Freeman Megamerge

finty

finty wrote: »

I have a question; in the famous video of Ben Gilroy and his mates stopping the sheriff seizing the house in Laois Mr Gilroy implies that the sheriff is a "private company" and is profiting from the eviction.......

now this stinks of horsemanure to me.

Can someone clarify whats the truth of this?

cheers

Seriously? Read the thread, it's all nonsense what they say.

Paulw

finty wrote: »

I have a question; in the famous video of Ben Gilroy and his mates stopping the sheriff seizing the house in Laois Mr Gilroy implies that the sheriff is a "private company" and is profiting from the eviction.......

Can someone clarify whats the truth of this?

A whole thread on that topic here - http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056556428

littlemac1980

I hope this wasn't posted on here before. I just couldn't bear reading any more of this nonsense, but this Video is hilarious!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZN2BddddPmY&feature=related

Looks like they're doing call-out roadside consultations, and only charging one fag (optional).

You wouldn't get that level of service from a Solicitor. :P

Avatargh

Wow...the misdescription of what actually happens is hilarious

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yzjv20sC5CY&feature=related

I mean...wow...the delusion here...

"The Judge has abandoned the Court and I as sovereign...claim authority"

johnnyskeleton

Avatargh wrote: »

Wow...the misdescription of what actually happens is hilarious

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yzjv20sC5CY&feature=related

I mean...wow...the delusion here...

"The Judge has abandoned the Court and I as sovereign...claim authority"

That happens all the time. Sure jlasts few weeks ago in the central criminal court the judge rose for 5 minutes to facilitate a witness, and during that time the murder accused granted himself bail, dismissed the charge against himself and awarded himself damages of 4 million euro.

Overall, a fair and just decision by himself, one would say.

source

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Avatargh wrote: »

Wow...the misdescription of what actually happens is hilarious

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yzjv20sC5CY&feature=related

I mean...wow...the delusion here...

"The Judge has abandoned the Court and I as sovereign...claim authority"

That happens all the time. Sure jlasts few weeks ago in the central criminal court the judge rose for 5 minutes to facilitate a witness, and during that time the murder accused granted himself bail, dismissed the charge against himself and awarded himself damages of 4 million euro.

Overall, a fair and just decision by himself, one would say.

Gotta love the lunacy of someone claiming authority over a court.

Robbo

Ben's been busy, unfortunately Laffoy J had no time for him looking for an unguarded exhaust port in the Death Star.

I would love to see the affidavits these boys draw up.

nuac

I'm sure Judge Laffoy was patient with them, at least for a while.

I recall appearing before George Murnaghan - even on a good morning he could be intimidating.

Would have loved to see him dealing with some freemen submissions

johnnyskeleton

Robbo wrote: »

Ben's been busy, unfortunately Laffoy J had no time for him looking for an unguarded exhaust port in the Death Star.

I would love to see the affidavits these boys draw up.

I wonder whether their application was made purely to try to up stage new beginnings:

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2012/0327/1224313952719.html

derry

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

I wonder whether their application was made purely to try to up stage new beginnings:

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2012/0327/1224313952719.html

Not exactly freeman stuff this case

This is more about the Government exceeding its constitutional mandate.

Under International law the Government must act in the interests of the Country and the people they Represent . So for example if the Irish Government sold Ireland to the Chinese in a job lot and allowed china to enslave the Irish peoples and the government went to the Carribean
Islands to live from the spoils of this deal this would clearly not be legal to do.It would not be in the interests of the country or it peoples.

This case would be more similar to that logic

The case is along the logic that the making of these promissory
notes under International law is not in the Interests of the country or its peoples

The Judge seems to think there is some case to reply to so he gave them a summons to give to the Irish Government to go to the court and answers these questions

Thats my limited Understanding of the events from fairly distant sources that know these people who took the case


Derry

NoQuarter

derry wrote: »

The Judge seems to think there is some case to reply to so he gave them a summons to give to the Irish Government to go to the court and answers these questions

Thats my limited Understanding of the events from fairly distant sources that know these people who took the case


Derry

While I agree with the first half of your complete post, in relation to the part I have quoted, the article does say that the businessmen are seeking judicial review. The threshold to meet in relation to being granted leave for JR proceedings is very very low indeed so no merit of the case itself should be taken from that fact.

Although I dont think this is freeman stuff myself, it could have merit!

johnnyskeleton

The case is along the logic that the making of these promissory
notes under International law is not in the Interests of the country or its peoples

But that is a matter for our elected representatives to decide, not for the unelected judiciary. How can a judge decide what is in our interests? People seem to have forgotten that we had an election and elected this new government knowing these issues.

[/quote]The Judge seems to think there is some case to reply to so he gave them a summons to give to the Irish Government to go to the court and answers these questions[/quote]

actually he required that an ex parte (one side only) application that has to show an arguable case (very low standard of case) should be put on notice to the other side, so that they could contradict the issues raised.

evercloserunion

Finally got around to looking at that "constitution halts sheriff" video, God what a load of rubbish. It pains me that people take this seriously. Man's house is "unviable", lol.

Avatargh

derry wrote: »

Not exactly freeman stuff this case

This is more about the Government exceeding its constitutional mandate.

Under International law the Government must act in the interests of the Country and the people they Represent . So for example if the Irish Government sold Ireland to the Chinese in a job lot and allowed china to enslave the Irish peoples and the government went to the Carribean
Islands to live from the spoils of this deal this would clearly not be legal to do.It would not be in the interests of the country or it peoples.

This case would be more similar to that logic

The case is along the logic that the making of these promissory
notes under International law is not in the Interests of the country or its peoples

The Judge seems to think there is some case to reply to so he gave them a summons to give to the Irish Government to go to the court and answers these questions

Thats my limited Understanding of the events from fairly distant sources that know these people who took the case


Derry

Fair enough, but all this glides over the base question of who gets to decide "what is in the interest of the country or its peoples".

Two points here. One, it seems assumed that paying off the notes is not in our interest. Two, it seems assumed that the legislature / executive aren't the ones who make that decision.

Avatargh

NoQuarter wrote: »

While I agree with the first half of your complete post, in relation to the part I have quoted, the article does say that the businessmen are seeking judicial review. The threshold to meet in relation to being granted leave for JR proceedings is very very low indeed so no merit of the case itself should be taken from that fact.

Although I dont think this is freeman stuff myself, it could have merit!

How though? I'm sure its not a simple issue as to whether paying these off is good or bad for Ireland.

Sure, its easy in the sense that paying money isn't fun.

On the other hand, sometimes paying money over is better in the long run.

I have no idea, but this is classically non justiciable stuff unless there is some argument that there are particular protocols needs which were not followed (as for treaties and so on on) which may well be the case. But reading bits like this don't exactly fill one with hope that its a rational and clear argument:-

"The Irish people, having never been consulted about this and in circumstances where its representatives were bypassed, were being asked to honour a deal made in flagrant breach of the Constitution, with no democratic legitimacy and in breach of the Treaty on the Functioning of the EU, he said."

It may well have more to it!

Grolschevik

Possibly the definitive article on the Freeman movement in Ireland so far, from the latest Gazette (page 12 of this linked PDF):
http://www.lawsociety.ie/Documents/Gazette/Gazette%202012/April2012.pdf

Robbo

Grolschevik wrote: »

Possibly the definitive article on the Freeman movement in Ireland so far, from the latest Gazette (page 12 of this linked PDF):
http://www.lawsociety.ie/Documents/Gazette/Gazette%202012/April2012.pdf

Top marks for whoever used a filler photo of Morgan Freeman, on the land.

johnnyskeleton

Spotted on p.ie courtesy of kerdasi amaq:

http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DJHk9KUFlk2M%26feature%3Dplayer_embedded&feature=player_embedded&v=JHk9KUFlk2M&gl=IE

http://www.politics.ie/forum/justice/167567-freeman-law-95.html

Lol. I get it now. You see, freemen on the land derives from the old anglo-saxon concept of the class of people who were freed from slavery in their lifetime, the fyrdman, fyr sounds like fir, which is a type of tree. So freemen are really tree men. Tree men on the land are just ordinary trees. When you chop a tree down you get sap. The further into fremenism you get the more sap you become.

FreudianSlippers

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Spotted on p.ie courtesy of kerdasi amaq:

http://m.youtube.com/#/watch?desktop_uri=%2Fwatch%3Fv%3DJHk9KUFlk2M%26feature%3Dplayer_embedded&feature=player_embedded&v=JHk9KUFlk2M&gl=IE

http://www.politics.ie/forum/justice/167567-freeman-law-95.html

Lol. I get it now. You see, freemen on the land derives from the old anglo-saxon concept of the class of people who were freed from slavery in their lifetime, the fyrdman, fyr sounds like fir, which is a type of tree. So freemen are really tree men. Tree men on the land are just ordinary trees. When you chop a tree down you get sap. The further into fremenism you get the more sap you become.

Oh, well when you put it like that...

derry

Grolschevik wrote: »

Possibly the definitive article on the Freeman movement in Ireland so far, from the latest Gazette (page 12 of this linked PDF):
http://www.lawsociety.ie/Documents/Gazette/Gazette%202012/April2012.pdf

what a hoot

The Articale is the best example of legal waffle I have seen in years
About 90% of it is even a basic 101 on who are freemen what they believe and think and the methods they employ. Then it opts for using condescending attitude to all of it ,without supplying a shred of legal evidence that they are wrong other than the legal catch all we think they are wrong .
If your in the legal trade this is clearly more of a guide to how to try to stick your ten legal fingers into the legal dyke that is sprouting holes. When your ten fingers run out then how to use your toes. When the full twenty holes are partially blocked and more legal holes appear consider changing to a new career the game is up . The scam the legal world is on is coming apart at the seams as more of the light of truth gets shined on the legal shenanigans the legal world has been getting away with for centuries
:pac:


Derry

Brother Psychosis

derry wrote: »

Then it opts for using condescending attitude to all of it ,without supplying a shred of legal evidence that they are wrong other than the legal catch all we think they are wrong .

but thats exactly what freemen do - they hold themselves out to have a better understanding of the law then the entire nation, never mind the legal profession, and spout conspiracy theories about the crown and Irish translations of the constitution, without a single shred of evidence, except to say the entire legal profession and court system is wrong, all the while divulging this nonsense in the most smug and condescending manner possible while attempting to lure unsuspecting and desperate members of the public into their line of thinking. in other words, you have a condescending attitude to all who believe in and uphold the law, while constantly attacking it without a single shred of evidence.

you havent pointed to anything in that article that is wrong or inaccurate, so saying the "legal dyke" (whatever that is) is sprouting holes is not only nonsensical rhetoric, but you are acting in the exact same way, so at least try and point to a factual and tangible lie in the article before using it as another excuse to wrongly attack the legal establishment

chopser

Grolschevik wrote: »

Possibly the definitive article on the Freeman movement in Ireland so far, from the latest Gazette (page 12 of this linked PDF):
http://www.lawsociety.ie/Documents/Gazette/Gazette%202012/April2012.pdf

Definitive?
There is not a whole lot in that article and very little new to readers of this forum.
It is definitive only in that it is probably one of the first scholarly articles written on the matter in Ireland and brings attention of the Freemen to older solicitors who may not frequent the interwebby as much as us.

Grolschevik

chopser wrote: »

Definitive?
There is not a whole lot in that article and very little new to readers of this forum.
It is definitive only in that it is probably one of the first scholarly articles written on the matter in Ireland and brings attention of the Freemen to older solicitors who may not frequent the interwebby as much as us.

That's what I meant. There's virtually nothing new there to those of us who frequent this forum, but it's only the second article I've seen drawing the attention of a wider audience to this phenomenon.

The Gazette is read by judges, barristers, and journalists, and some members of the public, as well as solicitors and trainees. Not all those people will haunt Legal Discussion or Conspiracy Theories.

littlemac1980

That’s not a good article.

I can see certain merit in it if it is the case that many solicitors are completely unaware of the nutjobs out there who might turn up and claim they are not consenting to being governed by the law of the sea.

But there are some serious deficiencies in the Article in terms of the standard I expect from the Gazette.

There is no critical discussion, no analysis, no suggestions. Nothing.

Further the author credits the movement with far too much integrity.

Why does the author keep repeating that the Freeman "believes"? They don't "believe" the truth of what they claim.

They "know" the legal system is a fiction, that's true, everyone knows that. Substituting one fiction for another does not cause you to "believe" the latter.
The only difference between the two fictions, is that one has force of law in the State.

It's clear from all the videos and evidence available at the moment, that freeman 'ism' is simply a concerted movement of opportunists spouting nonsense at the legal system, which because of the strain on the system, perversely, sometimes works in your favour. They know its nonsense.

An article about freeman 'ism' (at this late stage) in the Law Gazette is just needlessly validating certain freeman nonsense, and will only add fuel to the fire.

As I said the article is particularly poor because it does nothing more than describe a few random Irish freeman episodes, and offers nothing in the way of analysis or suggestion regarding dealing with freemen from a legal perspective.

For instance take a look at the grey inset on page 13.

It states "It may be instructive to look at the approach taken by SS....". Then it tells the story of SS and how he put forward arguments based on freeman ideology. OK?!?!?!?!?!?!?

So what's instructive about that from a legal practitioner's perspective?

It's certainly instructive to a Freeman!

jblack

derry wrote: »

The scam the legal world is on is coming apart at the seams as more of the light of truth gets shined on the legal shenanigans the legal world has been getting away with for centuries
:pac:


Derry

Without involving my toes or my fingers please offer some intelligent discussion on how the legal world is coming apart?

Pat Mustard

Here is what I think that people should do about the Freeman issue:

Nothing.

It is a non event.

Let us leave aside the supposedly meritorious roots of the Freeman ideology, because there is absolutely no evidence of it in this country.

In this country, Freemen consist of chancers who give spurious legal advice and fools who listen to it.

The writer of the Gazette article hopes that a Superior Court decision will give the lie to the Freeman approach to law, once and for all. However, I have to agree with Littlemac1980. There is no need for a court to tell us what we already know, and what the Freemen will never believe.

A few years ago, there was an increase in the number of self inflicted eye injuries due to people looking into the sun. Some religious charlatan was involved. In any case, self-blinding went out of style very quickly on its own.

Some people believe that fools will swallow the Freeman teachings and incur major losses. They probably will. These people are not called fools for nothing.

The Freemen should be dealt with by existing mechanisms of law enforcement. That is the best way to demonstrate the idiocy of the Freeman attitude to law and order.

To take other action would be draw further attention to the newest old show in town – The Emperor’s New Clothes.

blueythebear

The Mustard wrote: »

Here is what I think that people should do about the Freeman issue:

Nothing.

It is a non event.

Let us leave aside the supposedly meritorious roots of the Freeman ideology, because there is absolutely no evidence of it in this country.

In this country, Freemen consist of chancers who give spurious legal advice and fools who listen to it.

The writer of the Gazette article hopes that a Superior Court decision will give the lie to the Freeman approach to law, once and for all. However, I have to agree with Littlemac1980. There is no need for a court to tell us what we already know, and what the Freemen will never believe.

A few years ago, there was an increase in the number of self inflicted eye injuries due to people looking into the sun. Some religious charlatan was involved. In any case, self-blinding went out of style very quickly on its own.

Some people believe that fools will swallow the Freeman teachings and incur major losses. They probably will. These people are not called fools for nothing.

The Freemen should be dealt with by existing mechanisms of law enforcement. That is the best way to demonstrate the idiocy of the Freeman attitude to law and order.

To take other action would be draw further attention to the newest old show in town – The Emperor’s New Clothes.

+1

I've had conversations with barristers on the freeman thing. They were all aware of the existence of it and had seen people trying to plead freeman "arguments" in court.

The issue is currently being dealt with through the Courts system. I have seen it happen recently in summary proceedings in the High Court. Freeman sought to enter a defence and to present same and he was given time to do so by the Judge. The Judge took the written copy of the defence and indicated that she would give judgment the next Friday. She let him say his piece and on the next day, rejected all of the Freeman points as wrong in law.

This is the correct approach in my view. No fanfare, no Supreme Court decisions, no heated debates in the media, just the Court confirming what is blatantly obvious, that the freeman ideas/arguments are completely wrong.

source

blueythebear wrote: »

+1

I've had conversations with barristers on the freeman thing. They were all aware of the existence of it and had seen people trying to plead freeman "arguments" in court.

The issue is currently being dealt with through the Courts system. I have seen it happen recently in summary proceedings in the High Court. Freeman sought to enter a defence and to present same and he was given time to do so by the Judge. The Judge took the written copy of the defence and indicated that she would give judgment the next Friday. She let him say his piece and on the next day, rejected all of the Freeman points as wrong in law.

This is the correct approach in my view. No fanfare, no Supreme Court decisions, no heated debates in the media, just the Court confirming what is blatantly obvious, that the freeman ideas/arguments are completely wrong.

The issue with this, is the freeman followers claim the adjournment as a victory for their beliefs, based on the fact that the judge took their submission seriously. They then make so much noise it makes the papers/ other media, and nobody sticks around to hear the judgement as by that time it's old news and nobody cares.

The public don't see the judge dismissing the argument, they only see the freeman claiming victory over the system.

blueythebear

source wrote: »

The issue with this, is the freeman followers claim the adjournment as a victory for their beliefs, based on the fact that the judge took their submission seriously. They then make so much noise it makes the papers/ other media, and nobody sticks around to hear the judgement as by that time it's old news and nobody cares.

The public don't see the judge dismissing the argument, they only see the freeman claiming victory over the system.

My original post was lost somewhere so this'll be brief...

In the example I gave, the Judge didn't adjourn, just delivered the judgment a few days later and granted the Banks application. As for taking the submissions seriously, it was clear that she didn't and she just took the written submissions. She had to do so as she was dealing with a laylitigant and really had to give some leeway there.

I think the Freeman thing has been fairly publicly debunked at this point, the McCann Fitz Memo and the Bobby Sludds case being prime examples. The Ben Gilroy video does annoy me though as the Sheriff returned a few days later and took possession of the house. Why was there not a video of this that went "viral" on youtube? I haven't seen any news reports of the fact that Mr Gilroy's theories have been proved to be rubbish. I would have thought that there would be some interest out there as to the outcome of the original video.

Milk & Honey

blueythebear wrote: »

My original post was lost somewhere so this'll be brief...

In the example I gave, the Judge didn't adjourn, just delivered the judgment a few days later and granted the Banks application. .

What? The matter had to be adjourned till a few days later so judgement could be delivered.