Freeman Megamerge

source

Milk & Honey wrote: »

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.

Exactly, for the judge to deliver a judgement a few days later, the judge has to adjourn the case until that day.

blueythebear

Milk & Honey wrote: »

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

Jeebus, I knew I'd pay for rewriting my post on the fly. Relax. I was responding to a statement that the freemen would see an adjournment as a victory. It was adjourned for a few days, yes but not an adjournment in any sense that could be construed as a victory. The adjournment was not to put the case back to argue the merits of the contents of the defence, it was purely because the Judge had to be seen to have at least read the defence of the freeman.

This doesn't take away at all from my point that the court is dealing with freeman concepts/arguments in the correct way, by rejecting freeman arguments as they arise.

Milk & Honey

blueythebear wrote: »

Jeebus, I knew I'd pay for rewriting my post on the fly. Relax. I was responding to a statement that the freemen would see an adjournment as a victory. It was adjourned for a few days, yes but not an adjournment in any sense that could be construed as a victory.

That is the point. The freemen will crow that they walked out of court a free man, when all that happened is the the matter was adjourned and nothing they said has actually been accepted. The reason for the adjournment and the length of time are irrelevant. An adjournment is an adjournment.

K-9

Milk & Honey wrote: »

That is the point. The freemen will crow that they walked out of court a free man, when all that happened is the the matter was adjourned and nothing they said has actually been accepted. The reason for the adjournment and the length of time are irrelevant. An adjournment is an adjournment.

Indeed, but if somebody thinks an adjournment is a victory I don't think there is much the legal system can do. Unless you've some idea how these cases can be dealt with on the day?

Milk & Honey

K-9 wrote: »

Indeed, but if somebody thinks an adjournment is a victory I don't think there is much the legal system can do. Unless you've some idea how these cases can be dealt with on the day?

Why should the legal system do anything? An adjournment is a normal part of legal proceedings. Why should the system change itself just because some individuals try to use the fact of an adjournment as propaganda? Freemen will crow about their great "victory" and will possibly suck more gullible individuals into the web, but that is not the responsibility of the legal system.

K-9

Milk & Honey wrote: »

Why should the legal system do anything? An adjournment is a normal part of legal proceedings. Why should the system change itself just because some individuals try to use the fact of an adjournment as propaganda? Freemen will crow about their great "victory" and will possibly suck more gullible individuals into the web, but that is not the responsibility of the legal system.

Exactly my point!

Jo King

K-9 wrote: »

Exactly my point!

Why didn't you make it yourself then?

K-9

Jo King wrote: »

Why didn't you make it yourself then?

When I said I don't think there is much the legal system can do!

Then you asked "why should they do anything?"for some reason!

Grolschevik

Jo King wrote: »

Why didn't you make it yourself then?

Are you also Kosseegan? The quickly deleted post by username "Kosseegan" responded to K-9's last post as if it was username "Jo King".

blueythebear

http://www.bailii.org/nie/cases/NIHC/Ch/2012/6.html

Recent judgment from the North, which I noticed that rubbishes some of the Freeman arguments made...

littlemac1980

They include the submission that the respondent, that is the bank, cannot execute a contract as it is not a living thing and of course that is complete, I think the appropriate word is, nonsense, as in law a corporate body is indeed a person entitled to pursue its contractual rights.

hahaha

Robbo

Ben Gilroy is having a gig in Galway next Tuesday, telling us all how to beat the banks. If I see the poster again, I'll have to check if he's asking for money for this.

Monty Burnz

Robbo wrote: »

Ben Gilroy is having a gig in Galway next Tuesday, telling us all how to beat the banks. If I see the poster again, I'll have to check if he's asking for money for this.

Nice to see the fact that he has had zero success in doing so to date is not stopping him.

Robbo

Here's old Ben's poster, no tax on the door.

Robbo

Another Ben Gilroy classic. This time he's after receivers because apparently they act as agents of the debtor, he can fire them and court orders must be signed in blue ink by a judge and not a registrar. The usual woo about statutes and "lawful" come into it as well as a chronic obsession with sight of signed contracts.

Medforth -v- Blake, which is his authority from the Supreme Court (sic).

At the end they promise to expose corruption that will go right to the top and rock the foundations of the State, but to do so, they'll need your donations.

Brother Psychosis

my head hurts. complete nonsense

Tom Young

Total nonsense. I hope that people who see this video don't believe a word this person says. He does not know what a duty of care is. Medforth v Blake is a UK case!

Brother Psychosis

there's also clearly been some creative editing of the video of the incident. id love to see what happens if/when they come up against a receiver or county reg who knows what they're talking about and can fight them off. this nonsense has gone too far

Corruptable

Oooh fancy video work. I see Mr Gilroy and his cohorts have come a long way in the few months I was away!

Anyone have a moment to explain what significance of Medforth v Blake to this scernario? Other than the smell of pig manure?


Poor bugger that Lowe fella, he had to get an injunction.

BornToKill

Why does he just vanish at 5:08? And then reappear? Reminds me of the Cheshire cat.

johnnyskeleton

Robbo wrote: »

Another Ben Gilroy classic. This time he's after receivers because apparently they act as agents of the debtor, he can fire them and court orders must be signed in blue ink by a judge and not a registrar. The usual woo about statutes and "lawful" come into it as well as a chronic obsession with sight of signed contracts.

Medforth -v- Blake, which is his authority from the Supreme Court (sic).

At the end they promise to expose corruption that will go right to the top and rock the foundations of the State, but to do so, they'll need your donations.

How can he claim statutes are invalid yet also rely on the conveyancing act (of which there are several but nevermind) when it suits him?

Overall, you have to feel a lot of sympathy for Fergus Lowe, who, far from the evil agent of the banks, comes across as a decent guy frustrated by the idiocy of these punters. The bit they don't understand is that if there is any breach of the duty of care, this can result in a claim for damages. But only after the receiver has completed his job.

Of course, they are not so brave in front of a court, but they can ask all sorts of outrageous and repetitive questions of someone who is only doing their job. It's a bit like someone pleading guilty and then complaining to the prison officers that they don't have a copy of the search warrant or custody record from the prosecution case on them at any given moment.

blueythebear

Robbo wrote: »

Another Ben Gilroy classic. This time he's after receivers because apparently they act as agents of the debtor, he can fire them and court orders must be signed in blue ink by a judge and not a registrar. The usual woo about statutes and "lawful" come into it as well as a chronic obsession with sight of signed contracts.

Medforth -v- Blake, which is his authority from the Supreme Court (sic).

At the end they promise to expose corruption that will go right to the top and rock the foundations of the State, but to do so, they'll need your donations.

Another classic from this guy. Admittedly I only read the first five lines of the Medforth v Blake case and apart from the fact that it's a UK case, the duty of care issue is clearly taken out of context. Mr Gilroy seems to think that the Receiver has a general duty of care to the mortgagee, something akin to a solicitor / client relationship. i.e. that the receiver is acting as agent for the mortgagee so that he/she can easily dismiss the receiver.

From the first five lines of the judgment referred to, it is clear that there is a duty of care owed to the mortgagee but only in the context of the receiver acting in the course of his duties. i.e. Bank appoint receiver in order to sell off assets, etc to raise money to discharge the debt due. The Receiver has a duty of care to the Mortgagor to not run his business into the ground or sell off assets at a severe undervaluation.

Once again, Mr Gilroy manages to take something completely out of context, throws in some random legalese and bamboozles the opposition. He seems to suggest in the video at around 2:15 that there is a difference between the Courts interpretation of the law and the law itself, yet goes on to quote UK case law?

It would be funny if it weren't for the fact that people are readily latching on to this type of thing as a solution to their problems.

Farcear

Corruptable wrote: »

Oooh fancy video work. I see Mr Gilroy and his cohorts have come a long way in the few months I was away!

Anyone have a moment to explain what significance of Medforth v Blake to this scernario? Other than the smell of pig manure?


Poor bugger that Lowe fella, he had to get an injunction.

Oversimplification --- It's not relevant for the purposes of securing possession of the property. However, an original landowner is entitled to whatever money is left over after the sale of an asset once the bank has recovered its loan money. So, in Medforth v Blake, the UK court held that the Receiver had a duty to maximise this additional/leftover money by using cheaper suppliers and contacts that the original landowner was able to find for the receiver.

In the present scenario, this would mean that the receiver has to get (i) the best rent available for the building (it seems to be occupied); and (ii) get the best price for the building once he sells it. Actually, at 15:40, the Receiver absolutely nails it. (Thumbs up to his legal team!)


11:30 -- Poor "Mr." Paula Healy. "Whoever he is!"


Out of curiousity, does anyone know the relevant provision (Rules of the Superior Courts?) dealing with the legal force of attested copy orders?

Indricotherium

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Robbo wrote: »

Ben Gilroy is having a gig in Galway next Tuesday, telling us all how to beat the banks. If I see the poster again, I'll have to check if he's asking for money for this.

Nice to see the fact that he has had zero success in doing so to date is not stopping him.

If it was presented as a possible alternate legal system would it deserve more time?

Rather than how it is presented now as I it is law.

Tom Young

Farcear wrote: »

Oversimplification --- It's not relevant for the purposes of securing possession of the property. However, an original landowner is entitled to whatever money is left over after the sale of an asset once the bank has recovered its loan money. So, in Medforth v Blake, the UK court held that the Receiver had a duty to maximise this additional/leftover money by using cheaper suppliers and contacts that the original landowner was able to find for the receiver.

In the present scenario, this would mean that the receiver has to get (i) the best rent available for the building (it seems to be occupied); and (ii) get the best price for the building once he sells it. Actually, at 15:40, the Receiver absolutely nails it. (Thumbs up to his legal team!)


11:30 -- Poor "Mr." Paula Healy. "Whoever he is!"


Out of curiousity, does anyone know the relevant provision (Rules of the Superior Courts?) dealing with the legal force of attested copy orders?

Orders 114 - 117, RSC.

Corruptable

I can't believe Newstalk also let him on to talk about the Killiney eviction three weeks ago, pontificating like an expert, though he even knows he's talking rubbish from the hesitancy in his voice.

God help anyone who relies on him, but unfortunately they're really taken off in the last few months and seem to be getting more people entangled into their net.

Farcear

"You're right in saying it's a banks' game and it's a game they lost, but no matter how they lose they always seem to win." -- I like this turn of phrase.

His constitutional views?

5:55 -- "You can't get higher than [the Constitution]. So, unless they have a signed letter from God, they better produce that." -- Oh, a legal naturalist...

6:10 - "The Constitution was written by the people, that's not lawyers or barristers, that's the people." -- (the people, obviosuly, being de Valera!) ...who favours the historical interpretative approach!

So, what would Dev have done?

murrayp4

Anyone hear the freeman who got on Joe duffy yesterday?- Just before the end of the show.

Talking about the household charge being a contract and a signature being a "sign of nature"?

Monty Burnz

murrayp4 wrote: »

Anyone hear the freeman who got on Joe duffy yesterday?
Talking about the household charge being a contract and a signature being a "sign of nature"?

Do they spend hours at home staring at words looking for these bizarre etymologies? Do they not know that there is an entire academic field that has already derived the correct etymologies for these words?

littlemac1980

Seen as how its Bank Holiday Friday, here's an interesting link, y'all may recognise the summary of facts.

http://courts.ie/Judgments.nsf/09859e7a3f34669680256ef3004a27de/1b169b8f2036b25980257a0e0051fc12?OpenDocument

Para 5.3 speaks for itself I think.