Freeman Megamerge

rameire

rameire wrote: »

the latest tripe. i thought class action doesnt exist in Ireland

That'll be funny. Just off the top of my head I can think of 4/5 ways to get that struck out before it ever gets off the ground.

johnciall

Are they seriously talking about Forming a company & getting as many people in Ireland to become shareholders when the entire "Legal Basis" of their arguments is that they're people not companies....

ynotonavillus

[QUOTE.....Basically a class action in the republic cannot happen with a group of people unless they are a company......so if you want on board you simply pay €2 to become a shareholder, the legal/lawful challenge action will be lodged in the high court very soon.....and while all this is going on......the revenue cant touch those who part of the action/legal challenge.....this could go on for years.....and a there is a good chance of winning as well......this is going to be a big spanner in the works for the revenue..... [/QUOTE]

Perhaps The Court, Revenue, and the other forces of oppression . will ignore the rule that being a shareholder in a company does not make you a party to an action by that company...

But perhaps there is a way, see here.......

http://www.lawreform.ie/_fileupload/CPS%202004%20and%20older/CPMulti%20Party%20Litigation.pdf

Benbulnen64

NoQuarter - if you're purportedly giving advice, at least get the grammar right. Contract is void anyway "owing " to not due to...

Tom Young

Benbulnen64 wrote: »

NoQuarter - if you're purportedly giving advice, at least get the grammar right. Contract is void anyway "owing " to not due to...

That's a quotation from one of those wackjob freeman sites.

Read last line. Noquarter not at fault.

littlemac1980

Piece on the front page of the Sunday Times today about a Freeman related incident and Youtube

Tom Young

I'd have jailed that person for contempt of court simply to put manners on them.

I wouldn't have wasted a moment contemplating it either.

Mountjoy until recognition of the law and purge of contempt.

The contempt laws are designed to deal with this madness and they should simply fill the jails until this tomfoolery had been expunged.

Pawwed Rig

If we start jailing people for crazy beliefs where does that leave our society?

Tom Young

Your reply doesn't make sense. Playing with a Court and denying the Rule of Law is contemptuous behaviour and should be punished.

This freeman nonsense is obstructive and disrespectful. They employ the law to suit themselves. Offences against the administration of justice deserve harsher punishment!

Pawwed Rig

Tom Young wrote: »

Offences against the administration of justice deserve harsher punishment!

In your opinion.

It's more harmless than alot of the crazy beliefs in this country/world.

Tom Young

This is contrived behaviour. Simple as that.

valleyoftheunos

Freemanism isn't a belief, its baloney.

GRMA

I especially enjoyed the bit where he told him to shut up

jd80

Is that John Coughlen presiding?

Pawwed Rig

valleyoftheunos wrote: »

Freemanism isn't a belief, its baloney.

There are lot of beliefs that seem like baloney to non believers.

Personally having seen alot of Freeman propaganda it does seem to me to be something that people genuinely feel strongly about. It also seems that people who get involved in it have a disconnect from the powers that be in society due to various reasons whether social class, access to law professionals etc. That doesn't mean the people who believe in it should be imprisoned like a previous poster said.

Tom Young

Yes, I said it. I stand over it and to adopt your suggestion in the way presented would result in anarchy.

Ignorance of the law is no excuse.

If I borrow a sum of money from you with a promise to repay. The expectation is that I will based upon my contract with you.

If I break the law, I expect to be punished.

I cannot reduce my liability by claiming my name is not my own, by trade marking or copyrighting it. I cannot read aspects of the constitution to simply suit my needs. I cannot claim a property that is not yet paid for and conveyed to my name is rightfully mine.

If I cannot repay my debts, I cannot expect to escape liability to my creditors.

If I am before a court and am fined, I pay the fine. I don't walk to the fines office and seek a license. If a registrar signs an order made by a court or judge, I will be aware, served and had my chance to appear.

If I decide to live lawlessly, the consequences of my choices affect and result in wrongs to others.

I would jail them all if I was a judge having to put up with the level of disrespect for organs of the State. Invariably these people are either no hopers or won't payers.

The Irish cute hoorism is what had gotten us into the mess we are in. Freeman movement is no better. Sovereign movement is the same. A simple cover up for cute hoorism.

It provides false hope for those naive enough to be sold on it. They are being sold a pup.

It is wrong, it had no basis, no belief system and must be irraticated.

ezra_pound

jd80 wrote: »

Is that John Coughlen presiding?

It is indeed

LoveCoke

littlemac1980 wrote: »

Piece on the front page of the Sunday Times today about a Freeman related incident and Youtube

link?

Pawwed Rig

A better solution would be to provide equality in the courts where everyone is treated the same regardless of who they are, where they are from, how much money they have and who their father is. Unfortunately we do not have this. What we have is certain people with access to the full uses of the courts and everyone else stuck in a system that is generally unfair.

Like your example 'If I borrow a sum of money from you with a promise to repay. The expectation is that I will based upon my contract with you.'
In reality if you refuse to pay it is very difficult for me to force you to without access to legal representation which would be too expensive for alot of people in this state.

There are large portions of society where the law does not really apply so it is no surprise to me that groups like this are appearing that are essentially protesting against the power of the State that they see as having abandoned them. Whether we agree with them or ridicule them they still have the right to their opinions/beliefs regardless of how misguided we may think they are.

ResearchWill

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

A better solution would be to provide equality in the courts where everyone is treated the same regardless of who they are, where they are from, how much money they have and who their father is. Unfortunately we do not have this. What we have is certain people with access to the full uses of the courts and everyone else stuck in a system that is generally unfair.

Like your example 'If I borrow a sum of money from you with a promise to repay. The expectation is that I will based upon my contract with you.'
In reality if you refuse to pay it is very difficult for me to force you to without access to legal representation which would be too expensive for alot of people in this state.

There are large portions of society where the law does not really apply so it is no surprise to me that groups like this are appearing that are essentially protesting against the power of the State that they see as having abandoned them. Whether we agree with them or ridicule them they still have the right to their opinions/beliefs regardless of how misguided we may think they are.

The vast number of people who come into contact with the courts do so through the following 4 areas, 1 criminal, 2 Family Law 3 Personal injury 4 Debt collection.

I criminal law there is an excellent criminal legal aid system, where a person has access to the lawyers at the top of this area if they want them. In family law again if income is low there is a legal aid scheme (waiting time approx 9 months) but it is there. In the third area personal injuries most solicitors will take on pro bono. The final area a person may be entitled to legal aid also a number of solicitors and barristers provide pro bono work on a regular basis.

My only issue with freeman stuff is it is totally illogical.

Pawwed Rig

ResearchWill wrote: »

The vast number of people who come into contact with the courts do so through the following 4 areas, 1 criminal, 2 Family Law 3 Personal injury 4 Debt collection.

I criminal law there is an excellent criminal legal aid system, where a person has access to the lawyers at the top of this area if they want them. In family law again if income is low there is a legal aid scheme (waiting time approx 9 months) but it is there. In the third area personal injuries most solicitors will take on pro bono. The final area a person may be entitled to legal aid also a number of solicitors and barristers provide pro bono work on a regular basis.

My only issue with freeman stuff is it is totally illogical.

Ok this is off the point but I will answer it. Legal aid is available to some (like the medical card) but unavailable to many who cannot necessarily afford legal professionals. 2. Family law tends to discriminate against men. 3. Personal injury - agreed. 4. Debt collection is impossible for relatively small amounts in this country as outlined in previous post as the cost of recovering the debt will often exceed the debt itself with still no guarantee of ever receiving cash.

ResearchWill

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

Ok this is off the point but I will answer it. Legal aid is available to some (like the medical card) but unavailable to many who cannot necessarily afford legal professionals. 2. Family law tends to discriminate against men. 3. Personal injury - agreed. 4. Debt collection is impossible for relatively small amounts in this country as outlined in previous post as the cost of recovering the debt will often exceed the debt itself with still no guarantee of ever receiving cash.

You are incorrect on 1, most people will qualify for legal aid on indictment, while in the DC an income level of 20k or less should be ok, there is no hard and set rules. In relation to family law yes men are usually the bread winners, so therefore the income may exceed thresholds but again this is about people not able to afford legal advice. Debt collection in the DC is very cheap and involves set fees, no way can say a 5k claim run up fees in excess of a few hundred.

The following seems reasonable to me. http://brianobrien.ie/docs/DEBT_FEE.pdf

Pawwed Rig

ResearchWill wrote: »

You are incorrect on 1, most people will qualify for legal aid on indictment, while in the DC an income level of 20k or less should be ok, there is no hard and set rules. In relation to family law yes men are usually the bread winners, so therefore the income may exceed thresholds but again this is about people not able to afford legal advice. Debt collection in the DC is very cheap and involves set fees, no way can say a 5k claim run up fees in excess of a few hundred.

With family law I was more referring to the judgements given as being unequal in favour of women but that is another argument unrelated to Freemen.
Just read up on legal aid and you are correct, it is more widely available than I thought. I am assuming that these guys would be laughed at by a solicitor though further compounding their belief in the corruption of the legal system and the State.

ResearchWill wrote: »

The following seems reasonable to me. http://brianobrien.ie/docs/DEBT_FEE.pdf

I calculate €678 on a €5,000 debt (this is from 2008 though). It is the enforcement that can be the big/expensive issue though never minding the fact that you may never actually get cash.

ResearchWill

Pawwed Rig wrote: »

With family law I was more referring to the judgements given as being unequal in favour of women but that is another argument unrelated to Freemen.
Just read up on legal aid and you are correct, it is more widely available than I thought. I am assuming that these guys would be laughed at by a solicitor though further compounding their belief in the corruption of the legal system and the State.


I calculate €678 on a €5,000 debt (this is from 2008 though). It is the enforcement that can be the big/expensive issue though never minding the fact that you may never actually get cash.

You are correct on solicitor laughing at freemen, but if I remember a case a few years ago, guy tried this freeman stuff, drove the judge mad, he jailed him. Then very quickly a solicitor, barrister and SC got on case, took a habeas corpus to high court. So when in custody they do turn to the real lawyers.

jd

ResearchWill wrote: »

. Then very quickly a solicitor, barrister and SC got on case, took a habeas corpus to high court. So when in custody they do turn to the real lawyers.

..but claim to their facebook buddies afterwards it was freeman guff that got them released.

ResearchWill

jd wrote: »

..but claim to their facebook buddies afterwards it was freeman guff that got them released.

So true, but tell the High Court "However, Mr Fitzgerald said his client accepted his argument to Judge Anderson regarding his oath of office last Wednesday was 'misconceived'."

http://www.independent.ie/regionals/newrossstandard/news/man-who-had-standoff-with-judge-is-released-27508991.html

jd80

ResearchWill wrote: »

http://www.independent.ie/regionals/newrossstandard/news/man-who-had-standoff-with-judge-is-released-27508991.html

Was it subsequently ascertained if the judge had indeed erred in placing the man in custody?

GRMA

Tom if you are going to edit my post and remove something you could at least do me the courtesy of telling me you did it.

Why did you remove the video anyway?

Tom Young

A judge can jail someone for contempt simpliciter.

See McGrath v Shell and more recently IBRC v Quinn.

ResearchWill

jd80 wrote: »

Was it subsequently ascertained if the judge had indeed erred in placing the man in custody?

Yes, the state settled the matter, the judged refused bail but for an incorrect reason. No freeman stuff just that bail can only be refused in certain limited circumstances, acting the muppet is not one of them.