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

Constitution Halts Sheriff Video

24

Comments

  • #52
    Our man in Havana
    Closed Accounts Posts: 29,473 ✭✭✭✭Our man in Havana


    The rules were changed to allow the circuits deal with repossessions.


  • #53
    NoQuarter
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,632 ✭✭✭NoQuarter


    Our man in Havana wrote: »
    The rules were changed to allow the circuits deal with repossessions.

    Can you point to the new rule? Is it in the court orders?

    EDIT: Think this is it: http://www.courts.ie/rules.nsf/6cc6644045a5c09a80256db700399505/abbdbbe465393589802575f5003a751f?OpenDocument


  • #54
    bath handle
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 370 ✭✭bath handle


    Tom Young wrote: »
    I don't think that the exercise of quasi-judicial power is quite the same.
    Giving judgement in a debt case is a judicial act, not quasi judicial. The EAT is an example of a quasi judicial body.


  • #55
    Finnbar01
    Registered Users Posts: 2,071 ✭✭✭Finnbar01


    schemingbohemia wrote: »
    On a political viewpoint I find it hilarious that the Freemen nutters and the Far Left are joining together. Only in Ireland.:rolleyes:

    There's nothing nutty about it at all. The freeman movement and far left have a lot in common when you scratch the surface.


  • #56
    Our man in Havana
    Closed Accounts Posts: 29,473 ✭✭✭✭Our man in Havana


    NoQuarter wrote: »
    Can you point to the new rule? Is it in the court orders?

    EDIT: Think this is it: http://www.courts.ie/rules.nsf/6cc6644045a5c09a80256db700399505/abbdbbe465393589802575f5003a751f?OpenDocument
    That's the one. :)


  • #57
    subrosa
    Registered Users Posts: 64 ✭✭subrosa


    By analogy with the Master of the High Court the County Reg would be a statutory officer, albeit one allowed, by statute, to exercise limited and circumscribed judicial powers. In Lloyds v Monaghan Kelly J. pretty well covered the basis of the Master's powers.

    Is there any reason why the analogy doesn't hold?


  • #58
    Ashashi
    Registered Users Posts: 285 ✭✭Ashashi


    If law is this simple according to Ben Gilroy, then what law did that man break by not paying his mortgage? The simple law of contract Ben.


  • #59
    berrypendel
    Closed Accounts Posts: 365 ✭✭berrypendel


    Paulw wrote: »
    More of this on TV3 today - http://www.tv3.ie/3player/show/155/0/0/The-Morning-Show
    why would tv3 take it on if it is total nonsense. And how have they won when he says the man will be handing the keys back?


  • #60
    NoQuarter
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,632 ✭✭✭NoQuarter


    berrypendel wrote: »
    why would tv3 take it on if it is total nonsense. And how have they won when he says the man will be handing the keys back?

    Thats exactly it haha, i loved the part where he said the sheriff will be back! No sh1t!!!

    I half think they got him on to make a fool out of him, the only thing that annoyed me was that they should have had a legal expert on the show with him, would have torn him to shreds!!


  • Advertisement
  • #61
    Corruptable
    Registered Users Posts: 317 ✭✭Corruptable


    Paulw wrote: »
    More of this on TV3 today - http://www.tv3.ie/3player/show/155/0/0/The-Morning-Show

    Oh that was worth a laugh, he's absolutely talking out of his hole again and I think he admitted as much in another media website. I have to cringe every time he comes out with "it may be legal but it's no lawful", and he admits that despite talking raw sewage Mr. Wellstead will still be turfed out of his house.

    For those unfamiliar with this terminology and it's significance, here it is from the horse's mouth so to speak (prepare for laughter): http://www.tirnasaor.com/08/09/legal-vs-lawful/


  • #62
    Zab
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,931 ✭✭✭Zab


    I have a few questions if anybody has the time. I have tried to seek the answers myself.

    Court Registrar vs County Registrar. Are these separate offices? Who appoints them?

    About the sheriff not being a "private company". citizensinformation.ie describes them as "self-employed people who are paid for their enforcement work on a commission basis". It says that they aren't used outside of Dublin and Cork, instead the County Registrar does the same work. The sheriff's commission is called "poundage". Do the County Registrars outside of Dublin/Cork get poundage? The man in the video is described as a deputy sheriff, even though the house doesn't seem to be in Dublin or Cork. It seems he is not the County Registrar and he is being paid a wage rather than commission. Who or what is paying his wages? If the home had been successfully repossessed would somebody have earned commission on it?

    The only part of Gilroy's speech that seemed reasonable to me was the possibility that the County Registrar can decide to sign an order and then profit on it. If this is true it seems like a clear conflict or interest.

    The order in the video is apparently signed by the County Registrar. This CI article says that a Registrar can indeed make an order of possession if there is no stated prima facie defence. If there is then he sends it to the High Court. According to the video this particular case did go to the High Court. If that's the case then why is the order signed by the County Registrar rather than a judge?

    I'm finding very little about Irish sheriffs on the internet. CI says that they can make a forced entry into your home to seize goods after they have made reasonable attempts to seize them peaceably. Can anybody do this or do sheriffs have extra rights in the eyes of the law?

    I appreciate any responses.


  • #63
    squod
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,704 ✭✭✭squod


    I thought all of this was sorted a couple years ago. I don't think a sheriff can force anyone to do anything using force like.
    the sheriff was never entitled to break into the dwelling-house of the judgment debtor, although he was free to enter without breaking or using force

    It's still you against them AFAIK. Bigger bloke wins like.

    http://www.lawreform.ie/_fileupload/Reports/rDebtCollection1.htm


  • #64
    NoQuarter
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,632 ✭✭✭NoQuarter


    squod wrote: »
    It's still you against them AFAIK. Bigger bloke wins like.

    http://www.lawreform.ie/_fileupload/Reports/rDebtCollection1.htm

    That link is as much use as an ash tray on a motorbike.

    A 24 year old report on how the law should be changed!


  • #65
    Avatargh
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 191 ✭✭Avatargh


    Zab wrote: »
    The order in the video is apparently signed by the County Registrar. This CI article says that a Registrar can indeed make an order of possession if there is no stated prima facie defence. If there is then he sends it to the High Court.

    That's not what it says at all. You are confusing jurisdictions.


  • #66
    Zab
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,931 ✭✭✭Zab


    Avatargh wrote: »
    That's not what it says at all. You are confusing jurisdictions.

    As in it's the Circuit Court? Yes, you are correct.


  • Advertisement
  • #67
    chopser
    Registered Users Posts: 269 ✭✭chopser


    Corruptable wrote: »

    For those unfamiliar with this terminology and it's significance, here it is from the horse's mouth so to speak (prepare for laughter): http://www.tirnasaor.com/08/09/legal-vs-lawful/

    "all it took for two people to marry was to stand in their village before their piers, "

    So you couldn't get married if your village was landlocked ?


  • #68
    squod
    Closed Accounts Posts: 8,704 ✭✭✭squod


    NoQuarter wrote: »
    That link is as much use as an ash tray on a motorbike.

    A 24 year old report on how the law should be changed!

    The link you posted was far more useful :rolleyes: Pot calling the kettle black!


  • #69
    Milk & Honey
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 1,950 ✭✭✭Milk & Honey


    NoQuarter wrote: »
    That link is as much use as an ash tray on a motorbike.

    A 24 year old report on how the law should be changed!

    How has the law been changed in the intervening 24 years? If not, it is a good description of the existing law.


  • #70
    chops018
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,458 ✭✭✭chops018


    They have a meeting on Wednesday in the RedCow *facepalms*.

    http://freedomfromalldebt.com/


  • #71
    Our man in Havana
    Closed Accounts Posts: 29,473 ✭✭✭✭Our man in Havana


    Time to call in a tactical nuclear strike on their location.


  • Advertisement
  • #72
    tweetie30
    Registered Users Posts: 5 ✭tweetie30


    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.

    The gardai were there for the protection and safety of the deputy sheriff, as was stated. now if the sheriff is a self employed person he should be employing his own security, it is a misuse of gardai rescources!


  • #73
    Our man in Havana
    Closed Accounts Posts: 29,473 ✭✭✭✭Our man in Havana


    The sheriff is not self employed.


  • #74
    finty
    Closed Accounts Posts: 266 ✭✭finty


    Our man in Havana wrote: »
    The sheriff is not self employed.

    Maybe I'm missing the point but this says they are self employed....


    http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/money_and_tax/personal_finance/debt/enforcement_of_judgments.html

    I'm confused by this process.

    Does this commission go to the individual sheriff?

    Or to the office?


  • #75
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    finty wrote: »
    Maybe I'm missing the point but this says they are self employed....


    http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/money_and_tax/personal_finance/debt/enforcement_of_judgments.html

    I'm confused by this process.

    Does this commission go to the individual sheriff?

    Or to the office?

    There are only 2 Sheriffs left in Ireland, one in Dublin and one in Cork. The "Sheriff" in this video is a County Registrar. Bad idea if you ask me but that's the way it is.


  • #76
    finty
    Closed Accounts Posts: 266 ✭✭finty


    Deleted User wrote: »
    There are only 2 Sheriffs left in Ireland, one in Dublin and one in Cork. The "Sheriff" in this video is a County Registrar. Bad idea if you ask me but that's the way it is.

    I'll take from this that Sheriffs in Dublin and Cork do indeed work for commission..


    Do the County Registrars get commission for enforcing judgements?


  • #77
    Our man in Havana
    Closed Accounts Posts: 29,473 ✭✭✭✭Our man in Havana


    No. They get a salary for their role as a quasi judicial official.


  • #78
    johnnyskeleton
    Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 14,535 Mod ✭✭✭✭johnnyskeleton


    Milk & Honey wrote: »
    Having a Court Officer involved in enforcement is a breach of the doctrine of separation of powers. Enforcement is an executive act.

    Is it though? I mean, court orders would be meaningless if they did not have officers to enforce them. A sherriff is not carrying out an executive act in the sense ordinarily meant and executive act does not mean you are executing an order.

    In terms of separation of powers, if the sherriff was signing a law into being he could be ursurping the executive role assigned to the president, or if he is carrying out the government's powers a similar situation would arise.

    Put another way, if enforcing a court order was an executive act, how would you enforce an order against the executive i.e. the government or a government department?


  • #79
    johnnyskeleton
    Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 14,535 Mod ✭✭✭✭johnnyskeleton


    squod wrote: »
    I thought all of this was sorted a couple years ago. I don't think a sheriff can force anyone to do anything using force like.



    It's still you against them AFAIK. Bigger bloke wins like.

    http://www.lawreform.ie/_fileupload/Reports/rDebtCollection1.htm

    Not quite. If you don't respond to the sherriff or the owners seeking repossession then they go back into court for an order for attachment and committal. Then the gardai come along and arrest you, with force if needs be, and bring you before the court. If you still won't give over the land peaceably they will imprison you.


  • #80
    MagicSean
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,897 ✭✭✭MagicSean


    tweetie30 wrote: »
    The gardai were there for the protection and safety of the deputy sheriff, as was stated. now if the sheriff is a self employed person he should be employing his own security, it is a misuse of gardai rescources!

    The Gardaí were there to prevent a breach of the peace. Just like in Mayo and at every protest or volatile situation.


  • #81
    Robbo
    Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 10,572 Mod ✭✭✭✭Robbo


    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?


  • Advertisement
  • #82
    finty
    Closed Accounts Posts: 266 ✭✭finty


    This guys house was repossessed at the second attempt...

    cant find a link to a full story but its mentioned on journal.ie

    http://www.thejournal.ie/the-9-at-9-thursday-71-384911-Mar2012/


    Where was Ben to make sure everybody was on their oath? :rolleyes:


  • #83
    pirelli
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,876 ✭✭✭pirelli


    Robbo wrote: »
    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?

    These clever analogy's all accumulate to mark this thread as throwback to the Punch, the 19th century British weekly magazine of humour and satire which became a British institution.

    At the end of the day a family are homeless and a house sits empty in the coffers of a bank. Obviously they wont starve to death and we have a very generous social welfare system but at least one of you could impress us with your legal brilliance and figure a way for the family to retain their home. It's at crossroads like this in our history that i wonder why they force fed us all that Irish history in school. I am strongly considering drawing up a white paper to recommend the board of education to change the history books and remove all the many pargraphs of what today would be viewed as freeman nonsense and simply focus on several generations of west brit families from Dublin 4 and their impressions of ireland. Maybe include a west brit family from cork and galway just to give it some balance.

    I remember the secondary school Irish history books depicting the Landlords as nothing more than wicked and greedy and there were many a picture in the book of dark figures standing on the high rocks in Mayo hurling stones at the landlord's who were evicting the poor tenants.

    Otherwise people will be burning their what appears to be historical propaganda just to keep warm as they huddle together under the ditch. We might as well go back to having schools in hedges. Save 3.1 billion a year we are paying the central bank for Anglo.


  • #84
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Pirelli's DiMaggio like streak for missing the point and hitting the nub of the nonsense remains unblemished.

    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.

    Any Schadenfreude experienced here is simply derived from the defeat of the "victorious" Constitution waving individual rather than the consequences of that defeat.

    EDIT: Also your references to Irish history are simplistic and overly populist, not to mention utterly pointless as the analogy does not stand up to any scrutiny to anyone with even a cursory understanding of the Land League and the issues surrounding it.


  • #85
    patwicklow
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,937 ✭✭✭patwicklow


    So why is sean fitzpatrick still in his mansion also sean quinn??


  • #86
    Robbo
    Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 10,572 Mod ✭✭✭✭Robbo


    patwicklow wrote: »
    So why is sean fitzpatrick still in his mansion also sean quinn??
    Because they live in straw man-sions?


  • #87
    pirelli
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,876 ✭✭✭pirelli


    Deleted User wrote: »
    Pirelli's DiMaggio like streak for missing the point and hitting the nub of the nonsense remains unblemished.

    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.

    Any Schadenfreude experienced here is simply derived from the defeat of the "victorious" Constitution waving individual rather than the consequences of that defeat.

    EDIT: Also your references to Irish history are simplistic and overly populist, not to mention utterly pointless as the analogy does not stand up to any scrutiny to anyone with even a cursory understanding of the Land League and the issues surrounding it.
    " Lee Wellstead told the Irish Daily Star: “They cut the locks and took possession.”
    Is that simple enough for you Kayroo! A man with bolt cutters defeats any legal challenge and gets rid of the pesky constitution. Leaving cert history really was that simple but you obviously missed the point. Explain your victory please.


    Robbo wrote: »
    Because they live in straw man-sions?


    Not really a much to defeat in Kayroo's argument unless magic spells are being cast by Italian baseball players, the consequences of which amount to nothing so we must derive pleasure not from the person losing his house but from some devious large man with a pair of bolt cutters and a locksmith.

    Sean Fitzpatrick evicted from his mansion would be Schadenfreude whilst a man with bolt cutters ending a legal challenge would be the closest thing to a strawman victory.


  • #88
    Paulw
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,381 ✭✭✭✭Paulw


    pirelli wrote: »
    " Lee Wellstead told the Irish Daily Star: “They cut the locks and took possession.”
    A man with bolt cutters defeats any legal challenge and gets rid of the pesky constitution.

    The man with the bolt cutters didn't get rid of the constitution at all. He simply followed a lawful order, to reposess the home.

    Maybe you should actually read the details of the case, the fact that the owner had gone through the courts, but failed.


  • #89
    FreudianSlippers
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,397 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    pirelli wrote: »
    " Lee Wellstead told the Irish Daily Star: “They cut the locks and took possession.”
    Is that simple enough for you Kayroo! A man with bolt cutters defeats any legal challenge and gets rid of the pesky constitution.

    The point is there was no legal challenge by that stage - he was too late. If he wanted to wave his constitution around he should have done so when the bank was seeking their possession order. By the time the sheriff shows up, you've lost and the bank owns that house now.


  • #90
    FreudianSlippers
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,397 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    pirelli wrote: »
    Leaving cert history really was that simple but you obviously missed the point. Explain your victory please.
    Firstly, if you cannot post without personally insulting or sniping at other members then don't post at all.
    pirelli wrote: »
    Not really a much to defeat in Kayroo's argument unless magic spells are being cast by Italian baseball players, the consequences of which amount to nothing so we must derive pleasure not from the person losing his house but from some devious large man with a pair of bolt cutters and a locksmith.

    Sean Fitzpatrick evicted from his mansion would be Schadenfreude whilst a man with bolt cutters ending a legal challenge would be the closest thing to a strawman victory.
    Second, this type of shallow and vague style posts may fly in After Hours and to some extent Politics, but if you want to continue to post here you need to be slightly more in-depth vis-à-vis your legal argument. You seem to be purposely missing/misrepresenting the issues here.


  • Advertisement
  • #91
    dermot_sheehan
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,062 ✭✭✭dermot_sheehan


    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


  • #92
    Rumple Fugly
    Registered Users Posts: 180 ✭✭Rumple Fugly


    Well done to this guy for what he did but he's the exact type of high pitched know it all that sickens me


  • #93
    Hoffmans
    Registered Users Posts: 1,069 ✭✭✭Hoffmans


    so who were the winners here ?
    the lawyers,the sheriff & his deputy,gards, all made monetary gains from this episode...
    loosers?
    the bank...not really they have the property now

    A man and his special needs child who are left homeless ,

    patt on the backs allround there for the "system"


  • #94
    shaneybaby
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 415 ✭✭shaneybaby


    Hoffmans wrote: »
    so who were the winners here ?
    the lawyers,the sheriff & his deputy,gards, all made monetary gains from this episode...
    loosers?
    the bank...not really they have the property now

    A man and his special needs child who are left homeless ,

    patt on the backs allround there for the "system"

    So he should be allowed stay in a house that's not his for free?

    can i have one too please? preferably before tuesday which is rent day.


  • #95
    Finnbar01
    Registered Users Posts: 2,071 ✭✭✭Finnbar01


    Hoffmans wrote: »
    so who were the winners here ?
    the lawyers,the sheriff & his deputy,gards, all made monetary gains from this episode...
    loosers?
    the bank...not really they have the property now

    A man and his special needs child who are left homeless ,

    patt on the backs allround there for the "system"


    They will not be homeless. The social welfare will provide emergency accomodation until permanent accomodation is found.


  • #96
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    pirelli wrote: »
    " Lee Wellstead told the Irish Daily Star: “They cut the locks and took possession.”
    Is that simple enough for you Kayroo! A man with bolt cutters defeats any legal challenge and gets rid of the pesky constitution. Leaving cert history really was that simple but you obviously missed the point. Explain your victory please.

    The bank owned the house. There was no legal challenge. The bank broke the locks on their own house. There's nothing wrong with that. Try and use an old Freeman mantra and educate yourself before you make such an obviously incorrect argument.

    As for history: 19th century landlords artificially raised rents in order to secure the properties and re-let them at higher rates to larger tenants. The banks today repossess houses where the people cannot pay the mortgages they agreed to freely and at a time with historically low rates of interest. It's horrible and it's destructive and it should happen as rarely as possible but when people try this nonsense it demeans the dignity of people who work and scrimp and sacrifice to save their homes as others try and save them through nothing more than physical intimidation and bull**** pseudo-legal philosophy.


  • Advertisement
  • #97
    pirelli
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,876 ✭✭✭pirelli


    FreudianSlippers wrote: »
    Second, this type of shallow and vague style posts may fly in After Hours and to some extent Politics, but if you want to continue to post here you need to be slightly more in-depth vis-à-vis your legal argument. You seem to be purposely missing/misrepresenting the issues here.

    You should read the OP because i am not missing the issue here, Kayroo is.

    Here is the OP post.
    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.

    In keeping with the theme of the post you can see the OP has huge sympathy towards the families and stresses that it was good to see this man fight them off.

    This Thread was opened on the 22nd of February some months after the judgement where the final stay expired on the 10th of January 2012.

    This thread was purely academic based on the legal principles of what the constitution waving man was saying and with the OP stressing his sympathy and saying it was good to see them fight them off . Some posters with legal knowledge did answer the OP.

    Kayroo claims it was a victory against the constitution waving man when recently a Locksmith with bolt cutters into the house and changed the locks. I take it Freudian slippers agrees with him.

    So I ask again how is the changing of locks a victory or how it is in any way relevant to the theme of the OP or indeed the thread.


  • #98
    chops018
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,458 ✭✭✭chops018


    pirelli wrote: »
    By repeating from his post that he has missed the point, or using the word simplistic you can call me out in bold letters as being sniping or being insulting?



    I have compared both posts and it appears that you are completely wrong and biased.




    You should read the OP because i am not missing the issue here, Kayroo is.

    Here is the OP post.



    In keeping with the theme of the post you can see the OP has huge sympathy towards the families and stresses that it was good to see this man fight them off.

    This Thread was opened on the 22nd of February some months after the judgement where the final stay expired on the 10th of January 2012.

    This thread was purely academic with the OP stressing his sympathy and saying it was good to see them fight them off. Some posters with legal knowledge did answer the OP.

    Kayroo claims it was a victory against the constitution waving man when recently a Locksmith with bolt cutters into the house and changed the locks. I take it Freudian slippers agrees with him.

    So I ask again how is the changing of locks a victory or how it is in any way relevant to the theme of the OP or indeed the thread.

    OP here, I was sympathising with the family and expressed that it was good to see they got to keep their home, and it is never good to see families get their home repossessed, but as other posters have said: you enter into an agreement with a financial institution and under the terms you are to pay them back and failure to do this will result in the property being repossessed, if they got to keep it then the argument falls to people saying "why can't I default on paying back my mortgage and get a free house, it doesn't work that way no matter how sad it is to see happen.

    However this was not the theme of the post, I wanted to see a discussion on the legal principles and arguments surrounding it, I knew most of what the idiot waving around the constitution was saying was bull plop, and I knew what he was saying about common law was bull plop.

    It was to be a legal themed thread directed at what would happen to the family from a legal stand point aside from the sympathy extended towards this family and other such families being subjected to repossession. I wanted a discussion on how the law was not on the guy in the video's side and how such videos would only give people false hope as I knew the legal stuff he was shouting about was all false as you can see my OP, it was to be mostly themed on the legal arguments, obviously there was going to be other arguments put in but I wanted to see the legal view of people, I was merely extending my sympathy to people who get homes repossessed, no one wants to see that happen.


  • #99
    pirelli
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,876 ✭✭✭pirelli


    Deleted User wrote: »
    The bank owned the house. There was no legal challenge. The bank broke the locks on their own house. There's nothing wrong with that. Try and use an old Freeman mantra and educate yourself before you make such an obviously incorrect argument.

    As for history: 19th century landlords artificially raised rents in order to secure the properties and re-let them at higher rates to larger tenants. The banks today repossess houses where the people cannot pay the mortgages they agreed to freely and at a time with historically low rates of interest. It's horrible and it's destructive and it should happen as rarely as possible but when people try this nonsense it demeans the dignity of people who work and scrimp and sacrifice to save their homes as others try and save them through nothing more than physical intimidation and bull**** pseudo-legal philosophy.

    Absentee landlords and the 'middleman system' was the chapter if I recall and it was in Mayo during the 'land war' where tenant's were given a ten percent reduction in rents due to a bad harvest. Tenant's then protested and demanded 25 % reduction in rents which was refused and when 11 tenants were being evicted which is depicted in the picture, Charles Stewart Parnell proposed that rather than violence that people should shun the farmers taking the evicted tenants property.

    Rack-rents were used in order to avoid paying compensation to tenant's evicted for causes other than non payment of rent. There was a bill that rent's could not be 'excessive' but the House of Lords changed that word to
    'exorbitant' and that is when landlord's abused the system.


  • #100
    pirelli
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,876 ✭✭✭pirelli


    chops018 wrote: »
    OP here, I was sympathising with the family and expressed that it was good to see they got to keep their home. However this was not the theme of the post, I wanted to see a discussion on the legal principles and arguments surrounding it, I knew most of what the idiot waving around the constitution was saying was bull plop, and I knew what he was saying about common law was bull plop.

    It was to be a legal themed thread directed at what would happen to the family from a legal stand point aside from the sympathy extended towards this family and other such families being subjected to repossession. I wanted a discussion on how the law was not on the guy in the video's side and how such videos would only give people false hope as I knew the legal stuff he was shouting about was all false as you can see my OP.

    That is what I meant when I said the thread was purely academic. It was to discuss the legal principles of what the man was saying in the video. The stay had already expired. After reading the thread there isn't much depth into that discussion. A few posters explained the common law better and Tom Young
    posted about the constitution other than that it began to deteriorate into another victory for us and defeat for them.

    My point is that the The lock smith and bolt cutter's changing the locks cannot possible been seen as a victory against the constitution waving man. Kayroo's claims the constitution waving man is defeated at this action. This action is irrelevant to the validity of what the constitution waving man is saying which may or may not be complete rubbish.

    Whether it is rubbish or not does not make my post any less relevant or the plight suffered by the family any less deserving of sympathy. Kayroo tries to turn their eviction into an academic or legal victory.


  • #101
    pirelli
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,876 ✭✭✭pirelli


    Deleted User wrote: »

    EDIT: Also your references to Irish history are simplistic and overly populist, not to mention utterly pointless as the analogy does not stand up to any scrutiny to anyone with even a cursory understanding of the Land League and the issues surrounding it.

    My references to Irish history are far more accurate than your's.
    Deleted User wrote: »

    As for history: 19th century landlords artificially raised rents in order to secure the properties and re-let them at higher rates to larger tenants. The banks today repossess houses where the people cannot pay the mortgages they agreed to freely and at a time with historically low rates of interest. It's horrible and it's destructive and it should happen as rarely as possible but when people try this nonsense it demeans the dignity of people who work and scrimp and sacrifice to save their homes as others try and save them through nothing more than physical intimidation and bull**** pseudo-legal philosophy.

    You say they agreed freely at a time with historically low rates of interest.

    Historical quote from the books:
    From 1874 agricultural prices in Europe had dropped, followed by some bad harvests due to wet weather during the Long Depression. The effect by 1878 was that many Irish farmers were unable to pay the rents that they had agreed, particularly in the poorer and wetter parts of Connacht. The localised 1879 Famine added to the misery. Unlike other parts of Europe the Irish land tenure system was inflexible in times of hardship.


    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.

    While reducing rack rents was one of the aims of the Land League it was only a small part of why evictions were happening. Instead of the Asbourne act 1885 we had the 2009 IMF/EU package to be repaid on more or less the same percentages but at the time we agreed to the IMF/EU it was a much higher than the Ashbourne act offered the irish farmer and yet we agreed to it.

    The Irish tenant does not get as much from the IMF/EU package as they would get from the Asbourne act but then again the consequences are not so deadly for the evicted today as they were in the 19th century when the land was their only means of surviving.


  • Advertisement
This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement