Freeman Megamerge

HamsterFace

CZ 453 wrote: »

Does this belong here also?

Annoys me so much, can you imagine trying to do your job with a camera in your face, most people can't work with someone looking over their shoulder

It's really unfair and picking on easy targets which, as usual, such people do to make themselves feel superior when they know damn well the person they are talking to isn't the decision maker

It's the exact same as Michael Moore assembling a mob to harass a Walmart counter employee because they sell ammunition

Pat Mustard

Just occurred to me:

Robbo

The Mustard wrote: »

Just occurred to me:

Reporter: "Tom, what do you reckon your chances are?"

Tom: "I'd bet the house on it".
...
Several months later.
...
Tom: "I was unduly influenced by myself to bet the house upon myself in the bookies, moreover, Paddy Power himself wasn't there to witness the bet and that wasn't even my real hair colour in the picture..."

Robbo

I saw this on the Twitter. It's a link to the Canadian Freemen advising people on how not to pay their electricity bills on the basis that they're tainted with fraud. They then advise doctoring your bills and receipts. Jesus wept.

Meanwhile, over in the Hub, they've written a stern letter to the Chief Justice about how the Central Office aren't too keen on their shonky paperwork.

Another Lay Litigant was in the Dublin Circuit Court office, lodging papers and the clerk said “how come the difference in the paperwork”!!!!! LL said “I am now working with the guys from the Hub”.
Clerk rolled his eyes and put his hand on his forehead………… you have to laugh, honestly, well done Kate….. B of Sc must hate ya.

If it wasn't for the existence of the Ruddha of Suburbia, they'd have to be Ireland's least self aware men.

ArmaniJeanss

High Court suggests Ben Gilroy should be on Banking Enquiry.
http://directdemocracyireland.ie/high-court-suggests-ddi-members-join-banking-inquiry/

I assume in reality it was akin to the way I tell my 4 year old double-left-footed nephew that he should be playing with Manchester United.

whippet

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

High Court suggests Ben Gilroy should be on Banking Enquiry.
http://directdemocracyireland.ie/high-court-suggests-ddi-members-join-banking-inquiry/

I assume in reality it was akin to the way I tell my 4 year old double-left-footed nephew that he should be playing with Manchester United.

It would be so useful if they could actually give some sort of reference number for the cases their are involved in, or even links to the court reports ... i'd like to see the judge's remarks myself.

Ben .. as I know you read this; can you let us know why we don't get actual court reports on these cases?

NormalBob Ubiquitypants

whippet wrote: »

It would be so useful if they could actually give some sort of reference number for the cases their are involved in, or even links to the court reports ... i'd like to see the judge's remarks myself.

Ben .. as I know you read this; can you let us know why we don't get actual court reports on these cases?

Could the Mods please do something about this poster? He has insulted every member of the Freeman movement by asking for facts and logic.

hullaballoo

NormalBob Ubiquitypants wrote: »

Could the Mods please do something about this poster? He has insulted every member of the Freeman movement by asking for facts and logic.

Robbo

And now, a word from our President. The real one who's significantly cheaper to run than Michael D. All he requires is the odd bit of photocopying and some poster paste in the central Dublin area every few months.

Ste.phen

I truly worry about the mental health of some of these people

MarkAnthony

Robbo wrote: »

And now, a word from our President. The real one who's significantly cheaper to run than Michael D. All he requires is the odd bit of photocopying and some poster paste in the central Dublin area every few months.

iS it ReaLLy that diffic'ult to maintain consistent punctuation and formatting. At this. Stage i do'nt even care if it's corrERECT.

Robbo

Robbo wrote: »

And now, a word from our President. The real one who's significantly cheaper to run than Michael D. All he requires is the odd bit of photocopying and some poster paste in the central Dublin area every few months.

A few pictures later on that time line suggests that the IRB are having their AGM tomorrow in case anyone is about Dublin City centre and is at a loose end.
https://m.facebook.com/photo.php?fbid=678165332299627&id=100003184993348&set=a.124284404354392.23341.100003184993348&refid=13

'Billy McGuire is the current president of Irish Republican Brotherhood since 1964' maybe it is time for renewal enough boards members could swing the ballot.

Robbo

Robbo wrote: »

Something I read on the weekend about what to do with professional McKenzie friends in the UK. It seems the Law Society over there have identified that there are fee charging enterprises who are offering their services, unregulated and uninsured. Sound familiar?

Further comment on this from the UK, where the Ministry of Justice commissioned a report (PDF version) into lay litigants in family law matters, which touched on the issue of the McKenzie Superfriend. Granted this was confined solely to family law matters so the wingnuts we're generally talking about here are the type who'll dress up as a Batman and scale a tower crane to somehow show that they're responsible parents.

The study took in 151 cases across 5 courts. In which there were 3 instances of paid McKenzie friends. In this set, 1 was competent and produced a favourable outcome, the other two were not.

In relation to the incompetent Superfriends, the report says:

In contrast, the ‘expertise’ of the two other paid MFs in the observation sample was derived, at least initially, from their own history of litigation. In both cases those MFs appeared to make a negative contribution to their client’s case and/or the administration of justice, either on the grounds of incompetence and/or pursuing a personal agenda. In D005, a financial remedy case, the paid MF had been granted rights of audience but the MF’s limited understanding of the substantive law, inability to distinguish relevant from irrelevant issues and unwillingness to be contained contributed to the case running at more than double its time estimate. In B034, a children case, the resident mother had unwittingly recently employed a paid MF linked to a father’s rights group. She appeared to have considerably weakened her case by agreeing, presumably on his advice, to a shared residence order for a very young child despite having previously been opposed to unsupervised contact.

The competent chap had this to note about others providing the same service:

There was a McKenzie Friend who shan’t be named who works for [organisation] and he’s a very dangerous MF. He’s very angry with women. And so people can easily get in with people who aren’t particularly good, but who feed into their situation and say ‘oh I went through that mate’, you know, and he’s given some very bad advice. There’s also a woman, and I don’t know what her name is actually, who charges £89 an hour and does a really bad job. So it’s the quality.

The conclusion criticises the methods of the previous Legal Services Consumer Panel study in reaching too positive an outlook in relation to paid-for McKenzie friends. It was criticised for "being over-reliant upon data supplied by paid MFs themselves". Over here, we have Ben and Co habitually "destroying" witnesses, bankers and counsel but strangely never being able to demonstrate an actual result bar the occasional adjournment out of nuisance.

If I was in the market for a thesis, I'd be looking at replicating the study over here as we all know the same issues are cropping up: paying money to unqualified individuals for "services", indulgence of lay litigants and McKenzie friends to the point of locking up resources, agenda ridden activist groups providing terrible advice and vulnerable people being taken advantage of.

Fred Cohen

Robbo wrote: »

The study took in 151 cases across 5 courts. In which there were 3 instances of paid McKenzie friends. In this set, 1 was competent and produced a favourable outcome, the other two were not.

Statistically speaking, that is a very small sample to be drawing any sort of conclusion from.

whippet

our friend Ben has linked a court report on his 'contempt' hearing earlier this year on his Facebook page. The link is given with his convoluted interpretation. In my layman's eyes it is quite clear that he either is totally ignorant as to what the proceedings were all about or he just is manulipating the facts to appease his band of merry men and disguise the fact that he was convicted by the court of the charges brought about.

http://www.bailii.org/ie/cases/IEHC/2014/H219.html

To me it is like a football manager complaining about a dubious penalty decision when they have just lost 10-0

Robbo

What's a rational response to being pinged for drink driving? Sue the judge for $77million, put a lien on his house and make up a fake group of Native Americans to hold a hearing which "vindicates" you.

Still, they have nearly 4 years to not recognise the jail they're in.

Robbo

I see that Dermot Murphy's application for some sort of injunction against Irish Water was adjourned. Turns out he didn't bother with an affidavit of service or sending some of the exhibits to the other side. More classic advice given.

whippet

Robbo wrote: »

I see that Dermot Murphy's application for some sort of injunction against Irish Water was adjourned. Turns out he didn't bother with an affidavit of service or sending some of the exhibits to the other side. More classic advice given.

there is echos of Ben's impeachment of a judge and his threats of high court appearances against the guards who he had a difference of opinion with over a traffic stop (this is something he mentioned once on Facebook .. but it seems to have gone quite now)

Also the throwing around of plenary summons and affidavits by the legal eagles over at The Hub and the sole intention of frustrating the courts is tantamount to Paperwork Terrorism in my eyes

Robbo

There's a chap in Waterford who's rolling his own promissory notes and then declaring that the mortgage is "paid in full now".

The Underpants Gnomes are strong in this one.

Little CuChulainn

Robbo wrote: »

There's a chap in Waterford who's rolling his own promissory notes and then declaring that the mortgage is "paid in full now".

The Underpants Gnomes are strong in this one.

I'd say he's doing a lot pf "rolling" alright.

littlemac1980

Robbo wrote: »

There's a chap in Waterford who's rolling his own promissory notes and then declaring that the mortgage is "paid in full now".

The Underpants Gnomes are strong in this one.

So I'm guessing from the limited information in the article that he just unwittingly went Guarantor on his sisters debt and now has to worry about Circuit Court costs too. Good Job!

hullaballoo

Robbo wrote: »

There's a chap in Waterford who's rolling his own promissory notes and then declaring that the mortgage is "paid in full now".

The Underpants Gnomes are strong in this one.

Some interesting comments there.

whippet

it all is quite like the school ground game where some one (child A) says something really fast and the other school child (child says 'what' and it transpires that Child A actually said 'the biggest monkey in the room says what' .. therefore implying that the Child B is a large monkey.

However, this is where it gets tricky, when Child B looks in the mirror and can quite clearly see that they are not a monkey the original fast talking child A has a contract (verbal) to prove that child B is in effect a monkey.

As Child B accepted the terms of the contract and there was witnesses to this (Child C,D,E,F,G not H as he was kicking football, I, J,K) Child B is in breech of the contract and must pay compensation to Child A (fruit pastilles usually suffice). However, should child B decide to challenge this obligation to be a monkey the Judge (Mrs. Jones the teacher) will invariably be castigated and accused by Child A and his buddies of being corrupt, bildberberg, roschild, FG plant, SF plant etc ...

Child A will set up a Facebook page with shakey phone video proving that Child B is actually a monkey and therefore prove once and for all that he is sovereign

Losty Dublin

whippet wrote: »

it all is quite like the school ground game where some one (child A) says something really fast and the other school child (child says 'what' and it transpires that Child A actually said 'the biggest monkey in the room says what' .. therefore implying that the Child B is a large monkey.

However, this is where it gets tricky, when Child B looks in the mirror and can quite clearly see that they are not a monkey the original fast talking child A has a contract (verbal) to prove that child B is in effect a monkey.

As Child B accepted the terms of the contract and there was witnesses to this (Child C,D,E,F,G not H as he was kicking football, I, J,K) Child B is in breech of the contract and must pay compensation to Child A (fruit pastilles usually suffice). However, should child B decide to challenge this obligation to be a monkey the Judge (Mrs. Jones the teacher) will invariably be castigated and accused by Child A and his buddies of being corrupt, bildberberg, roschild, FG plant, SF plant etc ...

Child A will set up a Facebook page with shakey phone video proving that Child B is actually a monkey and therefore prove once and for all that he is sovereign

The more i read that, the more that Freeman logic finally begins to make sense

hullaballoo

The only missing aspect is regarding Child A's approach to all of the other children whereby they give him their lunch money on the basis that Child A can use that money to secure free lunches forever after. When lunch time comes, only then do the other children realise that not only will they not get free lunch that day but the school canteen has been shut down. Thereafter, if they wish to eat lunch, they can ask Bill Cullen whether there's a ham and cheese Ssangyong with low finance.

Robbo

hullaballoo wrote: »

Some interesting comments there.

Naturally Ben's claiming to have used it before so you know it's totally legit and gets results.

Ben shall be appearing in the High Court on February 3rd as co-defendant with his brother.

Losty Dublin

Robbo wrote: »

Naturally Ben's claiming to have used it before so you know it's totally legit and gets results.

Ben shall be appearing in the High Court on February 3rd as co-defendant with his brother.

His defence holds just as much legal scrutiny as this one.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4eCRMOBOqpU

hullaballoo

Losty Dublin wrote: »

His defence holds just as much legal scrutiny as this one.

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

You're missing a letter there so I can't FTFY.

Little CuChulainn

hullaballoo wrote: »

You're missing a letter there so I can't FTFY.

I assumed it was intentional. A blank fuzzy screen perfectly sums up Gilroys arguments.

Losty Dublin

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

I assumed it was intentional. A blank fuzzy screen perfectly sums up Gilroys arguments.

I like your thinking so I may run with it

PS I appear to have fixed that dratted link ;