Was in Tipp this morning and think it was him on Tipp FM but did not hear it all
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.
Yep the wolf is at the door and aint going to go away.
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.
it's not that rural, it's about 8 mile from portlaoise, there's a lot more than 2 guards in portlaoise
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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!
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.