Freeman Megamerge

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Pro Hoc Vice

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Another reason I'm glad I left Facebook a couple of years ago, it is the invention of Satan.

Colm R

OK I've been following this thread with interest, sometimes amusement, but beginning to start to worry.

I'm worried that, with some many people (people I know) in despair and difficulties, that this movement is going to gather momentum.

I'm worried that its going to suck in people that don't understand whats involved and could get badly burned.

And I'm worried that this movement could be successful, simply because if these people get their way, avoid their debts, someone is going to get burned - it could be tax payer.

There could come a point, where these people reach a critical mass, and bang - they might be successful.

Should I be worried?

hullaballoo

Yes and no.

Worry about people who think they can shrug off a liquidated contract debt with a silver bullet but worry about them because of what it says about their mindset.

Don't worry that these guys are going to ever win any extraordinary victories or have their BS vindicated. It is obstructionism at best.

The critical mass scenario is probably on its way but the outcome is assured: the freemen cannot win.

hardCopy

Colm R wrote: »

OK I've been following this thread with interest, sometimes amusement, but beginning to start to worry.

I'm worried that, with some many people (people I know) in despair and difficulties, that this movement is going to gather momentum.

I'm worried that its going to suck in people that don't understand whats involved and could get badly burned.

And I'm worried that this movement could be successful, simply because if these people get their way, avoid their debts, someone is going to get burned - it could be tax payer.

There could come a point, where these people reach a critical mass, and bang - they might be successful.

Should I be worried?

I'd be worried for anyone who throws in with this lot. It's all very well raising a rabble on facebook and pouring over 15th century legal documents and re-interpreting laws to suit your own theories of natural justice. But it's entirely unfair to send one of your followers into court with no legal representative and they end up being held in contempt of court.

I can't see any route to success for these guys. Their theories to date have been nonsense and all of their "successes" have merely stalled inevitable reposessions.

If they want to realise their vision of an end to repossessions they need to lobby for reform of property laws. Build a base of public support and protest for real change.

Attempting to secede from the state and declare yourself a Brehon Law Jurisdiction will not help in the long term.

Those involved seem to have dropped any overt usage of terms like "Freeman on the land" since these have been rubbished in other jurisdictions. As a result it's harder to separate the freemen from the anti-eviction groups.

I know a friend of my parents has started attending some of the anti-eviction protests and would be worried that we'll soon read of him being held in contempt for spouting ill-advised nonsense in court.

Robbo

hardCopy wrote: »

I'd be worried for anyone who throws in with this lot. It's all very well raising a rabble on facebook and pouring over 15th century legal documents and re-interpreting laws to suit your own theories of natural justice. But it's entirely unfair to send one of your followers into court with no legal representative and they end up being held in contempt of court.

I can't see any route to success for these guys. Their theories to date have been nonsense and all of their "successes" have merely stalled inevitable reposessions.

If they want to realise their vision of an end to repossessions they need to lobby for reform of property laws. Build a base of public support and protest for real change.

Attempting to secede from the state and declare yourself a Brehon Law Jurisdiction will not help in the long term.

Those involved seem to have dropped any overt usage of terms like "Freeman on the land" since these have been rubbished in other jurisdictions. As a result it's harder to separate the freemen from the anti-eviction groups.

I know a friend of my parents has started attending some of the anti-eviction protests and would be worried that we'll soon read of him being held in contempt for spouting ill-advised nonsense in court.

We're only going to hear more and more of it as it morphs from one nonsense notion to the next. What's on the horizon which seems to given them a belief in their own ****e is firstly that Attack the Tax have now enlisted real solicitors so I expect a JR to string things out there (and remember, in their minds delay is victory) and ironically, the aspects of the actual Freeman case which will be heard in full (essentially that securitisation invalidates mortgages).

Losty Dublin

Speaking as somebody who isn't of a legal or accounting background but who is interested in seeing and trying to understand how law is formed and applied, the very first question that crosses my mind about this trust situation is this.

If it's that simple to avoid paying debts then why hasn't it been done years ago?

The answer is, of course, it isn't that easy but so long as there are people out there who are desperate, angry and in some cases, stupid enough to take it in, then malicious schemes like this will succeed while genuine groups who want to help such as New Beginning are forgotten about.

alyssum

Robbo wrote: »

We're only going to hear more and more of it as it morphs from one nonsense notion to the next. What's on the horizon which seems to given them a belief in their own ****e is firstly that Attack the Tax have now enlisted real solicitors so I expect a JR to string things out there (and remember, in their minds delay is victory) and ironically, the aspects of the actual Freeman case which will be heard in full (essentially that securitisation invalidates mortgages).

what is securitisation and how does it invalidates mortgages

Robbo

alyssum wrote: »

what is securitisation and how does it invalidates mortgages

Securitisation is when a bank bundles up a load of mortgages and sells them as a package to investors to raise an up front sum of cash. The mortgage repayments the customer makes are then passed onto this investor at regular intervals.

Freemen like to believe that because the bank has been "paid in full" for the mortgage, they now have no obligation to the bank and can stop paying. Moreover, as this third party investor weren't a party to the original mortgage, the Freeman is off the hook entirely.

This, of course, is nonsense. The mortgage itself will have included a clause allowing for such securitisation. Moreover, the process has been around for years.

jd

Robbo wrote: »

This, of course, is nonsense. The mortgage itself will have included a clause allowing for such securitisation. Moreover, the process has been around for years.

Judge Peart dealt with this previously

Robbo

Robbo wrote: »

We're only going to hear more and more of it as it morphs from one nonsense notion to the next. What's on the horizon which seems to given them a belief in their own ****e is firstly that Attack the Tax have now enlisted real solicitors so I expect a JR to string things out there (and remember, in their minds delay is victory) and ironically, the aspects of the actual Freeman case which will be heard in full (essentially that securitisation invalidates mortgages).

Actually Freeman was referred because the Central Bank code on securitization was raised as a point and given the mess created by ILP v Fitzell the Court had to allow it go to plenary hearing. Securitization as a process isn't actually what the judge allowed go on but rather whether the Central bank code on securitization, which is not promulgated under s117 of the Cebtral Bank Act and therefore it is likely Fitzell does not apply to it, was complied with and, if so, whether a failure to comply gives rise to a Defence.

But that's WAY too complicated an argument for the freeman (small f on purpose) nonsense.

moyners

Colm R wrote: »

OK I've been following this thread with interest, sometimes amusement, but beginning to start to worry.

I'm worried that, with some many people (people I know) in despair and difficulties, that this movement is going to gather momentum.

I'm worried that its going to suck in people that don't understand whats involved and could get badly burned.

And I'm worried that this movement could be successful, simply because if these people get their way, avoid their debts, someone is going to get burned - it could be tax payer.

There could come a point, where these people reach a critical mass, and bang - they might be successful.

Should I be worried?

I was dismayed by the pictures of the "retaking of the farm" for similar reasons. I think in a way they've played it quite smart. What are the receivers to do? They can keep repossessing the property but being a stud its very easy for a mob to do what they did last week and simply walk back on and take it over. More security = more opportunities for photo ops. They also ensured the owner of the land wasn't there on both occasions so I don't think the bank can take any action against him and taking any action against those who were there on the day will take time and effort taking proceedings - more delays. A real pain in the behind for the bank and receivers I'd imagine and that's exactly what these people want. All the while, poor people who are in despair and in debt see these photos and flock to their meetings.

They may not get anywhere in court but there's going to be a lot of people hurt along the way.

Marve

Hi folks.
Latest publicity stunt by Ben hit the tubes earlier, the arrest of John Squires, as expected the usual suspect groups on fbook are seeing this as a glorious event.
Anyone rip it apart yet?
btw, ty to everyone who contributes to this thread, always click in when the freemen come up with another new plan to take over the world, just to see it debunked.

BlutendeRabe

Marve wrote: »

Hi folks.
Latest publicity stunt by Ben hit the tubes earlier, the arrest of John Squires, as expected the usual suspect groups on fbook are seeing this as a glorious event.
Anyone rip it apart yet?
btw, ty to everyone who contributes to this thread, always click in when the freemen come up with another new plan to take over the world, just to see it debunked.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kOsp1OWDP0c

God it's cringing to watch.

joela

BlutendeRabe wrote: »

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kOsp1OWDP0c

God it's cringing to watch.

Oh dear Lord......... such hokum

johnnyskeleton

Marve wrote: »

Hi folks.
Latest publicity stunt by Ben hit the tubes earlier, the arrest of John Squires, as expected the usual suspect groups on fbook are seeing this as a glorious event.
Anyone rip it apart yet?
btw, ty to everyone who contributes to this thread, always click in when the freemen come up with another new plan to take over the world, just to see it debunked.

"Warrant for arrest" means an exchange. You give me the warrant and I'll give him to you! So when there is a car for sale, I give you the car and you give me the sale!

jd

Marve wrote: »

Hi folks.
Latest publicity stunt by Ben hit the tubes earlier, the arrest of John Squires,

I can't see vid here, what was he arrested for?

hardCopy

BlutendeRabe wrote: »

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kOsp1OWDP0c

God it's cringing to watch.

Head bangers

jd

Saw this in the Examiner, I wonder does Mr Conway feel a bit foolish.

http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/notary-officer-cuts-ties-with-contentious-property-trust-242038.html

Dermot Conway was the preferred notary public for the Rodolphus Allen Trust as it took in and leased back properties at sign-in sessions held across Cork during the summer.

Mr Conway’s decision to cease offering notarising services to the trust came after it controversially retook a stud farm in Kildare. The farm had been managed by court-appointed receivers, Savills.

..

During the summer, the presence of a notary public allowed an official third party to verify and record people’s actions when they signed deeds that placed properties into the trust.

Mr Conway had witnessed hundreds of deals in which indebted people signed over properties after providing proof they were the freehold owners.

Mr Conway, a specialist maritime lawyer, did not act for the trust or advise any of those who placed properties into it. He was employed by the trust and was not paid by the applicants.

Robbo

jd wrote: »

Saw this in the Examiner, I wonder does Mr Conway feel a bit foolish.

http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/notary-officer-cuts-ties-with-contentious-property-trust-242038.html

The group cited ancient Brehon law during Saturday’s march. This is understood to refer to the belief that there can only be one owner of freehold land, so mortgages that dilute that ownership are unlawful.

Another glimpse into the minds of these loons.

I believe there's a piece on Charlie Allen in new edition of the Phoenix which is out today.

Ken.

jd wrote: »

I can't see vid here, what was he arrested for?

Unpaid parking fines.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Grolschevik

Mr Conway, a specialist maritime lawyer,

Is that why they went with him?:D

alyssum

Mr Conway, a specialist maritime lawyer,

Grolschevik wrote: »

Is that why they went with him?:D

lol very good

returnNull

Grolschevik wrote: »

Is that why they went with him?:D

at least he knows when to get off a sinking ship:pac:

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

jd

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

I think this is him.

http://www.conways.ie/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=90&Itemid=142

Dermot Conway is the Managing Partner of Conways Solicitors. Dermot is a graduate of University College Cork, Ireland and holds two degrees; Commerce (BComm) and Law (BCL). He qualified as a Solicitor in 2000 and has specialised in Maritime Law since that time.
Dermot has represented Clients in every Court in Ireland in relation to maritime matters.

littlemac1980

BlutendeRabe wrote: »

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kOsp1OWDP0c

God it's cringing to watch.

Video - was removed by the user.

Pity was looking forward to watching it.

chops018

My blood actually boils everytime I listen to Ben Gilroy and him shítting all over years of Jurisprudence and interpretation of the Courts of our Constitution and other legal areas.



Here's another link to the vid if anyone is interested: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JXSp0OQ8whc

littlemac1980

chops018 wrote: »

My blood actually boils everytime I listen to Ben Gilroy and him shítting all over years of Jurisprudence and interpretation of the Courts of our Constitution and other legal areas.



Here's another link to the vid if anyone is interested: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JXSp0OQ8whc

Thanks for that.

That guard has super-human patience.