free to drive drunk?

SparrowTown

Just wondered what you thought of this guy who seems to think courts have no power over his admitted drunk driving

MagicMarker

The man is a cúnt, and everyone who replied to him is a cúnt.

edit: On the 2nd page of replies he quotes a letter he received and includes the case no. etc..

Legal aid no. L:2010/37165 ORDER NO
CASE NO. 2010/149144

People are telling him to ''return to sender'', so, who would one contact to notify them of such a thread?

SparrowTown

MagicMarker wrote: »

The man is a cúnt, and everyone who replied to him is a cúnt.

edit: On the 2nd page of replies he quotes a letter he received and includes the case no. etc..

Legal aid no. L:2010/37165 ORDER NO
CASE NO. 2010/149144

People are telling him to ''return to sender'', so, who would one contact to notify them of such a thread?

the legal aid board?

The man is a cúnt, and everyone who replied to him is a cúnt.

why is everyone who replied a c***

frank gooding

Maybe I am missing something

What??????

baldbear

I found it hard to understand his gibberish. Could the judge not of remanded him in custody. What was he trying to argue? He told his solicitor to sit down?

Foreign pratt trying to avoid justice.

guil

he's full of ****e i'd say no way would ya get away with that carry on in a court
i dont think ya can get summonsed to 2 courts on the same day

Wibbs

I'm all for for exposing some of the silliness in our court system, but drink driving? eh no. I'm with MM on his description of the OP of that thread at least. Beyond that WTF is he going on about in that? Not exactly clear.

SparrowTown

baldbear wrote: »

I found it hard to understand his gibberish. Could the judge not of remanded him in custody. What was he trying to argue? He told his solicitor to sit down?

Foreign pratt trying to avoid justice.

he seemed to suceed a bit in first case but can't see him getting away with drunken driving

bladebrew

i assume this is relating to a video posted a while back of a guy caught doing 80 in a 50 zone and just kept saying "i was just driving down the road" the gardai were made to look like idiots, he refused to identify himself, if it happened in england they would have pulled him outta the car, that pissed me off

they are "free men of eire"

i dont think this guy is out of the woods yet,
and i would love to break into his house and say "i was just letting myself into your house":D

SparrowTown

bladebrew wrote: »

i assume this is relating to a video posted a while back of a guy caught doing 80 in a 50 zone and just kept saying "i was just driving down the road" the gardai were made to look like idiots, he refused to identify himself, if it happened in england they would have pulled him outta the car, that pissed me off

they are "free men of eire"

i dont think this guy is out of the woods yet,
and i would love to break into his house and say "i was just letting myself into your house":D

i dont think this guy is out of the woods yet

hope not not on the drunken driving anyway. Where does it say he is foreign, missed that?

bladebrew

it was baldbear that said he was foreign!

id say he is irish, i doubt they would let anyone foreign into this group/cult,
i have seen someone get a week in prison for speaking out of turn in court, i dont think they would let him do what he wants in there,

dunsandin

Que??? Anybody understand what he was up to? I'm lost, and baffled that the courts could be so easily flabbergasted. Is this just a load of BS bragging??

SparrowTown

bladebrew wrote: »

it was baldbear that said he was foreign!

sorry

id say he is irish, i doubt they would let anyone foreign into this group/cult,
i have seen someone get a week in prison for speaking out of turn in court, i dont think they would let him do what he wants in there,

that group seem to not want to keep any law and do as they please. now thyey are talking about a common law court they want to organise. but if they do not have to go to the present courts - so they claim- why should people have to go to their courts ?

guil

dunsandin wrote: »

Que??? Anybody understand what he was up to? I'm lost, and baffled that the courts could be so easily flabbergasted. Is this just a load of BS bragging??

i dont believe a word of it

DonJose

WTF!!! Check out the video link in his post. The Ban Garda just walked away without getting a name, is this a loophole, that guy could have been drunk for all we know, do the guards have any power when they arrive at your doorstep?

http://tirnasaor.com/forum/topics/small-vid-of-me-and-a-guard

Atomic Pineapple

was a druid b4 so i know how 2 use mushrooms as a spiritual tool...if interested ???

LOL, Quality website :rolleyes:

DirkVoodoo

DonJose wrote: »

WTF!!! Check out the video link in his post. The Ban Garda just walked away without getting a name, is this a loophole, that guy could have been drunk for all we know, do the guards have any power when they arrive at your doorstep?

http://tirnasaor.com/forum/topics/small-vid-of-me-and-a-guard

I think it used to be they couldn't enter private property, as far as I know they can but they still have to identify who was behind the wheel. I'm not 100% thought as IANAL.

Anyway, that guy is a complete tool and sooner or later his little trick will backfire on him and I'm sure he will be remembered. A little knowledge being a dangerous thing and all that.

tuxy

I think the gist of it is that these people consider the Garda,court system etc.. a private company who enact statutory law. For statures to be used both parties must agree to it like any other contract.

The only law they think is legitimate is common law.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statute

drunkmonkey

It's Brehon law he's using, thread on it here in legal discussions

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055521538

I'm still not sure if you could use it or not, some say you can some say you can't. It's really old law but some of it makes perfect sense.

chasm

DonJose wrote: »

http://tirnasaor.com/forum/topics/small-vid-of-me-and-a-guard

Lol, what a fool.... "my name is not irrelevant"...There's nothing worse than someone trying to give the impression that they are intelligent and failing

cormie

Interesting if used in a morally conducive way I guess! I might start this carry on myself

djimi

I dont believe a word of this. There is no way a judge would have taken this rubbish seriously and there is no way this idiot wouldnt have been locked up for contempt of court.

Orando Broom

Them boyos are only prolonging the inevitible.

Atomic Pineapple

chasm wrote: »

Lol, what a fool.... "my name is not irrelevant"...There's nothing worse than someone trying to give the impression that they are intelligent and failing

Seems to be 99% of the posters on that site!

drunkmonkey

djimi wrote: »

I dont believe a word of this. There is no way a judge would have taken this rubbish seriously.

So do you think it's right that a man can be tried for a crime where there is no victim?. cue Minority Report

MagicSean

He didnt get away with it. The judge appears to have accepted a plea of not guilty on his behalf and has set a date for his hearing. He most likely wont show up. A bench warrant will be issued. He will be arrested and brought before court. He will refuse to sign a bail bond and will spend a long time in jail.

The Nutty M

djimi wrote: »

I dont believe a word of this. There is no way a judge would have taken this rubbish seriously and there is no way this idiot wouldnt have been locked up for contempt of court.

Oh it happens alright,much to the annoyance of the court system.

drunkmonkey wrote: »

So do you think it's right that a man can be tried for a crime where there is no victim?. cue Minority Report

Are you a member of Tir Na Saor?

Tigger

those guys are nuts

Vertakill

chasm wrote: »

Lol, what a fool.... "my name is not irrelevant"...There's nothing worse than someone trying to give the impression that they are intelligent and failing

"My own name is not of relevance" is what he said, not "My own name is not irrelevant".. :P


The Garda would hardly make up that he was flying down the road so rather than him 'sticking it to the man' he's just trying to break our laws and get away with it.
Which is pretty much what all these freaks are doing on the website it would seem.

djimi

What actually becomes of these guys when they try stunts like this? I presume they get prosecuted and sentenced accordingly eventually? Is it just about making as much of a public spectacle as possible or do they genuinely believe that they can get away with living outside the laws of the country just because they dont agree with them?

-Corkie-

What a demented website. I thought Cuckoos nest had some stupid stuff but that beats Banner...:)

chasm

Vertakill wrote: »

"My own name is not of relevance" is what he said, not "My own name is not irrelevant".. :P

Must have misheard, It was the muffle of his voice from having his head stuck up his backside

L1011

drunkmonkey wrote: »

It's Brehon law he's using, thread on it here in legal discussions

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2055521538

I'm still not sure if you could use it or not, some say you can some say you can't. It's really old law but some of it makes perfect sense.

You can't. There was a mass repeal of all pre 1801 laws recently except fora limited list, the oldest of which is from 1066

ALL laws prior to 1066 have no standing in Ireland in any way, shape or form.

SparrowTown

-Corkie- wrote: »

What a demented website. I thought Cuckoos nest had some stupid stuff but that beats Banner...:)

What is Cuckoos nest ? OK found it you mean the Boards.ie CN?

Jo King

An almost identical story was told about another incident in the Richmond Courthouse going back two years ago. Absolute drivel! Guards do not allow someone mess with a phone in court. If a guard had seen him (as he claimed) with a phone in his hand it would have been grabbed off him in the Court. If anything like that happened, the judge might not jail him for contempt because of the possibility he would try and run an Article 40 application thus wasting more state time and resources.

SparrowTown

Jo King wrote: »

An almost identical story was told about another incident in the Richmond Courthouse going back two years ago. Absolute drivel! Guards do not allow someone mess with a phone in court. If a guard had seen him (as he claimed) with a phone in his hand it would have been grabbed off him in the Court. If anything like that happened, the judge might not jail him for contempt because of the possibility he would try and run an Article 40 application thus wasting more state time and resources.

i think they think that when they act up and get adjourned it is a victory whenn it is only the courts waiting to find out to deal with it. What is an artice 40 application and isn't there something about if they do not answer to their name they cannot make one?

28064212

drunkmonkey wrote: »

So do you think it's right that a man can be tried for a crime where there is no victim?. cue Minority Report

Eh... Yes? Or are you saying drunk driving should be legal? Speed limits should be completely removed? You can drive on whatever side of the road you like? That's all fine, so long as you don't actually hit someone?

And there's a logic fail in your comparison to Minority Report. The comparison would actually be: "do you think it's right that a man can be tried for a crime where there is no crime committed (yet)"

seamus

Once you see the word "freeman" you know that his case is based on a nonsense legal assertion that you're not bound by a state's laws unless you expressly agree to be.

The fact that he was locked in a cell for contempt and a second hearing scheduled despite his blathering nonsense indicates just how incorrect this assertion is.

Jo King

SparrowTown wrote: »

i think they think that when they act up and get adjourned it is a victory whenn it is only the courts waiting to find out to deal with it. What is an artice 40 application and isn't there something about if they do not answer to their name they cannot make one?

Article 40 allows for the High Court to enquire into the legality of someone's detention. It is often known as a "habeus corpus" application because of the writ for similar type applications in the UK.
They can cause a lot of trouble because the Governor of the jail has to send the applicant to the High Court along with escorting prison officers and the state has to brief barristers to go in and explain what happened. The arresting guard and the court clerk would probably have to swear affidavits. This all has to be done on the day the application is made, so it is very disruptive and costs thousands of Euro.
If the incident happened at all, which I doubt, the judge clearly decided that the sensible thing to do was schedule a hearing. If he keeps up with the same messing he will be convicted and can be dealt with appropriately.

L-M

They seem like an absolute bunch of nutters, many of such bunches we have in the world!

Mr. Presentable

Interested to see who these people turn to when their homes are broken into, their car is stolen, partner mugged etc.

They come across as semi-literate, self-deluding short-roaders. That chap in the video will get a rude awakening one night when he strays above the limit or fails to observe a stop sign. The Gardai he wound up will have their moment too.

-Chris-

@everyone

Can we just make sure to keep this discussion primarily about Motoring? It is a Motors forum after all...

daveharnett

As to "GG"s first case. Am I correct in assuming that it was dismissed because the name used to summons/charge him was incorrect?

Mary Hairy

daveharnett wrote: »

As to "GG"s first case. Am I correct in assuming that it was dismissed because the name used to summons/charge him was incorrect?

Of all the possible reasons that is the most unlikely. Obviously some essential proof was missing but he did not understand himself what was going on.
Here is one from earlier this year. Note how much all the stories have in common.

http://www.tpuc.org/forum/viewtopic.php?f=34&t=1328

by mcattack21 on Sat Mar 28, 2009 10:26 am I made a special appearance today in the courtroom heres how it went:

I was Charged with refusing breath/blood/urine tests.


I just said no thanks ill give it bash myself!

About an hour in he comes up to me in the courtroom with another legal aid woman who he says is the head of their gang and she asks me for a word outside,I say alright why not.

When we get outside she asks me what I think Im doing , she must of been curious because I had a see through files case it looked like there was hundreds of pages in there. Only about ten were mine but it gave off a great impression!ha!

Then she starts talking about phyciatric help , I just did the long sigh and said thanks!

I was called at about 11.30 by the clerk.The nerves kicked in as they do the bastards!

Clerk:
Judge: Can you please stand in the dock?


Me : I will on the condition that I can reserve my unalienable rights and that I do not grant your jurisdiction.

*the whole courtroom goes silent there about 50 or so in there*

Judge: can you stand in the dock?

Me :*repeat what I said*

Judge:We will keep this standing till the end!

I was feeling confident at this stage because in a lot of other post people talk of being kept till the end for fear of anybody hear this info.

Im with my brother and a friend and we go outside to relax , when the legal aid guy comes out again and start saying he want me to do a phyc exam to see if I am mentally sound!

I just say are you having a laugh , I have two people here that can attest to my sanity. Im just laughing at this point . And then he goes on a rant about contempt and I assure him that Ill be fine. Even though the ****er started making me nervous saying ill be locked up for a week.I go back inside and wait.I later find out that he was hassleing my brother telling him If I dont snap out of it Im going to prison.

I get called again at 3.30 But this time im sitting at the back of the courtroom as they called my name without notice so I had no time to get up close to the judge and had to speak very loudly from the back!

I started to go through the "I am the agent for..." and the police were going mad waving their hands in the get up motion!

Then the legal aid guy jumps up and starts saying " your honour he means no disrespect he is merely looking at things from a philosophical view point"
He rambles on for a bit longer...

Me " I do not mean to cause dis respect or harm to anybody in this courtroom is the way I am proceeding unlawful"

Judge" Is Mr k representing you?"

Me "I dont know why he is talking , I told him this already"

Me " Could the arresting officer please bring forward the injured party to this claim"

Judge " the arresting officer isnt here today sargent joe bloggs is representing him"

Me " So there are no witnesses then?"

Judge " we are not here to discuss the case" WHAT????

The man is going red in the face

Judge" We will remand you on bail for 7 days to reappear in court 54 do you consent?"

Me " I will consent to this if you pay me €20,000 for wasting my time"

Judge" We will remand you on bail for 7 days to reappear in court 54 do you consent?"

Me "I do not consent and waive all benifits"

Judge" what benifts"

Me " All benifits"

Judge" We will remand you on bail for 7 days to reappear in court 54 do you consent?"

Me " I do not understand"

Judge stamps some form the sargent walks of the stand and leaves the room the next case is called and Im not asked to sign for any bail I sit there in disbelief and then leave!

So Im guessing thats it?is it?should I go back in ?

I just like to thank everyone on the forum for all the great info and advice so far CHEERS GUYS!!

In conclusion The courtroom is a freak pit of life!


So I left with no fine, I still have my licence and the judge has no agreement with me to go to the next court date.
Last edited by mcattack21 on Sat Jan 30, 2010 4:25 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Reloc8

As noted by K Mac, the outcome of the drink driving hearing was the fixing of a hearing date.

This plank seems to think he prevented the system from operating upon him in some way (on the driving charge). In point of fact, on the first day a summons for drink driving is returnable to the Richmond Courts unless a guilty plea is entered it is adjourned for hearing.

On the hearing date if he doesn't show up it will proceed in his absence or a bench warrant for his arrest will issue. If he is convicted in his absence he will be fined and disqualified from driving (I am presuming he has no previous for similar). If a bench warrant issues he will be arrested on foot of it.

On the drug possession charge, noting it was by summons, noting it was in Court 51 and noting it was s. 3 only I am willing to lay reasonable money on the offence having been for a small amount of cannabis. On that basis the conversation between the judge and the garda was likely along the lines of :

'what was the value garda'

'20 euro'

'any previous ?'

'none relevant/none'

'was he like this when you dealt with him ?'

'yes judge'

*tchtchshakesheadjudgesaystohim/herself* 'right so he's a loony tunes'

'strike out'

GBG

Hello. I'm a the guy you all think you know, lol@youlot.
CASE NO. 2010/149144

I had my case dismissed on the 28th feb 2011 court 52, 1030am

Oh by the way, It was for cannabis in the blood, Not drunk/drink driving.
Thats the way the summons are issued. Take it up with the courts

corktina

i bet yer Ma is proud of you.

Seth Brundle

...and there we end it before the insults arrive!