Freeman Megamerge

Pat Mustard

SpaceSasqwatch wrote: »

Your comprehension of english is about the same as your comprehension of legal matters.Cant even fill out forms right if your rant from the video you posted in AH is anything to go by.

Mod:

Please don't make it personal.

makeorbrake

SpaceSasqwatch wrote: »

I did answer it.First line of my post.

No, you didn't.

SpaceSasqwatch wrote: »

Your comprehension of english is about the same as your comprehension of legal matters.Cant even fill out forms right if your rant from the video you posted in AH is anything to go by.

Really? I posted a link to something. I don't claim ownership of it. If you have critique, by all means articulate same as I have no idea what specifically you are referring to (and nor can anyone else reading this).

As regards my knowledge of legal matters, I never claimed to have same. However, MABS could go one further and provide full on and proper support for lay litigants generally:p That would be progressive - together with calling for self regulation to be done away with.

SpaceSasqwatch

makeorbrake wrote: »

However, MABS could go one further and provide full on and proper support for lay litigants generally:p

They're not allowed to prescribe medication.

makeorbrake

SpaceSasqwatch wrote: »

They're not allowed to prescribe medication.

Lowest form of discourse. i.e. If I can't articulate any point, but don't agree with the point of view of another, then just smear someone's character. The original question I asked remains - if anyone wishes to pick up on it.

SpaceSasqwatch

makeorbrake wrote: »

Lowest form of discourse. i.e. If I can't articulate any point, but don't agree with the point of view of another, then just smear someone's character.

says you , linking to rubbish accusing people of being liars and them having no recourse to what you spout.

Oryx

makeorbrake wrote: »

Lowest form of discourse. i.e. If I can't articulate any point, but don't agree with the point of view of another, then just smear someone's character. The original question I asked remains - if anyone wishes to pick up on it.

Well, the last link you posted seems broken. What point are you defending?

makeorbrake

SpaceSasqwatch wrote: »

says you , linking to rubbish accusing people of being liars and them having no recourse to what you spout.

If you have an issue with what I linked to on another thread, by all means take issue with it there. I'd imagine if you do so, it would be prudent to specify exactly what you take issue with and why? You can also back up your own point maybe - if you are taking issue with someone elses?

Oryx wrote:

Well, the last link you posted seems broken. What point are you defending?

I don't recall linking to anything on this thread. If you have an issue with anything I linked to on another thread, by all means, take it up on that thread.

With regard to what point I'm defending, thus far I'm not defending anything (yet) other than to ask a simple question - see my initial post on this thread - a few posts back.

Oryx

makeorbrake wrote: »

If you have an issue what I linked to on another thread, by all means take issue with it there. I'd imagine if you do so, it would be prudent to specify exactly what you take issue with and why? You can also back up your own point maybe - if you are taking issue with someone elses?

I don't recall linking to anything on this thread. If you have an issue with anything I linked to on another thread, by all means, take it up on that thread.

With regard to what point I'm defending, thus far I'm not defending anything (yet) other than to ask a simple question - see my initial post on this thread - a few posts back.

You said just above that you posted a link to something and you're blathering on about other people answering a question, yet I have no clue what that is. You just obfuscate even more. YOU say what youre on about. Or can't you stop using the freeman trend of riddles and confusion?

Thargor

Who is Makeorbrake for the uninitiated?

makeorbrake

Originally Posted by godtabh
Surely this is the best bit?

makeorbrake wrote:

Go on, then. I'll bite. HOW is it 'the best bit'?

Oryx wrote: »

You said just above that you posted a link to something

Do try and keep up. Someone else referred to a post I made on another thread - where I linked to some information. I did not bring that into the fray here.:rolleyes:

Oryx wrote: »

You're blathering on about other people answering a question, yet I have no clue what that is.

If by 'blathering on', you mean responding to something YOU raised - and providing you with the information necessary to figure it out, you have a skewed concept of the phrase 'blathering on'. You couldn't go back a few posts - but would rather spend more time castigating me (wrongly).

Oryx wrote: »

You just obfuscate even more.

See above.

Oryx wrote: »

Or can't you stop using the freeman trend of riddles and confusion?

I see. I'm sorry if I'm making you feel uneasy. The irony in what you say re. riddles, confusion and obfuscation given that I asked a simple question from the outset.

Thargor wrote:

Who is Makeorbrake for the uninitiated?

Who am I? I'm just another member of boards.ie - just like you.

Pat Mustard

Thargor wrote: »

Who is Makeorbrake for the uninitiated?

It's not appropriate to discuss who other boards.ie users may be. Please don't reply to this.

Oryx

makeorbrake wrote: »

Do try and keep up. Someone else referred to a post I made on another thread - where I linked to some information. I did not bring that into the fray here.:rolleyes:


If by 'blathering on', you mean responding to something YOU raised - and providing you with the information necessary to figure it out, you have a skewed concept of the phrase 'blathering on'. You couldn't go back a few posts - but would rather spend more time castigating me (wrongly).


See above.
I see. I'm sorry if I'm making you feel uneasy. The irony in what you say re. riddles, confusion and obfuscation given that I asked a simple question from the outset.

Who am I? I'm just another member of boards.ie - just like you.

I still havent a clue what point youre failing to make.

makeorbrake

Oryx wrote: »

I still havent a clue what point youre failing to make.

I can explain it to you (as I have done twice already) but I can't understand it for you.

makeorbrake

makeorbrake wrote: »

I can explain it to you (as I have done twice already) but I can't understand it for you.

Actually you haven't made a point at all. You've asked a question that went unanswered, possibly in an attempt to make some strained point.

Perhaps you could, without making any other comment about anything else, simply state your point.

makeorbrake

Deleted User wrote: »

Actually you haven't made a point at all. You've asked a question that went unanswered, possibly in an attempt to make some strained point.

Well done you :P
Isn't that what I said? I asked a simple question.

Deleted User wrote: »

Perhaps you could, without making any other comment about anything else, simply state your point.

I don't have a point to make at this juncture. I'm sorry if that displeases anyone. Perhaps I may or may not respond in the event that someone answers the question.

Little CuChulainn

I'd imagine it's amusing to see a bunch of people with a tenuous grasp on Irish law, who insist on trying to stand for themselves and others using the most ridiculous of legal arguments, give out about a person masquerading as an attorney.

makeorbrake

makeorbrake wrote: »

Well done you :P
Isn't that what I said? I asked a simple question.

I don't have a point to make at this juncture. I'm sorry if that displeases anyone. Perhaps I may or may not respond in the event that someone answers the question.

I can't answer for godtabh but it's likely to do with the irony in criticizing someone for masquerading as an attorney (I'm unfamiliar with the situation but for the purposes of this let's assume that's true) while being involved in a group that consistently thinks it is even remotely capable of conducting legal proceedings as If they were lawyers despite overwhelming evidence that they are not competent to do so.

In effect it's the pot calling the kettle a pretend attorney. Although that is just my best guess, as I said only godtabh can speak for his own thoughts.

makeorbrake

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

I'd imagine it's amusing to see a bunch of people with a tenuous grasp on Irish law who insist on trying to stand for themselves and others using the most ridiculous of legal arguments give out about a person masquerading as an attorney.

Ah yes, they should conform to the establishment view and select a competent professional within a totally unregulated profession (as self regulation = no regulation) where they can have (sic) full confidence in said representation.

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

others using the most ridiculous of legal arguments give out about a person masquerading as an attorney.

Ok, so you have examined the detail and Paul Collins has not asserted to be an attorney, solicitor or barrister? I only ask the question.

makeorbrake

Deleted User wrote: »

....while being involved in a group that consistently thinks it is even remotely capable of conducting legal proceedings as If they were lawyers despite overwhelming evidence that they are not competent to do so.

See my post above on that.

Deleted User wrote: »

In effect it's the pot calling the kettle a pretend attorney.

Ok, but is it? Perhaps the devil is in the detail. Of course, it's far easier just to summarily make sweeping statements.

Little CuChulainn

makeorbrake wrote: »

Ah yes, they should confirm to the establishment view and select a competent professional within a totally unregulated profession (as self regulation = no regulation) where they can have (sic) full confidence in said representation.


Ok, so you have examined the detail and Paul Collins has not asserted to be an attorney, solicitor or barrister? I only ask the question.

I haven't examined it at all. I'm just answering the question you asked.

makeorbrake

Little CuChulainn wrote: »

I haven't examined it at all. I'm just answering the question you asked.

Then you're hardly in a position to make such an assumption.

Serjeant Buzfuz

makeorbrake wrote: »

Ah yes, they should confirm to the establishment view and select a competent professional within a totally unregulated profession (as self regulation = no regulation) where they can have (sic) full confidence in said representation.


Ok, so you have examined the detail and Paul Collins has not asserted to be an attorney, solicitor or barrister? I only ask the question.

I don't recall any of the II people asserting they are one of these but they are very vocal in demanding to have their voices heard

makeorbrake

makeorbrake wrote: »

Ok, but is it? Perhaps the devil is in the detail.

Yes it is. None of those people have a clue what they're talking about when it comes to the law.

Do you really think that they actually have even the first idea about what the law actually is?

Little CuChulainn

makeorbrake wrote: »

Then you're hardly in a position to make such an assumption.

I disagree. It's not a comment on the veracity of the claim, but on the ludicrous position of those making it.

HamsterFace

You're having your arses handed to you now lads. Or so the claim will go

Serjeant Buzfuz

makeorbrake wrote: »

Ah yes, they should confirm to the establishment view and select a competent professional within a totally unregulated profession (as self regulation = no regulation) where they can have (sic) full confidence in said representation.


Ok, so you have examined the detail and Paul Collins has not asserted to be an attorney, solicitor or barrister? I only ask the question.

But when it comes to the crunch they will get competent representation as per Mr Coddington who hired Cahir OHiggins to spring him recently

makeorbrake

Serjeant Buzfuz wrote: »

I don't recall any of the II people asserting they are one of these but they are very vocal in demanding to have their voices heard

That's my understanding too. As regards them being vocal in having their voices heard, what's wrong with that unless they are doing so in an undemocratic way - and that's not my understanding.

If you are a lobby group and you don't intend to be vocal in having your voice heard, then I'd say to you, what's the point?

Serjeant Buzfuz wrote:

But when it comes to the crunch they will get competent representation as per Mr Coddington who hired Cahir OHiggins to spring him recently

I can't comment on Mr. Coddington. However, my point still stands. When the legal system is deliberately made difficult to navigate, in desperation, people may end up having to engage a professional to represent him/her. Whether they are competent will remain to be seen. If they are not competent or worse, then god help the customer - as a self regulating industry won't protect them.

Little CuChulainn wrote:

I disagree. It's not a comment on the veracity of the claim, but on the ludicrous position of those making it.

I see. So it's ludicruous even though (on the basis that you have not examined the details) it may well be true. Flawed logic.

Deleted User wrote:

Yes it is. None of those people have a clue what they're talking about when it comes to the law.

Same goes for your statement. You are dismissive of this particular group generally (for whatever reason) yet you won't check out the detail of the assertion.

Deleted User wrote:

Do you really think that they actually have even the first idea about what the law actually is?

Well, firstly I'll assume you are referring to I.I. - as someone has wrongly added them into this 'Freeman' thread and branded them as such when they are nothing of the sort. I guess everyone has their own motivations though.

I understand entirely that members of that group would have started out contracting the services of your fellow professionals (assuming you ply your trade in legal services) and found them lacking in some way or other. That's likely to happen in an unregulated profession (self regulation = no regulation). They will tell you themselves that they struggle with the law. It's a closed shop. Perhaps if there was real support for lay litigants, then things would be different.
Of course, the discussion is moving towards generalisations. I asked a simple question - was his assertion plain wrong? Nobody has given a definitive answer to the question that I posed (other than to declare their distaste for I.I. generally...but then, I.I. are lobbying for greater oversight, transparency and equity in the area of legal services (amongst others) - so that won't be welcomed by many in that trade, will it?).

HamsterFace wrote:

You're having your arses handed to you now lads. Or so the claim will go

Unworthy of comment.

trueblueterry

makeorbrake wrote: »

However, my point still stands. When the legal system is deliberately made difficult to navigate, in desperation, people may end up having to engage a professional to represent him/her. Whether they are competent will remain to be seen. If they are not competent or worse, then god help the customer - as a self regulating industry won't protect them.

How is it intentionally made difficult to navigate? Did it ever occur that it is a complicated area because not everything in life is black and white?

Plenty of professions are complicated but I fail to understand how you can say with certainty that it is deliberately made to be so.

As for self regulation, I agree there should be an independent regulatory body but I fail to see again how you can simply made sweeping statements such as the industry won't protect the customer. Do you have any proof to back that statement up?

makeorbrake wrote: »

Well, firstly I'll assume you are referring to I.I. - as someone has wrongly added them into this 'Freeman' thread and branded them as such when they are nothing of the sort. I guess everyone has their own motivations though.

I understand entirely that members of that group would have started out contracting the services of your fellow professionals (assuming you ply your trade in legal services) and found them lacking in some way or other. That's likely to happen in an unregulated profession (self regulation = no regulation). They will tell you themselves that they struggle with the law. It's a closed shop. Perhaps if there was real support for lay litigants, then things would be different.

There is regulation even if it is self regulation at this time of the profession because the risks are so high when you get poor and ill informed representation. I seem to recall the Law Society of Ireland paying significant compensation settlements to certain people in the last number of years where they had received poor and improper representation from members of the profession. There is no recourse when you don't have regulation at all and just like how II make statements regarding the law like "Freemen" do, does not mean they are at all accurate or correct and in a large amount of circumstances if they are followed they can cause detriment to the individual.

This is why MABS have stated that is necessary for them to set up stalls so people can get informed and proper information.

I also noted that you claim that II are merely vocalising their democratic right, but I recall seeing a video not too long ago where they would not stay silent in a County Registrar's Court and this resulted in the Court being suspended. This is not being vocal this is them being obstructive, they could protest outside the Court and that would be democratic but you are depriving people of their democratic rights when you prevent a Court from being allowed to function.

Little CuChulainn

makeorbrake wrote: »

I see. So it's ludicruous even though (on the basis that you have not examined the details) it may well be true. Flawed logic.

You appear to have a comprehension problem. I didn't address the veracity of the claim. I pointed out the problem with the position of the people making it. Do you not understand the difference?

FreudianSlippers

makeorbrake wrote: »

Well, firstly I'll assume you are referring to I.I. - as someone has wrongly added them into this 'Freeman' thread and branded them as such when they are nothing of the sort. I guess everyone has their own motivations though.

If it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck...