Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Freeman Megamerge

17677798182170

Comments

  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,074 ✭✭✭glic71rods46t0


    whippet wrote: »
    Just like me reporting that over the weekend I blagged my way in to the playboy mansion and my performance and activities warranted a plaque of honour on the wall.

    Was Hugh Heffner gentle with you?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,711 ✭✭✭whippet


    Was Hugh Heffner gentle with you?

    in line with The Hub's reports ... I can't say anything more than I was great and am brilliant .. sorry!


  • Registered Users Posts: 8 mylud


    whippet wrote: »
    that was the jaw dropping incident alright .. it's only a pity we can't be privy to the actual events or that the Hub don't really like sharing these bombshells.

    Just like me reporting that over the weekend I blagged my way in to the playboy mansion and my performance and activities warranted a plaque of honour on the wall. And as none of you were there .. I expect a load of thanks and back slapping from everyone !!

    Unfortunatly many believe in the hub voodoo.It getting out of hand, notice the lord behaved himself in court but encourages his followers to cause havoc.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,711 ✭✭✭whippet


    mylud wrote: »
    Unfortunatly many believe in the hub voodoo.It getting out of hand, notice the lord behaved himself in court but encourages his followers to cause havoc.

    do as I say not as I do.

    they don't mind playing roughshod with the legal system as long as it isn't their necks on the line


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,698 ✭✭✭✭For Forks Sake


    mylud wrote: »
    Looks like their senior council was in Trim today.

    Indeed. Whatever that counts for....
    The Hub - Ireland
    5 hrs ·
    Up in Trim court with are very own Sharon, she stood up and start talking, talk about the registrar jaw hitting the floor, blood draining from her face, yep that's right we took jurisdiction out of you're hands!

    *scratches head*.

    I have not a clue what they're sh1teing on about at this stage.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 8 mylud


    Indeed. Whatever that counts for....



    *scratches head*.

    I have not a clue what they're sh1teing on about at this stage.

    Sharon running Trim court sentenced a guy to a holiday in Austria for paying his mortage, a holiday for two his Mckenzie friend going along.


  • Registered Users Posts: 301 ✭✭cobhguy28


    AIB Mortgage Bank -v- O'Doherty

    Owes over 4.7 million who is given these nuts money.

    23. Most peculiarly, the defendant alleges that the present application is somehow rendered null and void because the name on his birth certificate is John Doherty and not John O’Doherty, although he does not seek to deny that the signature “John O’Doherty” on each of the relevant loan agreements, on each of the relevant mortgage deeds and on his own correspondence in 2010 is, indeed, his, or that he signed each and every one of those documents.

    21. On the question of liability, it would appear that the defendant principally seeks to rely again on the contention that certain of the relevant loans were not his but rather those of a company named Kirefield Limited, together with the contention that the relevant properties are owned by Kirefield Limited and not by him. Perhaps understandably in view of his status as a litigant in person, the defendant does not appear to have given any consideration to the implications of the latter assertion for the issue of his standing to oppose an application for possession of certain properties that he contends he neither owns nor occupies.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,808 ✭✭✭Ste.phen


    cobhguy28 wrote: »
    Perhaps understandably in view of his status as a litigant in person, the defendant does not appear to have given any consideration to the implications of the latter assertion for the issue of his standing to oppose an application for possession of certain properties that he contends he neither owns nor occupies.

    Schadenfreude aside, this is sad - a real solicitor could go a long way to helping these people - this freeman crap is actively making things worse for the people involved directly, as well as the indirect effects on the rest of society


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,999 ✭✭✭✭Thargor


    cobhguy28 wrote: »
    AIB Mortgage Bank -v- O'Doherty

    21. On the question of liability, it would appear that the defendant principally seeks to rely again on the contention that certain of the relevant loans were not his but rather those of a company named Kirefield Limited, together with the contention that the relevant properties are owned by Kirefield Limited and not by him. Perhaps understandably in view of his status as a litigant in person, the defendant does not appear to have given any consideration to the implications of the latter assertion for the issue of his standing to oppose an application for possession of certain properties that he contends he neither owns nor occupies.
    Please update us if this is put to him...


  • Registered Users Posts: 8 mylud


    Good news CAPLOCKS has appointed two law firms to represent him one for K Tech case one for revenue case.Poor auld Ciara sidelined.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,711 ✭✭✭whippet


    mylud wrote: »
    Good news CAPLOCKS has appointed two law firms to represent him one for K Tech case one for revenue case.Poor auld Ciara sidelined.

    is this not the case against revenue ... where he had a defaulters bill in the region of €300k to stump up?


  • Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 10,574 Mod ✭✭✭✭Robbo


    mylud wrote: »
    Good news CAPLOCKS has appointed two law firms to represent him one for K Tech case one for revenue case.Poor auld Ciara sidelined.
    With good reason, if she was to attempt to advocate for him given her non-practicing status, she'd find the Bar Council making some polite enquiries. Much better to pasting outdated tracts from textbooks on Facebook to extract some more money from rubes in Slatterys.

    Looks like the taxman did a number on CAPSLOCK. Hardly surprising given the industry though.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,711 ✭✭✭whippet


    Ironically CAPSLOCK Gibney has posted a link to a youtube video ‘There is no law requiring you to pay income tax’ .. He says THIS IS 100% CORRECT … I wonder if he can use this video as evidence in court with the Revenue?


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,130 ✭✭✭eldamo


    whippet wrote: »
    Ironically CAPSLOCK Gibney has posted a link to a youtube video ‘There is no law requiring you to pay income tax’ .. He says THIS IS 100% CORRECT … I wonder if he can use this video as evidence in court with the Revenue?

    there is no law requiring you to pay income tax.

    provided you are happy not to earn an income...

    i have a feeling plenty of them would happily do this and claim victory


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,711 ✭✭✭whippet


    So the bastions of great journalism TV3 will be giving BOD and Beades an hour of airtime to convince the nation that all 82 rulings in the court were incorrect and BOD, Blazer, Blake, Brucie, Alex & Mary Patsy should be back on the hill before the summer. Jerry will be on hand to explain why it is incomprehensible to think that any failed property developer shouldn't be entitled to live Dallasesque lifestyles while the peasant tax payers should take the hit.

    I think I might just watch this on the old telly .. just incase I have an irrational desire to put my boot through it !


  • Registered Users Posts: 301 ✭✭cobhguy28


    whippet wrote: »
    So the bastions of great journalism TV3 will be giving BOD and Beades an hour of airtime to convince the nation that all 82 rulings in the court were incorrect and BOD, Blazer, Blake, Brucie, Alex & Mary Patsy should be back on the hill before the summer. Jerry will be on hand to explain why it is incomprehensible to think that any failed property developer shouldn't be entitled to live Dallasesque lifestyles while the peasant tax payers should take the hit.

    I think I might just watch this on the old telly .. just incase I have an irrational desire to put my boot through it !

    He says he lost every rulling however every time he asked for an extention of time to stay in the house untill the appeals were heard, the court granted him this time, even after the bank and the receiver had argued he should not be left stay.


  • Registered Users Posts: 8 mylud


    The hub now being spied upon by the Law Society trying to learn from the hub.Ciara on lay litagation asking facebook friends for legal assistance.The Simpsons couldnt do it justice.


  • Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 7,129 ✭✭✭my friend


    cobhguy28 wrote: »
    He says he lost every rulling however every time he asked for an extention of time to stay in the house untill the appeals were heard, the court granted him this time, even after the bank and the receiver had argued he should not be left stay.

    labels o'donnell reckons that statistically he shouldn't have lost every ruling, crazy reasoning by him, it's funny to think that he used to be a big shot on the commercial legal scene , makes me think he was more of a gambler than a legal mind , labels views court rulings as a roulette throw it would appear, he stuck on red and couldn't accept 82 losses, the stuff of degenerates , then again its insight into the mindset that probably drove his property gambles.
    You'd imagine an old pal would have intervened and saved him the embarrassment of association with Beades & Co.


  • Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 10,574 Mod ✭✭✭✭Robbo


    It seems one of the disputed farms where Beades and Gilroy were "advising" has taken to having some impromptu freestyle barbeques.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 622 ✭✭✭Chiorino


    Robbo wrote: »
    It seems one of the disputed farms where Beades and Gilroy were "advising" has taken to having some impromptu freestyle barbeques.

    Whatever about the usual shouting and intimidation Ben his ilk usually resort to, petrol bombs through an eighty year old womans' window is a very sinister turn.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,711 ✭✭✭whippet


    Chiorino wrote: »
    Whatever about the usual shouting and intimidation Ben his ilk usually resort to, petrol bombs through an eighty year old womans' window is a very sinister turn.

    while we have no idea who is behind this latest bit of criminal intimidation ... i would imagine the antics of the 'protesters' could influence the minds and actions of other scumbags to do what they are doing.


  • Registered Users Posts: 301 ✭✭cobhguy28


    Any one have any information on this.

    The person involved I think is laura finnegan.

    Only case I can find listed with that name is in the dundalk call over list on the 18th of may
    The

    The Hub - Ireland
    5 hrs ·
    The Rateable Value: gone.
    Our Girl Laura, hats off to you, take a bow, you just changed History.
    The Plaintiff relied on the rateable value to bring Lay Litigant into the Circuit Court: today Ms Justice Murphy ruled against the Bank and the Jurisdiction: “the Circuit Court did not have jurisdiction, the defendants dwelling was neither rated nor rateable and accordingly the Circuit Court did not have Jurisdiction to hear the Plaintiffs claim”.
    “The Plaintiff maintained that it had invoked and was entitled to the provisions of the valuation act and a letter issued by the Valuations office was sufficient: both these assertions are manifestly unfounded on the evidence”.
    History has just been made: are you being taken to the Circuit Court under the rateable value, with certain limits: not anymore.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,711 ✭✭✭whippet


    I'm waiting on the Bloomberg and CNN reports this evening for the earth shattering details


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,207 ✭✭✭rameire


    cobhguy28 wrote: »
    Any one have any information on this.

    The person involved I think is laura finnegan.

    Only case I can find listed with that name is in the dundalk call over list on the 18th of may
    The

    The Hub - Ireland
    5 hrs ·
    The Rateable Value: gone.
    Our Girl Laura, hats off to you, take a bow, you just changed History.
    The Plaintiff relied on the rateable value to bring Lay Litigant into the Circuit Court: today Ms Justice Murphy ruled against the Bank and the Jurisdiction: “the Circuit Court did not have jurisdiction, the defendants dwelling was neither rated nor rateable and accordingly the Circuit Court did not have Jurisdiction to hear the Plaintiffs claim”.
    “The Plaintiff maintained that it had invoked and was entitled to the provisions of the valuation act and a letter issued by the Valuations office was sufficient: both these assertions are manifestly unfounded on the evidence”.
    History has just been made: are you being taken to the Circuit Court under the rateable value, with certain limits: not anymore.

    they good speak english well.
    The Valuation Office is the State property valuation agency. The core business of the Office is the provision of accurate, up-to-date valuations of commercial and industrial properties to ratepayers and rating authorities as laid down by statute.

    what has this got to do with anything they are splurging out of their holes.

    how is the rateable value of a commercial property anything to do with a case against somebodies dwelling.

    🌞 3.8kwp, 🌞 Split 2.28S, 1.52E. 🌞 Clonee, Dub.🌞



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,073 ✭✭✭littlemac1980


    rameire wrote: »
    they good speak english well.



    what has this got to do with anything they are splurging out of their holes.

    how is the rateable value of a commercial property anything to do with a case against somebodies dwelling.

    I'm aware that certain actions involving real property require that the rateable valuation of the property be below a certain value if they are brought within the circuit court.

    Its been a good while since I've had to check the requirement, so I can't be sure which actions those are or what the significance of the recent changes to jurisdiction values were in this regard.

    I think the previous limit was about €250.

    Edit: actually just checked the citizensinfo website. There's a list of them one of which is -

    "in equity suits, where the rateable valuation of the land does not exceed €253.95"

    So injunctions etc would be covered by the rule.


  • Registered Users Posts: 301 ✭✭cobhguy28


    I'm aware that certain actions involving real property require that the rateable valuation of the property be below a certain value if they are brought within the circuit court.

    Its been a good while since I've had to check the requirement, so I can't be sure which actions those are or what the significance of the recent changes to jurisdiction values were in this regard.

    I think the previous limit was about €250.

    Edit: actually just checked the citizensinfo website. There's a list of them one of which is -

    "in equity suits, where the rateable valuation of the land does not exceed €253.95"

    So injunctions etc would be covered by the rule.

    With out details of the cases it's hard to know but they are making big claims and will have a lot innocent people filing claims based on this.


  • Registered Users Posts: 301 ✭✭cobhguy28


    Under the 2009 conveyancing act circuit court was given jurisdiction in relation to home loans. If this case was not home loan but some other debt then the judgement would be correct and would be no big deal.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,073 ✭✭✭littlemac1980


    cobhguy28 wrote: »
    With out details of the cases it's hard to know but they are making big claims and will have a lot innocent people filing claims based on this.

    I don't think its a big deal, it's simply a proof the Judge requires regarding Jurisdiction. It couldn't affect any other case which has been decided as all the requisite proofs would have had to be in order. If a case is yet to be decided then like any case the action would either fall within the Circuit Court jurisdiction or must be brought in the High Court. It doesn't affect the existence of the cause of action in anyway only the Jurisdiction of the Circuit Court to hear the case.

    It's not ground for a claim, but of course if there is a ground for an appeal in any case due to some issue with the application of the law or a point of law then of course the aggrieved party is entitled to appeal within the requisite period or apply outside the period for leave to appeal.
    That's no big deal either any party with a sufficient ground for appeal or to make such application against a decision is entitled to appeal provided its bona fide. The courts don't discriminate against parties just because they may be lay litigants or even freemen, it simply decides cases based on the law. It's upto a plaintiff to ensure their proceedings are in order.

    My guess is that despite all the backslapping going on in this case, if there was an issue with Jurisdiction, it was spotted by the Judge not argued by the defendant/respondent because as far as I'm aware the first thing a Judge deals with is proof of Jurisdiction.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,130 ✭✭✭eldamo


    The Hub Tweens (hub Ireland political youth bookface page) have very kindly put up a layman's version of the epic victory on rates.
    In layman's terms

    Layman’s terms

    It has taken us two years to get a Judge to listen to us, today a Judge did:

    The banks are taking you to court under the rateable value; the vehicle to get you into the Circuit Court; today that ended: there are no rates on domestic properties in Ireland, abolished in 1974.

    So you instantly counter sue the banks, if you lost your house; you go get it back, if they sold it, you sue them: this is changing HISTORY. Then sue them; report the matter to the Gardai, to the Law Society, the Fraud Squad and then Sue then.

    The banks used an ad hoc non statutory process and were / are persuading the Circuit Court that they had/have jurisdiction. They lied, they duped the Circuit Court.

    If you need help, come see Lay Litigation Ireland.

    Your counter claim will be above the debt you have to the banks.



    So free money for all. Woo. Sorry on mobile and n00bish so couldn't figure out how to post that as a quote.

    (fixed it)


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,624 ✭✭✭Little CuChulainn


    They appear to be ignoring a consequence of their challenges. If they manage to prove that the money they owe never really existed and they don't owe anything are they not admitting to fraud in the purchase of their house from it's previous owner? Is the sale of the home to them even valid as they did not provide a consideration?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,541 ✭✭✭✭ArmaniJeanss


    Hubbies have broken with tradition and put up the actual ruling rather than just their interpretation of it, so they must feel they are on terra firma.
    Perhaps the legalistas here can decipher?

    http://www.thehub-ireland.com/ms-justice-murphys-ruling/


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,711 ✭✭✭whippet


    Hubbies have broken with tradition and put up the actual ruling rather than just their interpretation of it, so they must feel they are on terra firma.
    Perhaps the legalistas here can decipher?

    http://www.thehub-ireland.com/ms-justice-murphys-ruling/

    I just had a quick scan of the decision at the end ... this is the bit that I quite enjoy:

    'In doing so, the court observes the defendant' success on this aspect of the case is a pyrrhic victory. In circumstances where there is no dispute that the defendants borrowed the money and no dispute that they ceased making the agreed repayments in August 2011. this judgement merely postpones the day of reckoning while their debts keeps mounting. So be it."

    Pyrrhic Victory


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,130 ✭✭✭eldamo


    whippet wrote: »
    I just had a quick scan of the decision at the end ... this is the bit that I quite enjoy:

    'In doing so, the court observes the defendant' success on this aspect of the case is a pyrrhic victory. In circumstances where there is no dispute that the defendants borrowed the money and no dispute that they ceased making the agreed repayments in August 2011. this judgement merely postpones the day of reckoning while their debts keeps mounting. So be it."

    Pyrrhic Victory

    your scanning is faster than mine, well spotted, there was always going to be something like this,
    The amount of back patting going on over at the hub is mental,

    i really do think you need to post the definition of pyrrhic victory on bookface for them? (or do they have you blocked like Jeff (sorry, just reading over the DDI thread lately))


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,711 ✭✭✭whippet


    eldamo wrote: »
    your scanning is faster than mine, well spotted, there was always going to be something like this,
    The amount of back patting going on over at the hub is mental,

    i really do think you need to post the definition of pyrrhic victory on bookface for them? (or do they have you blocked like Jeff (sorry, just reading over the DDI thread lately))

    I'm blocked / banned from them all!


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,130 ✭✭✭eldamo


    whippet wrote: »
    I just had a quick scan of the decision at the end ... this is the bit that I quite enjoy:

    'In doing so, the court observes the defendant' success on this aspect of the case is a pyrrhic victory. In circumstances where there is no dispute that the defendants borrowed the money and no dispute that they ceased making the agreed repayments in August 2011. this judgement merely postpones the day of reckoning while their debts keeps mounting. So be it."

    Pyrrhic Victory

    Wow they have actually highlighted right up to that line.

    Clearly they have deemed it unimportant.

    it just reminds me of this scene from mallrats (not relevant but...)
    T.S. Quint: [reading the break-up letter that Renee gave Brodie] Woah, she calls you "callow" in here.
    Brodie: You say that like it's bad.
    T.S. Quint: It means frightened and weak-willed.
    Brodie: Really? ****. That was the only part of the letter I thought was complimentary.


  • Advertisement
  • Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Politics Moderators Posts: 14,539 Mod ✭✭✭✭johnnyskeleton


    Hubbies have broken with tradition and put up the actual ruling rather than just their interpretation of it, so they must feel they are on terra firma.
    Perhaps the legalistas here can decipher?

    http://www.thehub-ireland.com/ms-justice-murphys-ruling/


    To be fair to them, credit where credit is due.

    Basically, the jurisdiction of the circuit court was set at a time when the easiest way to assess the value of property was by reference to the rateable value, which was updated ala the household/property charge thingy. Residential rates were abolished in the 1970s but the system of ratable valuation remained. As a lot of properties had ratable values still existing from the 70s, it was convenient to keep this and so as the monetary jurisdiction for, say, personal injuries was increased, the rateable values stayed more or less the same.

    Thus, the million euro houses had a ratable value of less than €254 and so could be dealt with in the circuit court.

    For new builds, no new ratable values were assigned. So the local authorities would give the letter and say, effectively, this is probably of a rateable value of less than €254. By and large this system of using the ratable value of the house to give jurisdiction has not been questioned.

    The problem is that most new homes must now be repossessed in the High Court. That means that the legal costs for such repossessions has increased. It may also mean that a divorce case involving a fairly modest family home must now also go through the high court, again increasing legal fees.

    There are a few ways this can be gotten around:
    1) local authorities can carry out actual valuations for rates now. If the document was phrased as an actual rates certificate and had a ratable value of say €150, then there is not jurisdictional issue;
    2) new legislation can be passed to set the jurisdiction at, say, the declared value for the purposes of the property register;
    3) cases can just go into the High Court without bothering to check if there is circuit court jurisdiction.

    Some High Court Judges will only award Circuit Court costs in uncontested cases brought in the High Court. This practice will probably cease because they now have to bring the cases in the High Court.

    While Circuit Court cases had a right of appeal de novo (i.e. fresh full hearing of the case) to the High Court, in the High Court you can only appeal on a point of law to the Court of Appeal.

    Cases already decided are not likely to be reopened because jurisdiction was not challenged in them. Even if they were, there is no damage because it is unlikely that a different result would have been achieved in the High Court.

    So yeah, I say fair play in the sense that they spotted a point and won on it. But in terms of the consequences, it basically means that people facing repossesion will now face higher costs and may have to travel to Dublin rather than have the case heard in their local circuit, without a right of de novo appeal.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,251 ✭✭✭✭Losty Dublin


    To be fair to them, credit where credit is due.

    .

    Monkey's and typewriters and Shakespeare come to mind for some reason :)


  • Registered Users Posts: 301 ✭✭cobhguy28


    To be fair to them, credit where credit is due.

    Basically, the jurisdiction of the circuit court was set at a time when the easiest way to assess the value of property was by reference to the rateable value, which was updated ala the household/property charge thingy. Residential rates were abolished in the 1970s but the system of ratable valuation remained. As a lot of properties had ratable values still existing from the 70s, it was convenient to keep this and so as the monetary jurisdiction for, say, personal injuries was increased, the rateable values stayed more or less the same.

    Thus, the million euro houses had a ratable value of less than €254 and so could be dealt with in the circuit court.

    For new builds, no new ratable values were assigned. So the local authorities would give the letter and say, effectively, this is probably of a rateable value of less than €254. By and large this system of using the ratable value of the house to give jurisdiction has not been questioned.

    The problem is that most new homes must now be repossessed in the High Court. That means that the legal costs for such repossessions has increased. It may also mean that a divorce case involving a fairly modest family home must now also go through the high court, again increasing legal fees.

    There are a few ways this can be gotten around:
    1) local authorities can carry out actual valuations for rates now. If the document was phrased as an actual rates certificate and had a ratable value of say €150, then there is not jurisdictional issue;
    2) new legislation can be passed to set the jurisdiction at, say, the declared value for the purposes of the property register;
    3) cases can just go into the High Court without bothering to check if there is circuit court jurisdiction.

    Some High Court Judges will only award Circuit Court costs in uncontested cases brought in the High Court. This practice will probably cease because they now have to bring the cases in the High Court.

    While Circuit Court cases had a right of appeal de novo (i.e. fresh full hearing of the case) to the High Court, in the High Court you can only appeal on a point of law to the Court of Appeal.

    Cases already decided are not likely to be reopened because jurisdiction was not challenged in them. Even if they were, there is no damage because it is unlikely that a different result would have been achieved in the High Court.

    So yeah, I say fair play in the sense that they spotted a point and won on it. But in terms of the consequences, it basically means that people facing repossesion will now face higher costs and may have to travel to Dublin rather than have the case heard in their local circuit, without a right of de novo appeal.

    I have read the.judgement it's a start mortgages type situation.

    it only applys to cases in the circuit court where the mortgage was taken before 2009 and processings where stated before the 2013 conveyancing act came into being. In all other cases the circuit court still has jurisdiction.
    The 2009 act only applys to mortgages after the act came into being. The 2013 fixes this but excludes case already in court like this case so should of been in high court. No change to law here solicitors ****ed the case.


  • Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 10,574 Mod ✭✭✭✭Robbo


    Lord Byron there, making sure to add a big asterix next to their Pyrrhic victory.
    The Circuit Court. Don't forget = anything we put up is not to be construed as legal advice in anyway shape or form. For entertainment purposes only. Go have fun and why not test run this. We are not saying it will work but according to the Lay Litigate book, it should.
    LLI moved one of their recent sessions to the Black Sheep on Capel St. Given that on any given schoolnight, you'll find a good selection of the junior Bar there, I'm sure there was much scope for heckling.


  • Registered Users Posts: 301 ✭✭cobhguy28


    This is not really freeman stuff but the likes of the hub and stuff are all ways on about banks not following the Central Banks consumer codes.

    A recent supreme court decession on Consumer Code.

    Irish Life and Permanent plc -v- Dunne and Irish Life and Permanent plc -v- Dunphy

    http://www.courts.ie/Judgments.nsf/bce24a8184816f1580256ef30048ca50/f208c356b1843cd280257e460057e798?OpenDocument

    7.2 So far as questions (ii) and (iii) in the Dunnes’ case are concerned, I would answer those questions by indicating that, where a breach of the Code involves a failure by a lender to abide by the moratorium referred to in the Code, but in no other circumstances, non-compliance with the Code affects, as a matter of law, a relevant lender’s entitlement to obtain an order for possession. I would further clarify that it is a matter for the relevant lender to establish by appropriate evidence in any application before the Court that compliance with that aspect of the Code has occurred.

    So it seem bank only have to comply with the moratorium.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 3,130 ✭✭✭eldamo


    Ok, a video was posted here yesterday that was promptly removed, not sure if by mods or by the OP, so if this question is not welcome here, please remove it.

    Anyway, during said video, people repeatedly informed the Gardai that they had no power to arrest someone in a public court room.

    Is this random nonsense or is there any grounds to it?

    I am so fed up with these guys that I tend to discount everything they say.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 7,624 ✭✭✭Little CuChulainn


    eldamo wrote: »
    Ok, a video was posted here yesterday that was promptly removed, not sure if by mods or by the OP, so if this question is not welcome here, please remove it.

    Anyway, during said video, people repeatedly informed the Gardai that they had no power to arrest someone in a public court room.

    Is this random nonsense or is there any grounds to it?

    I am so fed up with these guys that I tend to discount everything they say.

    It's nonsense. It's also probably the only place that a Garda can take your phone for recording.


  • Registered Users Posts: 301 ✭✭cobhguy28


    eldamo wrote: »
    Ok, a video was posted here yesterday that was promptly removed, not sure if by mods or by the OP, so if this question is not welcome here, please remove it.

    Anyway, during said video, people repeatedly informed the Gardai that they had no power to arrest someone in a public court room.

    Is this random nonsense or is there any grounds to it?

    I am so fed up with these guys that I tend to discount everything they say.

    Yes I saw that it was removed. I say it's because it could be a contempt of court to record in court and publish it.

    The best thing in that video was the person saying you can not arrest someone in court and at the same time tell the garda that he is under arrest you could not make it up.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,999 ✭✭✭✭Thargor


    Still up in the O Donnell thread...


  • Posts: 0 ✭✭✭✭ Dana Rich Syntax




  • Registered Users Posts: 3,130 ✭✭✭eldamo


    cobhguy28 wrote: »
    Yes I saw that it was removed. I say it's because it's a contempt of court to record in court and publish it.

    The best thing in that video was the person saying you can not arrest someone in court and at the same time tell the garda that he is under arrest you could not make it up.

    Yeah, as always they are anything but a united front, all these guys putting forward their own contradictory nonsense notions


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,698 ✭✭✭✭For Forks Sake



    Not any more. Look for "RealityIreland" on YouTube.


  • Administrators, Entertainment Moderators, Social & Fun Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 18,759 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭hullaballoo


    Moderator:

    Please do not post videos taken within the confines of a courthouse.

    I'd also prefer if you didn't discuss ways of ripping potentially copyrighted material from video hosting sites.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,130 ✭✭✭eldamo


    Moderator:

    Please do not post videos taken within the confines of a courthouse.

    I'd also prefer if you didn't discuss ways of ripping potentially copyrighted material from video hosting sites.

    Could there be repercussions for the uploader of the video to YouTube?
    Seeing as the video should not have been taken in the first place?

    (don't mean to drag on the discussion if you don't want it though)


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,554 ✭✭✭Pat Mustard


    eldamo wrote: »
    Anyway, during said video, people repeatedly informed the Gardai that they had no power to arrest someone in a public court room.

    This idea about Gardai not being able to arrest people in a courtroom is more nonsense.

    The post to which you refer was removed because the user who posted it is persona non grata here.


  • Advertisement
Advertisement