Constitution Halts Sheriff Video

chops018

http://www.youtube.com/all_comments?v=PpUjl4LvQM8

Is it just me or does is this guy not as educated as he thinks.

Don't get me wrong, some of what he is saying is correct, especially with regard the situation being harsh on families. I'm not arguing that, it is terrible to see families being put out of their homes and I am happy the man managed to get the guys away!

However I do think that he doesn't understand the constitution and common law. It's like he just keeps shouting out common law and articles of the constitution. One part he makes a reference to how the only case where a mans home is vioble is when someone murders a person outside and runs into his house then the guards can run in. He also mentions how the high court wasn't a common law court, and then he says that the man should have come with a signed referendum of the constitution and not a warrant if he wanted to enter the home.

Also at the end he starts comparing natural law to common law.

Again, I feel huge sympathy towards the families who are losing their homes but, and want to stress that it was good to see this man fight them off.

What I want to know is your views on the man who keeps quoting articles of the constitution and common law, which to me it appears he just read up on them without reading up and decisions of the courts on how they would interpret articles of the constitution. Also he keeps mentioning common law out of context in my opinion.

MagicSean

He's an idiot.

aN.Droid

chops018 wrote: »

http://www.youtube.com/all_comments?v=PpUjl4LvQM8

Is it just me or does is this guy not as educated as he thinks.

Don't get me wrong, some of what he is saying is correct, especially with regard the situation being harsh on families. I'm not arguing that, it is terrible to see families being put out of their homes and I am happy the man managed to get the guys away!

However I do think that he doesn't understand the constitution and common law. It's like he just keeps shouting out common law and articles of the constitution. One part he makes a reference to how the only case where a mans home is vioble is when someone murders a person outside and runs into his house then the guards can run in. He also mentions how the high court wasn't a common law court, and then he says that the man should have come with a signed referendum of the constitution and not a warrant if he wanted to enter the home.

Also at the end he starts comparing natural law to common law.

Again, I feel huge sympathy towards the families who are losing their homes but, and want to stress that it was good to see this man fight them off.

What I want to know is your views on the man who keeps quoting articles of the constitution and common law, which to me it appears he just read up on them without reading up and decisions of the courts on how they would interpret articles of the constitution. Also he keeps mentioning common law out of context in my opinion.

If one thing this segment educated me about is the fact that the sheriffs office is a private company. Shocking. Unless it's untrue?

I think his bit about murder was meant to be just an example of one way that a persons house may be violated too bring someone to justice and he just got tongue twisted or mixed up.

At least this man is trying to help people, whether or not he knows his stuff and can fully keep the dogs at bay at least he is trying and not letting people just lay down and let the banks take there life's away after we as a country helped them out so much.

MagicSean wrote: »

He's an idiot.

Got anymore to add to that? Would genuinely like to hear your opinion on all this, aswell as anyone else's.

Paulw

Limericks wrote: »

If one thing this segment educated me about is the fact that the sheriffs office is a private company. Shocking. Unless it's untrue?

It's untrue.

Joey the lips

I dont care what the guy was. If someone can keep there house longer then its a constitional success.

Finnbar01

Limericks wrote: »

Got anymore to add to that? Would genuinely like to hear your opinion on all this, aswell as anyone else's.

He got a mortgage to purchase a house.

Either he pays the mortgage or he gives back the house.

Kosseegan

Limericks wrote: »

If one thing this segment educated me about is the fact that the sheriffs office is a private company. Shocking. Unless it's untrue?

I think his bit about murder was meant to be just an example of one way that a persons house may be violated too bring someone to justice and he just got tongue twisted or mixed up.

At least this man is trying to help people, whether or not he knows his stuff and can fully keep the dogs at bay at least he is trying and not letting people just lay down and let the banks take there life's away after we as a country helped them out so much.

There is already a court order for him to vacate. His title is gone. He can never sell. He can keep up his antics for a while but he is going to be ousted in the end.

Airhead21

I agree he took out the mortgage if he can't pay it he has to get out.
I have sympathy on him and his family but he did take out the mortgage it is his responsibility to repay it.
Due to people like this man and thousands more taking out mortgages and not being able to repay them and it has left people been refused for mortgages by the banks.
There should be a line between the sheriff and the county register.
I wonder how much the sheriff gets paid a month and how much does he get as the register???

Executive Steve

Posted this in the Freeman megamerge thread last night.

General consensus seems to be that his actual legal arguments are pretty off-the-wall and that the sheriff only backed down because there were over a dozen protesters standing around filming the whole standoff.

chops018

Executive Steve wrote: »

Posted this in the Freeman megamerge thread last night.

General consensus seems to be that his actual legal arguments are pretty off-the-wall and that the sheriff only backed down because there were over a dozen protesters standing around filming the whole standoff.

Didn't see it posted it in that or I wouldn't have started a thread on it. Yes I would agree that his legal arguments are off the wall and he has no understanding of the law or how it works. He bought the people living in the house some time, but that's it.

Robbo

Executive Steve wrote: »

Posted this in the Freeman megamerge thread last night.

General consensus seems to be that his actual legal arguments are pretty off-the-wall and that the sheriff only backed down because there were over a dozen protesters standing around filming the whole standoff.

It's a classic Freeman "victory".

If something is adjourned or delayed, claim it as a victory for your internet assembled belief structure. Usually the true reason is that the person in charge recognises they're dealing with someone who's unhinged at best and wants to let the matter die down.

Atlantis50

chops018 wrote: »

http://www.youtube.com/all_comments?v=PpUjl4LvQM8

Is it just me or does is this guy not as educated as he thinks.

Don't get me wrong, some of what he is saying is correct, especially with regard the situation being harsh on families. I'm not arguing that, it is terrible to see families being put out of their homes and I am happy the man managed to get the guys away!

However I do think that he doesn't understand the constitution and common law. It's like he just keeps shouting out common law and articles of the constitution. One part he makes a reference to how the only case where a mans home is vioble is when someone murders a person outside and runs into his house then the guards can run in. He also mentions how the high court wasn't a common law court, and then he says that the man should have come with a signed referendum of the constitution and not a warrant if he wanted to enter the home.

Also at the end he starts comparing natural law to common law.

Again, I feel huge sympathy towards the families who are losing their homes but, and want to stress that it was good to see this man fight them off.

What I want to know is your views on the man who keeps quoting articles of the constitution and common law, which to me it appears he just read up on them without reading up and decisions of the courts on how they would interpret articles of the constitution. Also he keeps mentioning common law out of context in my opinion.

The guy was a complete bul****ter but the Sheriff/Deputy Sheriff was soft.

Next time come unannounced so they don't have time to call the 'rent-a-mob' crowd.

Finnbar01

Atlantis50 wrote: »

The guy was a complete bul****ter but the Sheriff/Deputy Sheriff was soft.

Next time come unannounced so they don't have time to call the 'rent-a-mob' crowd.

The only mistake the sheriff made was actually to stand there for over 15 minutes trying to argue nonsense with the freeman. He should have left a lot sooner.

Also, I don't understand why the garda didn't tell the freeman that he was under oath. It's no big deal.

Paulw

I see it's on the independent website now too.

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/video-activists-stop-attempted-eviction-in-laois-3028088.html

Tom Young

This is just wrong. The man cited Art 40.5 of the Constitution and neglected to continue on: "save in accordance with law".

If the Court order granting Judgment, as charged against the property and indeed the Order for Possession has been aired in Court, with both sides on notice - then it has the full force of the Law in Ireland. This mere puff about the Common Law and Constitution is nonsense.

The occupants and protesters were trespassing on property held in the sole name of the Bank.

The arguments made by the spokesman are completely confused, without merit and may end-up giving people on the brink of repossession orders (bona fide ones at that) false hope.

These movements are wrong. The bank has title to that property now and not the occupant. The fight should have taken place earlier.

The enforcement of the order is a problem, next comes either an injunction or a committal warrant for the imprisonment of the occupants for failure to comply with a court order. Not ideal.

berrypendel

Paulw wrote: »

I see it's on the independent website now too.

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/video-activists-stop-attempted-eviction-in-laois-3028088.html

Was in Tipp this morning and think it was him on Tipp FM but did not hear it all

Corruptable

I rang a relative of mine down that way, and the issue is the centre of the local pub talk.

It's a rural area with only two gardai normally, so it's reckoned they backed off to avoid a scene with the protesters (one of whom was a ULA TD, Joan Collins and mostly rent-a-mob blow ins) and the gardai didn't have the proper resources to deal with it if it became an aggressive situation.

Essentially, they've only put off the inevitable.

patwicklow

Yep the wolf is at the door and aint going to go away.

tweetie30

If someone gets a mortgage, they have to pay it back, that i get. But why when the banks give out too much money does the tax payer have to pay it back? Most taxpayers can't afford to pay their own mortgages, without being beaten down with 'bank taxes' too. Ok, so that man may not be 100% on the law, but the 'deputy sheriff' obviously isin't too sure either, but mayb if more and more ppl just stand their ground and fight for what they believe in, somewhere down the line, something may have to b done. and as for the cop, if he's in his uniform and on duty, he's on his oath, no? So why the no comment.

tweetie30

it's not that rural, it's about 8 mile from portlaoise, there's a lot more than 2 guards in portlaoise

Jesus Nut

Anyone who borrows money of another person HAS to pay it back. Its only fair and common sense in my view of things anyways.

Ive looked at law and stuff for a while and this is my take on it!

No private person has a right to complain, by suit in court, on the ground of a breach of the Constitution, the Constitution, it is true,
is a compact but you are not a party to it.

How many times have you seen someone in court attempt to use the Constitution and then the Judge tells them they can’t. It is because you are not a party to it!!!!!!

You have to understand that the Republic of Ireland, and
the 26 county's are the parties to the Constitution not you!!!!!

Let me try to explain. If I buy a car from a man and that car has a
warranty and the engine blows up the first day I have it. Then I tell the man just forget about it. Then you come along and tell the man to pay me and he says no. So you take him to court for not holding up the contract. The court then says case dismissed. Why?
Because you are not a party to the contract. You cannot sue a government official for not adhering to a contract (Constitution) that you are not a party too. You better accept the
fact that you are a Slave. When you try to use the Constitution you are committing a CRIME known as CRIMINAL TRESPASS. Why? Because you are attempting to infringe on a private contract that you are not a party to. Then to make matters worse you are a debt slave who owns no property or has any rights. You are a mere user!

Anyways lads, thats the way I see things.


The whole freeman thing is a waste of time

blueythebear

tweetie30 wrote: »

as for the cop, if he's in his uniform and on duty, he's on his oath, no? So why the no comment.

If you look at the Garda oath, contained in the Garda Siochana Act 2005, it mentions nothing about the "common law". This guy in this video has got the most fundamental thing wrong, he has not understood the definition of the word "law". He believes that this is his definition of the "common law". He is wrong.

Plus, a Garda being on his oath? Asking a Garda that does not mean anything. It is not a secret handshake or rule that suddenly means that the Garda must perform his duties in some specific way. Again, it is more nonsense.

The guy is not performing some amazing legal manouevre to prevent the sheriffdoing his job. He is using 2 of the oldest tricks in the book. First is intimidation, with the amount of people present and two, the old classic of when in the wrong, shout louder and embarrass the other party into backing down.

blueythebear

Jesus Nut wrote: »

Anyone who borrows money of another person HAS to pay it back. Its only fair and common sense in my view of things anyways.

Ive looked at law and stuff for a while and this is my take on it!

No private person has a right to complain, by suit in court, on the ground of a breach of the Constitution, the Constitution, it is true,
is a compact but you are not a party to it.

How many times have you seen someone in court attempt to use the Constitution and then the Judge tells them they can’t. It is because you are not a party to it!!!!!!

You have to understand that the Republic of Ireland, and
the 26 county's are the parties to the Constitution not you!!!!!

Let me try to explain. If I buy a car from a man and that car has a
warranty and the engine blows up the first day I have it. Then I tell the man just forget about it. Then you come along and tell the man to pay me and he says no. So you take him to court for not holding up the contract. The court then says case dismissed. Why?
Because you are not a party to the contract. You cannot sue a government official for not adhering to a contract (Constitution) that you are not a party too. You better accept the
fact that you are a Slave. When you try to use the Constitution you are committing a CRIME known as CRIMINAL TRESPASS. Why? Because you are attempting to infringe on a private contract that you are not a party to. Then to make matters worse you are a debt slave who owns no property or has any rights. You are a mere user!

Anyways lads, thats the way I see things.


The whole freeman thing is a waste of time

I agree with your first and your last sentence. Everything else, I would disagree wholeheartedly with. Privity of contract does not apply to the Constitution as it is not a contract.

berrypendel

blueythebear wrote: »

He is using 2 of the oldest tricks in the book. First is intimidation, with the amount of people present and two, the old classic of when in the wrong, shout louder and embarrass the other party into backing down.

it will be interesting to see if they back up again

mcgarrett

I would have to disagree with you there bluey, the primary duty of a Garda is to protect life and property and there are occasions where statute law will not suffice and you will be forced to rely on the common law.

In relation to the video with the Sherriff the function of the Gardai at the scene is to prevent a breach of the peace, they are not there to assist an eviction.

blueythebear

mcgarrett wrote: »

I would have to disagree with you there bluey, the primary duty of a Garda is to protect life and property and there are occasions where statute law will not suffice and you will be forced to rely on the common law.

In relation to the video with the Sherriff the function of the Gardai at the scene is to prevent a breach of the peace, they are not there to assist an eviction.

I'm not saying anything about the functions of the Gardaí. I'm referring to the Garda Oath as set out in S16 of the Garda Siochana Act 2005. The chap in the video asks if the Gardaí are on their oath and then insists that the Gardaí must uphold the "law".

This reference to upholding the "law" comes directly from this oath (Solemn Declaration of S16) and the guy believes that the "law" includes his version of the "common law". He is wrong here in that his understanding of the word "law" is incorrect.

I am aware that the Gardaí have powers based on Statute and based on common law (not Freeman "common law"), however my point is as above. Asking about being on oath to a Garda, means nothing and their understanding of "law" to include their version of the "common law" is just wrong.

mcgarrett

Whatever you're havin' yourself, but you are mistaken if you think the reference to law in the oath does not include the common law.

To quote your post.

"If you look at the Garda oath, contained in the Garda Siochana Act 2005, it mentions nothing about the "common law". "

In fairness to the Sgt the question caught him off guard as it would be an unusual thing to be asked. He probably adopted the policy of never arguing with an imbecile, as they only drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

NoQuarter

Jesus Nut wrote: »

Anyone who borrows money of another person HAS to pay it back. Its only fair and common sense in my view of things anyways.

Ive looked at law and stuff for a while and this is my take on it!

No private person has a right to complain, by suit in court, on the ground of a breach of the Constitution, the Constitution, it is true,
is a compact but you are not a party to it.

How many times have you seen someone in court attempt to use the Constitution and then the Judge tells them they can’t. It is because you are not a party to it!!!!!!

You have to understand that the Republic of Ireland, and
the 26 county's are the parties to the Constitution not you!!!!!

Let me try to explain. If I buy a car from a man and that car has a
warranty and the engine blows up the first day I have it. Then I tell the man just forget about it. Then you come along and tell the man to pay me and he says no. So you take him to court for not holding up the contract. The court then says case dismissed. Why?
Because you are not a party to the contract. You cannot sue a government official for not adhering to a contract (Constitution) that you are not a party too. You better accept the
fact that you are a Slave. When you try to use the Constitution you are committing a CRIME known as CRIMINAL TRESPASS. Why? Because you are attempting to infringe on a private contract that you are not a party to. Then to make matters worse you are a debt slave who owns no property or has any rights. You are a mere user!

Anyways lads, thats the way I see things.


The whole freeman thing is a waste of time

Oh my, that is some tripe you have just come out with!! Constitution a contract??? What!??!

And where are you getting that no private person can bring a complaint pursuant to the constitution. I can think of a hundred examples! Utter nonsense!

Grolschevik

Jesus Nut wrote: »

Ive looked at law and stuff for a while

That's all right, then!

blueythebear

mcgarrett wrote: »

Whatever you're havin' yourself, but you are mistaken if you think the reference to law in the oath does not include the common law.

To quote your post.

"If you look at the Garda oath, contained in the Garda Siochana Act 2005, it mentions nothing about the "common law". "

In fairness to the Sgt the question caught him off guard as it would be an unusual thing to be asked. He probably adopted the policy of never arguing with an imbecile, as they only drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.

Sorry if I'm not being clear. Alls I'm saying is that Freeman interpretation of "common law" is totally incorrect. Gardai solemnly declare to uphold the law and this includes to prevent the commission of common law offences e.g. buggery as per recent SC judgment. They also have powers under common law such as the power to stop any motorist etc.

Freemen believe that they are there to uphold the common law as it is defined by them and this is wrong.

subrosa

The freeman stuff can be amusing in a absurd sort of way. It gets depressing when they start offering false hope and poor advice to people in trouble.

I've no doubt that there are people who will end up imprisoned/evicted/bankrupt because of this gibberish - when they might have mounted a genuine defense had they sought proper advice.

Paulw

Curiosity question -

Where is the sheriff's office/duties defined? Who does he report to? Is it Finance or Justice?

subrosa

The Court Officers Act, 1926 abolished the role of sheriff and transferred the functions to the various county registrars. The legislation provided that no future Sheriffs were to be appointed once the incumbents retired. This didn't occur in Dublin until the 1940s. At that point it was decided that the Dublin County Reg was overworked and a new Sheriff was appointed (Court Officers Act 1945.)

The Sheriff answers to Justice, but to confuse matters there are also Revenue Sheriffs.

In fact the system is pretty poor. There is no earthly reason other than tradition why Dublin and Cork should have a Sheriff collecting debts while the rest of the country has a proper court officer doing the job.

Interestingly (in a not at all sort of way) the Sheriffs Act of 1215 was retained in the Statute Law Revision Act, 2007.

Tom Young

Maybe there should be calls to restate it and provide for bailiffs as well.

dermot_sheehan

Court Messengers under the 1926 act I think have the role of bailiffs.

It is slightly antiquated though, they could just update the whole thing by having civil enforcement officers and outline clearly their powers.

subrosa

That would be a good idea. I think the Law Reform Commission has been beating that drum for a while. The fact that the Sheriff, as far as I know, still takes a commission on goods seized is ridiculous. The right to enter dwellings is also a little archaic given the restrictions on the Gardai doing the same.

Avatargh

The "Constitution" halts the Sheriff? Seems like a group of angry people halted the Sheriff at best.

It's a bit like punching someone in the face saying "the Constitution lets me punch you in the face" and saying "the Constitution has punched you in the face".

Nice intentions, I suppose...but jesus, people can be thick.

Jesus Nut

NoQuarter wrote: »

Oh my, that is some tripe you have just come out with!! Constitution a contract??? What!??!

And where are you getting that no private person can bring a complaint pursuant to the constitution. I can think of a hundred examples! Utter nonsense!

Yes, the constitution is a written contract. No big deal about it.

Give me an example please.

The Freeman thing is stupid, it wont work for them. Im just trying to point out WHY it doesnt work.

MagicSean

Jesus Nut wrote: »

Yes, the constitution is a written contract. No big deal about it.

Give me an example please.

The Freeman thing is stupid, it wont work for them. Im just trying to point out WHY it doesnt work.

The most recent high profile one that springs to mind is the so called Romeo and Juliet case were the law on underage consensual sex was challenged as discriminatory contrary to the constitution. There have also been recent high profile ones on abortion provision and gay rights. If you haven't heard about any of those you've been livIng under a bridge.

Stereomaniac

Under a bridge?

Milk & Honey

subrosa wrote: »

The Court Officers Act, 1926 abolished the role of sheriff and transferred the functions to the various county registrars. The legislation provided that no future Sheriffs were to be appointed once the incumbents retired. This didn't occur in Dublin until the 1940s. At that point it was decided that the Dublin County Reg was overworked and a new Sheriff was appointed (Court Officers Act 1945.)

The Sheriff answers to Justice, but to confuse matters there are also Revenue Sheriffs.

In fact the system is pretty poor. There is no earthly reason other than tradition why Dublin and Cork should have a Sheriff collecting debts while the rest of the country has a proper court officer doing the job.

Interestingly (in a not at all sort of way) the Sheriffs Act of 1215 was retained in the Statute Law Revision Act, 2007.

Having a Court Officer involved in enforcement is a breach of the doctrine of separation of powers. Enforcement is an executive act.

NoQuarter

Jesus Nut wrote: »

Yes, the constitution is a written contract. No big deal about it.

Give me an example please.

The Freeman thing is stupid, it wont work for them. Im just trying to point out WHY it doesnt work.

A contract requires an offer, acceptance, consideration, an intention to create legal relations and excludes some of a certain capacity. None of the above is true with the Constitution.

I will gladly give an example, and if you would like any more feel free to ask because challenging on the grounds of a constitutional issue is quite common. Here is one from today as pointed out above: http://www.rte.ie/news/2012/0223/court.html

I learned hundreds of others when I studied Constitutional Law.

You said you looked into law a bit? Can you elaborate on that? What have you done in relation to law? Because if you have any qualification in it I would be genuinely interested in hearing your points on how the Constitution is a contract!

Tom Young

Milk & Honey wrote: »

Having a Court Officer involved in enforcement is a breach of the doctrine of separation of powers. Enforcement is an executive act.

Is a County Registrar a member of the judiciary, despite exercising quasi-judicial powers?

Brother Psychosis

it genuinely saddens me people fall for this. the guy in this video is acting some some defender of the people when all he has done is shout at a guy who has no understanding of the law, save for that small portion which immediately applies to him and has shouted him down. h repeatedly shouts about the home being invoiable save for in accordance with law, but he never shows any illegality. gardai are always under oath when working, but its not a physical document, its a verbal oath, AFAIK. this nonsense has gone on far too long and the airtime this video is getting is just adding further fuel to the fire. this is only counted as a victory cos the sherrif backed down because he knew he was not going to argue his way out of it.

this is going to get worse before it gets better

Milk & Honey

Tom Young wrote: »

Is a County Registrar a member of the judiciary, despite exercising quasi-judicial powers?

The county registrar performs judicial and executive functions. The role is mainly judicial. The County Registrar can give judgement in mortgage possession cases. That is a very significant judicial power

Tom Young

I don't think that the exercise of quasi-judicial power is quite the same.

Grolschevik

NoQuarter wrote: »

You said you looked into law a bit?

"Law and stuff." Don't forget the "stuff".:)

Anyway, I would suspect that the "constitution as contract" idea can ultimately be traced back to a first-year politics misinterpretation of John Locke's 17th century argument that the consent of the governed may be explicit or implicit, but can be revoked at any time if the government exceeds its authority.

theAwakening

the knowledge this home owner purports to exude in this video reminds me of the time my buddies and i rebelled against the deliberate & conscious constitutional breach that was detention to our teachers in first year.

you have to laugh. in fairness to him he probably hadn't the money to seek legal advice.

Paulw

More of this on TV3 today - http://www.tv3.ie/3player/show/155/0/0/The-Morning-Show

schemingbohemia

On a political viewpoint I find it hilarious that the Freemen nutters and the Far Left are joining together. Only in Ireland.:rolleyes:

The person in this case has been behind his payments since 2006! That was well before the crash and only three years into his loan. His house should have repossessed years ago.

NoQuarter

Paulw wrote: »

More of this on TV3 today - http://www.tv3.ie/3player/show/155/0/0/The-Morning-Show

This tool keeps on about the jurisdiction of the Circuit Court being €38,000. Isn't that only for claims for damages and in relation to land the rateable value of the land cant exceed €253!!

We dont know if that is the case with this house so the Registrar may have jurisdiction on it anyway.