Freeman Megamerge

ynotonavillus · 02-09-2012 2:06am

The biggest problem with these guys, especially when they act as McKensie friends", is that they give all lay litigants a bad name.

The Courts will use the likes of these nutters, as the excuse to put procedural steps in the way all LIP.

I was in court a few months ago with a friend who was representing himself,

Mr Gilroy was there with another unfortunate who was looking for an injunction to prevent a receiver moving in,

They handed in a document with about 300 pages,related to the failure of all charges created by banks whilst in breach of liquidity ratios.....

Judge looked at it, said " That looks very impressive, needs far more attention then I could give it, I will give you the injunction for 5 days and will put the matter down for next week, to be heard by the other Judge because I am off on holidays tonight......"

I wunder will an " Isaac McKensie" order be seen in the near future

NoQuarter · 02-09-2012 9:08am

I prefer a "Gilroy Wunder".

Procrastastudy · 02-09-2012 12:48pm

Aren't these clowns liable for giving misleading advice as McKenzie friends? Perhaps they should be suing them rather than keep trying to sack people actually doing their jobs. I'd imagine a Judge might have some sympathy if a case like that came before him/her?

NoQuarter · 02-09-2012 1:29pm

Probably doesnt fit the negligent misstatement criteria but I wonder could an argument on duty of care be carved out. Establishing proximity might be a problem.

Procrastastudy · 02-09-2012 1:50pm

Interesting bit in D. v. McGuinness, and Daly

As regards public proceedings, Macken J examined the English Court of Appeal decision in R. v Leicester City Justices and Anor. , ex parte Barrow . [ Supra., n. 5 . ] She agreed with the surprising conclusion of Lord Donaldson MR that neither Collier v. Hicks [ Supra., n. 3 . ] nor McKenzie v. McKenzie [ Supra., n. 2 . ] established that a lay litigant has a right to be assisted by a McKenzie friend. Macken J approved of the approach taken by the Court of Appeal. The Court of Appeal noted that the administration of justice must be open, fair and be seen to be fair. Fairness requires that a lay litigant of full capacity should be afforded all reasonable facilities to enable him to exercise his right of audience. These facilities include the aid of a McKenzie friend, unless a court considers this to be contrary to the proper and efficient administration of justice. [ Supra., n. 5, at 945 and followed by Macken J . ]

((1999) 17 ILT 214: Article: The Presence of McKenzie Friends in in Camera Proceedings)

Hopefully that means that a Judge could bar someone from acting as McKenzie friend?

NoQuarter · 02-09-2012 2:03pm

Hrmm, the thing is there is a set list of people who can be present for in camera cases and McKenzie friend is not one of them so that extract might be specific to that.

On the other hand, wiki says they can be liable for bad advice, not the best authority though.

Procrastastudy · 02-09-2012 2:13pm

NoQuarter wrote: »

Hrmm, the thing is there is a set list of people who can be present for in camera cases and McKenzie friend is not one of them so that extract might be specific to that.

On the other hand, wiki says they can be liable for bad advice, not the best authority though.

I'm actually didn't want to admit to using Wikipedia as a starting point but I'm busted

- I'm reading though the 'sources' at the minute looking for a link to a decent article that might point me in the direction of something reputable.

That article was from a search of Westlaw - only thing I could find on point - going completely OT but it does seem to suggest that McKenzie friends might be allowed in in camera proceedings in very limited circumstances.

I just find it quite interesting as to given the Constitutional protections here - surely it would be very difficult to bar someone from being a McKenzie friend - unless they did something during a specific case. I'd personally like to find authority that that could a) be sued b) at least be barred from this carry on. Its not that I have a problem with the 'movement' per se. It's just that they seem to be praying on the vulnerable and desperate.

EDIT - I did find the Scotsman article quite amusing!

NoQuarter · 02-09-2012 2:34pm

Well althought the freemen employ the McKenzie friend and amicus curiae positions as of lately, the former has been around since the seventies. There are legitimate purposes for using both so I woldnt advocate attacking the McKenzie friend method to get at freemen.

(Not saying that's what you are intending).

Procrastastudy · 02-09-2012 2:41pm

NoQuarter wrote: »

Well althought the freemen employ the McKenzie friend and amicus curiae positions as of lately, the former has been around since the seventies. There are legitimate purposes for using both so I woldnt advocate attacking the McKenzie friend method to get at freemen.

(Not saying that's what you are intending).

I'm actually coming at it from the other side entirely - that the notion of McKenzie friends needs protecting as if these guys make enough of an ass of themselves it will jeopardise a useful right of people that can't/don't engage legal counsel. I'm sure I'm being alarmist and a few crack-pots aren't going to make any difference.

Interesting to read about how much the use of them is on the rise though. I suppose it makes sense in a lot of scenarios. Especially when advise of a very specialist nature is required. I have to admit a few years ago when I was initially looking to get out of my previous career I was under the impression that this is what Barristers where for. e.g. you went to a specialist 'revenue' barrister if you had revenue issues or a specialist 'fraud' barrister if you were up for fraud. Seems that actually they are much more generalised?

NoQuarter · 02-09-2012 2:49pm

Usually you take the civil or criminal route. Go criminal and you could cover all criminal law. Go civil and you could probably cover 3 or 4 areas very well.

Its a case of not being able to be an expert in everything but if you were to focus on revenue or fraud cases you might not have a great income stream.

Generally.

Finnbar01 · 02-09-2012 9:24pm

Mr Gilroy strikes again. Amazed the gardaí didn't break down the door and arrest him and his cronies.

ynotonavillus · 03-09-2012 12:16am

It may be trite to say so, but we ought not forget the unfortunates behind these stories who will suddenly have run out of road and life as they knew it will be over.

Gilroy and his colleagues are, at the very least gaining them some time to digest their situations and are offering them support at a difficult time.

In this day and age there is usually no social welfare for anybody that got up off their ass and worked to put a house over their own heads and who invested in property, especially the self employed, if things go wrong.

Yet it is the taxes that these people paid which led to the irresponsible inflation of public service costs which are now strangling the state finances. (obviously the bailout of the banks is also not helping)

03-09-2012 12:51am

ynotonavillus wrote: »

Gilroy and his colleagues are, at the very least gaining them some time to digest their situations and are offering them support at a difficult time.

Actually they are creating a situation where genuine people with genuine issues with the bank but who seek to represent themselves for whatever reason cannot do so as the banks are forced into a more hard line position because indulging these lunatics just creates an utter mess.

jay-me · 03-09-2012 2:10am

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oqQB6FKbFRg

How these morons get away with this crap is beyond me.. And giving them airtime just makes them worse!

Procrastastudy · 03-09-2012 2:28am

I'm just waiting for a case for wrongful termination to end up at the EAT.

ynotonavillus · 03-09-2012 9:31am

Deleted User wrote: »

Actually they are creating a situation where genuine people with genuine issues with the bank but who seek to represent themselves for whatever reason cannot do so as the banks are forced into a more hard line position because indulging these lunatics just creates an utter mess.

Sorry cannot agree with your sentiments,

The banks are dealing with people as harshly as the individual, within the bank dealing with the case chooses to do so. Genuine difficulty or a perception of bull**it, on the part of the customer is irrelevant, in fact the more genuine the individual the easier they are to push around.

The thought, on the part of the banks side of dealing with unorthodox practitioners, may well be the only way to create some breathing space.

Representing themselves is often the only avenue that genuine people can take, as frequently they will have outstanding accountants and solicitors bills and feel that they cannot approach these professionals.

It must be remembered that many mortgages that are for buy to lets or other semi commercial purposes are fatally wounded and it is only stubbornness and pride that is keeping people from admitting defeat and walking away.

Similarly on the other-side the banks are struggling to squeeze out as much cash from the property owner before either he runs out of cash or he opts for the insolvency route.

The individuals within the banks actually dealing with those in arrears are massaging the figures and overstating the likelihood of people getting back within terms, in the full knowledge that their superiors require these " Positive reports"

If the truth was actually transmitted up the line the banks would have to admit that they are totally insolvent.

chops018 · 03-09-2012 11:26am

I don't know why there is so many arguments about this. It's fairly simple:

1. You enter into a contract with a financial institution in order to get a loan to buy a property that you can't afford to pay for upfront.
2. You agree to pay this financial institution back.
3. For whatever reason it turns out you can't pay this institution back.
4. You receive a certain amount of time to catch up/pay back before the institution will get a judgement against you to claim possession of the home.

What's so difficult about the above, you can't expect to get a free house. What about all the other people paying their mortgages week in week out. Should they just start not paying and expect not to be evicted too. It is a sad state of affairs to see a person being evicted but they will be put in affordable housing by the government, it is rare that they will be left on the street.

jay-me · 04-09-2012 8:05am

This annoying twat gets his just deserts.. Delicious is an understatement!!!

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=692_1345777131

Procrastastudy · 04-09-2012 8:56am

jay-me wrote: »

This annoying twat gets his just deserts.. Delicious is an understatement!!!

http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=692_1345777131

I surprised the fashion police were not called given that woman's top!

evercloserunion · 30-09-2012 11:41pm

A Canadian judge has apparently set out a very lengthy and detailed demolition of freeman nonsense.

http://ukhumanrightsblog.com/2012/09/30/freemen-of-the-land-are-parasites-peddling-pseudolegal-nonsense-canadian-judge-fights-back/

littlemac1980 · 01-10-2012 3:41pm

Ahhhhh.... I'm gonna miss them guys a little.

Robbo · 24-10-2012 11:19am

I haven't unearthed much about their methodology but I smell the ****e of a Freeman on this one. Either way, I can see the lists being completely deadlocked with lay litigants having to have their hands held through every step of the way, much like the way the family law lists are turning to treacle.

"€138 isn't that much when you're suing for €1million."

One can only imagine the fanciful figures for losses that are abounding in their Indorsements of Claim, much like the golfer who wanted €10m in damages for defamation during the summer.

littlemac1980 · 24-10-2012 11:30am

What'll happen when the banks look for their costs.

Pat Mustard · 24-10-2012 12:53pm

littlemac1980 wrote: »

I wonder how much she pays for her P.I. insurance and what'll happen when the banks look for their costs.

The big man will have all the answers, no doubt:

From the "Debtoptions" facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/pages/Debtoptions/211736418893790?fref=ts

Tomorrow night it is Waterford. The Ramada Hotel at 8.30pm . Come along for yourself. Speakers Claire Cullinane and Ben Gilroy. Please pass this on as much as possible

The facebook page links to a 12 year old economist who explains how the Canadian government and the banks have conspired to enslave the people of Canada. I stopped watching after aboot 30 seconds.

Our man in Havana · 24-10-2012 8:49pm

littlemac1980 wrote: »

What'll happen when the banks look for their costs.

They will be left waiting.

Grolschevik · 24-10-2012 9:26pm

Is it just me, or do many of the 'no' arguments in the Children's Referendum debate (I hesitate to call it a debate) rely on Freemanesque arguments. I have in mind this in particular:

So why is it all a lie? Well apart from the obvious “you should never trust an Irish government with anything” logic there are plenty of reasons to be wary.

A little known fact about Bunreacht na Heireann is that in Ireland, the family unit are the head of the state. To put that simply, in Ireland there is no greater power in society than the family. Families are higher up the ladder than police, solicitors, judges and even the all powerful government. Article 41.1 states: “The State recognises the Family as the natural primary and fundamental unit group of Society, and as a moral institution possessing inalienable and imprescriptible rights, antecedent and superior to all positive law.

Etc etc.

[Edit:] It appears this isn't just Freemanesque, but the real thing. Apparently from the FB page of someone who lists his/her occupation as "Freelance writer at the Sovereign Independent newspaper"

Avatargh · 25-10-2012 9:01am

Grolschevik wrote: »

Is it just me, or do many of the 'no' arguments in the Children's Referendum debate (I hesitate to call it a debate) rely on Freemanesque arguments. I have in mind this in particular:

So why is it all a lie? Well apart from the obvious “you should never trust an Irish government with anything” logic there are plenty of reasons to be wary.

A little known fact about Bunreacht na Heireann is that in Ireland, the family unit are the head of the state. To put that simply, in Ireland there is no greater power in society than the family. Families are higher up the ladder than police, solicitors, judges and even the all powerful government. Article 41.1 states: “The State recognises the Family as the natural primary and fundamental unit group of Society, and as a moral institution possessing inalienable and imprescriptible rights, antecedent and superior to all positive law.

Etc etc.

[Edit:] It appears this isn't just Freemanesque, but the real thing. Apparently from the FB page of someone who lists his/her occupation as "Freelance writer at the Sovereign Independent newspaper"

Maybe, but it depends on how you define "many" in "many" of the no arguments. I've only read sensible ones so far, and this is the first lunatic-fringe I've seen.

Grolschevik · 25-10-2012 12:12pm

Avatargh wrote: »

Maybe, but it depends on how you define "many" in "many" of the no arguments. I've only read sensible ones so far, and this is the first lunatic-fringe I've seen.

True enough. The sensible ones seems to go along the lines of "not really necessary and poorly drafted". I've mainly been looking at lunatic-fringe ones, for the crack.

aoshea83 · 05-11-2012 8:16pm

Not strictly legal discussion but freeman related, who's joining

http://directdemocracyireland.ie

I wonder will their public elected officials work for minimum wage

Indricotherium · 06-11-2012 8:43am

Spotted on montague lane!!

Freeman Megamerge

Comments