Freeman Megamerge

glic71rods46t0

whippet wrote: »

Just like me reporting that over the weekend I blagged my way in to the playboy mansion and my performance and activities warranted a plaque of honour on the wall.

Was Hugh Heffner gentle with you?

whippet

8qpoxk4f7u0zh1 wrote: »

Was Hugh Heffner gentle with you?

in line with The Hub's reports ... I can't say anything more than I was great and am brilliant .. sorry!

mylud

whippet wrote: »

that was the jaw dropping incident alright .. it's only a pity we can't be privy to the actual events or that the Hub don't really like sharing these bombshells.

Just like me reporting that over the weekend I blagged my way in to the playboy mansion and my performance and activities warranted a plaque of honour on the wall. And as none of you were there .. I expect a load of thanks and back slapping from everyone !!

Unfortunatly many believe in the hub voodoo.It getting out of hand, notice the lord behaved himself in court but encourages his followers to cause havoc.

whippet

mylud wrote: »

Unfortunatly many believe in the hub voodoo.It getting out of hand, notice the lord behaved himself in court but encourages his followers to cause havoc.

do as I say not as I do.

they don't mind playing roughshod with the legal system as long as it isn't their necks on the line

For Forks Sake

mylud wrote: »

Looks like their senior council was in Trim today.

Indeed. Whatever that counts for....

The Hub - Ireland
5 hrs ·
Up in Trim court with are very own Sharon, she stood up and start talking, talk about the registrar jaw hitting the floor, blood draining from her face, yep that's right we took jurisdiction out of you're hands!

*scratches head*.

I have not a clue what they're sh1teing on about at this stage.

mylud

For Forks Sake wrote: »

Indeed. Whatever that counts for....



*scratches head*.

I have not a clue what they're sh1teing on about at this stage.

Sharon running Trim court sentenced a guy to a holiday in Austria for paying his mortage, a holiday for two his Mckenzie friend going along.

cobhguy28

AIB Mortgage Bank -v- O'Doherty

Owes over 4.7 million who is given these nuts money.

23. Most peculiarly, the defendant alleges that the present application is somehow rendered null and void because the name on his birth certificate is John Doherty and not John O’Doherty, although he does not seek to deny that the signature “John O’Doherty” on each of the relevant loan agreements, on each of the relevant mortgage deeds and on his own correspondence in 2010 is, indeed, his, or that he signed each and every one of those documents.

21. On the question of liability, it would appear that the defendant principally seeks to rely again on the contention that certain of the relevant loans were not his but rather those of a company named Kirefield Limited, together with the contention that the relevant properties are owned by Kirefield Limited and not by him. Perhaps understandably in view of his status as a litigant in person, the defendant does not appear to have given any consideration to the implications of the latter assertion for the issue of his standing to oppose an application for possession of certain properties that he contends he neither owns nor occupies.

Ste.phen

cobhguy28 wrote: »

Perhaps understandably in view of his status as a litigant in person, the defendant does not appear to have given any consideration to the implications of the latter assertion for the issue of his standing to oppose an application for possession of certain properties that he contends he neither owns nor occupies.

Schadenfreude aside, this is sad - a real solicitor could go a long way to helping these people - this freeman crap is actively making things worse for the people involved directly, as well as the indirect effects on the rest of society

Thargor

cobhguy28 wrote: »

AIB Mortgage Bank -v- O'Doherty

21. On the question of liability, it would appear that the defendant principally seeks to rely again on the contention that certain of the relevant loans were not his but rather those of a company named Kirefield Limited, together with the contention that the relevant properties are owned by Kirefield Limited and not by him. Perhaps understandably in view of his status as a litigant in person, the defendant does not appear to have given any consideration to the implications of the latter assertion for the issue of his standing to oppose an application for possession of certain properties that he contends he neither owns nor occupies.

Please update us if this is put to him...

mylud

Good news CAPLOCKS has appointed two law firms to represent him one for K Tech case one for revenue case.Poor auld Ciara sidelined.

whippet

mylud wrote: »

Good news CAPLOCKS has appointed two law firms to represent him one for K Tech case one for revenue case.Poor auld Ciara sidelined.

is this not the case against revenue ... where he had a defaulters bill in the region of €300k to stump up?

Robbo

mylud wrote: »

Good news CAPLOCKS has appointed two law firms to represent him one for K Tech case one for revenue case.Poor auld Ciara sidelined.

With good reason, if she was to attempt to advocate for him given her non-practicing status, she'd find the Bar Council making some polite enquiries. Much better to pasting outdated tracts from textbooks on Facebook to extract some more money from rubes in Slatterys.

Looks like the taxman did a number on CAPSLOCK. Hardly surprising given the industry though.

whippet

Ironically CAPSLOCK Gibney has posted a link to a youtube video ‘There is no law requiring you to pay income tax’ .. He says THIS IS 100% CORRECT … I wonder if he can use this video as evidence in court with the Revenue?

eldamo

whippet wrote: »

Ironically CAPSLOCK Gibney has posted a link to a youtube video ‘There is no law requiring you to pay income tax’ .. He says THIS IS 100% CORRECT … I wonder if he can use this video as evidence in court with the Revenue?

there is no law requiring you to pay income tax.

provided you are happy not to earn an income...

i have a feeling plenty of them would happily do this and claim victory

whippet

So the bastions of great journalism TV3 will be giving BOD and Beades an hour of airtime to convince the nation that all 82 rulings in the court were incorrect and BOD, Blazer, Blake, Brucie, Alex & Mary Patsy should be back on the hill before the summer. Jerry will be on hand to explain why it is incomprehensible to think that any failed property developer shouldn't be entitled to live Dallasesque lifestyles while the peasant tax payers should take the hit.

I think I might just watch this on the old telly .. just incase I have an irrational desire to put my boot through it !

cobhguy28

whippet wrote: »

So the bastions of great journalism TV3 will be giving BOD and Beades an hour of airtime to convince the nation that all 82 rulings in the court were incorrect and BOD, Blazer, Blake, Brucie, Alex & Mary Patsy should be back on the hill before the summer. Jerry will be on hand to explain why it is incomprehensible to think that any failed property developer shouldn't be entitled to live Dallasesque lifestyles while the peasant tax payers should take the hit.

I think I might just watch this on the old telly .. just incase I have an irrational desire to put my boot through it !

He says he lost every rulling however every time he asked for an extention of time to stay in the house untill the appeals were heard, the court granted him this time, even after the bank and the receiver had argued he should not be left stay.

mylud

The hub now being spied upon by the Law Society trying to learn from the hub.Ciara on lay litagation asking facebook friends for legal assistance.The Simpsons couldnt do it justice.

my friend

cobhguy28 wrote: »

He says he lost every rulling however every time he asked for an extention of time to stay in the house untill the appeals were heard, the court granted him this time, even after the bank and the receiver had argued he should not be left stay.

labels o'donnell reckons that statistically he shouldn't have lost every ruling, crazy reasoning by him, it's funny to think that he used to be a big shot on the commercial legal scene , makes me think he was more of a gambler than a legal mind , labels views court rulings as a roulette throw it would appear, he stuck on red and couldn't accept 82 losses, the stuff of degenerates , then again its insight into the mindset that probably drove his property gambles.
You'd imagine an old pal would have intervened and saved him the embarrassment of association with Beades & Co.

Robbo

It seems one of the disputed farms where Beades and Gilroy were "advising" has taken to having some impromptu freestyle barbeques.

Chiorino

Robbo wrote: »

It seems one of the disputed farms where Beades and Gilroy were "advising" has taken to having some impromptu freestyle barbeques.

Whatever about the usual shouting and intimidation Ben his ilk usually resort to, petrol bombs through an eighty year old womans' window is a very sinister turn.

whippet

Chiorino wrote: »

Whatever about the usual shouting and intimidation Ben his ilk usually resort to, petrol bombs through an eighty year old womans' window is a very sinister turn.

while we have no idea who is behind this latest bit of criminal intimidation ... i would imagine the antics of the 'protesters' could influence the minds and actions of other scumbags to do what they are doing.

cobhguy28

Any one have any information on this.

The person involved I think is laura finnegan.

Only case I can find listed with that name is in the dundalk call over list on the 18th of may
The

The Hub - Ireland
5 hrs ·
The Rateable Value: gone.
Our Girl Laura, hats off to you, take a bow, you just changed History.
The Plaintiff relied on the rateable value to bring Lay Litigant into the Circuit Court: today Ms Justice Murphy ruled against the Bank and the Jurisdiction: “the Circuit Court did not have jurisdiction, the defendants dwelling was neither rated nor rateable and accordingly the Circuit Court did not have Jurisdiction to hear the Plaintiffs claim”.
“The Plaintiff maintained that it had invoked and was entitled to the provisions of the valuation act and a letter issued by the Valuations office was sufficient: both these assertions are manifestly unfounded on the evidence”.
History has just been made: are you being taken to the Circuit Court under the rateable value, with certain limits: not anymore.

whippet

I'm waiting on the Bloomberg and CNN reports this evening for the earth shattering details

rameire

cobhguy28 wrote: »

Any one have any information on this.

The person involved I think is laura finnegan.

Only case I can find listed with that name is in the dundalk call over list on the 18th of may
The

The Hub - Ireland
5 hrs ·
The Rateable Value: gone.
Our Girl Laura, hats off to you, take a bow, you just changed History.
The Plaintiff relied on the rateable value to bring Lay Litigant into the Circuit Court: today Ms Justice Murphy ruled against the Bank and the Jurisdiction: “the Circuit Court did not have jurisdiction, the defendants dwelling was neither rated nor rateable and accordingly the Circuit Court did not have Jurisdiction to hear the Plaintiffs claim”.
“The Plaintiff maintained that it had invoked and was entitled to the provisions of the valuation act and a letter issued by the Valuations office was sufficient: both these assertions are manifestly unfounded on the evidence”.
History has just been made: are you being taken to the Circuit Court under the rateable value, with certain limits: not anymore.

they good speak english well.

The Valuation Office is the State property valuation agency. The core business of the Office is the provision of accurate, up-to-date valuations of commercial and industrial properties to ratepayers and rating authorities as laid down by statute.

what has this got to do with anything they are splurging out of their holes.

how is the rateable value of a commercial property anything to do with a case against somebodies dwelling.

littlemac1980

rameire wrote: »

they good speak english well.



what has this got to do with anything they are splurging out of their holes.

how is the rateable value of a commercial property anything to do with a case against somebodies dwelling.

I'm aware that certain actions involving real property require that the rateable valuation of the property be below a certain value if they are brought within the circuit court.

Its been a good while since I've had to check the requirement, so I can't be sure which actions those are or what the significance of the recent changes to jurisdiction values were in this regard.

I think the previous limit was about €250.

Edit: actually just checked the citizensinfo website. There's a list of them one of which is -

"in equity suits, where the rateable valuation of the land does not exceed €253.95"

So injunctions etc would be covered by the rule.

cobhguy28

littlemac1980 wrote: »

I'm aware that certain actions involving real property require that the rateable valuation of the property be below a certain value if they are brought within the circuit court.

Its been a good while since I've had to check the requirement, so I can't be sure which actions those are or what the significance of the recent changes to jurisdiction values were in this regard.

I think the previous limit was about €250.

Edit: actually just checked the citizensinfo website. There's a list of them one of which is -

"in equity suits, where the rateable valuation of the land does not exceed €253.95"

So injunctions etc would be covered by the rule.

With out details of the cases it's hard to know but they are making big claims and will have a lot innocent people filing claims based on this.

cobhguy28

Under the 2009 conveyancing act circuit court was given jurisdiction in relation to home loans. If this case was not home loan but some other debt then the judgement would be correct and would be no big deal.

littlemac1980

cobhguy28 wrote: »

With out details of the cases it's hard to know but they are making big claims and will have a lot innocent people filing claims based on this.

I don't think its a big deal, it's simply a proof the Judge requires regarding Jurisdiction. It couldn't affect any other case which has been decided as all the requisite proofs would have had to be in order. If a case is yet to be decided then like any case the action would either fall within the Circuit Court jurisdiction or must be brought in the High Court. It doesn't affect the existence of the cause of action in anyway only the Jurisdiction of the Circuit Court to hear the case.

It's not ground for a claim, but of course if there is a ground for an appeal in any case due to some issue with the application of the law or a point of law then of course the aggrieved party is entitled to appeal within the requisite period or apply outside the period for leave to appeal.
That's no big deal either any party with a sufficient ground for appeal or to make such application against a decision is entitled to appeal provided its bona fide. The courts don't discriminate against parties just because they may be lay litigants or even freemen, it simply decides cases based on the law. It's upto a plaintiff to ensure their proceedings are in order.

My guess is that despite all the backslapping going on in this case, if there was an issue with Jurisdiction, it was spotted by the Judge not argued by the defendant/respondent because as far as I'm aware the first thing a Judge deals with is proof of Jurisdiction.

eldamo

The Hub Tweens (hub Ireland political youth bookface page) have very kindly put up a layman's version of the epic victory on rates.

In layman's terms

Layman’s terms

It has taken us two years to get a Judge to listen to us, today a Judge did:

The banks are taking you to court under the rateable value; the vehicle to get you into the Circuit Court; today that ended: there are no rates on domestic properties in Ireland, abolished in 1974.

So you instantly counter sue the banks, if you lost your house; you go get it back, if they sold it, you sue them: this is changing HISTORY. Then sue them; report the matter to the Gardai, to the Law Society, the Fraud Squad and then Sue then.

The banks used an ad hoc non statutory process and were / are persuading the Circuit Court that they had/have jurisdiction. They lied, they duped the Circuit Court.

If you need help, come see Lay Litigation Ireland.

Your counter claim will be above the debt you have to the banks.

So free money for all. Woo. Sorry on mobile and n00bish so couldn't figure out how to post that as a quote.

(fixed it)

Little CuChulainn

They appear to be ignoring a consequence of their challenges. If they manage to prove that the money they owe never really existed and they don't owe anything are they not admitting to fraud in the purchase of their house from it's previous owner? Is the sale of the home to them even valid as they did not provide a consideration?