Constitution halts sheriff megamerge

Plautus · 24-02-2012 10:05PM

TeddyTedson wrote: »

Bollocks right back at you. Smoke and mirrors. WTF. Did you watch the video?

Some discernment leads one to the conclusion that the guy in the video is speaking endless bollocks himself.

mad m · 24-02-2012 10:05PM

One thing l like he said was, the Banks were bailed out (We bailed them out)....The ordinary joe soap is not going to be....

Phill Ewinn · 24-02-2012 10:07PM

Plautus wrote: »

I watched the video. It's freeman woo. Nothing more, nothing less.

Where in law does it say that the county registrar, an official analogous to the Master of the High Court, cannot also act as a Sheriff? Citing 'Separation of Powers', as this guy did, is complete bollocks: that's not what 'separation of powers' means. The Registrar does not act as a 'private company' when he's also the Sheriff enforcing an eviction notice.

An order for possession was made in the High Court by Justice Michael Peart on this house in December. Leave for Judicial Review was refused as no significant point of law of public interest was at stake. Pursuant to the order for possession, an eviction order was made by the Registrar and executed by the Sheriff. The Sheriff need not be present in person and can send an authorised deputy to effect the eviction.

What will you come out with next - "statute isn't law" or similar cobblers?

The judge will decide on this in April. The ''sheriff'' character was posing as the sheriff in the first instance and wahen questioned admitted his lie.

The registrar in the case was also employed as sheriff. This isn't rocket science. There's no control or regulator of his authority you're saying? BS. That wouldn't hold up in any court and you know it.

Again, I think you should watch the video again or at least review the thread on the legal forum.

I'll take your last remark as a joke. I'm no freeman and certainly know nothing about cobbling or any kind of shoe making generally.

faduda · 24-02-2012 10:09PM

The headline is wrong. It should read "Mob halts sheriff"

Plautus · 24-02-2012 10:18PM

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

The judge will decide on this in April. The ''sheriff'' character was posing as the sheriff in the first instance and wahen questioned admitted his lie.

An individual may be empowered by the Registrar/Sheriff to carry out an order on his behalf. Witness the bevy of documentation that he was carrying.

And, again, Justice Michael Peart has already decided this case. He upheld an order for possession.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2012/0223/1224312243910.html

What's your source?

The registrar in the case was also employed as sheriff. This isn't rocket science. There's no control or regulator of his authority you're saying? BS. That wouldn't hold up in any court and you know it.

There is no law that says a County Registrar cannot also be employed by the state as a Sheriff. I *don't* know that it 'wouldn't hold up in court'. You seem to 'know' though. What laws are you referring to?

Again, I think you should watch the video again or at least review the thread on the legal forum.

The very first page of the thread in the legal forum makes it so very, very clear that the man in the video is shouting rot about 'common law' and Articles of the Constitution that he's completely misinterpreted.

I'll take your last remark as a joke. I'm no freeman and certainly know nothing about cobbling or any kind of shoe making generally.

Then you'll understand that this thing is being heralded as a 'freeman victory' when it's nothing more than a group of people obstructing the eviction. Ulster Bank most assuredly *will* take possession of this house.

Orim · 24-02-2012 10:19PM

TeddyTedson wrote: »

Bollocks right back at you. Smoke and mirrors. WTF. Did you watch the video?

I did and as far I can I see it boils down to the people involved using smoke and mirrors to avoid the fact that the family didn't meet their obiligations.

If you support them then you have to support the developer that got bailed out after borrowing a couple of million to build one of our ghost estates. Or the banker that used a hundred million to gamble on the markets.

In essence, if you play with money that's not yours then you deserve every consequence that comes your way.

Ghandee · 24-02-2012 10:30PM

hondasam wrote: »

Were they not just there to make sure the sheriff did not get attacked.

I don't know, wasn't at their briefing that morning.

What I do know, is that whatever reason they were deployed on that day, they did an impeccable job, and I simply admired them for their handling of the whole affair.

I'm confused as to why you feel the need to pick up on my saying so tbh (unless of course you enjoy confrontation)

hondasam · 24-02-2012 10:35PM

Ghandee wrote: »

I don't know, want at their briefing that morning.

What I do know, is that whatever reason they were deployed on that day, they did Assn impeccable job, and I simply admired them for their handling of the whole affair.

I'm confused as to why you feel the need to pick up on my saying so tbh (unless of course you enjoy confrontation)

I though you said they remained impartial, what I meant was, were they not there to make sure the sheriff was not attacked.
They would have to remain impartial, it's not up to them to say who is right or wrong, if you know what I mean.

Phill Ewinn · 24-02-2012 10:42PM

Plautus wrote: »

An individual may be empowered by the Sheriff to carry out an order on his behalf. Witness the bevy of documentation that he was carrying.

And, again, Justice Michael Peart has already decided this case. He made an order for possession.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2012/0223/1224312243910.html

What's your source?

There is no law that says a County Registrar cannot also be employed by the state as a Sheriff. I *don't* know that it 'wouldn't hold up in court'. You seem to 'know' though. What laws are you referring to?

The very first page of the thread in the legal forum makes it so very, very clear that the man in the video is shouting rot about 'common law' and Articles of the Constitution that he's completely misinterpreted.

Then you'll understand that this thing is being heralded as a 'freeman victory' when it's nothing more than a group of people obstructing the eviction. Ulster Bank most assuredly *will* take possession of this house.

I couldn't give a fvck what it's being heralded as. What you're doing is trying to provoke me into some internet argument.

What do you want me to do? Spend the next twelve pages explaining the same thing over and over again?

The little fvcker in the suit got his ass handed to him and rightly so. Whether you agree with me or not the ''sherif'' character was in the wrong. That's the actual reality.

Plautus · 24-02-2012 10:52PM

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

I couldn't give a fvck what it's being heralded as. What you're doing is trying to provoke me into some internet argument.

What do you want me to do? Spend the next twelve pages explaining the same thing over and over again?

The little fvcker in the suit got his ass handed to him and rightly so. Whether you agree with me or not the ''sherif'' character was in the wrong. That's the actual reality.

You haven't explained anything, that's rather the point.

If you don't want an 'internet argument' and yet are insisting that 'reality' is that the guy in the suit was 'in the wrong' then I might ask what you're doing in a thread on boards.ie

Ghandee · 24-02-2012 10:52PM

hondasam wrote: »

Is that not their job?

hondasam wrote: »

I though you said they remained impartial, what I meant was, were they not there to make sure the sheriff was not attacked.
They would have to remain impartial, it's not up to them to say who is right or wrong, if you know what I mean.

thats not what you said though, you never mentioned anything about the protection of the sheriff.

Anyways, seems it was a misunderstanding.

Lifes to short and all that.

Happy Campers x 5 · 24-02-2012 10:52PM

I was wondering was i after watching a different film to others for a while there. Where does not paying back the money even get mentioned on the video. How many of ye know the facts of what happened here. The man fell on hard times and couldn't help falling into arrears is repo the only answer? Well thank god for me i'm not with Ulster Bank cos im in arrears but my bank and me are working on it and we'll get there sometime. So less of the high and mighty with some of ye, we struggle every week with the bills but we didn't account for me getting a banger(heart attack) when i took out my mortgage. This video to me is how can people inforcing the law in this country do there job when what they are actually doing is breaking the law

Ghandee · 24-02-2012 10:54PM

I liked his line about the Irish public bailing out the banks he represented without being given a choice.

That one line was definitely far from nonsense IMO.

Plautus · 24-02-2012 10:56PM

Happy Campers x 5 wrote: »

I was wondering was i after watching a different film to others for a while there. Where does not paying back the money even get mentioned on the video. How many of ye know the facts of what happened here. The man fell on hard times and couldn't help falling into arrears is repo the only answer? Well thank god for me i'm not with Ulster Bank cos im in arrears but my bank and me are working on it and we'll get there sometime. So less of the high and mighty with some of ye, we struggle every week with the bills but we didn't account for me getting a banger(heart attack) when i took out my mortgage. This video to me is how can people inforcing the law in this country do there job when what they are actually doing is breaking the law

The man who owns the house has been in arrears since 2006. This eviction/order for possession took nearly 6 years to materialise.

You'll have to explain how the law is being 'broken'.

Son Of A Vidic · 24-02-2012 10:58PM

hondasam wrote: »

Your man was a good speaker and knew what he was talking about, I still think the sheriff remained calm.

He remained calm alright but he also managed to provide some cringeworthy viewing.

hondasam wrote: »

If this eviction is illegal does that mean all other evictions were as well?

And for that reason alone, you can be sure that the legal challenge will ultimately fail.

My name is URL · 24-02-2012 10:58PM

Fair play to your man. It makes for a good video and sparks a debate on the wider issue.. but it's not going to achieve very much for the people concerned. You can't test the law, let alone evade it by toing and froing whilst leaning over a wall on a country road.

Plautus · 24-02-2012 11:06PM

My name is URL wrote: »

Fair play to your man. It makes for a good video and sparks a debate on the wider issue.. but it's not going to achieve very much for the people concerned. You can't test the law, let alone evade it by toing and froing whilst leaning over a wall on a country road.

A debate may be needed on increasing relief for struggling mortgage holders.

What isn't needed is a debate about whether or not an order for possession granted by the Circuit/High Court is 'legal'.

Happy Campers x 5 · 24-02-2012 11:07PM

Plautus wrote: »

You'll have to explain how the law is being 'broken'.

I don't see whats to explain ? I watched the video (twice) saw the deputy sherrif trying to go and inforce an illegal act and he was stopped. You have called it B..llocks and a few other things, but you haven't said anything to back up what your saying. To be fair i suppose he backed down rather than was stopped. If he was in the right i can only presume he would have continued with his job

Plautus · 24-02-2012 11:13PM

Happy Campers x 5 wrote: »

I don't see whats to explain ? I watched the video (twice) saw the deputy sherrif trying to go and inforce an illegal act and he was stopped. You have called it B..llocks and a few other things, but you haven't said anything to back up what your saying.

*sigh*

He was stopped because he did not have the manpower to safely evict the occupier of a property on which an order for possession was granted.

The sheriff conceded no point of law at any stage in this one-sided shouting match by people sitting on a wall.

You have to explain how it was an 'illegal act' - how an order for possession made/affirmed in The High Court, and a subsequent eviction notice sent by the County Registrar, is contrary to law. Not me.

You don't seem to know: you're taking the word of a Freeman in a youtube video who asks Gardai whether or not they're 'on their oath' (as if this had any bearing on the legality of a re-possession ordered by the courts!)

Phill Ewinn · 24-02-2012 11:16PM

Plautus wrote: »

You haven't explained anything, that's rather the point.

If you don't want an 'internet argument' and yet are insisting that 'reality' is that the guy in the suit was 'in the wrong' then I might ask what you're doing in a thread on boards.ie

I gave a summary previously which is correct. The ''sheriff'' character was in the wrong.

Arguing over it doesn't change anything. I'm putting you on ignore. Mostly 'cause I hate trolls but also 'cause there's no point in what you're saying.

Ghandee · 24-02-2012 11:18PM

Plautus wrote: »

A debate may be needed on increasing relief for struggling mortgage holders.

What isn't needed is a debate about whether or not an order for possession granted by the High Court is 'legal'.

have I misinterpreted it, or was the main issue not the fact that the sheriff carrying out the repossession was the same guy who ordered, and signed the repossession order?

I'm no lawyer, but even I know that sounds fishy.

Also, yer man went from 'representing the Sherrif' to.
'i am the Sherrif' to
Being 'the sheriffs deputy'

Again, I admit I haven't the foggiest about these things, but I would have to say that the sheriff looked completely out of his depth, especially considering he was arguing with an electrician as someone suggested on this thread earlier.

Had they have been arguing over the procedure to rewire a house, I'd have some sympathy for the 'sheriff' but as he clearly didn't know himself what the laws were on what he was trying to do, i've no sympathy for him at all.

Plautus · 24-02-2012 11:19PM

Phill Ewinn wrote: »

I gave a summary previously which is correct. The ''sheriff'' character was in the wrong.

Arguing over it doesn't change anything. I'm putting you on ignore. Mostly 'cause I hate trolls but also 'cause there's no point in what you're saying.

That's your prerogative. I'm not a 'troll', but you haven't given any 'correct summary'. You want to have your cake and eat it - 'I'm right, and I'm not arguing with anyone who disagrees: they must be a troll.'

Callipo · 24-02-2012 11:24PM

Ghandee wrote: »

have I misinterpreted it, or was the main issue not the fact that the sheriff carrying out the repossession was the same guy who ordered, and signed the repossession order?

I'm no lawyer, but even I know that sounds fishy.

Also, yer man went from 'representing the Sherrif' to.
'i am the Sherrif' to
Being 'the sheriffs deputy'

Again, I admit I haven't the foggiest about these things, but I would have to say that the sheriff looked completely out of his depth, especially considering he was arguing with an electrician as someone suggested on this thread earlier.

Had they have been arguing over the procedure to rewire a house, I'd have some sympathy for the 'sheriff' but as he clearly didn't know himself what the laws were on what he was trying to do, i've no sympathy for him at all.

He was just doing his job.

Just because the internet exists, not everyone is full of genius etc etc

Plautus · 24-02-2012 11:24PM

Ghandee wrote: »

have I misinterpreted it, or was the main issue not the fact that the sheriff carrying out the repossession was the same guy who ordered, and signed the repossession order?

I'm no lawyer, but even I know that sounds fishy.

It's not fishy. It's standard practice. The County Registrar has quasi-judicial functions. One of those is to grant and enforce possession orders pursuant to decisions made in the Courts.

Also, yer man went from 'representing the Sherrif' to.
'i am the Sherrif' to
Being 'the sheriffs deputy'

Again, I admit I haven't the foggiest about these things, but I would have to say that the sheriff looked completely out of his depth, especially considering he was arguing with an electrician as someone suggested on this thread earlier.

Had they have been arguing over the procedure to rewire a house, I'd have some sympathy for the 'sheriff' but as he clearly didn't know himself what the laws were on what he was trying to do, i've no sympathy for him at all.

A sheriff (i.e. the registrar) cannot be physically present at every eviction which he or she is called on to effect. It is legal for him or her to deputise a person in the employ of the Courts Service to be there in person acting for him/her.

I wouldn't have engaged in much of a debate with this electrician either, who clearly has no legal training (and is not the occupier of the house either); I would have realised that I was outnumbered, left, and returned at a later date with adequate numbers of Gardai to safely evict the occupier.

Ghandee · 24-02-2012 11:29PM

Plautus wrote: »

It's not fishy. It's standard practice. The County Registrar has quasi-judicial functions. One of those is to grant and enforce eviction orders pursuant to orders for possession made in the Courts.

A sheriff (i.e. the registrar) cannot be physically present at every eviction which he or she is called on to effect. It is legal for him deputise a person in the employ of the Courts Service to be there in person acting for

but would this not be akin to a Gard stopping me for speeding, then passing sentence on me in court too?

Bit of a one sided affair, no?

Happy Campers x 5 · 24-02-2012 11:31PM

Plautus; *sigh*

He was stopped because he did not have the manpower to safely evict the occupier of a property on which an order for possession was granted.

The sheriff conceded no point of law at any stage in this one-sided shouting match by people sitting on a wall.

You have to explain how it was an 'illegal act' - how an order for possession made in The High Court, and a subsequent eviction order granted by the County Registrar, is contrary to law. Not me.

You don't seem to know: you're taking the word of a Freeman in a youtube video who asks Gardai whether or not they're 'on their oath' (as if this had any bearing on the legality of a re-possession ordered by the courts!)

You are the one who seems to think just because the court said it, it's correct. I don't no who's right or wrong, but it's good to see people fight for there righs, at no stage was the sherrif refused permission to enter the property to repo it so one can only presume the sherrif wasn't sure of the law himself. I can't see anywhere in the video where you can say they felt they wouldn't have enough man power to safely evict. I'd say some people need to watch the video again and maybe again

Plautus · 24-02-2012 11:42PM

Happy Campers x 5 wrote: »

You are the one who seems to think just because the court said it, it's correct. I don't no who's right or wrong, but it's good to see people fight for there righs, at no stage was the sherrif refused permission to enter the property to repo it so one can only presume the sherrif wasn't sure of the law himself. I can't see anywhere in the video where you can say they felt they wouldn't have enough man power to safely evict. I'd say some people need to watch the video again and maybe again

The courts have the legal power to make these orders and have made such an order in this case: - no other court (and the only remaining court is the Supreme Court) has determined the order of the High court to be illegal. An electrician standing at a wall at the entrance to the property has no power to declare something 'illegal'.

If you're now admitting that you do not know 'who's right or wrong' then you'd be correct. You do not.

It is quite clear from the video that there are more people there with the occupier of the house.

He clearly made an attempt to enter the property - just because he didn't run the gauntlet of physically pushing through them it does not mean that he didn't introduce himself and say he had an order to evict.

but would this not be akin to a Gard stopping me for speeding, then passing sentence on me in court too?

No, not quite. The Registrar would not have had the power to carry out the eviction but for a Court order for possession made/upheld by a judge. Lately in this case, Justice Peart.

The man who occupies the house was given notice of the court proceedings (by Ulster Bank - seeking possession) and after a court hearing, with the right for both sides to be represented by a legal team, possession was ordered by the Circuit Court in 2009.

The occupier then appealed from the Circuit Court to the High Court in 2009. In 2012, the High Court upheld the Circuit Court ruling. The Registrar then acted.

Happy Campers x 5 · 24-02-2012 11:54PM

Wooo. Hang on a minute now. you are telling me that a court has never got something wrong.
Are you a solicitor or judge or something ? Or just a troll?
For God sake the man didn't even have id on him, and didn't know the law

Plautus · 25-02-2012 12:00AM

Happy Campers x 5 wrote: »

Wooo. Hang on a minute now. you are telling me that a court has never got something wrong.
Are you a solicitor or judge or something ? Or just a troll?

Courts can get things wrong; and it requires another Court of higher jurisdiction say that a Judge has erred in fact or in law in making a judgement/an order.

The Supreme Court has not found that Justice Michael Peart erred in ordering possession for Ulster Bank. Do you have grounds to believe that Justice Peart should *not* have ordered possession?

It would help if you could enlighten us.

What's with all this 'troll' business though? It seems as if a few people here are happy to throw that around.

Happy Campers x 5 · 25-02-2012 12:10AM

Plautus; Courts can get things wrong; and it requires another Court of higher jurisdiction say that a Judge has erred in fact or in law in making a judgement/an order.

The Supreme Court has not found that Justice Michael Peart erred in ordering possession for Ulster Bank. Do you have grounds to believe that Justice Peart should *not* have ordered possession?

It would help if you could enlighten us.

What's with all this 'troll' business though? It seems as if a few people here are happy to throw that around.

Lets be fair here now it seems to be your way or not at all. You have know more of an idea than i have who is right or wrong. If the sherrif new he was 100% in the right he would have stood his ground and at least tryed to enter the property. Fair play to them for putting up an argument. to many people taking what ever is thrown at them in this country

Constitution halts sheriff megamerge

Comments