Freeman Megamerge

Fred Swanson · 22-07-2013 12:20pm

This post has been deleted.

Robbo · 24-07-2013 6:54pm

NoQuarter wrote: »

Sorry I was meant to post this yesterday. I was there.

The following shows how amateur these idiots are:

They create a company for whatever reason, perhaps to give them standing in issues like this or whatever and on the day of their motion, APPARENTLY their legal representation "fell through" (whatever that means) according to the 2 gentlemen who appeared for the company. Of course, those of you on the ball or aware of a recent Supreme Court decision will also be aware that directors and officers of a company are not entitled to appear and represent their own company.

And so the applicant argued that both gentlemen were strangers to the proceedings, Ryan J. was bound by the SC and so the motion to dismiss was heard uncontested.

Lets see them report that in their blogs!

Their account from the Attack the Tax Facebook page:

Announcement - 17th July 2013

Round 1
The Government (10) vs Attack The Tax (9)

Acorn to Oak Communications appeared before the High Court on Monday 15th July on foot of a Notice of Motion issued by the Defendants in Case No. 2013 4731P.

Agents of Acorn to Oak Communications were present in the Court, however case law was relied on and these Agents were not allowed to represent or speak on behalf of the company. The Irish Courts state that only Solicitors/Barristers may represent Acorn to Oak Communications.
In complete contrast to Practice Direction 39.6 in the UK's Civil Procedure of their Courts. The Case Law relied upon was that of Battle vs Irish Arts Promotion Centre Ltd (1968), which the Supreme Court here in Ireland made it's ruling in that case by depending on UK case law of Salomon vs Salomon (1897). The UK law has moved on but the Irish Courts seem happy to rely on outdated case law.

The fact Acorn to Oak Communications were not recognised or heard in the Court facilitated the State to achieve it's goal of striking out Case No. 2013 4731P in line with their Notice of Motion.

Despite this apparent bushwhacking, we were always aware the State could push it's agenda through the Courts. The Courts are the States creations, and they are it's masters. This matter is far from over. Acorn to Oak Communications Plc fully intends to vigorously pursue this matter through the High Court and Supreme Court, as it seems there is one law for the State/Government and a completely different one for the rest of us.

The simple facts still remain that the Department of the Environment, Community and Local Government and Government Ministers and legislatures did introduce fraudulent legislation to coerce and mislead the public into the making of declarations which are precluded by law. The Court has shown it's unwillingness and shear lack of interest in pursuing these facts, wherefore the worm has temporarily slipped off the hook.

Nothing has changed in relation to our campaign, our shareholders, and our stance with Revenue etc.

Acorn to Oak Communications Plc and Attack The Tax fully intend to complete this process, regardless of unfair practices and procedures and regardless of the length of time it takes.

We acknowledge and respect the courage and commitment of all our Shareholders and your continued support and resolve in defeating these unlawful taxes.

This will be a long and drawn out journey and we are ready for Round 2!!!

The comments are quite special as well. Apparently there have been no changes made to the Constitution since 1937 and they won't go into details of their cunning plan because of it's ingenuity.

In other news, it appears that the "ancient laws of trusts" (as drawn up by the druids no doubt) are being used to promote a freeman-esque scam to defeat "de banks". Up front arrangement fees, hidden "flaws" in mortgage documentation and total secrecy will have you back flogging apples on Moore Street in no time, by de hokey.

Robbo · 24-07-2013 6:59pm

GeorgeOrwell wrote: »

Where did this Bar = British Accredited Registry thing come from?

It's one thing to get some complex area of the law wrong or get your history muddled (I'm being charitable here) but it's another thing to make something up.

My own theory is that they're appealing to two groups of wingnuts here, the tinfoil hat wearers and the Ding Dong Denny O'Reilly types who want to blame de Brits for everything.

So rather than adding up all the letters to make 666, you throw a bit of black and tan paint on it and call it a conspiracy from Windsor palace and work backwards from there.

rameire · 24-07-2013 6:59pm

unfortunately the attack the tax keep on deleting anybody's comments and blocking accounts from posting from people who question them or claim they have failed

its great fun setting up so many new facebook accounts.

NoQuarter · 24-07-2013 7:34pm

Attack the Tax Facebook Page wrote:

The NOPe Tour is for ALL the people of Irland that want and wish to find out the truth about these Taxes, and are prepared to take a stand legally, lawfully and peacefully

Sorry, where?

Losty Dublin · 24-07-2013 7:37pm

Just for the less clued up, could a more experienced head confirm or deny their claim that only a solicitor or barrister can represent you at court?

NoQuarter · 24-07-2013 7:43pm

Losty Dublin wrote: »

Just for the less clued up, could a more experienced head confirm or deny their claim that only a solicitor or barrister can represent you at court?

Any individual can represent themselves. But a limited company cannot be represented by its directors or shareholders because it is a separate legal personality from the directors/shareholders.

Losty Dublin · 24-07-2013 7:46pm

NoQuarter wrote: »

Any individual can represent themselves. But a limited company cannot be represented by its directors or shareholders because it is a separate legal personality from the directors/shareholders.

Thanks for that; I had an inkling that this was the case.

Pro Hoc Vice · 24-07-2013 7:49pm

Losty Dublin wrote: »

Just for the less clued up, could a more experienced head confirm or deny their claim that only a solicitor or barrister can represent you at court?

Any person can represent themselves in court or that person can be represented by either or both a solicitor or barrister. But a limited liability is not able to represent itself and Irish law does not allow a shareholder or director to appear in court to represent the company so under Irish law only a solicitor or barrister can act on behalf of a limited company.

It is also possible to have the assistance of a friend to assist you in preparation of your case and assist in handing in documents etc. in very limited circumstances the Court may allow a non lawyer act on your behalf. This recently lead to a situation in the SC where a husband acting for his wife, where his argument was that the husband (him) had exerted undue influence on his wife, a situation not lost on the SC.

johnnyskeleton · 24-07-2013 8:39pm

Losty Dublin wrote: »

Just for the less clued up, could a more experienced head confirm or deny their claim that only a solicitor or barrister can represent you at court?

Because the freemen are actually correct in one small respect. A company is a legal personality or, in their terms, a "strawman" as opposed to a real human. Companies only operate in the area of commercial law and they are not the same as the human people who they represent (nor, in ireland anyway, do they have constitutional rights). So because of this, the human people are not bound by the actions of the legal person and if they want to avoid the adverse consequences created by their fictional personality, they can simply say "I am not johnnyskeleton ltd, I am Johnny of the family skeleton".

So freemen have a complete get out of jail card for every situation. It was previously thought that this magic weapon could only be used by freemen for their benefit, but the learned high court judge clearly misapplied the law by finding that that particular knife cuts both ways.

To be honest, I'm surprised that they actually gave a reasonably accurate summary of what happened in court, although it did take them 2 weeks to figure out what to say. I was half expecting them to say that the judge didn't stand under their understanding of the law and decided to move the case into the jurisdiction of swedeish maritime law instead of Scottish gavelkind like he was supposed to do.

johnnyskeleton · 24-07-2013 8:49pm

Robbo wrote: »

My own theory is that they're appealing to two groups of wingnuts here, the tinfoil hat wearers and the Ding Dong Denny O'Reilly types who want to blame de Brits for everything.

So rather than adding up all the letters to make 666, you throw a bit of black and tan paint on it and call it a conspiracy from Windsor palace and work backwards from there.

To be fair to the freemen, its a lie that's easy to believe. Barristers do themselves no favours in the public eye by keeping the customs, clothing and traditions of the English bar, together with the pervasive Anglo Irish accent.

Pro Hoc Vice · 24-07-2013 10:45pm

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

To be fair to the freemen, its a lie that's easy to believe. Barristers do themselves no favours in the public eye by keeping the customs, clothing and traditions of the English bar, together with the pervasive Anglo Irish accent.

My own opinion is that the general public, want the customs wig, gown etc. its their important day, be it civil, or criminal they want the show. The only issue is that raised by the media. If anyone has any well informed survey on the issue I would love to see it. I have never had any non barrister turn down my invite to dine, and most people when they have heard I invited so and so dining, the next question is always when will I invite them, can't get more exclusive or traditional than dining in Kings Inns. Yet people love it.

johnnyskeleton · 25-07-2013 12:16am

infosys wrote: »

My own opinion is that the general public, want the customs wig, gown etc. its their important day, be it civil, or criminal they want the show. The only issue is that raised by the media. If anyone has any well informed survey on the issue I would love to see it. I have never had any non barrister turn down my invite to dine, and most people when they have heard I invited so and so dining, the next question is always when will I invite them, can't get more exclusive or traditional than dining in Kings Inns. Yet people love it.

I've no doubt that they do, but it only serves to reinforce an idea of barristers as a different breed of person. A person can love having their lawyer in a wig and gown, or their friend bringing them to the kings inns, but at the same time think if barristers as out of touch, making too much money or not worthy of their sympathy. And so long as it suits them the otherworldliness is cherished, but when it no longer does it serves to alienate them. Thus, when barristers fees are reduced or increasing numbers leave the bar, far from sympathizing, the general public delights in their misfortune.

Robbo · 25-07-2013 4:40pm

infosys wrote: »

Any person can represent themselves in court or that person can be represented by either or both a solicitor or barrister. But a limited liability is not able to represent itself and Irish law does not allow a shareholder or director to appear in court to represent the company so under Irish law only a solicitor or barrister can act on behalf of a limited company.

It is also possible to have the assistance of a friend to assist you in preparation of your case and assist in handing in documents etc. in very limited circumstances the Court may allow a non lawyer act on your behalf. This recently lead to a situation in the SC where a husband acting for his wife, where his argument was that the husband (him) had exerted undue influence on his wife, a situation not lost on the SC.

Any chance of a case name here? Looking for some light reading material.

Pro Hoc Vice · 25-07-2013 4:46pm

Robbo wrote: »

Any chance of a case name here? Looking for some light reading material.

It was a motion on a Friday, I doubt its reported or even unreported. The person involved has been mentioned in these threads. The funny thing is the SC did take one of his arguments seriously (it was a proper legal one). But it was interesting, the only time I have seen the SC allow a person actually speak for another so it is possible but rare.

Cody Pomeray · 25-07-2013 5:31pm

It is unusual but it's not completely without precedent.

There are cases where the McKenzie friend may be invited to address the court in a quasi-advocacy capacity, but this is done only as a matter of courtesy and at the discretion of the court.

I don't know of any case where a McKenzie friend has acted as some 'lay advocate' for the course of a hearing. The law certainly doesn't provide for that.

In the recent case of Re of applications for orders in relation to costs in intended proceedings by Coffey and others [2013], the Supreme Court said:

[29] It would be inimical to the integrity of the justice system to open to unqualified persons the same rights of audience and representation as are conferred by the law on duly qualified barristers and solicitors. Every member of each of those professions undergoes an extended and rigorous period of legal and professional training and sits demanding examinations in the law and legal practice and procedure, including ethical standards. Barristers and solicitors are respectively subject in their practice to and bound by extensive and detailed codes of professional conduct. Each profession has established a complete and active system of profession discipline. Members of the professions are liable to potentially severe penalties if they transgress.

[30] There would be little point in subjecting the professions to such rules and requirements if, at the same time, completely unqualified persons had complete, parallel rights of audience in the courts. That would defeat the purpose of such controls and would tend to undermine the administration of justice and the elaborate system of controls.

[31] I wish to make it clear that there is no reason at all to suspect the integrity of Mr Podger, his commitment to the cases he wishes to bring on behalf of the Appellants or his knowledge of this particular area of environmental law. However, the fact remains that he is not qualified in law and does not have any right of audience.

...

[37] In conclusion, the general rule is clear. Only a qualified barrister or solicitor has the right, if duly instructed, to represent a litigant before the courts. The courts have, on rare occasions, permitted exceptions to the strict application of that rule, where it would work particular injustice. The present case comes nowhere near justifying considering the making of an exception. Mr Podger seeks nothing less than the general right to appear on behalf of a group of thirteen litigants and to plead their cases to precisely the same extent as if he were a solicitor or counsel, which he accepts that he is not, but without being subject to any of the limitations which would apply to professional persons.

Pro Hoc Vice · 25-07-2013 6:53pm

It may well be the law but I personally witnessed a lay litigant speak on behalf of his wife in relation to her case brought by a lender. The interesting part of the case was her argument in her case as advanced during the motion was that her husband exercised undue influence on her. The SC pointed out the issues with that argument being advanced by her husband and strongly advised independant legal representation. It may be that the SC does not allow the husband to further advance the case. The case was on either the 10th May or 31st May of this year.

I just checked the case online, a solicitor is now on record for the wife, while the Husband still acts for himself. I also checked the Diary the matter was on the 10th May, 2013 before the SC.

Cody Pomeray · 25-07-2013 9:38pm

I hope you don't think i was doubting you... it's eyebrow raising to see a McKenzie friend at any time, I personally have never seen it and that was the motivation for my comment.

What you saw is probably the court being courteous, and as you say it was a motion.

I suppose you could have a McKenzie friend 'advocating' on behalf of a lay litigant in a case where the latter is disabled or cannot otherwise speak, and where there is no legal aid. Seems only fair, to take account of the current economic situation.

Pro Hoc Vice · 25-07-2013 10:43pm

Cody Pomeray wrote: »

I hope you don't think i was doubting you... it's eyebrow raising to see a McKenzie friend at any time, I personally have never seen it and that was the motivation for my comment.

What you saw is probably the court being courteous, and as you say it was a motion.

I suppose you could have a McKenzie friend 'advocating' on behalf of a lay litigant in a case where the latter is disabled or cannot otherwise speak, and where there is no legal aid. Seems only fair, to take account of the current economic situation.

Yes I agree that the court was giving leeway due to the economic situation. The Court also said it was very unusual but was allowing it step by step. As I said I checked the listing and solicitors now on record. If you want to see McKenzie friends and lay litigants call into the Friday SC motions, on the 2 recents days I was there at least 50% lay litigants with at least a couple of McKenzie friends for the most part handing in documents.

Cody Pomeray · 26-07-2013 11:30am

Sorry that should have said it is eyebrow raising to see a McKenzie friend speaking at any time. I don't think anyone need worry about the idea of a litigant having quiet assistance from his friend with documents and suchlike.

I think the system is going slightly far in even allowing (usually hesitant, but broke) litigants represent themselves.

I know these are hardened times for both citizens and the legal aid system, but if we are (rightly) reluctant to give McKenzie friends an audience on the grounds set out in the Coffey judgement (above) where Fennelly J gave a well reasoned approach to why the court was declining the right of audience...

It would be inimical to the integrity of the justice system to open to unqualified persons the same rights of audience and representation as are conferred by the law on duly qualified barristers and solicitors. Every member of each of those professions undergoes an extended and rigorous period of legal and professional training and sits demanding examinations in the law and legal practice and procedure, including ethical standards. Barristers and solicitors are respectively subject in their practice to and bound by extensive and detailed codes of professional conduct. Each profession has established a complete and active system of profession discipline. Members of the professions are liable to potentially severe penalties if they transgress.

...then the natural follow on question is why, employing the aforementioned reasoning, the legal system continues to allow this potentially unjust phenomenon to continue.

Losty Dublin · 30-07-2013 2:44pm

Uh oh, our "friends" may have influenced this gentleman at some stage.

http://www.independent.ie/business/commercial-property/bank-of-scotland-secures-judgement-for-over-69m-against-kildare-farmer-29457087.html

In January last, Mr McDermott had issued a notice to the receiver alleging he (the receiver) would be liable to Mr McDermott for some €10m if he persisted in "illegal and unlawful activities". In all the circumstances, the bank had acted appropriately and was entitled to judgment, it argued.
Mr McDermott has initiated separate proceedings in which he describes himself as "one of the people of Eire" and makes various claims, including the bank fraudulently misrepresented information at the inception of contracts in relation to Mr McDermott's accounts.

Robbo · 31-07-2013 3:42pm

The latest from Attack The Tax has a large element of "I reject your reality and substitute my own" to it.

littlemac1980 · 31-07-2013 4:29pm

The response to the Revenue Letter make for some good mid-week suspension of reality reading.

http://attackthetax.com/downloads/ResponseToRevenue31July2013.pdf

I'm very impressed by the Statement:

"As this couldn't be further from the Truth"

which appears to serve the writer as a valid argument for asserting that the High Court proceedings which were struck-out aren't actually over - I'm going to have to start using that one myself, when I can't think of any logical reason to challenge patently factual assertions.

The "7 day" demand for a response to the queries is my favorite though.

What terrible consequences follow a failure to respond? Another Letter?

rameire · 10-08-2013 9:22pm

possibly along the same lines as the idiot freemen, and attack the tax.

The ‘Kilkenny Trust’ that makes mortgage debt disappear

http://www.mortgagebrokers.ie/blog/debt-reduction/the-kilkenny-trust-that-makes-mortgage-debt-disappear/

this is a link to Karl Deeter and his blog,
he was asked to go along to one of the Kilkenny trust meetings.

Losty Dublin · 15-08-2013 9:49am

rameire wrote: »

possibly along the same lines as the idiot freemen, and attack the tax.

The ‘Kilkenny Trust’ that makes mortgage debt disappear

http://www.mortgagebrokers.ie/blog/debt-reduction/the-kilkenny-trust-that-makes-mortgage-debt-disappear/

this is a link to Karl Deeter and his blog,
he was asked to go along to one of the Kilkenny trust meetings.

Karl gave this a mention on one of the business news sections on Morning Ireland today, just before 8PM. I believe snake oil was the phrase he used to describe it

valleyoftheunos · 15-08-2013 9:54am

I saw Ben of the Family Gilroy (or should that be Glia Rua?) in the Four Courts yesterday, he was speaking quite animatedly about receivers, unfortunately I couldn't hang around to hear if he was spouting complete tosh or not.

Robbo · 15-08-2013 10:07am

valleyoftheunos wrote: »

I saw Ben of the Family Gilroy (or should that be Glia Rua?) in the Four Courts yesterday, he was speaking quite animatedly about receivers, unfortunately I couldn't hang around to hear if he was spouting complete tosh or not.

I think it was in relation to this matter where the former owners of a pub broke back in after the receiver took possession and started trading again. It was supposed to be auctioned by Allsop in July but that was the day of the famous "Mr Constant Markiewicz" incident and it was withdrawn.

Charlie Allen's name is mentioned in this, him being the alleged promoter of the Kilkenny Trust Mortgage Vanishing Trick.

And still the costs orders mount up against them added to whatever their pseudo-lawyers are charging. On the other hand, the standard Freeman charge of €10 million (viz Fallon and McDermott receiverships) has yet to be coughed up. Still, I supposed it's like buying Lotto tickets in the hope of *one day* hitting the jackpot.

Sulla Felix · 15-08-2013 10:53pm

Robbo wrote: »

And still the costs orders mount up against them added to whatever their pseudo-lawyers are charging.

I'm guessing it'll make good watching when they take their supposed clients to court to claim payment.

Robbo · 18-08-2013 8:53pm

From the Sunday Times today; Ben Gilroy is considering running in the European elections so expect some Youtube videos of him waving a copy of Blackstones at a receiver and declaring that Jeanine McNay fought and died to create the European Union, at the Battle of Strasbourg.

Robbo · 21-08-2013 1:29pm

Looks like Karl Deeter has got his hands on a copy of the Kilkenny Trust documentation.

Freeman Megamerge

Comments