Gardai, Government, Privately owned Corporations. Enslavement

TalkieWalkie

alastair wrote: »

Self defence? How's that going to work then? He had the camera with him when he was tazed too - do you never actually inform yourself on the basics of this stuff you propagate? And he quite clearly explains why he doesn't consider himself 'probable cause' within the law provided to him by the guard - the issue is whether there's probable cause to search - try to keep up eh?

As regards the first video - he made enough of a nuisance of himself that they just wanted rid of him - as they stated. The 'merits' of his approach are clear enough from the second video - pretty lacking.

Why are you bringing his personal beliefs into it ? Whatever his beliefs, he's still entitled to rights, they tried to detain him illegally.

So, what your saying is (in so many words), is... To prevent illegal detention or illegal search from border patrol, make a nuisance of yourself and they'll let you go..

Is that it ? They let him go because he was a nuisance, not because he was right and not because he had a camera.

Ok alistair, great going. Keep up the good work, it's great to know you'll have our backs when the put the squeeze on us too :rolleyes:

alastair

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

Why are you bringing his personal beliefs into it ? Whatever his beliefs, he's still entitled to rights, they tried to detain him illegally.

So, what your saying is (in so many words), is... To prevent illegal detention or illegal search from border patrol, make a nuisance of yourself and they'll let you go..

Is that it ? They let him go because he was a nuisance, not because he was right and not because he had a camera.

Ok alistair, great going. Keep up the good work, it's great to know you'll have our backs when the put the squeeze on us too :rolleyes:

Jeez - do I have to spell it out for you (again)?

No-one tried to detain him illegally - that's a claim he makes, but not one supported by any court. The border guards are tasked with searching any car they are suspicious of - quite legally.

The law that he uses to make his claim of illegal stop and search is embedded in the statute the border guards operate under - the debate is one of the reading of those terms, not the legality of the statute.

They didn't let him go because he had a camera - the camera didn't help one iota when a less patient soul didn't want to put up with his ****e.

If you want to waste everybody's time and run the risk of getting your arse kicked, he's clearly found one 'winning formula', but it's not one I'd recommend, and it's not one that has anything to do with the fantasy of FMOTL theory.

TalkieWalkie

Your right alistair

Your so cool.

Well done. You show them stupid free thinkers.

alastair

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

Your right alistair

Your so cool.

Well done. You show them stupid free thinkers.

'Free thinking' doesn't provide an opt-out of trying not to be an idiot, or pardon advocacy of murder. You still get judged on the merit of your argument, and this guy fails to convince.

I guess you've also failed to notice how this guy is quite happy to have a large swath of people's actual rights take away. Thought so. Observation fail once again.

TalkieWalkie

Like I said, your so cool. Stand up guy. Thanks for being alive, your great

TalkieWalkie

alastair wrote: »

FMOTL phones up the Bar Council and bugs them about their 'alleged authority' and why they're not mentioned in the constitution. Given that they don't have any authority except internally, and the constitution doesn't mention any other private representation groups either, this isn't particularly surprising. The video is only 'comical' if you like laughing at deluded idiots who just don't get it. Nah - it's not even funny then - just tiresome.

No authority except internally ?

So, a judge has no authority over you and I ? ok thanks for your support

phantom_lord wrote: »

don't be ruining the fairy tale

Probably best you stick to what you know about... chips. :rolleyes:

alastair

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

No authority except internally ?

So, a judge has no authority over you and I ? ok thanks for your support

Oh dear.

The bar council doesn't represent judges.

The bar council represent barristers, and just barristers.

All barristers are subject to the rules of the bar council - that's the sole authority that the bar council exerts - an authority over it's own membership and no-one else.

Judges have authority over you if you are before them in a judicial capacity - in fact it's a central aspect of the FMOTL's fave law; common law, magna carta, the whole shebang.

A failure to comprehend the basic workings of the legal system just make you look ignorant of the subject.

Esel

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

So, a judge has no authority over you and I ? ok thanks for your support

A judge does not get his authority from the Bar Council... No rolleyes strong enough, tbh.

phantom_lord

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

Probably best you stick to what you know about... chips. :rolleyes:

maybe you should listen to your own advice and give up on this fmotl nonsense

TalkieWalkie

alastair wrote: »

Oh dear.

The bar council doesn't represent judges.

The bar council represent barristers, and just barristers.

All barristers are subject to the rules of the bar council - that's the sole authority that the bar council exerts - an authority over it's own membership and no-one else.

Judges have authority over you if you are before them in a judicial capacity - in fact it's a central aspect of the FMOTL's fave law; common law, magna carta, the whole shebang.

A failure to comprehend the basic workings of the legal system just make you look ignorant of the subject.

Judges are appointed by members of the bar council. So a private association, "Bar Council", who you claim have no authority except internally, ,can appoint a judge who has authority over me?

Is that about it alister ? :rolleyes:

ferguson

GerardKeating wrote: »

Try this one.

how do you do that?

TalkieWalkie

ferguson wrote: »

how do you do that?

go here.. http://tinyurl.com

Di0genes

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

Judges are appointed by members of the bar council.
Is that about it alister ? :rolleyes:

No Judges are appointed by the President under the binding advise of the current government.

Is there anything you can get right?

TalkieWalkie

Check this out alister... I am having difficulty finding any judge who wasn't a barrister at some stage..

Supreme court of Ireland members/Judges. Every one of the came from the bar council.
http://www.supremecourt.ie/supremecourt/sclibrary3.nsf/0/5C73008BBE0F9BB98025741800405F3C?opendocument&l=en

A failure to comprehend the basic workings of the legal system just make you look ignorant of the subject.

TalkieWalkie

Di0genes wrote: »

No Judges are appointed by the President under the binding advise of the current government.

Is there anything you can get right?

Yes.

Public service
Barristers have a strong tradition of public service. Many barristers have been members of Dáil and Seanad Éireann. The Attorney General is always a member of the Bar. Senior Judges are generally appointed from the ranks of members of the Bar. A large amount of pro bono (free of charge) work is conducted daily by barristers for clients who would otherwise be unable to afford those services.

http://www.barcouncil.ie/ViewDoc.asp?fn=/documents/aboutus/irishbar.asp&CatID=1&m=a

TalkieWalkie

It's taking you a while to respond to this one diogenes, are you ok ?

phantom_lord

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

Check this out alister... I am having difficulty finding any judge who wasn't a barrister at some stage..

Supreme court of Ireland members/Judges. Every one of the came from the bar council.
http://www.supremecourt.ie/supremecourt/sclibrary3.nsf/0/5C73008BBE0F9BB98025741800405F3C?opendocument&l=en

A failure to comprehend the basic workings of the legal system just make you look ignorant of the subject.

oh jesus. yes they're picked from the bar who else would be qualified?

the bar does not chose who becomes a judge like you seem to think

www.citizensinformation.ie/categories/justice/Courtroom/judge

TalkieWalkie

oh, I see you have logged off :rolleyes:

Right, so to reiterate, Here is a call to the bar council (who have no authority).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l8F--VZurGM

And the bar council appoint judges who act like they have authority over us...

Hmmm, I think these freeman have a real point here

TalkieWalkie

phantom_lord wrote: »

oh jesus. yes they're picked from the bar who else would be qualified?

the bar does not chose who becomes a judge like you seem to think

www.citizensinformation.ie/categories/justice/Courtroom/judge

Ah ok, let me see if i have this right. They are picked from the bar, but the bar don't choose them.

thanks for clearing that up chips

phantom_lord

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

oh, I see you have logged off :rolleyes:

Right, so to reiterate, Here is a call to the bar council (who have no authority).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l8F--VZurGM

And the bar council appoint judges who act like they have authority over us...

Hmmm, I think these freeman have a real point here

more like you lack basic reading comprehension

TalkieWalkie

phantom_lord wrote: »

more like you lack basic reading comprehension

More like ? opposed to what ?

phantom_lord

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

Ah ok, let me see if i have this right. They are picked from the bar, but the bar don't choose them.

thanks for clearing that up chips

yeah is that difficult for you to grasp or something?

phantom_lord

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

More like ? opposed to what ?

as opposed to what you wrote in your post being correct

TalkieWalkie

Judges in Ireland are appointed by the President acting on the advice of the Government.

In most cases, the Government decides who to appoint as a judge after it has been advised by the Judicial Appointments Advisory Board. This Board identifies and informs the Government about suitable barristers (members of the bar) and solicitors who have applied for the job. The Judicial Appointments Advisory Board was established by law under Section 13 of the Court and Court Officers Act 1995. Membership of the Judicial Appointments Board consist of the Chief Justice, President of the High Court, President of the Circuit Court, President of the District Court, the Attorney General, a practicing barrister, solicitor and 3 Ministerial appointments.

Judges must have at least 10 years experience as a barrister or solicitor and usually they have many more years of experience before they are appointed.

So, all judges (as I pointed out earlier) are members of the bar council. (Who have no real authority).

Thanks again chips

phantom_lord

so you're incapable of any sort of coherent logic and reasoning ability? i guess that explains how you're so into your cts.

TalkieWalkie

phantom_lord wrote: »

so you're incapable of any sort of coherent logic and reasoning ability? i guess that explains how you're so into your cts.

Ha Ha weeeww your hurting me chips

I am coherent enough to win a debate over you, again.

TalkieWalkie

phantom_lord wrote: »

so you're incapable of any sort of coherent logic and reasoning ability? i guess that explains how you're so into your cts.

You always resort to outright insults when backed into a corner.

It's great

TalkieWalkie

So let's just make sure we understand this.

The bar council, who have no authority select their best barristers, their names go into a hat and the president picks some names out.

So, someone with no authority gets to judge me.

cool

TalkieWalkie

See you later pokerface :rolleyes:

ferguson

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

go here.. http://tinyurl.com

no i mean the part where the google page come up and the search term is entered and 'clicks itself'

phantom_lord

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

So let's just make sure we understand this.

The bar council, who have no authority select their best barristers, their names go into a hat and the president picks some names out.

So, someone with no authority gets to judge me.

cool

If you take completing not understanding what you're talking about as winning a debate then all the power to you, how could you ever lose?

No, as pointed out already, the bar council doesn't pick who's a judge, and actually neither does the president. but sure what does that matter in the world of talkiewalkie?

and why bother trying to get your head around how someone can have power in an individual capacity while coming from a council with no external authority, that might make poor talkiewalkies head hurt.

And the fact that judges derive their authority from the constitution, and that they're picked from *shock horror* the people with experience and knowledge of the law? Sure, acknowledging that would mean there's one less conspiracy for little talkiewalkie to worry about.

Scarab80

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

So let's just make sure we understand this.

The bar council, who have no authority select their best barristers, their names go into a hat and the president picks some names out.

So, someone with no authority gets to judge me.

cool

What???????????

Try reading the constitution

34.1. Justice shall be administered in courts established by law by judges appointed in the manner provided by this Constitution, and, save in such special and limited cases as may be prescribed by law, shall be administered in public.

35.1. The judges of the Supreme Court, the High Court and all other Courts established in pursuance of Article 34 hereof shall be appointed by the President.
35.2. All judges shall be independent in the exercise of their judicial functions and subject only to this Constitution and the law.
35.3. No judge shall be eligible to be a member of either House of the Oireachtas or to hold any other office or position of emolument.

Judges derive their authority from the constitution, not from the bar council. The fact that judges are selected from the ranks of barristers and solicitors perhaps has something to do with the required level of knowledge of the law required for the job. The president could start appointing unemployed plasterers as judges but I think our legal system might suffer a tad.

TalkieWalkie

phantom_lord wrote: »

No, as pointed out already, the bar council doesn't pick who's a judge, and actually neither does the president. but sure what does that matter in the world of talkiewalkie?

Here is what you linked me to..

Judges in Ireland are appointed by the President acting on the advice of the Government.

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/categories/justice/Courtroom/judge

Now you are denying your own source ? :rolleyes:

TalkieWalkie

Scarab80 wrote: »

What???????????

Try reading the constitution



Judges derive their authority from the constitution, not from the bar council. The fact that judges are selected from the ranks of barristers and solicitors perhaps has something to do with the required level of knowledge of the law required for the job. The president could start appointing unemployed plasterers as judges but I think our legal system might suffer a tad.

Here is the rest of what he linked me to...

Judges in Ireland are appointed by the President acting on the advice of the Government.

In most cases, the Government decides who to appoint as a judge after it has been advised by the Judicial Appointments Advisory Board. This Board identifies and informs the Government about suitable barristers and solicitors who have applied for the job. The Judicial Appointments Advisory Board was established by law under Section 13 of the Court and Court Officers Act 1995. Membership of the Judicial Appointments Board consist of the Chief Justice, President of the High Court, President of the Circuit Court, President of the District Court, the Attorney General, a practicing barrister, solicitor and 3 Ministerial appointments.

Judges must have at least 10 years experience as a barrister or solicitor and usually they have many more years of experience before they are appointed.

phantom_lord

No I just don't think you read it properly. The President essentially just rubber stamps the appointment.

In most cases, the Government decides who to appoint as a judge after it has been advised by the Judicial Appointments Advisory Board

phantom_lord

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

So let's just make sure we understand this.

I haven't one iota of what I'm talking about

Yes. That would be correct.

Scarab80

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

Here is the rest of what he linked me to...

How does that in any way support your assertion that judges have no authority. A judge is not a barrister, a judge may formerly have been a barrister.

TalkieWalkie

phantom_lord wrote: »

No I just don't think you read it properly. The President essentially just rubber stamps the appointment.

Yeah, and the Judicial Appointments Advisory Board are bar council members. They no authority and there is no mention of them in our constitution.

TalkieWalkie

Scarab80 wrote: »

How does that in any way support your assertion that judges have no authority. A judge is not a barrister, a judge may formerly have been a barrister.

Perhaps you should read back over the thread.

phantom_lord

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

Yeah, and the Judicial Appointments Advisory Board are bar council members. They no authority and there is no mention of them in our constitution.

No. Maybe you should try again?

Scarab80

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

Yeah, and the Judicial Appointments Advisory Board are bar council members. They no authority and there is no mention of them in our constitution.

Chief Justice - not a member of the bar council
President of the High Court - not a member of the bar council
President of the Circuit Court- not a member of the bar council
President of the District Court- not a member of the bar council
Attorney General- not a member of the bar council
a practicing barrister - A MEMBER OF THE BAR COUNCIL
solicitor - not a member of the bar council
and 3 Ministerial appointments.- not members of the bar council

TalkieWalkie

Scarab80 wrote: »

Chief Justice - not a member of the bar council
President of the High Court - not a member of the bar council
President of the Circuit Court- not a member of the bar council
President of the District Court- not a member of the bar council
Attorney General- not a member of the bar council
a practicing barrister - A MEMBER OF THE BAR COUNCIL
solicitor - not a member of the bar council
and 3 Ministerial appointments.- not members of the bar council

All of which were members of the bar. A private assosiation with no authority.

TalkieWalkie

This aint over. I'll be back soon

phantom_lord

most of the members went to the kings inn, an institution with no authority, maybe that's a conspiracy too, maybe that guy ring should ring them up as well?

Scarab80

phantom_lord wrote: »

most of the members went to the kings inn, an institution with no authority, maybe that's a conspiracy too, maybe that guy ring should ring them up as well?

A lot of them seemed to have gone to UCD and Trinity aswell, no authority there!

alastair

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

So let's just make sure we understand this.

The bar council, who have no authority select their best barristers, their names go into a hat and the president picks some names out.

So, someone with no authority gets to judge me.

cool

Oh dear.

Can you revisit this and try and pick out the errors of this post - because I'm impressed anyone could get so much wrong in so few words.

TalkieWalkie

Obviously, the point is.. The Bar Council, being a private association with no authority to operate legally or constitutionally, are somehow in a position to present perspective judges who claim authority over me/you.


In theory, anyone could start up their own private organisation (bar council) for example, round up a load of solicitors, barristers and the like. Present several of these to the government/judicial advisory board or whoever, and they choose which ones will become judges.

If that's fine with you lads, that's great, each to their own. Just don't come bitching at me when I rightly have a problem with it.

TalkieWalkie

alastair wrote: »

Oh dear.

Can you revisit this and try and pick out the errors of this post - because I'm impressed anyone could get so much wrong in so few words.

Shoot alister

TalkieWalkie

alastair wrote: »

Oh dear.

Can you revisit this and try and pick out the errors of this post - because I'm impressed anyone could get so much wrong in so few words.

Let's start over alister, there is no need to be a constant b1tch. If I am wrong, just say so. I am entitled to be wrong, I'm human. Though I don't think I am wrong. This bitchy attitude is not for for anyone. Try be a bit nicer eah

Plautus

TalkieWalkie wrote: »

Yeah, and the Judicial Appointments Advisory Board are bar council members. They no authority and there is no mention of them in our constitution.

You're a real riot (Garda Siochana is a private limited company because it appeared in the search results of some dotcom that looks like an indiscriminate aggregator?) but really. Things don't have to be in the constitution to make them legal. There's also statute and ministerial order. Both are usually perfectly constitutional.

Of course, you're a little bit right. Most members of judiciary are drawn from the upper echelons of the bar and it's something of a closed shop but this doesn't deprive of them of authority. They derive their authority from their appointment by the President on the advice of the government. If the government willed it, it could break the ad hoc system of promoting the inner bar to the High Court bench. Solicitors, for example, regularly make it onto the District and Circuit court benches.

However, it's unlikely to break from current practice because, surprise surprise, barristers have the highest attainments in legal education and are pretty well functionally qualified. The route taken in acquiring their qualification doesn't make them 'privately owned' or privately in thrall to anyone per se. Kings' Inns could be linked to the New World Order and the Jews though, I suppose *shrug*