Freeman Megamerge

L1011

Robbo wrote: »

Seems like they abandoned the sage counsel of the Facebook lawyers, employed eminent Senior Counsel, tried to narrow the appeal to areas of actual law rather than imagined ones.....and still lost.

Which will now be blamed as the reason for losing by the Freemen (important with this surname!) nuts, I imagine.

whippet

L1011 wrote: »

Which will now be blamed as the reason for losing by the Freemen (important with this surname!) nuts, I imagine.

There will be no blame. This whole case will be removed from their history books.

whippet

the lads over in The Hub have the begging bowl out again.

Apparently their landlord left them with a ESB bill of €1500.

Its beyond me how you can be lumbered with someone elses ESB bill, surely you have a meter reading from when you took over the tenency or even a date to show ESB who can back this against the meter readings.

Isn't Jerry Beades the landlord?

Little CuChulainn

whippet wrote: »

the lads over in The Hub have the begging bowl out again.

Apparently their landlord left them with a ESB bill of €1500.

Its beyond me how you can be lumbered with someone elses ESB bill, surely you have a meter reading from when you took over the tenency or even a date to show ESB who can back this against the meter readings.

Isn't Jerry Beades the landlord?

Jerry Beades the corporation maybe. Not Jerry Beads the individual.

whippet

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

Jerry Beades the corporation maybe. Not Jerry Beads the individual.

don't you mean JERRY BEADES as opposed to Jerry Beades?

Little CuChulainn

whippet wrote: »

don't you mean JERRY BEADES as opposed to Jerry Beades?

I didn't want to infringe his trademark.

Robbo

I wonder why they don't just produce a copy of their dated lease to satisfy the ESB? We can all safely assume that their tenancy is 100% kosher, as is the bill.

cobhguy28

Robbo wrote: »

I wonder why they don't just produce a copy of their dated lease to satisfy the ESB? We can all safely assume that their tenancy is 100% kosher, as is the bill.

Especially since they are there now a few years. Maybe it Lay litigants Ireland's bill before they moved out.

Robbo

cobhguy28 wrote: »

Especially since they are there now a few years. Maybe it Lay litigants Ireland's bill before they moved out.

I would pay good money to watch them sue their former commercial partners in LLI for the disputed amount.

Corkblowin

relax carry on wrote: »

Hadn't looked in on Doocey’s never ending rants in a while. He's laying down the gauntlet apparently. I thought he wasn't to post on Social Media about his case?

From his Facebook page:

on the 8th march last in a kangaroo court in ballina co mayo ,presided over by the corrupt judge kevin kilraine who in collusion with the corrupt superintendent from ballina garda station "joe doherty" tried to jail me and hold me on remand due to a false allegation on the worthiness of colm granahan as bailsman . unproven and without a chance to defend this allegation kilraine and doherty broke every law in the land to assasinate colms character and jail me . even though bail had been established a month earlier in the district court in portlaoise. kilraine put a gagging order on me even though the state splashed my name on newspaper.radio and on television . my case is public and to be held in a public court so in my view should be public in every form and i intend to make it so . under european law i can disseminate lawfully any information to the public once factual and true and under the freedom of speeche s act i have an inalienable right to defend myself . so two fingers to you kevin kilraine and joe doherty . i will post everything about the charges the n.b.c.i and gardai in ballina are trying to stitch me up on and will not play by your corrupt unlawful rules . we warned gardai that if they did not behave themselves we would be calling to their houses . they have got more corrupt . in mayo listed for visits are judge mary devins . judge kevin kilraine, superintendent joe doherty , and other highranking gardai . registrar fintan murphy and many solicitors and lower ranking gardai . peaceful protests will be held outside their houses and fliers distributed to their neighbours . we will stop corrupt authority figure s from abusing their posistions .they must resign now . information to the first peaceful protest will be sent out to all protestors in the coming days . its sad this has to be done but these corrupt individuals will have to learn that the people of ireland have had enough .

Any idea has he picked up for contempt after this rant?

I think a lot of the problems these guys cause is due to the fact they're let get away ignoring the law,guards, rulings etc - i assume hoping for a quiet life / they'll get bored whatever - but all its doing is emboldening them.

Onevision

Corkblowin wrote: »

Any idea has he picked up for contempt after this rant?

I think a lot of the problems these guys cause is due to the fact they're let get away ignoring the law,guards, rulings etc - i assume hoping for a quiet life / they'll get bored whatever - but all its doing is emboldening them.

Doocey's ex-pal manning has acted similarly on numerous occasions. Suddenly the state is acting and will do so against doocey. Meanwhile, manning has disappeared at the expense of the state or gone on a skiing holiday!

Torakx

To clear up any misconceptions, I do not make the claim the state is a person.
I have that from an Irish Barrister who wrote a book called Principles of Irish Law.
In there it says the state was made a juristic person, around 1970 or so, BYRNE V IRELAND I think was the case.

Here are some definitions I found at the top of a google search for juristic person.

Definition of juristic person. : a body of persons, a corporation, a partnership, or other legal entity that is recognized by law as the subject of rights and duties —called also artificial person, conventional person, fictitious person.

Here we see that we are all seen as juristic persons as well(see conventional person)
For those who didn't know what juristic means, as far as I know it means recognized in law.
If I have it right, then I am(or have access to) a person and the state is also a person.
Pretty straight forward so far I hope.

My question or query is in relation to the state being a juristic person and the obligations it has to its contracts, as well as the obligations of it's citizens.

For example, the state and person called IRELAND seems to have signed some contracts which embedded it into the European Union.
But what if the citizens all left the state?
Say half of the country or 60% of citizens left the state and started a corporate entity called EIRE NUA
Say they create a mandate or constitution for those in that corporation of persons.
And say they now outnumber the amount of citizens in the original state/person they used to be connected to.
Do all the contracts transfer over as well? What about all those debts?

Is it the case that IRELAND the person is responsible for IRELANDS debts and contracts. Not the civil servants or public(agents of the state?).

Is the new person EIRE NUA at all responsible for the debts of IRELAND?
Is this person EIRE NUA with 60% of the population now in position, in some regards at least, to be changed to the nation state? Taking with it only those contracts and agreements made by that person EIRE NUA?

I think what I might be looking for is the basis for which a state is considered to represent the people of the land.
When the majority of the people of a land mass commit citizenship to a new state, what right does the minority have to argue it's legitimacy?

I understand it's obviously not so simple as all that.
But this is the simplest way I can convey the idea and query.
We did change IRELAND to a republic at one stage right?
Or did we create a new person for that act?

Anyway, it's a thought I had a few days ago and I'm curious of the road blocks and fundamental issues that might come up.

Or just any other similar ideas or real world situations, where this may already have been tested.
Any country that changed its name might be a useful example too.
I'm not sure really...

Grolschevik

Torakx wrote:

I think what I might be looking for is the basis for which a state is considered to represent the people of the land. When the majority of the people of a land mass commit citizenship to a new state, what right does the minority have to argue it's legitimacy?

I think this is the crux of the post. When does a willing plurality of people in a particular geographic area get to be or call themselves a state?

Esel

Éire Nua. Did you just pick that name out of the blue?

If this Éire Nua had four regional parliaments and one of those parliaments seceded, what would the new and old person be called?

Torakx

lol yeah, it came to mind as I was typing.
Pretty much that's how I type all forum posts ^^
They take ages haha

Not sure about your questions, especially since I am not sure about the original one
I think if 4 parts of a whole "person, breaks up, the person is still officially there in it's position until otherwise shown not to be.
A break away state I suppose would be similar to north of Ireland?
It might be the case that because of that break up, we renamed IRELAND, THE REPUBLIC of IRELAND and the north got a new name too. Er I actually don't know the norths corporate name.

I found 3 companies on the CRO website called IRELAND, but they were type b (individual)
I had found it before somewhere, but can't seem to remember where it's registered as a corporate entity.

Esel

Ah sure here ya go:

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89ire_Nua

moyners

Spotted in Cork

Victor

Oi! that name is already in use! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Ireland_(island)

Victor

Torakx wrote: »

For those who didn't know what juristic means, as far as I know it means recognized in law.

One issue there is whether your new state will be recognized or not.

For example, the state and person called IRELAND seems to have signed some contracts which embedded it into the European Union.

While these agreements have similarities with contracts, they are more properly called treaties.

But what if the citizens all left the state?

Someone might come along and take all the state assets.

Say half of the country or 60% of citizens left the state and started a corporate entity called EIRE NUA

Countries aren't properly described as corporate entries.

Do all the contracts transfer over as well? What about all those debts?

Look up "successor state".

Is it the case that IRELAND the person is responsible for IRELANDS debts and contracts. Not the civil servants or public(agents of the state?).

The public are not agents of the state.

Is the new person EIRE NUA at all responsible for the debts of IRELAND?

We can argue all day, but failure to honour the debts or an agreed amount of the debts would see the new entity locked out of debt markets and possibly general trade.

Is this person EIRE NUA with 60% of the population now in position, in some regards at least, to be changed to the nation state? Taking with it only those contracts and agreements made by that person EIRE NUA?

The problem there is that you would also lose the assets, goodwill, etc. You would also not be in the EU, with all the implications of that - financial, trade, diplomatic, freedom of movement, etc.

When the majority of the people of a land mass commit citizenship to a new state, what right does the minority have to argue it's legitimacy?

Please study the politics of Ireland 1912-1998

We did change IRELAND to a republic at one stage right?

Yes, but all that really did was remove the King as head of state. A king that had very few powers at that stage.

Or did we create a new person for that act?

No, we didn't. Ireland was created in 1937, not 1948 (and not 1916). In 1937, it took on all the responsibilities of the Irish Free State.

Or just any other similar ideas or real world situations, where this may already have been tested.

Several countries disappeared with the fall of communism. Who would you suggest should have inherited the Soviet union's nuclear arsenal?

Any country that changed its name might be a useful example too.

Countries change their names from time to time. You are proposing a 'phoenix' state.

johnnyskeleton

It would be considered as an act of default and international lenders would refuse to lend money to the new state.

Its no different to if 60% of the Irish people elect a politicla party to power who make a policy decision to not pay our foreign debts and other obligations and to provide immunity to the state against domestic debts. The same result would be achieved with the same consequences.

GM228

We did change IRELAND to a republic at one stage right?

Yes, but all that really did was remove the King as head of state. A king that had very few powers at that stage.

Victor is correct "Ireland" was created in 1937, however the creation of Ireland didn't remove the King of England fully, the King of England still held the executive authority of external matters.

Or did we create a new person for that act?

No, we didn't. Ireland was created in 1937, not 1948 (and not 1916). In 1937, it took on all the responsibilities of the Irish Free State.

The "Republic of Ireland" was created on April 18th 1949 and that finally removed the King of England completely giving the President of Ireland the executive authority over external matters. What's more interesting is the Constitution dosn't actually imply Ireland is a republic.

cobhguy28

GM228 wrote: »

The "Republic of Ireland" was created on April 18th 1949 and that finally removed the King of England completely giving the President of Ireland the executive authority over external matters. What's more interesting is the Constitution dosn't actually imply Ireland is a republic.

Ireland was declared a Republic in 1949. There is a differecnce The is no such country as the republic of ireland.

GM228

cobhguy28 wrote: »

Ireland was declared a Republic in 1937. There is a differecnce The is no such country as the republic of ireland.

The Constitution declared the Irish Free State became "Ireland" in 1937, the Republic of Ireland Act 1948 declared that the state (Ireland) became known as the "Republic of Ireland" in 1949.

Ireland didn't officially becone a republic until 1949 when it severed ties to the commonwealth.

P. Breathnach

GM228 wrote: »

The Constitution declared the Irish Free State became "Ireland" in 1937, the Republic of Ireland Act 1948 declared that the state (Ireland) became known as the "Republic of Ireland" in 1949.

Ireland didn't officially becone a republic until 1949 when it severed ties to the commonwealth.

The 1948 Act did not, and could not, trump the Constitution. The name of the state continues to be "Éire, or, in the English language, Ireland".

"Republic of Ireland" is, strictly speaking, a description. Clearly, it is such a focused description that it is unambiguous, and can be used to refer to the state.

Robbo

Lord Byron and other luminaries of this thread were given the soft soap treatment in the Irish Times today, where the write was seemingly unaware of the free, professional support available.

cobhguy28

TheRepublic of Ireland Act, 1948

2.—It is hereby declared that the descriptionof the State shall be the Republic of Ireland.

The name never changed onlythe description.

hullaballoo

P. Breathnach wrote: »

The 1948 Act did not, and could not, trump the Constitution. The name of the state continues to be "Éire, or, in the English language, Ireland".

"Republic of Ireland" is, strictly speaking, a description. Clearly, it is such a focused description that it is unambiguous, and can be used to refer to the state.

cobhguy28 wrote: »

TheRepublic of Ireland Act, 1948

2.—It is hereby declared that the descriptionof the State shall be the Republic of Ireland.

The name never changed onlythe description.

Yes, the above are both correct but the net effect of this is that the name of the country is and, unless the constitution is amended by referendum, will continue to be simply, "Ireland" in the English language.

The Republic of Ireland is a soccer team.

GM228

hullaballoo wrote: »

Yes, the above are both correct but the net effect of this is that the name of the country is and, unless the constitution is amended by referendum, will continue to be simply, "Ireland" in the English language.

The Republic of Ireland is a soccer team.

Thanks for the clarification, yes name and description are totally different and nothing short of a referendum could change the name.

Ireland officially became a republic in 1949 though, not 1937!

It was not a republic from 1937 when the constitution was enacted.

eldamo

Robbo wrote: »

Lord Byron and other luminaries of this thread were given the soft soap treatment in the Irish Times today, where the write was seemingly unaware of the free, professional support available.

he must have read and been influenced by toms book last week...

https://www.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=526896154159161&set=a.206013226247457.1073741834.100005163433060&type=3&theater

TJJP

Midland Topic a few weeks back.