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

Constitution Halts Sheriff Video

  • 22-02-2012 4:32am
    #1
    Registered Users Posts: 2,458 ✭✭✭chops018


    http://www.youtube.com/all_comments?v=PpUjl4LvQM8

    Is it just me or does is this guy not as educated as he thinks.

    Don't get me wrong, some of what he is saying is correct, especially with regard the situation being harsh on families. I'm not arguing that, it is terrible to see families being put out of their homes and I am happy the man managed to get the guys away!

    However I do think that he doesn't understand the constitution and common law. It's like he just keeps shouting out common law and articles of the constitution. One part he makes a reference to how the only case where a mans home is vioble is when someone murders a person outside and runs into his house then the guards can run in. He also mentions how the high court wasn't a common law court, and then he says that the man should have come with a signed referendum of the constitution and not a warrant if he wanted to enter the home.

    Also at the end he starts comparing natural law to common law.

    Again, I feel huge sympathy towards the families who are losing their homes but, and want to stress that it was good to see this man fight them off.

    What I want to know is your views on the man who keeps quoting articles of the constitution and common law, which to me it appears he just read up on them without reading up and decisions of the courts on how they would interpret articles of the constitution. Also he keeps mentioning common law out of context in my opinion.


«13456

Comments

  • Closed Accounts Posts: 9,897 ✭✭✭MagicSean


    He's an idiot.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,911 ✭✭✭aN.Droid


    chops018 wrote: »
    http://www.youtube.com/all_comments?v=PpUjl4LvQM8

    Is it just me or does is this guy not as educated as he thinks.

    Don't get me wrong, some of what he is saying is correct, especially with regard the situation being harsh on families. I'm not arguing that, it is terrible to see families being put out of their homes and I am happy the man managed to get the guys away!

    However I do think that he doesn't understand the constitution and common law. It's like he just keeps shouting out common law and articles of the constitution. One part he makes a reference to how the only case where a mans home is vioble is when someone murders a person outside and runs into his house then the guards can run in. He also mentions how the high court wasn't a common law court, and then he says that the man should have come with a signed referendum of the constitution and not a warrant if he wanted to enter the home.

    Also at the end he starts comparing natural law to common law.

    Again, I feel huge sympathy towards the families who are losing their homes but, and want to stress that it was good to see this man fight them off.

    What I want to know is your views on the man who keeps quoting articles of the constitution and common law, which to me it appears he just read up on them without reading up and decisions of the courts on how they would interpret articles of the constitution. Also he keeps mentioning common law out of context in my opinion.

    If one thing this segment educated me about is the fact that the sheriffs office is a private company. Shocking. Unless it's untrue?

    I think his bit about murder was meant to be just an example of one way that a persons house may be violated too bring someone to justice and he just got tongue twisted or mixed up.

    At least this man is trying to help people, whether or not he knows his stuff and can fully keep the dogs at bay at least he is trying and not letting people just lay down and let the banks take there life's away after we as a country helped them out so much.




    MagicSean wrote: »
    He's an idiot.
    Got anymore to add to that? Would genuinely like to hear your opinion on all this, aswell as anyone else's.


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 13,381 Mod ✭✭✭✭Paulw


    Limericks wrote: »
    If one thing this segment educated me about is the fact that the sheriffs office is a private company. Shocking. Unless it's untrue?

    It's untrue.


  • Registered Users Posts: 10,262 ✭✭✭✭Joey the lips


    I dont care what the guy was. If someone can keep there house longer then its a constitional success.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,063 ✭✭✭Finnbar01


    Limericks wrote: »
    Got anymore to add to that? Would genuinely like to hear your opinion on all this, aswell as anyone else's.


    He got a mortgage to purchase a house.

    Either he pays the mortgage or he gives back the house.


  • Advertisement
  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 987 ✭✭✭Kosseegan


    Limericks wrote: »
    If one thing this segment educated me about is the fact that the sheriffs office is a private company. Shocking. Unless it's untrue?

    I think his bit about murder was meant to be just an example of one way that a persons house may be violated too bring someone to justice and he just got tongue twisted or mixed up.

    At least this man is trying to help people, whether or not he knows his stuff and can fully keep the dogs at bay at least he is trying and not letting people just lay down and let the banks take there life's away after we as a country helped them out so much.


    There is already a court order for him to vacate. His title is gone. He can never sell. He can keep up his antics for a while but he is going to be ousted in the end.


  • Registered Users Posts: 33 Airhead21


    I agree he took out the mortgage if he can't pay it he has to get out.
    I have sympathy on him and his family but he did take out the mortgage it is his responsibility to repay it.
    Due to people like this man and thousands more taking out mortgages and not being able to repay them and it has left people been refused for mortgages by the banks.
    There should be a line between the sheriff and the county register.
    I wonder how much the sheriff gets paid a month and how much does he get as the register???:confused:


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,373 ✭✭✭Executive Steve


    Posted this in the Freeman megamerge thread last night.

    General consensus seems to be that his actual legal arguments are pretty off-the-wall and that the sheriff only backed down because there were over a dozen protesters standing around filming the whole standoff.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,458 ✭✭✭chops018


    Posted this in the Freeman megamerge thread last night.

    General consensus seems to be that his actual legal arguments are pretty off-the-wall and that the sheriff only backed down because there were over a dozen protesters standing around filming the whole standoff.

    Didn't see it posted it in that or I wouldn't have started a thread on it. Yes I would agree that his legal arguments are off the wall and he has no understanding of the law or how it works. He bought the people living in the house some time, but that's it.


  • Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 10,550 Mod ✭✭✭✭Robbo


    Posted this in the Freeman megamerge thread last night.

    General consensus seems to be that his actual legal arguments are pretty off-the-wall and that the sheriff only backed down because there were over a dozen protesters standing around filming the whole standoff.
    It's a classic Freeman "victory".

    If something is adjourned or delayed, claim it as a victory for your internet assembled belief structure. Usually the true reason is that the person in charge recognises they're dealing with someone who's unhinged at best and wants to let the matter die down.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 515 ✭✭✭Atlantis50


    chops018 wrote: »
    http://www.youtube.com/all_comments?v=PpUjl4LvQM8

    Is it just me or does is this guy not as educated as he thinks.

    Don't get me wrong, some of what he is saying is correct, especially with regard the situation being harsh on families. I'm not arguing that, it is terrible to see families being put out of their homes and I am happy the man managed to get the guys away!

    However I do think that he doesn't understand the constitution and common law. It's like he just keeps shouting out common law and articles of the constitution. One part he makes a reference to how the only case where a mans home is vioble is when someone murders a person outside and runs into his house then the guards can run in. He also mentions how the high court wasn't a common law court, and then he says that the man should have come with a signed referendum of the constitution and not a warrant if he wanted to enter the home.

    Also at the end he starts comparing natural law to common law.

    Again, I feel huge sympathy towards the families who are losing their homes but, and want to stress that it was good to see this man fight them off.

    What I want to know is your views on the man who keeps quoting articles of the constitution and common law, which to me it appears he just read up on them without reading up and decisions of the courts on how they would interpret articles of the constitution. Also he keeps mentioning common law out of context in my opinion.

    The guy was a complete bul****ter but the Sheriff/Deputy Sheriff was soft.

    Next time come unannounced so they don't have time to call the 'rent-a-mob' crowd.


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,063 ✭✭✭Finnbar01


    Atlantis50 wrote: »
    The guy was a complete bul****ter but the Sheriff/Deputy Sheriff was soft.

    Next time come unannounced so they don't have time to call the 'rent-a-mob' crowd.


    The only mistake the sheriff made was actually to stand there for over 15 minutes trying to argue nonsense with the freeman. He should have left a lot sooner.

    Also, I don't understand why the garda didn't tell the freeman that he was under oath. It's no big deal.


  • Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 13,381 Mod ✭✭✭✭Paulw




  • Legal Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 4,338 Mod ✭✭✭✭Tom Young


    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.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 365 ✭✭berrypendel


    Paulw wrote: »

    Was in Tipp this morning and think it was him on Tipp FM but did not hear it all


  • Registered Users Posts: 317 ✭✭Corruptable


    I rang a relative of mine down that way, and the issue is the centre of the local pub talk.

    It's a rural area with only two gardai normally, so it's reckoned they backed off to avoid a scene with the protesters (one of whom was a ULA TD, Joan Collins and mostly rent-a-mob blow ins) and the gardai didn't have the proper resources to deal with it if it became an aggressive situation.

    Essentially, they've only put off the inevitable.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,937 ✭✭✭patwicklow


    Yep the wolf is at the door and aint going to go away.


  • Registered Users Posts: 5 tweetie30


    If someone gets a mortgage, they have to pay it back, that i get. But why when the banks give out too much money does the tax payer have to pay it back? Most taxpayers can't afford to pay their own mortgages, without being beaten down with 'bank taxes' too. Ok, so that man may not be 100% on the law, but the 'deputy sheriff' obviously isin't too sure either, but mayb if more and more ppl just stand their ground and fight for what they believe in, somewhere down the line, something may have to b done. and as for the cop, if he's in his uniform and on duty, he's on his oath, no? So why the no comment.


  • Registered Users Posts: 5 tweetie30


    it's not that rural, it's about 8 mile from portlaoise, there's a lot more than 2 guards in portlaoise


  • Registered Users Posts: 226 ✭✭Jesus Nut


    Anyone who borrows money of another person HAS to pay it back. Its only fair and common sense in my view of things anyways.

    Ive looked at law and stuff for a while and this is my take on it!

    No private person has a right to complain, by suit in court, on the ground of a breach of the Constitution, the Constitution, it is true,
    is a compact but you are not a party to it.

    How many times have you seen someone in court attempt to use the Constitution and then the Judge tells them they can’t. It is because you are not a party to it!!!!!!

    You have to understand that the Republic of Ireland, and
    the 26 county's are the parties to the Constitution not you!!!!!

    Let me try to explain. If I buy a car from a man and that car has a
    warranty and the engine blows up the first day I have it. Then I tell the man just forget about it. Then you come along and tell the man to pay me and he says no. So you take him to court for not holding up the contract. The court then says case dismissed. Why?
    Because you are not a party to the contract. You cannot sue a government official for not adhering to a contract (Constitution) that you are not a party too. You better accept the
    fact that you are a Slave. When you try to use the Constitution you are committing a CRIME known as CRIMINAL TRESPASS. Why? Because you are attempting to infringe on a private contract that you are not a party to. Then to make matters worse you are a debt slave who owns no property or has any rights. You are a mere user!

    Anyways lads, thats the way I see things.


    The whole freeman thing is a waste of time


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 1,070 ✭✭✭blueythebear


    tweetie30 wrote: »
    as for the cop, if he's in his uniform and on duty, he's on his oath, no? So why the no comment.

    If you look at the Garda oath, contained in the Garda Siochana Act 2005, it mentions nothing about the "common law". This guy in this video has got the most fundamental thing wrong, he has not understood the definition of the word "law". He believes that this is his definition of the "common law". He is wrong.

    Plus, a Garda being on his oath? Asking a Garda that does not mean anything. It is not a secret handshake or rule that suddenly means that the Garda must perform his duties in some specific way. Again, it is more nonsense.

    The guy is not performing some amazing legal manouevre to prevent the sheriffdoing his job. He is using 2 of the oldest tricks in the book. First is intimidation, with the amount of people present and two, the old classic of when in the wrong, shout louder and embarrass the other party into backing down.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,070 ✭✭✭blueythebear


    Jesus Nut wrote: »
    Anyone who borrows money of another person HAS to pay it back. Its only fair and common sense in my view of things anyways.

    Ive looked at law and stuff for a while and this is my take on it!

    No private person has a right to complain, by suit in court, on the ground of a breach of the Constitution, the Constitution, it is true,
    is a compact but you are not a party to it.

    How many times have you seen someone in court attempt to use the Constitution and then the Judge tells them they can’t. It is because you are not a party to it!!!!!!

    You have to understand that the Republic of Ireland, and
    the 26 county's are the parties to the Constitution not you!!!!!

    Let me try to explain. If I buy a car from a man and that car has a
    warranty and the engine blows up the first day I have it. Then I tell the man just forget about it. Then you come along and tell the man to pay me and he says no. So you take him to court for not holding up the contract. The court then says case dismissed. Why?
    Because you are not a party to the contract. You cannot sue a government official for not adhering to a contract (Constitution) that you are not a party too. You better accept the
    fact that you are a Slave. When you try to use the Constitution you are committing a CRIME known as CRIMINAL TRESPASS. Why? Because you are attempting to infringe on a private contract that you are not a party to. Then to make matters worse you are a debt slave who owns no property or has any rights. You are a mere user!

    Anyways lads, thats the way I see things.


    The whole freeman thing is a waste of time

    I agree with your first and your last sentence. Everything else, I would disagree wholeheartedly with. Privity of contract does not apply to the Constitution as it is not a contract.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 365 ✭✭berrypendel


    He is using 2 of the oldest tricks in the book. First is intimidation, with the amount of people present and two, the old classic of when in the wrong, shout louder and embarrass the other party into backing down.
    it will be interesting to see if they back up again


  • Registered Users Posts: 376 ✭✭mcgarrett


    I would have to disagree with you there bluey, the primary duty of a Garda is to protect life and property and there are occasions where statute law will not suffice and you will be forced to rely on the common law.

    In relation to the video with the Sherriff the function of the Gardai at the scene is to prevent a breach of the peace, they are not there to assist an eviction.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,070 ✭✭✭blueythebear


    mcgarrett wrote: »
    I would have to disagree with you there bluey, the primary duty of a Garda is to protect life and property and there are occasions where statute law will not suffice and you will be forced to rely on the common law.

    In relation to the video with the Sherriff the function of the Gardai at the scene is to prevent a breach of the peace, they are not there to assist an eviction.

    I'm not saying anything about the functions of the Gardaí. I'm referring to the Garda Oath as set out in S16 of the Garda Siochana Act 2005. The chap in the video asks if the Gardaí are on their oath and then insists that the Gardaí must uphold the "law".

    This reference to upholding the "law" comes directly from this oath (Solemn Declaration of S16) and the guy believes that the "law" includes his version of the "common law". He is wrong here in that his understanding of the word "law" is incorrect.

    I am aware that the Gardaí have powers based on Statute and based on common law (not Freeman "common law"), however my point is as above. Asking about being on oath to a Garda, means nothing and their understanding of "law" to include their version of the "common law" is just wrong.


  • Registered Users Posts: 376 ✭✭mcgarrett


    Whatever you're havin' yourself, but you are mistaken if you think the reference to law in the oath does not include the common law.

    To quote your post.

    "If you look at the Garda oath, contained in the Garda Siochana Act 2005, it mentions nothing about the "common law". "

    In fairness to the Sgt the question caught him off guard as it would be an unusual thing to be asked. He probably adopted the policy of never arguing with an imbecile, as they only drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.


  • Registered Users Posts: 4,632 ✭✭✭NoQuarter


    Jesus Nut wrote: »
    Anyone who borrows money of another person HAS to pay it back. Its only fair and common sense in my view of things anyways.

    Ive looked at law and stuff for a while and this is my take on it!

    No private person has a right to complain, by suit in court, on the ground of a breach of the Constitution, the Constitution, it is true,
    is a compact but you are not a party to it.

    How many times have you seen someone in court attempt to use the Constitution and then the Judge tells them they can’t. It is because you are not a party to it!!!!!!

    You have to understand that the Republic of Ireland, and
    the 26 county's are the parties to the Constitution not you!!!!!

    Let me try to explain. If I buy a car from a man and that car has a
    warranty and the engine blows up the first day I have it. Then I tell the man just forget about it. Then you come along and tell the man to pay me and he says no. So you take him to court for not holding up the contract. The court then says case dismissed. Why?
    Because you are not a party to the contract. You cannot sue a government official for not adhering to a contract (Constitution) that you are not a party too. You better accept the
    fact that you are a Slave. When you try to use the Constitution you are committing a CRIME known as CRIMINAL TRESPASS. Why? Because you are attempting to infringe on a private contract that you are not a party to. Then to make matters worse you are a debt slave who owns no property or has any rights. You are a mere user!

    Anyways lads, thats the way I see things.


    The whole freeman thing is a waste of time


    Oh my, that is some tripe you have just come out with!! Constitution a contract??? What!??!

    And where are you getting that no private person can bring a complaint pursuant to the constitution. I can think of a hundred examples! Utter nonsense!


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,473 ✭✭✭Grolschevik


    Jesus Nut wrote: »

    Ive looked at law and stuff for a while

    That's all right, then!


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,070 ✭✭✭blueythebear


    mcgarrett wrote: »
    Whatever you're havin' yourself, but you are mistaken if you think the reference to law in the oath does not include the common law.

    To quote your post.

    "If you look at the Garda oath, contained in the Garda Siochana Act 2005, it mentions nothing about the "common law". "

    In fairness to the Sgt the question caught him off guard as it would be an unusual thing to be asked. He probably adopted the policy of never arguing with an imbecile, as they only drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

    Sorry if I'm not being clear. Alls I'm saying is that Freeman interpretation of "common law" is totally incorrect. Gardai solemnly declare to uphold the law and this includes to prevent the commission of common law offences e.g. buggery as per recent SC judgment. They also have powers under common law such as the power to stop any motorist etc.

    Freemen believe that they are there to uphold the common law as it is defined by them and this is wrong.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 64 ✭✭subrosa


    The freeman stuff can be amusing in a absurd sort of way. It gets depressing when they start offering false hope and poor advice to people in trouble.

    I've no doubt that there are people who will end up imprisoned/evicted/bankrupt because of this gibberish - when they might have mounted a genuine defense had they sought proper advice.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement