Car seizure constitutionality

Galway K9

http://www.backroads.ie/forums/showthread.php?12447-Gardai-Customs-siezing-cars-for-no-tax-vrt-is-at-an-end-read-on

Says that a garda taking your car is actully against the constitution and the convention of human rights based on:

. The 3rd amendment to the constitution. Ireland’s accession to Europe. Known as the 1972 European Communities Act. This is where the Gov of 1992 signed up to the terms of the treaty of Rome.
2. Constitutional law
The constitution is the highest law in the land and no other acts of law introduced by governments shall supersede same. The constitution can only be changed or amended by the people by means of a referendum.
3. The 1992 Finance Act is an introduction of law which supposedly gives Gardai and Customs the powers of seizure which is contrary to article 15.which states “The Oireachtas shall not enact any law which is in any way repugnant to the constitution or any part thereof.”
4. Article 38 The right to a Fair Trial
Article 38 the right to a fair trial in court by a Judge/ jury. If Gardai and customs start to act as judge jury and executioner on the roadside then we no longer need the courts.
5. Article 37
Every person appointed a judge shall swear an oath to uphold the constitution. And should bring it to the attention of the court where summons are been issued under the 1992 finance act giving powers of seizure is contrary to constitutional law.
6. Article 43 property rights
Your property is yours and can not be seized detained or otherwise unless on foot of a court order signed by a Judge not a ( court clerk ) in other words if it’s not signed by a judge it’s not Valid.

I looked at the articles and i cannot see this reference.

whomitconcerns

Erm...how did you end up posting in here? I thouht it was an exciting update to the dentist story! I thought the guards had already been pulled up on this...

Galway K9 wrote: »

http://www.backroads.ie/forums/showthread.php?12447-Gardai-Customs-siezing-cars-for-no-tax-vrt-is-at-an-end-read-on

Says that a garda taking your car is actully against the constitution and the convention of human rights based on:

. The 3rd amendment to the constitution. Ireland’s accession to Europe. Known as the 1972 European Communities Act. This is where the Gov of 1992 signed up to the terms of the treaty of Rome.
2. Constitutional law
The constitution is the highest law in the land and no other acts of law introduced by governments shall supersede same. The constitution can only be changed or amended by the people by means of a referendum.
3. The 1992 Finance Act is an introduction of law which supposedly gives Gardai and Customs the powers of seizure which is contrary to article 15.which states “The Oireachtas shall not enact any law which is in any way repugnant to the constitution or any part thereof.”
4. Article 38 The right to a Fair Trial
Article 38 the right to a fair trial in court by a Judge/ jury. If Gardai and customs start to act as judge jury and executioner on the roadside then we no longer need the courts.
5. Article 37
Every person appointed a judge shall swear an oath to uphold the constitution. And should bring it to the attention of the court where summons are been issued under the 1992 finance act giving powers of seizure is contrary to constitutional law.
6. Article 43 property rights
Your property is yours and can not be seized detained or otherwise unless on foot of a court order signed by a Judge not a ( court clerk ) in other words if it’s not signed by a judge it’s not Valid.

I looked at the articles and i cannot see this reference.

hullaballoo

Moved to its own thread.

Little CuChulainn

Galway K9 wrote: »

6. Article 43 property rights
Your property is yours and can not be seized detained or otherwise unless on foot of a court order signed by a Judge not a ( court clerk ) in other words if it’s not signed by a judge it’s not Valid.

I looked at the articles and i cannot see this reference.

That's because it's poorly paraphrased.

conorh91

The article claims s.139 of the Finance Act 1992 is unconstitutional. It isn't. It's still in force.

It sets out various offences and penalties for which a vehicle may be subject to forfeiture.

Vehicles that have recently been brought into the country and which do not display VRT will will not be forfeited for non-display of VRT.

I assume the armchair lawyer in Letterkenny District Court succeeded in retaining his vehicle because he could avail of this exemption or similar. These exemptions have time limits.

For some reason he seems to be blowing this out of all proportion, going on about the Treaty of Rome, constitutional challenges, and judges under oats; things that have nothing to do with the District Court and by inference, were irrelevant to his case.

It's rubbish, OP.

Robbo

Donegal, always Donegal.

seamus

This sounds like a situation where someone didn't really understand why the case was struck out and so invented his own explanation and told the paper that one.

It's from April 2014 so not sure why it's a burning news story. It's patently nonsense and it originated in Donegal (two ways of saying the same thing).

Also that Irish Drivers' Association webpage is a cracking read. Some very familiar sounding rhetoric to be found there...

FreudianSlippers

4. Article 38 The right to a Fair Trial
Article 38 the right to a fair trial in court by a Judge/ jury. If Gardai and customs start to act as judge jury and executioner on the roadside then we no longer need the courts.

Jeebus. :eek:

Graham

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Jeebus. :eek:

It's the legal equivalent of the infinite monkey theorem

If you give an infinite number of monkeys infinite copies of the constitution they will eventually tear out a sentence that appears to support whatever tenuous legal position they are attempting to argue.

Losty Dublin

Robbo wrote: »

Donegal, always Donegal.

And both Cork and Wexford. Must be the extra fluoride in the water :pac:

Victor

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Jeebus. :eek:

"Gardaí shoot 12 at checkpoint".