TeddyTedson wrote: » Bollocks right back at you. Smoke and mirrors. WTF. Did you watch the video?
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?
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.
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.
hondasam wrote: » Were they not just there to make sure the sheriff did not get attacked.
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)
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.
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.
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.
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
hondasam wrote: » Your man was a good speaker and knew what he was talking about, I still think the sheriff remained calm.
hondasam wrote: » If this eviction is illegal does that mean all other evictions were as well?
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.
Plautus wrote: » You'll have to explain how the law is being 'broken'.
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.
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
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'.
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.
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.
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.
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
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
but would this not be akin to a Gard stopping me for speeding, then passing sentence on me in court too?
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?
