Constitution Halts Sheriff Video

pirelli

pirelli wrote: »

You brought freemanism into this which was completely irrelevant and on the back of this you implied that the man in the video was evil which is both defamatory and wrong. Your throwing mud which fly's in the face of the charter but of course once it's anti- freeman than it's the popular view amongst the boards legal woo. .

These guys were Freemen. That's not really in dispute is it?

Our man in Havana

They also need a map. Portlaoise is now in Offaly?

Zab

pirelli wrote: »

However if the registrar does have that authority would there role become less law and more administrative if they were to also sign the order for possession. As the man in the video points out.

Would that signature have the force of the law or the rule of law?

The issue is that the county registrar both makes the order for possession and executes the order. This is an unusual crossover of powers, and should be changed. However, the man in the video implies that the County Registrar profits from the order on a commission basis as a sheriff would. This is not the case, and therefore the conflict of interest is nowhere near as strong as he was implying.

I do not, however, think that he is evil.

pirelli

Tom Young wrote: »

Land and Conveyancing Law Reform Act 2009, is where you should check.

(xxiv) An order to vacate a lis pendens on the application of the person who registered the same.

Does this jurisdiction then make the judgment of the county registrar a court order suitable for the term court order used in Land and Conveyancing Law Reform Act 2009. I suppose it does.

I remember we discussed the rules of court before...and the rules of court are legislated by Section 36 of the 1924 Courts of Justice Act.

Thank you sir.

And your comments on them...

"The Rules of Court are binding on practitioners and people appearing in and before the Courts. They are not however the final word.

The Rules can and frequently do become the source of problems. For example where a particular rule conflicts with statute or contemporaneous process, e.g., Electronic Discovery of Documents. Which in that case was brought into being by the Rules Committee who debate and decide such matters and publish a rule recommendation which is sent to the AG for review and then transposition into being usually via Statutory Instrument e.g., http://www.attorneygeneral.ie/esi/2009/B26695.pdf ...

Where a Rule of Court is deficient the lower Courts can import the Rules of a Higher Court and where a Higher Court has no Rule or a Rule which would cause mischief to justice the inherent jurisdiction of the Court would be relied upon in the Circumstances."

Perhaps there is a conflict with a court registrar enforcing their own judgment.?

Perhaps there is a conflict between the rules and some statute.

Heaven knows..,. I might seriously have to now complete law studies. It would have been wonderful to leave that task to you guys but there is something absent, like there is no soul and heart.

pirelli

Deleted User wrote: »

These guys were Freemen. That's not really in dispute is it?

Kayroo you might very well have a brilliant legal mind and your knowledge is of the law is excellent but your missing something that next step, your very dismissive of things.

Well if i raise the matter with you that these are not freeman and there is nothing to indicate that they are, and certainly it would be unacceptable to use examples from the video as your doing nothing more than labelling any pseudo legal argument as freeman.

I have looked at each of the websites at the start of the video and researched as much as i have time to and have found nothing to indicate they are anything to do with freeman.

link
http://freedomfromalldebt.com/about-us/

At least you have brought me closer to establishing what you find evil.I think if you bridge that to involve Garda corruption/miscarriages of justice because this is closer to your territory and in fact it is in your professional capacity to tackle this ....evil which it is.

blueythebear

pirelli wrote: »

Yes i read it.
Leo Wellstead
And
Judge Michael White and Paul Fetherstonhaugh

Following default in repayments, the bank instituted ejectment proceedings, and ultimately an order was made by the County Registrar.

At the end of that six month period the applicant sought a further stay but was refused by the County Registrar.

***********************************

Order 18
http://www.courts.ie/rules.nsf/6cc6644045a5c09a80256db700399505/1d9c564a18b375b280256d94005fe9c6?OpenDocument

SECOND SCHEDULE
Orders Which can be Made by County Registrars
Section 34 .
http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1995/en/act/pub/0031/sched2.html#sched2


I can not see where in the schedule it authorises the county registrar to make such an order but i would imagine they have an authority as the deputy sheriff in the video says they have been doing this for years so they must be authorised.

However if the registrar does have that authority would there role become less law and more administrative if they were to also sign the order for possession. As the man in the video points out.

Would that signature have the force of the law or the rule of law?

County Registrar is authorised to make an order for possession under Order 5 b of the Circuit Court Rules where no appearance has been entered.

It's a rubber stamping exercise for the County Registrar. He/she is not exercising a judicial function. If there is an appearance entered and the Defendant wishes to enter a replying affidavit defending the claim, the County Registrar must transfer to the judge's list to have a judge make a ruling on the matter.

The 1995 Courts and Courts Officers Act was amended in 2002 (Courts and Court Officers Act 2002) to include the power to make an order for possession but this power was not enacted until 2009 (SI 264 / 2009). Not entirely sure what the situiation was pre-2009 though.

Our man in Havana

Also for the record the chap in the video is not the county registrar.

Tom Young

This is really tiresome. You should go study law. It might help with grasping the basics.

The quote function is at the bottom right of posts, you should try using it.

What I was discussing above, was eDiscovery. Nothing to do with this nonsense.

pirelli

blueythebear wrote: »

County Registrar is authorised to make an order for possession under Order 5 b of the Circuit Court Rules where no appearance has been entered.

It's a rubber stamping exercise for the County Registrar. He/she is not exercising a judicial function. If there is an appearance entered and the Defendant wishes to enter a replying affidavit defending the claim, the County Registrar must transfer to the judge's list to have a judge make a ruling on the matter.

The 1995 Courts and Courts Officers Act was amended in 2002 (Courts and Court Officers Act 2002) to include the power to make an order for possession but this power was not enacted until 2009 (SI 264 / 2009). Not entirely sure what the situiation was pre-2009 though.

I was thinking that also that he must have failed to appear. Not knowing the circumstances we can only summarise.

Order (v) seems to be from schedule listed in the 1995 court and courts officers Act.



However this is not listed in the 1995 court and courts officers Act or can i see it in the amendments. So is it a rule rather than a law.


http://www.courts.ie/rules.nsf/CircuitAmdLookup/No18-S.I.+No.+155+Of+2010:+Circuit+Court+Rules+(Land+And+Conveyancing+Law+Reform+Act+2009)+2010

3. The Circuit Court Rules are amended:

....

(ii) by the substitution for paragraph (xxiv) of rule 1 of Order 18 of the following paragraph:

“(xxiv) An order to vacate a lis pendens on an application under section 123 of the Land and Conveyancing Law Reform Act 2009.”;

pirelli

Tom Young wrote: »

This is really tiresome. You should go study law. It might help with grasping the basics.

The quote function is at the bottom right of posts, you should try using it.

What I was discussing above, was eDiscovery. Nothing to do with this nonsense.

It's tiresome because you get easily irritated, you probably don't recall but you locked that particular thread ( probably because you were tired of it) so it is not possible to quote the post's.

MagicSean

pirelli wrote: »

It's tiresome because you get easily irritated, you probably don't recall but you locked that particular thread ( probably because you were tired of it) so it is not possible to quote the post's.

It's tiresome because you just keep bringing up irrelevant stuff with your own interpretation on it that seems to be based on pure fantasy and trying to link it to the discussion. I can't even remember what the point of this thread was supposed to be because you've diverted it so many times.

blueythebear

pirelli wrote: »

I was thinking that also that he must have failed to appear. Not knowing the circumstances we can only summarise.

Order (v) seems to be from schedule listed in the 1995 court and courts officers Act.



However this is not listed in the 1995 court and courts officers Act or can i see it in the amendments. So is it a rule rather than a law.


http://www.courts.ie/rules.nsf/CircuitAmdLookup/No18-S.I.+No.+155+Of+2010:+Circuit+Court+Rules+(Land+And+Conveyancing+Law+Reform+Act+2009)+2010

3. The Circuit Court Rules are amended:

....

(ii) by the substitution for paragraph (xxiv) of rule 1 of Order 18 of the following paragraph:

“(xxiv) An order to vacate a lis pendens on an application under section 123 of the Land and Conveyancing Law Reform Act 2009.”;

I just answered the question, where does the COunty Registrar get the power to order possession. I don't know why you're bringing lis pendens into it. It's irrelevant as far as I can see.

The power derives from the 2002 Courts and Court Officers Act and the procedure was put in place under the Circuit Court Rules. There may be a question to be answered as it does not appear that SI264/2009 was not explicitly enacted on the basis of the 2002 Act but I'm sure that's covered in the opening paragraph.

pirelli

Zab wrote: »

The issue is that the county registrar both makes the order for possession and executes the order. This is an unusual crossover of powers, and should be changed. However, the man in the video implies that the County Registrar profits from the order on a commission basis as a sheriff would. This is not the case, and therefore the conflict of interest is nowhere near as strong as he was implying.

I do not, however, think that he is evil.

Thanks z.

The fact the registrar is executing the order brings a new complexion. I know it is a weak argument and if the order is in accordance with the law ( assuming the defendant made no appearance and the hearing proceeded according to the law ) and there also appears to be the possibility not a certainty whereby a party may sit before a judge if there difficulty with the execution of the order than there is the slimmest chance that the execution of an order by the county registrar that made the order may not be in accordance with the law.


Circuit Court Rules
Order: 36
7, If any difficulty arises in or about the execution or enforcement of any judgment or order other than a judgment or order for the recovery or payment of money, any party interested may apply to the Court, and the Judge may make such order thereon for the attendance and examination of any party or otherwise as he may think just.


We need only wait until some party does this and questions the right of the registrar to execute an order for ejectment that it has so ordered. Unless this has been brought before a judge previously.

pirelli

blueythebear wrote: »

I just answered the question, where does the COunty Registrar get the power to order possession. I don't know why you're bringing lis pendens into it. It's irrelevant as far as I can see.

The power derives from the 2002 Courts and Court Officers Act and the procedure was put in place under the Circuit Court Rules. There may be a question to be answered as it does not appear that SI264/2009 was not explicitly enacted on the basis of the 2002 Act but I'm sure that's covered in the opening paragraph.

I understand that now. Thank you.

Opinicus

vioble
vioble
vioble
vioble
vioble
vioble



Jaysus will someone introduce this guy to the word violable!

benway

pirelli wrote: »

Circuit Court Rules
Order: 36
7, If any difficulty arises in or about the execution or enforcement of any judgment or order other than a judgment or order for the recovery or payment of money, any party interested may apply to the Court, and the Judge may make such order thereon for the attendance and examination of any party or otherwise as he may think just.


We need only wait until some party does this and questions the right of the registrar to execute an order for ejectment that it has so ordered. Unless this has been brought before a judge previously.

When someone's being examined in aid of execution, they answer the questions, not ask them.

"Questioning" at that point won't get you very far, in any event. As far as I know, there is/was a High Court judicial review brought by that New Beginnings crowd on the point, not sure what happened with it, though. Until a higher Court says otherwise, you must take it that the County Registrar's Order is constitutional - there's a presumption of constitutionality.

Full marks for effort, but you're really reaching here.

Opinicus wrote: »

vioble
vioble
vioble
vioble
vioble
vioble

Wibble.

MadYaker

Does anyone know what actually happened to the family? Are they still living in the house?

Our man in Havana

No. They were evicted. They are being housed by the social welfare.

joeyeire

I cannot believe the lack of support or empathy on this forum
I felt proud of my fellow countrymen for the first time in years
Too many people are willing to moan relentlessly about the outrageous situation we as a nation have allowed ourselves to be put in.
This man stands proud and puts to question that
the court register is basically awarding himself contracts as the county sheriff
This is a serious conflict of interest whichever way its looked at

Tom Young

Why did you feel proud? He was unlawfully occupying property owned by Ulster Bank.

Tom Young

In case my above post appears incorrect or challenging, this is the last word: http://courts.ie/judgments.nsf/6681dee4565ecf2c80256e7e0052005b/c0e389b2af58a93c8025797a0052eff3?OpenDocument

johnnyskeleton

joeyeire wrote: »

I cannot believe the lack of support or empathy on this forum
I felt proud of my fellow countrymen for the first time in years
Too many people are willing to moan relentlessly about the outrageous situation we as a nation have allowed ourselves to be put in.

Actually, people who overborrowed on the back of inflated property prices were one of the primary reasons why our nation is in such dire straights. Something for you to think about.

joeyeire wrote: »

This man stands proud and puts to question that
the court register is basically awarding himself contracts as the county sheriff
This is a serious conflict of interest whichever way its looked at

If he genuinely believed in this argument, surely he would make it before the courts? But what possible detriment is there? Is there any suggestion at all that this has caused the County Registrar to grant an order for possession when he should not have in order to obtain pecuniary gain? Or is it just another nonsense argument by the Fremen to delay the inevitable?

pirelli

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Actually, people who overborrowed on the back of inflated property prices were one of the primary reasons why our nation is in such dire straights. Something for you to think about.

If he genuinely believed in this argument, surely he would make it before the courts? But what possible detriment is there? Is there any suggestion at all that this has caused the County Registrar to grant an order for possession when he should not have in order to obtain pecuniary gain? Or is it just another nonsense argument by the Fremen to delay the inevitable?

Or is it just another nonsense argument by the pseudo law to delay the inevitable?


Are the the Fremen in Frank Herbert's book based on pseudo law? I know Fremen from dune is a term you use to describe Freeman... or is it a term to describe pseudo law?

If it is the former I wish to point out they appear to be no parallels between the groups in this video and Freemanism. Unless you have evidence showing otherwise then you should use the word pseudo-law in place of fremen, freemanism.

Also all of this transpired after the (link above in tom youngs post) court judgement and after the stay expired. So whether there was a genuine argument or not to be brought to the courts it was too late.

I think these people in the video meant well and while the OP asked about the reference to the common law and constitution made in the video being true or not. What your forgetting is that there is an issue with the county registrar's role and there a need for separation of powers and undeniably everyone has agreed with that.

Therefore these people are entitled to take a legal action to try remedy the issue with the county registrar which was even more significant to that area than say Dublin or Cork. They are entitled to believe in their case if they wish and should they believe the order is not in accordance with the law and it may not be and should they succeed proving this in court then it would be a constitutional issue. They are allowed to voice this opinion.

Any improvement to the Irish legal system should be met with a positive open arms rather than dismissed as freemanism.

pirelli

pirelli wrote: »

If it is the former I wish to point out they appear to be no parallels between the groups in this video and Freemanism. Unless you have evidence showing otherwise then you should use the word pseudo-law in place of fremen, freemanism.

If you watch this video, which appears on Mr. Gilroy's website "Freedom From All Debt" (my emphasis) you will notice that he hits all the Freeman buzzwords.

In the original video you'll also notice that he claims the Gardaí must uphold "Common Law".

Another good indicator is that the video linked above does not use the official translation of the Constitution but actually refers to the Oireachtas Committees report on the literal translations from the Irish and the potential conflicts that arise as a result. This is a classic Freeman tactic.

At the risk of you accusing me of being the modern Irish equivalent of HUAC; if it walks like a duck, looks like a duck and it quacks: it's a duck. To paraphrase Shakespeare to equal effect: A Freeman by any other name is just as full of ****.

joeyeire

Tom Young wrote: »

In case my above post appears incorrect or challenging, this is the last word: http://courts.ie/judgments.nsf/6681dee4565ecf2c80256e7e0052005b/c0e389b2af58a93c8025797a0052eff3?OpenDocument

This is a commercial court ruling which is in conflict with constitutional rights
and has since been upheld. With force able entry into the house by members of the Guards who under Oath have sworn to

I HEREBY SOLEMNLY AND SINCERELY DECLARE BEFORE GOD THAT_I WILL FAITHFULLY DISCHARGE THE DUTIES OF A MEMBER OF THE GARDA SIOCHANA WITH FAIRNESS, INTEGRITY, REGARD FOR HUMAN RIGHTS, DILIGENCE AND IMPARTIALITY, UPHOLDING THE CONSTITUTION AND THE LAW AND ACCORDING EQUAL RESPECT TO ALL PEOPLE.

Are the Garda now Bailiffs to the commercial courts with authority above the constitution?

johnnyskeleton

joeyeire wrote: »

This is a commercial court ruling which is in conflict with constitutional rights
and has since been upheld. With force able entry into the house by members of the Guards who under Oath have sworn to

I HEREBY SOLEMNLY AND SINCERELY DECLARE BEFORE GOD THAT_I WILL FAITHFULLY DISCHARGE THE DUTIES OF A MEMBER OF THE GARDA SIOCHANA WITH FAIRNESS, INTEGRITY, REGARD FOR HUMAN RIGHTS, DILIGENCE AND IMPARTIALITY, UPHOLDING THE CONSTITUTION AND THE LAW AND ACCORDING EQUAL RESPECT TO ALL PEOPLE.

Are the Garda now Bailiffs to the commercial courts with authority above the constitution?

It's not a commercial court ruling.

joeyeire

joeyeire wrote: »

This is a commercial court ruling which is in conflict with constitutional rights
and has since been upheld. With force able entry into the house by members of the Guards who under Oath have sworn to

I HEREBY SOLEMNLY AND SINCERELY DECLARE BEFORE GOD THAT_I WILL FAITHFULLY DISCHARGE THE DUTIES OF A MEMBER OF THE GARDA SIOCHANA WITH FAIRNESS, INTEGRITY, REGARD FOR HUMAN RIGHTS, DILIGENCE AND IMPARTIALITY, UPHOLDING THE CONSTITUTION AND THE LAW AND ACCORDING EQUAL RESPECT TO ALL PEOPLE.

Are the Garda now Bailiffs to the commercial courts with authority above the constitution?

Gardaí were just there to keep the peace.

It's not a commercial court.

There were no constitutional rights breached.

The house belonged to the bank. Anyone else there was trespassing.

Tom Young

joeyeire wrote: »

This is a commercial court ruling which is in conflict with constitutional rights
and has since been upheld. With force able entry into the house by members of the Guards who under Oath have sworn to

I HEREBY SOLEMNLY AND SINCERELY DECLARE BEFORE GOD THAT_I WILL FAITHFULLY DISCHARGE THE DUTIES OF A MEMBER OF THE GARDA SIOCHANA WITH FAIRNESS, INTEGRITY, REGARD FOR HUMAN RIGHTS, DILIGENCE AND IMPARTIALITY, UPHOLDING THE CONSTITUTION AND THE LAW AND ACCORDING EQUAL RESPECT TO ALL PEOPLE.

Are the Garda now Bailiffs to the commercial courts with authority above the constitution?

As other posters have highlighted, that is plainly wrong. End of story.

By analogy, how would you feel if I went and occupied your house, without your permission? Legally and technically that is what was done there.

This whole business of requesting oaths is going to land people in an awful lot of hot water, given time.

pirelli

Deleted User wrote: »

If you watch this video, which appears on Mr. Gilroy's website "Freedom From All Debt" (my emphasis) you will notice that he hits all the Freeman buzzwords.

In the original video you'll also notice that he claims the Gardaí must uphold "Common Law".

Another good indicator is that the video linked above does not use the official translation of the Constitution but actually refers to the Oireachtas Committees report on the literal translations from the Irish and the potential conflicts that arise as a result. This is a classic Freeman tactic.

At the risk of you accusing me of being the modern Irish equivalent of HUAC; if it walks like a duck, looks like a duck and it quacks: it's a duck. To paraphrase Shakespeare to equal effect: A Freeman by any other name is just as full of ****.

I did i watched some of it and i noted the case Crowley v Ireland ([1980] IR102) Justice kenny pointed out that the Irish version of the constitution brought out more clearly the definition of article 42.4 namely the distinction between the duty to provide for and the duty to provide it.

Is that the quack of a duck? Are judges Ducks in your view?

You expect me to believe they are Freeman because they used the Oireachtas Committees report irish version of the constitution.

pirelli

Tom Young wrote: »

As other posters have highlighted, that is plainly wrong. End of story.

By analogy, how would you feel if I went and occupied your house, without your permission? Legally and technically that is what was done there.

This whole business of requesting oaths is going to land people in an awful lot of hot water, given time.

It is not the same. A corporation or institution is simply is not a person or a family unit. There might a little family of Ulster bank employees that were living there in a monogamous relationship preferably. I doubt it though. The monogamous bit. Probably platonic and a civil partnership such is the era.

Legally and technically it is not the same. It simply is not the same on so many levels of the law. You are seeing things in black and white acid.

Institutions do not feel and they are not a person as defined by law. There is no possible emotional turmoil from an institution like this of such a magnitude. Your failing the grip the basics on this Mr /Dr/Prof/Sir Young.


How would you or I feel?

I wonder how the solicitor felt on an emotional level when Pat Kenny squatted on his land. It transpired how he felt was irrelevant even though that land was his back garden. Is there still some bitterness about that lurking in the legal circles...is this what all this is about.

Sorry Mr C....