judicial branch to make formal or quasi formal rules of the kind regulating the conduct of person ( in this instance, members of An Garda siochana) for whom the Minister for justice and equality and law reform had ultimate democratic responsibility under article 28 of the constitution.
The reason for this statement is because in 1912 the judges in england drew up four rules as a guide for police officers in respect of communications by police with suspects of crimes and prisoners.These rules are also known as the judges rules of 1922. They do not have the force of law but administrative directions however should you not follow these rules or obtain statements contrary to the spirit of these rules those statements may be rejected as evidence by presiding judge.
In this thread some posters say the decision of the county registrar in mortgage cases is an executive act, a judicial act, not an executive act, a quasi- judical decision etc....
However it is just another are of the law in great need review and maybe even new legislation and for that reason i think Ben Gilroy has no more raised a concern the law reform have been raising fro sometime and cannot in any sense of the word be accused of being evil.This is just wrong. The man cited Art 40.5 of the Constitution and neglected to continue on: "save in accordance with law".
If the Court order granting Judgment, as charged against the property and indeed the Order for Possession has been aired in Court, with both sides on notice - then it has the full force of the Law in Ireland. This mere puff about the Common Law and Constitution is nonsense.
The occupants and protesters were trespassing on property held in the sole name of the Bank.
The arguments made by the spokesman are completely confused, without merit and may end-up giving people on the brink of repossession orders (bona fide ones at that) false hope.
These movements are wrong. The bank has title to that property now and not the occupant. The fight should have taken place earlier.
The enforcement of the order is a problem, next comes either an injunction or a committal warrant for the imprisonment of the occupants for failure to comply with a court order. Not ideal.
His interpretation of the constitution may be correct if indeed the above judge rules of 1922 are not a force of law than it may well be the case that the county registrar making judgements has no force of law as in this instance the county registrar made the judgement not a court. I don't know maybe or maybe not?
However if they have no force of law than you cannot use the words "save in accordance with the law" and therefore for that reason you cannot dismiss the constitution based on the reasons Tom young has given.
As for the county registrar none of you agree with the other. So until such a time.......
Maybe if the bank owns the property, but that was not the argument in the first place. This group is no more evil than the tenant right league group of 1850 that led to the Land league. We should have some respect for the our history and what these people are trying to do. Men like Charles Stewart Parnell and Michael Davitt were imprisoned such was the conflict of the land league with the law and yet here we are in a system peppered with quasi formal rules regulating the powers that be and ye denounce these men as evil. Would we be happy to see them in prison no doubt as gurus of freemanism or to be rehabilitated from it.
Finally there are no connections whatsoever with these citizens and freemanism and where are you drawing these parallels from. None of us seem to agree with each other on any of the salient points of the jurisdiction and power of the county registrar.
I warned you of the dangers of labelling people freeman and once again we have a clear cut case of freeman discrimination by the boards law forum society.ie
A barrister and solicitor that compel a man who claims he is innocent to take a guilty plea are evil. You wishing not to be a hypocrite Kayroo might agree...settle with me that is closer to your definition of evil.0 -
Join Date:Posts: 4233
dermot_sheehan wrote: »Apparently both an appeal and an application for leave for judicial review were brought for this order for possession, both of which failed.
http://courts.ie/judgments.nsf/6681dee4565ecf2c80256e7e0052005b/c0e389b2af58a93c8025797a0052eff3?OpenDocument
Did you read this judgment Pirelli?0 -
A barrister and solicitor that compel a man who claims he is innocent to take a guilty plea are evil. You wishing not to be a hypocrite Kayroo might agree...settle with me that is closer to your definition of evil.
Why do you continue to bring matters that are not actually part of this thread into discussion? The above quote, the Judge's Rules, Punch magazine, all of these were brought in by you and do nothing but muddy the waters in what is, at the most basic level, a pretty straightforward discussion about how these men tried to stop the owner of a property from enforcing their constitutionally guaranteed property rights.
By the by I never said the County Registrar didn't have the power to give judgment, nor that the aforesaid power should be challenged on some separation of powers ground, but what I actually said was that the power is one which would be better vested in a different office and I think that many County Registrars would agree with that as certainly it's not a power I would wager many of them relish having.0 -
Deleted User wrote: »Why do you continue to bring matters that are not actually part of this thread into discussion? The above quote, the Judge's Rules, Punch magazine, all of these were brought in by you and do nothing but muddy the waters in what is, at the most basic level, a pretty straightforward discussion about how these men tried to stop the owner of a property from enforcing their constitutionally guaranteed property rights.
By the by I never said the County Registrar didn't have the power to give judgment, nor that the aforesaid power should be challenged on some separation of powers ground, but what I actually said was that the power is one which would be better vested in a different office and I think that many County Registrars would agree with that as certainly it's not a power I would wager many of them relish having.
You brought freemanism into this which was completely irrelevant and on the back of this you implied that the man in the video was evil which is both defamatory and wrong. Your throwing mud which fly's in the face of the charter but of course once it's anti- freeman than it's the popular view amongst the boards legal woo.
I likened you to the royal commission reading punch magazine laughing at the 'evil' Parnell and Davitt as they sat in jail.0 -
This is just wrong. The man cited Art 40.5 of the Constitution and neglected to continue on: "save in accordance with law".
If the Court order granting Judgment, as charged against the property and indeed the Order for Possession has been aired in Court, with both sides on notice - then it has the full force of the Law in Ireland. This mere puff about the Common Law and Constitution is nonsense.
The occupants and protesters were trespassing on property held in the sole name of the Bank.
The arguments made by the spokesman are completely confused, without merit and may end-up giving people on the brink of repossession orders (bona fide ones at that) false hope.
These movements are wrong. The bank has title to that property now and not the occupant. The fight should have taken place earlier.
The enforcement of the order is a problem, next comes either an injunction or a committal warrant for the imprisonment of the occupants for failure to comply with a court order. Not ideal.
Yes i read it.
Leo Wellstead
And
Judge Michael White and Paul Fetherstonhaugh
Following default in repayments, the bank instituted ejectment proceedings, and ultimately an order was made by the County Registrar.
At the end of that six month period the applicant sought a further stay but was refused by the County Registrar.
***********************************
Order 18
http://www.courts.ie/rules.nsf/6cc6644045a5c09a80256db700399505/1d9c564a18b375b280256d94005fe9c6?OpenDocument
SECOND SCHEDULE
Orders Which can be Made by County Registrars
Section 34 .
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1995/en/act/pub/0031/sched2.html#sched2
I can not see where in the schedule it authorises the county registrar to make such an order but i would imagine they have an authority as the deputy sheriff in the video says they have been doing this for years so they must be authorised.
However if the registrar does have that authority would there role become less law and more administrative if they were to also sign the order for possession. As the man in the video points out.
Would that signature have the force of the law or the rule of law?0 -
Advertisement
-
Join Date:Posts: 4233
Land and Conveyancing Law Reform Act 2009, is where you should check.0 -
You brought freemanism into this which was completely irrelevant and on the back of this you implied that the man in the video was evil which is both defamatory and wrong. Your throwing mud which fly's in the face of the charter but of course once it's anti- freeman than it's the popular view amongst the boards legal woo. .
These guys were Freemen. That's not really in dispute is it?0 -
They also need a map. Portlaoise is now in Offaly?0
-
However if the registrar does have that authority would there role become less law and more administrative if they were to also sign the order for possession. As the man in the video points out.
Would that signature have the force of the law or the rule of law?
The issue is that the county registrar both makes the order for possession and executes the order. This is an unusual crossover of powers, and should be changed. However, the man in the video implies that the County Registrar profits from the order on a commission basis as a sheriff would. This is not the case, and therefore the conflict of interest is nowhere near as strong as he was implying.
I do not, however, think that he is evil.0 -
Land and Conveyancing Law Reform Act 2009, is where you should check.
(xxiv) An order to vacate a lis pendens on the application of the person who registered the same.
Does this jurisdiction then make the judgment of the county registrar a court order suitable for the term court order used in Land and Conveyancing Law Reform Act 2009. I suppose it does.
I remember we discussed the rules of court before...and the rules of court are legislated by Section 36 of the 1924 Courts of Justice Act.
Thank you sir.
And your comments on them...
"The Rules of Court are binding on practitioners and people appearing in and before the Courts. They are not however the final word.
The Rules can and frequently do become the source of problems. For example where a particular rule conflicts with statute or contemporaneous process, e.g., Electronic Discovery of Documents. Which in that case was brought into being by the Rules Committee who debate and decide such matters and publish a rule recommendation which is sent to the AG for review and then transposition into being usually via Statutory Instrument e.g., http://www.attorneygeneral.ie/esi/2009/B26695.pdf ...
Where a Rule of Court is deficient the lower Courts can import the Rules of a Higher Court and where a Higher Court has no Rule or a Rule which would cause mischief to justice the inherent jurisdiction of the Court would be relied upon in the Circumstances."
Perhaps there is a conflict with a court registrar enforcing their own judgment.?
Perhaps there is a conflict between the rules and some statute.
Heaven knows..,. I might seriously have to now complete law studies. It would have been wonderful to leave that task to you guys but there is something absent, like there is no soul and heart.0 -
Deleted User wrote: »These guys were Freemen. That's not really in dispute is it?
Kayroo you might very well have a brilliant legal mind and your knowledge is of the law is excellent but your missing something that next step, your very dismissive of things.
Well if i raise the matter with you that these are not freeman and there is nothing to indicate that they are, and certainly it would be unacceptable to use examples from the video as your doing nothing more than labelling any pseudo legal argument as freeman.
I have looked at each of the websites at the start of the video and researched as much as i have time to and have found nothing to indicate they are anything to do with freeman.
link
http://freedomfromalldebt.com/about-us/
At least you have brought me closer to establishing what you find evil.I think if you bridge that to involve Garda corruption/miscarriages of justice because this is closer to your territory and in fact it is in your professional capacity to tackle this ....evil which it is.0 -
Advertisement
-
Yes i read it.
Leo Wellstead
And
Judge Michael White and Paul Fetherstonhaugh
Following default in repayments, the bank instituted ejectment proceedings, and ultimately an order was made by the County Registrar.
At the end of that six month period the applicant sought a further stay but was refused by the County Registrar.
***********************************
Order 18
http://www.courts.ie/rules.nsf/6cc6644045a5c09a80256db700399505/1d9c564a18b375b280256d94005fe9c6?OpenDocument
SECOND SCHEDULE
Orders Which can be Made by County Registrars
Section 34 .
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1995/en/act/pub/0031/sched2.html#sched2
I can not see where in the schedule it authorises the county registrar to make such an order but i would imagine they have an authority as the deputy sheriff in the video says they have been doing this for years so they must be authorised.
However if the registrar does have that authority would there role become less law and more administrative if they were to also sign the order for possession. As the man in the video points out.
Would that signature have the force of the law or the rule of law?
County Registrar is authorised to make an order for possession under Order 5 b of the Circuit Court Rules where no appearance has been entered.
It's a rubber stamping exercise for the County Registrar. He/she is not exercising a judicial function. If there is an appearance entered and the Defendant wishes to enter a replying affidavit defending the claim, the County Registrar must transfer to the judge's list to have a judge make a ruling on the matter.
The 1995 Courts and Courts Officers Act was amended in 2002 (Courts and Court Officers Act 2002) to include the power to make an order for possession but this power was not enacted until 2009 (SI 264 / 2009). Not entirely sure what the situiation was pre-2009 though.0 -
Also for the record the chap in the video is not the county registrar.0
-
Join Date:Posts: 4233
This is really tiresome. You should go study law. It might help with grasping the basics.
The quote function is at the bottom right of posts, you should try using it.
What I was discussing above, was eDiscovery. Nothing to do with this nonsense.0 -
blueythebear wrote: »County Registrar is authorised to make an order for possession under Order 5 b of the Circuit Court Rules where no appearance has been entered.
It's a rubber stamping exercise for the County Registrar. He/she is not exercising a judicial function. If there is an appearance entered and the Defendant wishes to enter a replying affidavit defending the claim, the County Registrar must transfer to the judge's list to have a judge make a ruling on the matter.
The 1995 Courts and Courts Officers Act was amended in 2002 (Courts and Court Officers Act 2002) to include the power to make an order for possession but this power was not enacted until 2009 (SI 264 / 2009). Not entirely sure what the situiation was pre-2009 though.
I was thinking that also that he must have failed to appear. Not knowing the circumstances we can only summarise.
Order (v) seems to be from schedule listed in the 1995 court and courts officers Act.
However this is not listed in the 1995 court and courts officers Act or can i see it in the amendments. So is it a rule rather than a law.
http://www.courts.ie/rules.nsf/CircuitAmdLookup/No18-S.I.+No.+155+Of+2010:+Circuit+Court+Rules+(Land+And+Conveyancing+Law+Reform+Act+2009)+2010
3. The Circuit Court Rules are amended:
....
(ii) by the substitution for paragraph (xxiv) of rule 1 of Order 18 of the following paragraph:
“(xxiv) An order to vacate a lis pendens on an application under section 123 of the Land and Conveyancing Law Reform Act 2009.”;0 -
This is really tiresome. You should go study law. It might help with grasping the basics.
The quote function is at the bottom right of posts, you should try using it.
What I was discussing above, was eDiscovery. Nothing to do with this nonsense.
It's tiresome because you get easily irritated, you probably don't recall but you locked that particular thread ( probably because you were tired of it) so it is not possible to quote the post's.0 -
Advertisement
-
It's tiresome because you get easily irritated, you probably don't recall but you locked that particular thread ( probably because you were tired of it) so it is not possible to quote the post's.
It's tiresome because you just keep bringing up irrelevant stuff with your own interpretation on it that seems to be based on pure fantasy and trying to link it to the discussion. I can't even remember what the point of this thread was supposed to be because you've diverted it so many times.0 -
I was thinking that also that he must have failed to appear. Not knowing the circumstances we can only summarise.
Order (v) seems to be from schedule listed in the 1995 court and courts officers Act.
However this is not listed in the 1995 court and courts officers Act or can i see it in the amendments. So is it a rule rather than a law.
http://www.courts.ie/rules.nsf/CircuitAmdLookup/No18-S.I.+No.+155+Of+2010:+Circuit+Court+Rules+(Land+And+Conveyancing+Law+Reform+Act+2009)+2010
3. The Circuit Court Rules are amended:
....
(ii) by the substitution for paragraph (xxiv) of rule 1 of Order 18 of the following paragraph:
“(xxiv) An order to vacate a lis pendens on an application under section 123 of the Land and Conveyancing Law Reform Act 2009.”;
I just answered the question, where does the COunty Registrar get the power to order possession. I don't know why you're bringing lis pendens into it. It's irrelevant as far as I can see.
The power derives from the 2002 Courts and Court Officers Act and the procedure was put in place under the Circuit Court Rules. There may be a question to be answered as it does not appear that SI264/2009 was not explicitly enacted on the basis of the 2002 Act but I'm sure that's covered in the opening paragraph.0 -
The issue is that the county registrar both makes the order for possession and executes the order. This is an unusual crossover of powers, and should be changed. However, the man in the video implies that the County Registrar profits from the order on a commission basis as a sheriff would. This is not the case, and therefore the conflict of interest is nowhere near as strong as he was implying.
I do not, however, think that he is evil.
Thanks z.
The fact the registrar is executing the order brings a new complexion. I know it is a weak argument and if the order is in accordance with the law ( assuming the defendant made no appearance and the hearing proceeded according to the law ) and there also appears to be the possibility not a certainty whereby a party may sit before a judge if there difficulty with the execution of the order than there is the slimmest chance that the execution of an order by the county registrar that made the order may not be in accordance with the law.
Circuit Court Rules
Order: 36
7, If any difficulty arises in or about the execution or enforcement of any judgment or order other than a judgment or order for the recovery or payment of money, any party interested may apply to the Court, and the Judge may make such order thereon for the attendance and examination of any party or otherwise as he may think just.
We need only wait until some party does this and questions the right of the registrar to execute an order for ejectment that it has so ordered. Unless this has been brought before a judge previously.0 -
blueythebear wrote: »I just answered the question, where does the COunty Registrar get the power to order possession. I don't know why you're bringing lis pendens into it. It's irrelevant as far as I can see.
The power derives from the 2002 Courts and Court Officers Act and the procedure was put in place under the Circuit Court Rules. There may be a question to be answered as it does not appear that SI264/2009 was not explicitly enacted on the basis of the 2002 Act but I'm sure that's covered in the opening paragraph.
I understand that now. Thank you.0 -
vioble
vioble
vioble
vioble
vioble
vioble
Jaysus will someone introduce this guy to the word violable!0 -
Circuit Court Rules
Order: 36
7, If any difficulty arises in or about the execution or enforcement of any judgment or order other than a judgment or order for the recovery or payment of money, any party interested may apply to the Court, and the Judge may make such order thereon for the attendance and examination of any party or otherwise as he may think just.
We need only wait until some party does this and questions the right of the registrar to execute an order for ejectment that it has so ordered. Unless this has been brought before a judge previously.
When someone's being examined in aid of execution, they answer the questions, not ask them.
"Questioning" at that point won't get you very far, in any event. As far as I know, there is/was a High Court judicial review brought by that New Beginnings crowd on the point, not sure what happened with it, though. Until a higher Court says otherwise, you must take it that the County Registrar's Order is constitutional - there's a presumption of constitutionality.
Full marks for effort, but you're really reaching here.vioble
vioble
vioble
vioble
vioble
vioble
Wibble.0 -
Does anyone know what actually happened to the family? Are they still living in the house?0
-
No. They were evicted. They are being housed by the social welfare.0
-
I cannot believe the lack of support or empathy on this forum
I felt proud of my fellow countrymen for the first time in years
Too many people are willing to moan relentlessly about the outrageous situation we as a nation have allowed ourselves to be put in.
This man stands proud and puts to question that
the court register is basically awarding himself contracts as the county sheriff
This is a serious conflict of interest whichever way its looked at0 -
Join Date:Posts: 4233
Why did you feel proud? He was unlawfully occupying property owned by Ulster Bank.0 -
Advertisement
-
Join Date:Posts: 4233
In case my above post appears incorrect or challenging, this is the last word: http://courts.ie/judgments.nsf/6681dee4565ecf2c80256e7e0052005b/c0e389b2af58a93c8025797a0052eff3?OpenDocument0 -
Join Date:Posts: 13692
I cannot believe the lack of support or empathy on this forum
I felt proud of my fellow countrymen for the first time in years
Too many people are willing to moan relentlessly about the outrageous situation we as a nation have allowed ourselves to be put in.
Actually, people who overborrowed on the back of inflated property prices were one of the primary reasons why our nation is in such dire straights. Something for you to think about.This man stands proud and puts to question that
the court register is basically awarding himself contracts as the county sheriff
This is a serious conflict of interest whichever way its looked at
If he genuinely believed in this argument, surely he would make it before the courts? But what possible detriment is there? Is there any suggestion at all that this has caused the County Registrar to grant an order for possession when he should not have in order to obtain pecuniary gain? Or is it just another nonsense argument by the Fremen to delay the inevitable?0 -
johnnyskeleton wrote: »Actually, people who overborrowed on the back of inflated property prices were one of the primary reasons why our nation is in such dire straights. Something for you to think about.
If he genuinely believed in this argument, surely he would make it before the courts? But what possible detriment is there? Is there any suggestion at all that this has caused the County Registrar to grant an order for possession when he should not have in order to obtain pecuniary gain? Or is it just another nonsense argument by the Fremen to delay the inevitable?
Or is it just another nonsense argument by the pseudo law to delay the inevitable?
Are the the Fremen in Frank Herbert's book based on pseudo law? I know Fremen from dune is a term you use to describe Freeman... or is it a term to describe pseudo law?
If it is the former I wish to point out they appear to be no parallels between the groups in this video and Freemanism. Unless you have evidence showing otherwise then you should use the word pseudo-law in place of fremen, freemanism.
Also all of this transpired after the (link above in tom youngs post) court judgement and after the stay expired. So whether there was a genuine argument or not to be brought to the courts it was too late.
I think these people in the video meant well and while the OP asked about the reference to the common law and constitution made in the video being true or not. What your forgetting is that there is an issue with the county registrar's role and there a need for separation of powers and undeniably everyone has agreed with that.
Therefore these people are entitled to take a legal action to try remedy the issue with the county registrar which was even more significant to that area than say Dublin or Cork. They are entitled to believe in their case if they wish and should they believe the order is not in accordance with the law and it may not be and should they succeed proving this in court then it would be a constitutional issue. They are allowed to voice this opinion.
Any improvement to the Irish legal system should be met with a positive open arms rather than dismissed as freemanism.0 -
If it is the former I wish to point out they appear to be no parallels between the groups in this video and Freemanism. Unless you have evidence showing otherwise then you should use the word pseudo-law in place of fremen, freemanism.
If you watch this video, which appears on Mr. Gilroy's website "Freedom From All Debt" (my emphasis) you will notice that he hits all the Freeman buzzwords.
In the original video you'll also notice that he claims the Gardaí must uphold "Common Law".
Another good indicator is that the video linked above does not use the official translation of the Constitution but actually refers to the Oireachtas Committees report on the literal translations from the Irish and the potential conflicts that arise as a result. This is a classic Freeman tactic.
At the risk of you accusing me of being the modern Irish equivalent of HUAC; if it walks like a duck, looks like a duck and it quacks: it's a duck. To paraphrase Shakespeare to equal effect: A Freeman by any other name is just as full of ****.0 -
In case my above post appears incorrect or challenging, this is the last word: http://courts.ie/judgments.nsf/6681dee4565ecf2c80256e7e0052005b/c0e389b2af58a93c8025797a0052eff3?OpenDocument
This is a commercial court ruling which is in conflict with constitutional rights
and has since been upheld. With force able entry into the house by members of the Guards who under Oath have sworn to
I HEREBY SOLEMNLY AND SINCERELY DECLARE BEFORE GOD THAT_I WILL FAITHFULLY DISCHARGE THE DUTIES OF A MEMBER OF THE GARDA SIOCHANA WITH FAIRNESS, INTEGRITY, REGARD FOR HUMAN RIGHTS, DILIGENCE AND IMPARTIALITY, UPHOLDING THE CONSTITUTION AND THE LAW AND ACCORDING EQUAL RESPECT TO ALL PEOPLE.
Are the Garda now Bailiffs to the commercial courts with authority above the constitution?0 -
Join Date:Posts: 13692
This is a commercial court ruling which is in conflict with constitutional rights
and has since been upheld. With force able entry into the house by members of the Guards who under Oath have sworn to
I HEREBY SOLEMNLY AND SINCERELY DECLARE BEFORE GOD THAT_I WILL FAITHFULLY DISCHARGE THE DUTIES OF A MEMBER OF THE GARDA SIOCHANA WITH FAIRNESS, INTEGRITY, REGARD FOR HUMAN RIGHTS, DILIGENCE AND IMPARTIALITY, UPHOLDING THE CONSTITUTION AND THE LAW AND ACCORDING EQUAL RESPECT TO ALL PEOPLE.
Are the Garda now Bailiffs to the commercial courts with authority above the constitution?
It's not a commercial court ruling.0 -
This is a commercial court ruling which is in conflict with constitutional rights
and has since been upheld. With force able entry into the house by members of the Guards who under Oath have sworn to
I HEREBY SOLEMNLY AND SINCERELY DECLARE BEFORE GOD THAT_I WILL FAITHFULLY DISCHARGE THE DUTIES OF A MEMBER OF THE GARDA SIOCHANA WITH FAIRNESS, INTEGRITY, REGARD FOR HUMAN RIGHTS, DILIGENCE AND IMPARTIALITY, UPHOLDING THE CONSTITUTION AND THE LAW AND ACCORDING EQUAL RESPECT TO ALL PEOPLE.
Are the Garda now Bailiffs to the commercial courts with authority above the constitution?
Gardaí were just there to keep the peace.
It's not a commercial court.
There were no constitutional rights breached.
The house belonged to the bank. Anyone else there was trespassing.0 -
Join Date:Posts: 4233
This is a commercial court ruling which is in conflict with constitutional rights
and has since been upheld. With force able entry into the house by members of the Guards who under Oath have sworn to
I HEREBY SOLEMNLY AND SINCERELY DECLARE BEFORE GOD THAT_I WILL FAITHFULLY DISCHARGE THE DUTIES OF A MEMBER OF THE GARDA SIOCHANA WITH FAIRNESS, INTEGRITY, REGARD FOR HUMAN RIGHTS, DILIGENCE AND IMPARTIALITY, UPHOLDING THE CONSTITUTION AND THE LAW AND ACCORDING EQUAL RESPECT TO ALL PEOPLE.
Are the Garda now Bailiffs to the commercial courts with authority above the constitution?
As other posters have highlighted, that is plainly wrong. End of story.
By analogy, how would you feel if I went and occupied your house, without your permission? Legally and technically that is what was done there.
This whole business of requesting oaths is going to land people in an awful lot of hot water, given time.0 -
Deleted User wrote: »If you watch this video, which appears on Mr. Gilroy's website "Freedom From All Debt" (my emphasis) you will notice that he hits all the Freeman buzzwords.
In the original video you'll also notice that he claims the Gardaí must uphold "Common Law".
Another good indicator is that the video linked above does not use the official translation of the Constitution but actually refers to the Oireachtas Committees report on the literal translations from the Irish and the potential conflicts that arise as a result. This is a classic Freeman tactic.
At the risk of you accusing me of being the modern Irish equivalent of HUAC; if it walks like a duck, looks like a duck and it quacks: it's a duck. To paraphrase Shakespeare to equal effect: A Freeman by any other name is just as full of ****.
I did i watched some of it and i noted the case Crowley v Ireland ([1980] IR102) Justice kenny pointed out that the Irish version of the constitution brought out more clearly the definition of article 42.4 namely the distinction between the duty to provide for and the duty to provide it.
Is that the quack of a duck? Are judges Ducks in your view?
You expect me to believe they are Freeman because they used the Oireachtas Committees report irish version of the constitution.0 -
Advertisement
-
As other posters have highlighted, that is plainly wrong. End of story.
By analogy, how would you feel if I went and occupied your house, without your permission? Legally and technically that is what was done there.
This whole business of requesting oaths is going to land people in an awful lot of hot water, given time.
It is not the same. A corporation or institution is simply is not a person or a family unit. There might a little family of Ulster bank employees that were living there in a monogamous relationship preferably. I doubt it though. The monogamous bit. Probably platonic and a civil partnership such is the era.
Legally and technically it is not the same. It simply is not the same on so many levels of the law. You are seeing things in black and white acid.
Institutions do not feel and they are not a person as defined by law. There is no possible emotional turmoil from an institution like this of such a magnitude. Your failing the grip the basics on this Mr /Dr/Prof/Sir Young.
How would you or I feel?
I wonder how the solicitor felt on an emotional level when Pat Kenny squatted on his land. It transpired how he felt was irrelevant even though that land was his back garden. Is there still some bitterness about that lurking in the legal circles...is this what all this is about.
Sorry Mr C....0
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement