Freeman Megamerge

Robbo

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Facebook really don't take that seriously. I went through the whole process before on a post where one of these groups were publishing the home addresses of people and encouraging their followers to show up and make their lives hell. Comments along the lines of "burn them out" apparently didn't reach whatever arbitrary threshold Facebook saw fit to employ.

Of course, they'd ****ing love to be "censored" and silenced by the man, it would only feed into their persecution complex and get the donations rolling in to keep the lads in the manner they're accustomed to.

whippet

interestingly they are all over the whole 1916 thing .. seem to be attending and promoting all the 'republican' events with the likes of erigi - draw you one conclusions as to the type of people involved.

it isn't a case of lying with dogs and getting fleas .. more a case of fleas getting together with fleas

Losty Dublin

whippet wrote: »

isn't a case of lying with dogs and getting fleas .. more a case of fleas getting together with fleas

I'd say more a case of fleas getting sleeping dogs than the other way round

GavMan

The grammar alone is enough to hate these guys...

Craic Pot

Kayroo. Message 4195


A very observant post. You don't realise how close you are to the truth. If you investigate further, you'll find that the "leader" of I.I. is/was in fact a member of one of the world's biggest cults - the Moonies. He was, at one stage, a caretaker in one of their churches in Alaska and a student at their college in New York!

Robbo

Charlie Allen has resurfaced and for the low-low price of €500 you can avail of the €160,000 crock'o'knowledge he's amassed. Cash only is requested.

As ever, Damo Capslock is having a go at him, as a former customer. Of course it's being pointed out that there are far more benevolent groups out there that *totally* aren't in it for the cash. Not at all.

Thargor

Wow nobody in that conversation believes him, listen to the way he talks, "Get in now before the price goes up!". People asking him to explain where the 160k went aswell. Depressing in that you cant even laugh at it like Gilroy and the goon squad because the guy has made a fortune from this.

Losty Dublin

Breaking news. I've discovered where the Hub are getting their money from...

The Sovereign Tea!

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Losty Dublin

Fred Swanson wrote: »

Great find! Where is it located?

Strokestown. Somewhere that's appropriately named for them

Robbo

Robbo wrote: »

Charlie Allen has resurfaced and for the low-low price of €500 you can avail of the €160,000 crock'o'knowledge he's amassed. Cash only is requested.

As ever, Damo Capslock is having a go at him, as a former customer. Of course it's being pointed out that there are far more benevolent groups out there that *totally* aren't in it for the cash. Not at all.

That's actually disgusting. That's just a bare faced scam.

Ken.

The next meeting is the 3 Oaks in Loughlanbridge,Co Carlow, 26th Aug,

No such place exists.
1. Its Leighlinbridge
2. The hotel is the seven oaks
2. That hotel is in Carlow town 7 miles away.

ohnonotgmail

Robbo wrote: »

Charlie Allen has resurfaced and for the low-low price of €500 you can avail of the €160,000 crock'o'knowledge he's amassed. Cash only is requested.

As ever, Damo Capslock is having a go at him, as a former customer. Of course it's being pointed out that there are far more benevolent groups out there that *totally* aren't in it for the cash. Not at all.

genius

as I already stated we have won many cases but were made sign a confidentially clause so we can't speak about it or give you any case numbers/names,

relax carry on

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

Quote:
as I already stated we have won many cases but were made sign a confidentially clause so we can't speak about it or give you any case numbers/names,

I could tell you but then I'd have to kill you!

whippet

surely that Rudolf the red nose Facebook page is a piss take? it can't be a real one as it is just so bad.

ohnonotgmail

whippet wrote: »

surely that Rudolf the red nose Facebook page is a piss take? it can't be a real one as it is just so bad.

i think you overestimate them.

eldamo

whippet wrote: »

surely that Rudolf the red nose Facebook page is a piss take? it can't be a real one as it is just so bad.

I was thinking that with the mossad phones (whose price will also go up if you don't get in right now!!!!!!!!!!:eek:)

whippet

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/crowd-funders-set-up-constitutional-challenge-to-mortgage-law-1.2311256

Brian and Tom are getting some coverage in the Irish Time .. a bit like an advertorial as opposed to a news item.

So much for the media ignoring everything these lads get up to.

Tom seems to be very quite on the whole AIB thing he was hoping to get elected to Europe on the back of.

cobhguy28

whippet wrote: »

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/crowd-funders-set-up-constitutional-challenge-to-mortgage-law-1.2311256

Brian and Tom are getting some coverage in the Irish Time .. a bit like an advertorial as opposed to a news item.

So much for the media ignoring everything these lads get up to.

Tom seems to be very quite on the whole AIB thing he was hoping to get elected to Europe on the back of.

Tom is staying quite because Aib reissued processing against him and won them all. So Tom has now lost all his cases with Aib.

whippet

cobhguy28 wrote: »

Tom is staying quite because Aib reissued processing against him and won them all. So Tom has now lost all his cases with Aib.

he must be up there with the Gorse Hill lads at the top of the scoreboard

Robbo

whippet wrote: »

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/crowd-funders-set-up-constitutional-challenge-to-mortgage-law-1.2311256

Brian and Tom are getting some coverage in the Irish Time .. a bit like an advertorial as opposed to a news item.

So much for the media ignoring everything these lads get up to.

Tom seems to be very quite on the whole AIB thing he was hoping to get elected to Europe on the back of.

Having skimmed over this article from the Law Gazette in the UK, I wonder how clever the idea of crowdfunding litigation is in Ireland, especially speculative litigation involving Tom.

Over there, at least some elements of the matter have been considered and the notion of 3rd party funding has been dealt with by the Courts. Over here, there's not too much by way of guidance (except in the area of ATE insurance) and one might make the argument that it falls under the tort of champerty & maintenance (which still exist in Ireland, last I checked). In which case, you may end up on the hook as a funder for costs in excess of what you paid in for (highly unlikely perhaps).

Tom's crowd are quite silent on what will happen to the money other than it'll be used for "the cause". From skimming the FAQ of his crowdfunding service, I get the impression they'd like these donations to be viewed as "personal gifts" so in the interests of transparency, I'd be looking to see the invoices for the "legal fees" paid as and when they arrive. A further issue arises in that the proceedings, we are told, are in Tom's name only. So further issues arise in that the money is being raised by Right2Homes (assisted by Legal & Equitable aka Tom and Brian Reilly) to fund Tom's activities. The Revenue and the Charities Regulatory Authority might want to do a tag-team enquiry on that aspect of it.

If you really wanted to make an exam question scenario out of this, you could invent a scenario where the whole thing goes belly up, the SC finds it entirely lacking in merit and the question arises as to where the money went and if any trusts arise in favour of the punters. Flip this over and if Tom secures a resounding victory and is awarded a mahoosive sum of cashmoney (for arguments sake, a sum that can just about dig himself out of his multi-million euro property developer shaped hole), can the funders trace into this amount in proportion to their contribution?

cobhguy28

Robbo wrote: »

Having skimmed over this article from the Law Gazette in the UK, I wonder how clever the idea of crowdfunding litigation is in Ireland, especially speculative litigation involving Tom.

Over there, at least some elements of the matter have been considered and the notion of 3rd party funding has been dealt with by the Courts. Over here, there's not too much by way of guidance (except in the area of ATE insurance) and one might make the argument that it falls under the tort of champerty & maintenance (which still exist in Ireland, last I checked). In which case, you may end up on the hook as a funder for costs in excess of what you paid in for (highly unlikely perhaps).

Tom's crowd are quite silent on what will happen to the money other than it'll be used for "the cause". From skimming the FAQ of his crowdfunding service, I get the impression they'd like these donations to be viewed as "personal gifts" so in the interests of transparency, I'd be looking to see the invoices for the "legal fees" paid as and when they arrive. A further issue arises in that the proceedings, we are told, are in Tom's name only. So further issues arise in that the money is being raised by Right2Homes (assisted by Legal & Equitable aka Tom and Brian Reilly) to fund Tom's activities. The Revenue and the Charities Regulatory Authority might want to do a tag-team enquiry on that aspect of it.

If you really wanted to make an exam question scenario out of this, you could invent a scenario where the whole thing goes belly up, the SC finds it entirely lacking in merit and the question arises as to where the money went and if any trusts arise in favour of the punters. Flip this over and if Tom secures a resounding victory and is awarded a mahoosive sum of cashmoney (for arguments sake, a sum that can just about dig himself out of his multi-million euro property developer shaped hole), can the funders trace into this amount in proportion to their contribution?

You need to read the fine print. The funding raising is not for Tom's case it FOR A TRUST WHICH GIVE MONEY TO CONSTITUTIONAL CHALLENGES which Tom cases is one of. So the money can be going anywhere and if they some how won they would just claim the money goes back to the Trust for more cases

ArmaniJeanss

What do we think of their basic case which is that a) the act in question is restrospective legislation and is therefore b) against an article of the constitution. Appears to me after a cursory (and in truth largely clueless) google that only retrospective criminal legislation is forbidden.

They do appear to have David Langwaller on board which is impressive enough (bearing in mind these groups usually have some nonentity internationally reknowned superlawyer from Mauritius)

cobhguy28

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

What do we think of their basic case which is that a) the act in question is restrospective legislation and is therefore b) against an article of the constitution. Appears to me after a cursory (and in truth largely clueless) google that only retrospective criminal legislation is forbidden.

They do appear to have David Langwaller on board which is impressive enough (bearing in mind these groups usually have some nonentity internationally reknowned superlawyer from Mauritius)

Yes retrospective legislation is allowed as long as it goes not,

“[FONT=Times New Roman, serif]takes away or impairs any vested right acquired under existing laws, or creates a new obligation, or imposes a new duty, or attaches a new disability in respect of transactions or considerations already past.”[/FONT]

As the 2013 coveyancing Act only deals with procuduers of the Court It does look like it will be allowed.

The issue of barrister David Langwaller, I have asked him about this and his answer was that a Solicitor firm asked him to drafted proceedings so he did.

Cases about retrospective legislation


“In Toss Ltd. v District Justice High Court, Blayney J, 24 November 1987. it was submitted on behalf of the applicant company that the State should not be permitted to continue with a summons based on a complaint which had been made and considered before the act of 1986 was passed and that the  legislation could not operate retrospectively. However, Blayney J was satisfied that the Courts (No.3) Act 1986 dealt with procedure only and not with substantive rights. Therefore the common law presumption against retrospectivity did not apply and the legislation could validly operate in such a manner.”

“ The court is satisfied that the provisions of Article 15.5 of the Constitution are an expressed and unambiguous prohibition against the enactment of retrospective laws declaring acts to be an infringement of the law, whether of the civil or criminal law.[1992] ILRM 186, 190.
However, it is important to stress that the Chief Justice also said that Article 15.5 did not contain, nor was it to be interpreted as containing, any general prohibition on the retrospection of legislation in general;its application is clearly confined to situations where apparently innocent actions are retrospectively construed as constituting infringements of the law.”

“Henchy J made it clear in the Hamilton case, the common law presumption against retrospective construction has no application to  legislation which makes procedural changes only”

johnnyskeleton

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

What do we think of their basic case which is that a) the act in question is restrospective legislation and is therefore b) against an article of the constitution. Appears to me after a cursory (and in truth largely clueless) google that only retrospective criminal legislation is forbidden.

Spot on. But lets suppose that any legislation that had retrospective effect was unconstitutional - as the 2009 act inadvertently removed the right to repossess and the 2013 amendment seeks to restore that position, you cant say one is unconstitutional without the other. Except in Freedonia, of course, where the constitution leans against paying back any kind of debt, bill, tax or charge.

conorh91

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

What do we think of their basic case which is that a) the act in question is restrospective legislation and is therefore b) against an article of the constitution. Appears to me after a cursory (and in truth largely clueless) google that only retrospective criminal legislation is forbidden.

Cobhguy has answered this but I would also add that retrospective legislation will also not be unconstitutional where it would benefit the Accused or any defendant to avail of an amendment to the law.

cobhguy28

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Spot on. But lets suppose that any legislation that had retrospective effect was unconstitutional - as the 2009 act inadvertently removed the right to repossess and the 2013 amendment seeks to restore that position, you cant say one is unconstitutional without the other. Except in Freedonia, of course, where the constitution leans against paying back any kind of debt, bill, tax or charge.

One thing about the 2009 act it only took away the banks rights conferred Underthe registration of title act. You could still apply to the court for a well charging order and then get a judgement mortgage and then get an order for procession and then an order for sale. The 2013 act now just says you can still use the registration of title act again and that the provisions of the 2013 act will not apply to proceedings already initiated before the coming into operation of this legislation, So one it does not affect any home owners’ rights as there was no right not to have your home reprocessed and two the act is not even retrospective as it only applies to new proceeding brought after the 2013 act comes into force

jd

Don't know if they've been mentioned before, but "The Celtic People's Party of Ireland" seem to be an ugly mix of freemanism and racism (most freeman types seem fairly reactionary when it comes to issues beyond driving their cars and in most cases smoking dope.)
"Common law will replace maritime law"!
http://www.cppireland.org/WebContent/pages/policy.html#law

johnnyskeleton

jd wrote: »

Don't know if they've been mentioned before, but "The Celtic People's Party of Ireland" seem to be an ugly mix of freemanism and racism (most freeman types seem fairly reactionary when it comes to issues beyond driving their cars and in most cases smoking dope.)
"Common law will replace maritime law"!
http://www.cppireland.org/WebContent/pages/policy.html#law

So they will get rid of "martime law" (read statute law) and replace it with common law which has three rules - dont hurt someone, dont damage someones property, and contracts are private arrangements and sacrosanct.

They illustrate this by abolishing all road traffic law and you can driver your car however you like so long as you dont injure someone or damage their property (presumably, in keeping with the third law you can only drive your own car or someone elses with their permission). So far all so consistent.

Then in the next paragraph they propose banning pornography. Maybe some pornography damages other people or property, but one wouldve thought that the three rules mean that a contractual and voluntary arrangement for aome nudie pics that doesnt harm anyone or damage property is to be made illegal.

Surely anti obscenity laws are part of our "maritime law" rather than our common law.

I guess their real principle is that they will ban what they personally dont like while legalising doing what feels good for themselves.

The bit about abolishing all taxes while providing a world beating public health service with no waiting lists would make me vote for them - Im surprised none of the main political parties have thought of this policy before.

cobhguy28

jd wrote: »

Don't know if they've been mentioned before, but "The Celtic People's Party of Ireland" seem to be an ugly mix of freemanism and racism (most freeman types seem fairly reactionary when it comes to issues beyond driving their cars and in most cases smoking dope.)
"Common law will replace maritime law"!
http://www.cppireland.org/WebContent/pages/policy.html#law

Now this really tops freeman nonsense. Get rid of all taxes sounds great I am in oh wait a min ban porn no can't do it I am out. I might be poor after paying tax but at least I can make myself happy with my porn.