Freeman Megamerge

whippet

If anyone is at a loose end for friday night - there is a 'Welcome home party' for Ben - it's in the City north hotel and tickets are a steal at €30 a head.

On top of the almost stg£6k that was raised through the gofundme page during his time in the 'joy .. should be a cracker of a few weeks on the campaign trail

Robbo

It's been a while since I've checked in on the various Freeman groups but it seems the forthcoming elections have got them all hot and bothered.

Ben's run for MEP has already been flagged. Neil from LLI is running for Dublin City Council (now back using he anglicised version of his surname) and Jeff Rudd (ex-DDI and keen Ben supporter) is also running for the locals up on Drogheda.

The Hub-Ireland has been aiming its recent newsdumps at "freeloader immigrants" and giving out about refugees. These targets are completely different from Brits who move here, run up large tax liabilities and only ever make a handful of mortgage repayments...

Holy Mary

Robbo wrote: »

It's been a while since I've checked in on the various Freeman groups but it seems the forthcoming elections have got them all hot and bothered..

Aye. But the ground is getting thinner and thinner.

Wonder when the penny will drop for those who were promised ''free gaffes'' and are now facing imminent eviction?

Will they bring it to the right doors in time?

Meanwhile, back in the real world...https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/couple-who-own-boutique-dublin-hotel-distorted-court-results-in-media-campaign-38060422.html

Robbo

The New York Times recently did a long-read piece about Sovereign Citizens in the USA who were basically scamming outlandish tax refunds they weren't entitled to. It's a decent read for a slow Friday afternoon.

Lay litigants have managed to birth another practice direction in the Superior Courts whereby no one may inspect a Court file in the relevant office.

This is immensely inconvenient for practitioners as it was often a handy way of double checking something before filing. Now everyone has to apply for documents and pay for the privilege.

Natually, the Freemen are up in arms, declaring that it's aimed at hobbling them. A conspiracy. They're too good at fake lawyerin' and someone had to stop them by charging them modest sums of money.

The problem with their thinking (well, one of them) is that this change has come in precisely because of the behaviour of lay litigants. In the case that brought this about, the integrity of the Court file was called into question when two contrasting versions of a Court order were produced. Originals had gone missing from the file and a substantially different version of an order managed to work its way into the file. One side conducted the case as lay litigants under a McKenzie friend (a struck off solicitor as it happens) and gave evidence that was "confused and contradictory in places, meandering and replete with unsubstantiated allegations of conspiracy, Masonic influence and forgery."

This isn't the first time where files have been tampered with. Previously in this thread, I noted how the PRAI encountered issues with lay people monkeying with files.

Anyone heading to Ben's welcome home party this evening?

whippet

I hope the hotel don’t have a comma out of place when they present the invoice for the night .. they’d have some trouble getting paid !

Credit Checker Moose

I hope they had the good sense to get paid up front in cash.

TheAnalyst_

The cake on his Facebook page is something else.

whippet

Delusions

Holy Mary

whippet wrote: »

Delusions

His faithful followers are even more delusional.

ezra_

I don't know if this is freeman related or not:

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/ireland/high-court-tells-michael-grimes-to-steer-clear-of-car-dealer-john-alex-kane-case-zfvg0h2kp

L1011

Can Honohan be sacked? If so, why hasn't he been?

Holy Mary

ezra_ wrote: »

I don't know if this is freeman related or not:

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/edition/ireland/high-court-tells-michael-grimes-to-steer-clear-of-car-dealer-john-alex-kane-case-zfvg0h2kp

Would this be the same man?

https://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/director-spared-jail-for-340k-vat-fraud-470817.html

ILoveYourVibes

Oh my god one of these people harassed me saying it was illegal of me not to declare whether or not i was in legal practice publicly.

I didn't know what to say to him.

ILoveYourVibes

whippet wrote: »

Delusions

Whatever they are they harass people in the legal profession.

ezra_

ILoveYourVibes wrote: »

Oh my god one of these people harassed me saying it was illegal of me not to declare whether or not i was in legal practice publicly.

I didn't know what to say to him.

I can never reconcile how people who have such publicly stated disbelief in the law never seem to have any problems with trying to get other people to abide by (their warped understanding of) it.

whippet

Ben is running to the courts cos he wasn’t invited on RTÉ ... censorship or just not giving credence to irrelevance?

Holy Mary

Running to the 'semi secret society' for help!

Robbo

Looking back on the judgment where he was given an Isaac Wunder order*, I'm not entirely sure if he'll be able to get his papers over the counter in the Central Office. Expect there to be a kerfuffle and cries of oppression.

* Without sight of the actual perfected order, it's hard to work out the exact scope of it.

whippet

Robbo wrote: »

Looking back on the judgment where he was given an Isaac Wunder order*, I'm not entirely sure if he'll be able to get his papers over the counter in the Central Office. Expect there to be a kerfuffle and cries of oppression.

* Without sight of the actual perfected order, it's hard to work out the exact scope of it.

Is the Wunder order not just on AIB cases? excuse my ignorance as to the scope of these orders.

Even if it is - at this rate it will not be long before he gets a couple more

Robbo

From Haughton J's judgment in AIB v. McQuaid & Ors [2018] IEHC 516 (with minor redactions).

In conclusion, the Court proposes to make the following Orders:-

a) An order restraining Mr. Gilroy from issuing further proceedings against the plaintiff or any director or employee of the plaintiff, or any legal representative of the plaintiff, save with the prior permission of the President of the High Court.

b) An order restraining Mr Gilroy from issuing any further motions in the present proceedings against the plaintiff, its directors, employees, legal representatives, servants or agents save with the prior permission of the judge for the time being in charge of the Commercial Court list.

c) An order restraining Mr. Gilroy from attending at or near the plaintiff's office at Bankcentre, Ballsbridge, Dublin 4.

d) An order restraining Mr. Gilroy from attending at or near the homes/properties of A, B, C, D and E or any other officer, employee or agent of the Bank whether for the purposes of the service or delivering of documents or otherwise, and whether personally or by his servants or agents.

e) An order that any further documents that Mr. Gilroy, his servants or agents, may be permitted or required to serve or deliver on the plaintiff or it's legal advisors in these proceedings be served or delivered by registered prepaid post addressed to Beauchamps solicitors for the plaintiff, Riverside Two, Sir John Rogerson's Quay, Dublin 4 (save and to the extent that the same may be delivered electronically to Beauchamps solicitors).

f) A permanent injunction restraining the second named defendant Ben Gilroy, whether alone or in concert with any other person, from advising, participating in, assisting or otherwise engaging in litigation in any court in the State in a representative capacity on behalf of others, whether in the capacity of ‘McKenzie Friend’ or otherwise.

g) An injunction restraining the second named defendant Mr. Gilroy, alone or in concert with any other person, from advising, participating in, assisting or otherwise engaging in the above entitled proceedings or any related litigation in a representative capacity on behalf of the first named defendant or any other defendant or Notice Party whether in the capacity of ‘McKenzie Friend’ or otherwise.

h) An order directing that notice of the making of this order be given to the Principal Registrar of the High Court and to the Chief Executive Officer of the Courts Service.

Paragraphs (a)-(e) and (g) would seem to confine the order to AIB & McQuaid related proceedings but (f) might be broad enough to prohibit this. Depends on the form of the actual order made. It also slightly differs in the usual form of an Isaac Wunder order in that they're normally given the option of seeking leave of the President of the High Court to issue proceedings.

Even if he gets it over the counter, it's bound to fail but he knows enough to be aware of that, he just wants cheap publicity because he's polling at 1%.

Hotblack Desiato

To my non-legal eyes, isn't (f) just restricting him from acting on behalf of others, not himself?

Robbo

Proceedings were issued on Friday against RTE and it's listed for tomorrow morning.

ohnonotgmail

Hotblack Desiato wrote: »

To my non-legal eyes, isn't (f) just restricting him from acting on behalf of others, not himself?

that is my understanding as well. (a) to (e) are only concerned with the case against AIB. (f) is a general ban on him acting as a McKenzie friend.

blackwhite

Ben getting short shrift from the High Court today.
Another conspiracy no doubt.

whippet

I’d love to hear what the judges actual comment were

Holy Mary

whippet wrote: »

I’d love to hear what the judges actual comment were

Judge agreed with RTÉ version of events.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/high-court/court-dismisses-ben-gilroy-s-challenge-to-exclusion-from-rt%C3%A9-debate-1.3892312

whippet

So in effect the court ruled that Gilroy was taking the action for publicity and not any other altruistic reason !

Holy Mary

whippet wrote: »

So in effect the court ruled that Gilroy was taking the action for publicity and not any other altruistic reason !

Mr Justice Senan Allen said the case had no legal basis and awarded costs against Mr Gilroy.

The judge refused to hear an application by Mr Gilroy for an urgent injunction saying: "You've had your day".

The judge described him as a "seasoned litigant" with liberal knowledge but limited understanding of the law.

He said the court could not make a decision on the substantive issue but it seemed to him the approach of RTÉ in choosing candidates for the debate was sensible.
https://www.rte.ie/news/courts/2019/0514/1049362-court-gilroy-rte/

Squatter

Ed the donkey brays again.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/high-court/high-court-master-claims-judges-over-looking-exacting-test-1.3892374

ezra_

Squatter wrote: »

Ed the donkey brays again.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/high-court/high-court-master-claims-judges-over-looking-exacting-test-1.3892374

I don't get why they don't clarify and modernise his title.

Something like "Pre-trial Assistant", "Guy who checks that the spelling is right" or "Junior Clerk" should stop him getting confused with Justice Kelly.