Freeman Megamerge

Beaner1

The freeman is dead. Welcome the era of The Everyman.

http://www.icontact-archive.com/6FnIU6Xpr7AsrExo_nHTm7mM2evf-ag-?w=3

For Forks Sake

Beaner1 wrote: »

The freeman is dead. Welcome the era of The Everyman.

http://www.icontact-archive.com/6FnIU6Xpr7AsrExo_nHTm7mM2evf-ag-?w=3

I don't know which hurt my brain more, the hangover I'm currently enduring, or reading that crap.

"THIS WILL BE BIBLICAL". Good stuff, when can I expect the plagues, I'd like to be somewhere else that day.

donvito99

If this were to catch on, you'd have people carrying hammers at pickets of evictions and so on.

that'll end very well indeed,

Robbo

Our good buddies at the Common Law Society (and Tyre and Battery Depot) have not only proved that all Affidavits (but probably not their own) are illegal but that if you bring in a Garda to your hearing, he can arrest all those who oppose you. I presume when this fails, they'll be complaining that the time on the affidavit was too imprecise and that all commissioners for oaths should have an atomic clock to hand.

Of course their standard "disclaimer" lets you know they don't want you to regard this as anything other than bollocks...

DO NOT ALTER OR CHANGE THE MATERIAL OR BODY OF THIS WORK IN ANY WAY. YOU ARE FREE TO PASS IT ON TO OTHERS WITHOUT EDITS ALTERATIONS OR CHANGES. THIS IS COPYRIGHT/TRADEMARK MATERIAL OF "THE COMMON LAW SOCIETY" THIS MATERIAL IS FOR EDUCATION AND ENTERTAINMENT PURPOSES ONLY. IT IS NOT TO BE TAKEN OR CONSTRUED AS LEGAL ADVICE IN ANY CONTEXT WHATSOEVER.

Sacksian

What happened to the "all statutes are bull****" Freemen??? Presumably, given that the Everyman guys are apparently all about the statutory instruments, they can't pull the "no consent, no contract" stuff as well?

Essien

"Entertainment purposes"

It certainly is.

cobhguy28

Robbo wrote: »

Our good buddies at the Common Law Society (and Tyre and Battery Depot) have not only proved that all Affidavits (but probably not their own) are illegal but that if you bring in a Garda to your hearing, he can arrest all those who oppose you. I presume when this fails, they'll be complaining that the time on the affidavit was too imprecise and that all commissioners for oaths should have an atomic clock to hand.

Of course their standard "disclaimer" lets you know they don't want you to regard this as anything other than bollocks...

I gave it a quick read. I love how they state all the rules for Order 40 rules of the superior and than states that if they are not followed that the affidavit is illegal. However they forgot rules 15 which allows the judge to accept an affidavit even if the rules are not followed. That kinda blows their theory out the window + plus Mr freeman ben gilroy allready tried this in court and failed so I guess they are behind the freeman times.

johnnyskeleton

cobhguy28 wrote: »

I gave it a quick read. I love how they state all the rules for Order 40 rules of the superior and than states that if they are not followed that the affidavit is illegal. However they forgot rules 15 which allows the judge to accept an affidavit even if the rules are not followed. That kinda blows their theory out the window + plus Mr freeman ben gilroy allready tried this in court and failed so I guess they are behind the freeman times.

Arent there different rules for interlocutory affidavits as well? possibly also for summary judgment applications

johnnyskeleton

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Arent there different rules for interlocutory affidavits as well? possibly also for summary judgment applications

No hearsay evidence allowable in affidavits for interlocutory relief (inc. summary judgment)

cobhguy28

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Arent there different rules for interlocutory affidavits as well? possibly also for summary judgment applications

Order 40 is for where evidence for a case is given by affidavit where the judge can make their decission based on the affidavits. If there is going to be oral evidence then does not matter.

Robbo

Yeeeeeeeeeeeeee-Hawwwwwwwwwww. Tonight's the night for the awards of two types of music: Country AND Western and predictably, there's been some peaceful protesting.

DDI's Ray Hall is proudly showing us in banner format what dead members of the Real IRA would have to say on the matter.

Losty Dublin

Robbo wrote: »

Yeeeeeeeeeeeeee-Hawwwwwwwwwww. Tonight's the night for the awards of two types of music: Country AND Western and predictably, there's been some peaceful protesting.

Is this [URL="

https://twitter.com/rayhall9991/status/559770048257327104/]lad[/URL]

the brother of Rodolpus?

Robbo

A recent judgment in the High Court contains a greatest hits collection of Freeman claims. Needless to say, the chap involved is friends with Darcy, Gilroy, the Hub's Byron Jenkins and numerous other favourites of this thread. I think it's safe to say that one or more of these upstanding chaps may have "advised" in this matter. I'd be looking for a refund if I was Mr Harrold and money changed hands.

It's a fairly comprehensive rundown of all the various spurious arguments ventilated by the Freeman, all expertly filleted by Kearns P. It's even noted that great lengths are gone to in facilitating lay litigants like the plaintiff but that ultimately his claim was vexatious and bound to fail.

He didn't ask for much, merely "€1,000,000 in damages and an order declaring that the mortgage agreement is null and void" mainly because the bank "created the alleged money out of thin air on a computer keyboard". The failed Freeman (the window cleaners/property magnates/takers of lavish US holidays) arguments about securitisation raise their head, the imaginary tort of reckless lending and sundry other allegations.

But official Ireland can't rest easy. Oh no. Tom D'arcy rides again. A new organisation (how many are we up to now?) called Legal & Equitable has been formed and they mean business. They've even gone to the lavish expense of registering a luxurious .IE domain name and have assembled a crack team of commandos to "arrange individual case assessments and introductions to a wider team of Barristers, Senior Counsels, Lawyers, Financial Consultants and Forensic Accounts, based across the UK and Germany, who collectively operate under the QA Legal banner." Their other founder is a chap called Brian Reilly who may be fond of the ould lay litigation himself if the High Court Search is anything to go by. Fittingly the business name for this partnership is registered to an apartment block called The Casino.

QA Legal have previously been namechecked in this thread as being part of Ben Gilroy's mega team. Ben noted that such talent doesn't come cheap...

Thargor

Robbo wrote: »

A recent judgment in the High Court contains a greatest hits collection of Freeman claims. Needless to say, the chap involved is friends with Darcy, Gilroy, the Hub's Byron Jenkins and numerous other favourites of this thread. I think it's safe to say that one or more of these upstanding chaps may have "advised" in this matter. I'd be looking for a refund if I was Mr Harrold and money changed hands.

The plaintiff states that he was originally offered €110,000 from the bank which he declined. He states that the bank subsequently offered €256,500 through an agent called ‘Moneypenny’ and accepted falsified financial statements in the name of the plaintiff in order to arrange this loan and to profit by way of commission and ultimately repossession of the property.

:P

mrs vimes

Are they trying to claim they are representing Rory McIlroy in his current case? It seems to be the only story in their "latest news" section.

They also state they will act as "solicitor and advocate in court". I know lawyers qualified in other EU jurisdictions can be heard here, but I wonder how many of their victims will know to ask whether they are insured here, or, more likely, exactly what they got struck off for in UK or Germany?

They did manage to crack the standard solicitor's webpage pretty well though! :-)

For Forks Sake

Oh man, the lunacy is strong in this one: http://www.fairsociety.ie/are-gardai-on-site-at-water-meter-installations-actually-gardai%e2%80%8f/

Losty Dublin

For Forks Sake wrote: »

Oh man, the lunacy is strong in this one: http://www.fairsociety.ie/are-gardai-on-site-at-water-meter-installations-actually-gardai%e2%80%8f/

I really need to stop reading these pages as it's inching me ever closer to a stroke

littlemac1980

From Legal and Equitable facebook page:

Many of these cases rely on the contested provisions of the 2013 Act. In the light of this challenge, which Constitutional lawyers are confident will succeed

F

Fair play to them - I sure hope they are decent lawyers and their confidence is well founded.

The Irish Courts, at every level, should be aware of this challenge and be extremely cautious in dealing with claims for possession of family homes in the interim. It is not within the power of a lower court to determine this challenge on the hoof.

Now it's thankfully been a few years since I had the pleasure of studying constitutional law, but from what I can remember, isn't there a presumption of constitutionality in regards to legislation properly enacted, that means that because (as is correctly pointed out) the lower courts have no jurisdiction over constitutional matters they are obliged to ignore such arguments (until such might be determined by a superior court) and apply the law as it currently stands.

If that's correct then this suggestion (apart from seeking advice) is meaningless:

Anyone facing repossession of their home should seek advice and bring this challenge to the attention of any court hearing their case.

If I understand this next part correctly"

NOTE: Legal & Equitable (L&E) is a registered Partnership formed to provide a conduit for people in Ireland to access competent and experienced legal support in dealing with Banks and other financial institutions. L&E has developed links with European based QA Legal and QA Chambers whose members are highly experienced in banking and finance law across a range of specialisms including law, banking operations, lending, derivatives, insolvency, contract law and more.

Then the service which is being offered is effectively a business which sources legal practictioners, solicitors and barristers on behalf of a client to represent that client, with particular focus on representing clients who are defendants in cases brought against them by lenders.

OK nothing particularly novel or innovative about that, its effectively offering the services of legal professionals who openly offer their services anyway.

But I suppose the real question is, who pays for the services?

It would be great to see people who can't afford legal representation being provided with it when they need it. It would certainly be a lot better than a situation where people are being given legal advice by people who have no real level of legal knowledge or expertise, and no duty toward the recipient of such advice.

littlemac1980

mrs vimes wrote: »

Are they trying to claim they are representing Rory McIlroy in his current case? It seems to be the only story in their "latest news" section.

They also state they will act as "solicitor and advocate in court". I know lawyers qualified in other EU jurisdictions can be heard here, but I wonder how many of their victims will know to ask whether they are insured here, or, more likely, exactly what they got struck off for in UK or Germany?

They did manage to crack the standard solicitor's webpage pretty well though! :-)

I read the first line of the webpage (having looked at it after your comment). It's not the best is it? Appearances aside, statements like -

"LEGAL & EQUITABLE was initially established by Brian Reilly and Tom Darcy in June of this year to facilitate the holding of the L&E Conference"

don't instill much confidence with regards the business's attention to detail.

It's not even February this year.

littlemac1980

Anyway all that aside. It's always good to see people starting fresh businesses and trying to promote competition in a market and diversity of products and services.

My personal opinion is that sourcing legal services from abroad to deal with Irish cases within the Irish Jurisdiction doesn't afford any practical benefit to a client.

Maybe the practitioners referred to are experts in conducting litigation in Ireland. That would be necessary.

Robbo

littlemac1980 wrote: »

Anyway all that aside. It's always good to see people starting fresh businesses and trying to promote competition in a market and diversity of products and services.

My personal opinion is that sourcing legal services from abroad to deal with Irish cases within the Irish Jurisdiction doesn't afford any practical benefit to a client.

Maybe the practitioners referred to are experts in conducting litigation in Ireland. That would be necessary.

Well Colonel Mustard et all haven't had too much success with their barrister from Mauritius (who has apparently established himself in the UK now). Royln Seeboruth was also involved in the Rate Your Solicitor matter, which to my mind was Ireland's original crank taking to the internet because the legal system had done him over.

whippet

a quick google of QA Chambers only brings up one connection a linkedIn profile of a Colm Lyons who apparently is a UCD Law graduate based in the UK.

he goes by the name of Colm O’Liatháin and was one of the Legal team Ben Gilroy had brought in June to give advice

https://www.facebook.com/ben.gilroy.96/posts/10203148359942161

He was also Tom Darcy's brief in a couple of his court appearances

https://www.facebook.com/irishselfhelpzone/posts/374229889400465

There is very little online about this International group QA and the german address at the bottom of the 'press' release about Legal & Equitable seems to be of a hotel !!

A quick google search for this Legal & Equitable Conference only brings up Mr O'Reilly's LinkedIn page and a mention from him about organising this conference in DCU.

I am perplexed!

Robbo

The Hub's conjoined twin, Lay Litigation Ireland are claiming that they've had a solicitor struck off during one of their "great victories". They then link to a story in the Examiner where a solicitor was struck off...for not complying with undertakings to financial institutions, so I can't see how they can claim that one.

If you look at Barr J's list for the day, it can only be one case if you sleuth around it.

littlemac1980

What I find really funny is that it over the course of the past 4-5 years the approach has evolved from not recognising the court, freeman non-sense, total ignorance of the law, and refusal to engage professional trained practitioners to a situation where it appears the acceptance and realisation is now that trained practictioners (albeit foreign ones) are the best way to proceed in relation to legal matters.

It wouldn't surprise me if in another 4-5 years it will finally dawn on these people, and they will accept that Irish lawyers are the best suited lawyers to deal with issues in the Irish courts.

So with a lot of time, resources, money wasted and plenty of people burnt along the way, the consensus among the leaders of these quasi-legal alternative approaches will eventually come full circle and effectively end up dealing with the courts in the way which they should have from day one - not necessarily because its the only way (because there are alternatives) but because its the best way and the way you're most likely to get a positive result.

whippet

littlemac1980 wrote: »

W

So with a lot of time, resources, money wasted and plenty of people burnt along the way, the consensus among the leaders of these quasi-legal alternative approaches will eventually come full circle and effectively end up dealing with the courts in the way which they should have from day one - not necessarily because its the only way (because there are alternatives) but because its the best way and the way you're most likely to get a positive result.

but ... where could they make money from that approach?

littlemac1980

whippet wrote: »

but ... where could they make money from that approach?

doh!

Robbo

whippet wrote: »

but ... where could they make money from that approach?

...and claim to have the magical knowledge that causes instant victories, like hitting that single unguarded exhaust port on the Death Star.

Speaking of money, the Hub have the begging bowl out at the moment. I wonder is the timing anything to do with one of their more prominent members having to defend proceedings again?

littlemac1980

Oh FFS!

Found a link to a video on the linked on the Hub FB page, captioned:

"You've been served! Judge in Cork this morning been served as she sits at the bench."

I'm not going to repost the video here out of respect for the person in the video who incidentally is not a Judge.

littlemac1980

Well I watched the video and read the comments on the Youtube page and it seems that it played out exactly as you'd expect.

Some guy with a few buddies stands up during a call-over starts bladdering on about serving the County Reg. She tells him he'll have to wait his turn, he refuses and starts exclaiming he's superior and represents "all the people" this goes on for about 5 mins.

The call-over is suspended, guards have to come and ask him to leave, he refuses and is told he will be forced to leave if he doesn't.

Eventually outside, having been forced to leave, when questioned by the Garda re his identity he refuses to answer, is arrested (one of his buddies says "He [garda] isn't wearing his hat".

Then there's some newspaper clips regarding his appearance at the District Court charged with disturbance or some such and refusla to provide details, he bladders out some nonsense there and is remanded in custody as a result.

So everything plays out exactly as you'd expect in such a scenario.

Oddly, in the comments people are congratulating him on his success.

So presumably it not only played out as you'd expect, but presumably exactly as was planned by those involved.

So was the plan:

1. Go into Court and cause a disturbance.

2. Get arrested.

3. End up in Court and refuse to co-operate.

4. End up in Jail.

If so, hats off to them - "Great Success!".

littlemac1980

I was going to add that if you really want to end up in Jail there are easier ways to go about it, but having thought about in a bit more, in fairness, I think this is probably the easiest way to go about it.