Freeman Megamerge

Robbo · 20-04-2015 2:24pm

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

Interestingly LLI (aka I cant believe its a law firm) were only the other day pointing out that Gardaí have no right to actually seize a car for non payment of tax or vrt. It would contravene the Treaty of Rome which guarantees freedom of movement and a case was won on such basis in Letterkenny court.
No actual independent link to the case can be found anywhere unfortunately.

https://www.facebook.com/Laylitigation/posts/365086113693191

That copypasta has been doing the rounds for years. It's usually invoked by a chap in Donegal called Ryan Stewart who occasionally resurfaces claiming some victory or other in relation to VRT. This tends to co-incide with when he wants some publicity or it running for elected office.

My usual response to him and his accolytes is that if he was so well read on European Law, he would hardly be referring to long since changed Article numbers and Treaties, he'd be referring to their modern counterparts.

Calina · 20-04-2015 2:25pm

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

Interestingly LLI (aka I cant believe its a law firm) were only the other day pointing out that Gardaí have no right to actually seize a car for non payment of tax or vrt. It would contravene the Treaty of Rome which guarantees freedom of movement and a case was won on such basis in Letterkenny court.
No actual independent link to the case can be found anywhere unfortunately.

https://www.facebook.com/Laylitigation/posts/365086113693191

SOmeone is going to have to explain this to me.

Link says:

John replied that by taking his car the garda was in breach of his rights under European Law, specifically articles 25 and 39 of the Treaty of Rome; that gardai would be in breach of his rights on freedom of movement as well as in breach of diue process under the Irish Constitution.

However, assuming we're talking the 1957 Treaty of Rome, which I assume he is:

Article 25:

ARTICLE 25
1. If the Commission finds that the production in Member States of particular
products contained in Lists B, C and D is insufficient to supply the demands of one of
the Member States, and that such supply traditionally depends to a considerable extent
on imports from third countries, the Council shall, acting by a qualified majority on a
proposal from the Commission, grant the Member State concerned tariff quotas at a
reduced rate of duty or duty free.
Such quotas may not exceed the limits beyond which the risk might arise of activities
being transferred to the detriment of other Member States.
2. In the case of the products in List E, and of those in List G for which the rates of
duty have been determined in accordance with the procedure provided for in the third
paragraph of Article 20, the Commission shall, where a change in sources of supply or
shortage of supplies within the Community is such as to entail harmful consequences
for the processing industries of a Member State, at the request of that Member State,
grant it tariff quotas at a reduced rate of duty or duty free.
Such quotas may not exceed the limits beyond which the risk might arise of activities
being transferred to the detriment of other Member States.
3. In the case of the products listed in Annex II to this Treaty, the Commission may
authorise any Member State to suspend, in whole or in part, collection of the duties
applicable or may grant such Member State tariff quotas at a reduced rate of duty or
duty free, provided that no serious disturbance of the market of the products concerned
results therefrom.
4. The Commission shall periodically examine tariff quotas granted pursuant to this
Article.

and article 39

ARTICLE 39
1. The objectives of the common agricultural policy shall be:
(a) to increase agricultural productivity by promoting technical progress and by
ensuring the rational development of agricultural production and the optimum
utilisation of the factors of production, in particular labour;
(b) thus to ensure a fair standard of living for the agricultural community, in particular
by increasing the individual earnings of persons engaged in agriculture;
(c) to stabilise markets;
(d) to assure the availability of supplies;
(e) to ensure that supplies reach consumers at reasonable prices.

From here: http://ec.europa.eu/archives/emu_history/documents/treaties/rometreaty2.pdf

If they are going to cite articles in the Treaty of Rome, it'd help if they referred to the right ones or gave the correct Treaty name.

ArmaniJeanss · 20-04-2015 2:35pm

Hmmmm, that's all a bit like Rimmer, Kryten and the Space Core Directives for any fellow Red Dwarf fans.

Robbo · 20-04-2015 2:54pm

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

Hmmmm, that's all a bit like Rimmer, Kryten and the Space Core Directives for any fellow Red Dwarf fans.

"No officer with false teeth should attempt oral sex in zero gravity"?

pedroeibar1 · 20-04-2015 3:12pm

my friend wrote: »

Ehhh and Gorse Hill was 'worth' much how much at the supposed date of gifting??

Do keep up.

Ehhhh yerself.. Might be better to learn a little about it first. Gorse Hill is owned by Vico Ltd, an Isle of Man company, the shareholding of which is owned by a discretionary trust. That structure was set up in the late '90's by the O'Donnell parents in favour of their children. The property was not 'gifted' and obviously passed muster with the Revenue at that time. Do keep up!

whippet · 20-04-2015 3:20pm

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

Ehhhh yerself.. Might be better to learn a little about it first. Gorse Hill is owned by Vico Ltd, an Isle of Man company, the shareholding of which is owned by a discretionary trust. That structure was set up in the late '90's by the O'Donnell parents in favour of their children. The property was not 'gifted' and obviously passed muster with the Revenue at that time. Do keep up!

that being the case .. the children and the parents have no right of residence since Vico is in receivership and owes lots of loot to the banks who have a lien on the property.

So if they decide to manulipate the ownership via Isle of Man companies to avoid any tax liability they can not on the other hand expect to be able to prove the advantages of personal ownership.

Absolute charlatans .. and since their latest claim in court was about the feckin' seal on the paperwork it proves they are just clutching at straws.

Uno my Uno. · 20-04-2015 3:22pm

Calina wrote: »

SOmeone is going to have to explain this to me.

Link says:

However, assuming we're talking the 1957 Treaty of Rome, which I assume he is:

Article 25:

and article 39

From here: http://ec.europa.eu/archives/emu_history/documents/treaties/rometreaty2.pdf

If they are going to cite articles in the Treaty of Rome, it'd help if they referred to the right ones or gave the correct Treaty name.

The Article Numbering (and treaty names) were all changed completely several years ago, as mentioned above this chap is still using the old numbering.

Regardless, the freedom of movement guaranteed under the TEU gives everyone the freedom to move between Member States and anything that is a barrier to that eg laws requiring work permits for EU citizens form other Members States is contrary to the Treaty and forbidden. Needless to say it does not guarantee citizens the use of a Motor Car.

Calina · 20-04-2015 3:29pm

Uno my Uno. wrote: »

The Article Numbering (and treaty names) were all changed completely several years ago, as mentioned above this chap is still using the old numbering.

Regardless, the freedom of movement guaranteed under the TEU gives everyone the freedom to move between Member States and anything that is a barrier to that eg laws requiring work permits for EU citizens form other Members States is contrary to the Treaty and forbidden. Needless to say it does not guarantee citizens the use of a Motor Car.

The articles I cited are from the 1957 version of the document. Whatever else they are using it is not the old numbering.

whippet · 20-04-2015 3:38pm

that nonsense about the car, VRT and tax in donegal has been doing the rounds for years. no substance to it .. much like the 'victory' for the LPT lad in Mayo where the minions have been talking about how the LPT is now defeated and all reporting has been suppressed by the government and lizard people

pedroeibar1 · 20-04-2015 3:43pm

whippet wrote: »

that being the case .. the children and the parents have no right of residence since Vico is in receivership and owes lots of loot to the banks who have a lien on the property.

So if they decide to manulipate the ownership via Isle of Man companies to avoid any tax liability they can not on the other hand expect to be able to prove the advantages of personal ownership.

Absolute charlatans .. and since their latest claim in court was about the feckin' seal on the paperwork it proves they are just clutching at straws.

If someone is going to post on the topic at least get the facts right. What banks have liens on the property? Why should receivership have an impact on right of residence?
In the High Court McGovern found the legal and beneficial ownership of the house was vested in Vico and the trustee held its shares rather than any interest in the property.
The Supreme Court said (unanimously) that decision was correct and the O'Donnell childrens' claim that Vico merely held the property in trust for them as beneficiaries was incorrect. It also said there was no issue with the capacity of Vico to allow the security, or that Vico’s directors had breached any fiduciary duty because the sole shareholder of the trust had given approval.
The brats’ contention (which failed) was that the securities were given in breach of the trust which was for their benefit, and not for the parents.

my friend · 20-04-2015 3:45pm

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

Ehhhh yerself.. Might be better to learn a little about it first. Gorse Hill is owned by Vico Ltd, an Isle of Man company, the shareholding of which is owned by a discretionary trust. That structure was set up in the late '90's by the O'Donnell parents in favour of their children. The property was not 'gifted' and obviously passed muster with the Revenue at that time. Do keep up!

We are all aware of the tangled web as now trotted out... the fact is obligations would have been incurred and as such if the supposed transactions and their details were processed as purported then Revenue may be satisfied, my understanding is that they await the courts determinants on these 'facts' and will then act on the details as they may.

pedroeibar1 · 20-04-2015 3:54pm

my friend wrote: »

We are all aware of the tangled web as now trotted out... the fact is obligations would have been incurred and as such if the supposed transactions and their details were processed as purported then Revenue may be satisfied, my understanding is that they await the courts determinants on these 'facts' and will then act on the details as they may.

That reads like something Jerry Beades would trot out! On what basis could Revenue have any right on your "understanding"?

my friend · 20-04-2015 3:56pm

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

That reads like something Jerry Beades would trot out! On what basis could Revenue have any right on your "understanding"?

Hilarious coming from your Beades view of the system.

The irony isn't lost on the casual browser here.

pedroeibar1 · 20-04-2015 4:05pm

my friend wrote: »

Hilarious coming from your Beades view of the system.

The irony isn't lost on the casual browser here.

My Beades view of the system? What is clear is that you have no idea of what you are on about, particularly on the taxation issues surrounding trusts, discretionary or other. Or indeed the legal argument surrounding the cases to date. Any casual browser here could not infer that I support either Beades or the O'Donnells. I just take issue with inaccurate comment and name-calling and am interested in the underlying legal argument, rather than the rants of some posters.

ohnonotgmail · 20-04-2015 4:08pm

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

My Beades view of the system? What is clear is that you have no idea of what you are on about, particularly on the taxation issues surrounding trusts, discretionary or other. Or indeed the legal argument surrounding the cases to date. Any casual browser here could not infer that I support either Beades or the O'Donnells. I just take issue with inaccurate comment and name-calling and am interested in the underlying legal argument, rather than the rants of some posters.

dont mind him. interesting stuff so far. more detail than the papers have given. any chance of a synopsis of this trust business?

my friend · 20-04-2015 4:21pm

pedroeibar1 wrote: »

My Beades view of the system? What is clear is that you have no idea of what you are on about, particularly on the taxation issues surrounding trusts, discretionary or other. Or indeed the legal argument surrounding the cases to date. Any casual browser here could not infer that I support either Beades or the O'Donnells. I just take issue with inaccurate comment and name-calling and am interested in the underlying legal argument, rather than the rants of some posters.

Any legal professional worth their salt is remunerated for their opines , the post above and its flaws demonstrate why you're floundering here.

ohnonotgmail · 20-04-2015 4:21pm

my friend wrote: »

Any legal professional worth their salt is remunerated for their opines , the post above and its flaws demonstrate why you're floundering here.

lay off the personal stuff. its tedious.

johnnyskeleton · 20-04-2015 5:22pm

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

would a finding in that court set a precedent?

The ECJ in Luxembourg are constantly looking over their shoulder to see how Letterkenny District/Circuit/EAT interpret the treaty of Rome.

ohnonotgmail · 20-04-2015 5:30pm

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

The ECJ in Luxembourg are constantly looking over their shoulder to see how Letterkenny District/Circuit/EAT interpret the treaty of Rome.

fair enough. i deserved that

pedroeibar1 · 20-04-2015 7:02pm

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

.......interesting stuff so far. more detail than the papers have given. any chance of a synopsis of this trust business?

I do not work in that sector but have an interest in it. In brief a trust is a mechanism to minimise tax liability and is becoming (and IMO will continue to become) more common due to high levels of personal taxation. For example, if in the 2007 – 2009 period a parent died and a €1 million house transferred to 2 children (not living at home), no acquisitions tax would apply to them because the threshold for a gift to a child was about €500k. Today the ceiling per child is €225k and above that a tax at 33%, applies, so by leaving a €1 million house to the two kids you are also leaving them with a tax liability of about €166k. In recent years the threshold has been dropping and the tax rate increasing. (Which is why an earlier poster’s “Happy Birthday, here's a mortgage” quip was quite apt, although I suspect it was not meant as such.)

When a discretionary trust is set up, the trustees have absolute discretion and power to apply the trust fund for the benefit of those specified in the trust deed. The beneficiaries have no interest in the trust fund from a legal or taxation purpose perspective, they merely have the right to be considered favourably by the trustees for an appointment of property from the trust. There are taxes to be paid both at set-up of a trust and on an annual basis, but they are less onerous than the rates I’ve mentioned above. And if the trust is broken up the tax implications are very complex (and usually onerous.)

Back in the ‘90s the O’Donnell parents decided that their new house would be acquired by them through Vico Limited, which would be indebted to them for the acquisition & building costs. Vico would allow them reside there with their children (and any termination of residence could be terminated in writing with at least two calendar years notice.) Contemporaneously, they decided to settle the issued share capital of Vico on the terms of the discretionary trust. The trust subsequently was used as a guarantee vehicle for O’Donnell seniors’ borrowings and when repayment was not forthcoming the bank moved against the assets of the Trust.
The O’Donnells, senior and junior, have thrown the legal kitchen sink and its contents at the Bank’s claims (and included their own claimed rights of residence ) and – to date – have lost. The Supreme Court Judgement goes over all the reasons in detail and is here

ohnonotgmail · 20-04-2015 7:16pm

cheers for that. is a discretionary trust also known as a blind trust in other jurisdictions?

the_syco · 20-04-2015 7:33pm

ArmaniJeanss wrote: »

No actual independent link to the case can be found anywhere unfortunately.

A quick Google only brings up people quoting that article, so as per anything freeman; no official link = bullsh|t story that they made up themselves.

HamsterFace · 20-04-2015 8:09pm

Looks like The Hub - Dublin has been taken down. That's a pity, I was really enjoying it

For Forks Sake · 20-04-2015 9:57pm

HamsterFace wrote: »

Looks like The Hub - Dublin has been taken down. That's a pity, I was really enjoying it

Meanwhile, back at I Can't Believe It's A Law Firm.....

For all you serial litigators:

One, you can’t serve a summons in a court room or on the grounds of the court, security will call the Garda Síochána

2, you can’t pop the summons in the mailbox, press the door bell and run, it is not Nick – Nack.

Some good advice for the so called ‘serial litigators’: don’t piss the Judge off by sitting where the Barristers sit, you ain’t one; sit where you are supposed to sit; in the public gallery.

Lesson 1 for all serial litigators: to serve a Summons, walk up to the person and affirm their identity, touch them with the Summons and tell them that are served, then show them the copy of the original. Indorse the original copy, that ends tonight’s lesson.

If you don’t have the backbone to serve the summons correctly: Ex Parte Application, then go lie to a judge as to ‘how you tried to serve the individual’, happy days.

Robbo · 21-04-2015 9:37am

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

The ECJ in Luxembourg are constantly looking over their shoulder to see how Letterkenny District/Circuit/EAT interpret the treaty of Rome.

The Skibbereen Eagle has it's eye on the Czar of Russia.

Pat Mustard · 21-04-2015 10:20am

ohnonotgmail wrote: »

lay off the personal stuff. its tedious.

Mod:

Please report the post if there is a problem with it. This sort of stuff is not to be dealt with on the thread.

randypriest · 21-04-2015 2:31pm

Byron is really pushing for cash these days. A real pathetic cult unfolding before our eyes.

Surely if the Hub - Dublin's FB page can be taken down, the Hub - Ireland can too. It's the biggest scam of all, preying on the vulnerable. These people need to be saved from themselves. I would miss the entertainment value the Hub - Ireland offers, but it's sad to see people being strung along with false hope.

In other news, our mate Ben was on hand to get answers for the Lord of Gorse Hill. How nice of the messiah to help mere mortals in their quest for justice. http://m.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/solicitor-brian-odonnell-fails-in-attempt-to-meet-receiver-appointed-to-gorse-hill-31159239.html

whippet · 21-04-2015 3:00pm

randypriest wrote: »

In other news, our mate Ben was on hand to get answers for the Lord of Gorse Hill. How nice of the messiah to help mere mortals in their quest for justice. http://m.independent.ie/irish-news/courts/solicitor-brian-odonnell-fails-in-attempt-to-meet-receiver-appointed-to-gorse-hill-31159239.html

Gilroy is the big gun .. Beades was only a pawn in the great game of Freeman Chess .. O'Donnell has manoeuvred his pieces to allow Gilroy in to the global financial system to bring it down from the inside .. Deloitte first, then the Rothchilds and finally the New World Order .... this is a watershed moment.

Oh ... and who walks in to a multinational office and demand a meeting with the chief exec without an appointment ... you wouldn't be able to walk in to your local centra and expect an audience with the manager on demand.

Robbo · 21-04-2015 3:39pm

For Forks Sake wrote: »

Meanwhile, back at I Can't Believe It's A Law Firm.....

The dramatic Youtube videos of low ranking staff members having their lunchbreaks ruined by Byron would be less dramatic but if only the Rules of the Superior Courts allowed for some form of "postal service"...

SpaceSasqwatch · 21-04-2015 4:35pm

HamsterFace wrote: »

Looks like The Hub - Dublin has been taken down. That's a pity, I was really enjoying it

Me too.Was having fun trolling the hubtards.The downside was facebook made me change my user name as it wasnt real,which was a shame as I liked being known as Furkan Derya.

Apparently you have use your reall name,no aliases etc.Thankfully my real name isnt banned.Long Live Justin Sider!!!:):pac:

Freeman Megamerge

Comments