Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Freeman Megamerge

1161162164166167170

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,654 ✭✭✭✭For Forks Sake




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,326 ✭✭✭Markus Antonius


    It doesn't matter if it's in there or not, that's not my point. You are proving my point with this line "good luck trying to find any relevant book to throw at the judge" i.e. there is no book you can throw at them. They are a law unto themselves and act as though they are some kind of supreme being. Just look at the case today of the two women laundering money for one of the gangs. 2 years suspended sentence because they said they "didn't know". Please..

    Judge says "I dont see any good reason to send them to prison". It's a joke...



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,922 ✭✭✭GM228


    Judges are a "law unto themselves"? Oh please.

    Usually people who slam the judiciary (and in particular suspended sentences) do so without any understanding of the reasoning behind their decisions, there are accepted sentences (custodial and non-custodial) which are appropriate based on the unique circumstances of each case, Mr. Justice Hunt would be well up on appropriate sentencing given all the facts of the case and applied what is known as the O'Keefe principle (and others) which often dictates that a suspended sentence is preferable over a custodial sentence.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,085 ✭✭✭relax carry on




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,703 ✭✭✭whippet


    It's freeman nonsense !! Back to basics on the thread



  • Registered Users Posts: 3,130 ✭✭✭eldamo


    An IT guy I used to work with has gone full anti vaxx over the last little while on Facebook, I was overlooking it until he started posting videos of Ben TM. He baited me into interacting with him.

    Ben is really the gold seal of something being utter toss.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,326 ✭✭✭Markus Antonius


    The constitution is freeman nonsense is it? Like something someone in the legal profession would say alright.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,703 ✭✭✭whippet


    Except I'm not in the legal profession


    however this article will give you more context

    Defendant asks judge to show oath of office in court stand-off



    https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/defendant-asks-judge-to-show-oath-of-office-in-court-stand-off-26760267.html



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,817 ✭✭✭Darc19


    Must be a "freeman" cult down in The Ballagh, Wexford. Both above case and the hilariously funny Elizabeth/Christopher Cussen case are from the Balagh.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 243 ✭✭chunkylover4



    "The father of three responded that he was marking the bail paperwork under duress with his left hand as he was right-handed naturally."


    The same natural person.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,508 ✭✭✭✭ArmaniJeanss


    Strokestown eviction - the ex-Garda Kevin Taylor had his moment in court this week for assault, €200 fine. 6 months to pay, so I'll suspect we'll be here again in 7 months time.

    Lots of the usual freeman stuff involved, demanding a €1M appearance fee, legal fiction malarkey, and (possibly a new one) , looking for the prosecutor to lay his hand on the accused's shoulder.

    https://www.msn.com/en-ie/news/newsireland/ex-garda-fined-for-assault-at-notorious-roscommon-farm-eviction/ar-AAMNCBv



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,513 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    similar to the rambling drivel they post in the conspiracy theories forum.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,508 ✭✭✭✭ArmaniJeanss


    First bit of attempted freeman-ism in a Singapore courtroom?

    "Throughout the hearing, Glynn declared that he was a 'sovereign' - an apparent suggestion he was the authoritative power - and denounced the legitimacy of the court, saying he would neither plead guilty nor not guilty."

    "District Judge Eddy Tham blocked Mr Rahman from representing Glynn because he was not legally qualified. Mr Rahman told the judge that he was an 'ambassador-at-large and advocate of Kingdom Filipina Hacienda' and had every right to defend his 'sovereign compatriot."


    Briton arrested for not wearing a facemask in Singapore is remanded in a MENTAL HEALTH ward | Daily Mail Online



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,703 ✭✭✭whippet


    at least the judge recognonises that this is now a mental health issue



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,513 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    oddly enough in a case in australia they had the woman checked out and she wasn't suffering from a mental illness.


    A woman accused of refusing to check in at a store in Canberra's south tells the ACT Magistrates Court that she is exempt from public heath orders because she is a "sovereign state".

    She was referred for a mental health assessment and was found not to be suffering from any mental health issues.

    I don't think we should assume that just because somebody is unreasonable that they have a mental illness. Some people are just naturally unreasonable and will try to find any excuse for being so. The freeman nonsense suits them perfectly.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,922 ✭✭✭GM228


    I can think of a few labels for these sorts, none of them contain mental or health!



  • Registered Users Posts: 11,064 ✭✭✭✭martingriff


    Do they!! are were they just covering there a. Plus she was found sane



  • Posts: 0 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    How long has it been since we had an actual freeman believer in this thread? You'd almost miss the days when Derry would post enormous rambling threads of nonsense. It was a simpler time...



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,326 ✭✭✭Markus Antonius


    Last week was the first time I noticed this thread. Sounds to me like the regulars here think that anything constitution related is somehow "Freeman BS".

    A sad state of affairs really - the only explanation I can see for these types is that you are either 1. in the legal profession. 2. a Garda or 3. Some form of simpleton



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,703 ✭✭✭whippet


    What are you on about? That anything constitution related ? This thread is just a light hearted discussion on the antics of some usual suspects as they go around making up stuff.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,513 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    you are bringing your CT nonsense into legal discussion. there is nothing in the constitution about a judge having to present his oath. It is made up Freeman BS.



  • Registered Users Posts: 3,130 ✭✭✭eldamo


    Waving around the constitution, having not read it, hoping that no one else has read it either is a Freeman staple. Anyone who claims to have found the silver bullet in the Constitution that makes you immune to taxation/prosecution/repayment of debts is a Freeman loon.

    If they find something discussion worthy, they are not a loon, but invariably the things they are looking for ain't there, they are looking for a loophole that gets them something for nothing because they think they are cleverer than everyone else, or they look at other people doing well for themselves in life and think, surely they must know something esoteric that puts them on easy Street.



  • Posts: 0 ✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    "Judge has to present his oath in court" is classic freeman stuff. It's entirely without legal basis and has been a cornerstone argument for some of the more colourful freeman-type litigants. "Judge has to present oath in court" is to real law as "dentists have to brush their teeth during each examination" is to dentistry, for example.



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,958 ✭✭✭PeadarCo


    The one thing you missed is a lot of proponents of Freeman rubbish are conmen/women. They go around scamming vulnerable people out of money and leaving them in a far worse position afterwards. As humorous and entertaining they can be at times, the advocates for Freeman rubbish do cause damage with their scam.

    This thread is a very valuable resource as it highlights many of the people in question and their tactics.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,703 ✭✭✭whippet


    our favourite constitutional wizard tried to convince all and sundry that either a missing comma or included comma in a bank's paperwork was a pass to get a free house. The actual legal experts put that to bed fairly quickly and the constitutional wizard then went on to make videos about secret cults etc ... this lead to him making an apology to the courts which let him off with some community service rather than a custodial sentence for contempt.

    Of course the constitutional wizard couldn't do the service to his community as there was comma somewhere in the paperwork - again the actual legal experts gave him a slap of reality and a few months in mountjoy to further his research.

    So @Markus Antonius if you are depending on these constitutional wizards for your information you may want to delve a little further in to their motive and actions.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,393 ✭✭✭Grassey



    A group of about 20 protesters entered Edinburgh Castle on Tuesday evening, claiming to have “seized” the landmark under article 61 of Magna Carta.

    In a 13-minute video, a woman says the castle “belongs to the people” and that they are “taking our power back”. She adds the Scottish people have been “lied to all our lives” and that the “building belongs to us, we have taken the castle back” in an effort to “restore the rule of law”.

    A man adds: “Treason’s been going on for that long now, we can’t sit back and let everybody perish under the stupid legislation and fraudulent government tyranny, so let’s just take it all back, not just the castle.”



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,922 ✭✭✭GM228


    Pity they don't actually read their so-called justifications, but sure hey that's the status quo.

    The original version of Magna Carta granted powers to “assail” the monarch and “seek redress” to 25 barons (so appointed, and not the general population), in order to keep the provisions of the Magna Carta, but these powers were not granted to the population at large. Within a year of being written, this clause was removed from subsequent versions of Magna Carta. In any case, it was never actually incorporated into law.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,513 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    there is also the small issue that Magna Carta was never part of scottish law



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,703 ✭✭✭whippet


    our own Castle dweller is now wanted by the Crown forces



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,922 ✭✭✭GM228


    Ah but that's a non issue for them, a mere inconsiquential technicality which can be conveniently overlooked, or otherwise they can just choose to ignore/forget/argue otherwise like they always do.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,239 ✭✭✭✭Losty Dublin


    Not withstanding his usual levels of arrogance, that was some utterly disgusting antics from Ben over the weekend.



  • Registered Users Posts: 3,130 ✭✭✭eldamo


    I missed this, what is he at? did a quick google and the latest thing I can see is him claiming the death of a young lad from waterford is directly linked to the vaccination. Is that it? or any number of other ben based shenanigans?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,703 ✭✭✭whippet


    that is exactly it - and to compound the antics he did a live stream report as the coffin was taken out of the church.

    From what I am seeing online - a relative of the young lad who is a total anti-vaxxer put two and two together and came up with 7 ... posting that his death was directly linked to the vaccine. The family have since come out on social media to ask people to respect their privacy and not to engage in any talk of this being vaccine related. The original comment has since been deleted by the rogue family member.

    The chinese whispers have all sorts of claims ranging from him passing away 4 days after his second pfizer jab to within an hour of getting the Jansen jab.

    Cretins the whole lot of them ....

    But remember to download the app and donate now



  • Registered Users Posts: 3,130 ✭✭✭eldamo


    and that, your honour, is why I havn't paid my mortgage for the last 15 years!

    Ah ben, the gold standard in scumbaggery, never misses a trick.

    I previously mentioned an IT guy who I used to work with is on a slide into an anti vaxx rabbit hole, he posted the other day urging to sign up to Telegram and look for World Doctors Alliance

    American Frontline Doctors

    so, I looked up these groups (google, not Telegram)

    picture of 9 people, first of whom is Prof Delores Cahill, sure we all know about her antics.

    Another caught my eye, Dr Heinrich Fiechtner, (he just looked daft) googled him, on his wiki Fiechtner was a founding member of Alternative für Deutschland


    ah jesus, why do I feel there would be similar daftness in the background of each of them.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,703 ✭✭✭whippet


    that is the group that BBC Panorama did a show on recently .. needless to say Dolly wasn't too impressed with the narrative of the show ..... strange folk.

    but don't forget to join her kanagroo court in her private castle and when you get a chance drop a few hundred quid in to her 'travel' site - where you may or may not get a zoom call to tell you how you can fly without a mask



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,239 ✭✭✭✭Losty Dublin


    Oddly enough there was a comment posted onto Ben's FB by a man who claimed to know the deceased, stating that he had been severely ill for several days before all of this. The old adage goes that you don't know who to believe; regular posters on this page would beg to differ.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,703 ✭✭✭whippet


    and some will always believe the narrative that suit them !!



  • Registered Users Posts: 3,130 ✭✭✭eldamo


    Went looking for it, couldn't find it, but did find this bit of wisdom "Remember viruses cannot be caught or transferred through close contact. So this is proof that this is Genocide. The only way to catch viruses are by injection" (commenter, not ben himself)



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,703 ✭✭✭whippet




  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,239 ✭✭✭✭Losty Dublin


    There's a chance that Ben may get a mention on Liveline today. Knowing him he'd be dumb enough to go on air and argue his case.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,703 ✭✭✭whippet


    He got called out along with Geema and Dee ... so if he truly believes in what he has been saying he will have no problem launching a legal action against RTE and Duffy .. could be a nice pay day for him ... but I'll bet he will just do a video of himself and vin telling us how much Duffy gets paid and sure isn't RTE the virus



  • Registered Users Posts: 1,371 ✭✭✭TheAnalyst_


    Italian freeman Antoniio bravely rescued his freeman mate from hospital where he was being treated for covid. 48 hours later and the man was rushed back to hospital where he has since died.




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,703 ✭✭✭whippet


    From what I can see the reports of death are unconfirmed... however it seems he is in a very poor state at the very least

    the man in question stood in a general election under the banner of Direct Democracy Ireland, the lad 'rescuing' him from hospital is a full on Freeman nut job .. there is a video of him being stopped for speeding and it's a full house of freeman bingo .... guard not wearing a hat, I'm travelling, i am the master your are the servant, no consent, no contract etc


    dangerous people !!



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,239 ✭✭✭✭Losty Dublin


    Modesty has prevented Jerry Beade from posting up the good news about some of his recent victories. Unfortunately the Courts don't agree with him on this either.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,239 ✭✭✭✭Losty Dublin


    News just in from Bray is of three guilty verdicts for Gemma O'Doherty in relation to charges of resisting arrest from 2020. Should have hired The Hub.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 293 ✭✭carfinder


    very comprehensive article on The Currency regarding a recent judgement by Mr Justice Max Barrett which dismantles the usual arguments highlighted in this thread



  • Registered Users Posts: 293 ✭✭carfinder


    Mr Justice Max Barrett put it succinctly. It was, in many ways, an unfortunate case. After all, a husband and wife were one the cusp of losing their house after falling into mortgage arrears of just €15,000, a sum the High Court judge said should be repayable if it was spread over enough years to make the monthly repayments manageable.

    However, the case of Christopher and Elizabeth Cussen is about more than just numbers. It is a textbook example of how not to deal with both a lender and also a court action. Judge Barrett sets out the backstory and the 27 arguments that the couple had put forward to stop a repossession action by Start Mortgages, which acquired the couple’s mortgage from Permanent TSB.

    The judgement, and the facts of the case that it explores, are both sobering and staggering. They reveal how the couple took advice from unregulated charlatans who sold them a “crock of nonsense” that there was some “trick of the legal loop” through which they could avoid paying their debts. “Such people are fraudsters who, like all fraudsters, prey on the vulnerable,” according to Judge Barrett.

    In this case, the judge granted the repossession order, but noted that it could be between 18 and 24 months before it would be enforced upon. During that time, he appealed to the couple to engage with MABS and their lender to work out a deal, stating that Start was still prepared to “play ball”.

    We talk, rightly, a lot about the hard-line approach of lenders and vulture funds. But this case explores the other side of the equation, when borrowers seek to do everything possible to avoid paying money that everyone else accepts is due.

    So, just how did the couple approach the issue with Start Mortgages, and what arguments did they put before the court to advance their case?

    Litigation by filibuster

    Justice Max Barrett was not entirely sure if the couple had taken advice directly from so-called charlatans, or just downloaded documents from the internet that had been drafted by them. Either way, it followed a familiar playbook as the couple sought to explain why the action was meritless despite not making any effort at all to repay any money since 2017.

    “While they have come up with all manner of complaints about the procedures and processes employed against them, they cannot get around the ‘elephant in the room’ which is that they freely borrowed money, they freely secured those borrowings on their home, those borrowings are contractually required to be repaid, and, regretfully, if they continue to refuse to pay back what is owing, they may yet lose their home,” according to the judgement.

    The judge went through some “oddities” of the documents that had been furnished by the couple as part of the action. One document was headed: “NOTICE TO AGENT IS, NOTICE TO PRINCAPLE IS, NOTICE TO AGENT”. Judge Barrett said it was a mis-spelled statement that “seems designed to look official but makes no sense: Who is the agent/principal of whom mention is made and what on earth is the purpose of the notice?”

    Another document purported to require court officials to answer questions within a stated timeframe, asserting that otherwise the court official is stated to agree with whatever idea is being advanced. The judge said that in real life, “it is simply not possible to bind a State official by writing a letter offering a point of view and say ‘Unless you answer my questions by X date, you will be taken [by whom?] to agree with my point of view’. Private persons do not enjoy such powers of coercion”.

    Another document invoked irrelevant religious documentation, including this phrase: “The MOTO PROPRIO of francis is in full force and you are not immune from the criminal sanctions associated with same”.

    Rebutting this argument, Judge Barrett said that ‘motu proprio’ is a form of papal document and “the current Catholic pontiff – presumably the ‘Francis’ to whom reference is made, albeit using a disrespectful small ‘f’ – may be an esteemed gentleman but he has nothing to do with the enforcement of debts owing under Irish contract law and no role in Irish criminal law or in Irish law more generally”.

    The judge also noted a “blizzard of bewildering documentation” unleashed by the couple on Start Mortgages as part of these proceedings, something that counsel for Start referred to at one point as “litigation by filibuster”.

    The case began in the Circuit Court, before being appealed up to the High Court. And, again, it is worth stressing that this is over €15,000.

    A defence of 27 parts

    This was just the start of it. When the matter reached court, the couple put forward dozens of different arguments to support their defence. To his credit, Judge Barrett has done his best to identify all of them, and his judgement outlines 27 different arguments made by the couple over the course of the legal action.

    However, each of the 27 had one thing in common – they had nothing to do with the debt due. “A striking feature of the arguments made by the defendants throughout the proceedings is the continuing effort never to engage with the substance of what must be engaged with, viz. their continuing default on their loan obligations. That is all that the mortgagee is concerned with, and that is what the defendants have never properly addressed,” according to Judge Barrett.

    I would not normally work through each of the 27 arguments, but I think it is useful context as it gives a real insight into what some mortgage charlatans are peddling to struggling and impressionable borrowers.

    Argument 1. That the Circuit Court did not have jurisdiction.

    This was straightforward. The court did in fact have jurisdiction.

    Argument 2. That sending unanswered letters to the Circuit Court President and the County Registrar renders the within proceedings deficient.

    Once Circuit Court proceedings commence, there are formal processes in place whereby parties file and exchange documents and proceed with their case. Judge Barrett said these formal processes exist to ensure maximum fairness and that it “was not for the defendants to invent their own procedures, write letters setting timelines for the reply, and then claim that because their self-invented procedures were not complied with, this somehow robbed the Circuit Court of jurisdiction”.

    Argument 3: That filing a standard financial statement was not a mortgage obligation.

    This point relates to a statement required by the Central bank in the event of a mortgage being restructured, where the borrowers outline their financial position. Judge Barrett said it was “a most strange position for defaulting mortgagors to adopt that they should state in effect, ‘Yes, we borrowed money; yes, we have defaulted; but no, we won’t give you a statement of my financial position so that you and we can discuss, like responsible adults, how best to proceed’.”

    Argument 4: That the defendants did not consent to the within proceedings.

    Elizabeth Cussen contended that because she had not consented to these proceedings they could not properly be brought. “The proposition need only be stated to see that it is wrong,” the judge said.

    Argument 5: That the term “principal private residence” is not defined in the Act of 2013.

    This contention is correct. However, the judge said thew was no doubt that the mortgaged property is the ‘principal private residence’ of the defendants, and it was acknowledged by them to be such in an affidavit.

    Argument 6: That there has been a breach of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contract Regulations.

    Judge Barrett said he had read all the relevant documentation and is unable to see a single term that could properly be described as unfair in how it operates between the parties to these proceedings.

    Argument 7: That the defendants have not had opportunity properly to defend these summary proceedings.

    The judge pointed out they had – both at Circuit Court level and again in the High Court.

    Argument 8: That there have been breaches of human rights law and international instruments.

    Amid all this mention of rights, the judge said there was “one right which has very clearly been breached here, which is the contractual right of Start Mortgages to be repaid monies that were lawfully loaned in a lawful transaction that the defendants lawfully and freely participated in”.

    Argument 9: That sight of original mortgage documents has been refused.

    Barrett noted that there was no ‘magic’ to original documents and that “even if original loan/mortgage documents were lost or destroyed, a lending institution could proceed on copy documents (or on other evidence of a transaction): it would still but have to establish an outstanding contractual liability on the balance of probabilities”.

    Argument 10: That the Master made some comments favourable to the defendants.

    Out of kindness to the couple, the Master of the High Court, at an earlier stage of these proceedings, made some comments favourable to them. “The court is not bound by those well-intentioned remarks,” the judge said.

    Argument 11: That the benefit of an order for possession cannot be assigned.

    It can, according to Judge Barrett.

    Argument 12: That the property (and the charge on same) has not been registered with the Land Registry.

    It had been registered.

    Argument 13: That there was undue influence at play in taking out the credit and effecting the mortgage.

    This point was mooted in an affidavit of Elizabeth Cussen and it was not clear to the judge whether she means that she was unduly influenced by her husband or vice versa. “However, the parties enjoyed the benefit of legal advice as regards the execution of the mortgage, so this argument does not stand up to scrutiny,” the judgment states.

    Argument 14: That there has been some (vaguely referenced) GDPR breach by Permanent TSB and/or Start.

    The court did not know if there has been such a breach. However, the judge said that that is a matter for a stand-alone complaint that does not impact on these proceedings.

    Argument 15: That legal costs were added to the arrears outstanding.

    This was an action for possession, not for summary judgment and so the focus of the court was on whether there have been no defaults in the making of the monthly repayments and not the exact figure owing.

    Argument 16: That there was a contretemps with a summons server.

    The judge accepted that there was a form of disagreement with a summons server. However, an order for substituted service was later obtained and service was duly effected.

    Argument 17: That there was non-compliance with the Code of Conduct on Mortgage Arrears.

    The evidence before the court was there the lender had complied with the code.

    Argument 18: That Mr Cussen was handling matters with the mortgagee, not Ms Cussen.

    According to the judge: “At all times correspondence was sent to Mr Cussen and also to Ms Cussen. So Ms Cussen was placed by the mortgagee in a position where she knew how matters were proceeding and could decide herself how best to proceed. Even at the hearing of the within proceedings Start continued, to use a colloquialism, ‘to hold out the olive branch’ that Ms Cussen could seek to engage with Start if she wished”.

    Argument 19: That Start is not the right plaintiff.

    All the paperwork was in order in relation to the loan transfer from PTSB to Start. Therefore, Start was the right plaintiff.

    Argument 20: That the mortgage pre-dates the acceptance of the loan.

    Factually, this was not the case, and no monies were advanced prior to the acceptance.

    Argument 21: That, up to 2017, some (in truth, notably limited) efforts at repayment were made post-default.

    The relevant point is that the requisite number of defaults occurred for the within proceedings to ensue. “The problem for the defendants is that they never in any meaningful sense engaged with the mortgagee as regards the repayment of the outstanding arrears,” the judge said.

    Argument 22: That the mortgagee engaged in reckless lending.

    There is no tort of reckless lending presently known to Irish law and it is not within the competence of the courts to invent such a tort, the judge stated.

    Argument 23: That Ms Cussen gave some indication of wishing to speak with Start Mortgages.

    The judgement states: “As the court has now repeatedly stated, it was made expressly clear to Ms Cussen in court that she can still re-engage with Start: to this time, she has elected not to do so.”

    Argument 24: That MABS indicated that it would only assist when the possession order was obtained.

    This was a point made by Elizabeth Cussen in her submissions but was not supported by any evidence. “What it does know is that even if this was said to Ms Cussen (and the court has no idea if it was), it has no impact on the within application,” Barrett said.

    Argument 25: That Start has unfairly sought to avail of a fast-track procedure.

    The judge said that at any time “following on the issuance of that Civil Bill, the defendants could have sought to engage properly with the mortgagee, they could do so still, and yet they have failed to do so”.

    Argument 26: That the court should have regard to certain general observations of the ECB.

    ECB observations, though clearly emanating from an esteemed body, are not determinative of parties’ rights in a possession application, the judge said.

    Argument 27: That Start may have difficulty exercising a right of way vis-à-vis the mortgaged property should it enter into possession of same.

    “This is an issue for another day, not for these proceedings,” the judge said.

    A window of opportunity

    Summing up the action, the judge encouraged the couple to engage properly with MABS and seek legal aid, adding that “there may still be a means of resolving matters without them losing their home”.

    He stated:

    “As a rule of thumb, there will likely be about 18-24 months before the possession order that the court will issue pursuant to this judgment will fall to be enforced. The defendants thus have a final window of opportunity to do as they ought to have done before now, which is to engage properly with the mortgagee, engage properly with MABS, and perhaps also seek legal aid. Though they are not assured of getting what they want if they proceed as just indicated the unattractive alternative, if they proceed in a manner akin to how they have thus far proceeded, is that, regretfully, they stand to lose their family home.”

    We have yet to witness the tsunami of repossession that many expected. This is largely due to banks and borrowers working on a solution. However, as this case shows, when charlatans offer a “crock of nonsense,” there is little a bank or a court can do to stop a repossession.



  • Registered Users Posts: 3,130 ✭✭✭eldamo


    Is this the same chap? Lord when you start going down this path you make everything in your life difficult.

    From the looks of facebook posts the wife isn't the poor victim of his daftness that is being made out, there are a pair of them in it.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,513 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    He seems have a bit of history with gardai.

    From the Integrity Ireland facebook page back in October 2015

    Wexford Circuit Criminal Court tomorrow 10.30am - I-I supporter Chris Cussen has lodged an appeal from the District Court over a conviction for 'non-use of indicators' - the continuation of over 10 years of allegedly vexatious charges and harassment by certain Gardai - one of whom has been summoned to appear tomorrow. Chris is confident he has a strong case tomorrow.. support appreciated..

    I wonder if he has a religious exemption from car insurance?




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 40,513 ✭✭✭✭ohnonotgmail


    If you do a search for Cussen under ficticious names you will find him and his wife




  • Advertisement
Advertisement