nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

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.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

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.

Our man in Havana

The rules were changed to allow the circuits deal with repossessions.

NoQuarter

Our man in Havana wrote: »

The rules were changed to allow the circuits deal with repossessions.

Can you point to the new rule? Is it in the court orders?

EDIT: Think this is it: http://www.courts.ie/rules.nsf/6cc6644045a5c09a80256db700399505/abbdbbe465393589802575f5003a751f?OpenDocument

bath handle

Tom Young wrote: »

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

Giving judgement in a debt case is a judicial act, not quasi judicial. The EAT is an example of a quasi judicial body.

Finnbar01

schemingbohemia wrote: »

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

There's nothing nutty about it at all. The freeman movement and far left have a lot in common when you scratch the surface.

Our man in Havana

NoQuarter wrote: »

Can you point to the new rule? Is it in the court orders?

EDIT: Think this is it: http://www.courts.ie/rules.nsf/6cc6644045a5c09a80256db700399505/abbdbbe465393589802575f5003a751f?OpenDocument

That's the one.

subrosa

By analogy with the Master of the High Court the County Reg would be a statutory officer, albeit one allowed, by statute, to exercise limited and circumscribed judicial powers. In Lloyds v Monaghan Kelly J. pretty well covered the basis of the Master's powers.

Is there any reason why the analogy doesn't hold?

Ashashi

If law is this simple according to Ben Gilroy, then what law did that man break by not paying his mortgage? The simple law of contract Ben.

berrypendel

Paulw wrote: »

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

why would tv3 take it on if it is total nonsense. And how have they won when he says the man will be handing the keys back?

NoQuarter

berrypendel wrote: »

why would tv3 take it on if it is total nonsense. And how have they won when he says the man will be handing the keys back?

Thats exactly it haha, i loved the part where he said the sheriff will be back! No sh1t!!!

I half think they got him on to make a fool out of him, the only thing that annoyed me was that they should have had a legal expert on the show with him, would have torn him to shreds!!

Corruptable

Paulw wrote: »

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

Oh that was worth a laugh, he's absolutely talking out of his hole again and I think he admitted as much in another media website. I have to cringe every time he comes out with "it may be legal but it's no lawful", and he admits that despite talking raw sewage Mr. Wellstead will still be turfed out of his house.

For those unfamiliar with this terminology and it's significance, here it is from the horse's mouth so to speak (prepare for laughter): http://www.tirnasaor.com/08/09/legal-vs-lawful/